Health and safety issues of the 5G wireless network communication technology are on lockdown!
Date: February 13, 2024
As the world rapidly adopts 5G wireless network communication technology, the safety of radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure has become a hot topic. A recent paper has highlighted significant concerns regarding the adequacy of current RF exposure guidelines and standards, especially in the context of 5G’s millimeter-wave frequencies.
The Core Concerns: The paper below argues that existing guidelines, which focus primarily on the thermal effects of RF radiation, are based on outdated and inadequate scientific evidence. This narrow focus fails to consider the potential non-thermal effects of RF radiation, including the possibility of cancer and other health issues suggested by a significant body of research.
Key Points from the Paper:
- Outdated Guidelines: The current standards do not adequately protect the public from the potential adverse effects of RF radiation, particularly at the higher frequencies used by 5G technology.
- Non-Thermal Effects Ignored: Despite mounting evidence of non-thermal biological effects, existing standards remain focused on preventing tissue heating, disregarding other mechanisms of potential harm.
- Need for More Research: The paper calls for additional studies to understand the health impacts of RF radiation fully, especially given the classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
- Transparency and Accountability: There is a call for greater openness in how RF exposure guidelines and standards are developed and revised, ensuring they reflect the latest scientific knowledge and genuinely protect public health.
Recent Developments: In a surprising move, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced it would halt its research into the biological and environmental impacts of cell phone radiofrequency radiation. This decision, despite previous findings linking RF radiation to cancer and DNA damage, marks a significant step back in understanding and mitigating potential health risks associated with wireless technology.
European Contrast: While U.S. civilian research wanes, the European Union advances, funding multi-million dollar studies on RF radiation impacts. France, in particular, has taken proactive steps, monitoring radiation levels and recalling phones exceeding safety limits.
The cessation of crucial research into RF radiation’s effects, alongside outdated and inadequate safety standards, presents a significant public health concern. As 5G technology becomes ubiquitous, the need for updated, evidence-based guidelines and continued independent research has never been more critical. The balance between technological advancement and health safety must be navigated carefully to protect public well-being in the digital age.
Call to Action: Awareness and precaution are key. As we await further research and policy updates, individuals are urged to stay informed and adopt safety measures to minimize their exposure to RF radiation. The debate over 5G’s safety is far from over, and public pressure can play a pivotal role in ensuring that health and safety regulations catch up with technological progress.
Here is the research showing we need research!
Paper Source: Here
This paper reviews and critiques the radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines and standards, and discusses the health and safety issues of the 5G wireless mobile communication technology. The paper argues that the current guidelines and standards are based on outdated and inadequate scientific evidence and that they fail to protect the public from the potential adverse effects of RF radiation, especially at millimeter-wave frequencies.
The paper also challenges the strong convictions on RF heating that underlie the current guidelines and standards, and refers to the classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
The paper concludes that there is a need for more research and data on the health effects of RF radiation, especially at millimeter-wave frequencies, and a need for more transparency and accountability in the development and revision of the RF exposure guidelines and standards.
The paper also urges the public and the policymakers to be aware and informed of the potential risks and benefits of the RF radiation and the 5G technology, and to take precautionary measures to protect their health and safety.
The paper has provided a comprehensive and critical review of the current RF exposure guidelines and standards and has raised some valid and pertinent questions and concerns about the health and safety issues of the RF radiation and the 5G technology.
The paper has shown that the current guidelines and standards are based on outdated and inadequate scientific evidence, and that they do not account for the long-term and non-thermal effects of RF radiation, especially at millimeter-wave frequencies.
The paper has also questioned the validity and reliability of the methods and parameters that are used to measure and regulate the RF radiation, such as SAR and tissue temperature.
The paper has challenged the strong convictions on RF heating that underlie the current guidelines and standards, and has argued that RF heating is not the only mechanism that can cause biological effects, and that there are other mechanisms, such as electric field, polarization, and resonance, that can also interact with the biological systems and induce responses.
The paper has referred to the classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans by the IARC, and has cited some studies that have shown the association between RF radiation exposure and cancer risk.
The paper has concluded that there is a need for more research and data on the health effects of RF radiation, especially at millimeter-wave frequencies, and a need for more transparency and accountability in the development and revision of the RF exposure guidelines and standards.
The paper has also urged the public and the policymakers to be aware and informed of the potential risks and benefits of the RF radiation and the 5G technology, and to take precautionary measures to protect their health and safety.
References
Baan, R., Grosse, Y., Lauby-Secretan, B., El Ghissassi, F., Bouvard, V., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., … & Straif, K. (2011). Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The lancet oncology, 12(7), 624-626.
FCC. (1996). Evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. OET Bulletin, 65.
ICNIRP. (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health physics, 74(4), 494-522.
ICNIRP. (2020). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health physics, 118(5), 483-524.
IEEE-ICES. (2006). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. IEEE Std C95. 1-2005 (Revision of IEEE Std C95. 1-1991), 1-238.
IEEE-ICES. (2019a). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. IEEE Std C95. 1-2019 (Revision of IEEE Std C95. 1-2005), 1-420.
IEEE-ICES. (2019b). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. IEEE Std C95. 1-2019 (Revision of IEEE Std C95. 1-2005), 1-420.
IARC. (2013). Non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Vol. 102). World Health Organization.
Kumar, A., Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., Kaur, S., & Kohli, R. K. (2020). Interaction of millimeter waves with the human body: a brief review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(4), 3660-3671.
Lin, J. C. (2020). Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards. Environmental research, 191, 110129.
Lin, J. C., Wang, Z., & Wu, T. Y. (2008). Advances in electromagnetic fields in living systems. Springer Science & Business Media.
Michaelson, S. M., & Lin, J. C. (1987). Biological effects and health implications of radiofrequency radiation (Vol. 17). Springer Science & Business Media.
NCRP. (1986). Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. NCRP Report, 86.
NTP/NIEHS. (2018). NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1,900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR, 596.
Pew Research Center. (2022). Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
Schwan, H. P. (1957). Electrical properties of tissue and cell suspensions. Advances in biological and medical physics, 5, 147-209.
Statista Research Department. (2022). Number of mobile phone users worldwide from 2015 to 2020. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-mobile-phone-users-worldwide/
