The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies” by Julie E. McCredden, Steven Weller, and Victor Leach discusses the lack of evidence for the safety of 5G technologies and how this lack of evidence is being used to reassure the public of the safety of 5G rollout. The authors argue that scientific uncertainty about the effects of 5G technologies on humans and the environment is being used to justify the rollout of these technologies, despite the lack of evidence for their safety. They also argue that the current literature reviews on the topic provide a narrow view of past research and may not be fully transparent to readers. They present a mapping of the broader landscape of mmWave research literature by making visible the range of biological and health effect topics contained within the mmWave literature, and examine how the science is being conducted and communicated, finding errors in reasoning that cloud judgements and the subsequent conclusions drawn from the existing research. They also explain that the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association has created a database called the ORSAA Database of EMF Bioeffects that includes all relevant papers from PubMed and the EMF-portal, and contains over 4,000 peer-reviewed publications and is being continually updated.
The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies
- 1Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc. (ORSAA), Scarborough, QLD, Australia
- 2Centre for Environmental and Population Health, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- The study suggests that there may be a misunderstanding of the non-linear relationship between dose (exposure intensity x exposure duration) and effect when it comes to radiofrequency exposure and the potential health effects.
- Research has shown that there are specific windows of power and frequency that can cause harm, and that the human perceptual system has a non-linear response to electromagnetic frequencies.
- The study argues that linear dose-response models may be appropriate for telecommunications signaling, but not for modeling biological responses where feedback mechanisms and adaptive responses occur.
- The study suggests that reviews of the evidence for mmWave effects may be unreliable due to logical fallacies embedded in the analysis and communication of the science.
- The study highlights that several fallacies are also embedded in the ICNIRP guidelines for mmWaves and other radiofrequencies, including the assumption that only heating can produce important biological or health effects, and the use of averaging as an adequate measure of harm.
- The study argues that the ICNIRP and WHO International EMF Project are given formal authority but may not be trusted as they present a single consistent message of no evidence of harm from radiofrequencies, and some experts researching in this field have links with industry.
As a cell phone safety activist, I am deeply concerned about the potential health risks associated with the rollout of 5G technology, specifically with regards to millimeter wave (mmWave) frequencies. While the industry and government agencies like ICNIRP claim that there is no evidence of harm from mmWaves, a closer examination of the scientific literature and the way it is reviewed and analyzed reveals a number of logical fallacies that have led to unreliable conclusions.
One major issue is the assumption of a linear relationship between dose (exposure intensity x exposure duration) and effect, which has been shown to be incorrect in studies that have found windows of power and frequency that cause harm, as well as a non-linear response to electromagnetic frequencies in the human perceptual system. This assumption has led to the rejection of papers that do not show a linear relationship, resulting in an incomplete and biased evidence base.
Another issue is the use of fallacies in the analysis and communication of mmWave science, such as the “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy, which incorrectly shifts the burden of proof away from the industry and government to prove that mmWaves are safe. This has resulted in significant omissions of critical studies and incorrect judgements about papers in reviews, making their conclusions unreliable.
The ICNIRP guidelines for mmWaves also contain fallacies, such as the “Thermal Only” fallacy, which assumes that only heating can produce important biological or health effects and takes the focus away from research investigating non-thermal effects. The use of averages over time and space to calculate harm from exposure is also problematic, as it assumes an underlying normal distribution and hides potential biophysical effects.
Additionally, the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy is present in the way ICNIRP and the WHO International EMF Project are given formal authority, while dissenting voices are ignored. This results in a consistent message that there is no evidence of harm from radiofrequencies, including mmWaves, despite hundreds of scientists around the world raising concerns about safety.
Lastly, the influence of industry on the science should not be ignored, as industry-funded research has been found to use short-term, single one-off exposures and to avoid epidemiological studies, providing limited insights into potential health effects associated with multiple long-term, real-world exposure scenarios.
As a concerned citizen and a cell phone safety activist, I urge for further research and a deeper understanding of the potential health risks associated with mmWaves before proceeding with the rollout of 5G technology. We must not take the conclusion of the ICNIRP and the WHO International EMF Project at face value and accept that there is no evidence of harm without proper scrutiny. We must demand more transparency, more openness and more independent research.
“The assumption of safety in 5G rollout: A closer look at the evidence”
“5G safety concerns: Examining the flaws in current literature reviews”
“5G and human health: The dangers of assuming safety without evidence”
“5G rollout proceeds despite lack of safety evidence”
“5G safety in question: Logical fallacies cloud judgement of mmWave effects”
“5G rollout is proceeding without enough evidence to prove its safety. We need more research before proceeding #5Gsafety #cellphonesafety”
“Current literature reviews on 5G safety contain flawed analysis and unreliable conclusions. We need more transparency and independent research #5Gconcerns”
“The assumption of a linear relationship between dose and effect in 5G technology is incorrect. We need to consider the potential health risks before proceeding #5Ghealthrisks”
“The use of fallacies in the analysis of 5G science is clouding judgement and leading to unreliable conclusions. We need more openness and scrutiny #5Gfallacies”
“Industry influence on 5G research is a concern. We need independent studies to fully understand the potential health risks before proceeding with rollout #5Gindustryinfluence”