The telecommunications industry and its experts have accused many scientists who have studied the effects of mobile phone radiation of “fear-mongering” against the advent of wireless technology 5G. Because much of our research is publicly funded, it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public of what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks of wireless radiation. We think there is.
The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced via press release that the agency will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based on behavioral changes in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from the short-term risk of fever due to RFR exposure.
However, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research in the 1980s, peer-reviewed research has dominated, with over 500 studies showing that the Adverse biological or health effects from exposure to RFR have been discovered.
Citing this vast body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are presenting the International EMF Scientists Appeal for Tightened Exposure Limits. signed. The appeal alleges as follows:
“Many recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, and harmful These include an increase in free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory impairments, neurological disorders, and negative effects on the general well-being of humans. Harmful effects on both plants and animals. There is growing evidence that the toll extends far beyond humanity.”
The scientists who signed this appeal probably represent the majority of experts on the effects of non-ionizing radiation. They published over 2,000 of his papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure by considering the frequency of the carrier, but ignores the signal characteristics of RFR. In addition to the patterning and duration of exposure, certain characteristics of the signal (pulsing, polarization, etc.) increase the biological and health effects of exposure. New exposure limits are needed that take these different effects into account. Furthermore, these limits should be based on biological effects rather than behavioral changes in laboratory rats.
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 US National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that it was carcinogenic over a two-year period. Exposure to mobile phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in both male and female rats and mice. Italy’s Ramazzini Institute replicated NTP’s key findings using different carrier frequencies and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the rats’ lifetimes.
Based on research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, IARC recently prioritized revisiting the RFR over the next five years. Because many EMF scientists believe that sufficient evidence has been obtained to consider RFR to be a possible or known human carcinogen, IARC will soon may be raised.
Nevertheless, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC without conducting a formal risk assessment or systematic review of research on the health effects of RFRs. The FDA said it “concluded that there are no changes to the current standards.” “The results of the NTP experiments should not be applied to human cell phone use.” The letter states, “The scientific evidence available to date is Adverse human health effects from exposure below limits are not supported.”
The latest mobile phone technology, 5G, uses millimeter waves for the first time, in addition to the microwaves used in older mobile phone technologies from 2G to 4G. Due to its limited range, 5G will require a cell antenna every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to mmWave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (such as active antennas with beamforming, phased arrays, and massive multiple inputs and outputs known as massive MIMO) that pose unique challenges to measuring exposure.
Millimeter waves are primarily absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and the superficial layer of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects on the peripheral nervous system, immune system, and cardiovascular system. This study suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (such as melanoma), eyes (such as ocular melanoma), and testes (such as infertility).
Because 5G is a new technology, there are no studies on its health effects and we are, in the words of a U.S. senator, “flying blind.” However, there is considerable evidence about the negative effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known about the effects of exposure to 4G, a decade-old technology, because governments have failed to fund this research. Meanwhile, tumor registries have shown an increase in certain types of head and neck tumors, which may be at least partly due to the prevalence of mobile phone radiation. These increases are consistent with the results of case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy mobile phone users.
5G is not a replacement for 4G. It will accompany 4G in the near future and perhaps in the long term. If there is a synergistic effect from simultaneous exposure to multiple types of RFRs, the overall risk of harm from RFRs can be significantly increased. Cancer is not the only risk, as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological and reproductive damage, possibly due to oxidative stress.
As a society, we are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to deploy 5G, a cellular technology that will require the installation of more than 800,000 new cell antenna sites near where we live, work, and play in the United States. Should I do it?
Instead, we support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and doctors who signed the 5G Appeal calling for an immediate halt to 5G deployments and biologically-based exposure limits that protect our health and safety. We should require the government to fund the research needed to adopt it. safety.
