home Featured, News, Politics We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

Credit: Bill Oxford Getty Images

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

Joel M. Moskowitz

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

Advertisement
5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

Reposted from Scientific American.

32 thoughts on “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

  1. Heya i’m for the first time here. I found this board and I find
    It really helpful & it helped me out much. I am hoping to give something again and aid others like
    you helped me.

  2. This is a good tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
    Short but very precise info… Appreciate your sharing this one.

    A must read post!

  3. Have you ever thought about creating an ebook or guest authoring on other sites?
    I have a blog based upon on the same ideas you
    discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my visitors would appreciate your work.
    If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e
    mail.

  4. Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much
    about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
    I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is great blog.
    A fantastic read. I’ll certainly be back.

  5. Thanks for any other informative blog. Where else may just I get that
    type of info written in such an ideal way? I’ve a mission that I am simply now running on, and I’ve been at the glance out for such info.

    my web blog: VitaSilk Lux

  6. I just wanted to thank you once again for this amazing
    website you have built here. It’s full of ideas for those who are truly interested in this particular subject, primarily this very post.
    You’re really all amazingly sweet in addition to thoughtful
    of others and reading the blog posts is a wonderful delight in my experience.
    And such a generous treat! Dan and I really have enjoyment making use of your suggestions in what we should do in the future.
    Our list is a kilometer long and tips is going to be put to great use.

    Also visit my homepage … Profit Edge App Reviews

  7. I blog often and I truly thank you for your
    information. This article has really peaked my interest.
    I will bookmark your website and keep checking for new
    details about once per week. I subscribed to your Feed too.

    Feel free to surf to my site – Dermicell Review

  8. I had been honored to receive a call from
    a friend when he observed the important ideas shared on the site.
    Reading through your blog posting is a real amazing experience.
    Thanks again for thinking of readers at all like me, and I desire for you the best of achievements being a
    professional in this field.

    my website … Testol Max Male Enhancement

  9. Saya telah telah menjelajah online lebih dari 4 jam hari
    ini, namun saya tidak pernah menemukan artikel menarik seperti milik Anda.
    It is cukup berharga bagi saya. Secara pribadi , jika semua
    pemilik web dan blogger membuat konten yang baik seperti yang Anda lakukan,
    web akan menjadi lebih berguna dari sebelumnya.

    My site – Download aplikasi joker128

  10. Great – I should definitely pronounce, impressed with your web site.

    I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs
    and related info ended up being truly simple to do to access.
    I recently found what I hoped for before you know it in the least.

    Quite unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for
    those who add forums or anything, web site theme .

    a tones way for your customer to communicate. Excellent task.

    My homepage EcoCel Fuel Saver Reviews

  11. We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community.
    Your website offered us with valuable info to paintings on. You’ve done a
    formidable activity and our whole group will probably be thankful to
    you.

    Also visit my web blog – ACV Advanced Gummies Ingredients (http://marchegabonais.com/index.php/blog/6050/how-healthy-eating-does-more-than-help-you-lose-weight)

  12. Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed!
    Very helpful information particularly the last part 🙂 I care for such info much.
    I was seeking this certain information for a very
    long time. Thank you and best of luck.

  13. Thanks on your marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading
    it, you might be a great author.I will be sure to
    bookmark your blog and will often come back someday. I
    want to encourage you to continue your great writing, have a nice day!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons