Serious implications arising from differences in protection standards forionising and non-ionising radiation are being raised by members IRPA, ICNIRP’s parent organisation.“Protection Against Ionising Radiation vis-à-vis Protection Against Non-Ionising Radiation” Jan 16th 2021 2012 (Page 187)  Although IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has classified EMF as a possible carcinogen, the main reference organisation (ICNIRP) adopts a policy re non-ionising radiation that is closer to promotion than to protection. In contrast to ionising radiation protection policy, ICNIRP does not recommend the use of dose constraints. This policy means that the public is not adequately protected or even informed.  
ICNIRP – ethical breaches are leading to significant health risks for the population Wireless Technologies and the Risk of Adverse Health Effects in Society: A Retrospective Ethical Risk Analysis of Health and Safety Guidelines(Environmental Health Trust article leading to a report by Prof Tom Butler)   An important new draft study from top Irish analyst Professor Tom Butler providing a historical analysis of wireless radiation safety guidelines and tracing the serious ethical breaches in the development of safety standards since the 1950s, the consequence of which is a significant risk to the health and wellbeing of adults and children.
ICNIRP accused of ‘playing with the truth’Buchner K and Rivasi M 2020A troubling report by two MEPs about ICNIRP, the powerful NGO based in Germany which issues the RFR guidelines for the UK and much of the world. They argue that ICNIRP has vested interests, plays with the truth and that EU and authorities close their eyes to scientific facts and early warnings. 
AGNIR report accused of conflicts of interest, omission, inaccuracies and misleading statementsStarkey, S Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation  2016The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the UK and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world. This review by Dr Sarah Starkey describes incorrect and misleading statements, omissions and conflict of interest, which do not reflect the scientific evidence available and make the report unsuitable for health risk assessment. 
WHO Core EMF Group compromised – strong links to industry-loyal ICNIRPHardell, L World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review 2017)  In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health. Five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft were affiliated with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus had a serious conflict of interest. Like  ICNIRP, the monograph dismisses non-thermal bio effects of RFR. Despite criticism the WHO has refused to change the makeup of the group.