WHO Expands Radiation Monitoring Framework as Radiation Research Trust Highlights Late Professor Grigoriev’s Warning on “Out of Control” EMF Exposure
2nd June 2026
The World Health Organization’s recent update to its radiation and health framework includes electromagnetic fields within its broader environmental radiation monitoring and health protection architecture, alongside other environmental exposures such as UV radiation and radon. This represents an acknowledgement that non-ionising radiation is now formally part of global public health surveillance and risk communication systems. However, the update does not introduce any changes to exposure limits, safety guidelines, or regulatory standards, nor does it address the rapidly expanding scale and complexity of real-world environmental exposure. Monitoring alone is not protection. Without urgent precautionary action, surveillance risks falling behind the pace of technological deployment.
Reference: World Health Organization, “Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly – Daily update (23 May 2026), EB158/9,”: https://www.who.int/news/item/23-05-2026-seventy-ninth-world-health-assembly—daily-update–23-may-2026
Related links: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB158/B158(9)-en.pdf
It was in this broader context that Eileen O’Connor, Director of the EM Radiation Research Trust (RRT), and Co-founder of the RRT and International EMF Alliance, asked the late Professor Yuri Grigoriev a direct question comparing the relative severity of ionising and non-ionising radiation. Professor Grigoriev also served as a scientific advisor to the EM Radiation Research Trust.
Professor Grigoriev’s scientific background was extensive. He was one of the world’s most distinguished radiation scientists. He served as Chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, was a member of the Russian Government Commission on the Chernobyl disaster, led radiation safety research for Soviet space medicine for 14 years, authored more than 400 scientific papers and 21 monographs, and served on numerous national and international committees on radiation protection, including work linked to WHO expert consultations.
When asked this question in 2012, he replied:
“Ionizing radiation is monitored with safety systems in place to contain and control and prevent overexposure. The current proliferation of wireless frequencies is worse as levels of non-ionizing radiation are constantly increasing and ubiquitous; it is out of control. The world-wide dissemination of mobile telecommunications has resulted in new sources of large-scale population exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevention of childhood and juvenile diseases from exposure to EMF sources is of paramount social and economic importance. It is one of the bases for public health policy in the near and long-term future. The human brain and the nervous system tissues directly perceive EMF and react irrespective of its intensity, and in certain cases it depends on EMF modulation. This feature distinguishes EMF from all other environmental factors and complicates human health risk assessment for EMF exposure.”
He further stated:
“A situation has emerged that cumulative EMF exposure of children may be comparable to adult exposure and may be equal to the levels of occupational exposure of workers. The current standards are outdated and inadequate. Urgent action is needed to curb the negative impact from this physical agent.”
And he also said:
“Man conquered the Black Plague, but he has created new problems – EMF Pollution.”
Source: Radiation Research Trust – Important information from Professor Yury Grigoriev (2012) https://radiationresearch.org/important-information-from-professor-yury-grigoriev/
It is no longer sufficient for the World Health Organization to simply monitor a problem that has already unfolded over decades of exposure. While the WHO resolution acknowledges the need for monitoring, surveillance, risk assessment and public communication regarding electromagnetic fields, it also reaffirms collaboration with ICNIRP and the continued development of guidance through that framework.
The time has come to listen to the many independent doctors, scientists and researchers who have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing exposure standards and who have called for a more precautionary approach to public health protection. ICNIRP and its guidelines have been the subject of significant scientific criticism and controversy for many years. Unless the WHO is prepared to engage more openly with the full breadth of scientific evidence and independent expert opinion, its continued reliance on ICNIRP is likely to raise further questions about the credibility of its public health guidance on electromagnetic fields. With serious scientific concerns continuing to emerge, what is needed now is emergency precautionary action, independent scientific assessment, and meaningful control of this form of radiation in the interests of public health.
Key EMF research resources include:
