ru

новости еды

радиоc

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
12.8.2022 21:13

Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields


I have been circulating abstracts of newly-published scientific papers on radio frequency and and other non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) about once a month since 2016. Several hundred EMF scientists around the world receive these updates.
The complete collection contains more than 1,600 abstracts and links to more than 1,800 papers.
You can download the complete collection of abstracts, a 1,334-page document (pdf) by clicking on the following link:
https://bit.ly/EMF08102022
The abstracts for the most recent papers appear below.

--
Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations
Balmori, A. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research (2022), doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851.

Abstract
The objective of this work was to perform a complete review of the existing scientific literature to update the knowledge on the effects of base station antennas on humans. Studies performed in real urban conditions, with mobile phone base stations situated close to apartments, were selected. Overall results of this review show three types of effects by base station antennas on the health of people: radiofrequency sickness (RS), cancer (C) and changes in biochemical parameters (CBP). Considering all the studies reviewed globally (n=38), 73.6% (28/38) showed effects: 73.9% (17/23) for radiofrequency sickness, 76.9% (10/13) for cancer and 75.0% (6/8) for changes in biochemical parameters. Furthermore, studies that did not meet the strict conditions to be included in this review provided important supplementary evidence. The existence of similar effects from studies by different sources (but with RF [radio frequency radiation] of similar characteristics), such as radar, radio and television antennas, wireless smart meters and laboratory studies, reinforce the conclusions of this review. Of special importance are the studies performed on animals or trees near base station antennas that cannot be aware of their proximity and to which psychosomatic effects can never be attributed.
Excerpts

Introduction: During the last few decades, hundreds of thousands of mobile phone base stations and other types of wireless communications antennas have been installed around the world, in cities and in nature, including protected natural areas, in addition to pre-existing antennas (television, radio broadcasting, radar, etc.). Only the aesthetic aspects or urban regulations have been generally considered in this deployment, while the biological, environmental and health impacts of the associated non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emissions have not been assessed so far. Therefore, the effects on humans living around these anthropogenic electromagnetic field sources (antennas) have not been considered.

In France, there is a significant contribution of mobile phone base stations in the exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) of urban citizens living nearby (De Giudici et al., 2021). Some studies from India indicate that more than 15% of people have levels of EMF strength above 12 V/m due to their proximity to antennas (Premlal and Eldhose, 2017). Exposure estimates have shown that RF-EMF from mobile telephone systems is stronger in urban than in rural areas. For instance, in Sweden the levels of RF radiation have increased considerably in recent years, both outdoor and indoor, due to new telecommunication technologies, and the median power density measured for RF fields between 30 MHz and 3 GHz was 16 μW/m2 in rural areas, 270 μW/m2 in urban areas and 2400 μW/m2 in city areas (Hardell et al., 2018). Total exposure varies not only between urban and rural areas but also, depending on residential characteristics, between different floors of a building, with a tendency for building exposure to increase at higher floors (Breckenkamp et al., 2012).

Over the past five decades, and more intensively since the beginning of this century, many studies and several reviews have been published on the effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation on humans living around the antennas. The first studies were carried out with radio and television antennas, investigating increases in cancer and leukaemia (Milham, 1988; Maskarinec et al., 1994; Hocking et al., 1996; Dolk et al., 1997a, 1997b; Michelozzi et al., 1998; Altpeter et al., 2000), as well as around radars (Kolodynski and Kolodynska, 1996; Goldsmith, 1997).

Regarding base station antennas, there are scientific discrepancies in their effects: some studies concluded that there are no health-related effects (e.g. Augner and Hacker, 2009; Blettner et al., 2009; Röösli et al., 2010; Baliatsas et al., 2016) whereas others found increases in cancer and other health problems in humans living around antennas (e.g. Santini et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2003; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Shinjyo and Shinjyo, 2014; Gandhi et al., 2015; López et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). There is a specific symptomatology linked to radar and RF exposure at low levels, characterized by functional disturbances of the central nervous system (headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, difficulty in concentration, dizziness, etc.), that has been termed 'RF sickness' (Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998; Navarro et al., 2003).

Methods: Only studies performed in real urban conditions, with mobile phone base stations situated close to apartments, were selected. Studies conducted in larger regions with numerous antennas, based on surveys and geographic data, were also included.

Results: The studies that met the selected criteria are presented in chronological order in Table 1, catalogued as Y/N depending on whether or not they found effects. The selected studies cover three types of effects: radiofrequency sickness (RS) (according to Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998), cancer (C) and changes in biochemical parameters (CBP). Table 1 also includes the authors, year and country, antenna type, study design, diseases and symptoms found/not found and the main conclusions of each study.

Discussion: Considering all the selected studies (n=38), 73.6% (28/38) showed effects: 73.9% (17/23) for radiofrequency sickness, 76.9% (10/13) for cancer and 75.0% (6/8) for changes in biochemical parameters (Figure 1). Therefore, most of the studies carried by research groups from twenty different countries reach the same conclusions.
For the reasons previously explained, the following studies (n=85) were not considered in this review, even though the conclusions of some of these studies will be discussed later due
to their importance regarding the similarities of the electromagnetic radiation types involved and the effects found in many cases....

The results of this review show three types of effects by base station antennas on the health of humans: radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters (Fig. 1). From among all these studies, most of them found effects (73.6%). Thus, despite some limitations and differences in study design, statistical measures, risk estimates and exposure categories (Khurana et al., 2010), together they provide a consistent view of the effects on the health of people living in the vicinity of base station antennas.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private organization that issues exposure guidelines that are then adopted by governments, but it has been accused of having conflicts of interest (Hardell and Carlberg, 2020; Hardell et al., 2021). The ICNIRP (2010, 2020) limits are thousands of times above the levels where effects are recorded for both extremely low frequency and RF man-made EMF and account only for thermal effects, whereas the vast majority of recorded effects are non-thermal. These existing guidelines for public health protection only consider the effects of acute intense (thermal) exposures and do not protect from lower level long-term exposures (Israel et al., 2011; Yakimenko et al., 2011; Blank et al., 2015; Starkey, 2016; Belpomme and Irigaray, 2022). The exposure duration is crucial to assess the induced effects.

Conclusion: In the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals (Blank et al., 2015; Hardell and Nyberg, 2020). However, the media, the responsible organizations (World Health Organization, 2015) and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population, who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis not only for health but also for the technology itself, as it is unsustainable and harmful to the environment and the people.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781
--
Immunotoxicity of radiofrequency radiation (Review)

Himanshi Yadav, Radhey Shyam Sharma, Rajeev Singh. Immunotoxicity of radiofrequency radiation. Environmental Pollution. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119793.

Highlights

• Drastic growth in communication technologies increased RFR exposure in environment
• Recent evidences show close relation among radiation sensitivity and immune effects• An intracellular signaling cascade responsible for RFR action on immune system is suggested• A better understanding of RFR linked cell effects might help radiation protection• Urgent need to recognize probable hazards of using RFR emitting devices in excess

Abstract

Growing evidence recommends that radiofrequency radiations might be a new type of environmental pollutant. The consequences of RFR on the human immune system have gained considerable interest in recent years, not only to examine probable negative effects on health but also to understand if RFR can modulate the immune response positively. Although several studies have been published on the immune effects of RFR but no satisfactory agreement has been reached. Hence this review aims to evaluate the RFR modulating impacts on particular immune cells contributing to various innate or adaptive immune responses. In view of existing pieces of evidence, we have suggested an intracellular signaling cascade responsible for RFR action. The bio-effects of RFR on immune cell morphology, viability, proliferation, genome integrity, and immune functions such as ROS, cytokine secretion, phagocytosis, apoptosis, etc. are discussed. The majority of existing evidence point toward the possible shifts in the activity, number, and/or function of immunocompetent cells, but the outcome of several studies is still contradictory and needs further studies to reach a conclusion. Also, the direct association of experimental studies to human risks might not be helpful as exposure parameters vary in real life. On the basis of recent available literature, we suggest that special experiments should be designed to test each particular signal utilized in communication technologies to rule out the hypothesis that longer exposure to RFR emitting devices would affect the immunity by inducing genotoxic effects in human immune cells.

Concluding remarks

I. Till date, the bulk of available research articles remarkably indicated the RFR-induced changes in innate and adaptive immune responses. The morphological and physiological modulations in the immune cells were reported such as variation in viability, gene and protein expression, generation of ROS, induction of DNA damage, stimulation of inflammatory markers, altered normal immune functions and eventually provoking inflammatory reactions, chronic allergic reactions, autoimmune responses leading to damaged tissues and organs.

II. The oxidative stress via causing free radical damage to DNA appears to be the main mechanism for RFR action.
III. Many RFR studies showed conflicting conclusions because of the scarcity of subjects, variations in distance from the radiation source, exposure time, RFR frequency, mode of modulation, SAR, or power density used in various studies. Furthermore, studies even with the same experimental design showed varied responses in different types of cells.
IV. On the other hand, the findings from in vitro and in vivo studies on RFR should not be directly linked to human mobile phone usage as the duration and level of exposure to radiofrequency radiation were much higher in experimental studies as compared to what people experience with even high cell phone usage.
V. Collectively, in view of discussed limitations, the available research studies might not be enough to understand the RFR effect on the immune system.
VI. Since, the controversies exist in the recent literature on the effects of RFR on immune cell physiology, substantially more coordinated and detailed studies are needed to set up a definitive trend in RFR effects on immune cells.
Such studies are also required to address the important issues of safety for the usage of technologies like cell phones and wireless equipment that are used increasingly in our everyday lives and to revise the current EMF public safety limits.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35863710/
--
Use of mobile phones and progression of glioma incidence since 1979
My notes:
Although the title of this IARC report is in German, the report is available in English. The report's summary, "no indications of a detectable effect of mobile phones have been found," seems misleading because it is inconsistent with the report's final conclusion, namely "An increased risk in the 10% heaviest mobile phone users was an exception to this general situation, as it remained plausible."

The report's bottom line: "This ecological data is not sufficient to dismiss every potential mobile phone related risk scenario, but suggests that the risk – if it exists - would be very small, only occur after very long latency periods of several decades, or only affect small subgroups within glioma patients."

If only a portion of the population has a genetic susceptibility to brain cancer in the presence of microwave radiation as may be the case with thyroid cancer (Luo et al., 2020), that could explain why the odds ratios obtained for brain cancer risk from case-control studies of heavy, long-term mobile phone users over-predict glioma incidence in the overall population based upon tumor registry data.

* Luo J, Li H, Deziel NC, Huang H, Zhao N, Ma S, Nie X, Udelsman R, Zhang Y. Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut. Environmental Research. 2020 Mar;182:109013. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.109013.
Deltour I, Schuz J. Nutzung von Mobiltelefonen und Verlauf der Gliom-Inzidenz seit 1979: Vorhaben 3618S00000 (FM 8867). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Jun 2022.

Summary
1.1 Introduction

In the Nordic countries, the sharp increase in the use of mobile phone occurred in the mid-1990s among adults; thus, time trends in glioma incidence rates (IR) may provide information about possible risks associated with mobile phone use. We investigated time trends in IR of glioma, and compared IR and observed number of cases to those that would be expected under a range of hypothetical mobile phone risk scenarios, encompassing risk levels reported in published case-control studies.

1.2 Methods

We analyzed age standardised IR of glioma in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden among adults 20-84 years old, using data from national cancer registries and population data covering the period 1979-2016, using a log linear joinpoint analysis. Exposure distribution of use and of high level of use were obtained from self-reported information in the Nordic Interphone, the Cosmos-Denmark and the Cosmos-France datasets. Based on analytical epidemiological studies, we considered various scenarios according to which mobile phone use would hypothetically increase the glioma risk. We quantified compatibility, or absence of compatibility between the observed data and the risk scenarios by projecting incidence rates of glioma of men aged 40-69 years old under these scenarios and comparing them with the observed incidence rates in the Nordic countries.

1.3 Results

Glioma IR increased regularly with annual percent change (APC) of 0.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7) in men and 0.3 (95%CI 0.2-0.5) in women in the period 1979-2016. There were hardly any changes in IR among men and women below age 59. In men and women in their sixties, IR increased by 0.6 (95%CI 0.4-0.9) in men and 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.7) in women, regularly for the whole period of observation, while IR among 70-84 years old increased very markedly, with APC of 3.1 (95%CI 2.6-3.5) among men and 2.8 (95%CI 2.3-3.3) among women over at least the last 2 decades of observation. Very few risk scenarios appeared compatible with the observed data using standardised incidence ratios analyses. The risk scenarios that appeared compatible involved either long latencies (20 years), or very low risks (RR = 1.08); in these projections, risks that would be limited to mobile phone heavy users were not compatible with the observed number of cases.

1.4 Discussion

IR time trends did not demonstrate breakpoints in their secular evolution in the last 20 years. Virtually all the reported results from the case-control studies with a positive association between mobile phone use and glioma risk were shown to be implausible in our simulations comparing them with the observed incidence rates, implying that biases and errors have likely distorted their findings; very low risks at the population level, and risks after very long latencies remained plausible. Simulations were based on high quality case registration, which is a strength, while the uncertainties in the exposure information and the limited information about some of the model's assumptions were limitations. Altogether, this study confirms and reinforces conclusions made previously, that no indications of a detectable effect of mobile phones have been found.
Excerpts
... We analyzed the time trends in the incidence rates of glioma among adults aged 20 to 84 years of the Nordic countries from 1979 to 2016 (step 1 of the work description). Then, we addressed the question whether the observed time trends and observed number of cases were statistically different from the one we would observe if we assumed that the use of mobile phones caused glioma, so if we assumed that there was a true causal association (step 2 and step 3 of the work description). Within this, we delineated the levels of risks and the duration of induction periods that would not be compatible with the observed time trends and numbers of cases in this population (step 3 of the work description). We also discussed these findings in light of some of the elevated OR found in the literature. The study tested the consistency between risks that have been reported and the effect they would have had at the level of the population, had they been true. Noteworthy, the study was not meant to dismiss every single hypothetical association, as it would most likely always be possible to devise a pattern of risk that would fit the data....
This study was based on 28,015 male and 20,630 female glioma cases diagnosed from 1979 to 2016 in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (called "the Nordic countries" in the following). In 2016, the number of glioma cases was 1,724 in a population of 19.7 million adults aged 20–84 years. Over the last 10 years of data, Sweden accounted for 38% of the population and of the cases; of the remainder, Denmark, Finland, and Norway had populations of similar size. The age-standardized incidence rates were higher in men (9.1 per 100000 person years) than in women (6.1 per 100 000 person years), and higher with increasing age. All countries had comparable rates; Norway had slightly higher rates, while Finland had slightly lower rates in both sexes (Table 2 and Table 3).
Joinpoint analyses described in paragraph 6.1 showed that overall, the trends were smooth: glioma rates increased by 0.6% (95% CI 0.4%-0.7%) per year in men and 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.5%) per year in women over the period 1979-2016 in the Nordic countries combined (Table 4 and Table 5), and in each country separately except for a marked increase in 1979-1984 in Swedish men (APC about 6%). For the younger age groups (20-39 and 40-59 years old), the time trends were smooth and did not demonstrate strong increases at any point in time during the period 1979 to 2016 in any country among men (Table 6), and women (Table 7). Below the age of 60, incidence rates were generally stable over the whole period (Figure 1, Table 6 and Table 7). Among people aged 60-69 years old, incidence rates increased gradually by 0.6% in men and 0.4% in women per year, and these regular increases with no joinpoint were observed in every country and at a very similar rate in both sexes, except among Swedish women, whose rates showed a slight decrease. Irregular patterns were observed among the persons aged 70-84 years old at the beginning of the observation period, while for at least the last 12 years of observation, all countries showed highly increasing rates. Exceptions to this general pattern were noted among the Finnish males and the Norwegian females, in which an increase was seen at the beginning of the observation period that lasted at least 21 years.
The analysis by subgroups of tumour types could be performed only for the period 1990-2016 for reasons of data availability: in Sweden, a separate code for glioblastoma did not exist prior to 1993, and very few of the tumours which had been diagnosed during the period 1990-1992 were retrospectively coded into this code. Indeed, cancer registries are continuously updated when additional information becomes available on an earlier diagnosis, for example.
Among men and women, the rates of glioblastomas increased in the last years of observations, while the rate of other high-grade gliomas decreased (Table 8 and Table 9). Rates of low grade gliomas were relatively stable in all countries since the mid 1990's except in Denmark, where substantial increases were noted towards the end of the period of observation, albeit non-significant....
When examining the trends by subtypes, glioblastoma generally increased while other high grade gliomas decreased, and low grade glioma were stable in the most recent period, except in Denmark where low grade glioma rates increased among men and women in the last 3 years of observation. In Sweden, the rates of glioblastoma underwent most changes, namely the increase in glioblastoma rates in Sweden in the years after the introduction of that code by the cancer registry, since a new code is not mandatorily fully used immediately after it is introduced....
To sum up, our simplified and more sophisticated analyses appeared to indicate that the small increase in IR of men age 40-59 and the marked increase in RR of men aged 60-69 were generally not compatible with the same mobile phone related risks increases. When models in which the totality of the IR increases were assumed to be associated with mobile phone effects, a RR of 1.31 that would start 20 years after first using a mobile phone was borderline compatible between these 2 age groups, while all other induction periods (0, 5, 10, 15 years) or heavy users risk scenarios produced RR estimates and CI which did not overlap between the 2 age groups when the same exposure distribution was considered. When half of the IR increases were attributed to other factors, none of the mobile phone related risks scenarios were compatible with the data, in the SIR analyses (assuming the same risk in both age groups). When most (75%) of the IR increases were attributed to other factors, then small excess risks (RR= 1.08 applying to all users after 10 years) or risks after long latencies (RR = 1.3 applying to all users after 20 years) were compatible with the observed incidence rates and exposure distributions that we assumed. Further work on these scenarios could shed more light on the remaining uncertainties. Of note, scenarios of risks limited to heavy users groups did not appear compatible with the observed number of cases in these analyses....
Our simulation study is not free of assumptions. The induction period relating mobile phone use and glioma risk, if such an association exists, is unknown, so is the magnitude of the risk, and the real patterns may be more complex than the scenarios that we simulated. In addition, there are several factors that we did not account for. The coverage of the Nordic cancer registries was not complete, but some 1.5% to 10% of the malignant tumours were missed in this age group. In Sweden, it has been estimated that completeness would not have changed over the period 1998-2014, while completeness might have improved in other countries. We modelled that other, yet to be discovered, risk factors of the disease as well as improvement in its detection and reporting had a smooth, gradual impact, over the period 19792016, which is consistent with the gradually increasing IR. We used 3 sources of information on the use of mobile phones, all self-reported, to evaluate the prevalence of use and heavy use up to 2002, 2008 or 2016 and extrapolated the prevalences for the periods and age groups for which no data was available, based on the trends observed in the other age groups. The use of hands-free devices was not accounted for, although this was not frequent in these populations (data not shown).
In conclusion, it is difficult to demonstrate the absence of risk, in real life condition, and assumptions about the impact of the improvement of diagnosis tools, treatment and registration changes over time were used in our simulations. However, based both on the observed IR and the simulations, we reiterate and strengthen our previous conclusion that, the risk, should one exist, ought to be lower or occur after a longer induction period or act on a smaller population, or a combination of these, than most of the level of risk that have been reported in previously published case-control studies.
Conclusions
In this project we projected incidence rates of glioma under various scenarios of mobile phone-associated increased glioma risks, and compared them with the observed incidence rates in the Nordic countries. The comparison was carried out on the data of men aged 40 to 69 years. The modelled scenarios included risk increases reported from analytical epidemiological studies, which were all of case-control design. Most of those results were shown to be implausible in our simulations, implying that biases and errors in the self-reported use of mobile phones have likely distorted their findings. An increased risk in the 10% heaviest mobile phone users was an exception to this general situation, as it remained plausible. Results of cohort studies showing no association were compatible with observed incidence rates. We also studied what hypothetical mobile phone-related risks were conceivable if the changes in incidence rates in 40-59 year old and 60-69 year old men were fully attributable to mobile phone use. The fact that we observed different hypothetical risks in these two age groups while research at present has not suggested that older men should have higher risk related to mobile phone use than younger men, does not align with the assumption that mobile phone exposures caused the incidence rate trends. This ecological data is not sufficient to dismiss every potential mobile phone related risk scenario, but suggests that the risk – if it exists - would be very small, only occur after very long latency periods of several decades, or only affect small subgroups within glioma patients.
Open access report: https://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:0221-2022063033222/4/BfS_2022_3618S00000.pdf
--

Improvement of several stress response and sleep quality hormones in men and women after sleeping in a bed that protects against electromagnetic fields
Díaz-Del Cerro E, Félix J, Tresguerres J, De la Fuente M. Improvement of several stress response and sleep quality hormones in men and women after sleeping in a bed that protects against electromagnetic fields. Environ Health. 2022 Jul 22;21(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00882-8.

Abstract

Background: The electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by the technologies affect the homeostatic systems (nervous, endocrine, and immune systems) and consequently the health. In a previous work, we observed that men and women, after 2 months of using a bed with a registered HOGO system, that prevents and drain EMFs, improved their immunity, redox and inflammatory states and rejuvenated their rate of aging or biological age. Since, EMFs can act as a chronic stressor stimulus, and affect the sleep quality. The objective of this work was to study in men and women (23-73 years old) the effect of sleeping for 2 months on that bed in the blood concentrations of several hormones related to stress response and sleep quality as well as to corroborate the rejuvenation of their biological age.

Methods: In 18 men and women, plasma concentration of cortisol, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine and dopamine), serotonin, oxytocin and melatonin were analyzed before and after 2 months of using the HOGO beds. A group of 10 people was used as placebo control. In another cohort of 25 men (20 experimental and 5 placebo), the effects of rest on the HOGO system on the concentration of cortisol and testosterone in plasma were studied. In all these volunteers, the biological age was analyzed using the Immunity Clock model.

Results: There is a significant increase in plasma concentration of DHEA, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and melatonin as well as in testosterone, after resting for 2 months in that bed with the EMFs avoiding system. In addition, decreases in Cortisol/DHEA and Testosterone/cortisol ratio and plasma dopamine concentration were observed. No differences were found in placebo groups. In all participants that slept on HOGO beds, the biological age was reduced.

Conclusions: Sleeping in a bed that isolates from EMFs and drain them can be a possible strategy to improve the secretion of hormones related to a better response to stress and sleep quality, which means a better endocrine system, and consequently better homeostasis and maintenance of health. This fact was confirmed with the slowdown in the rate of aging checked with a rejuvenation of the biological age.

Open access paper: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00882-8
--

Empirical Study of the Stochastic Nature of Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Massive MIMO Systems (5G)

F. Héliot, T. H. Loh, D. Cheadle, Y. Gui, M. Dieudonne. An Empirical Study of the Stochastic Nature of Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Massive MIMO Systems. IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 63100-63112, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3182236.
Abstract
Base stations (BSs) rely on the massive multiple-input multiple-output (mMIMO) technology in the fifth generation of mobile networks (5G). A technology having a major impact on the nature of the electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure in such systems. This work has used a fully reconfigurable mMIMO testbed (operating at 2.63 GHz), capable of mimicking realistic 5G new radio (NR) BS beamforming performance, to first gather experimental-based evidence of 5G BS EMF exposure within a real-world outdoor environment, to then analyze its stochastic behaviour, and to finally understand its impact on the definition of exclusion boundaries for 5G BSs. The exposure data of our testbed have been complemented by exposure data collected from a typical commercial 5G BS (operating at 3.65 GHz) to confirm the result trends and findings of our analysis. A robust metrology has been followed to obtain all the EMF exposure data. Our data and analysis indicate that significant exposure variations can be noticed according to the beam directions, i.e. the relative position of the exposure measurement location to the beam directions as well as the environment, confirming the stochastic nature of 5G BS exposure. The variance of the exposure tends to decrease as the number of users increase for a constant traffic load. Whereas the exposure grows sub-linearly with the traffic load, regardless of the number of users. As far as the exclusion boundary of 5G BS is concerned, its revised definition based on 95-th percentile seems still not flexible enough to accommodate the deployment of 5G BS in countries/places with stringent EMF exposure limits, as for instance in Belgium.
Conclusion

This paper has studied the stochastic nature of the EMF exposure and how it can impact the de finition of the exclusion boundary, especially under the constraint of stringent exposure limits, by relying on two different approaches for gathering experimental-based evidences. First we have used a fully reconfi gurable mMIMO testbed for evaluating the spatial and temporal variations of the RF-EMF exposure in a controlled outdoor scenario. Then, we have used a typical commercial 5G BS to complement/confirm some of the results/trends obtained via the mMIMO testbed. Several important insights can be inferred from our measurement campaign results:
EMF exposure due to 5G BS grows linearly with the number of utilized RF chains at the BS.
Significant exposure variations can result from the beam directionality, i.e. the relative position of the exposure measurement location to the beam direction has a significant impact on the measured exposure. This suggests a very dynamic/changing exposure environment driven by active UEs in 5G, in clear contrast with previous cellular technologies.
Environmental effects, such as indirect propagation paths (e.g. re flecting off objects) or blocked paths can also create further variations.
The variance of the exposure tends to decrease as the number of active UEs increases when the traffic remains constant, or in other words it becomes more deterministic. Whereas the exposure grows sub-linearly with the traffi c, regardless of the number of active UEs.
The statistical distribution of EMF exposure for 5G BSs should be better understood and probably taken into account for defi ning the exclusion boundary. The results of our two measurement campaigns indicate that the statistics of different 5G BSs are not necessarily the same, i.e., the exposure of our mMIMO testbed BS follows a Poisson distribution while the commercial 5G BS exposure is closer to a normal distribution. In turn, this can impact the exclusion boundary size when it is defi ned as a particular percentile of the exposure cdf.
Defining the BS exclusion boundary based on the 95-th percentile seems to not be a exible enough approach to accommodate the deployment of 5G BS in countries/places with stringent EMF exposure limits. Our measurement results correspond to a boundary size in the order of several tens of meters for an exposure limit of 6 V/m based on the 95-th percentile. The quality and quantity of field strength data collection need to be carefully considered to properly tune the extrapolation parameters in the SSB method as well as to accurately model the EMF exposure distribution of a particular 5G BS site.
In the future, we would like to extend this work to mm-wave frequencies and build an empirical statistical model of the EMF exposure based on the same metrology approach.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9794655
--

Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones
M. Bonato et al. Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones. 2022 Microwave Mediterranean Symposium (MMS), 2022, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/MMS55062.2022.9825603.
Abstract
The present work was performed to expand the knowledge on human RF-EMF exposure, considering the use of mm-wave spectrum in mobile communication applications, due to the deployment of 5th generation (5G) networks. The mobile antenna was modelled based on the 5G innovation technologies (i.e., mm-Wave bands, beamforming capability and high gain), resulting in a phased array antenna with 8 elements at the working frequency of 27 GHz. Three different skin layers models were simulated, to spot differences in the peaks of absorbed power density averaged over 4 cm2, following the ICNIRP guidelines. The simulations were implemented using the Sim4Life platform, simulating not only the presence of a mobile phone user, but also of a person passing nearby, who could be hit by the phased array antenna main beam. This work underlined that the absorbed power density peaks were greatly underestimated using the homogeneous skin model, respect to the multi-layers skin models. Moreover, for the person passing nearby, we found slightly higher exposure levels than those assessed for the mobile phone user. Lastly, in all the examined cases, the limits indicated by the ICNIRP guidelines were well respected.
Excerpt

These findings are also confirmed evaluating the three different configurations for the other two multi-layers models and analyzing the peak values of Sab in the most superficial tissue (i.e., the dermis in the homogeneous model and the stratum corneum in the two multi-layers models). Indeed, as we can see from Fig. 3, where the peak values of Sab are illustrated, the highest exposure levels are obtained for the person passing nearby. The highest peak value for the person passing nearby is obtained for the three-layers skin model, in the configuration where both the user and the person nearby are considered, with values equal to 6.97 W/m2 > whereas the highest peak value for the user is obtained in the same configuration, but for the four-layers model, with value equal to 5.80 W/m2.

Interestingly, the results showed that the use of a homogenous skin model could led to underestimate the exposure peak levels from 18% to 55% respect to the use of multi-layer models. This is probably due to the multiple reflections of the mm-waves that occur at the boundaries of the different tissue layers, and it is in line with other literature studies, where it was underlined the need to use multi-layers models for assessing the exposure levels when the mm-wave spectrum is considered [13], [16].

Lastly, all the peak values obtained greatly respected the basic restrictions of 20 W/m2, indicated in the ICNIRP guidelines [7].

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9825603
--

A meta-analysis of the risk of salivary gland tumors associated with mobile phone use: the importance of correct exposure assessment
Vijayan K, Eslick GD. A meta-analysis of the risk of salivary gland tumors associated with mobile phone use: the importance of correct exposure assessment. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Jul 11. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0055.
Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the risk of developing salivary gland tumors associated with the use of mobile phones.

Content: There have been a number of epidemiological studies conducted to assess for a possible association between mobile phone usage and the development of intracranial tumours, however results have been conflicting. We conducted an extensive literature search across four different databases. After selecting the articles relevant to the area of study, a total of seven studies were included in this meta-analysis, with no restrictions set on publication date or language. Studies were qualitatively assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. No significant association between the use of mobile phones and salivary gland tumors was observed (OR=1.06, 95% CI=0.86-1.32). No evidence for publication bias was detected.

Summary and outlook: Our findings indicate no significant association between mobile phone usage and salivary gland tumours. However, there were many limitations encountered in these studies, suggesting that the observed result may not be an accurate estimate of the true carcinogenic risk of mobile phones, especially for heavy long-term users. In fact, the studies included in this meta-analysis highlight the need to correctly define exposure assessment in order to ascertain the risk of a certain variable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35822706/
--
The Protective Effects of EMF-LTE against DNA Double-Strand Break Damage In Vitro and In Vivo
Hee Jin, Kyuri Kim, Ga-Young Park, Minjeong Kim, Hae-June Lee, Sangbong Jeon, Ju Hwan Kim, Hak Rim Kim, Kyung-Min Lim, Yun-Sil Lee. 2021. The Protective Effects of EMF-LTE against DNA Double-Strand Break Damage In Vitro and In Vivo. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, 10: 5134. doi: 10.3390/ijms22105134.

Abstract
With the rapid growth of the wireless communication industry, humans are extensively exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) comprised of radiofrequency (RF). The skin is considered the primary target of EMFs given its outermost location. Recent evidence suggests that extremely low frequency (ELF)-EMF can improve the efficacy of DNA repair in human cell-lines. However, the effects of EMF-RF on DNA damage remain unknown. Here, we investigated the impact of EMF-long term evolution (LTE, 1.762 GHz, 8 W/kg) irradiation on DNA double-strand break (DSB) using the murine melanoma cell line B16 and the human keratinocyte cell line HaCaT. EMF-LTE exposure alone did not affect cell viability or induce apoptosis or necrosis. In addition, DNA DSB damage, as determined by the neutral comet assay, was not induced by EMF-LTE irradiation. Of note, EMF-LTE exposure can attenuate the DNA DSB damage induced by physical and chemical DNA damaging agents (such as ionizing radiation (IR, 10 Gy) in HaCaT and B16 cells and bleomycin (BLM, 3 μM) in HaCaT cells and a human melanoma cell line MNT-1), suggesting that EMF-LTE promotes the repair of DNA DSB damage. The protective effect of EMF-LTE against DNA damage was further confirmed by attenuation of the DNA damage marker γ-H2AX after exposure to EMF-LTE in HaCaT and B16 cells. Most importantly, irradiation of EMF-LTE (1.76 GHz, 6 W/kg, 8 h/day) on mice in vivo for 4 weeks reduced the γ-H2AX level in the skin tissue, further supporting the protective effects of EMF-LTE against DNA DSB damage. Furthermore, p53, the master tumor-suppressor gene, was commonly upregulated by EMF-LTE irradiation in B16 and HaCaT cells. This finding suggests that p53 plays a role in the protective effect of EMF-LTE against DNA DSBs. Collectively, these results demonstrated that EMF-LTE might have a protective effect against DNA DSB damage in the skin, although further studies are necessary to understand its impact on human health.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/10/5134
--
Idiographic approach to idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) part I. Environmental, psychosocial & clinical assessment of 3 individuals with severe IEI-EMF
Dömötör Z, Szabolcs Z, Bérdi M, Witthöft M, Köteles F, Szemerszky R. An idiographic approach to idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) part I. Environmental, psychosocial and clinical assessment of three individuals with severe IEI-EMF. Heliyon. 2022 Jul 16;8(7):e09987. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09987.

Abstract
IEI-EMF refers to an environmental illness whose primary feature is the occurrence of symptoms that are attributed to exposure to weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs). There is a growing evidence that this condition is characterized by marked individual differences thus a within-subject approach might add important information beyond the widely used nomothetic method. A mixed qualitative/quantitative idiographic protocol with a threefold diagnostic approach was tested with the participation of three individuals with severe IEI-EMF. In this qualitative paper, the environmental, psychosocial, and clinical aspects are presented and discussed (results of ecological momentary assessment are discussed in Part II of this study). For two participants, psychopathological factors appeared to be strongly related to the condition. Psychological assessment indicated a severe pre-psychotic state with paranoid tendencies, supplemented with a strong attentional focus on bodily sensations and health status. The psychological profile of the third individual showed no obvious pathology. Overall, the findings suggest that the condition might have uniformly been triggered by serious psychosocial stress for all participants. Substantial aetiological differences among participants with severe IEI-EMF were revealed. The substantial heterogeneity in the psychological and psychopathological profiles associated with IEI-EMF warrants the use of idiographic multimodal assessments in order to better understand the different ways of aetiology and to facilitate person-taylored treatments.
Open access paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305360/
--
Short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation and metabolic enzymes' activities during pregnancy and prenatal development
Tomruk A, Ozgur-Buyukatalay E, Ozturk GG, Ulusu NN. Short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation and metabolic enzymes' activities during pregnancy and prenatal development. Electromagn Biol Med. 2022 Jul 29:1-9. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2022.2104309.

Abstract
Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as an environmental and physical pollutant may induce vulnerability to toxicity and disturb fetal development. Therefore, the potential health effects of short-term mobile phone like RFR exposure (GSM 1800 MHz; 14 V/m, 2 mW/kg specific absorption rate (SAR) during 15 min/day for a week) during pregnancy and also the development of fetuses were investigated. Hepatic glucose regulation and glutathione-dependent enzymes' capacities were biochemically analyzed in adult (female) and pregnant New Zealand White rabbits. Pregnant rabbits' two-day-old offspring were included to understand their developmental stages under short-term maternal RFR exposure. We analyzed two regulatory enzymes in the oxidative phase of phosphogluconate pathways to interpret the cytosolic NADPH's biosynthesis for maintaining mitochondrial energy metabolism. Moreover, the efficiencies of maternal glutathione-dependent enzymes on both the removal of metabolic disturbances during pregnancy and fetus development were examined. Whole-body RFR exposures were applied to pregnant animals from the 15th to the 22nd day of their gestations, i.e., the maturation periods of tissues and organs for rabbit fetuses. There were significant differences in hepatic glucose regulation and GSH-dependent enzymes' capacities with pregnancy and short-term RFR exposure. Consequently, we observed that intrauterine exposure to RFR might lead to cellular ROS- dependent disturbances in metabolic activity and any deficiency in the intracellular antioxidant (ROS-scavenging) system. This study might be a novel insight into further studies on the possible effects of short-term RF exposure and prenatal development.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35904122/
--

Immune Responses to Multi-Frequencies of 1.5 GHz and 4.3 GHz Microwave Exposure in Rats: Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analysis
Zhao L, Yao C, Wang H, Dong J, Zhang J, Xu X, Wang H, Yao B, Ren K, Sun L, Peng R. Immune Responses to Multi-Frequencies of 1.5 GHz and 4.3 GHz Microwave Exposure in Rats: Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analysis. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jun 22;23(13):6949. doi: 10.3390/ijms23136949.

Abstract

With the rapidly increasing application of microwave technologies, the anxiety and speculation about microwave induced potential health hazards has been attracting more and more attention. In our daily life, people are exposed to complex environments with multi-frequency microwaves, especially L band and C band microwaves, which are commonly used in communications. In this study, we exposed rats to 1.5 GHz (L10), 4.3 GHz (C10) or multi-frequency (LC10) microwaves at an average power density of 10 mW/cm2. Both single and multi-frequency microwaves induced slight pathological changes in the thymus and spleen. Additionally, the white blood cells (WBCs) and lymphocytes in peripheral blood were decreased at 6 h and 7 d after exposure, suggesting immune suppressive responses were induced. Among lymphocytes, the B lymphocytes were increased while the T lymphocytes were decreased at 7 d after exposure in the C10 and LC10 groups, but not in the L10 group. Moreover, multi-frequency microwaves regulated the B and T lymphocytes more strongly than the C band microwave. The results of transcriptomics and proteomics showed that both single and multi-frequency microwaves regulated numerous genes associated with immune regulation and cellular metabolism in peripheral blood and in the spleen. However, multi-frequency microwaves altered the expression of many more genes and proteins. Moreover, multi-frequency microwaves down-regulated T lymphocytes' development, differentiation and activation-associated genes, while they up-regulated B lymphocytes' activation-related genes. In conclusion, multi-frequency microwaves of 1.5 GHz and 4.3 GHz produced immune suppressive responses via regulating immune regulation and cellular metabolism-associated genes. Our findings provide meaningful information for exploring potential mechanisms underlying multi-frequency induced immune suppression.

Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/13/6949

--
Estimation of some antioxidants for people exposed to electromagnetic waves for Internet towers in Samarra

Methaq Nazhan Mahmood, Asmaa Hashim Shaker, Humam E. Mohammed. Estimation of some antioxidants for people exposed to electromagnetic waves for Internet towers in Samarra. e79J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol Vol 29(2):e79–e87; 16 June 2022. doi: 10.47750/jptcp.2022.934.

Abstract

The current study was conducted in Samarra city, as a preliminary study to explore the impact of the presence of Internet network towers inside cities and on residential homes and its impact on people exposed directly and indirectly. The study included collecting samples from people exposed to the radioactive frequencies of Internet towers for periods ranging from (1-5) years and from (5- 10) years. The number of samples was 43 samples of females and males exposed (present in the places where the constellations are located), and 20 samples not exposed (in places far from the towers) as a control group, and the ages ranged between (20-35) years. Analysis and measurements were made for some antioxidants because it is one of the most essential lines of defense against free radicals that cause many diseases and premature aging, which included the concentration of the enzyme glutathione peroxidase PGx, the enzyme superoxide dismutase SOD, glutathione GSH, dimalondhyde MDA, and ONOO. The results showed a significant increase in the level of glutathione peroxidase enzyme concentration and the concentration of superoxide dismutase in the blood serum for people exposed to electromagnetic waves from the Internet towers compared to the control group. The results also showed a significant decrease in the level of GSH in the blood serums of people exposed to electromagnetic waves of the Internet towers compared to the control group. The results also showed a significant increase in the concentration of both MDA and peroxynitrite ONOO compared to the non-exposed subjects in the control group.

Open access paper: https://www.jptcp.com/index.php/jptcp/article/view/934/895
--
Measurement and image-based estimation of dielectric properties of biological tissues -- past, present, and future
Sasaki K, Porter E, Rashed EA, Farrugia L, Schmid G. Measurement and image-based estimation of dielectric properties of biological tissues -past, present, and future. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(14):10.1088/1361-6560/ac7b64. Published 2022 Jul 8. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac7b64.

Abstract
The dielectric properties of biological tissues are fundamental pararmeters that are essential for electromagnetic modeling of the human body. The primary database of dielectric properties compiled in 1996 on the basis of dielectric measurements at frequencies from 10 Hz to 20 GHz has attracted considerable attention in the research field of human protection from non-ionizing radiation. This review summarizes findings on the dielectric properties of biological tissues at frequencies up to 1 THz since the database was developed. Although the 1996 database covered general (normal) tissues, this review also covers malignant tissues that are of interest in the research field of medical applications. An intercomparison of dielectric properties based on reported data is presented for several tissue types. Dielectric properties derived from image-based estimation techniques developed as a result of recent advances in dielectric measurement are also included. Finally, research essential for future advances in human body modeling is discussed.
Open access paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6560/ac7b64
--

Effects of phone mast-generated electromagnetic radiation gradient on the distribution of terrestrial birds and insects in a savanna protected area
Nyirenda, V.R., Namukonde, N., Lungu, E.B. et al. Effects of phone mast-generated electromagnetic radiation gradient on the distribution of terrestrial birds and insects in a savanna protected area. Biologia (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-022-01113-8

Abstract
Inappropriate deployment of linear physical infrastructures, such as game fences, roads, electric power-lines, buildings, and phone masts can be detrimental to wild fauna. Fatalities arising from wildlife collisions with such infrastructure have been widely documented. However, there are non-physical and less studied effects, such as the 'hidden' negative ecological effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on terrestrial fauna. In this study, the effects of phone mast-generated EMR on abundance, richness and distribution of terrestrial birds and insects in the Kafue National Park were studied. Ten (10) sample plots of 100 m × 100 m each were set at three (3) radial locations, based on the phone mast generated EMR strengths. For birds, point counts, while hand collection, cryptic searching, vegetation beating, sweep netting, pitfall trapping, sorting and identification for insects were employed for data collection. Data were analysed using biological indices (i.e., Shannon-Wiener and Simpson's) and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The wildlife diversity significantly reduced with increasing EMR strengths, especially in areas (<12 km from phone mast) with greater than 250 ± 20 μA/m EMR levels. We suggest that deployment of wireless telecommunication infrastructure should take into account EMR levels, safe zones and avoid or minimize biological loss in hotspots.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11756-022-01113-8
--
Locomotor Activity of Ixodes ricinus Females in 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field
Vargová B, Majláth I, Kurimský J, Cimbala R, Zbojovský J, Tryjanowski P, Majláthová V. Locomotor Activity of Ixodes ricinus Females in 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field. Life (Basel). 2022 Jun 13;12(6):884. doi: 10.3390/life12060884.

Abstract

Mobile telecommunications technologies have become an indispensable part of people's lives of all ages around the world. They affect personal life and social interactions and are a work tool in the work routine. Network availability requirements and the quality of the Internet connection are constantly increasing, to which telecommunications providers are responding. Humans and wildlife live in the permanent presence of electromagnetic radiation with just a minor knowledge of the impact this radiation has. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of a 900 MHz electromagnetic field (EMF) on the locomotor behavior of female Ixodes ricinus ticks under laboratory conditions. Experiments were performed in the radiation-shielded tube (RST) test and radiation-shielded circular open-field arena placed in an anechoic chamber. Altogether, 480 female I. ricinus ticks were tested. In the RST arena, no differences in preference for irradiated and shielded parts of experimental modules were observed; in the open-field arena, the time spent and the trajectory passed was significantly longer in the part exposed to the EMF.

Conclusions
Cell phone use, an exponentially expanding phenomenon introducing electromagnetic load in the environment, inevitably has a biological effect on all living organisms. This does not exclude ticks, epidemiologically very important parasites. EMFs emit a very weak signal to animals (vertebrate and invertebrates), and the evidence of animal response to this signal may be diminished by the plethora of other, stronger signals. To provide evidence unequivocally showing the response to the presence of an EMF is difficult and needs different approaches, such as behavioral tests, and possibly evidence on molecular levels. The number of publications in this field is rising very slowly. In our pilot study, we determined that ticks reacted to the presence of a man-made EMF and a change in the I. ricinus female tick locomotor behavior occurred when exposed to 900 MHz frequency. In future studies, it is crucial to test other frequencies, other EMF sources, other tick species, and possibly use the results of behavioral tests as a starting point leading to studying the impact and the changes triggered by EMF exposure at the cellular or molecular level.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/6/884
--
Uptake of nanoparticles from sunscreen physical filters into cells from increased environmental microwave radiation: increased potential risk of use of sunscreens to human health
Horikoshi, S., Iwabuchi, M., Kawaguchi, M. et al. Uptake of nanoparticles from sunscreen physical filters into cells arising from increased environmental microwave radiation: increased potential risk of the use of sunscreens to human health. Photochem Photobiol Sci (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00259-3.
Abstract

This study examines the microwave chemical risks posed by photocatalysts present in sunscreens (physical filters) against the increasing use of microwaves (radio waves) in the environment, sometimes referred to as electronic smog. Specifically, the study assesses the damage caused by silica-coated physical filters (photocatalysts, TiO2⋅ and/or ZnO) contained in commercially available sunscreens and fresh silica-coated ZnO for sunscreens to mouse skin fibroblasts cells (NIH/3T3) evaluated in vitro by the life/death of cells using two types of electromagnetic waves: UV light and microwave radiation, and under simultaneous irradiation with both UV light and microwaves. Conditions of the electromagnetic waves were such as to be of lower light irradiance than that of UVA/UVB radiation from incident sunlight, and with microwaves near the threshold power levels that affect human health. The photocatalytic activity of the physical filters was investigated by examining the degradation of the rhodamine B (RhB) dye in aqueous media and by the damage caused to DNA plasmids from E. coli. Compared to the photocatalytic activity of ZnO and TiO2 when irradiated with UV light alone, a clear enhanced photocatalytic activity was confirmed upon irradiating these physical filters concurrently with UV and microwaves. Moreover, the uptake of these metal oxides into the NIH/3T3 cells led to the death of these cells as a result of the enhanced photocatalytic activity of the metal oxides on exposure to microwave radiation.

Concluding Remarks

This study has demonstrated that the degradation of RhB and the degradation of DNA plasmids were promoted by two types of metal-oxide physical filters (ZnO and/or TiO2) in sunscreens when exposed to both UV and microwave radiations, with the irradiation output of the microwaves adjusted to a value close to the legal regulations. The effect of these photoactive filters on NIH/3T3 cells was also examined. In addition to the decomposition of the dye and the damage caused to the DNA plasmids by these photocatalytically active metal oxides, the study has also shown that nanoparticles of these physical filters are taken up by the cells under concurrent irradiation with ultraviolet rays and microwaves.

Although we did not discuss the risks to people on using sunscreens (however, see ref. [6]) and the effects of microwaves to human health, we hasten to point out that various catalytic reactions have been shown to be accelerated in Microwave Chemistry [29] as a result of the electromagnetic wave effects. The issue raised in this study is that if ZnO and/or TiO2 contained in cosmetics acted as photocatalysts under UV and UV/MW irradiation, in addition to scattering UV light (as suggested by many), any increase of the microwave intensity in the environment would certainly pose an increased risk to human health as evidenced by the damage caused to DNA plasmids. In addition, to the extent that the presence of metal oxides used as physical filters in sunscreens are activated by the UVA/UVB radiation (320–400 nm/290–320 nm), their simultaneous exposure to microwave radiation can also lead to or otherwise increase their uptake by the cells, a consequence of which can also pose potential risks to human health.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-022-00259-3

--
Electromagnetic field effects of marine radar systems on the ship crew


Ünal Özdemir. Electromagnetic field effects of marine radar systems on the ship crew. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. July 2022. doi:10.1177/14750902221107733.

Abstract

Marine radars become the sources of electromagnetic pollution during navigation and anchor watchkeeping. In several scientific studies, it was reported that electromagnetic fields could lead to several serious diseases, especially in the nervous system. In the current study, electromagnetic pollution is measured at different points on ships of various tonnage and types to identify electromagnetic pollution induced by marine radars. During these measurements, SRM 3006 compact spectrum analyzer (Narda Safety Test Solutions GmbH, Germany) that was operated within the 400 MHz–6 GHz frequency range was employed with a triaxial antenna. Then, the measurement results were compared with the benchmark published by ICNIRP (International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), and electromagnetic pollution levels induced by marine radar antennas and possible negative consequences for the crew were analyzed.

Conclusion

The study findings revealed that the radar-induced EMF generally exceeded the ICNIRP limits in the ships. This increased the possibility of adverse health outcomes due to the exposure of the crew to magnetic field pollution for long periods of time. In future studies, it would be better to consider the problem from this perspective, especially that of the medical professional. Furthermore, future studies could conduct measurements during navigation or anchor watch to avoid external pollution in port environment to reach more accurate findings if the required financial resources could be provided. It could also be suggested that it would be beneficial to increase the sample size and develop various groups. Furthermore, since the measurements were conducted for 6 min, namely the limit specified in the ICNIRP guide, these were short-term spot measurements. However, continuous 24-h measurements over several days in a robust sample of ships would provide more realistic findings.

It could be suggested that the present study findings would provide a foundation for future IMO regulations, maritime industry policy makers, WMO and related institutions. It would be a correct approach to revise the mandatory MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) and MLC (Maritime Labor Convention) conventions for IMO member nations, and to keep the issue of electromagnetic pollution in the maritime agenda. It was estimated that the topic will raise the interest of the maritime transportation industry in the future after certain number of studies are published on the topic, which is currently quite limited.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14750902221107733
--
Is extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMF) applicable to gliomas? A literature review of underlying mechanisms and application of extremely low frequency pulsed EMF

Huang M, Li P, Chen F, Cai Z, Yang S, Zheng X, Li W. Is extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields applicable to gliomas? A literature review of the underlying mechanisms and application of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields. Cancer Med. 2022 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5112.
Abstract

Gliomas refer to a group of complicated human brain tumors with a low 5-year survival rate and limited therapeutic options. Extremely low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field (ELF-PEMF) is a specific magnetic field featuring almost no side effects. However, the application of ELF-PEMF in the treatment of gliomas is rare. This review summarizes five significant underlying mechanisms including calcium ions, autophagy, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and reactive oxygen species, and applications of ELF-PEMF in glioma treatment from a clinical practice perspective. In addition, the prospects of ELF-PEMF in combination with conventional therapy for the treatment of gliomas are reviewed. This review benefits any specialists, especially oncologists, interested in this new therapy because it can help treat patients with gliomas properly.

Open access paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.5112
--

Vestibular Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic and Electric Stimulation Effects on Human Subjective Visual Vertical Perception
Bouisset N, Villard S, Legros A. Vestibular Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic and Electric Stimulation Effects on Human Subjective Visual Vertical Perception. Bioelectromagnetics. 2022 Jul 8. doi: 10.1002/bem.22417.

Abstract
Electric fields from both extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) and alternating current (AC) stimulations impact human neurophysiology. As the retinal photoreceptors, vestibular hair cells are graded potential cells and are sensitive to electric fields. Electrophosphene and magnetophosphene literature suggests different impacts of AC and ELF-MF on the vestibular hair cells. Furthermore, while AC modulates the vestibular system more globally, lateral ELF-MF stimulations could be more utricular specific. Therefore, to further address the impact of ELF-MF-induced electric fields on the human vestibular system and the potential differences with AC stimulations, we investigated the effects of both stimulation modalities on the perception of verticality using a subjective visual vertical (SVV) paradigm. For similar levels of SVV precision, the ELF-MF condition required more time to adjust SVV, and SVV variability was higher with ELF-MF than with AC vestibular-specific stimulations. Yet, the differences between AC and ELF-MF stimulations were small. Overall, this study highlights small differences between AC and ELF-MF vestibular stimulations, underlines a potential utricular contribution, and has implications for international exposure guidelines and standards.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35801487/
--

The Subjective and Objective Improvement of Non-Invasive Treatment of Schumann Resonance in Insomnia-A Randomized and Double-Blinded Study
Huang YS, Tang I, Chin WC, Jang LS, Lee CP, Lin C, Yang CP, Cho SL. The Subjective and Objective Improvement of Non-Invasive Treatment of Schumann Resonance in Insomnia-A Randomized and Double-Blinded Study. Nat Sci Sleep. 2022 Jun 8;14:1113-1124. doi: 10.2147/NSS.S346941.
Abstract
Purpose: Accumulated studies revealed that electromagnetic field can affect human brain and sleep, and the extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field, Schumann resonance, may have the potential to reduce insomnia symptoms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the responses of patients with insomnia to a non-invasive treatment, Schumann resonance (SR), and to evaluate its effectiveness by subjective and objective sleep assessments.

Patients and methods: We adopted a double-blinded and randomized design and 40 participants (70% female; 50.00 ± 13.38 year) with insomnia completed the entire study. These participants were divided into the SR-sleep-device group and the placebo-device group and were followed up for four weeks. The study used polysomnography (PSG) to measure objective sleep and used sleep diaries, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Inventory (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and visual analogy of sleep satisfaction to measure subjective sleep. The 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to evaluate quality of life. Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Wilcoxon test were used to analyze the data.

Results: About 70% of the subjects were women, with an average age of 50±13.38 years and an average history of insomnia of 9.68±8.86 years. We found that in the SR-sleep-device group, objective sleep measurements (sleep-onset-latency, SOL, and total-sleep-time, TST) and subjective sleep questionnaires (SOL, TST, sleep-efficiency, sleep-quality, daytime-sleepiness, and sleep-satisfaction) were significantly improved after using the SR-sleep-device; in the placebo-device group, only such subjective sleep improvements as PSQI and sleep-satisfaction were observed.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the SR-sleep-device can reduce the insomnia symptoms through both objective and subjective tests, with minimal adverse effects. Future studies can explore the possible mechanism of SR and health effects and, with a longer tracking time, verify the effectiveness and side effects.

Open access paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9189153/

--
Static magnetic fields from earphones: Detailed measurements plus some open questions
L. Makinistian, L. Zastko, A. Tvarožná, L.E. Días, I. Belyaev. Static magnetic fields from earphones: Detailed measurements plus some open questions. Environmental Research, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113907.
Highlights
• Experimental mapping of the static magnetic fields near 6 earphones.
• Physical modeling of the measured fields allows extrapolation and simulation.
• 3D simulations allow for visualization of field distribution in the ear.
• Field intensity and gradients, plus their combination with RF/ELF should be studied.
Abstract
Earphones (EP) are a worldwide, massively adopted product, assumed to be innocuous provided the recommendations on sound doses limits are followed. Nevertheless, sound is not the only physical stimulus that derives from EP use, since they include a built-in permanent magnet from which a static magnetic field (SMF) originates. We performed 2D maps of the SMF at several distances from 6 models of in-ear EP, showing that they produce an exposure that spans from ca. 20 mT on their surface down to tens of μT in the inner ear. The numerous reports of bioeffects elicited by SMF in that range of intensities (applied both acutely and chronically), together with the fact that there is no scientific consensus over the possible mechanisms of interaction with living tissues, suggest that caution could be recommendable. In addition, more research is warranted on the possible effects of the combination of SMF with extremely low frequency and radiofrequency fields, which has so far been scarcely studied. Overall, while several open questions about bioeffects of SMF remain to be addressed by the scientific community, we find sensible to suggest that the use of air-tube earphones is probably the more conservative, cautious choice.
Excerpt
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection recommends a 400 mT exposure limit for the general public (ICNIRP, 2009), which are way above the SMF reported here. It must be noted that the recommendation is based on the effects of nausea, vertigo, photo phosphenes and nerve stimulation, well associated to high and ultra-high magnetic fields (typical of MRI facilities). All the other reported biological effects, which are not directly proven to be a health hazard (but could be, such being the case of the increase of reactive oxygen species (Wang and Zhang, 2017)) are disregarded by the recommendation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122012348
--

Do magnetic fields related to submarine power cables affect the functioning of a common bivalve?
Jakubowska-Lehrmann M, Białowąs M, Otremba Z, Hallmann A, Śliwińska-Wilczewska S, Urban-Malinga B. Do magnetic fields related to submarine power cables affect the functioning of a common bivalve? Mar Environ Res. 2022 Jul 11;179:105700. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2022.105700.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of static magnetic field (SMF) and electromagnetic field (EMF), of values usually recorded near submarine cables, on the bioenergetics, oxidative stress, and neurotoxicity in the cockle Cerastoderma glaucum. Bivalves maintained a positive energy balance, but the filtration rate and energy available for individual production were significantly lower in SMF-exposed animals compared to the control treatment. No changes in the respiration were noted but ammonia excretion rate was significantly lower after exposure to EMF. Changes in the activities of antioxidant enzymes and the lipid peroxidation were not observed; however, exposure to both fields resulted in increased protein carbonylation. After exposure to EMF a significant inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity was observed. As the present study for the first time revealed the oxidative damage and neurotoxicity in marine invertebrate after exposure to artificial magnetic fields, the need for further research is highlighted.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141113622001453?via%3Dihub

--

The Impact of Magnetic Field on Insecticide Toxicity Measured by Biological and Biochemical Parameters of Earias insulana (Bollworm)

Hisham M El-Bassouiny, Warda A Z El-Medany, Mervat A A Kandil. The Impact of Magnetic Field on Insecticide Toxicity Measured by Biological and Biochemical Parameters of Earias insulana (Boisd). Bioelectromagnetics. 2022 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/bem.22418.

Abstract

This study illustrates the effect of magnetic field (MF) on the toxicity of two insecticides, emamectin benzoate (Emazoate 2.15% EC) and spinosad (SpinTor 24% SC), and determines their adverse effects on the bollworm (Earias insulana) through various biological and biochemical assays. The investigation indicated that exposure to the insecticides in a MF of 180 mT resulted in stronger toxicity, with LC50 values of 0.162, 1.211, and 1.770 ppm, respectively. In addition, the results showed that magnetized insecticides significantly increased in the duration of the total immature stages (larvae and/or pupae) 32.1 and 36.6 days, compared with 27.9 and 30.5 days, respectively, in the nonmagnetized insecticides, while untreated check was 21 days. Also, the magnetized insecticides reduced the percentage of adult emergence, and increased deformations in the larval and pupal stages. Furthermore, sex ratio was greatly affected by exposure to both insecticides in conjunction with the MF. Exposure of the larvae of E insulana to magnetized insecticides can bring about malfunction in some biochemical process and significantly decreased the invertase activity, and decreased the total protein and carbohydrates. In contrast, it can increase amylase compared with nonmagnetized insecticides and untreated controls. Results concluded that the two insecticides' MF affected growth, survival time, and biological and biochemical parameters of E. insulana.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35930550/

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
4.8.2022 01:00

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?


See the bottom of this page for additional resources.

5G Spectrum Allocation
5G (fifth-generation cellular) technology employs low-band (less than 1 gigahertz [GHz]), mid-band (1-6 GHz), and high-band radio frequencies (more than 6 GHz). In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated "low-band" spectrum at 0.6-0.8 GHz (e.g., 600-850 MHz), "mid-band" spectrum in the 2.5-4.0 GHz range, and 11 GHz of "high-band" frequencies including licensed spectrum from 24-28 GHz and 37-47 GHz, as well as unlicensed spectrum from 64-71 GHz which is open to all wireless equipment manufacturers.
Allocation of radio frequency spectrum for 5G varies by country.
The biologic and health effects associated with exposure to 5G radiation depend on the carrier frequency in addition to other factors.

https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/overview/mobile-communications-5g#level-1

Biological and Health Effects of 5G
There has been essentially no research on the biologic or health effects of 5G. According to EMF-Portal, an archive that contains more than 35,000 publications on electromagnetic fields, of the 408 studies on 5G, only 7 have been medical/biological studies (as of August 1, 2022):
A closer look, however, reveals that although these studies employed carrier frequencies used in 5G, none of these studies modulated or pulsed the signal as required by 5G or used other features of 5G technology (e.g., beamforming, massive MIMO, and phased arrays) that are likely to affect the nature and extent of biological or health effects from exposure to this radiation.
--

Brillouin Precursors, a theoretical oddity or a real concern for 5G millimetre-wave bands to be used in future high-speed telecommunications?

Don Maisch, PhD, Discussion Paper, July 21, 2022

The following topics are briefly discussed in the paper:

  • Brillouin Precursors
  • The need for reliable research
  • Uncertainties with ICNIRP's thermally based limits for millimeter wave emissions
  • A potential risk for property owners

Excerpts

"... With a millimeter wavelength of 0.65 mm at 42 GHz. The waves can penetrate into the human skin deep enough to affect most skin structures located in the epidermis and dermis.1 However, these types of waves present other challenges. The first is that when most of the energy is focused in a small area, such as 5G antenna beam-forming, the risk of human tissue heating for anyone in the path of the beam will be increased.
The second challenge is that signals such as radar that are made of sharp pulses behave differently when they enter body tissue containing moving charges (such as potassium ions). Each incoming pulse generates a force that accelerates these moving charges, thereby causing them to become emitters of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). This additional radiation adds large spikes onto the leading and trailing edges of the original EMR pulse. The sharp transients, called "Brillouin Precursors" increase the strength of the original signal and reradiate EMR waves deeper into the body than predicted by conventional thermal models. 2

The creation of Brillouin Precursors within the body by very short pulsed signals in the frequency of 10 GHz or more (millimeter wave bands) was described by Albanese et al in 1994. These authors predicted that the interaction of these signals with human tissue would cause disruption of large molecules, and damage cell membranes leading to blood-brain barrier leakage. 3 ....
It must be pointed out that little research has been carried out on the possibility of adverse biological effects from the creation of Brillouin precursors with 5G phased array antennas (let alone on 6G communications). Considering the high download speeds, which may have unintended adverse biological effects, this should be a priority.
Other damaging effects have been predicted in a paper published in Health Physics in December 2018 by Esra Neufeld and Niels Kuster. The paper suggests that permanent skin damage from tissue heating may occur even after short exposures to 5G millimetre wave pulse trains (where repetitive short, intense pulses can cause rapid, localised heating of skin). The authors stated that there is an urgent need for new thermal safety standards to address the kind of health risks possible with 5G technology ....
It is possible that this advice was in response to the ICNIRP draft guidelines (2019) as some changes were made to the final published guidelines. However, the changes did not conform to those suggested and it is not clear that the possibility of excessive heat absorption from these higher frequencies, which may result in pain, has been addressed in ICNIRP's current guidelines.
The necessity for more reliable research into possible damaging effects of pulsed millimetre waves used for 5G communications is also seen in an August 2021 paper by Foster and Vijayalaxmi ....
Concerns over the lack of scientific data regarding possible biological effects of millimeter waves proposed for use in modern telecommunications have been raised by Nicholas Lawler et al. in Biomedical Optics Express (May 2022). The authors found that the studies cited indicate a strong power and dose dependence of millimeter wave induced effects at biologically relevant exposure levels such as those recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) ....
The "take-home" message from the above mentioned papers is that we still do not have adequate research on 5G millimetre waves to be able to assure the public that the many thousands of 5G antennas, in many instances placed in close proximity to homes and workplaces, are without a possible health risk because the necessary research has not yet been conducted.
Open access paper: https://betweenrockandhardplace.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/don-maisch-brillouin-precursors-july-8-2022.pdf

--


Expert reveals 5G risks

Lyn McLean, Director, EMR Australia PL, April 8, 2022

"Frequencies used in Telecommunications – An Integrated Radiobiological Assessment"

By Yuri G. Grigoriev, translated by ORSAA [Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc (www.orsaa.org)]

The book can be downloaded for free: https://bit.ly/GrigorievBook (198 page pdf)

One of the world's leading authorities on wireless radiation has documented the risks of 5G radiation in "the first book on 5G that outlines the potential dangers of 5G technology, both in Russia and overseas."

The book, written by Professor Yuri Grigoriev shortly before his death, was recently translated into English by the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) and can now be downloaded for free.

Many countries (including Australia) base their radiation standards on Guidelines developed by the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In the book, Prof Grigoriev points out that ICNIRP is not necessarily a credible body, and its members are not impartial scientists. The ICNIRP Guidelines, he believes, are inadequate because they are only designed to protect people from the heating effects of radiation. But even this, they don't do properly.

[Note: In the U.S., the radio frequency radiation guidelines adopted by the FCC are similar to those of ICNIRP.]

Among the problems with these guidelines are that:

  • they don't prevent unacceptable increases in temperature

  • they don't restrict the intensity of spikes of radiation

  • a person would have to hold a 5G mobile phone 8 cm from their head or body to comply with them.

Grigoriev says 'ICNIRP members persist in arguing that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found biological or medical consequences from chronic exposure to non-thermal EMF levels are insufficient to warrant stricter safety regulations.'

Grigoriev refers to studies showing harmful effects of 5G millimetre waves (MMWs). They include:

  • demyelination of nerve cells

  • changes to cell membranes, including changes to ion channels

  • inhibition of cell cycle progression

  • changes to levels of enzyme and proteins in the brain's hippocampus

  • double-strand breaks in DNA

  • effects on reproduction

  • changes to the sensitivity of the skin

  • effects on peripheral and central nervous systems

  • effects on the hypothalamus and pituitary glands and changes to cortisol and testosterone hormones

  • changes to heart rate

  • changes to immune function

  • degranulation of mast cells in the skin (that can cause allergic-type symptoms).

Grigoriev says that individuals react differently to exposure, and this can make it difficult for observers to draw conclusions and can lead to errors in assessing the impacts of radiation.

He writes, "From our evaluation of the results of preliminary studies on the possible impacts on the health of the population of the 5G MMW-exposures alone …, we consider it reasonable to expect the following adverse effects: impacts on normal functioning in the critical organs of the skin and eyes; mediated systemic reactions in the body as a whole; and, most notable, impacts to the nervous and immune systems."

Grigoriev refers to calls by doctors, scientists and administrations in different countries to halt the roll-out of 5G until it can be demonstrated to be safe. He says, 'Irradiation of the human population by MMWs without the appropriate precautionary standards is clearly immoral – in the same way as conducting or observing an experiment would be, when it has the possibility of developing pathological processes; eg, according to the notion: 'Wait and see … then we will be able to establish proper standards.' Of course, by then, it will be too late!"


Professor Yuri G. Grigoriev (PhD, DMedSci) 1925-2021
  • Chief Scientific Officer, Laboratory of Radiobiology and Hygiene of Non-Ionizing Radiation, Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of the Federal Medical Biological Agency (Russia)
  • Academician, Academy of Electro-Technical Sciences (Russia)
  • Deputy Chair, Bureau of Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Member of the WHO Advisory Committee (International EMF Project)
  • Member of the Russian Scientific Commission on Radiation Protection
  • Member of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
  • Member of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety
==
Mar 24, 2022 5G Observatory Quarterly Report 13 - Up to October 2021
Valdani Vicari & Associati (VVA), PolicyTracker, LS telcom AG. European Commission Study on "European 5G Observatory phase III." CNECT/2021/OP/0008: 1-135. 2021.
Excerpts
  • In the richest nations like the USA, Japan, South Korea and China, commercial 5G services have been in operation for a couple of years, and 5G is now spreading to less developed countries.
  • The USA has assigned the most mmWave (millimeter wave) spectrum: four bands in total, compared to one in some of the EU and none in China.
  • It is important to note that most of the figures collected on the number of 5G base stations are provided by governments, but in some cases such as the USA and Japan, they are based on market research estimates. It is possible that some market-based estimates are not entirely up to date or accurate.
Open access report: https://5gobservatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5G-Obs-PhaseIII_Quarterly-report-13_final-version-11112021.pdf

==
Possible health effects on the human brain by various generations of mobile telecommunication: a review based estimation of 5G impact
Hiie Hinrikus, Tarmo Koppel, Jaanus Lass, Hans Orru, Priit Roosipuu, Maie Bachmann. Possible health effects on the human brain by various generations of mobile telecommunication: a review based estimation of 5G impact. Int J Radiat Biol. 2022 Jan 7;1-48. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2022.2026516.

Abstract

Purpose: The deployment of new 5G NR technology has significantly raised public concerns in possible negative effects on human health by radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF). The current review is aimed to clarify the differences between possible health effects caused by the various generations of telecommunication technology, especially discussing and projecting possible health effects by 5G. The review of experimental studies on the human brain over the last fifteen years and the discussion on physical mechanisms and factors determining the dependence of the RF EMF effects on frequency and signal structure have been performed to discover and explain the possible distinctions between health effects by different telecommunication generations.

Conclusions: The human experimental studies on RF EMF effects on the human brain by 2G, 3G and 4G at frequencies from 450 to 2500 MHz were available for analyses. The search for publications indicated no human experimental studies by 5G nor at the RF EMF frequencies higher than 2500 MHz. The results of the current review demonstrate no consistent relationship between the character of RF EMF effects and parameters of exposure by different generations (2G, 3G, 4G) of telecommunication technology. At the RF EMF frequencies lower than 10 GHz, the impact of 5G NR FR1 should have no principal differences compared to the previous generations. The radio frequencies used in 5G are even higher and the penetration depths of the fields are smaller, therefore the effect is rather lower than at previous generations. At the RF EMF frequencies higher than 10 GHz, the mechanism of the effects might differ and the impact of 5G NR FR2 becomes unpredictable. Existing knowledge about the mechanism of RF EMF effects at millimeter waves lacks sufficient experimental data and theoretical models for reliable conclusions. The insufficient knowledge about the possible health effects at millimeter waves and the lack of in vivo experimental studies on 5G NR underline an urgent need for the theoretical and experimental investigations of health effects by 5G NR, especially by 5G NR FR2.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34995145/
Excerpts
Experimental human in vivo studies at radiofrequency range 0.01-300 GHz published in peer-reviewed journals in the last fifteen years (2007–2021) were eligible, including all types of telecommunication signals and pulse-modulated radiofrequency radiation.

Altogether 73 publications were included in the review.

According to investigated parameters, the studies were divided into four categories: resting electroencephalography (EEG), sleep EEG and sleep quality, event related potentials (ERP) and cognition-behavior and brain metabolism. Statistically significant changes in an investigated parameter between sham and exposed conditions were considered as an effect.

Table 2 presents the studies that report the RF EMF effect or no effect at different signal structures and frequencies.

No clear interdependency between the generation of telecommunication technology and the character of RF EMF effects becomes evident from Table 2. All categories of the reported statistically significant effects as well as no effects include exposure from various generations of telecommunication systems and different RF EMF frequencies.


The rate of studies reporting effect is 78.6% at 450 MHz, 66.7% at 900 MHz, 43.6% at 1800 MHz, and 57.1% at 2450 MHz. The rate of positive findings is maximal, 78.6%, at 450 MHz band and minimal, 43.8%, at 1800 MHz band. However, along with the possible regular frequency dependent trend, the decrease could be related to other factors: differences in signal structures and varying number of experiments at different frequencies. The difference between results at 450 MHz and 1800 MHz can be partly related to the character of applied exposure: at 450 MHz remarkable part of studies have used meander-like pulse-modulated, not telecommunication signals like RF EMF exposure.
The rate of studies reporting effect is 33.3% at TETRA, 63.6% at GSM, 46.2% at WCDMA, 80% at LTE and 20% at WiFi signals. These numbers should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies, especially at LTE, WiFi and TETRA signals. Some trends can be mentioned: the rate of studies reporting RF EMF effect is higher than 50% at LTE and GSM signals, lower than 50% at WCDMA and TETRA signals and minimal at WiFi signals. This trend is not in accordance with the possible dependence on the used radiofrequency and needs explanation based on the characteristic behavior of the used signals.

Conclusions

In the current review, the experimental investigations on RF EMF effects on human EEG, ERP, cognition and behavior were analyzed at the exposure conditions typical for the 2G, 3G and 4G generations of mobile telecommunication technology at frequencies from 450 to 2500 MHz. The search for publications indicated no studies on human EEG, ERP, cognition and behavior by 5G nor at RF EMF frequencies higher than 2500 MHz.

The results of the current review demonstrate no consistent relationship between the character of RF EMF effects and parameters of exposure by different generations (2G, 3G, 4G) of mobile telecommunication technology. The following trends can be mentioned:

  1. Various generations of telecommunication technology seem to contribute to similar effects. There is no special frequency nor signal structure related to a specific effect.

  2. Some decrease in the rate of studies reporting effects with the increase of RF EMF frequency can be declared. However, due to the small number of studies, especially at higher frequencies (≥2 GHz), the results need to be considered with caution.

The existing knowledge about the mechanisms underlying RF EMF effects allows us to formulate the following conclusions:

  1. The dielectric polarization, a physical reason behind the RF EMF effects, decreases with the frequency of RF EMF. The electric permittivity is relatively stable at frequencies over 0.1 and 10 GHz, but decreases fast at frequencies higher than 10 GHz. At frequencies higher than 10 GHz, the effects related to the dielectric polarization become small. The scarce data about the RF EMF effects at frequencies higher than 10 GHz provide insufficient knowledge to clarify the possible interaction mechanisms.

  2. The theory of parametric excitation could explain the impact of the signal structure. The presence of the low-frequency components lower than 1000 Hz in the spectrum of RF EMF exposure (2G-5G) is an important factor to give rise to the RF EMF effects on the nervous system. The RF EMF effects are most probably caused by the telecommunication systems with low-frequency components lower than 100 Hz (4G, 5G FR1, 5G FR2).

Currently, there are no data about RF EMF effects caused by 5G telecommunication systems. Combining data of experimental results with existing knowledge in the mechanisms of RF EMF effects, the conclusions about the possible 5G effects can be derived:

  1. At the RF EMF frequencies lower than 10 GHz, the impact of 5G NR FR1 should have no principal differences compared to the previous generations. The frequencies used in 5G are even higher and the penetration depths of the fields are smaller, therefore the effect is rather lower than at previous generations.

  2. The low-frequency components in the 5G NR FR1 RF EMF spectrum are similar to these of 4G. Therefore, the possible health effects should have the same level.

  3. At the RF EMF frequencies higher than 10 GHz, the mechanism of the effects might change and the impact of 5G NR FR2 becomes unpredictable.

  4. The possible health effects caused by 5G NR FR2 are not limited to the impact on skin but can be widened by the excitation of nervous system.

  5. Existing knowledge about the mechanism of RF EMF effects at millimeter waves lacks sufficient experimental data and theoretical models for reliable conclusions.

The insufficient knowledge about the possible health effects at millimeter waves and the lack of in vivo experimental studies on 5G NR underline an urgent need for the theoretical and experimental investigations of health effects by 5G NR, especially by 5G NR FR2.

--
Health Effects of 5G Base Station Exposure: A Systematic Review
Tasneem Sofri, Hasliza A Rahim, Mohamedfareq Abdulmalek, Khatijahhusna Abd Rani, Mohd Hafizi Omar, Mohd Najib Mohd Yasin, Muzammil Jusoh, Ping Jack Soh. Health Effects of 5G Base Station Exposure: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access. Dec 30, 2021. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3139385.

Abstract

The Fifth Generation (5G) communication technology will deliver faster data speeds and support numerous new applications such as virtual and augmented reality. The additional need for a larger number of 5G base stations has sparked widespread public concerns about their possible negative health impacts. This review analyzes the latest research on electromagnetic exposure on humans, with particular attention to its effect on cognitive performance, well-being, physiological parameters, and Electroencephalography (EEG). While most of their results indicated no changes in cognitive function, physiological parameters, or overall well-being, the strength of the EEG alpha wave is noticed to vary depending on various aspects of cognitive functions. However, the available studies have not investigated the health effects resulting from exposure from the 5G mobile phone and base station antennas from 700 MHz to 30 GHz on the cognitive performance, well-being subjective symptoms, human physiological parameters, and EEG of adults. There is a need for such research regarding this current emerging technology. Such studies are significant in determining whether 5G technology is indeed safe for humans.

Conclusion

This work presents an analysis of exposure studies conducted using signals from 400 MHz to 1750 MHz (for 4G). From this analysis, the following conclusions are made:
• Most of the studies in literature using 2G/3G/4G showed no effects and no consistency in how exposure to these signals affected the cognitive, physiological parameters, well-being, and EEG of the volunteers.
• Most research on human cognition, physiological parameters, and well-being so far have focused on the impacts of GSM900/GSM1800/UMTS/4G MPs, GSM900/GSM1800/UMTS BSs, DECT, and Wi-Fi exposures.

• There is an absence of studies reporting the effects of 5G (700 MHz, 3.5 GHz, or 28 GHz) BS signals on adults in terms of cognitive performance, well-being, or physiological markers (heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature).

Figure 9 and 10 illustrated the possible flowchart and schematic diagram to study the effects of 5G BS exposure signals for sub-6 GHz and mmWave bands (of up to 30 GHz) to human subjects. Data from such a study will be useful in explicitly determining the significance signal exposure from 5G BS on human health, considering their much closer proximity to users.

Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9665755
--
Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks
Lennart Hardell. Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks. World J Clin Oncol 2021; 12(6): 393-403 doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393.
Abstract

Currently the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be rolled out worldwide. Many persons are concerned about potential health risks from radiofrequency radiation. In September 2017, a letter was sent to the European Union asking for a moratorium on the deployment until scientific evaluation has been made on potential health risks (https://www.5Gappeal.eu). This appeal has had little success. The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards (https://www.emfscientist.org). The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.

Core Tip: In this comment, guidelines for radiofrequency radiation are discussed in relation to a recent evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands. The Committee recommends that for the deployment of 5G the frequency band 26 GHz should not be used. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are recommended. However, these guidelines are not based on an objective evaluation of health risks, which is discussed in this paper.
Conclusion
In conclusion regarding cancer, current scientific evidence clearly demonstrates an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma for use of mobile and/or cordless phones. In this review other tumor types and health endpoints are not discussed. The increased risk for brain and head tumors is based on human cancer epidemiology studies and is supported by similar tumor types found in animal studies. In fact, these animal studies confirmed the earlier results in case-control studies on increased tumor risk for use of wireless phones (both mobile and cordless phones). Mechanistic aspects on carcinogenesis come from laboratory findings on, e.g., the increase of reactive oxygen species[5] and DNA damage[4]. The current evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands is based on a WHO draft and SSM report. It also recommends using ICNIRP guidelines, considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards, such as cancer, by the majority of the scientists in this field (https://www.emfscientist.org). The report does not represent a thorough, balanced, objective, and up-to-date evaluation of cancer risks and other hazardous effects from RF radiation. It is also strikingly contradictory as it concludes that serious health effects such as cancer and birth defects are "possible." Yet it has no objection to the roll-out of 5G and recommends that later studies are performed to study health outcomes such as cancer and birth defects. Thus, no lessons are learned from existing observations on increased cancer risks[49]. The conclusion by the Commission that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G up to 3.5 GHz because of no "proven adverse health effects," merely reflects the biased conclusions by ICNIRP dominated groups. Thus that conclusion must be dismissed, and new guidelines for previous and new frequencies must be established considering the new technology, the different propagation pattern for 5G, and increased RF radiation. A moratorium is urgently required on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication[13]. Ultimately, wired solutions are preferred.

Open access paper: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v12/i6/393.htm

--Related Posts
Regulators Steamroll Health Concerns as the Global Economy Embraces 5G (Washington Spectator)
"We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (Scientific American)
Scientific American Created Confusion about 5G's Safety: Will They Clear It Up? (includes "5G, Public Health and Uncomfortable Truths")

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects5G Wireless Technology: Cutting through the Hype
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5GGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) 2020 Report on 5G5G and Health (Netherlands Health Council)European Parliament: 5G Health Effects and Environmental Impact
ICNIRP's Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects
Cell Tower Health EffectsElectromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Physicians for Safe TechnologyEnvironmental Health TrustMicrowave News
--
Health Safety Guidelines and 5G Wireless Radiation [Health Matters]
James C. Lin. Health Safety Guidelines and 5G Wireless Radiation [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 23(1):10-17. Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2021.3117307.
Abstract
The rollout of 5G cellular communication technology is well underway worldwide. The advocates of 5G mobile technology hail it as a faster and more secure technology than its predecessor, 3G and 4G systems. The major enabling infrastructure uses millimeter-wave (mm-wave) and phased-array technology to achieve line-of-sight directivity, high data rates, and low latency. A central vulnerability or security threat is that it may allow spying on users. Nevertheless, this is a system architecture and technology or regulatory issue but not a biological effect or health safety matter.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9632507
My note: James C. Lin, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois Chicago. Dr. Lin is one of the most renowned scientists who has studied the biological interactions of wireless radiation. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Since 2006 he has been the Editor-in-Chief of the Bioelectromagnetics journal published on behalf of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), an international organization of biological and physical scientists, physicians and engineers. In a prior article, Dr. Lin, an ICNIRP Commission member from 2004-2016, accused the organization of groupthink: "The simultaneous penchant to dismiss and criticize positive results and the fondness for and eager acceptance of negative findings are palpable and concerning."

Like several previous articles that Dr. JC Lin wrote for IEEE Microwave Magazine, the abstract is biased toward risk minimization so read the paper or the following excerpts.

Excerpts
Low-band 5G starts at roughly 400 MHz and uses existing or previous 3G or 4G frequencies or newly opened frequencies to operate; the latter, for example, may overlap with the existing 4G band. The 5G rollout began with midband, which includes popular frequencies between 3 and 4 GHz. However, primary 5G technological advances are associated with high-band 5G, which promises performance bandwidth as high as 20 GHz, and multiple-input, multiple-output strategies using 64–256 antennas at short distances and offering performances up to 10 times better than the current 4G networks."
"For health safety matters, it is not apparent whether the biological responses to high-band 5G radiations would be akin to earlier generations or low-band 5G radiations, given the distinctive characteristics of mm-wave and its interaction with the complex structure and composition of pertinent, superficial biological cells and tissues such as the cornea of the eye and nerve-rich human skin, the large, protective organ of the body."
"The two most widely promulgated RF health safety guidelines or standards have recently published revisions of their respective 1998 and 2005 versions [1], [2]. The updated International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection guidelines and IEEE standards appear to cater to industry wishes; they are strongly linked to thermal effects associated with measurable temperature elevations. Also, the updates seem to have been synchronized to accommodate the 5G rollout."
"To date, there has not been a single reported epidemiological study that investigated mm-waves and their potential health effects.
Thus, although there are roughly 100 published laboratory investigations of all types, and the reported biological responses are inconsistent in their association between biological effects and mm-wave exposure. Indeed, the types of reported laboratory investigations are small, limited, and diverse, considering the wide, 5G, mm-wave frequency domain. The jury on biological effects or health impacts is still out on 5G mm-waves. Moreover, there is a lack of ongoing, controlled laboratory investigations...."
"If the entities responsible for safety recommendations believe what appears to be their position concerning experimental results from rats from the NIEHS/NTP that a whole-body temperature rise of 1 °C is carcinogenic, then the safety factors of 50 adopted for the public or 10 for workers would be marginal for their stated purpose and practically meaningless from the perspective of "safety" protection (more so above 6 GHz)."
"As shown in Table 1, for mm-waves, the referenced local-tissue-temperature rise in the head, torso, and limbs of humans is 5 °C. This level of temperature rise would bring the tissue temperature from a normal value of 37 °C to a hyperthermic 42 °C. A 42 °C tissue temperature is known to be cytotoxic, with exponential cell-killing capacities. It is used as the basis for clinical cancer therapy in hyperthermia treatment for cancer protocols [14]–[16]. The recently updated safety recommendations provide a reduction factor of 10 for the public's safety and a reduction factor of two in the case of workers. In this situation, the efficacy of these updated safety recommendations is borderline, and the updated recommendations are meaningless from the perspective of safety protection.

In summary, the safety recommendation updates were based primarily on limiting the tissue-heating potentials of RF radiation to elevate body temperatures. There are significant anomalies in the recently updated safety recommendations. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned anomalies, the existing scientific data are too limited—especially at mm-wavelengths—to make a reliable assessment or conclusion with any certainty. Some of the updated safety recommendations are marginal, questionable, and lack scientific justification from the perspective of safety protection."

--
5G Cellular Standards. Total Radiobiological Assessment of the Danger of Planetary Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure to the Population (in Russian)Y.G. Grigoriev, A.S. Samoylov. 5G-cellular standards. Total radiobiological assessment of the danger of planetary electromagnetic radiation exposure to the population. G384; М.: SRC — FMBC, Moscow, 2020.
Abstract

The book discusses the implementation of the 5G-standard in the cellular communication system. 5G-technology works with millimeter waves (MMW) with simultaneous distribution of the IoT (Internet of Things) program — Internet connection between «things», both for home use, and other objects, for example, in transport, in production. MMW are easily shielded. Given this, only the skin and sclera of the eyes will be affected.
A new radiobiological approach to hazard assessment of the 5G-standard is presented. The significance of radiobiological criteria and the degree of risk are considered, taking into account the appearance of new critical organs and the load on existing critical organs and systems during lifetime exposure to EMF in the population. This point of view of the authors is used to assess the total radiobiological danger of planetary electromagnetic radiation exposure to the population.
Ways of possible reduction of the electromagnetic load on the population are suggested.

Relevance of the book by L.A. Ilyin, RAS academician
Both in Russia and in countries abroad, there have been active discussions over the past few years about a promising proposal for optimizing cellular communications — the planetary introduction of a new 5G-standard that will guarantee fast transmission of a large amount of data. For this purpose, millimeter waves (MMW) will be used.
The techno-economic advantage of this offer is obvious and widely reported by the media in many countries. However, the degree of danger of this type of electromagnetic radiation to public health and the environment remains unclear.
Unfortunately, the appeals of scientists and medical professionals to the UN and the European Union about the need for preliminary medical and biological research before implementing the 5G-standard remain beyond real implementation. A number of countries refuse to place the 5G-standard on their territory.

Book by Yu.G. Grigoriev and A.S. Samoylov "5G-CELLULAR STANDARD. TOTAL RADIOBIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DANGER OF PLANETARY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EXPOSURE TO THE POPULATION" considers the implementation of the 5G-standard in the cellular communication system. Unlike existing wireless technologies 2G, 3G and 4G, which use electromagnetic fields of the radio frequency range, the 5G-standard works with millimeter waves with simultaneous distribution of the IoT (Internet of Things) program — Internet communication between "objects", both for home use and other objects, for example, in transport and in production.
For stable delivery of MMW to the entire territory of our planet, Earth satellites are used. It is planned to launch 4,425 satellites for the implementation of the universal Internet access program, but there are already 800 satellites in space under this program. It should be noted that there are currently several thousand satellites in orbit, which is of great concern to astronomers and the security service of manned space flights in Russia.
In fact, the entire population will be trapped for life in the electromagnetic grid of millimeter waves and no one will be able to avoid their impact.

MMW are easily shielded. Naturally, to cover a certain area with a millimeter cell, you will need to increase the number of base stations (BS). For example, with a cell radius of only 20 meters, you will need about 800 base stations per square kilometer and located 3-5 meters from the consumer. This is in sharp contrast, for example, with 3G and 4G-standards, which use large cells and have ranges from 2 to 15 km or more.

Given that MMW is absorbed in biotissues at a depth of up to 2 mm, only the skin and sclera of the eyes will be affected by them. Therefore, the authors rightly believe that when assessing the risk of MMV, it is necessary to take into account the appearance of new critical organs — the skin and eyes. The skin is a very complex biostructure, has a large number of receptors and is actually a "bio-relay" between the external environment and the functional state of the body.
Naturally, the introduction of 5G-technology raises new questions. First, the technical part of providing this type of communication. A significantly larger number of micro-antenna base station antennas per unit area with satellite support is needed. Second, there is a lack of a consistent methodology for hygienic rationing. Third, there are only assumptions about possible biological effects in the lifetime impact of MMW on populations and ecosystems. There are no data on possible bioeffects with constant exposure to MMW on the skin and sclera of the eyes. Targeted research is still not carried out both in Russia and abroad.

There are different perspectives on the assessment of the dangers of this new technology. The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assess the hazard only by adding the absorbed dose to existing standards. This is a small addition, and therefore the existing FCC and ICNIRP standards, approved in 1996, are not being revised. International standards, despite criticism from the scientific community and the European Union, have remained unchanged for more than 20 years.
The authors of the reviewed book consider this approach erroneous, because in this case, the radiation load on new critical organs — the skin and eyes--is not taken into account. They considered the significance of radiobiological criteria and the degree of risk, taking into account the emergence of new critical organs and the load on existing critical organs and systems, taking into account the lifetime exposure of the population to EMF. From this point of view, the book presents an assessment of the total radiobiological danger of planetary electromagnetic radiation exposure to the population.

The book offers new ways to reduce the electromagnetic load, taking into account 5G on the population. It is necessary to explain to the population that EMF is considered harmful and their safety is regulated by certain hygiene standards.

Exposure to EMF that exceeds these standards may negatively affect the health of the mobile user. In this regard, the population should strictly follow the existing hygiene recommendations. However, most people perceive gadgets simply as an element of convenient everyday communication without time limits, as a toy for children, for entertainment, using cellular communication without the need. The population should understand that by violating hygiene recommendations, they are putting themselves at a certain risk. This danger must be persistently explained and, above all, through the media. It is recommended to introduce such a concept as "The conscious risk". This is the first generalization on the problem of the danger of 5G-technologies, both in Russia and abroad.
Open access book (in Russian; 196 pp. pdf): https://bit.ly/Grigoriev5G
My comments: A considerable amount of research suggests that exposure to millimeter waves can affect many organs of the body, not just the skin and the eyes.

--
Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?
John William Frank. Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? J Epidemiol Community Health. Published Online First: 19 January 2021. doi: 10.1136/jech-2019-213595.
Abstract

New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

Conclusions and recommendation

In assessing causal evidence in environmental epidemiology, Bradford Hill himself pointed out that 'the whole picture matters;' he argued against prioritising any subset of his famous nine criteria for causation. One's overall assessment of the likelihood that an exposure causes a health condition should take into account a wide variety of evidence, including 'biological plausibility'. After reviewing the evidence cited above, the writer, an experienced physician-epidemiologist, is convinced that RF-EMFs may well have serious human health effects. While there is also increasing scientific evidence for RF-EMF effects of ecological concern in other species, both plant and animal, these have not been reviewed here, for reasons of space and the author's disciplinary limitations. In addition, there is convincing evidence, cited above, that several nations' regulatory apparatus, for telecommunications innovations such as the 5G roll-out, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, significant elements in that apparatus appear to have been captured by vested interests. Every society's public health—and especially the health of those most likely to be susceptible to the hazard in question (in the case of EMFs, children and pregnant women)—needs to be protected by evidence-based regulations, free from significant bias.

Finally, this commentary would be remiss if it did not mention a widely circulating conspiracy theory, suggesting that 5G and related EMF exposures somehow contributed to the creation or spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are knowledgeable commentators' reports on the web debunking this theory, and no respectable scientist or publication has backed it. Indeed, combatting it is widely viewed by the scientific community as critical to dealing with the pandemic, as conspiracy theorists holding this view have already carried out violent attacks on mobile phone transmission facilities and other symbolic targets, distracting the public and authorities at a time when pandemic control actions are paramount. 42 This writer completely supports that view of the broader scientific community: the theory that 5G and related EMFs have contributed to the pandemic is baseless.

It follows that, for the current 5G roll-out, there is a sound basis for invoking 'the precautionary principle'. This is the environmental and occupational health principle by which significant doubt about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure should be a reason to call a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects. In short, one should 'err on the side of caution'. In the case of 5G transmission systems, there is no compelling public health or safety rationale for their rapid deployment. The main gains being promised are either economic (for some parties only, not necessarily with widely distributed financial benefits across the population) or related to increased consumer convenience. Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological point of view, those putative gains need to wait.

Open access paper: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595 or https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595.full.pdf

--
Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra high frequency
Ugochukwu O. Matthew, Jazuli S. Kazaure. Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra high frequency. Health Technology (Berl). 2021 Jan 27: 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12553-020-00501-x.
Abstract
The wide-spectrum of non-ionizing, non-visible radiation emitted from the novel 5G network deployment was investigated and found liable to produce effects capable of heating up and altering human body nomenclature. The Ultra-high frequency magnetic fields, induced circulation of currents in the surrounding human body when potentially exposed. The quantum of these electromagnetic charges is influenced by the magnitude of the external magnetic field. The Magnetic fields warming is the major organic consequence of the electromagnetic fields radiofrequency radiation emitted from 5G network installation especially at a very high frequencies. From the current research, the levels of electromagnetic fields to which individuals are naturally unmasked under 4G network and 5G network technology in SCENARIO1, SCENARIO 2 and SCENARIO 3 are very negligible to alter human body dipolar chemistry. On the several findings of the research, deploying 5G network technology under the ultra-high frequency above 20 GHz will produce effect that will heat up the human body tissues due to electromagnetic field inducement since human body is dipolar in nature. The research established that while the current digital society will continue investment into 5G network technology, caution must be applied not to deploy 5G network under ultra-high frequency above 20 GHz due to its adverse health effects.
Conclusions

From the knowledge and principle of electromagnetism, human beings are constituted of substantial amount of oriented cells with diverse electromagnetic field attributes. The Biological attributes of the human tissue under diverse electromagnetic radiative emission are studied and that had provided the basis upon which the current research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on the human body. The heating consequences of the radio electromagnetic waves from 5G network technology deployment had formed the fundamental basis for current research. On the several findings of the research, deploying 5G network technology under the ultra-high baseband above 20 GHz will produce effects such as heating up of the body tissues due to electromagnetic field inducement on the account that human body is dipolar in nature. The effects will extend to produce dielectric polarization, ionic polarization, interfacial polarization and orientational polarization. This is generally on the account that variations on dielectric properties of biological tissues with the frequency of the electromagnetic field inducement are very dissimilar. While it is very imperative to determine the frequency distribution in deploying the novel 5G network to avoid adverse dielectric dispersion that may flow into the human body.

Open access paper: https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/chemical-polarization-effects-of-electromagnetic-field-radiation/18805704

--
New IEEE paper questions safety of exposure to 5G cell phone radiation
There has been considerable public pressure in many countries including the U.S. to stop deployment of 5G due to potential health risks. Most of the attention has focused on the cell towers or base stations; however, the safety of using 5G cell phones and other 5G personal devices may be an even greater concern due to the proximity of these devices to our bodies.
A new peer-reviewed paper, "Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz," questions the safety of exposure to 5G millimeter waves. The authors found in a simulation study that use of a 5G cell phone at 28 GHz could exceed ICNIRP (i.e. international) radio frequency exposure limits when held at 8 centimeters (i.e., 3 inches) or closer to the head or body. Whereas the ICNIRP exposure limit for the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is 2.0 watts per kilogram averaged over 10 grams of tissue, the FCC limit is 2-3 times more conservative, namely the SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over only 1 gram of tissue. This means compliance with the FCC exposure limit would require a greater separation distance from the body than 8 centimeters in the U.S.

Although there have been numerous peer-reviewed papers that have raised serious concerns about the safety of exposure to 5G radiation and/or millimeter waves, this new paper is significant because it is published in an industry-sponsored journal, the November/December issue of IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine.
Seungmo Kim, Imtiaz Nasim. Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine. 9(6):41-48. Nov. 1 2020. DOI: 10.1109/MCE.2019.2956223.
Abstract
The fifth-generation wireless (5G) has already started showing its capability to achieve extremely fast data transfer, which makes itself considered to be a promising mobile technology. However, concerns have been raised on adverse health impacts that human users can experience in a 5G system by being exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This article investigates the human EMF exposure in a 5G system and compares them with those measured in the previous-generation cellular systems. It suggests a minimum separation distance between a transmitter and a human user for keeping the EMF exposure below the safety regulation level, which provides consumers with a general understanding on the safe use of 5G communications.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9090831
Excerpts

"First, we discuss the human EMF exposure in the downlink as well as the uplink. Most of the prior work studies the uplink only, while hardly paying attention to EMF emissions generated by BSs [base stations or cell towers] in a 5G network. Recall the aforementioned changes that the 5G adopts: 1) operation at higher carrier frequencies; 2) reduction of cell size (which leads to increase in number of BSs; and 3) concentration of higher EMF energy into an antenna beam. They all imply that in 5G, unlike the previous-generation wireless systems, the downlink can also be a threat to human health as well as the uplink.

Second, we suggest that both SAR [Specific Absorption Rate] and PD [power density] should be used to display human EMF exposure for a wireless system. The reason is that SAR captures an amount of EMF energy that is actually "absorbed" into human tissues, whereas PD is an efficient metric only to present the EMF energy being introduced to a human user.

Third, we present an explicit comparison of human EMF exposure in 5G to those in the currently deployed wireless standards....

Fourth, we consider the maximum possible exposure that a human user can experience...."
"... in a 5G network, a consumer is likely to be exposed to high EMF energy more consistently. Nevertheless, it is easier to apply a "compliance distance" [17] in a downlink than in an uplink. Thus, this article suggests 1) an overhaul of the compliance distances defined in different standards and 2) the consumers' discretion on being close to a BS...."
"... the fact that a high-frequency EMF cannot penetrate deep into human skin does not mean that it is not dangerous. Specifically, although the penetration is limited only at the skin surface, the SAR (illustrated as a heat map in Figure 4) can be higher within the concentrated area, which can cause subsequent health problems such as skin heating."
Downlink vs. Uplink

"Figure 3(c) and (d) compare PD and SAR in uplink to the ICNIRP guidelines set at 10 W/m2 and 2W/kg, respectively. PD and SAR are remarkably higher in uplink than those in downlink, shown via a comparison of the results for uplink to those for downlink shown in Figure 3(a) and (b). It is attributed to smaller separation distance between a transmitter and a human body. Imagine one talking on a voice call; it is a "direct" physical contact of the phone and the head!

Also, it is significant to notice that no regulation exists at 28 GHz where this article investigates for 5G. As such, we refer to the ICNIRP's guideline that is set to be 2 W/kg by ICNIRP[11] at a frequency "below 10 GHz." In Figure 3(d), it provides a ""inferred" understanding on SAR in an uplink. The zoom-in look shown in Figure 3(d) suggests that in 5G, use of a handheld device within the distance of 8 cm causes an EMF absorption exceeding 2 W/kg, which would have been prohibited if the carrier frequency was lower than 10 GHz. This implies the gravity of human EMF exposure in an uplink of 5G."

Conclusion

"This article has discussed human EMF exposure in 5G operating at 28 GHz, while most of the prior work focuses only on the technological benefits that the technology brings. Considering the significance of wireless technologies in our daily life, the potential danger of using them should also be emphasized for sustainable advancement of the technologies. In this article, the first case study has demonstrated how much EMF exposure is caused in a 5G system compared to 4G and 3.9G. Then, the latter case study has suggested an adequate separation distance from a transmitter, in order to keep a human user from being exposed to EMF below a regulatory guideline. This article is expected to ignite continued interest in overarching research on the design of future wireless systems that achieve high performance while keeping consumer safety guaranteed.

However, considering the gravity of this issue, we suggest several directions to be achieved in our future research.

  • Human EMF exposure mitigation strategy: We are particularly interested in exploiting the technical features in future wireless systems—i.e., a larger number of BSs within a unit area. Such a paradigm change will enable a holistic, network-based approach to mitigate the EMF exposure as an optimization problem with a set of constraints representing the PD, SAR, and skin-temperature elevation.

  • Further studies regarding exact human health impacts caused by EMF exposure: The particular focus will be put on 1) skin dielectric effect with respect to frequency and 2) the effect of radiation when the body is covered with clothing or garment materials."

--
Modelling of Total Exposure in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios

Sven Kuehn, Serge Pfeifer, Beyhan Kochali, Niels Kuster. Modelling of Total Exposure in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios. Final Report of Project CRR-816. A report on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Zurich, IT'IS Foundation. 24 June 2019.
Executive Summary

In January 2019, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) mandated the IT'IS Foundation to evaluate the total human exposure in hypothetical 5G mobile networks for varied topologies and user scenarios to identify factors that would minimize the total exposure of the population. In this study, total exposure is defined as the combined exposure from network base stations, the user's own device, as well as bystanders' mobile devices.

The influence of various factors on total exposure in mobile communication networks (as defined above) was modeled and analyzed with the help of the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Total exposure is described as the local peak specific absorption rate (SAR) spatially averaged over any 10 g of tissue mass (psaSAR10g) averaged over a period of 6 minutes. The unit psaSAR10g was chosen because it defines the governing basic restriction for wireless exposure as the whole-body average SAR limits (wbaSAR) are intrinsically met if the limits of local exposure are satisfied. The averaging duration of 6 minutes constitutes the internationally accepted averaging time to prevent thermal hazards at frequencies below 6 GHz as instant values have little justification. However, it should be noted that some regulators define shorter averaging time periods, e.g., the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of 100 s.

In a first step, we analyzed the tissue-specific exposure as a function of frequency. The preliminary dosimetric study showed that exposure of the human brain to the 3.6 GHz band, that has been recently added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, is reduced by a factor of >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile network operation at <1 GHz. This reduction is due to the smaller penetration depth at higher frequencies. This conclusion, however, does not apply to exposed tissues close to the surface or skin (eyes, testicles, etc.) when the peak SAR in this tissue is evaluated. The peak SAR in the grey matter remains in approximately the same order of magnitude ( 3 dB) over all frequencies but the area of high exposure is reduced at 3.6 GHz.

In a second step, we used data measured in 4G systems and analyzed the latest mobile network standards to extrapolate the exposures for various 5G network scenarios. These measured data were also used to extrapolate the exposure to the future development of data usage in 5G networks.

Specifically, we analyzed the effect on the total exposure of (i) the network topology by varying the cell size and amount of indoor coverage in the network, as well as the usage of (ii) an individual's own device, and (iii) devices of close bystanders.

The results – based on simulations of more than 200 different exposure scenarios – reveal that, for all user types, except for non-users (including passive mobile phone users and users dominantly using downlink data traffic, e.g., video streaming), total exposure is dominated by the person's own mobile device. Compared to non-users, the exposure is increased (i) for light users (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or a factor of 4 to 10), (ii) for moderate users (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or a factor of 20 to >300), and (iii) for heavy users by 15 – 40 dB (or a factor of 30 to >10000). Further, the results show that peak exposure of non-users is not defined by exposure to base stations but by exposure to mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.

While a reduction of the mobile cell size leads to a reduction in total exposure by a factor of 2 to10 for people actively using their mobile devices, this might also lead to a small increase by a factor of 1.6 in total exposure of non-users due the generally increased incident signal levels from the surrounding base stations.

Similarly, the exposure of active users can be reduced by a factor of 4 to 600 by increasing the indoor network coverage. Yet, in line with the results for the mobile cell sizes, increased indoor coverage will also lead to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. This increase, however, starts at a level 1000 times lower than the typical total exposure of active users.

The results of this study show that the personal mobile device is the dominant exposure source for active mobile network users. Besides a person's own usage behavior, total exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network with a lower path loss, i.e., smaller cells and additional indoor coverage, helps to reduce total exposure. The exposure per transmitted bit is reduced by a factor of <3 by the increased spectral efficiency of the 5G technology, and the reduced penetration depth associated with the new bands at 3.5 – 3.8 GHz.

The results presented above are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated in this report. Furthermore, it only considers time-averaged (6 min) and not instant exposures. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links, for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), and (iii) millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.
Conclusions
The results of this study show that the absorption of energy by the human brain, resulting from exposure to the 3.6 GHz band newly added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, is reduced by a factor >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile networks operating at <1 GHz, and by a factor of >2 when compared to the frequency bands at 1.8 – 2GHz. For deep brain regions, the reduction is much larger.
The reduced exposure for these regions is due to lower penetration depths at higher frequencies. Close to the surface (eyes, testicles, etc.) the exposure can be higher. At the most exposed surface of the grey matter, the values remain approximately 3 dB over all frequencies whereas the area of high exposure is reduced.
More than 200 Monte Carlo simulated exposure scenarios have been analyzed to evaluate total human exposure in 5G Networks for different topologies and user scenarios. The results show that for all users (except non-users), the total exposure is dominated by a person's own mobile device. Compared to a non-user, the exposure is increased for a light user (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or by a factor 4 to 10), for a moderate user (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or by a factor of 20 to >300), and for a heavy user by 25 – 40 dB (or a factor of 300 to >10000). The peak exposure of non-users is further not defined by exposure to surrounding base stations but by mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas, resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.

Reducing the diameter of the mobile cell leads to a decreased overall exposure by a factor of 2 to 10 for people who actively use their mobile devices. At the same time, the reduction in cell size might lead to a small increase by a factor <2 in exposure for non-users. The exposure of active users can be reduced by factors ranging from 4 to 600 by increasing indoor network coverage which, in turn, will be linked to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. However, such an increase is by a factor 1000 lower than the typical exposure of active users. The results of this study are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated earlier in this report. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO and multi-user MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links – for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and (iii) millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.

In summary, the results of this study show that the user's own mobile device is the dominant source of exposure for the population of active mobile network users. Besides personal usage patterns, totl exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network that decreases the path loss by means of smaller cells and additional indoor coverage will help to reduce the total exposure of the population.

https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/en/dokumente/elektrosmog/externe-studien-berichte/modelling-of-total-exposure-in-hypothetical-5g-mobile-networks-for-varied-topologies-and-user-scenarios.pdf.download.pdf/Modelling%20of%20Total%20Exposure%20in%20Hypothetical%205G%20Networks%20-%20Schlussbericht.pdf
--
Oct 14, 2020
5G Research from the EMF-Portal Archive
As of June 1, 2020, the EMF-Portal archive listed 133 papers and letters to the editor published in professional journals and presentations at professional conferences that focus on 5G research. Although most discuss technical or dosimetric issues (n = 92), 41 citations address other issues including potential biologic or health effects.
In all, the EMF-Portal archive references more than 30,000 publications and presentations on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. The Portal is a project based at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany.

Currently, no peer-reviewed, empirical studies of the biologic or health effects from actual exposure to 5G radiation have been published. Hence, those who claim that 5G is safe because it complies with radiofrequency exposure guidelines are engaging in sophistry.
These guidelines were designed to protect the population from short-term heating (or thermal) risks. However, numerous peer-reviewed studies have found adverse biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity or non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Hence, more than 240 EMF scientists who have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal have recommended that "guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened":
"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines….
The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF."
To download the list of 133 papers and presentations: bit.ly/EmfPortal5G
--
5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion
Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik. 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand. ACNEM Journal. 39(1). July 2020.
No abstract.
Excerpts

"There is an urgent need for clinicians and medical scientists in the Australia-New Zealand region to engage in an objective discussion around the potential health impacts of the fifth generation (5G) wireless technology currently being deployed. The statements of assurance by the industry and government parties that dominate the media in our region are at odds with the warnings of hundreds of scientists actively engaged in research on biological/health effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation/fields (EMR/EMF). (1) There have been worldwide public protests as well as appeals by professionals and the general public (2) that have compelled many cities in Europe to declare moratoria on 5G deployment and to begin investigations. In contrast, there is no medically-oriented professional discussion on this public health topic in Australia and New Zealand, where 5G deployment is being expedited. 5G is untested for safety on humans and other species and the limited existing evidence raises major concerns that need to be addressed. The vast body of research literature on biological/health effects of 'wireless radiation' (radiofrequency EMR) (3,4) indicates a range of health-related issues associated with different types of wireless technologies (1G-4G, WiFi, Bluetooth, Radar, radio/TV transmission, scanning and surveillance systems). These are used in a wide range of personal devices in common use (mobile/cordless phones, computers, baby monitors, games consoles etc) without users being aware of the health risks. Furthermore, serious safety concerns arise from the extra complexity of 5G as follows:
• 5G carrier waves use a much broader part of the microwave spectrum including waves with wavelengths in the millimetre range (hence called 'millimetre waves') which will be used in the second phase of 5G). Until now, millimetre waves have had limited applications such as radar, point-to-point communications links and non-lethal military weapons. (5)
• Extremely complex modulation patterns involving numerous frequencies form novel exposures.
• Beam formation characteristics can produce hotspots of high unknown intensities.
• A vast number of antenna arrays will add millions of microwave transmitters globally in addition to the existing RF transmitters thereby greatly increasing human exposure. This includes 5G small cell antennas to be erected every 200-250 metres on street fixtures, such as power poles and bus shelters, many of which will be only metres from homes with the homeowners having absolutely no say in where the antennas will be located.

This massive leap in human exposure to RF-EMR from 5G is occurring in a setting where the existing scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates biological interference, (3,4) therefore suggesting the need to urgently reduce exposure...."
"As for the new 5G technology, it is concerning that leading experts in the technical field (6) have reported the possibility of damaging thermal spikes under the current exposure guidelines (from beam forming 5G millimetre waves that transfer data with short bursts of high energy) and some animals and children may be at an increased risk due to smaller body size. Even working within the entirely thermally-based current regulatory process, they pointed out 5G millimetre waves "may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines". (6) Microwave experts from the US Air Force have reported on 'Brillouin Precursors' created by sharp transients at the leading and trailing edges of pulses of mm waves, when beam forming fast millimetre waves create moving charges in the body which penetrate deeper than explained in the conventional models, and have the potential to cause tissue damage. (7) In fact, concerns about moving charges affecting deep tissue are associated with other forms of pulsed RF radiation currently used for wireless communications. This may be one factor explaining why the pulsed radiation used in wireless communication technologies is more biologically active than continuous RF radiation. (8) Such effects of high energy 5G mm waves could have potentially devastating consequences for species with small body size and also creatures that have innate sensitivity to EMF, which include birds and bees that use nature's EMFs for navigation. (9) Unfortunately, non-thermal effects and chronic exposure effects are not addressed in the current guidelines. (10)"
"Our investigation into the scientific literature has found RF-EMR to be a potent inducer of oxidative stress even at so-called "low-intensity" exposures (which are in fact billions of times higher than in nature (26)) such as those from commonly used wireless devices. An analysis (22) of 242 publications (experimental studies) which had investigated endpoints related to oxidative stress - biomarkers of oxidative damage such as 8-oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine (indicating oxidative DNA damage) and/or altered antioxidant levels - revealed that 216 studies (89%) had reported such findings (Fig. 1). This evidence base on RF-associated oxidative stress from 26 countries (only one study from Australia and none from New Zealand) is relatively new and mostly post 2010, i.e. after the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMR as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. Moreover, 180 studies out of the 242 (74.7%) were in vivo studies (including several human studies) which presents strong evidence.
"Proponents of 5G often dismiss concerns about health risks claiming that 5G microwaves will minimally penetrate the skin and therefore any effects are limited to minor skin heating (and they acknowledge that there is some uncertainty around heating effects on the eyes). The medical community understands that skin is the largest organ of the human body and a key part of the neuro-immune and neuro-endocrine systems. Natural UVA and UVB (also so-called non-ionizing radiation) that penetrate the skin less than 5G millimetre waves have profound effects on health and wellbeing of humans. Therefore, artificial 5G waves must be subjected to rigorous safety testing."
"Unfortunately, the questionable conduct of regulatory agencies such as ARPANSA and WHO's international EMF Project (43) with conflicts of interest due to funding links to the wireless industry (44) remains to be investigated. More open questioning and protests are appearing in Europe and North America where there is some level of engagement on the part of government bodies in response to warnings of adverse health effects of anthropogenic EMF/EMR by expert medical bodies such as EUROPAEM and AAEM (31,32) (despite industry opposition)."
--

5G Communication Technology and Coronavirus Disease [Health Matters]
James C. Lin. 5G Communication Technology and Coronavirus Disease [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 21(9):16-19. Sep 2020.

No abstract.
Excerpts
"The fact is that there is no link between the COVID-19 virus and 5G cell phone technology or 5G base-station communication towers. These are totally different constructs; they are not even close. None of the conspiracy theories that try to link 5G and the coronavirus make any sense scientifically."
"For biological matters, it is not obvious whether the biological responses to high-band 5G radiation will be akin to earlier generations or low-band 5G radiations, given the distinctive characteristics of mm-wave [millimeter wave] and its interaction with the complex structure and composition of pertinent biological tissues."
"It is important to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini RF exposure studies presented similar findings in terms of heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. Thus, two relatively well-conducted RF exposure studies employing the same strain of rats showed consistent results in significantly increased cancer risks. More recently, an advisory group for the IARC has recommended including reevaluation of the carcinogenicity of human exposure to RF radiation, with high priority, in their monograph series [7]."
"... the 5G frequency domain is divided into low, mid, and high bands. The operating frequencies at low and mid bands can overlap with the current 4G band at 6 GHz or below. Thus, the biological effects of RF radiation at these lower frequency bands are likely to be comparable to 2, 3, or 4G. However, the scenarios of high-band 5G—especially for 24–60 GHz in the mm-wave region for high-capacity, short-range wireless data communications—are relatively recent arrivals and pose considerable challenge to health risk assessment. There is a paucity of data on permittivity and coupling, such as reflection, transmission, and induced energy deposition, in biological tissues in the mm-wave frequency band."
"Induced energy deposition increases with mm-wave frequency. However, at the highest frequencies, the energy deposition in the deeper regions inside the skin is lower because of the reduced penetration depth at these frequencies [11]."
"A recently published review [13] included 45 in vivo studies conducted using laboratory animals and other biological preparations and 53 in vitro studies involving primary cells and cultured cell lines.... This industry-supported review noted that, aside from the wide frequency ranges, the studies were diverse both in subjects and in the end points investigated. Biological effects were observed to occur both in vivo and in vitro for different biological endpoints studied. Indeed, the percentage of positive responses at nonthermal levels in most frequency groups was as high as 70%."
"While many of these investigations with mm-wave exposures reported biological responses, there is inconsistency in the dependence of biological effects and mm-wave intensity used for exposure. Also, the reported in vitro and in vivo laboratory investigations are modest in number and diverse in subject matter, considering the wide 5G/mmwave frequency domain. The jury on the biological effect or health impact is still out on 5G. Moreover, there is a lack of ongoing controlled laboratory investigations. Simply put, the existing scientific data are too limited for any reliable assessment or conclusion with certainty."
https://ieeexplore-ieee-org/document/9154657

--

Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs
Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020 Jul;41(5):392-397. doi: 10.1002/bem.22267.
Abstract

Current limits for exposures to nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are set, based on relatively short-term exposures. Long-term exposures to weak EMF are not addressed in the current guidelines. Nevertheless, a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long-term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health. If they do, the public health issues could be important because of the very large fraction of the population worldwide that is exposed. We also discuss research that needs to be done to clarify questions about the effects of weak fields. In addition to the current short-term exposure guidelines, we propose an approach to how weak field exposure guidelines for long-term exposures might be set, in which the responsibility for limiting exposure is divided between the manufacturer, system operator, and individual being exposed.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32311139/
Excerpts
"Both IEEE and ICNIRP base their analyses on rigorous reviews of the scientific literature and on established firm evidence of health effects in humans. The present guidelines are based on acute exposures; to date both IEEE and ICNIRP have not found sufficient evidence to include health effects of long-term exposures at lower levels. However, over the last 20 years the evidence has become extremely strong that weaker EMF over the whole range for frequencies from static through millimeter waves can modify biological processes. There is now solid experimental evidence and supporting theory showing that weak fields, especially but not exclusively at low frequencies, can modify reactive free radical concentrations and that changes in radical concentration and that of other signaling molecules, such as hydrogen peroxide and calcium, can modify biological processes …"
"The evidence that weak radiofrequency (RF) and low-frequency fields can modify human health is still less strong, but the experiments supporting both conclusions are too numerous to be uniformly written off as a group due to poor technique, poor dosimetry, or lack of blinding in some cases, or other good laboratory practices. Based on recent studies by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) [SmithRoe et al., 2020] and the Ramazzini Foundation [Falcioni et al., 2018] as well as laboratory data, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has declared RF fields as possible human carcinogens [IARC, 2013]. A recent paper extends the NTP studies by evaluating genotoxicity in animals exposed to fields at or over the guideline limits and found DNA damage in Comet assays [SmithRoe et al., 2020]. Many other papers indicate similar results, but many negative results are also in the literature."

"PROPOSED APPROACH TO SETTING EXPOSURE LIMITS

From these and other lines of solid research, the guidelines for exposure could be revised. Increased emphasis on long-term exposures may require refining the concept of dose to more flexibly combine exposure time and field intensity or energy absorbed. Eventual guidelines might suggest limiting cell phone calls to X hours per day with exposure levels above Y W/m2, and for Z days per week exposure should be less than Y W/m2 to allow the body to reset its baseline."

"What is missing in the current guidelines or regulations are guidelines for long-term exposure to weak EMF…."

"Guidelines should be set at three levels: the individual user, local company, and national or international level…. External guidance, in terms of informed recommendations or at least analysis of various intensities and styles of usage from some agency such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or NIH, would be useful.

Limits on the time for operations of base stations and exposures in adjacent living spaces are not controlled by the user and must be set by competent authorities, based on scientific evidence. It is likely to be difficult to specify times when exposures to RF signals are zero or below some limit. What will be needed is being able to say with some certainty that exposure below a given level has not been shown to cause changes in body chemistry above some level. A starting point might be current levels from TV and radio stations that are large enough to give signal-to-noise ratios around 20 dB (100-fold) with typical receiving systems. Currently, mean values for the population's exposure to these systems are estimated to be around 0.1 V/m and peak exposures range up to 2 V/m, which exceed current exposure limits for a small fraction of the population. Therefore, one starting point for exposure limits might be an average of 0.1 V/m, not based on research but on practicality, until further research results dictate either a lower or higher limit."

--
Effects of 5G Wireless Communication on Human Health
Karaboytcheva M. Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). Briefing document: PE 646.172. March 2020.
Summary
The fifth generation of telecommunications technologies, 5G, is fundamental to achieving a European gigabit society by 2025.
The aim to cover all urban areas, railways and major roads with uninterrupted fifth generation wireless communication can only be achieved by creating a very dense network of antennas and transmitters. In other words, the number of higher frequency base stations and other devices will increase significantly.
This raises the question as to whether there is a negative impact on human health and environment from higher frequencies and billions of additional connections, which, according to research, will mean constant exposure for the whole population, including children.
Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce. Accordingly, a section of the scientific community considers that more research on the potential negative biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and 5G is needed, notably on the incidence of some serious human diseases. A further consideration is the need to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular medicine and physics or engineering, to conduct further research into the effects of 5G.
The EU's current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.
In this Briefing
  • Difference between 5G and current technology
  • Regulation of electromagnetic fields and 5G exposure
  • European Parliament Research on EMF and 5G effects on human health
  • Stakeholders' views
  • The road ahead for 5G
Open access paper: https://bit.ly/EUParl5G
--
Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions
Kostoff RN, Heroux P, Aschner M, Tsatsakis A. Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters. 323(1):35-40. May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020.



Highlights

• Identifies wide-spectrum of adverse health effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation
• Most laboratory experiments were not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of real-life conditions
• Many experiments do not include the real-life pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal
• Vast majority of experiments do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli with wireless radiation
• 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects as well

Abstract

This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31991167

--
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation
Hardell L, Nyberg R. [Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. Molecular and Clinical Oncology. Published online January 22, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2020.1984.

Abstract

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz‑300 GHz is classified as a 'possible' human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non‑Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non‑governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non‑thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry‑independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.

Excerpt
In conclusion, this article demonstrates that the EU has given mandate to a 13‑member, non‑governmental private group, the ICNIRP, to decide upon the RF radiation guidelines. The ICNIRP, as well as SCENIHR, are well shown not to use the sound evaluation of science on the detrimental effects of RF radiation, which is documented in the research which is discussed above (9,10,21‑24,54,55). These two small organizations are producing reports which seem to deny the existence of scientific published reports on the related risks. It should perhaps be questioned whether it is in the realm of protecting human health and the environment by EU and whether the safety of EU citizens and the environment can be protected by not fully understanding the health‑related risks.
Open access paper: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mco.2020.1984/download
--
Spatial and Time Averaging Restrictions Within the Electromagnetic Exposure Safety Framework in the Frequency Range Above 6 GHz

Neufeld E, Samaras T, Kuster N. Discussion on Spatial and Time Averaging Restrictions Within the Electromagnetic Exposure Safety Framework in the Frequency Range Above 6 GHz for Pulsed and Localized Exposures. Bioelectromagnetics. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1002/bem.22244.

Abstract
Both the current and newly proposed safety guidelines for local human exposure to millimeter-wave frequencies aim at restricting the maximum local temperature increase in the skin to prevent tissue damage. In this study, we show that the application of the current and proposed limits for pulsed fields can lead to a temperature increase of 10°C for short pulses and frequencies between 6 and 30 GHz. We also show that the proposed averaging area of 4 cm2 , that is greatly reduced compared with the current limits, does not prevent high-temperature increases in the case of narrow beams. A realistic Gaussian beam profile with a 1 mm radius can result in a temperature increase about 10 times higher than the 0.4°C increase the same averaged power density would produce for a plane wave. In the case of pulsed narrow beams, the values for the time and spatial-averaged power density allowed by the proposed new guidelines could result in extreme temperature increases.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31885092
Excerpts
.... In this letter, we look at limits, such as those currently proposed or recently approved for the revised ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE standard, and investigate whether such limits are consistent with the stated goals of the exposure safety frameworks of preventing excessive heating in the case of pulsed and/or localized radiation. In cases when they are not consistent, we discuss how consistency can be achieved. In line with the above mentioned safety standards and exposure guidelines, the presented analysis focuses exclusively on the magnitude of the tissue temperature increase as a risk factor and does not consider other aspects, such as the thermoelastic effect related to the rapidity of temperature increase.....
In conclusion, the results presented above demonstrate that, in the case of very short pulses, pulse‐duration‐independent limits imposed on transmitted energy density (fluence) alone cannot preclude the induction of high‐temperature increases in the skin. Pulse‐duration‐dependent limits should be applied also for pulses less than 1 s and possibly less than 30 GHz as well. Even though the amplifiers of the currently developed consumer devices will not allow the full exploitation of the limits of the guidelines, the guidelines should not implicitly rely on this, as they will be used to develop exposure assessment standards with the aim of ensuring safety of any future technology, e.g. IEC/IEEE 63195 [2018]. Accordingly, either assumption must be explicitly stated in the guidelines, or the limits should be adapted to be intrinsically safe. In the absence of limitations applied to the peak‐to‐average power ratio of pulses, it is possible to deliver to the body large amounts of energy within a very short time interval. For millimeter‐wave frequencies, where the absorption is superficial, this results in fast and dramatic temperature rises, as the step response function is proportional to the rapidly rising ... rather than the ... commonly encountered for deeper heating. As far as spatial averaging is concerned, it has been shown that an averaging area smaller than 4 cm2 should be introduced in order to avoid peak PDs in narrow beams [Neufeld and Kuster, 2018] that overheat the tissues. With increasing beam radius, e.g. at larger distances from the antenna(s), the tolerable averaging area increases rapidly, provided that there are no sharp exposure peaks. Duration‐independent limits on the fluence of pulses are not suitable. They should either be replaced by duration‐dependent fluence limits for pulses or by limits on the (temporal) peak exposure. In both cases, the limits should be set after taking narrow‐beam exposures into consideration. These limits will depend on the chosen spatial and temporal averaging schemes and the maximum temperature increase deemed acceptable. Forward‐looking knowledge about the technical needs and priorities of the industry could allow for selecting the balance between thresholds (averaging time and area, peak‐to‐average ratio, PD) to minimally impact the technological potential using the same limit‐setting framework.

--
5G mobile networks rated as "high impact" risk for insurance industry
in new Emerging Risk report from Swiss Re

Swiss Re, one of the world's leading providers of insurance and reinsurance, rated 5G as a "high impact" risk for the insurance industry that may affect property and casualty claims in more than 3 years.
Off the leash – 5G mobile networks
"5G – short for fifth generation – is the latest standard for cellular mobile communications. Providing ultrafast broadband connection with higher capacity and lower latency, 5G is not only heaven for your smartphone. It will enable wireless connectivity in real time for any device of the Internet of things (IoT), whether that be autonomous cars or sensor-steered factory. In doing so, it will allow decentralised seamless interconnectivity between devices. To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence.
Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker. A large-scale breakthrough of autonomous cars and other IoT applications will mean that security features need to be enhanced at the same pace. Without, interruption and subversion of the 5G platform could trigger catastrophic, cumulative damage. With a change to more automation facilitated by new technology like 5G, we might see a further shift from motor to more general and product liability insurance. There are also worries about privacy issues (leading to increased litigation risks), security breaches and espionage. The focus is not only on hacking by third parties, but also potential breaches from built-in hard- or software "backdoors." In addition, the market for 5G infrastructure is currently focussed on a couple of firms, and that raises the spectre of concentration risk. Potential impacts:
· Cyber exposures are significantly increased with 5G, as attacks become faster and higher in volume. This increases the challenge of defence.
· Growing concerns of the health implications of 5G may lead to political friction and delay of implementation, and to liability claims. The introductions of 3G and 4G faced similar challenges.
· Information security and national sovereignty concerns might delay implementation of 5G further, increasing uncertainty for planning authorities, investors, tech companies and insurers.
· Heated international dispute over 5G contractors and potential for espionage or sabotage could affect international cooperation, and impact financial markets negatively.
· As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency."
Source: Swiss Re. SONAR – New emerging risk insights. Zurich, Switzerland: Sustainability, Emerging and Political Risk Management, Swiss Re Institute, Strategy Development & Performance Management. May 2019. page 29.
https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html

--
5G Deployment
Blackman C, Forge S. 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA, and Asia. Study for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg, 2019.
Download the report at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

Excerpts

"It is becoming clear that 5G [fifth generation cellular technology] will cost much more to deploy than previous mobile technologies (perhaps three times as much) as it is more complex and requires a denser coverage of base stations to provide the expected capacity. The European Commission has estimated that it will cost €500 billion to meet its 2025 connectivity targets, which includes 5G coverage in all urban areas.
As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment. However, we are yet to see significant "demand-pull" that could assure sales. These campaign efforts are also aimed at the MNOs [mobile network operators] but they have limited capacity to invest in the new technology and infrastructure as their returns from investment in 3G and 4G are still being recouped.
The notion of a "race" is part of the campaign but it is becoming clear that the technology will take much longer than earlier generations to perfect. China, for instance, sees 5G as at least a ten-year programme to become fully working and completely rolled out nationally. This is because the technologies involved with 5G are much more complex. One aspect, for example, that is not well understood today is the unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation."
"Although lower frequencies, many in the UHF [ultra high frequency] range, are being proposed for the first phase of 5G networks, much higher radio frequencies are also projected in bands traditionally used for radars and microwave links. Whether this will transpire is still open to question. These frequencies are being commercially tested by some (e.g. by AT&T in the USA at 28 GHz [gigahertz]). The new bands are well above the UHF ranges, being either in centimetric (3-30 GHz) or in millimetric bands (30-300 GHz) and popularly branded "mmWave", but present technical challenges that are expensive to solve."
"Although many 5G networks currently being piloted will use the much lower bands, those upper frequencies being proposed for the future may offer propagation ranges only in the order of hundreds or even tens of metres. Higher frequency signals are also subject to more interference from weather – rain, snow, fog – and obstacles - wet foliage or buildings and their walls. This means that, at higher frequencies, indoor use may be problematic if based on through-wall or window penetration. Consequently, re-use of the existing UHF bands and also those just above in the 3-10 GHz range ("mid-range") are emphasised today, to give 5G signals greater range with fewer technical challenges."
"With higher frequencies and shortened ranges, base stations will be more closely packed into a given area to give complete coverage that avoids "not-spots". Ranges of 20-150 metres may be typical, giving smaller coverage areas per "small cell". A cell radius of 20 metres would imply about 800 base stations per square kilometre (or small area wireless access points (SAWAPs), the term used in the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)). That contrasts with 3G and 4G which use large or "macro" cells. Traditionally they offer ranges of 2-15 km or more and so can cover a larger area but with fewer simultaneous users as they have fewer individual channels."
5G Electromagnetic Radiation and Safety
"Significant concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G. Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.
The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory.
While the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world."
USA
"The USA is moving towards some form of rollout of mobile broadband as 5G but not necessarily in a holistic, well-orchestrated operation. It is more a set of ad hoc commercial manoeuvres. Some of these are simply rebranding existing LTE, rather than delivering novel networks. Re-use of the LTE spectrum in the UHF ranges (300 MHz to 3 GHz) is significant. The latter decision is probably warranted by its geography of large rural spaces and high density urban centres situated more on the coasts. Thus, the insistence for 5G on high centimetric bands (25–30 GHz and higher) is probably less justified than for the dense conurbations of Asia and the EU.
A significant challenge concerns the administrative local barriers to small cell rollout. The need for many small cells implies long delays and high costs. Local regulations continue to prevail despite the FCC's mandate on a light-touch regime and minimal permit costs. This has led to a wide divide between local and central government on the principles of having to obtain permission for rollout and the charges for that. Local administrations, especially in the larger municipalities, are at loggerheads with the FCC (Zima, 2018). Several court challenges are being made to the FCC mandate of August 2018 that overrides local objections to a "one-touch" regime."
--
How Harmful is 5G?

Harald Schumann and Elisa Simantke. How harmful is 5G really? Der Tagesspiegel, Jan 15, 2019. (In German. For English translation email me at jmm@berkeley.edu.)
"5G should transfer huge amounts of data quickly. But it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger."
Investigate Europe reports on the current state of the science and exposes the harmful roles that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization's International EMF Project, and the EU Commission's Scientific Committee on New Health Risks (SCENIHR) have played in paving the way for the deployment of 5G without regard to health consequences.
Investigate Europe is a pan-European journalist team that researches topics of European relevance and publishes the results across Europe. The project is supported by several foundations, the Open Society Initiative for Europe, and readers' donations. Among the media partners for the report on 5G include "Newsweek Polska", "Diario de Noticias", "Il Fatto Quotidiano", "De Groene Amsterdamer", "Efimerida ton Syntakton", "Aftenbladet" and the "Falter". In addition to the authors, Crina Boros, Wojciech Ciesla, Ingeborg Eliassen, Juliet Ferguson, Nikolas Leontopoulos, Maria Maggiore, Leila Minano, Paulo Pena and Jef Poortmans contributed to this.

More about the project: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/the-5g-mass-experiment/
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/mobilfunk-wie-gesundheitsschaedlich-ist-5g-wirklich/23852384.html
Literature Reviews
5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz
Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G wireless communication and health effects-A pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13;16(18). pii: E3406. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183406.

Abstract


The introduction of the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication will increase the number of high-frequency-powered base stations and other devices. The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6-100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact. This review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations. Each study was characterized for: study type (in vivo, in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density), results, and certain quality criteria. Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.

Conclusions
Since the ranges up to 30 GHz and over 90 GHz are sparingly represented, this review mainly covers studies done in the frequency range from 30.1 to 65 GHz.In summary, the majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses. From this observation, however, no in-depth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6–100 GHz frequency range. The studies are very different and the total number of studies is surprisingly low. The reactions occur both in vivo and in vitro and affect all biological endpoints studied.There does not seem to be a consistent relationship between intensity (power density), exposure time, or frequency, and the effects of exposure. On the contrary, and strikingly, higher power densities do not cause more frequent responses, since the percentage of responses in most frequency groups is already at 70%. Some authors refer to their study results as having "non-thermal" causes, but few have applied appropriate temperature controls. The question therefore remains whether warming is the main cause of any observed MMW effects?
In order to evaluate and summarize the 6–100 GHz data in this review, we draw the following conclusions:
  • Regarding the health effects of MMW in the 6–100 GHz frequency range at power densities not exceeding the exposure guidelines the studies provide no clear evidence, due to contradictory information from the in vivo and in vitro investigations.
  • Regarding the possibility of "non-thermal" effects, the available studies provide no clear explanation of any mode of action of observed effects.
  • Regarding the quality of the presented studies, too few studies fulfill the minimal quality criteria to allow any further conclusions.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/18/3406
--

EMF safety guidelines are fraudulent: The consequences for microwave frequency exposures and 5G
Pall M. Eight repeatedly documented findings each show that EMF safety guidelines do not predict biological effects and are, therefore fraudulent: The consequences for both microwave frequency exposures and also 5G. Second Edition, May 23, 2019.

Abstract

ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that
average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that "safety guidelines" should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these "safety guidelines."

Open access paper: https://bit.ly/RFguidelinesPall190523

--

5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health & Environmental Implications
Russell CL. 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research. 2018 Aug;165:484-495. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016.
Abstract

The popularity, widespread use and increasing dependency on wireless technologies has spawned a telecommunications industrial revolution with increasing public exposure to broader and higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit data through a variety of devices and infrastructure. On the horizon, a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to power the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT promises us convenient and easy lifestyles with a massive 5G interconnected telecommunications network, however, the expansion of broadband with shorter wavelength radiofrequency radiation highlights the concern that health and safety issues remain unknown. Controversy continues with regards to harm from current 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies. 5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects.
It is argued that the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives.
Radiofrequency radiation (RF) is increasingly being recognized as a new form of environmental pollution. Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated.
This article will review relevant electromagnetic frequencies, exposure standards and current scientific literature on the health implications of 2G, 3G, 4G exposure, including some of the available literature on 5G frequencies. The question of what constitutes a public health issue will be raised, as well as the need for a precautionary approach in advancing new wireless technologies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646

Conclusion
Although 5G technology may have many unimagined uses and benefits, it is also increasingly clear that significant negative consequences to human health and ecosystems could occur if it is widely adopted. Current radiofrequency radiation wavelengths we are exposed to appear to act as a toxin to biological systems. A moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted, along with development of independent health and environmental advisory boards that include independent scientists who research biological effects and exposure levels of radiofrequency radiation. Sound regulatory policy regarding current and future telecommunications initiative will require more careful assessment of risks to human health, environmental health, public safety, privacy, security and social consequences. Public health regulations need to be updated to match appropriate independent science with the adoption of biologically based exposure standards prior to further deployment of 4G or 5G technology.
Considering the current science, lack of relevant exposure standards based on known biological effects and data gaps in research, we need to reduce our exposure to RF EMR where ever technically feasible. Laws or policies which restrict the full integrity of science and the scientific community with regards to health and environmental effects of wireless technologies or other toxic exposures should be changed to enable unbiased, objective and precautionary science to drive necessary public policies and regulation. Climate change, fracking, toxic emissions and microwave radiation from wireless devices all have something in common with smoking. There is much denial and confusion about health and environmental risks, along with industry insistence for absolute proof before regulatory action occurs (Frentzel-Beyme, 1994; Michaels 2008). There are many lessons we have not learned with the introduction of novel substances, which later became precarious environmental pollutants by not heeding warning signs from scientists (Gee, 2009). The threats of these common pollutants continue to weigh heavily on the health and well being of our nation. We now accept them as the price of progress. If we do not take precautions but wait for unquestioned proof of harm will it be too late at that point for some or all of us?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161

--

Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are there Health Implications?
Di Ciaula A. Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Apr;221(3):367-375. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011.
Highlights
• RF-EMF exposure is rising and health effects of are still under investigation. • Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested. • 5G networks could have health effects and will use MMW, still scarcely explored. • Adequate knowledge of RF-EMF biological effects is also needed in clinical practice. • Underrating the problem could lead to a further rise in noncommunicable diseases.
Abstract

The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as "possible carcinogenic to humans", and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance.


In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW).

Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics.

Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696


--
Effects of Millimeter Waves Radiation on Cell Membrane - A Brief Review
Ramundo-Orlando A. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane - A brief review. J Infrared Milli Terahz Waves. 2010; 30 (12): 1400-1411.
Abstract
The millimeter waves (MMW) region of the electromagnetic spectrum, extending from 30 to 300 GHz in terms of frequency (corresponding to wavelengths from 10 mm to 1 mm), is officially used in non-invasive complementary medicine in many Eastern European countries against a variety of diseases such gastro duodenal ulcers, cardiovascular disorders, traumatism and tumor. On the other hand, besides technological applications in traffic and military systems, in the near future MMW will also find applications in high resolution and high-speed wireless communication technology. This has led to restoring interest in research on MMW induced biological effects. In this review emphasis has been given to the MMW-induced effects on cell membranes that are considered the major target for the interaction between MMW and biological systems.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10762-010-9731-z
Excerpts
"Several studies on the effects induced by millimeter radiation on biological systems have been reported in the literature. Diverse effects have been observed on cell free systems, cultured cells, isolated organs of animals and humans. The subject has been extensively reviewed by Motzkin [17] and more recently by Pakhomov [3]. At the cellular level these effects are mainly on the membrane process and ion channels, molecular complexes, excitable and other structures. Many of these effects are quite unexpected from a radiation penetrating less than 1 mm into biological tissues [3, 18, 19]. However none of the findings described in the above reviews has been replicated in an independent laboratory, thus they cannot be considered as established biological effects."
"…a large number of cellular studies have indicated that MMW may alter structural and functional properties of membranes (Table 2)."
Conclusion
"In this review emphasis has been given to the low-level MMW effects on cell membranes. Above all, it should be mentioned that the reported effects are of a non-thermal character, that is, the action of radiation does not produce essential heating of the biological system or destroy its structure. In this context it appears that no permanent structural change of lipid bilayer could arise under low level (less than 10 mW/cm2) millimeter waves irradiation.
On the other hand, MMW radiation may affect intracellular calcium activities, and, as a consequence, several cellular and molecular processes controlled by Ca2+ dynamics themselves. The effects of MMW radiation on ion transport may be the consequence of a direct effect on membrane proteins as well as on phospholipid domain organization. Water molecules seem to play an important role in these biological effects of MMW radiation. Unfortunately, detailed cellular and molecular mechanisms mediating physiological responses to MMW exposure remain largely unknown.
Usually the search at a molecular level is simpler if we can reduce the complexity of our biological samples. This is the case for cell membranes by using model systems. They can be formed by a simple lipid bilayer without interfering components and they give independence from biological activity that can create complication in searching for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. The emphasis is on the search for molecular mechanisms of the membrane effect induced by MMW with different frequencies and power density. Furthermore, replication studies are needed including good temperature control and appropriate internal control samples. It is also advantageous if the future studies are multidisciplinary, invoking an integration of high quality exposure and effects methodologies.
Clearly a significant amount of accurate experimental work is still required in order to fully understand the interactions between MMW radiation and cell membrane."

Research Papers (updated 1/10/2021)
Sven Kuehn, Serge Pfeifer, Beyhan Kochali, Niels Kuster. Modelling of Total Exposure in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios. Final Report of Project CRR-816. A report on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). IT'IS Foundation, Zurich. 24 June 2019.
Executive Summary

In January 2019, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) mandated the IT'IS Foundation to evaluate the total human exposure in hypothetical 5G mobile networks for varied topologies and user scenarios to identify factors that would minimize the total exposure of the population. In this study, total exposure is defined as the combined exposure from network base stations, the user's own device, as well as bystanders' mobile devices.

The influence of various factors on total exposure in mobile communication networks (as defined above) was modeled and analyzed with the help of the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Total exposure is described as the local peak specific absorption rate (SAR) spatially averaged over any 10 g of tissue mass (psaSAR10g) averaged over a period of 6 minutes. The unit psaSAR10g was chosen because it defines the governing basic restriction for wireless exposure as the whole-body average SAR limits (wbaSAR) are intrinsically met if the limits of local exposure are satisfied. The averaging duration of 6 minutes constitutes the internationally accepted averaging time to prevent thermal hazards at frequencies below 6 GHz as instant values have little justification. However, it should be noted that some regulators define shorter averaging time periods, e.g., the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of 100 s.

In a first step, we analyzed the tissue-specific exposure as a function of frequency. The preliminary dosimetric study showed that exposure of the human brain to the 3.6 GHz band, that has been recently added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, is reduced by a factor of >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile network operation at <1 GHz. This reduction is due to the smaller penetration depth at higher frequencies. This conclusion, however, does not apply to exposed tissues close to the surface or skin (eyes, testicles, etc.) when the peak SAR in this tissue is evaluated. The peak SAR in the grey matter remains in approximately the same order of magnitude ( 3 dB) over all frequencies but the area of high exposure is reduced at 3.6 GHz.

In a second step, we used data measured in 4G systems and analyzed the latest mobile network standards to extrapolate the exposures for various 5G network scenarios. These measured data were also used to extrapolate the exposure to the future development of data usage in 5G networks.

Specifically, we analyzed the effect on the total exposure of (i) the network topology by varying the cell size and amount of indoor coverage in the network, as well as the usage of (ii) an individual's own device, and (iii) devices of close bystanders.

The results – based on simulations of more than 200 different exposure scenarios – reveal that, for all user types, except for non-users (including passive mobile phone users and users dominantly using downlink data traffic, e.g., video streaming), total exposure is dominated by the person's own mobile device. Compared to non-users, the exposure is increased (i) for light users (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or a factor of 4 to 10), (ii) for moderate users (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or a factor of 20 to >300), and (iii) for heavy users by 15 – 40 dB (or a factor of 30 to >10000). Further, the results show that peak exposure of non-users is not defined by exposure to base stations but by exposure to mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.

While a reduction of the mobile cell size leads to a reduction in total exposure by a factor of 2 to10 for people actively using their mobile devices, this might also lead to a small increase by a factor of 1.6 in total exposure of non-users due the generally increased incident signal levels from the surrounding base stations.

Similarly, the exposure of active users can be reduced by a factor of 4 to 600 by increasing the indoor network coverage. Yet, in line with the results for the mobile cell sizes, increased indoor coverage will also lead to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. This increase, however, starts at a level 1000 times lower than the typical total exposure of active users.

The results of this study show that the personal mobile device is the dominant exposure source for active mobile network users. Besides a person's own usage behavior, total exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network with a lower path loss, i.e., smaller cells and additional indoor coverage, helps to reduce total exposure. The exposure per transmitted bit is reduced by a factor of <3 by the increased spectral efficiency of the 5G technology, and the reduced penetration depth associated with the new bands at 3.5 – 3.8 GHz.

The results presented above are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated in this report. Furthermore, it only considers time-averaged (6 min) and not instant exposures. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links, for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), and (iii) millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.
Conclusions
The results of this study show that the absorption of energy by the human brain, resulting from exposure to the 3.6 GHz band newly added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, isreduced by a factor >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile networks operating at <1 GHz, and by a factor of >2 when compared to the frequency bands at 1.8 – 2GHz. For deep brain regions, the reduction is much larger.
The reduced exposure for these regions is due to lower penetration depths at higher frequencies. Close to the surface (eyes, testicles, etc.) the exposure can be higher. At the most exposed surface of the grey matter, the values remain approximately 3 dB over all frequencies whereas the area of high exposure is reduced.
More than 200 Monte Carlo simulated exposure scenarios have been analyzed to evaluate total human exposure in 5G Networks for different topologies and user scenarios. The results show that for all users (except non-users), the total exposure is dominated by a person's own mobile device. Compared to a non-user, the exposure is increased for a light user (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or by a factor 4 to 10), for a moderate user (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or by a factor of 20 to >300), and for a heavy user by 25 – 40 dB (or a factor of 300 to >10000). The peak exposure of non-users is further not defined by exposure to surrounding base stations but by mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas,resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.

Reducing the diameter of the mobile cell leads to a decreased overall exposure by a factor of 2 to 10 for people who actively use their mobile devices. At the same time, the reduction in cell size might lead to a small increase by a factor <2 in exposure for non-users. The exposure of active users can be reduced by factors ranging from 4 to 600 by increasing indoor network coverage which, in turn, will be linked to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. However, such an increase is by a factor 1000 lower than the typical exposure of active users. The results of this study are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated earlier in this report. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO and multi-user MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links – for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and (iii)millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.

In summary, the results of this study show that the user's own mobile device is the dominant source of exposure for the population of active mobile network users. Besides personal usage patterns, totl exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network that decreases the path loss by means of smaller cells and additional indoor coverage will help to reduce the total exposure of the population.

https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/en/dokumente/elektrosmog/externe-studien-berichte/modelling-of-total-exposure-in-hypothetical-5g-mobile-networks-for-varied-topologies-and-user-scenarios.pdf.download.pdf/Modelling%20of%20Total%20Exposure%20in%20Hypothetical%205G%20Networks%20-%20Schlussbericht.pdf
--
El-Hajj AM, Naous T. Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy. 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF), Bangalore, India IEEE, 2020: 448-453, ISBN 9781728173009. (Austin, TX simulation)

Abstract

In a world where many overlapping 2G, 3G, and 4G electromagnetic radiation sources already exist, concerns regarding the potential increase in these radiation levels following the roll-out of 5G networks are growing. The deployment of 5G is expected to increase power density levels drastically, given the limitations of mmWave communications that impose a notably higher number of base stations to cover a given area of interest. In this paper, we propose a gradual deployment strategy of a 5G network for a small area in downtown Austin, Texas, using the already existing 4G LTE sites of the area. The radiated power density of the proposed 5G network is then analyzed according to several electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure limits and compared to the radiation levels of the same area where only the LTE network is present. Simulation results for the selected area demonstrate the significant increase in radiation levels resulting from the addition of 5G cell towers.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9221314
For the frequency range of 2 to 300 GHz, the IEEE C95.1-2019 standard [18] specifies a limit power density value of 10 W/m2 in restricted environment and 50 W/m2 in unrestricted environments. These correspond to an averaging time of 30 minutes. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields [19] specify the general public exposure limit at 10 W/m2 for frequencies between 2 and 300 GHz with the averaging time being 30 minutes. Similar limits are specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in [20] where a restriction of 10 W/m2 for the general public has been set. In contrast, the institute for building biology and sustainability (IBN) in Germany have specified the exposure limit to be less than 0.1 W/m2 in their 2015 Standard of Building Biology Measurement Technique (SBM-2015) [21], which is a million-fold lower than what is specified by the aforementioned guidelines. This suggests that negative health effects can occur at levels much lower than 10
W/m2. Finally, the Chinese ministry of health [22] have set the power density exposure limit to 0.1 W/m2.This paper presented an analysis of the radiation levels in a deployed 5G network in an urban outdoor environment. Under the constraints of exposure limits, several challenges face the design and planning of such radiation aware 5G networks. Cell ranges need to be reduced to comply with the maximum allowed radiated power, requiring the densification of small cells in small areas and making it more costly to deploy these radiation-aware 5G networks. Although in this work we considered the maximum allowed EIRP prior to network deployment, results showed power density levels that do not satisfy all the exposure limits set by several sources. In this regard, a positive impact can be imposed by radiationaware 5G networks on several levels. On a governmental level, the exposure limits for the power density need to be revised using today's data and approaches to bridge the gap between the thresholds specified by the different institutes and commissions. On a technological and scientific level, the radiation exposure constraint can open the door for innovative 5G solutions targeted to limit the health risks and economic barriers associated with this problem. This work can be extended by developing an analytical framework to efficiently rank and rate different cell allocation alternatives to minimize the potential radiations given a carefully chosen list of key performance indicators.

--
Absorption of 5G radiation in brain tissue as a function of frequency, power and time
David H. Gultekin, Peter H. Siegel. Absorption of 5G radiation in brain tissue as a function of frequency, power and time. IEEE Access. Published online June 12, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002183.
Abstract
The rapid release of 5G wireless communications networks has spurred renewed concerns regarding the interactions of higher radiofrequency (RF) radiation with living species. We examine RF exposure and absorption in ex vivo bovine brain tissue and a brain simulating gel at three frequencies: 1.9 GHz, 4 GHz and 39 GHz that are relevant to current (4G), and upcoming (5G) spectra. We introduce a highly sensitive thermal method for the assessment of radiation exposure, and derive experimentally, accurate relations between the temperature rise (ΔT), specific absorption rate (SAR) and the incident power density (F), and tabulate the coefficients, ΔT/ΔF and Δ(SAR)/ΔF, as a function of frequency, depth and time. This new method provides both ΔT and SAR applicable to the frequency range below and above 6 GHz as shown at 1.9, 4 and 39 GHz, and demonstrates the most sensitive experimental assessment of brain tissue exposure to millimeter-wave radiation to date, with a detection limit of 1 mW. We examine the beam penetration, absorption and thermal diffusion at representative 4G and 5G frequencies and show that the RF heating increases rapidly with frequency due to decreasing RF source wavelength and increasing power density with the same incident power and exposure time. We also show the temperature effects of continuous wave, rapid pulse sequences and single pulses with varying pulse duration, and we employ electromagnetic modeling to map the field distributions in the tissue. Finally, using this new methodology, we measure the thermal diffusivity of ex vivo bovine brain tissue experimentally.
Summary
In this paper, we present for the first time, a simple, highly accurate test system for measuring the temperature rise and the specific absorption rate in tissue samples and liquid or gel simulants as a function of frequency, RF exposure power and time – pulsed and CW. We use this set up to make, and compare, carefully calibrated measurements of bovine brain tissue and a gel simulant, Triton X and water, at both 4G (1.9 GHz) and newly allocated 5G frequency bands (4 GHz - 39 GHz). We show the effects of beam concentration, focusing, absorption and heat diffusion at all three frequencies and delineate a linear range over which we can derive highly accurate coefficients (ΔT/ΔF and Δ(SAR)/ΔF) that can be used to predict the temperature rise and the specific absorption rate at prescribed depths and exposure times within the tissue or gel at power levels that go down to detectable limits (<1 mW). This method may be used to evaluate a wide range of RF radiation sources, tissues and simulants.
We also note that the impact of relatively modest incident RF power (1 W) and short exposure times (6 minutes CW and 30 second pulsed) at 39 GHz using a single mode waveguide source for the exposure, results in extremely large power density (16.5 kW/m2) and temperature rise (> 60°C for CW, > 35°C for 30 s pulse) in both bovine brain tissue and gel. This same temperature rise can be expected on skin (which has very similar dielectric properties) when such large surface power densities are present in very close proximity to the RF source or antenna, perhaps emanating from millimeter-wave base stations, handsets, or wireless-enabled appliances or kiosks. Although, current safety limits of 28.76 and 143.8 W/m2 for power density in unrestricted (public) and restricted (occupational) environments, respectively should prevent such exposures, the resulting limits on RF power generation of only 1.7 to 8.5 mW from a directional RF source, such as our waveguide at 39 GHz, in the vicinity, will greatly limit the application potential for any such communications system.
In the USA, the FCC and FDA are overseeing the implementation of millimeter wave technology in the public realm and more studies are needed to help guide the science, technology and policy. Our experimental method can provide threshold temperature and SAR values for both occupational and public exposures to millimeter waves with surface power densities from 16.5 W/m2 to 16.5 kW/m2 and exposure times from 1 second to 30 minutes.
Finally, we use our new data and this RF method to derive a thermal diffusivity coefficient for the ex vivo bovine brain tissue that is consistent with our prior measurements using an MRI. This is the first time that the thermal diffusivity of ex vivo bovine brain tissue has been directly measured by this thermal RF method [47, 50, 51, 70].
Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9115853
--

A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation on the Measurement of the Electromagnetic Field Level Radiated by 5G Base Stations

Adda S, Aureli T, D'elia S, Franci D, Grillo E, Migliore MD, Pavoncello S, Schettino F, Suman R. A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation on the Measurement of the Electromagnetic Field Level Radiated by 5G Base Stations. IEEE Access 2020. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998448.
Abstract
This paper presents some theoretical considerations and experimental results regarding the problem of maximum power extrapolation for the assessment of the exposure to electromagnetic fields radiated by 5G base stations. In particular the results of an extensive experimental campaign using an extrapolation procedure recently proposed for 5G signal is discussed and experimentally checked on a SU-MIMO signal. The results confirm the effectiveness of the extrapolation technique. Starting from an analysis (that represents a further novel contribution of this paper) on the impact of Spatial Division Multiple Access techniques used in 5G on the measurement of EMF level, some indications of possible extension of the technique to the highly complex MU-MIMO case are also given.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9103530
--
Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body
Nasim I, Kim S. Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body. 2019 SoutheastCon. Huntsville, AL. 11-14 April 2019. DOI: 10.1109/SoutheastCon42311.2019.9020454
Abstract

The increasing demand for higher data rates and uninterrupted reliable service have made the frequency spectrum above 6 GHz a very promising candidate for future wireless communications because of its massive amount of raw bandwidth and extremely high data transfer capabilities. However, increasing concerns of communications at high frequencies on human health have gained international alarm that suggests more research before it is deployed successfully. In this context, this paper aims to investigate the human electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from fifth-generation (5G) downlink communications and compare its impacts with the present cellular technologies considering the features that the 5G systems will likely adopt. Our simulation results suggest that while the impacts from 5G beamforming communications cross the regulatory borders at downlinks for a very short range between base stations (BSs) and user equipment (UE), the exposure level remains on a high throughout the entire network compared to the present systems. Also, this paper urges for more research on the exposure level from future communications to determine any possible threats below the existing guidelines. This paper also highlights the significance of considering SAR for the measurement of exposure compliance in downlinks.
Excerpt
... this paper urges the regulatory authorities to set SAR guidelines for 5G systems at far-field exposure also for frequencies above 6 GHz. Also, the minimum AP-UE [access point - user equipment] distance should be maintained at least 6 m [meters] for 5G and further space should be left for a conservative operation regarding human safety.
Conclusions
This paper has highlighted the significance of the human EMF exposure issue in the downlink of a cellular communications system. This paper measured the exposure level in terms of PD and SAR and compared them to those calculated in the 3.9G and 4G specifications. Distinguished from the prior art that studied uplinks only, this paper has found that the downlinks of a 5G can also yield a higher level of emissions in terms of SAR compared to concurrent cellular systems. Our results emphasized that this increase stems from more highly concentrated EMF energy per downlink RF beam due to the use of larger phased arrays within small cells of a 5G network. However, only skin effects are being taken into consideration for simplicity. This paper has also suggested the minimum AP-UE distance for human safety in cellular communications at high frequencies such as 28 GHz. To this end, this paper urges to investigate any possible threats at the exposure level shown in this work for future 5G systems before it is finally globalized.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9020454
--
A Survey on Electromagnetic Risk Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism for Future Wireless Communication Systems
Jamshed MA, Heliot F, Brown T. A Survey on Electromagnetic Risk Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism for Future Wireless Communication Systems. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology. May 20, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/JERM.2019.2917766

Abstract

The accurate measurement of electromagnetic exposure and its application is expected to become more and more important in future wireless communication systems, given the explosion in both the number of wireless devices and equipments radiating electromagnetic-fields (EMF) and the growing concerns in the general public linked to it. Indeed, the next generation of wireless systems aims at providing a higher data rate,better quality of service (QoS), and lower latency to users by increasing the number of access points, i.e. densification, which in turn will increase EMF exposure. Similarly, the multiplication of future connected devices,e.g. internet of things (IoT) devices, will also contribute to an increase in EMF exposure. This paper provides a detailed survey relating to the potential health hazards linked with EMF exposure and the different metrics that are currently used for evaluating,limiting and mitigating the effects of this type of exposure on the general public. This paper also reviews the possible impacts of new wireless technologies on EMF exposure and proposes some novel research directions for updating the EMF exposure evaluation framework and addressing these impacts in future wireless communication systems. For instance, the impact of mmWave or massive-MIMO/beamforming on EMF exposure has yet to be fully understood and included in the exposure evaluation framework.

Conclusions

A thorough survey on exposure risk assessment, evaluation, limitation and mitigation for current and future wireless devices and equipments has been provided in this paper. From the human health point of view, it seems that the possibility of brain tumor is still the main cause of concerns related to the extensive use of wireless devices, even though the effects of EMF exposure is now being investigated in new parts of the body (e.g. eyes). Meanwhile, with the advent of 5G, more efforts are now been made to understand the thermal and non-thermal effects of mmWave exposure on the human body. When it comes to the evaluation of EMF exposure, we have presented the most common evaluation frameworks and metrics that are utilized in wireless communications to measure the exposure. We have also explained how new more generic metrics have been defined by combining existing metrics to better reflect the exposure of large geographical areas and have argued that a generic metric for measuring the individual exposure would also be of interest. We have also reviewed the existing exposure guidelines and have explained how they can be updated for better reflecting the true nature of EMF exposure, i.e. by better taking into account the duration of exposure. Finally, we have provided some views on how key 5G enabling technologies such as densification, massive MIMO and mmWave will impact the EMF exposure in the near future; for instance, the dense deployment of small cells and IoT devices is very likely to increase the overall ambient exposure. We also believe that there could be some technical opportunities in 5G to increase the exposure awareness of wireless system users and to let them decide if they want to reduce it at the cost of, for instance, a lower QoS.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8718293
--
Assessment of Maximally Allowable Power-Density Averaging Area for EMF Exposure above 6 GHz
Neufeld E, Carrasco E, Murbach M, Balzano Q, Christ A, Kuster N. Theoretical and numerical assessment of maximally allowable power-density averaging area for conservative electromagnetic exposure assessment above 6 GHz. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Dec;39(8):617-630. doi: 10.1002/bem.22147.
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to determine a maximum averaging area for power density (PD) that limits the maximum temperature increase to a given threshold for frequencies above 6 GHz. This maximum area should be conservative for any transmitter at any distance >2 mm from the primary transmitting antennas or secondary field-generating sources. To derive a generically valid maximum averaging area, an analytical approximation for the peak temperature increase caused by localized exposure was derived. The results for a threshold value of 1 K temperature rise were validated against simulations of a series of sources composed of electrical and magnetic elements (dipoles, slots, patches, and arrays) that represented the spectrum of relevant transmitters. The validation was successful for frequencies in which the power deposition occurred superficially (i.e., >10 GHz). In conclusion, the averaging area for a PD limit of 10 W/m2 that conservatively limits the temperature increase in the skin to less than 1 K at any distance >2 mm from the transmitters is frequency dependent, increases with distance, and ranges from 3 cm2 at <10 GHz to 1.9 cm2 at 100 GHz. In the far-field, the area depends additionally on distance and the antenna array aperture. The correlation was found to be worse at lower frequencies (<10 GHz) and very close to the source, the systematic evaluation of which is part of another study to investigate the effect of different coupling mechanisms in the reactive near-field on the ratio of temperature increase to incident power density. The presented model can be directly applied to any other PD and temperature thresholds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383885
--

The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver - Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not?

Betzalel N, Ben Ishai P, Feldman Y. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver - Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environ Res. 2018 May;163:208-216.
Highlights

• The sweat duct is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band, reflectance depends on perspiration.
• We outline the background for non-thermal effects based on the structure of sweat ducts.
• We have introduced a realistic skin EM model and found the expected SAR for the 5G standard.


Abstract

In the interaction of microwave radiation and human beings, the skin is traditionally considered as just an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water. In previous works, we showed that this view is flawed when we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band.

Experimentally we showed that the reflectance of the human skin in the sub-THz region depends on the intensity of perspiration, i.e. sweat duct's conductivity, and correlates with levels of human stress (physical, mental and emotional). Later on, we detected circular dichroism in the reflectance from the skin, a signature of the axial mode of a helical antenna. The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still unclear. We also revealed correlation of electrocardiography (ECG) parameters to the sub-THz reflection coefficient of human skin. In a recent work, we developed a unique simulation tool of human skin, taking into account the skin multi-layer structure together with the helical segment of the sweat duct embedded in it. The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band.
In this paper, we summarize the physical evidence for this phenomenon and consider its implication for the future exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by wireless communication. Starting from July 2016 the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for wireless broadband operations above 24 GHz (5 G). This trend of exploitation is predicted to expand to higher frequencies in the sub-THz region. One must consider the implications of human immersion in the electromagnetic noise, caused by devices working at the very same frequencies as those, to which the sweat duct (as a helical antenna) is most attuned.
We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303

Excerpt

The need for high data transmission rates, coupled with advances in semiconductor technology, is pushing the communications industry towards the sub-THz frequency spectrum. While the promises of a glorious future, resplendent with semi-infinite data streaming, may be attractive, there is a price to pay for such luxury. We shall find our cities, workspace and homes awash with 5 G base stations and we shall live though an unprecedented EM smog. The benefits to our society of becoming so wired cannot ignore possible health concerns, as yet unexplored. There is enough evidence to suggest that the combination of the helical sweat duct and wavelengths approaching the dimensions of skin layers could lead to non-thermal biological effects. Such fears should be investigated and these concerns should also effect the definition of standards for the application of 5G communications.


--

On Measuring Electromagnetic Fields in 5G Technology
Pawlak R, Krawiec P, Żurek J. On measuring electromagnetic fields in 5G technology. IEEE Access. 7: 29826-29835. March 5, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902481

Abstract

At the awakening of the new 5G network as the network of services, issues related to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) will become one of the key aspects for the cost-effective establishment of the 5G infrastructure. The new 5G services will meet the rigorous demand for bandwidth through the implementation of a large number of densely located base stations operating in the millimeter-wave range. Introduction of new emission sources, working in parallel with already existing 2G/3G/4G mobile technologies, raises concerns about exceeding the admissible EMF exposure limits. This paper analyzes issues and challenges related to EMF measurements in 5G technology, which are crucial for the assessment of EMF compliance with regulatory limits. We point out that the existing methodologies, dedicated to EMF measurements in 2G, 3G, and 4G networks, are not suitable for 5G. The reason is the use of new techniques, such as massive MIMO and precise beamforming together with higher frequency bands so that the existing measurement methods can lead to significantly overestimated results when they will be applied to 5G networks. Such results, in conjunction with the restrictive legislation on the EMF limits that apply in some countries, may have the negative impact on 5G network deployment, making it difficult to achieve the intended 5G network capabilities. We also propose an alternative method of EMF exposure assessment that is based on calculations and simulations and allows obtaining an accurate estimation of the EMF distribution in the 5G environment.

Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8660395


--

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Assessment for Future 5G Networks
Persia S, Carciofi C, Barbiroli M, Volta C, Bontempelli D, Anania G. Radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure assessment for future 5G networks. IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2018. IEEE, 2018. doi:10.1109/PIMRC.2018.8580919

Abstract

The fifth generation of mobile network (5G) will relay not only on the expansion of existing fourth (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, but thanks to the introduction of new radio access in the millimetre wave bands will allow to meet new requirements in terms of connectivity and capacity. Specifically, 5G network will be characterized by the use of new spectrum at higher frequencies with a very large number of antenna elements deployment. As a consequence, the RF EMF (Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field) compliance assessments with the regulatory requirements for human exposure for the installation permission needs to be revised accordingly. In this work, a Country case (Italy), where a more restrictive regulatory framework than the ICNIRP Guidelines is applied, has been analysed to investigate the impact of the restrictive approach on the future 5G mobile networks roll-out.

Conclusions

The EMF evaluations of existing cellular networks has been analysed in this work in order to highlight how restrictive regulatory framework than International Guidelines can affect 5G and future network deployment. Italy case study is considered as an example, due to its restrictive regulation to verify if it can permit an efficient 5G roll-out. This consideration has been confirmed by evaluations of the trend of saturated sites from 2010 to 2017 in Italy. Simulations demonstrate that in Italy the strong development expected for the evolution of 4G networks and, in the perspective of 5G systems, can be threatened with the stringent constraints imposed by the current regulatory framework for exposure to electromagnetic fields.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8580919


--

Derivation of Safety Limits for 5G RF Exposure Based on Analytical Models & Thermal Dose
Neufeld E, Kuster N. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Phys. 2018 Sep 21. 705-711. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000930.

Abstract

Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds. Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. In this paper, a novel analytical approach to pulsed heating is developed and applied to assess the peak-to-average temperature ratio as a function of the pulse fraction α (relative to the averaging time T; it corresponds to the inverse of the peak-to-average ratio). This has been analyzed for two different perfusion-related thermal time constants (τ1 = 100 s and 500 s) corresponding to plane-wave and localized exposures. To allow for peak temperatures that considerably exceed the 1 K increase, the CEM43 tissue damage model, with an experimental-data-based damage threshold for human skin of 600 min, is used to allow large temperature oscillations that remain below the level at which tissue damage occurs. To stay consistent with the current safety guidelines, safety factors of 10 for occupational exposure and 50 for the general public were applied. The model assumptions and limitations (e.g., employed thermal and tissue damage models, homogeneous skin, consideration of localized exposure by a modified time constant) are discussed in detail.

The results demonstrate that the maximum averaging time, based on the assumption of a thermal time constant of 100 s, is 240 s if the maximum local temperature increase for continuous-wave exposure is limited to 1 K and α ≥ 0.1. For a very low peak-to-average ratio of 100 (α ≥ 0.01), it decreases to only 30 s. The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338


--

Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink
Nasim I, Kim S. Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Submitted on 10 Nov 2017 to IEEE International Communications Conference. arXiv:1711.03683v1.

Abstract
While cellular communications in millimeter wave (mmW) bands have been attracting significant research interest, their potential harmful impacts on human health are not as significantly studied. Prior research on human exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields in a cellular communications system has been focused on uplink only due to the closer physical contact of a transmitter to a human body. However, this paper claims the necessity of thorough investigation on human exposure to downlink RF fields, as cellular systems deployed in mmW bands will entail (i) deployment of more transmitters due to smaller cell size and (ii) higher concentration of RF energy using a highly directional antenna. In this paper, we present human RF exposure levels in downlink of a Fifth Generation Wireless Systems (5G). Our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03683


--

Implications of EMF exposure limits on output power levels for 5G devices above 6 GHz

Colombi D, Thors B, Törnevik C. Implications of EMF exposure limits on output power levels for 5G devices above 6 GHz. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters. 14:1247-1249. 04 February 2015. DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2400331.
Abstract
Spectrum is a scarce resource, and the interest for utilizing frequency bands above 6 GHz for future radio communication systems is increasing. The possible use of higher frequency bands implies new challenges in terms of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure assessments since the fundamental exposure metric (basic restriction) is changing from specific absorption rate (SAR) to power density. In this study, the implication of this change is investigated in terms of the maximum possible radiated power (P max ) from a device used in close proximity to the human body. The results show that the existing exposure limits will lead to a non-physical discontinuity of several dB in P max as the transition is made from SAR to power density based basic restrictions. As a consequence, to be compliant with applicable exposure limits at frequencies above 6 GHz, P max might have to be several dB below the power levels used for current cellular technologies. Since the available power in uplink has a direct impact on the system capacity and coverage, such an inconsistency, if not resolved, might have a large effect on the development of the next generation cellular networks (5G).
Conclusion
Above 6 GHz for FCC and 10 GHz for ICNIRP, EMF exposure limits are defined in terms of free-space power density rather than SAR. It was shown that at the transition frequency where the exposure metric changes, the maximum radiated power to meet compliance with ICNIRP and FCC EMF limits, for a device used in close proximity of the body, presents a strong discontinuity (in the order of 6 dB for the investigated case). This discrepancy has no scientific basis and is due to inconsistencies in the exposure limits. As a consequence, the estimated maximum output power in uplink for devices operating at frequencies above 6-10 GHz is about 18 dBm and 15 dBm for ICNIRP and FCC, respectively. These figures were obtained by numerical simulations of a canonical dipole at frequencies up to 70 GHz. It was shown that for more directive antennas, the maximum available power can be substantially lower. For the IEEE limits, the incongruity at the transition frequency is less evident. This is because the IEEE PD limits make use of a larger averaging area than the ICNIRP and FCC limits. The IEEE limits, however, have not yet been adopted in any national regulations.
With a growing interest for utilizing frequency bands above 6 GHz for mobile communications, it is important that the inconsistencies at the transition frequency from SAR to PD based basic restrictions are timely solved. If not, the observed discrepancy might have a large impact on the development of future mobile communication networks. We therefore encourage the relevant standardization organizations and regulatory authorities responsible for defining EMF exposure limits to address this issue.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7031364

Expert Opinions

May 20, 2019

5G: The Unreported Global Threat

Devra Davis, PhD, Medium, May 18, 2019

https://medium.com/@devradavis/5g-the-unreported-global-threat-717c98c9c37d

--
Aug 18, 2017 (Updated Sep 27, 2017)
Scientists and Physicians Oppose
"Small Cell" Antenna Bill (Calif. SB 649)

I have been hearing from scientists around the world who are deeply concerned about the deployment of fifth generation (5G) wireless technology without adequate research on the health effects of exposure to this type of radio frequency radiation.

Following is a sample of letters sent to California Governor Brown asking him to veto SB 659, a "small cell" antenna bill written by the cellular industry that paves the way for deployment of 5G wireless technology across the state.

Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine in the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Golomb's letter begins with the following warning:
"I urge in the strongest terms that you vigorously oppose California SB 649.
If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result.
This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.
My research group at UC San Diego alone has received hundreds of communications from people who have developed serious health problems from electromagnetic radiation, following introduction of new technologies. Others with whom I am in communication, have independently received hundreds of similar reports. Most likely these are a tip of an iceberg of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of affected person. As each new technology leading to further exposure to electromagnetic radiation is introduced – and particularly introduced in a fashion that prevents vulnerable individuals from avoiding it – a new group become sensitized to health effects. This is particularly true for pulsed signals in the radiowave and microwave portion of the spectrum, the type for which the proposed bill SB 640 will bypass local control."
In the letter, Dr. Golomb summarizes the research on the effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation and advocates for "safer, wired and well shielded technology – not more wireless."
Appended to the letter are 360 references to the scientific literature.
The letter can be downloaded at: https://bit.ly/SB649Golomb822.

Professor Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, explains in his letter to the Governor his peer-reviewed research which has documented ...
"exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the voltage sensors in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology in the cells of our bodies."
"This new understanding [1-7] means we can debunk the claims of the wireless industry that there cannot be a mechanism for effects produced by these weak EMFs. The 20 years plus of industry propaganda claims are false. Rather the thousands of studies showing diverse health impacts of these EMFs can be explained. We now have a mechanism, one that is supported by both the biology and the physics, both of which are pointing in exactly the same direction."
"5G will be much more active in activating the VGCCs and producinghealth impacts because of its rapid absorption by materials in the body, because of its very rapid pulsations and because of the huge number antennae they are planning to put up, at least 200 times the number of antennae from all current cell phone towers. What this means is that the impacts on the outer one to two inches of our bodies will be massive."

His letter discusses the potential health impacts on humans and on agriculture with exposure to 5G radiation.

The letter can be downloaded at: https://bit.ly/SB649Pall


Dr. Michael Lipsett, MD, JD, a retired public health physician with extensive experience in environmental health, mentions in his letter the recent demand for a 5G moratorium by more than 180 scientists and physicians and the study of cell phone radiation conducted by the National Toxicology Program.

He points out that while individuals can take precautions to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless devices, this is not feasible with exposure from cell antennas. He notes that ...
"laboratory and human health investigations designed and conducted by independent researchers have reported associations linking exposure to radiation from cell phones or similar devices with multiple adverse effects (e.g., headaches, impacts on brain function, memory, learning and sleep; decreased sperm counts and quality) as well as with DNA damage and tumors of the brain and nervous system."
"Potential health impacts of wireless communication have been ignored or obscured for decades by the telecommunications industry, which has implied that cell phones and other devices are safe because they comply with federal safety standards. However, these standards were established more than 20 years ago and were based on assumptions that have since been called into question by health research studies. The push to establish a 5G network, exemplified by SB 649, is based on a similarly unproven assumption: i.e., that round-the-clock exposure to 5G frequencies will not affect human health or the environment.
Establishment of a 5G network will be irreversible, as will the pattern of near-universal exposure of California residents to high-frequency, as-yet-untested 5G electromagnetic radiation."
The letter can be downloaded at: https://bit.ly/LipsettSB649.

--
June 23, 2017


EMF Scientist Appeal Advisors Call for Moratorium on Policies
for 5G "Small Cell" Antennas

The advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in opposition to a proposed change in FCC rules that would allow rapid deployment of 5th generation (5G) wireless infrastructure throughout the nation. A copy of the Appeal was appended to the letter.
5G involves transmission of millimeter waves which operate at much higher frequencies than currently used for cellular transmission (30 to 300 gigahertz). Because the range of these signals is limited (i.e., less than a football field), hundreds of thousands of new "small cell" antennas will be required in the U.S. The wireless industry wants to install these not-so-small cellular antennas on existing public utility poles.
The FCC intends to streamline the approval of these antennas which would further undermine the regulatory authority of cities and states over cell towers.
Meanwhile the wireless industry is lobbying for legislationin many states across the country that would limit local authority over cell antenna deployment.
Due to the concern that the FCC's new rules will result in increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), the Appeal's advisors oppose the new rules and call for a "public health review of the growing body of scientific evidence that includes reports of increasing rates of cancer and neurological diseases that may be caused by exposure to EMF from wireless sources."
The Appeal reflects the concerns of 225 EMF expertsfrom 41 nations about the impact of EMF exposure on public health. All of the experts who signed this appeal have published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals about the biologic or health effects of EMF.
According to the Appeal's signatories, current national and international EMF exposure guidelines are obsolete and inadequate to protect human health and the environment. The FCC's radio frequency guidelines were adopted in 1996.
The letter (dated June 9, 2017) is signed by the five advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal: Drs. Martin Blank, Magda Havas, Henry Lai, and Joel Moskowitz, and Elizabeth Kelley.
For more information:
FCC filing detail (June 9, 2017)
FCC letter submitted by Advisors to International EMF Scientist Appeal
FCC submission: International EMF Scientist Appeal

International EMF Scientist Appeal Official Website
International EMF Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology
--
May 8, 2017

A 5G Wireless Future: Will it give us a smart nation or contribute to an unhealthy one?
Dr. Cindy Russell, The (SCCMA) Bulletin, Jan/Feb 2017
Safety testing for 5G is the same as other wireless devices. It is based on heat. This is an obsolete standard and not considering current science showing cellular and organism harm from non-thermal effects. There is a large gap in safety data for 5G biological effects that has been demonstrated in older studies including military.
Recommendations
1. Do not proceed to roll out 5G technologies pending pre-market studies on health effects.
2. Reevaluate safety standards based on long term as well as short term studies on biological effects.
3. Rescind a portion of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which preempts state and local government regulation for the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects so that health and environmental issues can be addressed.
4. Rescind portions of The Spectrum Act which was passed in 2012 as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which strips the ability city officials and local governments to regulate cellular communications equipment, provides no public notification or opportunity for public input and may potentially result in environmental impacts.
5. Create an independent multidisciplinary scientific agency tasked with developing appropriate safety regulations, pre-market testing and research needs in a transparent environment with public input.
6. Label pertinent EMF information on devices along with appropriate precautionary warnings.
Dr. Russell provides a brief review of the research on millimeter wave bioeffects in this article: https://bit.ly/5GRussell.

--

Aug 17, 2016 (Updated Aug 19)

5G cellular technology will employ much higher frequency microwaves than current cell phone technologies: 2G, 3G, and 4G. These microwaves, known as millimeter waves, won't penetrate building materials like the current technology which is why industry may need one cell antenna base station for every 12 homes.
But millimeter waves can affect your eyes and penetrate your skin.

When the Los Angeles Times reporter contacted me for the story below, I did a quick search and found several recently published articles examining biological effects of millimeter waves (see references below). This form of microwave radiation is most likely to affect our skin and neuronal cells in the upper dermis.

Moreover, widespread adoption of 5G cellular technology in the U.S. may have profound effects on our ecosystem by altering bacteria, possibly creating harmful bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

History has proved that we cannot trust the FCC and the FDAto protect our health from microwave radiation exposure.


I submitted an open letter to the FCC in July calling for "an independent review of the biologic and health research to determine whether the RF standards should be modified before allowing additional spectrum to be used for new commercial applications."

Moreover, the FCC has ignored the 800-plus submissionsthat call upon the agency to adopt rigorous radio frequency standards to protect the public's health. Instead the agency maintains its 20-year old exposure guidelinesthat control only for heating or thermal risks. The FDA has ignored the thousands of studies that find nonthermal biologic effects, and the human studies that find a wide range of health effects including increased cancer risk and reproductive harm from exposure to low intensity microwaves.
In my opinion, precaution is warranted before unleashing 5G technology on the world. I suspect most of the 221 scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal (referenced in the article below), would support this assertion.

However, more research is also needed as specific characteristics of the millimeter waves (e.g., pulsing, modulation) to be employed in 5G cellular technology may be more important than the frequency or intensity of the waves in terms of biologic and health effects. The research funding must be independent of industry as conflicts of interest have been found to undermine the science in this field.
For an unbiased summary of the partial findings of the National Toxicology Program study of cancer risk from 2G cell phone radiation, see https://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html.
--
Low-intensity millimeter waves used for pain therapy have side effects
The Russians have pioneered millimeter wave therapy (MWT) using low intensity millimeter waves to reduce pain including headaches, joint pain, and postoperative pain.

Although the following review paper documents some positive effects from short-term exposure to MWT, the authors note that there are side effects including fatigue, sleepiness, and paresthesia (an abnormal sensation, tingling or pricking ["pins and needles"] caused by pressure on or damage to peripheral nerves).
"We conclude that there is promising data from pilot case series and small-scale randomized controlled trials for analgesic/hypoalgesic effects of electromagnetic millimeter waves in frequency range 30–70 GHz. Large-scale randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of this non-invasive therapeutic technique are necessary."
"In the studies reviewed the authors did not report any health-related side effects of MWT. Slight paresthesias, previously mentioned in several case reports and non-controlled case series (10,11), appeared in almost 50% of patients in studies where the effects of MWT were carefully described (21,27,28,31). The paresthesias were of short duration and reported as pleasant ('warmth') or neutral. General fatigue and sleepiness during the treatment sessions in almost 80% of the patients was a rather desirable side effect of MWT, as also described in previous reviews on biomedical effects of MWT (10,11,21,27,28)."
From: Usichenko TI, Edinger H, Gizhko VV, Lehmann C, Wendt M, Feyerherd F. Low-intensity electromagnetic millimeter waves for pain therapy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Jun;3(2):201-7. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475937/
Little research is available on long-term exposure to millimeter waves (see below). Most of the studies referred to in this review paper did not modulate or pulse the carrier waves which will be required for information-carrying millimeter waves employed in 5G technologies. Prior research suggests that such waves will be more biologically active than pure sine waves.

Additional Resources (Updated 3/13/2022)
D. B. Deaconescu, A. M. Buda, D. Vatamanu, S. Miclaus. The Dynamics of the Radiated Field Near a Mobile Phone Connected to a 4G or 5G Network. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 12(1):8101–8106, Feb. 2022.
ANFR (France). Study of the 5G contribution to exposure of the general public to electromagnetic waves: Preliminary Report. Dec 2021.

Sally Beare. How green is 5G? Envirotec Magazine, Nov 2021.
Sam Aerts, Kenneth Deprez, Davide Colombi, Matthias Van den Bossche, Leen Verloock, Luc Martens, Christer Törnevik, Wout Joseph. In Situ Assessment of 5G NR Massive MIMO Base Station Exposure in a Commercial Network in Bern, Switzerland. Appl. Sci. 11(8): 3592. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083592.
Kyuri Kim, Young Seung Lee, Nam Kim, Hyung-Do Choi, Dong-Jun Kang, Hak Rim Kim, Kyung-Min Lim. Effects of Electromagnetic Waves with LTE and 5G Bandwidth on the Skin Pigmentation In Vitro. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Dec 26;22(1):E170. doi: 10.3390/ijms22010170.
El-Hajj AM, Naous T. Radiation analysis in a gradual 5G network deployment strategy. 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF), Bangalore, India IEEE, 2020: 448-453, ISBN 9781728173009. (Austin, TX simulation)
Koh TH, Choi JW, Seo M, Choi H-D, Kim KH. Factors affecting risk perception of electromagnetic waves from 5G network base stations. Bioelectromagnetics. 31 August 2020. Open access paper.
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. 5G Research from the EMF-Portal Archive: 133 papers and presentations. Apr 1, 2020.
Lin JC. Telecommunications health and safety: US FCC affirms its current safety limits for RF radiation and 5G wireless. Radio Science Bulletin 2019; 2019 (371): 87-89.
Lin JC. Health Safety Guidelines and 5G Wireless Radiation [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 23(1):10-17. Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2021.3117307.
Pujol F, Manero C, Ropert S, Enjalbal A, Lavender T, Jervis V, Rudd R, Marcus JS. Study on using millimetre waves bands for the deployment of the 5G ecosystem in the Union: Final Report. A study prepared for the European Commission. doi: 10.2759/703052. 2019.

Mehdizadeh AR, Mortazavi SMJ. Editorial. 5G technology: Why should we expect a shift from RF-induced brain cancers to skin cancers? J Biomed Phys Eng. 2019.
"In summary, although 5G technology brings new risks, it should be noted that regarding mobile phone use and cancer, the level of exposure is a factor that really matters."

The essential 5G glossary of key terms and phrases
Michaela Goss, Tech Target, Aug 12, 2019

Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Hearing, Feb 6, 2019 (5 minute video)
"We're kind of flying blind here so far as health and safety is concerned."

Is 5G Harmful for Humans and the Environment?Kashyap Vyas, Interesting Engineering, Jan 27, 2019
U.S. Senator Blumenthal briefing on possible health risks posed by 5G wireless technologyCongressional news briefing, Connecticut Network, Dec 3, 2018 (22 minute video)

Congressional letter to FCC Commissioner requesting evidence for safety of 5G
Richard Blumenthal, Anna G. Eshoo, Dec 3, 2018

Resistance to 5G: Roadblock to a High Tech Future or Warning of a Serious Health Risk? Conan Milner, Epoch Times, November 9, 2018
The roll out of 5G wireless service is 'a massive health experiment,' public health expert warns as cell companies install 800,000 towers across the US
Natalie Rahhal, Daily Mail, May 29, 2018

The 5G telecommunication technology--emitted millimeter waves: Lack of research on bioeffects
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, Presentation at 5th Asian & Oceanic IRPA Regional Congress on Radiation Protection, Melbourne, Australia, May 22, 2018

NEPA rollback now official for small wireless projects
Sobczyk N, GreenWire, May 3, 2018

5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for
Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
Martin L. Pall, PhD, undated

5G and Internet of Things: A Trojan Horse
Paul Héroux, PhD, The Green Gazette, Mar 27, 2018

Residents worried about small cell safety have been waiting years for federal guidance
Ryan Barwick, Center for Public Integrity, Mar 2, 2018
5G Cell Service Is Coming. Who Decides Where It Goes?
Allan Holmes, New York Times, Mar 2, 2018


'Tsunami of data' could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025
The Guardian, Dec 11, 2017

California: Bill to ease permits for cellular antennas could impact health
Tracy Seipel. Mercury News (San Jose, CA), Aug 31, 2017
Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiationJim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times, Aug 8, 2016
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
3.8.2022 19:48

AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe?


Third-Generation AirPods

The third generation of Apple's AirPods (aka AirPods 3) was introduced in 2021.

The Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR) for the right AirPod is 0.626 watts per kilogram (assessed via the flat phantom & averaged over 1 gram of tissue) (1). The SAR for the left AirPod is 0.614 watts per kilogram (2).
(1)
https://fccid.io/BCG-A2565/RF-Exposure-Info/13685813-S2V2-FCC-Report-SAR-5480054
(2) https://fccid.io/BCG-A2564/RF-Exposure-Info/13685813-S1V2-FCC-Report-SAR-5479999


April 2, 2019

Second-Generation AirPods

The newly-released second generation of Apple's AirPods (aka AirPods 2) emits Bluetooth microwave radiation in the 2.402 – 2.480 GHz frequency range to communicate with a smart phone or other wireless device.

The Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR) for the right AirPod is 0.581 watts per kilogram (averaged over 1 gram). (1) The SAR for the left AirPod is 0.501 watts per kilogram. (2)

News about the potential health risks from use of wireless headsets first went viral in 2016 (see posts below). This story has gone viral again at this time for the following reasons:
  • Apple announced that it is taking orders for a new version of its wireless headset, AirPods (aka AirPods 2).
  • In the past year, two major studies found conclusive evidence that microwave radiation caused cancer in rats. These studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program in the U.S. and the Ramazzini Institute in Italy received worldwide media coverage.
  • The proliferation of new cell towers and antennas in preparation for the deployment of 5G,fifth generation cellular technology, has stimulated many people to seek out information about the health effects from exposure to the radiation these antennas emit on a 24-7 basis in their neighborhoods.
  • More people now realize we cannot trust governments to protect us from environmental toxins. Industry has too much influence over government regulatory agencies, and governments have conflicts of interest because the telecom industry pays governments substantial taxes and fees.
For some Bluetooth devices like Apple's AirPods, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the body's maximum exposure to microwave radiation, exceeds that of many smart phones. Moreover, the cumulative exposure to radiation from wireless headsets may be substantial since many users keep these devices on their head for hours at a time and use them to listen to music or podcasts.
I have found only two small studies that examined the short-term effects on hearing from exposure to Bluetooth, the communications standard use in AirPods and other wireless headsets (see below). The health effects from long-term exposure to this type of microwave radiation have not been studied.
The FCC minimum exposure levels were adopted in 1996 based largely upon recommendations from industry-funded scientists and engineers. The guidelines were designed only to protect us from short-term heating risks. We now have hundreds of studies that show harmful biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of microwave radiation that do not involve heating. The guidelines need to be updated to protect us from these effects.
Although there is no consensus regarding a safe level of exposure to microwave radiation, most scientists who have published research on the effects of this radiation agree that the current exposure limits are much too permissive. In fact, more than 240 scientists from 42 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health totaling over 2,000 papers in professional journals have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal which calls for stronger exposure limits and health warnings.
Most wireless safety tips recommend the use of wired headsets or hands-free use of smart phones and other electronic devices instead of wireless headsets.
News Stories

Are AirPods and Other Bluetooth Headphones Safe?
Markham Heid, Medium, March 7, 2019
https://medium.com/s/the-nuance/are-airpods-and-other-bluetooth-headphones-safe-214a0449e13a

Are wireless earbuds dangerous? Experts warn that Apple's AirPods could send an electromagnetic field through your brainNatalie Rahhal, Daily Mail, March 11, 2019 Revised March 12https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6796679/Are-AirPods-dangerous-250-scientists-warn-be.html
Scientists warn wireless, Bluetooth devices may carry cancer risk

Healio: Hematology/Oncology Today, March 13, 2019
https://bit.ly/BTHealio

Earpods for Cell Phones — Are There Health Risks?

Roxanne Nelson, RN, BSN, Medscape Medical News, March 15, 2019
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910453

Are Bluetooth Headphones Dangerous? Here's What Experts ThinkJulia Ries, Healthline, March 24, 2019 https://bit.ly/BTHealthline
Controversy surrounding safety of wireless earphones: News Focus 2 with Prof. Joel MoskowitzThis Morning, tbs eFM (Seoul, Korea), March 25, 2019 (10 minute audio)https://file-ex.ssenhosting.com/data1/tbsadm/tm20190325002.mp3
Did 250 Scientists Warn that Apple Airpods Pose a Cancer Risk?
Bethania Palma, Snopes, March 28, 2019
https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/03/29/apple-airpods-pose-cancer-risk/


References
(1) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Bluetooth Earbud. FCC ID: BCG-A2032. Model Name: A2032. Report Number: 12458150-S2V1. Issue Date: 3/15/2019. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-A2032/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S2V1-FCC-Report-SAR-4204549

(2) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Bluetooth Earbud. FCC ID: BCG-A2031. Model Name: A2031. Report Number: 12458150-S1V1. Issue Date: 3/15/2019. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-A2031/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S1V1-FCC-Report-SAR-4204479


December 13, 2016

Apple announced today that AirPods can be ordered online and will be available in stores next week. The wireless earbuds will be available in limited quantities in more than 100 countries and territories.

Apple originally planned to ship AirPods in October and has not explained the reason for the delay. The Wall Street Journal reported that the delay was due to problems with the Bluetooth wireless technology employed by this device.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/12/apple-airpods-are-now-available.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-airpod-shipping-delay-causes-holiday-disappointment-1481299202

September 12, 2016
Apple's new AirPods are wireless earbuds that employ Bluetooth technology to communicate with your smart phone, laptop, or smart watch.

According to Apple, "After a simple one-tap setup, AirPods are automatically on and always connected."

The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the AirPods

The right AirPod emits Bluetooth microwave radiation in the 2.402 – 2.480 GHz frequency range to communicate with a smart phone or other wireless device. The Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR) for the right AirPod is 0.466 watts per kilogram (averaged over 1 gram). (1) The SAR for the left AirPod is 0.510 watts per kilogram. (2)

For more information about the SAR see my post on the iPhone 7.

If one uses the AirPods many hours a day, the cumulative exposure to the brain from this microwave radiation could be substantial.

According to EE Times, the left AirPod communicates with the right AirPod using a different technology, "near field magnetic induction (NFMI)."

Although there is a substantial research literature on the health risks of exposure to magnetic fields, I am not aware of any biologic research that examines NFMI. Hence, this post focuses on the risks to the brain from exposure to Bluetooth radiation.

Is Bluetooth safe?

The wireless industry argues that devices that use Bluetooth are safe because the microwave radiation emitted by such devices is low compared to FCC guidelines. The FCC requires the SAR to be 1.6 watts per kilogram or less.

More than 240 scientists who have published research on electromagnetic radiation safety believe that current national and international guidelines for exposure to radio frequency radiation are inadequate to protect human health (see the International EMF Scientist Appeal).

I could find only two peer-reviewed studies that have examined the effects of exposure to Bluetooth radiation. The studies which employed small samples evaluated the effects of brief exposure to Bluetooth radiation on the auditory system. (2) Given the study limitations, the absence of significant effects is not surprising. These studies do not provide the basis to argue that long-term exposure to Bluetooth radiation is safe.

Low-intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier

In 1975, Allan Frey published a paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences which reported that exposure to low intensity microwave radiation could open the blood-brain barrier in rats. Moreover, pulsed radio frequency waves (like Bluetooth) were more likely to produce this effect than continuous waves. (3)

The blood-brain barrier is a special layer of cells in the brain that prevents chemical toxins in the blood system from reaching the brain. Breaching this barrier could potentially lead to neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases and brain cancer.
More than a dozen peer-reviewed studies have replicated Frey's findingsexposure to low intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier (see links below). (3)

The effect of microwave radiation on the blood-brain barrier is nonlinear—it occurs with low intensity exposures but not at higher intensity exposures.

Although other published studies have failed to find the blood-brain barrier effect, these studies tended to use higher intensity exposures or employed small samples.

Recommendations

We may not be certain of the long-term risks of using Bluetooth devices, but why would anyone insert microwave-emitting devices in their ears near their brain when there are safer ways to use a cell phone?

I recommend the use of corded headsets or hands-free use of cell phones, not wireless earbuds. Moreover, one should never keep a cell phone next to your body, especially during a phone call, but also whenever the phone is powered on. For additional tips on how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see https://www.saferemr.com/2015/10/tips-to-reduce-your-wireless-radiation.html.
%%%News coverage

In the past few days, numerous news stories have appeared citing industry-affiliated scientists who claim that AirPods are safe. Nonetheless, a few news reports have addressed the potential health risks from using AirPods:

· CBS San Francisco: "Apple Unveils iPhone 7 Without Headphone Jack"· CNN: "Apple eliminates headphone jack from iPhone 7: Harmful to your health?"· Daily Mail: "Could wireless headphones harm your health?"

Since the stories in the Daily Mail and CNN were posted on September 8, over two dozen online news stories have appeared that discuss the potential health risks from the microwave radiation emitted by AirPods.
References
(1) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Wireless Headset. FCC ID: BCG-A1523. Model Name: A1523. Report Number: 16U23784-S6V1. Issue Date: 8/30/2016. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/document.php?id=3118442
(2) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Wireless Headset. FCC ID: BCG-A1722. Model Name: A1722. Report Number: 16U23784-S1V1. Issue Date: 8/30/2016. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-A1722/RF-Exposure-Info/16U23784-S1V1-FCC-SAR-Report-3118428.pdf

(3) Peer-reviewed studies which reported on the effects of brief exposure to Bluetooth radiation:

Mandalà M, Colletti V, Sacchetto L, Manganotti P, Ramat S, Marcocci A, Colletti L. Effect of Bluetooth headset and mobile phone electromagnetic fields on the human auditory nerve. Laryngoscope. 2014 Jan;124(1):255-9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23619813

Balachandran R, Prepageran N, Rahmat O, Zulkiflee AB, Hufaida KS. Effects of Bluetooth device electromagnetic field on hearing: pilot study. J Laryngol Otol. 2012 Apr;126(4):345-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310164

(4) Peer-reviewed studies which reported opening of the blood-brain barrier from exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation:

Sırav B, Seyhan N. Effects of GSM modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on permeability of blood-brain barrier in male & female rats. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):123-7 23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26723545
Tang J, Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen Q, Tan L, Zuo S, Feng H, Chen Z, Zhu G. Exposure to 900MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res. 2015 Jan 15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25598203
Sirav B, Seyhan N. Effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in male and female rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Dec;30(4):253-60. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22047463

Sirav B, Seyhan N. Blood-brain barrier disruption by continuous-wave radio frequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009;28(2):215-22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19811403
Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):103-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073
Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L. Exposure to an 890-MHz mobile phone-like signal and serum levels of S100B and transthyretin in volunteers. Toxicol Lett. 2009 Aug 25;189(1):63-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19427372
Eberhardt JL, Persson BR, Brun AE, Salford LG, Malmgren LO. Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(3):215-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821198

Belyaev IY, Koch CB, Terenius O, Roxström-Lindquist K, Malmgren LO, H Sommer W, Salford LG, Persson BR. Exposure of rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induces changes in gene expression but not double stranded DNA breaks or effects on chromatin conformation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 May;27(4):295-306. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16511873

Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3; discussion A408. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation. 2002 May;70(2-3):120-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076339

Schirmacher A, Winters S, Fischer S, Goeke J, Galla HJ, Kullnick U, Ringelstein EB, Stögbauer F. Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the permeability to sucrose of the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics. 2000 Jul;21(5):338-45. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10899769

Fritze K, Sommer C, Schmitz B, Mies G, Hossmann KA, Kiessling M, Wiessner C. Effect of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat. Acta Neuropathol. 1997 Nov;94(5):465-70. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9386779

Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BR. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech. 1994 Apr 15;27(6):535-42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8012056

Persson BR, Salford LG, Brun A, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L. Increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by magnetic and electromagnetic fields. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992 Mar 31;649:356-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580510
Frey AH, Feld SR, Frey B. Neural function and behavior: Defining the relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 247: 433–439. 1975.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/46734

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
12.8.2022 00:08

Trends in Brain Tumor Incidence Outside the U.S.


Use of mobile phones and progression of glioma incidence in four Nordic countries since 1979
My notes:
Although the title of the following report from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer is in German, the report is available in English.
The report's summary, "no indications of a detectable effect of mobile phones have been found," seems misleading because it is inconsistent with the report's final conclusion, namely, "An increased risk in the 10% heaviest mobile phone users was an exception to this general situation, as it remained plausible."
[The 10% "heaviest mobile users" in the Interphone study had 1,640 or more hours of lifetime call time. That would amount to approximately 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period.]
The report's bottom line:
"This ecological data is not sufficient to dismiss every potential mobile phone related risk scenario, but suggests that the risk – if it exists - would be very small, only occur after very long latency periods of several decades, or only affect small subgroups within glioma patients."

If only a portion of the population has a genetic susceptibility to brain cancer in the presence of microwave radiation as appears to be the case with thyroid cancer (Luo et al., 2020), that could explain why the odds ratios obtained for brain cancer risk from case-control studies of heavy, long-term mobile phone users over-predict glioma incidence in the overall population based upon tumor registry data.
* Luo J, Li H, Deziel NC, Huang H, Zhao N, Ma S, Nie X, Udelsman R, Zhang Y. Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut. Environmental Research. 2020 Mar;182:109013. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.109013. (see also Thyroid Cancer and Mobile Phone Use)

--

Deltour I, Schuz J. Nutzung von Mobiltelefonen und Verlauf der Gliom-Inzidenz seit 1979: Vorhaben 3618S00000 (FM 8867). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Jun 2022. Open access report: https://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:0221-2022063033222/4/BfS_2022_3618S00000.pdf

Summary
1.1 Introduction

In the Nordic countries, the sharp increase in the use of mobile phone occurred in the mid-1990s among adults; thus, time trends in glioma incidence rates (IR) may provide information about possible risks associated with mobile phone use. We investigated time trends in IR of glioma, and compared IR and observed number of cases to those that would be expected under a range of hypothetical mobile phone risk scenarios, encompassing risk levels reported in published case-control studies.

1.2 Methods

We analyzed age standardised IR of glioma in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden among adults 20-84 years old, using data from national cancer registries and population data covering the period 1979-2016, using a log linear joinpoint analysis. Exposure distribution of use and of high level of use were obtained from self-reported information in the Nordic Interphone, the Cosmos-Denmark and the Cosmos-France datasets. Based on analytical epidemiological studies, we considered various scenarios according to which mobile phone use would hypothetically increase the glioma risk. We quantified compatibility, or absence of compatibility between the observed data and the risk scenarios by projecting incidence rates of glioma of men aged 40-69 years old under these scenarios and comparing them with the observed incidence rates in the Nordic countries.

1.3 Results

Glioma IR increased regularly with annual percent change (APC) of 0.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7) in men and 0.3 (95%CI 0.2-0.5) in women in the period 1979-2016. There were hardly any changes in IR among men and women below age 59. In men and women in their sixties, IR increased by 0.6 (95%CI 0.4-0.9) in men and 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.7) in women, regularly for the whole period of observation, while IR among 70-84 years old increased very markedly, with APC of 3.1 (95%CI 2.6-3.5) among men and 2.8 (95%CI 2.3-3.3) among women over at least the last 2 decades of observation. Very few risk scenarios appeared compatible with the observed data using standardised incidence ratios analyses. The risk scenarios that appeared compatible involved either long latencies (20 years), or very low risks (RR = 1.08); in these projections, risks that would be limited to mobile phone heavy users were not compatible with the observed number of cases.

1.4 Discussion

IR time trends did not demonstrate breakpoints in their secular evolution in the last 20 years. Virtually all the reported results from the case-control studies with a positive association between mobile phone use and glioma risk were shown to be implausible in our simulations comparing them with the observed incidence rates, implying that biases and errors have likely distorted their findings; very low risks at the population level, and risks after very long latencies remained plausible. Simulations were based on high quality case registration, which is a strength, while the uncertainties in the exposure information and the limited information about some of the model's assumptions were limitations. Altogether, this study confirms and reinforces conclusions made previously, that no indications of a detectable effect of mobile phones have been found.
Excerpts
... We analyzed the time trends in the incidence rates of glioma among adults aged 20 to 84 years of the Nordic countries from 1979 to 2016 (step 1 of the work description). Then, we addressed the question whether the observed time trends and observed number of cases were statistically different from the one we would observe if we assumed that the use of mobile phones caused glioma, so if we assumed that there was a true causal association (step 2 and step 3 of the work description). Within this, we delineated the levels of risks and the duration of induction periods that would not be compatible with the observed time trends and numbers of cases in this population (step 3 of the work description). We also discussed these findings in light of some of the elevated OR found in the literature. The study tested the consistency between risks that have been reported and the effect they would have had at the level of the population, had they been true. Noteworthy, the study was not meant to dismiss every single hypothetical association, as it would most likely always be possible to devise a pattern of risk that would fit the data....
This study was based on 28,015 male and 20,630 female glioma cases diagnosed from 1979 to 2016 in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (called "the Nordic countries" in the following). In 2016, the number of glioma cases was 1,724 in a population of 19.7 million adults aged 20–84 years. Over the last 10 years of data, Sweden accounted for 38% of the population and of the cases; of the remainder, Denmark, Finland, and Norway had populations of similar size. The age-standardized incidence rates were higher in men (9.1 per 100000 person years) than in women (6.1 per 100 000 person years), and higher with increasing age. All countries had comparable rates; Norway had slightly higher rates, while Finland had slightly lower rates in both sexes (Table 2 and Table 3).
Joinpoint analyses described in paragraph 6.1 showed that overall, the trends were smooth: glioma rates increased by 0.6% (95% CI 0.4%-0.7%) per year in men and 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.5%) per year in women over the period 1979-2016 in the Nordic countries combined (Table 4 and Table 5), and in each country separately except for a marked increase in 1979-1984 in Swedish men (APC about 6%). For the younger age groups (20-39 and 40-59 years old), the time trends were smooth and did not demonstrate strong increases at any point in time during the period 1979 to 2016 in any country among men (Table 6), and women (Table 7). Below the age of 60, incidence rates were generally stable over the whole period (Figure 1, Table 6 and Table 7). Among people aged 60-69 years old, incidence rates increased gradually by 0.6% in men and 0.4% in women per year, and these regular increases with no joinpoint were observed in every country and at a very similar rate in both sexes, except among Swedish women, whose rates showed a slight decrease. Irregular patterns were observed among the persons aged 70-84 years old at the beginning of the observation period, while for at least the last 12 years of observation, all countries showed highly increasing rates. Exceptions to this general pattern were noted among the Finnish males and the Norwegian females, in which an increase was seen at the beginning of the observation period that lasted at least 21 years.
The analysis by subgroups of tumour types could be performed only for the period 1990-2016 for reasons of data availability: in Sweden, a separate code for glioblastoma did not exist prior to 1993, and very few of the tumours which had been diagnosed during the period 1990-1992 were retrospectively coded into this code. Indeed, cancer registries are continuously updated when additional information becomes available on an earlier diagnosis, for example.
Among men and women, the rates of glioblastomas increased in the last years of observations, while the rate of other high-grade gliomas decreased (Table 8 and Table 9). Rates of low grade gliomas were relatively stable in all countries since the mid 1990's except in Denmark, where substantial increases were noted towards the end of the period of observation, albeit non-significant....
When examining the trends by subtypes, glioblastoma generally increased while other high grade gliomas decreased, and low grade glioma were stable in the most recent period, except in Denmark where low grade glioma rates increased among men and women in the last 3 years of observation. In Sweden, the rates of glioblastoma underwent most changes, namely the increase in glioblastoma rates in Sweden in the years after the introduction of that code by the cancer registry, since a new code is not mandatorily fully used immediately after it is introduced....
To sum up, our simplified and more sophisticated analyses appeared to indicate that the small increase in IR of men age 40-59 and the marked increase in RR of men aged 60-69 were generally not compatible with the same mobile phone related risks increases. When models in which the totality of the IR increases were assumed to be associated with mobile phone effects, a RR of 1.31 that would start 20 years after first using a mobile phone was borderline compatible between these 2 age groups, while all other induction periods (0, 5, 10, 15 years) or heavy users risk scenarios produced RR estimates and CI which did not overlap between the 2 age groups when the same exposure distribution was considered. When half of the IR increases were attributed to other factors, none of the mobile phone related risks scenarios were compatible with the data, in the SIR analyses (assuming the same risk in both age groups). When most (75%) of the IR increases were attributed to other factors, then small excess risks (RR= 1.08 applying to all users after 10 years) or risks after long latencies (RR = 1.3 applying to all users after 20 years) were compatible with the observed incidence rates and exposure distributions that we assumed. Further work on these scenarios could shed more light on the remaining uncertainties. Of note, scenarios of risks limited to heavy users groups did not appear compatible with the observed number of cases in these analyses....
Our simulation study is not free of assumptions. The induction period relating mobile phone use and glioma risk, if such an association exists, is unknown, so is the magnitude of the risk, and the real patterns may be more complex than the scenarios that we simulated. In addition, there are several factors that we did not account for. The coverage of the Nordic cancer registries was not complete, but some 1.5% to 10% of the malignant tumours were missed in this age group. In Sweden, it has been estimated that completeness would not have changed over the period 1998-2014, while completeness might have improved in other countries. We modelled that other, yet to be discovered, risk factors of the disease as well as improvement in its detection and reporting had a smooth, gradual impact, over the period 1979-2016, which is consistent with the gradually increasing IR. We used 3 sources of information on the use of mobile phones, all self-reported, to evaluate the prevalence of use and heavy use up to 2002, 2008 or 2016 and extrapolated the prevalences for the periods and age groups for which no data was available, based on the trends observed in the other age groups. The use of hands-free devices was not accounted for, although this was not frequent in these populations (data not shown).
In conclusion, it is difficult to demonstrate the absence of risk, in real life condition, and assumptions about the impact of the improvement of diagnosis tools, treatment and registration changes over time were used in our simulations. However, based both on the observed IR and the simulations, we reiterate and strengthen our previous conclusion that, the risk, should one exist, ought to be lower or occur after a longer induction period or act on a smaller population, or a combination of these, than most of the level of risk that have been reported in previously published case-control studies.
Conclusions
In this project we projected incidence rates of glioma under various scenarios of mobile phone-associated increased glioma risks, and compared them with the observed incidence rates in the Nordic countries. The comparison was carried out on the data of men aged 40 to 69 years. The modelled scenarios included risk increases reported from analytical epidemiological studies, which were all of case-control design. Most of those results were shown to be implausible in our simulations, implying that biases and errors in the self-reported use of mobile phones have likely distorted their findings. An increased risk in the 10% heaviest mobile phone users was an exception to this general situation, as it remained plausible. Results of cohort studies showing no association were compatible with observed incidence rates. We also studied what hypothetical mobile phone-related risks were conceivable if the changes in incidence rates in 40-59 year old and 60-69 year old men were fully attributable to mobile phone use. The fact that we observed different hypothetical risks in these two age groups while research at present has not suggested that older men should have higher risk related to mobile phone use than younger men, does not align with the assumption that mobile phone exposures caused the incidence rate trends. This ecological data is not sufficient to dismiss every potential mobile phone related risk scenario, but suggests that the risk – if it exists - would be very small, only occur after very long latency periods of several decades, or only affect small subgroups within glioma patients.
Open access report: https://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:0221-2022063033222/4/BfS_2022_3618S00000.pdf
--
Incidence trends of adult malignant brain tumors in Finland, 1990-2016
Natukka T, Raitanen J, Haapasalo H, Auvinen A. Incidence trends of adult malignant brain tumors in Finland, 1990-2016. Acta Oncol. 2019 Apr 15:1-7. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1603396.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported increased incidence trends of malignant gliomas in the late 1900s with a plateau in the 2000s, but also some recent increases have been reported. The purpose of our study was to analyze incidence trends of malignant gliomas in Finland by morphology and tumor location.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on 4730 malignant glioma patients were obtained from case notifications to the nationwide, population-based Finnish Cancer Registry (FCR), and less detailed data on 3590 patients up to 2016. Age-standardized incidence rates (ASR) and average annual percent changes (APCs) in the incidence rates were calculated by histological subtype and tumor location.
RESULTS: The incidence rate of gliomas was 7.7/100,000 in 1990-2006 and 7.3 in 2007-2016. The incidence of all gliomas combined was stable during both study periods, with no departure from linearity. In an analysis by age group, increasing incidence was found only for ages 80 years and older (1990-2006). During both study periods, incidence rates were increasing in glioblastoma and decreasing in unspecified brain tumors. In 1990-2006, rates were also increasing for anaplastic oligodendroglioma, oligoastrocytoma and unspecified malignant glioma, while decreasing for astrocytoma. As for tumor location, incidence in 1990-2006 was increasing for frontal lobe and brainstem tumors, as well as those with an unspecified location, but decreasing for the parietal lobes, cerebrum and ventricles.
CONCLUSIONS: No increasing incidence trend was observed for malignant gliomas overall. An increasing incidence trend of malignant gliomas was found in the oldest age group during 1990-2006.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30985227

Excerpts
The incidence trend of glioblastoma was slightly increasing (APC: +0.8%; 95% CI: 0.0, +1.7 for 1990–2006 and +1.9%; 95% CI: +0.2, +3.5 for 2007–2016; Tables 2 and 3).
Incidence of glioblastoma increased slightly throughout the study period, while unspecified tumors of the brain showed a decreasing incidence trend.
We also found a slightly increasing incidence trend for the most common histological subtype, glioblastoma, which is consistent with several other studies [1,5,7–9,11,17,18]. A study from United States showed an increasing incidence trend for gliomas in the frontal lobe and decreasing trends for the cerebrum, ventricles and overlapping subtypes [17].

References
[1] Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2010–2014. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19: v1–v88.
[5] Ho VKY, Reijneveld JC, Enting RH, et al. Changing incidence and improved survival of gliomas. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:2309–2318.[7] Arora RS, Alston RD, Eden TOB, et al. Are reported increases in incidence of primary CNS tumours real? An analysis of longitudinal trends in England, 1979–2003. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46: 1607–1616.[8] Deorah S, Lynch CF, Sibenaller ZA, et al. Trends in brain cancer incidence and survival in the United States: surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program, 1973 to 2001. Neurosurg Focus. 2006;20:E1.[9] Hess KR, Broglio KR, Bondy ML. Adult glioma incidence trends in the United States, 1977–2000. Cancer. 2004;101:2293–2299.[11] Lonn S, Klaeboe L, Hall P, et al. Incidence trends of adult primary intracerebral tumors in four Nordic countries. Int J Cancer. 2004; 108:450–455.[17] Zada G, Bond AE, Wang YP, et al. Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992–2006. World Neurosurg. 2012;77:518–524.[18] Dubrow R, Darefsky AS. Demographic variation in incidence of adult glioma by subtype, United States, 1992–2007. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:325.--
Trends in the incidence of primary brain, central nervous system and intracranial tumors in Israel, 1990-2015
Keinan-Boker L, Friedman E, Silverman BG. Trends in the incidence of primary brain, central nervous system and intracranial tumors in Israel, 1990-2015. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;56:6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2018.07.003.
Highlights
• Exponential growth in cellphone use fueled concerns regarding brain and CNS tumors.• Results so far are inconsistent. Studying cancer incidence trends may thus be informative.• We studied brain tumor trends from 1990 to 2015 in Israel, when cellphone use dramatically increased.• Results do not support a substantial role for cellphone use; smaller risks in special subgroups may exist.• Future research is needed; implementation of the precautionary principle is prudent.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between cellphone technology and brain, central nervous system (CNS) and intracranial tumors is unclear. Analysis of trends in incidence of such tumors for periods during which cellphone use increased dramatically may add relevant information. Herein we describe secular trends in the incidence of primary tumors of the brain and CNS from 1990 to 2015 in Israel, a period during which cellphone technology became extremely prevalent in Israel.
METHODS: All cases of primary brain, CNS and intracranial tumors (excluding lymphomas) diagnosed in Israel from 1990 to 2015 were identified in the Israel National Cancer Registry database and categorized by behavior (malignant; benign/uncertain behavior) and histologic type. Annual age-standardized incidence rates by sex and population group (Jews; Arabs) were computed, and the annual percent changes and 95% confidence intervals per category were calculated using Joinpoint software.
RESULTS: Over 26 years (1990-2015) no significant changes in the incidence of malignant brain, CNS and intracranial tumors were observed, except for an increase in malignant glioma incidence in Jewish women up to 2008 and Arab men up to 2001, which levelled off in both subgroups thereafter. The incidence of benign/uncertain behavior brain, CNS and intracranial tumors increased in most population groups up to the mid-2000s, a trend mostly driven by changes in the incidence of meningioma, but either significantly decreased (Jews) or stabilized (Arabs) thereafter.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are not consistent with a discernable effect of cellphone use patterns in Israel on incidence trends of brain, CNS and intracranial tumors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30015055
Excerpts

"When cancer occurrence rates referred to glioblastomas only, Joinpoint analysis of incidence trends was restricted to the period from 1995 to 2015 due to small numbers of cases in the Arab population prior to 1995. Stable incidence trends were noted, with non-significant APCs, in all population subgroups: APC1995–2015 for Jewish men was +0.6% (95%CI -0.4%,+1.6%); APC1995–2015 for Jewish women was +0.6% (95%CI -0.1%,+1.6%); APC1995–2015 for Arab men was -1.6% (95%CI -3.9%,+0.8%); APC1995–2015 for Arab women was +0.4% (95%CI -2.9%,+3.8%).
Analysis of time trends by age groups disclosed stable trends in most population- age- and sex groups, except for a mild increase in Jewish males aged 65 and over (APC1990–2015 +1.2%, p < 0.05) and in Arab males aged 20–64 (APC1990–2015 +1.5%, p < 0.05). In the population of Arab females, lack of cases in the age groups of 20–64 and 65+ in certain years prevented an analysis of trends."
"However, ecologic studies, of which ours is an example, may be insensitive to excess in risk which is restricted to certain groups (for example, heavy users or subjects exposed from very young ages) or to certain tumor types (e.g., tumors that are very rare, that involve specific anatomical sites, or that have unusually long latency periods) [34]. Little et al. [35] also commented that the predicted rates of glioma based on data derived from the small proportion of highly exposed people in the Interphone study, could be consistent with the observed rates in their study [35]. Therefore, although a substantial risk is not very plausible, smaller risks cannot be ruled out and future research should address specific exposure groups, and tumor types and sites, and should allow for longer follow up periods."--

England: Brain Cancer Incidence Increased in Temporal and Frontal Lobes of Brain since 1995

A new study of cancer data in England essentially replicated the results of the Philips et al study (see below). The study found that the two age groups most vulnerable to carcinogenic effects from cell phone use -- young and elderly adults -- showed increased incidence over time in brain cancer in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain -- the two lobes that receive the greatest dose of microwave radiation when cell phones are used near the head during phone calls.

However, Frank de Vocht, the author of this paper, rejected the explanation that cell phone use caused the increased cancer risk. He attributed the increased incidence to better diagnosis of brain tumors, especially in the elderly. Of course, this does not explain why the increase was only observed in the frontal and temporal lobes. He did not rule out the possibility that cell phone radiation may be a contributing factor to the observed increase.

Microwave News reported on this study and published the following graph obtained from Alasdair Philips (Microwave News, "Location, Location, Location: Aggressive Brain Tumors Tell a Story; GBM Rise Only in Frontal and Temporal Lobes, Oct 26, 2018.)




de Vocht F. Analyses of temporal and spatial patterns of Glioblastoma Multiforme and other brain cancers subtypes in relation to mobile phones using synthetic counterfactuals. Environmental Research. Available online 17 October 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.011.

Highlights

• English 1985–2005 brain cancer subtype rates were compared to counterfactual trends
• Excess GBM increases were found in the frontal and temporal lobes, and cerebellum
• Mobile phone use was unlikely to have been an important putative factor
• No evidence of an effect of mobile phone use on acoustic neuroma and meningioma

Abstract

This study assesses whether temporal trends in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) in different brain regions, and of different malignant and benign (including acoustic neuroma and meningioma) subtypes in the temporal lobe, could be associated with mobile phone use.

Annual 1985–2005 incidence of brain cancer subtypes for England were linked to population-level covariates. Bayesian structural timeseries were used to create 2006–2014 counterfactual trends, and differences with measured newly diagnosed cases were interpreted as causal effects.

Increases in excess of the counterfactuals for GBM were found in the temporal (+38% [95% Credible Interval -7%,78%]) and frontal (+36% [-8%,77%]) lobes, which were in agreement with hypothesised temporal and spatial mechanisms of mobile phone usage, and cerebellum (+59% [-0%,120%]). However, effects were primarily present in older age groups, with largest effects in 75+ and 85+ groups, indicating mobile phone use is unlikely to have been an important putative factor. There was no evidence of an effect of mobile phone use on incidence of acoustic neuroma and meningioma.

Although 1985–2014 trends in GBM in the temporal and frontal lobes, and probably cerebellum, seem consistent with mobile phone use as an important putative factor, age-group specific analyses indicate that it is unlikely that this correlation is causal.

Excerpts

Assessment of specific cancer subtypes in the temporal lobe indicated that the excess incidence was mainly found for GBM, with similar trends observed in the frontal lobe and cerebellum.... The increased rates of specific brain cancer subtypes in excess of the counterfactuals correspond to the spatial and temporal patterns that would be expected if exposure to RF from mobile phones were an important putative factor (Cardis et al., 2008, Morgan et al., 2016) ... However, age group-specific analyses indicate that the excess relative impacts increased with age over 65 years and were primarily found in the very old (75/85+ years of age) for whom it is unlikely that mobile phone use had been an important causal factor. In addition, excess numbers of newly diagnosed cases were also observed in the young (<24 years of age) for whom mobile phone use is also an unlikely causal factor....

The assumption that a 10-year lag was the most plausible period between first exposure and when increased risk could be observed in registry data was based on the previous analyses (De Vocht (2016)). Although sensitivity analysis using a 15-year lag showed no evidence of excesses relative to counterfactuals, this may still have been too short....
This study, in agreement with other data from the UK and elsewhere, shows that the incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (astrocytoma grade IV) has increased significantly since the 1980s, especially in the frontal and temporal lobes and cerebellum. However, it further provides evidence that the trend of increasing numbers of newly diagnosed cases of glioblastoma multiforme in the temporal lobe (but likely in the frontal lobe and cerebellum as well) since the mid-1980s, although seemingly consistent with the hypothesis of exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones being an important putative factor, should to a large extent (if not exclusively) be attributed to another factor or factors; of which improvements in diagnostic techniques, especially in the elderly, seems the most plausible. Although these analyses indicate that it is unlikely that exposure to RF from mobile phones is an important putative factor, they also cannot exclude it as a contributing factor completely. It is therefore important to keep monitoring incidence trend data.
Competing financial interests declaration: The author has previously done consulting for EPRI [Electric Power Research Institute], not related to this work.
Financial support: No external funding was obtained for this study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118305462?via%3Dihub

Mar 25, 2018

England: Rates of Aggressive Brain Cancer Increased from 1995 to 2014
A newly-published study of brain tumor incidence trends in England from 1995 to 2014 found that the trends over time varied by type of cancer, especially in the frontal and temporal lobes.
The study found "a sustained and highly statistically significant" increase in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the most common brain cancer, across all ages. The rate of GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0 per 100,000 people. However, this increase was mostly hidden because the overall malignant brain tumor trend was relatively flat due to a reduced incidence of lower grade brain tumors.
In England in 1995, when the tumor site was specified at the time of diagnosis, the frontal or temporal lobes of the brain accounted for 41% of malignant brain tumors. By 2015, these two sites accounted for 60% of the tumors.
One cannot know from tumor registry data alone what caused these differential trends in brain cancer. Based upon epidemiologic research, the most compelling explanation for the increased incidence in these deadly brain tumors, especially in the frontal and temporal lobes, may be exposure to microwave radiation due to widespread adoption of cell phones. However, the increased use of CT imaging scans is an alternative, but less compelling, explanation because far fewer people would have been exposed to this form of ionizing radiation.
In the U.S., Zada and his colleagues (2012) obtained similar results in an analysis of national tumor registry data from 1992 to 2006.
Those who cite statistics which appear to show a flat-line trend in overall brain tumor incidence and argue that cell phone use doesn't cause brain cancer need to examine data on the location and type of brain tumors over time.
Also see:
Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: Role of Cellphone & Cordless Phone Use
The Incidence of Meningioma, a Non-Malignant Brain Tumor, is Increasing in the U.S.

Microwave News. "Aggressive Brain Tumors on the Rise in England." March 25, 2018. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbms-rising-uk

Source: Alasdair Philips via Microwave News.

--

Brain tumours: rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor
Alasdair Philips, Denis L. Henshaw, Graham Lamburn, and Michael O'Carroll. Brain tumours: rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. Article ID 7910754, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7910754. 2018.
Highlights
• A clear description of the changing pattern in incidence of brain tumour types• The study used extensive data from an official and recognised quality source• The study included histological and morphological information• The study identified a significant and concerning incidence time trend• Some evidence is provided to help guide future research into causal mechanisms
Abstract
Objective To investigate detailed trends in malignant brain tumour incidence over a recent time period.
Methods UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data covering 81,135 ICD10 C71 brain tumours diagnosed in England (1995–2015) were used to calculate incidence rates (ASR) per 100k person–years, age–standardised to the European Standard Population (ESP–2013).
Results We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with annual case numbers rising from 983 to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden in the overall data by a reduced incidence of lower grade tumours.
Conclusions The rise is of importance for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology. The rise cannot be fully accounted for by promotion of lower–grade tumours, random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques as it affects specific areas of the brain and only one type of brain tumour. Despite the large variation in case numbers by age, the percentage rise is similar across the age groups which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/abs/
Conclusions
1/. We show a linear, large and highly statistically significant increase in primary GBM tumours over 21 years from 1995–2015, especially in frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. This has aetiological and resource implications.2/. Although most of the cases are in the group over 54 years of age, the age–standardised AAPC rise is strongly statistically significant in all our three main analysis age groups.
3/. The rise in age–standardised incidence cannot be fully accounted for by improved diagnosis as it affects specific areas of the brain and just one type of brain tumour which is generally fatal. We suggest that widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible.
4/. Our results highlight an urgent need for funding more research into the initiation and promotion of GBM tumours. This should include the use of CT imaging for diagnosis and also modern lifestyle factors that may affect tumour metabolism.







Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
6.8.2022 01:23

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies


Note: This is not a comprehensive list. I have focused on more recent papers and tried to be parsimonious. The links to all abstracts and open access papers below were checked and updated on June 7, 2019. I update this list periodically.


National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies
Tumor risk review papers
Myung et al (2009) Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clinical Oncology. https://bit.ly/2F0IdUS Khurana et al (2009) Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology. https://bit.ly/2WTQwfk Levis et al (2011) Mobile phones and head tumours: the discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epi studies-how do they arise. Environ Health. https://bit.ly/2IsQy4r Levis et al (2012) Mobile phones and head tumours: a critical analysis of case-control epi studies. Open Environ Sciences. https://bit.ly/2EXT5ml WHO (2013) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. https://bit.ly/10oIE3o Morgan et al (2015) Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review). Int J Oncology. https://bit.ly/2XwgVNa
Wang & Guo (2016) Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk. J Cancer Research Therapy https://bit.ly/2o1dVcn
Bortkiewicz et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis. Int J Occ Med Envir Health. https://bit.ly/2nVJC5d
Prasad et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. https://bit.ly/2Xxp83P
Carlberg, Hardell (2017) Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. Biomed Res Int. https://bit.ly/2WwBX1K

Miller, et al (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ Res. https://bit.ly/2rJD7Fu
Choi, Moskowitz, et al (2020). Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.
Also see Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk
Tumor risk studies
Interphone Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. https://bit.ly/2MzsceR Interphone Study Group (2011) Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. https://bit.ly/2Ix7BlQ Aydin et al (2011) Mobile phone use & brain tumors in children & adolescents: a multi-center case-control study. (CEFALO Study). JNCI. https://bit.ly/31j0JBa Hardell et al (2013) Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J Oncology. https://bit.ly/2ZaVJg5 Hardell et al (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncology. https://bit.ly/31gbDaO Coureau et al (2014) Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. https://bit.ly/1DWgzRi
Grell et al (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: Analyses from the INTERPHONE Study. Am J Epidemiol. https://bit.ly/2ZcawHu

Also see: Acoustic neuroma risk and cell phone use studies and
Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?

Breast cancer
West et al (2013) Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case Rep Med. https://bit.ly/2WW8n52 Shih et al (2020) The association between smartphone use and breast cancer risk among Taiwanese women: A case-control study. Cancer Manag Res. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605549/

Brain tumor incidence trends
Inskip et al (2010) Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro Oncology. https://bit.ly/2K6rEuz Zada et al (2012) Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. World Neurosurg. https://bit.ly/2Wq1Dbm Hardell & Carlberg (2015) Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register & the Causes of Death Register. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://bit.ly/1aDHJm Devocht (2016) Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls. Environ Int. https://bit.ly/2jJlbZu corrigendum (2017): https://bit.ly/2Cuq2nU
Hardell & Carlberg (2017) Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PLOS One. https://bit.ly/H-C2017
Philips et al (2018) Brain tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995-2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Public Health https://bit.ly/2KIY4aI

Also see: Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use


Mechanisms
Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. https://bit.ly/2EXGaRb Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. Indian J Exp Biology. https://bit.ly/2Xx0Gzr
Giuliani and Soffritti (2010). Nonthermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Ramazzini Institute. 403 pp. https://bit.ly/2HUnO7R
Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. https://bit.ly/2MAQ7KJ Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. https://bit.ly/2KyjIBT Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. https://bit.ly/2K5yO2e Calderon et al (2014) Assessment of extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure from GSM mobile phones. https://bit.ly/2EA1N7e Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies & oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat. https://bit.ly/2EXN88W Yakymenko et al (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnet Biol Med. https://bit.ly/2qCGM4F Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. IEEE Power Electronics J. https://bit.ly/1WvQGiY Tamrin et al (2016) Electromagnetic fields and stem cell fate: When physics meets biology. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. https://bit.ly/2b6Ht3y Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. J Chem Neuroanat. https://bit.ly/3j9if6b Havas (2017) When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? Environ Pollution. https://bit.ly/2DssMS2 Barnes & Kandala (2018) Effects of time delays on biological feedback systems and electromagnetic field exposures. Bioelectromagnetics. https://bit.ly/2EZkZPS Belpomme et al (2018) Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollution. https://bit.ly/IntlEMFreview Hinrikus et al (2018) Understanding physical mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect. Int J Radiation Biol. https://bit.ly/2EwNyoU Mortazavi et al (2019) Evaluation of the validity of a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. J Biomed Phys Eng. https://bit.ly/37FlDxP Nielsen et al (2019) Towards predicting intracellular radiofrequency radiation effects. PLOS One. https://bit.ly/2uaeFxY Panagopoulos (2019) Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields. Mutation Res. https://bit.ly/2HACI1O
Halgamuge et al (2020) A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environmental Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109227.
Bertagna et al (2021) Effects of electromagnetic fields on neuronal ion channels: a systematic review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://bit.ly/2R3TigS Panagopoulos et al (2021) Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). Int J Oncol. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92
Reproductive Health Effects
LaVignera et al (2011) Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J Andrology. https://bit.ly/2wL7zRO Aldad et al (2012) Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Science Reports. https://bit.ly/2Z6H45I Divan et al (2012) Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J Epidemiol Commun Health. https://bit.ly/2EV1bw8 Adams et al (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproduction. https://bit.ly/1pUnmDq Houston et al (2016) The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. https://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE
Also see: Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality and Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Exposure

Kelsh et al (2010) Measured radiofrequency exposure during various mobile-phone use scenarios. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol. https://bit.ly/2IuYH8s Gandhi et al (2012) Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biol Med. https://bit.ly/2EZilbN Schmid & Kuster (2015) The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. https://bit.ly/31j46be Sagar et al (2018) Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Int. https://bit.ly/2E5QR10 Gandhi OP (2019) Microwave emissions from cell phones exceed safety limits in Europe and the US when touching the body. IEEE Access. https://bit.ly/2QUTI4N Wall et al (2019) Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. https://bit.ly/CDPHphone Calderón et al (2022) Estimation of RF and ELF dose by anatomical location in the brain from wireless phones in the MOBI-Kids study. Environ Int. https://bit.ly/3Or2x3F

Genetic Effects

Lai H (2021) Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866
Blood-Brain Barrier Studies

AirPods: Are Apple's New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-Brain Barrier Effects)


5G and Millimeter Wave Studies
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
Other

Huss et al (2007) Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspec. https://bit.ly/2wBEmYp Fragopoulou et al (2010) Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. https://bit.ly/2tWiXHP
Alster, N (2015) Captured agency: How the FCC is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Harvard University. https://bit.ly/FCCcaptured
Consumer Reports (2015) "Does cell-phone radiation cause cancer?" http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation
International EMF Scientist Appeal (2015) https://emfscientist.org/ International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncology. 20(3/4). 2015. https://bit.ly/EMFAppealEurOncol
Kostoff R, Lau C (2017). Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. In C.D. Geddes (ed.), Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. https://b.gatech.edu/2uyMAz0 Bandara P, Carpenter DO (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health. https://bit.ly/2GqpJQF
Foerster et al (2018). A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Environ Health Perspect. https://bit.ly/2wJs0Pm
Hertsgaard, M, Dowie, M (2018). "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018. https://bit.ly/BigWireless
Miller et al (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health https://bit.ly/2TsUNlN
Kostoff et al (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ Hardell & Carlberg (2021). Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. Rev Envir Res. https://bit.ly/Hardell2021 Lai H, Levitt BB (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. https://bit.ly/RFLaiLevitt2022 Grigoriev YG (2022). Frequencies used in Telecommunications – An Integrated Radiobiological Assessment (ORSAA translation; free 198 page book). https://bit.ly/GrigorievBook
Also see:
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (studies published from 1990 - 2022)Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (1500+ abstracts from 2016 on)
PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)Effects of Cell Phone Use on AdolescentsCell Tower Health EffectsRecent Research on WiFi EffectsEffects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other WildlifeElectromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
3.8.2022 01:37

Overview of Contents


Overview
Welcome to EMR Safety

"Health Effects of Cellphone & Cell Tower Radiation: Implications for 5G" (Joel Moskowitz, UC Center for Occupational & Environmental Health webinar / video & slides, 2021)
"Wireless Radiation: What Environmental Health Leaders Should Know" (Multiple presenters, Jonas Philanthropies and Health & Environmental Funders Network webinar / video, 2021
"Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G" (Occupational & Environmental Medicine Grand Rounds, UC San Francisco webinar / video & slides, 2020)
"Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety" (Invited UC Berkeley public presentation / transcript, video, podcast & slides, 2019)

"Why experts believe wireless radiation is harmful" (Slides & comments from brief presentation, 2019)International EMF Scientist Appeal - also see https://emfscientist.org/ (video)
"Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it" (Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley News, 2021)Wall Street Journal asks "Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?"
Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation (documentary video)Wireless Radiation TV News Coverage (300+ TV news videos)
Overview Articles

Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure

5G: Health and Environmental Impact

"Regulators Steamroll Health Concerns as the Global Economy Embraces 5G" (The Washington Spectator)"We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (Scientific American)Scientific American Created Confusion about 5G's Safety: Will They Clear It Up?
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5GGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) 2020 Report on 5G5G and Health (Netherlands Health Council)European Parliament: 5G Health Effects and Environmental Impact
5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
5G Global Protest
5G Day of Action
5G Wireless Technology: Major newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills
FCC Open Letter Calls for Moratorium on New Applications of Radiofrequency Radiation

Cell Tower Health Effects
Mobile Phone Health Effects
Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (since 2016)
Scientific Evidence of Harm from Cell Phone Radiation: Two Years of Research


Cancer or Tumor Risk
Animal Studies
NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study reports
NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats
Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

Head and Neck Tumor Risk
New review study finds that heavier cell phone use increases tumor riskExpert report by former U.S. govt. official: High probability RF radiation causes brain tumorsCell phone and cordless phone use causes brain cancer: New review
Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk
Why do many scientists believe mobile phone use increases cancer risk?
WHO Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone UseStoryline vs. Rest-of-the-story: Brain cancer incidence, cellphone use & trends dataAcoustic Neuroma and Cell Phone UseThyroid Cancer and Mobile Phone Use
Cell Phone Use and Salivary Gland Tumor Risk
MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study
The UK Million Women Study of Cell Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk
Brain Tumor Incidence
Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US:The Role of Cellphone & Cordless Phone Use
Trends in Brain Tumor Incidence Outside the U.S.
The Incidence of Meningioma, a Non-Malignant Brain Tumor, is Increasing in the U.S.


Reproductive Harm
Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm QualityPregnancy & Wireless Radiation RisksFemale Infertility & Cell Phone Radiation


Other Health Risks
Research on Wireless Radiation Exposure to the Immune SystemDoes long-term exposure to 4G LTE cell phone radiation impair cell phone users' health?
Secondhand Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation: An Emerging Public Health Problem?

Effects of Cell Phone Use on Adolescents
Research on Smart Phone and Internet Addiction
Has the Smart Phone Replaced the Cigarette?

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
The "Havana syndrome": A special case of electrohypersensitivitySymptoms Experienced by Persons with EHS (FCC Docket #13-84)

Does Cell Phone and Wi-Fi Radiation Cause Alzheimer's Disease?Cellphone use may be harmful for people with dental braces

Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation
Wireless Radiation Exposure LimitsStudy: Wireless radiation exposure for children should be hundreds of times lower than federal limits (based on NTP study)What's Wrong with Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits? (SAR)
Children are more exposed to cell phone radio-frequency radiation than adults


Wireless Radiation Health Risks
Cell Tower Health Effects
Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation

Recent Research on WiFi Effects
Wi-Fi in Schools & Other Public PlacesCouncil of Europe: Restrict Wi-Fi and Mobile Phone Use in Schools

Health Experts Caution About Smart Meters
Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (since 2016)
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (studies published from 1990 - 2022)
PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)
Four lectures on wireless radiation health effects
How does wireless radiation produce harmful health effects?EMF Controversies in NeurobiologyGenetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields
Research on Wireless Radiation Exposure to the Immune System

Environmental Health Risks
Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlifeEffects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other WildlifeCell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC

Product Safety
Buyer Beware: Cell Phone Radiation-Reducing Products
Cell Phone Cases Can Increase Radiation Exposure
Do iPhones emit more radiation than Samsung Galaxy phones?

iPhone XS and XR: Specific Absorption Rates or RF Exposure
iPhone X Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure
iPhone 8 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure
iPhone 7 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure
iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation DistanceiPhone SE SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance

Samsung Galaxy S9 and S9 Plus Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)
Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8 Plus Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)
Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)
Samsung Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)


AirPods: Are Apple's New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-brain barrier effects)New Apple Watch Reignites Concerns over Cell Phone Radiation
Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation


Power Line Frequencies (Extremely Low Frequency Fields)
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (studies published from 1990 - 2022)PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)Cancer Risks from Exposure to Power Lines and Electrical Appliances
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (since 2016)

Wireless Radiation Research & Regulation Policy
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatrics: Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation

American Cancer Society
American Cancer Society: Cell Phone Radiation Risk

Berkeley Model Cell Phone Ordinance
Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance
Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance: Media Coverage
California Public Health Department
Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department
California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage
California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: 2017 vs 2009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
New York Times' Exposé of CDC's Retraction of Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation

Federal Communications Commission
FCC Open Letter: Moratorium on New Commercial Applications of RF Radiation
FCC needs input regarding allocation of spectrum for 5G
An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it RegulatesFCC: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key TestimonyFCC: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Research PapersCell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
Cell Phone Radiation Hazards in 2002

Government Accountability Office (GAO)
GAO 2012 Mobile Phone Report to the CongressGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) 2020 Report on 5G
Industry Influence
IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR)
Industry-funded Scientists Undermine Cell Phone Radiation Science
Government Failure to Address Wireless Radiation RisksCell Phone Industry Product Liability Lawsuit

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
ICNIRP's Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects

World Health Organization / International Agency for Research on CancerWHO Radiofrequency EMF Health Risk Assessment Monograph (EHC series) WHO Radiofrequency Radiation PolicyInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) Position on Radiofrequency Radiation

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
26.7.2022 02:33

ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields



ICNIRP's wireless radiation exposure limits are based on smoke and mirrors
A new peer-reviewed paper published in the journal, Reviews of Environmental Health, found that the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) bases its recommended exposure limits for wireless (i.e., radio frequency [RF]) radiation primarily on research produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues.
ICNIRP claims that their "thermal-only paradigm" "is consistent with current scientific understanding" despite the fact that the predominance of peer-reviewed research finds non-thermal effects.
The ICNIRP limits, designed to protect humans only from the acute effects of heating induced by RF radiation, are promoted by the World Health Organization and are similar to those adopted by the FCC.
In 2019 investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major newspapers and magazines which exposed conflicts of interest in this "ICNIRP cartel." More recently, the former editor of the journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society accused ICNIRP of "groupthink." For more information see the article below: "The 'ICNIRP Cartel' and 'The 5G Mass Experiment'" (posted February 12, 2019, updated January 9, 2020).
Is ICNIRP a modern-day Wizard of Oz? In this new paper, Else Nordhagen and Einar Flydal pull back the curtain revealing the Wizard to be a fraud, all smoke and mirrors. They conclude:

"the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance."

Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines
Else K Nordhagen, Einar Flydal. Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Jun 27. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0037.
Abstract
In March 2020, ICNIRP (the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). ICNIRP claims this publication's view on EMF and health, a view usually termed "the thermal-only paradigm", is consistent with current scientific understanding.
We investigated the literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to assess if the variation in authors and research groups behind it meets the fundamental requirement of constituting a broad scientific base and thus a view consistent with current scientific understanding, a requirement that such an important set of guidelines is expected to satisfy. To assess if this requirement has been met, we investigated the span of authors and research groups of the referenced literature of the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines and annexes.
Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself, and in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE, and some of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. Moreover, literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members.
This shows that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.
Excerpts
... ICNIRP members are found to have conflicts of interest, as pointed out by e.g., [3]: "the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden concluded already in 2008 that being a member of ICNIRP may be a conflict of interest that should be stated officially whenever a member from ICNIRP makes opinions on health risks from EMF (Karolinska Institute diary number: 3753-2008-609)". An EU report [4] concluded in June 2020 that "for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP"....
As is apparent from the debate on this issue, a majority of peer-reviewed papers support the opposing view, i.e., that sub-thermal RF EMFs have health effects [5]. Several athermal mechanisms have been identified [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and accepted as evidenced, if not proven....

All in all, ICNIRP 2020 has 158 unique references. Not all have been authored by the ICNIRP co-authorship network found in Pattern 1. We found that the network co-authored 78 of the referenced peer reviewed papers, seven of the literature reviews, and six ICNIRP publications, in total 91 documents. In addition to these 91 documents, there are 67 references to other documents.

Of these 67 documents, only 15 are peer reviewed papers on RF EMF and health. The remaining 52 are documents with no direct relation to this topic. We termed these 52 "technical documents", as they address topics such as WHO's definition of "health" and other general terms used (three documents), thermal regulation (20 documents), contact currents and pain (five documents), technical documentation (three documents) and SAR-modelling and calculations (21 documents). We excluded these technical documents from further analyses (see Figure 1) .

Conclusions

In the introduction we raised five questions relating to the authorship behind the referenced literature used to underpin the ICNIRP 2020 thermal-only view. Below we repeat the patterns found, answering these questions whilst adding some overarching conclusions.

  1. Pattern 1: ICNIRP affiliates and ICNIRP 2020 authors are heavily involved in literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin it. Figure 2 shows the graph of the complete network of co-authorship relations found in the referenced literature in ICNIRP 2020 originating from the ICNIRP affiliates, displaying that ICNIRP affiliates are the most central nodes of the network, and seven of the most central nodes being ICNIRP 2020 authors.

    Pattern 4: a small and tight network of just 17 authors is behind all the literature used to underpin ICNIRP 2020. Of these 17, 10 were ICNIRP affiliates, of whom six were also authors of ICNIRP 2020. Five of these 17 were IEEE C95.1 2019 authors, two of whom were also ICNIRP 2020 authors.

  2. Pattern 2: ICNIRP 2020 authors are involved in all the literature reviews referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin it. In addition to the ICNIRP 2020 authors, these committees are manned by several other ICNIRP affiliates.

  3. Pattern 3: All scientific papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 are from the same co-author network centered around ICNIRP affiliates.

    Only four papers were found to be used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 that were not linked to the ICNIRP co-authorship network. Of these four, a simple internet search revealed that two of them have authors who have co-authored several papers with ICNIRP affiliates and thus cannot be seen as independent from ICNIRP. The two last were misinterpreted to underpin ICNIRP 2020 or offered no scientifically sound support.

  4. Pattern 5: The spread of first authors gives a false impression of broad support. While there is a high variation of first authors, most of them not affiliated with ICNIRP/IEEE, a tight network of just 16 key authors, dominated by ICNIRP and IEEE affiliates, is involved in all the papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 (Pattern 4). Moreover, in the co-authorship network (Pattern 1) ICNIRP affiliates are found as central nodes, while most first authors are peripheral in the network.

    Intentionally or not, the domination of ICNIRP affiliated authorship is blurred by the practice of having many different non-affiliates as first authors. This conceals the fact that effectively all referenced papers used to support ICNIRP 2020 originate from a network of researchers completely dominated by ICNIRP affiliates and a few who are closely related.

  5. Pattern 6: All referenced papers not authored by the ICNIRP co-authorship network are either rejected, misinterpreted to underpin ICNIRP 2020, or offer no scientifically sound support.

Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself and, in practice, all its referenced supportive literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE and with ICNIRP 2020 authors in prominent positions, where those who are not are still closely related.

The overlaps between ICNIRP and the committees authoring the referenced literature reviews have been documented multiple times [4, 19, 20]. However, it was not anticipated that these ties would be so strong, that they include all committees behind the literature reviews, as well as the authorships of all the peer reviewed papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020. Indeed, we would never have expected to find as few as 17 key authors as the smallest set of authors involved in all the literature used to underpin the ICNIRP 2020, and that they constitute a network heavily overlapping with the ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. It was also not anticipated that the ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves would be represented in all committees. This means that the authors of ICNIRP 2020 are exclusively referring to themselves and their fellow network members as the basis for their own scientifically highly controversial recommendations.

As well, it was highly unexpected to find that the WHO report [11] described in ICNIRP 2020 as "an in-depth review from the World Health Organization on radiofrequency EMF exposure and health" [2 p. 486] and presented in these words: "This independent review is the most comprehensive and thorough appraisal of the adverse effects of radiofrequency EMFs on health" [2 p. 517], is in fact a retracted draft where five out of six WHO core group members were ICNIRP affiliates, of whom three are among the authors of ICNIRP 2020. Such a claim and circularity of authorship is encroaching upon something very similar to fraud.

From our findings we draw the conclusion that the referenced literature used in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin its guidelines is neither varied, nor independent or balanced, and is by no means "consistent with current scientific knowledge", as claimed by ICNIRP 2020 [2 p. 484]. ICNIRP 2020 bases this claim within this small network only, a claim that runs contrary to the majority of biology-oriented researchers and publications within this research field. Hence, our review shows that the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements as to being built on a broad, solid and established knowledge base, uphold a view contrary to well established knowledge within the field, and therefore cannot offer a basis for good governance when setting RF exposure limits for the protection of human health.

Open access paper: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0037/html
--
Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters]

A world-renowned scientist and former ICNIRP Commissioner accuses ICNIRP of "groupthink" in the following paper.
The "privately constituted group, with self-appointed membership" referred to in this paper is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP has global influence on official regulations regarding wireless radiation exposure limits including the WHO and the FCC. Dr. Lin, an ICNIRP Commission member from 2004-2016, accuses the organization of groupthink in this paper published in the IEEE Microwave Magazine.
James C. Lin, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois Chicago is one of the most renowned scientists who has studied the biological interactions of wireless radiation. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering. Since 2006 he has been the Editor-in-Chief of the Bioelectromagnetics journal published on behalf of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), an international organization of biological and physical scientists, physicians and engineers interested in the interactions of electromagnetic fields with biological systems.
(I bolded key sentences in the excerpts below. The one-sentence abstract seems misleading which makes me wonder whether the editors of IEEE Microwave Magazine censored the original abstract.)

James C. Lin. Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 22(5):24-26. May 2021. doi: 10.1109/MMM.2021.3056975.
Abstract

Discusses how the COVID-19 health pandemic worldwide was complicated by not only health and medical concerns, but the inclusion of politics, conspiracy theories, and social media.
Excerpts

"Fast forward to the 21st century, when, in 2011, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified exposure to RF radiation as 2B—a possible cancer-causing agent to humans. The IARC had evaluated the then-available scientific studies and, although evidence was incomplete and limited (especially regarding results from animal experiments), concluded that the epidemiological studies of humans reported increased health risks for long-term users of cellular mobile telephones. These risks included gliomas (a type of malignant brain cancer) and acoustic neuromas (or acoustic schwannomas—a nonmalignant tumor of the auditory nerves on the side of the brain). This evidence was sufficiently strong to support a classification of exposure to RF radiation possibly being carcinogenic for humans [2], [3].

In 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) reported observations of two types of cancers in laboratory rats that were exposed, for their entire lives, to RF radiation used for 2G and 3G wireless cellular mobile telephone operations [4], [5]. This is the largest health-effect study ever undertaken by the NIEHS/NTP for any agent. A 12-member peer review panel of independent scientists convened by NIEHS/NTP evaluated the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies and concluded, among other observations, that there was statistically significant and "clear evidence" that the RF radiation had led to the development of malignant schwannoma in the heart of male rats.

Shortly after the NTP report, the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center at the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, published the results from its comprehensive study on carcinogenicity in rats with lifelong exposure to 2G/3G 1,800-MHz RF radiation [6]. The study involved whole-body exposure of male and female rats under plane-wave equivalent or far-zone exposure conditions. A statistically significant increase in the rate of schwannomas in the hearts of male rats was detected for 0.1-W/kg RF exposure. It is critical to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini RF exposure studies presented similar findings about heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. Thus, two relatively well-conducted RF exposure studies, employing the same strain of rats, showed consistent results of significantly increased cancer risks from mobile phone exposures.

It is critical to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini RF exposure studies presented similar findings about heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. Thus, two relatively well-conducted RF exposure studies, employing the same strain of rats, showed consistent results of significantly increased cancer risks from mobile phone exposures.

Recently, a privately constituted group, with self-appointed membership, published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to RF electromagnetic fields in the 100-kHz and 300-GHz frequency range [7]. The proposed guidelines were primarily based on the tissue-heating potentials of RF radiation to elevate animal body temperatures to greater than 1° C. While recognizing that the two aforementioned studies used large numbers of animals, best laboratory practice, and animals exposed for the entirety of their lives, the private group preferred to quibble with alleged "chance differences" between treatment conditions and the fact that the measured animal body core temperature changes reached 1° C, implying that a 1° C body core temperature rise is carcinogenic, ignoring the RF exposure. The group then pronounced that, when considered either in isolation or within the context of other animal carcinogenicity research, these findings do not provide evidence that RF radiation is carcinogenic.

Furthermore, the group noted that, even though many epidemiological studies of RF radiation associated with mobile phone use and cancer risk had been performed, studies on brain tumors, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and parotid gland tumors had not provided evidence of an increased cancer risk. It suggested that, although somewhat elevated odds ratios were observed, inconsistencies and limitations, including recall or selection bias, precluded these results from being considered for setting exposure guidelines. The simultaneous penchant to dismiss and criticize positive results and the fondness for and eager acceptance of negative findings are palpable and concerning.

In contrast, the IARC's evaluation of the same epidemiological studies ended up officially classifying RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans [2], [3].

An understandable question that comes to mind is this: How can there be such divergent evaluations and conclusions of the same scientific studies? Humans are not always rational or as transparent as advertised, and scientists are not impervious to conflicts of interest and can be driven by egocentric motivations. Humans frequently make choices and decisions that defy clear logic.

Science has never been devoid of politics, believe it or not."

"Biases can impair rational judgment and lead to poor decisions. Emotions can keep humans from being rational and prevent us from arriving at obvious conclusions. At times, humans systematically make choices and decisions that defy clear logic. Regrettably, the herd mentality or groupthink is as rampant today as ever.

Some years ago, I commented, "Science has become partisan. And the corollary, if science becomes partisan, is it science or politics, or would it be political science?" [8]. Perhaps, it is simply a matter of the willing being politically correct.

When decisions are not arrived at by prudently balancing the facts or are made via impaired rational judgment, it could lead to poor decisions through biases.


Cellular mobile communication and associated wireless technologies have proven, beyond any debate, their direct benefit to humans. However, as for the verdict on the health and safety of billions of people who are exposed to unnecessary levels of RF radiation over extended lengths of time or even over their lifetimes, the jury is still out. When confronted with such divergent assessments of science, the ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—practice and principle should be followed for RF health and safety."

[7] "ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)," Health Phys., vol. 118, no. 5, pp. 483–524, 2020.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9393739
==
Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation

Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson, Tarmo Koppel, Michael Carlberg. Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation. J Cancer Sci Clin Ther. 2021; 5(2): 250-285. doi: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117.
Abstract
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published 2020 updated guidelines on radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range 100 kHz to 300 GHz. Harmful effects on human health and the environment at levels below the guidelines are downplayed although evidence is steadily increasing. Only thermal (heating) effects are acknowledged and therefore form the basis for the guidelines. Despite the increasing scientific evidence of non-thermal effects, the new ICNIRP guidelines are not lower compared with the previous levels. Expert groups from the WHO, the EU Commission and Sweden are to a large extent made up of members from ICNIRP, with no representative from the many scientists who are critical of the ICNIRP standpoint.
Excerpts
"As a general rule ICNIRP, WHO, SCENIHR and SSM have for many years dismissed available studies showing harmful effects from non-thermal RF exposure and have based their conclusions mainly on studies showing no effects. Results showing risk are criticized, disregarded or not even cited while studies showing no risks are accepted as evidence of no risk in spite of severe methodological problems. Many statements by these agencies are misleading and not correct. They are easily rebutted by reading the relevant publications....
All these expert groups dominated by ICNIRP consequently reach similar conclusions that there are no health effects below ICNIRP guidelines. No representative from the scientific community that is of the opinion that there is increasing evidence of health risks below the ICNIRP guidelines, e.g. as expressed in the EMF Scientists Appeal [24], has ever been a member of the expert groups at the WHO, the EU, the SSM or ICNIRP. Certainly scientists who do not discount evidence of health effects from exposure to RF radiation that are observed at exposures below guideline levels should be represented....
ICNIRP is not representative of the scientific community since it does not include representatives from scientists that agree there is evidence of harmful effects at levels well below ICNIRPs limits although these scientists are in majority in the scientific community [24]."
Conclusion
"ICNIRP's conclusion [48] on cancer risks is: "In summary, no effects of radiofrequency EMFs on the induction or development of cancer have been substantiated." This conclusion is not correct and is contradicted by scientific evidence. Abundant and convincing evidence of increased cancer risks and other negative health effects are today available. The ICNIRP 2020 guidelines allow exposure at levels known to be harmful. In the interest of public health, the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines should be immediately replaced by truly protective guidelines produced by independent scientists."
Open access paper: https://www.fortunejournals.com/abstract/aspects-on-the-international-commission-on-nonionizing-radiation-protection-icnirp-2020-guidelines-on-radiofrequency-radiation-2261.html
--
5g tests the limits of trust
Dariusz Leszczynski, Tekniikka & Talous, Jan 20, 2022 (Google translation from Finnish)

Dariusz Leszczynski estimates that the regulation of radiation in mobile communications is not sufficiently based on scientific evidence. More data. Coverage of 5g networks is increasing all the time.

In 2020, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) updated its safety guidelines regarding exposure to radio frequency radiation (RF-EMF) emitted by wireless communication devices such as mobile phones and their base stations. The previous standard was from 1998.

The World Health Organization WHO recommends the mentioned guideline, which has been adopted by a large part of the world's countries and has become part of the wireless regulatory framework. Although the US uses IEEE/ICES and FCC standards, it also seeks to "harmonize" with Icnirp.

ICNIRP's safety instructions are based on one basic principle, according to which the only proven health effect caused by radiation exposure is the thermal effect. It appears when the temperature of the skin tissue rises above 1 degree Celsius, and when the temperature rise falls below one degree Celsius, the radiation is considered harmless to health. ICNIRP's view is that the radiation level of wireless devices according to its safety guidelines is not sufficient to produce a temperature rise in skin tissue. Furthermore, according to ICNIRP's science review, without that temperature rise there can be no proven effects. ICNIRP has drawn up its safety instructions to protect consumers only from possible thermal effects, which the commission considers sufficient.
However, there are a large number of experimentally observed thermal-independent, non-thermal effects in both animals and laboratory-grown cells caused by exposure to wireless radiation well below the current exposure limits set by
ICNIRP. The researchers are concerned that similar, non-thermal reactions would also occur in users of mobile devices. This could lead to health problems. According to ICNIRP's scientific position, this could not happen. Is the assessment of scientific evidence biased? Not all observations made by researchers about non-thermal effects can be "pure hallucinations".
ICNIRP's instructions therefore only prevent the occurrence of an acute heat effect lasting from minutes to hours, but not repeated and long-lasting from months to decades. Although there have been published studies on acute effects that occur during or shortly after exposure, there are very few publications on long-term chronic exposure. The application of ICNIRP's standards to the real situation seems to be based on a mere safety assumption without a scientific basis.
The standard is advertised as sufficient for every user regardless of age or health.
ICNIRP assures that all population groups are equally protected, whether it is the growing and developing body of a small child, or an elderly person suffering from a chronic, potentially fatal disease, or a young, healthy, robust adult man.
Since human experimentation is limited for obvious ethical reasons, we need to look at epidemiology to determine long-term effects. Studies of long-term biological effects or health effects can take years and have limitations, so information is scarce. That is, there is no evidence to guarantee that Icnirp's safety instructions would cover everyone, regardless of age or health status, also taking into account how long people have been using wireless devices. It's all about assumptions without a scientific basis.

Looking at the ICNIRP commission, it is easy to see that the members have very similar views on key issues. They have expressed almost the same opinion; "wireless networks are absolutely safe within all security limits set by
ICNIRP." The scientific assessments prepared by ICNIRP's experts are often in conflict with the assessments of researchers outside the organisation's operations. It is even more interesting to observe how the members of the commission act when they are placed in national scientific committees in the company of scientists from outside the organization. In this case, they may draw conclusions that conflict with ICNIRP's views. Recently, these dissenting opinions were published by, among others, the BERENIS Committee in Switzerland,
For most users of wireless technology, Icnirp is just an abbreviation. Consumers are told that it acts only as a committee on science with no other influence, be it industry or a government radiation regulatory body. However, many users are not aware of how Icnirp works in practice. For your consideration:

1.
ICNIRP is a group of about a dozen scientists who do not claim to represent anyone but themselves.
2. It presents itself as outside the lobbying influence of industry and national radiation protection organizations.

3. Retired members will be replaced by new members elected by the current members.

4.
ICNIRP's selection criteria and their justifications for selecting new members are not publicly available. Only members know why a person has been selected for their group.
5.
ICNIRP is not responsible for the scientific decisions it makes to any party.
6. No one can control the methods used by
ICNIRP to achieve the safety guidelines it recommends.
7. No one supervises its operation.

8. It is not legally responsible for its scientific statements. Legal liability is limited to what members say. It's just a matter of instructions and no one is legally obliged to use them. Even if the instructions turned out to be incorrect, no one could legally sue
ICNIRP.
However, the telecommunications industry and national radiation protection organizations have ended up using
ICNIRP's safety instructions. By doing so, they are legally responsible for any health risks caused by the devices they manufacture, even if they meet ICNIRP's guidelines. In other words, the Commission avoids the legal responsibility that remains with the operators in the field if the use of the equipment causes health problems. The members themselves are responsible only to "God and history" for all the right or wrong decisions they make.
In order to fully understand the great significance of this complete lack of oversight of Icnirp's operations, it must be remembered that the safety guidelines developed by Icnirp are the only guidelines used by the industry that manufactures and operates wireless communication equipment and infrastructure in most of the world.

Basically,
ICNIRP's security guidelines legitimize the operation of the telecommunications industry, which in 2019 had an annual value of approximately $1.74 trillion worldwide. The ICNIRP in question is an organization that claims to be completely independent of all outside interests and operates without any kind of supervisor or control, without responsibility for its scientific decisions.
The introduction of the new 5th generation wireless communication, 5g, which is currently underway, has further raised the debate about the validity of
ICNIRP's standards. New in wireless 5g communication is the use of millimeter waves and frequencies above 20 GHz – 300 GHz. Although millimeter waves can transfer large amounts of data, they have the problem of how far the data can be sent within the limits of short wavelength bandwidth. This causes very frequent deployment of base stations (cell antennas) in different areas. Roughly estimating, one small base station would be placed on every other lamp post, and base stations would also be required inside buildings. In practice, this leads to the fact that in a few years, urban environments will be saturated with millimeter waves, when 5g has been fully implemented.
In its 2020 guidelines,
ICNIRP assures that consumers' health is fully protected. How does the Commission know that? Research on millimeter waves and health is limited. Recently published scientific reviews have selected various databases and found only a small number of studies on the health effects of millimeter waves. Most of the publications deal with radiation measurements and dosimetry, not biological or health effects. In 2019 Simkó and Mattsson published a review that included only 97 experimental studies and in 2020 Leszczynski published a review of 99 experimental studies. In 2021, Karipidis et al. published a review that included 107 experimental studies. Most millimeter wave studies consist of small, laboratory or animal experiments,
The lack of research causes confusion and problems in communities. When users ask for scientific evidence about the health effects of 5g millimeter waves, they get no answers. Research has not yet been done sufficiently and the safety of 5g cannot be scientifically proven. However, it would be possible to conduct a sufficient number of studies on 5g that would either show whether the health effects are minor or even insignificant.

It is interesting, but also worrying, to note what Rodney Croft, chairman of
ICNIRP, a professor of psychology at the University of Wollongong, Australia, stated in an interview on Australian TV on June 16, 2020: "There is no harm associated with 5g". "Look, it's quite true that the amount of research looking at 5g is very limited, but from a science perspective, this is simply not relevant."
In this scientifically and legally complex situation, there is an urgent need to carry out an independent validation of the results of
ICNIRP's scientific review and the validity of its safety guidelines.
The author is PhD, DSc, docent of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki and editor-in-chief of the Radiation and Health section of Frontiers in Public Health (impact factor 3.709). He has worked from 2000 to 2013 as a research professor at the Radiation Protection Center.
https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/uutiset/puheenvuoro-5g-testaa-luottamuksen-rajoja/7b268023-12f2-4889-bc7c-7825ad7115e3
--
Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest
Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncol Lett. 2020 Oct;20(4):15. doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876.

Abstract

The fifth generation, 5G, of radiofrequency (RF) radiation is about to be implemented globally without investigating the risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate among concerned individuals in numerous countries. In an appeal to the European Union (EU) in September 2017, currently endorsed by >390 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on 5G deployment was requested until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences has been conducted. This request has not been acknowledged by the EU. The evaluation of RF radiation health risks from 5G technology is ignored in a report by a government expert group in Switzerland and a recent publication from The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Conflicts of interest and ties to the industry seem to have contributed to the biased reports. The lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology places populations at risk. Furthermore, there seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.

Open access paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405337/
==
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G
June 2020

This 98 page report was commissioned, coordinated and published by two Members of the European Parliament – Michèle Rivasi and Klaus Buchner. The report was written by Hans van Scharen with editing by Erik Lamberand additional research support from Tomas Vanheste.
The Greens/EfA group in the European Parliament financed the preparation of this report.
Excerpts
"This report deals with an issue of which the importance cannot be overrated: the possible health effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (RfR) or electro magnetic fields (EMF). It deals more specifically with how the scientific debate has been hijacked by corporate interests from the Telecom industry."
"The findings of this report ('The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest and the push for 5G') give us an uncomfortable déjà-vu: many facts and processes that lead to the actual situation whereby European authorities – from the European Commission to most of the member states – simply close their eyes for real scientific facts and early warnings. We have seen exactly the same scenario in the debate on Tobacco, asbestos, climate change and pesticides.
Also in its latest guidelines from March this year, ICNIRP assures the world that there is no scientific evidence of adverse health effects from the radiation that comes with the new communication technologies, within the limits it proposes. But at the same time a growing number of scientists and also citizens are worried that EMFs do cause health problems. ICNIRP pretends to be scientifically neutral, and free from vested interests of the Telecom industry. We show with this study that this is 'playing with the truth' or simply a lie."
"In the debate on EMF and possible health effects, terms like 'corporate capture' of scientific research and 'war game science' are often used, and references to the tactics of the tobacco industry are often made. According to several authors, these tactics also influence organisations like ICNIRP and WHO's International EMF Project…."
"This appears to be a global issue. US researcher, Norm Alster, in his report 'Captured Agency' describes what this kind of corporate capture can lead to by referring to the workings of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), which is the main official US institution that deals with Telecom issues, and is sometimes mentioned in critiques of ICNIRP: "That is a term that comes up time and time again with the FCC. Captured agencies are essentially controlled by the industries they are supposed to regulate. A detailed look at FCC actions—and non-actions—shows that over the years the FCC has granted the wireless industry pretty much what it has wanted".
"As a result, consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence. (…) Most insidious of all, the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health impact routinely ignored. (…) Industry control, in the case of wireless health issues, extends beyond Congress and regulators to basic scientific research. And in an obvious echo of the hardball tactics of the tobacco industry, the wireless industry has backed up its economic and political power by stonewalling on public relations and bullying potential threats into submission with its huge standing army of lawyers. (…) Industry behaviour also includes self-serving public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility of, and cutting off funding for, researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that recall 20th century Big Tobacco tactics."
Conclusion
"ICNIRP presents itself, and is described by the European Commission and in the media, as an independent international commission that gives advice based on scientific evidence. We believe that there are various reasons to question this (self)-image.
The composition of ICNIRP is very one sided. With only one medically qualified person (but not an expert in wireless radiation) out of a total of 14 scientists in the ICNIRP Commission and also a small minority of members with medical qualifications in the Scientific Expert Group, we can safely say that ICNIRP has been, and is still, dominated by physical scientists. This may not be the wisest composition when your remit is to offer advice on human health and safety to governments around the world.
As one can read in the 45 portraits of the members of the ICNIRP commission and of the Scientific Expert Group (SEG), they all share the same position on the safety issues: non-ionising radiation poses no health threats and the only effects it has are thermal. ICNIRP says "non-ionising radiation poses no health threats if it does not heat the tissue by more than 1 °C", by which it admits that there are possible health effects, but only if exposure levels to strong radiation are too high".
Over the past years, and on many platforms, various EMF-experts have stated that ICNIRP is wrong to continue dismissing certain scientific studies showing adverse health effects – like the American NTP-study - and is mistaken in its almost dogmatic conviction that "non-ionising radiation poses no health threats and the only possible health effects it has are thermal in case of strong radiation".
Even after much criticism from members of the global scientific community, ICNIRP still adheres to the paradigm that the only proven effects (on health) are thermal. "ICNIRP appears to take into account only the warming of tissue and uncontrolled muscle contractions, although they claim in the most recent advice, that they also evaluated other mechanisms", writes Dutch Professor Hans Kromhout, who is currently leading a long-term study (in the Netherlands) into the effects of mobile phone use on human health, and who is chairman of a special committee on Electromagnetic Fields of the leading Dutch Health Council, which advises the Dutch government.
It seems that "a closed circle of like-minded scientists" has turned ICNIRP into a self-indulgent science club, with a lack of bio-medical expertise, as well as a lack of scientific expertise in specific risk assessments. Thereby, creating a situation which might easily lead to "tunnel-vision" in the organisation's scope. Two leading experts, Hans Kromhout and Chris Portier, confirmed to us that ICNIRP is a closed, non-accountable and one-sided organisation.
As many scientists and critical observers have pointed out, it seems that ICNIRP members are either oblivious to, or are ignoring, scientific studies that find possible adverse health effects in the absence of heating. Even though some ICNIRP-members have themselves acknowledged that industry-funded scientific research tends to produce less findings showing adverse health effects of EMF, whereas publicly funded studies – like the NTP-study – do find significant links between EMF and adverse health effects, this does not seem to influence one iota the views of ICNIRP-members.
The majority of ICNIRP-scientists have done, or are doing, research partly funded by industry. Is this important? As we argue in the introduction, we believe it is. Scientific publications, co-authored by two ICNIRP-scientists – Anke Huss and Martin Röösli, confirm the importance of funding. In 2006 and 2009 they did a systematic review of the effects of the source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health, and their conclusion was that, "industry-sponsored studies were least likely to report results suggesting (adverse health) effects". And theirs is not the only study that showed this, as there have been numerous studies of the differences in reporting from industry-funded research versus publicly-funded research that suggest a strong funding bias on the results.
In addition to the fact that certain members of ICNIRP, are simultaneously members of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) of the US-registered Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), we have seen further evidence of a close cooperation between ICNIRP and ICES, an organisation in which many people from the media and telecom industries, as well as from the military, are actively and structurally involved. During the current leadership of ICNIRP, these ties have become even closer "with the goal of setting internationally harmonized safety limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields". This must surely be considered as a situation in which conflicts of interest are a real possibility.
It is clear from ICES minutes that ICNIRP worked very closely with IEEE/ICES on the creation of the new RF safety guidelines that were published in March 2020. And this implies that large telecom-companies such as Motorola and others, as well as US military, had a direct influence on the ICNIRP guidelines, which are still the basis for EU-policies in this domain ….
Despite ICNIRP positioning itself, during the last 25 years, as the sole purveyor of scientific truth when it comes to possible relation between EMF and adverse health effects, it would not be right to hold this scientific NGO solely accountable if, one day, it were to become undisputed that EMF do cause health problems. National governments, as well as the European Commission, which is, after all, the 'Guardian of the Treaty', have a duty of care and protection of their citizens, and therefore should also take the legally binding 'precautionary principle' into account.
We think that the call for more independent scientific assessment in this area is, for all the arguments mentioned above and in what follows, fully justified.
That is the most important conclusion of this report: for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP. The European Commission and national governments, from countries like Germany, should stop funding ICNIRP. It is high time that the European Commission creates a new, public and fully independent advisory council on non-ionizing radiation. The funds currently allocated to ICNIRP could be used to set up this new organisation. And given the overall rise in R&D funding via Horizon Europe, with a foreseen budget (for 2021-2027) of between 75 and 100 billion euros, funding should in no way constitute an insurmountable hurdle to setting up this new, truly independent, body."
Open Access Report: https://bit.ly/icnirpCOIreport
P.S. Dr. Christopher Portier, while the Director of the CDC National Center for Environmental Health, represented the U.S. government on the expert working group convened in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization to review the carcinogenic classification of radio frequency radiation.
See also:
5G : l'impartialité du comité qui guide l'Europe pour protéger la population des ondes en question Un rapport de deux députés européens accuse la commission internationale de protection contre les rayonnements non ionisants d'être trop proche de l'industrie des télécoms.Stéphane Mandard, Le Monde, 19 juin 2020https://www.lemonde.fr/sante/article/2020/06/19/5g-l-impartialite-du-comite-qui-guide-l-europe-pour-proteger-la-population-des-ondes-en-question_6043352_1651302.html
==The Lies Must Stop Disband ICNIRP: Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever
Louis Slesin (Editor), Microwave News, April 9, 2020
Excerpts:
"... science has taken a back seat to politics. The failure to separate fact from fiction has made the battle against the coronavirus far worse, especially in the U.S. Much the same can be said of how governments and scientific committees have addressed electromagnetic health risks.
The public has been fed lies and half-truths about the health effects of RF/microwave radiation ... since the 1970s. The campaign has created a culture of confusion, especially with respect to cell phones and cancer. In this environment, why would anyone be surprised that sensational conspiracy theories about 5G have found a footing?
The Microwave News website is chock-full of articles describing how the public has been misled time and time again. Here are two current examples from those who are supposed to serve as the world's experts and to protect us from EMF/RF hazards: the members of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP for short.
The first is from Eric van Rongen of The Netherlands, the current chairman of ICNIRP... Two minutes into his PowerPoint narration you can hear him say, "There is no evidence from all [this] scientific information for the induction of cancer by radiofrequency fields" ...
Anyone who has been paying any attention at all knows that ...The U.S. National Toxicology Program has found "clear evidence" that exposure to RF radiation can lead to cancer.
... the NTP study is only one of many that show an RF–cancer link. It's the most important and the most persuasive, but hardly the only one.
ICNIRP may not agree with the NTP finding, but that is what the $30 million animal study showed. Its members want you to think that they know better and that the NTP results are untrustworthy....
The second example comes from a[n annual] report prepared for the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority by a nine-member panel of experts ... Van Rongen and Switzerland's Martin Röösli, who is also on ICNIRP, are members of this panel....
... the NTP warning was the most important RF–health development not only of 2018, but of the decade and most likely of the new millennium. Yet the expert panel chose to ignore it.
... That was the headline news of 2018. "Clear evidence" was a game changer; leaving it out of the annual update is a sure sign of bias ... it could well have been the title of the panel's 2018 update. But van Rongen, Röösli and the others ignored it.
This cannot go on. The first step is for ICNIRP ... to be disbanded. The Swedish panel should also be dissolved and reconstituted with a more balanced membership. Indeed, all expert committees should be broadened to include those who allow that more than RF tissue heating may be at work.
But most important: The lies and distortions must stop. Otherwise, confusion and conspiracy theories will continue to run rampant. The net result is that the entire RF research enterprise will lack credibility, which, unfortunately, is the objective of many of the leading players.
To read the full article: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/time-clean-house
==

March 11, 2020

New Guidelines Adopted by the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Protect Us Only from Thermal or Heating Effects

The ICNIRP issued a media release today to announce the publication of its new human exposure guidelines for non-ionizing radiation (100 KHz to 300 GHz) in the journal Health Physics. The guidelines address radio, WiFi, and Bluetooth in addition to 3G, 4G, and 5G cell phones and cell towers.
According to ICNIRP Chairman, Eric van Rongen, "We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease."
However, ICNIRP's new guidelines are likely to have the opposite effect and increase public concerns about wireless technology because the guidelines were designed to protect us only from short-term heating (or thermal) effects. The guidelines fail to protect us from non-thermal effects, especially from long-term exposure to wireless radiation because ICNIRP continues to dismiss the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity, radio frequency radiation including many human as well as animal studies. The preponderance of the research has found evidence of increased cancer incidence, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and infertility from exposure to wireless radiation.
ICNIRP guidelines pdfICNIRP media release
ICNIRP FAQs
Differences between 2020 and 1998 ICNIRP guidelines

ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys 118(00):000–000; 2020. Pre-print. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf




==
January 1, 2020
ICNIRP's Revised RF Exposure Limits Will Ignore Expert Opinions of Most EMF Scientists

According to Eric van Rongen, chairman of the International Commission on Non-ionizing Research Protection (ICNIRP), in August or September the ICNIRP plans to publish its revised guidelines regarding safe human exposure limits to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) (100 kHz - 300 GHz).

On April 17, 2019, Van Rongen made a presentation about the revised guidelines to the French National Frequency Agency. The ICNIRP guidelines will still be based only on thermal or heating effects. The Commission continues to ignore the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found bioeffects and health effects from exposure to low intensity, non-thermal levels of RF radiation.
Van Rongen made the following claims (see slide 8 of the presentation):
  • "No evidence that RF EMF causes such diseases as cancer
    • Results of NTP, Falcioni studies (animals, lifetime exposure) not convincing (statement on ICNIRP website)
  • No evidence that RF EMF impairs health beyond effects that are due to established mechanisms of interaction"
The 13 commissioners of the ICNIRP strongly disagree with more than 240 EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. These scientists who have published over 2,000 papers in professional journals on EMF and biology or health stated:
"The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the "Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)" . These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time "has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health."
During the public consultation period, about 120 contributors provided the ICNIRP with more than 1,000 comments regarding the draft guidelines.

How many contributors called for RF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from health risks due to exposure to low-intensity or non-thermal levels of RF radiation? Did the ICNIRP seriously consider the public input in revising the guidelines? Will the ICNIRP publish these comments?

The slides from the van Rongen presentation (marked "Draft -- Do Not Cite or Quote") are available at: https://www.anfr.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/documents/expace/workshop-5G/20190417-Workshop-ANFR-ICNIRP-presentation.pdf
Related posts:
"Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety" (UC Berkeley presentation / video & slides, Feb. 2019)International EMF Scientist AppealNTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final ReportsNTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab RatsRamazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP StudyMobile Communications and Public HealthPowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 1,027 Studies
==
February 12, 2019 (Updated January 9, 2020)


The "ICNIRP Cartel" and "The 5G Mass Experiment"
"... it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger."
As part of a project called, "The 5G Mass Experiment," Investigate Europe, a team of investigative journalists from the European Union (EU), examined the risks of deployment of 5G, the fifth generation of mobile phone technology, and the adequacy of electromagnetic field (EMF) safety guidelines promoted by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). To date, the team has published 22 articles in major newspapers and magazines in eight countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.Investigate Europe alleges the existence of an "ICNIRP cartel." The journalists identified a group of fourteen scientists who either helped create, or defend, the EMF exposure guidelines disseminated by ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Germany. ICNIRP's self-selected members and advisors believe that EMF safety guidelines need to protect humans only from heating (or thermal) effects due to acute EMF exposure. ICNIRP scientists argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines. The journalists argue that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from EMF exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund health effects research. Besides these fourteen scientists, perhaps several dozen EMF scientists in the EU and other countries actively defend the ICNIRP exposure guidelines.In contrast to the dozens of EMF scientists who support the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines, more than 240 EMF scientists from 42 nations who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health totaling over 2,000 papers have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Appeal calls on the WHO, the United Nations and all member nations to adopt much stronger EMF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from sub-thermal levels of EMF exposure and to issue health warnings about the risks of EMF exposure.The 5G Mass Experiment and the ICNIRP Cartel

A compilation of the information gathered by Investigate Europe about the ICNIRP Cartel members and the health agencies that the Cartel affected can be downloaded at:

https://bit.ly/ICNIRPcartel-031519.

The information on these pages was extracted from "The ICNIRP Cartel: Who's Who in the EMF Research World," an interactive graphic developed by Investigate Europe which can be found at https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who.
For more information see:Investigate Europe (2019). The 5G Mass Experiment. https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/the-5g-mass-experiment/. (Google Translate is a useful tool for translating these articles into other languages.)

Investigate Europe (2019). How Much is Safe? https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/.

Investigate Europe (2019). Mobile phones and health: Is 5G being rolled out too fast? https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Mobile-phones-and-health-is-5G-being-rolled-out-too-fast
Countries are deploying 5G at breakneck speed to gain a competitive edge, but scientists have concerns about effects on public health and are calling for a precautionary approach.Related Information:

WHO RadiofrequencyRadiation Policy
Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health EffectsInternational EMFScientist Appeal

==

Nov 1, 2018
THE EMF CALL: Scientists and NGO's call for better protection from Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Technologywww.emfcall.orgPress-Release Nov 1, 2018
157 scientists and medical doctors together with 86 non-governmental organizations (NGO's) from all over the world are calling for more protective limits for exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies. In a joint statement, THE EMF CALL, they conclude that the ICNIRP guidelines are unscientific and do not protect against harmful health effects including cancer.The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF) (100 kHz to 300 GHz). The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment, as they only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. They do not protect against cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the nervous system, although the preponderance of the peer-reviewed research has found adverse effects from chronic exposure at intensities below the ICNIRP limits.In May, 2011, the World Health Organization's cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), concluded that radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz–300 GHz is a "possible" human carcinogen (Group 2B). However, the ICNIRP ignores this as well as the increasing evidence in recent years for carcinogenicity. The scientists and the NGO's demand the development and adoption of new medical guidelines that represent the state of medical science and that are truly protective of human health and the environment. The scientists and medical doctors, selected to review the scientific literature and propose new radiofrequency radiation safety guidelines, must be free of conflicts of interest including direct and indirect ties to industry. Professor David Carpenter, Director at the Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany, USA notes that:
- The evidence for harm from both 50/60 Hz EMFs and radiofrequency exposures is strong in both human and animal studies. There are associations between increasing exposure not only with cancer, but also with adverse reproductive outcomes in both males and females, adverse effects on cognitive function and behavior and increased risk of development of the syndrome of electro-hypersensitivity. We must find ways of reducing human exposure in order to reduce the incidence of human disease.

Dr. Lennart Hardell, Swedish oncologist with long-term research in this area says:- The roll-out of 5G, the fifth generation of telecommunication technology will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Thus, in addition to the urgent need for new guidelines on current exposure a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G should be implemented.Dr Joel Moskowitz, from the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA points out that the EMF CALL re-iterates the concerns raised by the scientific community in the International EMF Scientist Appeal about the harm caused by chronic exposure to low-intensity EMF:
- The Appeal, which has been signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on EMF and biology or health, calls for strengthening of EMF guidelines, especially to protect children and pregnant women. For more information about the Appeal, see https://emfscientist.org. According to Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from the Salzburg Public Health Department, Austria, the world has too long relied on incomplete EMF exposure guidelines:
- The body of scientific evidence for detrimental health effects from EMF exposure is overwhelming. There is now even no need to call the precautionary principle into play to take action. It is the duty of scientists to inform the public and the duty of the public to force governments to apply new truly protective EMF exposure guidelines as well as to educate the society how to reduce EMF exposures.
Contacts:
David Carpenter, email: dcarpenter@albany.eduLennart Hardell, email: lennart.hardell@environmentandcancer.comJoel Moskowitz, email: jmm@berkeley.eduGerd Oberfeld, email: gerd.oberfeld@salzburg.gv.at
See THE EMF CALL and all signatories at: www.emfcall.org

Swedish Radiation Protection Foundationwww.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se
==How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP

Franz Adlkofer, Pandora Foundation for independent research, Oct 26, 2018

The development of mobile communication technologies starting with 1G up to now 5G is a success story rarely heard of previously. It has only been possible because industry experts in charge of the technology assumed that radiofrequency (RF) radiation and its modulations – similar to visible light – are biologically harmless. They believed in safety limits that reliably protect people only from the acute thermal effects of RF radiation inherent in the system. Biological effects below the safety limits were categorically ruled out because their existence allegedly contradicted the laws of physics.
So, the technical use of RF radiation in mobile communication has experienced hardly any limitation. Doubts about the harmlessness of this radiation, just as old as the technique itself, have been countered by the mobile communication industry as wrong and without basis. Compliant scientists, whose preferred opinion was more important than their qualifications, were generously supported and, by using political connections, placed in national and international advisory and decision-making bodies.
A milestone in putting through the interests of the mobile communication industry was the establishment of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 1992. It is a non-governmental organization. Michael Repacholi, then head of the WHO's EMF Project, managed to get official recognition for this group by the WHO as well as the EU and a series of its member states, among them Germany. Repacholi, first ICNIRP chairman and later emeritus – member, left the WHO after allegations of corruption in 2006 and found a new position as a consultant to an American electricity provider. ICNIRP's most important task is the establishment of safety limits for non-ionizing radiation including RF radiation. Its decisions are of utmost importance for the mobile communication industry's economic and strategic planning. The ICNIRP, whose members are convinced of the harmlessness of RF radiation, has never changed its attitude despite all research progress made in this field since 1992. To guarantee that the mobile communication industry can permanently rely on ICNIRP, the succession of a member who leaves is regulated by statute. The remaining members select the new one on the basis of mutual understanding. Together with the other groups mentioned above ICNIRP has ensured that mobile communication industry is not only dominating the technical research to which it is entitled to, but also the biological research – this at the expense of the human health.
https://pandora-foundation.eu/2018/10/26/how-the-mobile-communication-industry-deals-with-science-as-illustrated-by-icnirp-versus-ntp/#more-1199

Full report: https://stiftung-pandora.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pandora_Adlkofer_Dealing-with-NTP-Nancy-Draft_181026_en.pdf
Excerpts
"There is no doubt that the evaluation of the NTP Study results by the invited panel members met all scientific criteria. This is also proven by the fact that the scientists responsible for the NTP Study have been confronted with numerous mistakes and other flaws, which could have been avoided with a better planning and implementation. However, these mistakes and flaws are by far not enough to question the most important result of the NTP Study, the evidence of carcinogenicity from mobile communication radiation."
"From the NTP Study it must be concluded that the safety limits established by ICNIRP are unable to guarantee the intended purpose, which is the protection of people from harmful effects of the mobile communication radiation, and that therefore time has come for IARC to adjust the classification of RF radiation from "possibly carcinogenic for humans" (Group 2B) to "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or even "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1). Casting doubt on the NTP results, which threaten the business model of the mobile communication industry, as done by ICNIRP, is betrayal of science. If any further proof that ICNIRP is a public relations organization of the mobile communication industry would have been necessary, its Note on recent animal carcinogenesis studies (2) quoted above has finally adduced it. [See below.]
ICNIRP argues that the NTP Study has no reliable basis to revise the current safety limits for RF radiation. Since its guidelines are solely based on acute thermal effects of the radiation, believing that other effects do not exist, the argument is not without logic to them. However, the NTP Study has clearly shown that this stand is absolutely unfounded, because the RF radiation unfolds its harmful effects also within the safety limits, when the exposure time is long enough. The NTP Study, up to now certainly the most ambitious and the most convincing one, has proven this with "clear evidence" (3,5). At the same time, it has refuted the reliability of the current safety limits. As always in such cases the robot-like answer by ICNIRP is that many questions must be answered until causality can finally be acknowledged.
ICNIRP wants the perfect study. The fact that this is impossible because of the nature of biological research, can obviously not be imparted to its members. So they show either incompetence in regard of their scientific qualifications or, most probably, the intention to help the mobile communication industry in a difficult situation. It looks as if ICNIRP is once again used by this industry to enforce its interests, and this time with a method copied from the tobacco industry. By sowing doubt for decades, the tobacco industry succeeded in keeping people unsure about the already certain fact that smoking causes lung cancer. Now the mobile communication industry uses the same tactic, and this with even more dire consequences: the addiction might be comparable, but the number of addicts is by far much higher."
https://betweenrockandhardplace.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/pandora_adlkofer_dealing-with-ntp_en.pdf
==
Sep 12, 2018
US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP's Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines
after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer
Ronald L. Melnick, Ph.D., has issued a scientific critique of ICNIRPs dismissal of the cell phone radiation studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP).
On September 4, 2018, ICNIRP issued a "Note on Recent Animal Studies" that concluded the $28 million NTP study did "not provide a reliable basis" for changing the over two decades old guidelines on radio frequency- cell phone and wireless – radiation.
In response, Dr. Melnick addressed 15 concerns raised by the ICNIRP about the NTP studies. He presented data to show that the ICNIRP document contains "numerous false and misleading statements" and concluded by questioning who the ICNIRP is protecting:
"Based on numerous incorrect and misleading claims, the ICNIRP report concludes that "these studies (NTP and Ramazzini) do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines." The data on gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart induced by cell phone radiation are suitable for conducting a quantitative risk assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of health-based exposure limits. The 'P' in ICNIRP stands for Protection. One must wonder who this commission is trying to protect – evidently, it is not public health."
Dr. Melnick was a Senior Scientist in the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. He served as a toxicologist for over 28 years before retiring in 2009. In 2007 he received the American Public Health Association's David P. Rall Award for science-based advocacy in public health.

Melnick RL. Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies. Environmental Health Trust. Sep 12, 2018. Open access document: https://bit.ly/MelnickICNIRP9-12-2018

--

Comments about the ICNIRP evaluation of the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies by the Ramazzini Institute
In recent days, the International Commission for the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) has dismissed the results of the studies conducted by the Ramazzini Institute (RI) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) on cell phone radiation as "unconvincing. Following are the observations of Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, director of the "Cesare Maltoni" cancer research center of the Ramazzini Institute.1. Both the NTP and the RI studies were well performed,and no bias affected the results. The ICNIRP confirms this conclusion.
2. Schwannomas are tumors arising from the Schwann cells. They are peripheral glial cells which cover and protect the surface of all nerves diffused throughout the body; so vestibular (acoustic nerve) and heart schwannomas have the same tissue of origin: ICNIRP seems to ignore that.
3. In rats, increases in malignant heart schwannomas, malignant glial tumors of the brain and Schwann Cell Hyperplasia (a pre-malignant lesion) are rare yet these lesions were observed in exposed animals in both laboratories, at thousands of kilometers distance, in a wide range of radiofrequency radiation exposures studied. These findings could not be interpreted as occurring "by chance".4. We are scientists. Our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vinyl chloride. This position of ICNIRP represents its own responsibility toward citizens and public health.5. ICNIRP is not a public health agency that routinely evaluates carcinogens. On the other hand, an independent agency that has evaluated over 1000 agents, IARC, as early as 2011 classified radio freqency radiation as a possible carcinogen on the basis of limited evidence in humans and limited evidence in animals. The studies of the RI and NTP will certainly contribute to the burden of evidence that IARC and other public health agencies can draw upon as a solid base for the re-evaluation of RFR carcinogenicity.https://bit.ly/RI-ICNIRP

==

ICNIRP Critique of the National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini InstituteAnimal Studies of the Carcinogenicity of Long-Term Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation
ICNIRP. ICNIRP Note on Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies. Munich, Germany. Sep 4, 2018. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf

Introduction

Two recent animal studies investigating the carcinogenic potential of long-term exposure to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with mobile phones have been released: one by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP 2018a, b) and the other from the Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al. 2018). These studies, among others, have been taken into account during revision of the ICNIRP radiofrequency exposure guidelines. However, both studies have inconsistencies and limitations that affect the usefulness of their results for setting exposure guidelines, and both need to be considered within the context of other animal and human carcinogenicity research. Overall, based on the considerations outlined below, ICNIRP concludes that these studies do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines.



Conclusion

Although the NTP (2018a, b) and Falcioni et al. (2018) studies used large numbers of animals, best laboratory practice, and exposed animals for the whole of their lives, consideration of their findings does not provide evidence that radiofrequency EMF is carcinogenic. NTP reported that their strongest findings were of increased malignant cardiac schwannoma in male rats, however that is not consistent with the results of Falcioni et al. (2018), is not consistent with the NTP female rat nor male or female mouse results, and is not consistent with the radiofrequency EMF cancer literature more generally. While results from epidemiological studies suggest vestibular schwannoma is an outcome of interest,
this is not true for malignant cardiac schwannoma. NTP found no increase in schwannoma overall or for vestibular schwannoma. Further, as multiple comparisons were not controlled for in the NTP study, there is no indication that the increased incidence of malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats was more than what would be expected by chance alone. ICNIRP considers that the NTP (2018a, b) and Falcioni et al. (2018) studies do not provide a consistent, reliable and generalizable body of evidence that can be used as a basis for revising current human exposure guidelines. Further research is required that addresses the above limitations.

==

Jul 23, 2018

ICNIRP requests public input on its radio frequency radiation exposure guidelines
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has recently announced that it wants public input regarding a new draft of its guidelines on limiting radio frequency (RF) fields (i.e., electromagnetic fields [EMF] from 100 kilohertz to 300 Gigahertz).
"The main objective of this publication is to establish guidelines for limiting exposure to EMFs that will provide a high level of protection for all people against known adverse health effects from direct, non-medical exposures to both short- and long-term, continuous and discontinuous radiofrequency EMFs."
The new publication replaces the 1998 RF exposure guidelines which have influenced RF exposure standards in many nations including the guidelines adopted by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
ICNIRP is an association with a scientific mission that is registered in Germany as a nonprofit organization. It is "formally recognized as an official collaborating non-governmental organization (NGO) by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). ICNIRP is linked to many organizations engaged in non-ionizing radiation protection worldwide and consults with the European Commission."

ICNIRP's new draft safety guidelines dismiss the research on the effects of chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of RF radiation. In its latest health risk assessment, ICNIRP concludes that there are no "substantiated" adverse effects of RF radiation on human health. See Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Literature and a summary of the findings which appears below.
Following is ICNIRP's justification for ignoring most of the EMF research in its health risk assessment:
"ICNIRP bases its guidelines on substantiated adverse health effects. This makes the difference between a biological and an adverse health effect an important distinction, where only adverse health effects require limits for the protection of humans." (ICNIRP Guidelines: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields [100 kHz TO 300 GHz]. July 11, 2018 draft. p. 2)
"These guidelines specify quantitative EMF levels for safe personal exposure. Adherence to these levels is intended to protect people from all known harmful effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure. To determine these levels, ICNIRP first identified published scientific literature concerning effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure on biological systems, and established which of these were both harmful to human health, and scientifically substantiated. This latter point is important because ICNIRP considers that, in general, reported effects need to be independently replicated, be of sufficient scientific quality and explicable more generally within the context of the scientific literature, in order to be taken as 'evidence' and used for setting exposure restrictions. Within the guidelines, 'evidence' will be used within this context, and 'substantiated effect' used to describe reported effects that satisfy this definition of evidence. (ICNIRP Guidelines: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields [100 kHz TO 300 GHz]." July 11, 2018 draft. p. 2)
Public consultation on ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines
If you choose to provide public input to ICNIRP, the draft documents consist of RF exposure guidelines and two appendices. Appendix A reviews dosimetry, and Appendix B summarizes the health risk assessment.
The consultation process which began on July 11 ends on October 9, 2018. ICNIRP members will review public comments prior to finalizing the RF exposure guidelines. ICNIRP will not reply to comments.
To provide comments on the draft documents, complete the form on the ICNIRP website or the template available at https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/public-consultation/consultation-1.html
Files for download
ICNIRPRF Guidelines_PCD 2018 07 11ICNIRPRF Gdl Appendix A_PCD 2018 07 11ICNIRPRF Gdl Appendix B_PCD 2018 07 11ICNIRPRF Consultation Template_PCD 2018 07 11
https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/public-consultation/consultation-1.html


My editorial comments
To date, 242 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health have signed the EMF Scientist Appeal. Collectively, these scientists from 41 nations have published more than 2,000 papers on EMF. The Appeal calls on the WHO and the United Nations including its member states to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for EMF including RF radiation in the face of increasing evidence of health risks since these exposures are a rapidly growing form of worldwide environmental pollution.
In a recently published, peer-reviewed paper, "Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective," Belpomme and his colleagues (2018) criticize the WHO due to its reliance upon ICNIRP and its members for expert advice. The paper claims that ICNIRP and its advisors have "close associations with industry," and "conflicts of interest." According to the authors, ICNIRP and its advisors have been engaged in decades of "denial of serious non-thermal effects of RF-EMFs in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary."
Moreover, Belpomme and his colleagues criticize ICNIRP's safety limits:
"The specific absorption rate (SAR)-based ICNIRP safety limits were established on the basis of simulation of EMF energy absorption using standardized adult male phantoms, and designed to protect people only from the thermal effects of EMFs. These assumptions are not valid for two reasons. Not only do they fail to consider the specific morphological and bioclinical vulnerabilities of children, but also they ignore the effects known to occur at non-thermal intensities…."
Finally, Belpomme and his colleagues (2018) provide a summary of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that arrives at very different conclusions than ICNIRP's health risk assessment:
"It is urgent that national and international bodies, particularly the WHO, take this significant public health hazard seriously and make appropriate recommendations for protective measures to reduce exposures. This is especially urgently needed for children and adolescents. It is also important that all parts of society, especially the medical community, educators, and the general public, become informed about the hazards associated with exposure to EMFs and of the steps that can be easily taken to reduce exposure and risk of associated disease."
The rules that ICNIRP applies for a study to be included in its health risk assessment seem overly stringent. If other official bodies (e.g., the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) were to adopt such rules, I suspect that very few chemicals would be classified as toxins or carcinogens. By its own admission, ICNIRP is not concerned about protecting animal or plant life from the adverse effects of EMF exposure, and it is arguable that they are truly concerned about protecting humans.
If the claims of some EMF scientists and scientific organizations (e.g., the European Cancer and Environment Research Institute and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) are true that ICNIRP's members and scientific advisors are selected because they are biased toward industry, then it is fruitless to engage in ICNIRP's public consultation process (see my posts from May 1 through June 27, 2017.)
Since the credibility of ICNIRP depends heavily upon its association with the WHO, a more fruitful activity for the EMF scientific community might be to convince the WHO and governments not to rely on ICNIRP for EMF guidelines and no longer consult ICNIRP's advisors.
==
Summaries from ICNIRP's Draft Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Literature

"ICNIRP bases its guidelines on substantiated adverse health effects. This makes the difference between a biological and an adverse health effect an important distinction, where only adverse health effects require limits for the protection of humans." (p. 2)
Brain electrical activity and cognitive function
"In summary, there is no substantiated experimental or epidemiological evidence that exposure to radiofrequency EMF affects higher cognitive functions relevant to health." (p. 3)
Symptoms and wellbeing
"In summary, no reports of adverse effects on symptoms and wellbeing have been substantiated, except for pain, which is related to elevated temperature at high exposure levels. Thresholds for these have not been clearly identified, but the best estimate is within the vicinity of 10 and 20 mA for indirect contact currents, for children and adults respectively, and 12.5 kW m-2 for direct millimeter-wave exposure." (pp. 3-4)
Other brain physiology and related functions
"In summary, there is no evidence of effects of radiofrequency EMF on physiological processes or eye pathology that impair health in humans. Some evidence of superficial eye damage has been shown in rabbits at exposures of at least 1.4 kW m-2, although the relevance of this to humans has not been demonstrated." (p. 4)
Auditory, vestibular and ocular function
"In summary, no effects on auditory, vestibular, or ocular function relevant to human health have been substantiated." (p. 5)
Neuroendocrine system
"In summary, the lowest level at which an effect of radiofrequency EMF on the neuroendocrine system has been observed is 4 W kg-1 (in rodents and primates), but there is no evidence that this translates to humans or is relevant to human health. No other effects have been substantiated." (p. 6)
Neurodegenerative diseases
"In summary, no adverse effects on neurodegenerative diseases have been substantiated." (p. 6)
Cardiovascular system, autonomic nervous system and thermoregulation
"In summary, no effects on the cardiovascular system, autonomic nervous system, or thermoregulation that compromise health have been substantiated for exposures with whole body average SARs below approximately 1 W kg-1, and there is some evidence that 4 W kg-1 is not sufficient to alter body core temperature in hamsters. However, there is strong evidence that whole body exposures in rats that are sufficient to increase body core temperature by several degrees centigrade can cause serious adverse health effects in rats." (p. 7)
Immune system and haematology
"The few human studies have not indicated any evidence that radiofrequency EMF affects health in humans via the immune system or haematology." (p. 7)
Fertility, reproduction and childhood development
"In summary, no adverse effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure on fertility, reproduction or development relevant to human health have been substantiated." (p. 8)
Cancer
"In summary, no effects of radiofrequency EMF on cancer have been substantiated." (pp. 8-9)

==

June 19, 2017
International EMF Expert Group to Counter ICNIRP
ECERI Newsletter. No. 6, June 2017
"Following a recent meeting with WHO representatives in Geneva, members of this ECERI group have decided to publish their own data in the form of a scientific consensus paper on the effects of non-thermal EMFs on behalf of the ECERI. Finally, since several ECERI scientists believe that environmental pollution may in fact be a cause of cancer and other diseases such as Alzheimer disease and autism, ECERI has proposed to create another international group comprising scientists and jurists to discuss the possibility that intentional massive pollution could be recognized by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a true crime against health. This proposal will be discussed at the next ECERI Executive Committee and General Assembly in Brussels.
Following the meeting with WHO in Geneva on March, the 3rd, it was proposed to create an ECERI-related working group to oppose ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), that might be termed "International commission of scientific expertise on non-thermal radiation effects (ICSENTRE). The members of this group so far are: Dominique Belpomme (France), Igor Belyaev (Slovakia), Ernesto Burgio (Italy), David Carpenter (USA), Lennart Hardell (Sweden), Magda Havas (Canada), SMJ Mortazavi (Iran), André Vander Vorst (Belgium) and Gérard Ledoigt (France). If you wish to join this group, please contact Christine Campagnac (sg.eceri@gmail.com)."
ECERI – European Cancer and Environment Research Institute, Square de Meeus 38-40, 1000 Brussels; Tél :0032 24 01 87 75 or 0033 1.45.78.53.52 sg.eceri@gmail.com
==

July 10, 2015

CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTING AT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION (ICNIRP)

AVAATE (VALLISOLETANA ASSOCIATION OF AFFECTED BY MOBILE PHONE ANTENNAS), July 10, 2015

SUMMARY

This paper has been prepared in order to demonstrate the existence of numerous conflicts of interest among the members of the international organization ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection. In Castilian, the International Commission for Non-ionizing radiation), that despite its private nature, is recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as reference entity to set limits of exposure for people of non-ionizing radiation in order to prevent such radiation affect your health.

The fact that the members of the organization engage in various conflicts of interest, being related to companies interested in the development of telecommunications and new technologies, undermines the impartiality that should govern the regulation of limits on non-ionizing radiation people.

It's incomprehensible that an international organization such as WHO, which has numerous and qualified public resources to establish adequately these limits, has delegated to a private organization issues affecting public health of all humanity.

The information contained in the work presented below was obtained from searches of reliable publicly available sources on the Internet, which can be checked by anyone who has an interest in this topic.

It would be very interesting by any natural or legal person interested in this topic assumes as its own this report (AVAATE authorized fully to do so) and send it to the authorities of the United Nations, of the International Labor Organization and of the World Health Organization of the Health.

https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
27.7.2022 01:00

Wireless Radiation TV News


Which wireless radiation risks are covered most by TV news in the USA?

Since June, 2014, television stations in the U.S have aired more than 300 news stories about health risks from wireless radiation exposure. Almost half of the stories focus on radiation risks from use of a cell phone, including risks to children. About a third of the stories discussed cell tower radiation risks. More than a dozen stories focus on cell towers or Wi-Fi in schools. Other technologies of concern include wireless smart meters and Wi-Fi-emitting devices.

Since January 2018, more than 90 news stories have reported on health concerns about the rollout of 5G, the fifth generation of cellular technology. Public concern about this issue has been covered by national network news and by local TV stations in more than 20 states and the District of Columbia.

CBS and its affiliates have provided the most news coverage about wireless radiation and health. Besides CBS national news coverage, almost all major CBS stations have run stories including stations in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charleston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Eugene, Houston, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland (OR), Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Spartanburg (NC), Spokane, and Washington, DC.

CBS was the only television network to cover the two major wireless policy developments in 2015 (the International EMF Scientist Appeal and the Berkeley cell phone "Right to Know" ordinance), and the only network to cover the release of the California Department of Public Health's cell phone safety guidance in 2017.

CBS's 60 Minutes has won every broadcast journalism award. In June, 2017, the show aired a story on smartphone addiction,"Hooked on Your Phone?", and in December, 2018, a story on the adverse effects of digital device use on children, "Phones, Tablets, and their Impact on Kids' Brains." However, 60 Minutes has yet to examine the health risks from the wireless radiation produced by these devices. With the publication of Norm Alster's book,"Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates," it is time for 60 Minutes to do an investigative story about why our government has not updated the obsolete wireless regulations that the FCC originally adopted in 1996 and reaffirmed in 2019 which fail to protect us from harmful levels of wireless radiation.

The above statistics are based upon Google searches for TV news stories about wireless radiation health risks where the video was posted online; thus, the overall amount of TV news coverage is under-estimated for this time period.

Links to TV new stories with online videos appear below.

Updated: July 25, 2022
CBS News
Proposed Clay County cell towers spark dispute among neighborsMarleah Campbell, KCTV (Kansas City, MO), Jul 20, 2022

St Petersburg homeowners concerned about proposed 5G cell towerChris Rogers, WTSP (Tampa Bay, FL), Jul 6, 2022
Proposed cell towers face stiff opposition in some Vermont townsMelissa Cooney, WCAX (Burlington, VT), Mar 7, 2022
Have you seen these beige metal boxes being installed in your neighborhood?

Melissa Correa, KHOU (Houston, TX), Jan 26-27, 2021

West County residents push back against proposed 5G cell tower
Kim St. Onge, KMOV (St. Louis County, MO), Sep 11, 2020

Palo Alto Retirement Home Residents Fight To Remove 4G, 5G Cell Towers
Len Kiese, KPIX (CBS San Francisco), Sep 2, 2020

Oklahoma City Residents Concerned Over New 5G Towers
Karl Torp, KWTV (Oklahoma City, OK), Mar 3, 2020

Lakeside parents want cell tower removed
Kelly Hessedel, KFMB (San Diego, CA), Feb 18, 2020

Petition aims to block roll-out of 5G in Spartanburg
Henry Coburn, WSPA (Spartanburg, NC), Feb 4, 2020

Hinsdale Neighbors Fight Plans To Install 5G Cell Service, Citing Health Worries
Jermont Terry, CBS Chicago, Jan 13, 2020

5G is coming, and so is its RF radiation
Matt Gephardt, KUTV (Salt Lake City, UT), Dec 5, 2019

As cell phone carrier eyes Walnut Hills for 5G expansion, residents want more information
WKRC (Cincinnati, OH), Dec 3, 2019

Encinitas City Council votes on 5G cell towers
Richard Allyn, CBS San Diego, Oct 30, 2019
Concerned Residents Dispute A Cell Phone Tower That Could Be Built Near Canonsburg SchoolsLisa Washington, CBS Pittsburgh, Oct 16, 2019

KCCI Investigates: Lawsuit filed over cellphone radiation
Alex Schuman, KCCI (Des Moines, IA), Sep 24, 2019
Encinitas residents rail against 5G cell towers
Richard Allyn, KFMB (San Diego, CA), Sep 23, 2019

Test finds iPhone 7 emitted twice the amount of radiation reported to regulators
CBS This Morning, Aug 22, 2019
Costa Mesa Residents Air Concerns Over 5G Towers
Stacey Butler, CBS Los Angeles, Aug 14, 2019
Protest held over 5G zoning ordinance in San Diego
Steve Fiorina, CBS San Diego, Aug 7, 2019

Boulder Holds Study Session On 5G Coverage For Concerned Residents
Tori Mason, CBS Denver, Jul 23, 2019
5G coming to ChicoHayley Watts, KVNV (Chico, CA), Jul 3, 2019

CBS13 Investigates: Could A New Cell Tower Hurt You Financially?
A new cell tower could put a local preschool out of business.
Julie Watts, CBS Sacramento, Jun 28, 2019
CBS San Francisco, Jul 6-7, 2019

Lake Forest residents voice concerns over 5G cell towersCBS Los Angeles, Jun 19, 2019

A look at the arrival of 5G, and just how dangerous it could beAngelina Dixson, KVAL (Eugene, OR), May 22, 2019
5G cell tower critics post 'health warning' signs
Lisa Balick, KOIN (Portland, OR), May 21, 2019

5G cell tower protest in Ashland
KTVL (Ashland, OR), May 15, 2019


Plan For 5G Cell Phone Towers Raises Health Concerns In MoragaSusie Steimle, CBS San Francisco, Apr 10, 2019
After several childhood cancer cases at one school, parents question radiation from cell towerCBS This Morning (CBS Network news), Apr 4, 2019
VERIFY: No, scientists didn't say AirPods cause cancer. But they do have questions.
Jason Puckett & David Tregde, WUSA (Washington, DC), Mar 20, 2019

Brain trauma suffered by U.S. diplomats abroad could be work of hostile foreign government
Scott Pelley, 60 Minutes (CBS Network news), Mar 17, 2019

Could Using Wireless Earbuds Be Putting You At Risk For Cancer?
Dr. Maria Simbra, CBS Pittsburgh, Mar 13, 2019

Experts: Wireless Headphones Like AirPods Could Pose Cancer Risk
KDFW (Dallas, TX), Mar 13, 2019

Recent Articles That Say AirPods Can Cause Cancer Are Not Quite Right
Tahesha Moise, WFMY (Greensboro, NC), Mar 13, 2019
Parents Blame Elementary School's Cell Tower After 4th Student Diagnosed With CancerJennifer McGraw, CBS Sacramento, Mar 13, 2019
Some Iowa residents push back against new smart meters
Hannah Hilyard, KCCI (Des Moines, IA), Dec 5, 2018
New study suggests that use of cell phones may affect memory in teenagersRose Beltz, KREM (Spokane, WA), Jul 27, 2018

New 5G network with ubiquitous antennas raises health concerns among some
Steve Sbraccia, WNCN (Raleigh, NC), Jun 5, 2018

Wireless Worries: 5G service is coming – and so are health concerns over the towers that support it
Tony Dokoupil, CBS This Morning (national), May 29, 2018


5G wireless service Is coming, and so are health concerns over the towers that support It
CBS New York, May 29, 2018

5G Service Is Coming – And So Are Health Concerns Over The Towers That Support It
CBS Boston, May 29, 2018

Questions Raised About 5G Health Risks Months Before Sacramento Launches Service
CBS Sacramento, May 29, 2018

Radiation Concerns Being Raised Over New 5G Wireless Service
CBS Philadelphia, May 29, 2018

Can Cellphones Cause Cancer? Experts Surprised By Latest TestsCBS Pittsburgh, Mar 29, 2018
Ashland residents protesting 5G tower installationRichie Garza, KTVL (Medford, OR), May 25, 2018
Findings of cancer in rodents exposed to cell-phone-like radiation draws crowd to RTPRobert Richardson, WNCN (Raleigh, NC), Mar 28, 2018

I-Team Report: Cell Phone Dangers
Colette Boyd, WNEW (Saginaw, MI), Feb 14, 2018

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer?
Heather Brown, CBS Minnesota, Feb 8, 2018

This Cell Phone Radiation Study Found More Questions Than Answers
CBS Miami, Feb 7, 2018

Cellphone Radiation Linked To Tumors In Male Rats, Government Study Says
Andrea Borba, CBS San Francisco, Feb 2, 2018

ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns over Impacts on Health
Julie Watts and Abigail Sterling, CBS San Francisco, Jan 25, 2018

California to set guidelines for limiting cellphone radiation exposure
CBS Evening News (network), Dec 15, 2017
California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation
Susie Steimle, CBS San Francisco, Dec 14, 2017
CBS (network) News. Dec 14, 2017
CBS Los Angeles, Dec 14, 2017

California Public Health Officials Issue Cellphone Radiation WarningCBS Sacramento, Dec 13, 2017
When Kids Get Their First Cell Phones Around The World
CNN, CBS San Francisco, Dec 11, 2017

East Bay Homeowners Challenge Proposed Cellphone Towers
Emily Turner, CBS San Francisco, Nov 15, 2017
Cellphone EMF-Blocking Products Put In A Real World Test
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Nov 14, 2017
Long Islanders Sue Over Health Concerns About New Cellphone Towers
Jennifer McLogan, CBS New York, Oct 19, 2017
Cities, Counties Line Up Against Bill Removing Limits On Cell TransmittersLemor Abrams, CBS Sacramento, Jul 12, 2017
Plan To Install 50,000 Cell Towers In California Faces Opposition
Phil Matier, CBS San Francisco, June 28, 2017
Woodbury, L.I. Residents Furious Over Cellphone Repeaters On Their Block
Carolyn Gusoff, CBS New York, May 11, 2017

Cell towers could be built at dozens of Prince George's Co. schools
Scott Broom, WUSA (Washington, DC), May 11, 2017

Draft Fact Sheet From California Health Officials Links Cellphone Use, Cancer Risk
CBS Los Angeles, Mar 3, 2017

Consumer Watch: State Continues To Refuse To Release Records On Cell Phone Radiation
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Feb 26, 2017

Judge Orders California To Release Papers Discussing Risk Of Cell Phone Use
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Feb 24, 2017


Cell phone explosion caught on camera
WGCL (Atlanta, GA), Jan 12, 2017

San Francisco Cellphone Service Shockingly Bad For Global Tech Capitol
Susie Steimle, CBS San Francisco, Jan 3, 2017
Parents upset over proposed cell tower
WUSA (Washington, DC), Sep 28, 2016

Berkeley's Cellphone Radiation Warning Law Disputed Before Appeals Court
CBS SF Bay Area, Sep 13, 2016
Apple Unveils iPhone 7 Without Headphone Jack Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Sep 7, 2016

Man Chains Electric Meter To Prevent Utility From Installing Smart MeterJon Delano, CBS Pittsburgh, Sep 1, 2016
Mt. Tabor neighbors fight plans for cell towers
Chris Holmstrom, KOIN (Portland, OR), Aug 31, 2016

Addressing health concerns of new KUB smart meters
Heather Burian, WVLT (Knoxville, TN), May 31, 2016


Study reignites concern about cell phones and cancer
Paula Cohen, CBS News, May 27, 2016

WiFi in schools: Is it hurting your child?
Paul Joncich, KLAS (Las Vegas, NV), May 10, 2016

New Research Links Cell Phones To Health Issues In Children
Ami Yensi, CBS Baltimore, May 3, 2016

Cell tower proposed behind middle school causing controversy
WDRW (Columbia County, GA), May 3, 2016

Protester Claims Vice President Biden's Son Died from Cell Phone-Related Brain Cancer
CBS SF Bay Area, Feb 28, 2016

Could Your Cell Phone Be Harming You?
Tess Leonhardt, WDTV (Bridgeport, WV), Feb 21, 2016

Notre Dame researchers target cell phone radiation
Zach Crenshaw, WSBT (Mishiwaka, IN), Jan 27, 2016

Bay Area Residents Worried About Radiation Face Uphill Battle Fighting Cell Towers
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Jan 12, 2016

Scientists: Effects of cell phone radiation on kids is cause for concern
Ashley Daley, Live 5 News (Charleston, SC), Nov 6, 2015

SF Residents Battle Wireless Firms Over Super Bowl Building Boom In Neighborhood Cell Antenna Systems
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Oct 31, 2015

Montgomery County parents concerned about wireless routers in schools
Mola Lenghi, WUSA9 (Maryland), Oct 20, 2015

Will Berkeley Cell Phone Ordinance Harm Consumers?
CBS This Morning, Jul 27, 2015

Retired Electronics Professor Wants To Create Wi-Fi Free Refuge
Mark Ackerman, CBS Denver, Jul 9, 2015

Are Wi-Fi Signals Making You Sick?
Marissa Bailey, CBS Chicago, July 1, 2015

People Believe Wi-Fi Is Making Them Sick
Dr. Mallika Marshall, CBS Boston, Jun 8, 2015

Seen At 11: Is Wi-Fi Making You Sick?
CBS New York, May 20, 2015

Why I Declared Our Bedroom A Wireless-Free Zone
Julie Watts, CBS SF Bay Area, May 20, 2015

Special Report: Upgrade Outage
WMMT (Kalamazoo, MI), May 19, 2015

Berkeley Passes Nation's First Radiation Warning For New Cellphones
CBS SF Bay Area, May 13, 2015
Berkeley, California, to require cellphone health warnings
CBS News, May 13, 2015

Cellphone safety: Where do you keep your phone? (web article)Elizabeth Hinson, CBS National, May 12, 2015 (last updated May 14, 2015)
KMOV (St. Louis, MO)
KPAX (Missoula, MT)
WCTV (Tallahassee, FL)
WDTV (Weston, West Virginia)
WFMY (Greensboro, NC)
WIVB (Buffalo, NY)
WKBN (Youngstown, OH)
WREQ (Memphis,TN)
WTSP (Tampa Bay, FL)

Can you get radiation poisoning from your cellphone?
CBS News, May 12, 2015

Woman Cuts Family Off From WiFi Over Health Concerns
Gerri Constant, CBS Los Angeles, May 5, 2015


LA County Firefighters Address Lawmakers Over Cell Tower Concerns
CBS Los Angeles, Mar 24, 2015

Local parents concerned about WiFi radiation

Andrea McCarren, WUSA (Washington, DC), Mar 7, 2015

Planned Smart Electric Meters On Long Island Draw Fears About Privacy, Radiation
CBS New York, Mar 6, 2015

Woman believes cell phone radiation nearly killed her husbandSamantha Cortese, KESQ (Palm Desert, CA), Feb 18, 2015 (also ABC affiliate)

In-depth investigation: Examining reports of a cancer cluster at La Quinta Middle School
Natalie Brunnell, KESQ (Palm Desert, CA), Feb 12, 2015 (also ABC affiliate)

Failure to follow cellular antenna regulations raises safety issues
CBS Atlanta, Nov 17, 2014 (updated Feb 10, 2015)

Some residents worried about health effects of smart meters
WMMT (Kalamazoo, MI), Dec 3, 2014

New smart meters installed in Spokane raise questions

KREM (Spokane, WA), Dec 2, 2014
CPS Energy's smart meters show random spikes in radiation output
KENS (San Antonio, TX), Nov 18, 2015

Cell phone towers raise new concerns about safety
Jason Barry, KPHO (Phoenix), Nov 10, 2015 (updated Nov. 25)

FPL, Foes Of Smart Meters Square Off
CBS Miami, Sep 30, 2014

Are Cell Phones Really Giving Us Cancer?CBS Pittsburgh, Sep 15, 2014

Brain Cancer Warning Stickers Proposed For Cellphones Sold In Berkeley
CBS SF Bay Area, Aug 22, 2014



NBC News
Proposed AT&T cell tower causes concern among neighbors in Kansas CityEmma James, KSHB (Kansas City, MO), Jul 19, 2022

New 5G cell phone tower in neighborhood has residents concerned about possible health impactsSeth Kovar, KRIS (Corpus Christi, TX), Mar 8, 2022

Potential new cell tower worries Topeka neighborsMatthew Johnstone, KSNT (Topeka, KS), Feb 14, 2022

Fact Check: Smart MetersNikki Rudd, WHEC (Rochester, NY), Jul 1, 2021
5G rollout in Tucson met with oppositionChorus Nylander, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Jun 14, 2021
5G towers popping up across Tucson, City sends letter to State lawmakersChorus Nylander, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Feb 23, 2021

City of Tucson & residents have zero control over cell pole placement
Allie Potter, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Sep 2, 2020
Group bands together against 5G technology
Lacey Lett, KFOR (Oklahoma City, OK), Mar 3, 2020

Parents Protest Cell Tower Across Street from Elementary School
Niala Charles, KNSD (San Diego, CA), Feb 28, 2020

5G Generation: Is Connecticut Ready for The New Technology?
Len Besthoff, WVIT (West Hartford, CT), Feb 21, 2020

Florida group wants restrictions on where 5G units are placed
Alexander Osiadacz, WTLV-WJXX (NBC & ABC) (Jacksonville, FL), Feb 20, 2020

New push for Germantown cell tower raises new concerns
Kelli Cook, WMC (Memphis, TN), Jan 22, 2020

Parents Want Cellphone Tower Taken Off Church Steeple in San Jose
Damian Trujillo, NBC Bay Area, Jan 17, 2020

Northwest neighborhood concerned about possible Verizon 5G tower
Amanda Henderson, WOAI (San Antonio, TX), Jan 15, 2020

Parents, neighbors concerned over possible cell tower in NE Bend
Max Goldwasser, KTVZ (Bend, OR), Jan 6, 2020

Concerns over 5G tech in Jacksonville as City approves new regulations
Alexander Osiadacz, WJXX and WTLV (Jacksonville, FL), Dec 11, 2019 (also ABC)
Parents furious over plans to build 5G cell antenna just feet away from elementary school
WXPI (Pittsburgh, PA), Oct 23, 2019
Elk Meadow parents press councilors over cell tower
Jacob Larsen, KTVZ (Bend, OR), Oct 3, 2019

5G Whiz
Staff, Full Measure (NBC Network), Sep 15, 2019

Chicago Tribune: FCC investigating phone radiation findings
Ali Velshi, MSNBC, Aug 23, 2019 (interview w/ Sam Roe)

Neighbors fight losing battle against 5G tower right next to Denver home
Nelson Garcia, KUSA (Denver, CO), Aug 9, 2019
Concern grows over electromagnetic frequency radiation as cell phones turn to 5GAnnaliese Garcia, WBBH (Fort Myers, FL), Aug 6, 2019
Cell tower causes some concern for Catalina residents
Eric Fink, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Jun 6, 2019

Germantown withdraws plan for cell phone tower near elementary school
WMC (Memphis, TN), Jun 5, 2019

Cell phone radiation: Just how dangerous is it for you?
Angelina Dixson, KMTR (Eugene, OR), May 22, 2019

Locals plan rally against 5G rollout
KOBI (Medford, OR), May 15, 2019

Is 5G technology safe? The debate intensifies
Jennifer Lewke, WHEC (Rochester, NY), May 2, 2019

VERIFY: Does 5G cause health problems?
Gordon Severson, KARE (Minneapolis, MN), Apr 22, 2019

5G fears: Homeowners worry about mini towers in street
John Matarese, WTMJ (Milwaukee, WI), Feb 8, 2019

Testicular cancer: Why it's difficult to talk about, and why it's rising
Chris Hrapsky, KARE (Minneapolis, MN), Nov 21, 2018

People concerned about 5G as FCC approves installation
Allie Potter, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Nov 16, 2018
Poor cell phone reception could increase your radiation exposure by 10,000xBob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Oct 5, 2018
Protecting yourself from cellular radiation
Denelle Confair, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Sep 23, 2018

Protestors rally against Pacific Power's smart meters
Rayvan Vares, KOBI (Medford, OR), Sep 22, 2018

Not in my backyard: Are cell towers coming to your neighborhood?
Nate Morabito, WCNC (Charlotte, NC), Jul 27, 2018

Pacific Power Installing Smart Meters in Jackson County
Elizabeth Ruiz, KOBI (Medford, OR), Jul 2, 2018

Palo Alto City Leaders Approve Verizon Cell Towers
Ian Cull, NBC Bay Area, May 22, 2018

Construction halted on cell tower near elementary school playground
Laura Wilson, KOAA (Colorado Springs, CO), Apr 25, 2018

City Council denies cell phone tower being built on church property
Natassia Paloma, KTSM (El Paso, TX), Apr 17, 2018

New Study Links Cancer to Cell Phone Use
Bianca Castro, KXAS (Dallas, TX), Mar 28, 2018
KOBF (Albuquerque, NM), Apr 3, 2018
WCMH (Columbus, OH), Apr 3, 2018
WBBH (Fort Myers, FL), Apr 3, 2018
WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Apr 3, 2018
KPRC (Houston, TX), Apr 4, 2018

Verify: Are electromagnetic fields harmful to your health?
Tami Tremblay, KTVB (Boise, ID), Feb 8, 2018

New study reigniting cell phone, cancer debate
Rob Hughes, WCNC (Charlotte, NC), Feb 6, 2018


Study of rats reveals cellphone radiation risk is low
Erika Edwards, NBC Connecticut (West Hartford, CT), Feb 5, 2018
NBC Southern California, Feb 5, 2018

Aiken County Planning Commission recommends denying request for new cell phone tower
Ben Billmyer & Lia Fernandez, WRDW (Aiken County, SC), Jan 18, 2018


New guidance issued for avoiding cell phone radiation
Bob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Dec 26, 2017

How worried do we need to be about cell phone radiation?
Sean Franklin, WBIR (Knoxville, TN), Dec 22, 2017

Health officials release guidelines on dangerous cellphone radiation
Madeline Cuddihy, WXIA (Atlanta, GA), Dec 19, 2017

Debate over Cell Towers in Hillsborough
NBC Bay Area, Dec 18, 2017

Proposed bill would cover potential injuries from microwaves, cellphones
Elisha Machado, WWLP (Springfield, MA), Nov 28, 2017

New cellphone tower has some residents concerned
Kaylie Spotts, WNWO (Whitehouse, OH), Sep 4, 2017

Controversial T-Mobile cell phone tower back on Roswell's agenda
Christopher Hopper, WXIA (Atlanta, GA), Jul 11, 2017

Texas teen electrocuted after cell phone incident in bathtub
Presley Fowler, KCBD (Lubbock, Tx), Jul 11, 2017

2 students get cancer; Ripon parents want cell towers removed from schools
Natalie Brunell, KCRA (Sacramento, CA), Jun 20, 2017

Government Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer
NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, May 27, 2017

Greenbelt Residents Worried About Health Effects of Cellphone Tower
Darcy Spencer, NBC Washington (DC), Apr 25, 2017

Cellphone safety tips to limit radiation exposure
Natalie Brunell, KCRA (Sacramento, CA), Apr 9, 2017

Sign puts Berkeley in center of cellphone debate
Natalie Brunell, KCRA (Sacramento, CA), Apr 9, 2017

How to reduce electromagnetic fields created by electricity
Meredyth Censullo, KFLA (Tampa, FL), Mar 31, 2017

Cell Phone Cancer Debate Heats up With Document Release
Scott Budman, NBC Bay Area, Mar 3, 2017

NBC Southern California, Mar 3, 2017
State health officials accused of keeping cell phone dangers secret
Vicki Gonzalez, KCRA (NBC Sacramento), Mar 3, 2017

Cell phones safe? Flap in California revives debateJeff Gillan, KSNV (NBC Las Vegas), Mar 3, 2017
Researchers: Long-term cell phone use may increase your risk for a brain tumor
Bob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Feb 21, 2017


Special Report: The Facts about Smart Meters
Joy Wang, WILX (Lansing, MI), Feb 12, 2017

Board denies proposed Greendale cell tower
Rebecca Klopf, WTMJ (Milwaukee, WI), Feb 7, 2017

Radiation-blocking underwear and five other crazy CES gadgets
Matt Granite, WGRZ (Buffalo, NY), Jan 7, 2016
Rat Study Launches New Debate over Cell Phone Radiation and Cancer
Rachel Polansky, WBBH (Fort Myers, FL), Dec 19, 2016

13 Investigates cellphones and cancer: Is the risk real?
Bob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Nov 14, 2016

Are Kids at Risk? Scores of Chicago-Area Schools Allow Cell Towers on their Buildings, Grounds
Phil Rogers, Katy Smyser, NBC Chicago, Oct 3, 2016

Parents Fight Plans for Cell Tower at Virginia Elementary School
David Culver, NBC Washington (DC), Sep 21, 2016

Berkeley Cellphone Ordinance Challenged in Appeals Court
Mark Matthews & Stephen Ellison, NBC Bay Area (San Jose, CA), Sep 13, 2016
Montgomery County Residents Shocked by Proposal to Build Cell Towers in Front of HomesJackie Bensen, NBC Washington (DC), Sep 2, 2016

Government study links cell phone radiation to cancer
Maggie Fox, NBC News, May 27, 2016

Piper Glenn residents cite eagles in cell tower fight
Bill McGinty, WCNC (Charlotte, NC), Apr 7, 2016

Berkeley's 'Right to Know' Cell Phone Radiation Warning Ordinance Now in Effect
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area (San Jose, CA), Mar 21, 2016

BGE makes case for another rate hike
George Lettis, WBAL (Baltimore, MD), Mar 18, 2016

North Kingstown teacher says she's being fired because she believes WiFi is health hazard
Brian Crandall, WJAR (Providence, RI), Feb 23, 2016

Kids Face Potential Radiation Danger Using Cell Phones
Shanay Campbell, WSAV (Savannah, GA), Nov 6, 2015

Scientists: Effects of cell phone radiation on kids is cause for concern
Ashley Daley, WMBF (Myrtle Beach, SC), Nov 6, 2015

Pediatricians express concern over growing cellphone use, radiation exposure for children
Meghan McRoberts, WPTV (West Palm Beach, FL), Nov 6, 2015

Potential radiation danger to kids using cell phones

Shannon Wolfson, KXAN (Austin, TX), Nov 5, 2015

Pediatricians' new warning: Limit children's exposure to cellphones
Danielle Dellorto, NBC Today Show, Nov 5, 2015


Report Examines Cell Phone Radiation
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area, Sep 24, 2015

Group wants cell towers gone
Barry Sims, WBAL (Anne Arundel County, MD), Sep 22, 2015

Neighborhood fights possible new cell tower on church property
Forrest Sanders, WSMV (Nashville, TN), Jul 30, 2015

Residents protest cell tower installation citing health concerns
Sophia Kunthara and Melissa Etezadi, NBC Southern California, Jul 20, 2015


Wireless companies sue Berkeley over cellphone radiation warning ordinance
Tamara Palmer, NBC Bay Area (San Jose, CA), Jun 8, 2015

Berkeley approves "Right to Know" cell phone radiation warning ordinance
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area
(San Jose, CA), May 12, 2015

West Seattle residents protest new cell phone antennas
Alex Rozier, KING (Seattle, WA), May 7, 2015

Bay Area documentary "Mobilize" examines cell phone dangers
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area
(San Jose, CA), Mar 28, 2015


ABC News
Englewood neighborhood outraged by city's plan to build 5G tower in front of home
Bayan Wang, KCDO (Denver, CO), Jul 7, 2022
Neighbors concerned about 5G cell tower in GilbertAshley Paradez, KNXT (Phoenix, Az), Aug 11, 2021
Verizon cell tower in limbo after Madison County board takes no action
Caitlyn Penter, WLOS (Asheville, NC), June 7, 2021


Houston homeowners upset over not being notified of 5G box placement
Nick Natario, KTRK (Houston, TX), Jan 27, 2021

More 5G woes: Poles installed feet away from Pensacola resident's front door
Rebekah Castor, WEAR (Pensacola, FL), Jan 21, 2021
Residents outraged as more 5G antennas are approved in Pensacola
Rebekah Castor, WEAR (Pensacola, FL), May 10, 2020

5G technology brings potential and tension
Kylie McGivern, WFTS (Tampa Bay, FL), Mar 30, 2020

Cell tower near elementary school sparks concern
Lindsay Pena, Zac Self, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Feb 27, 2020

Concerns over health lead to cellphone tower protest in Camas
Joe English, KATU (Portland, OR), Feb 5, 2020

Concerns over 5G tech in Jacksonville as City approves new regulationsAlexander Osiadacz, WJXX and WTLV (Jacksonville, FL), Dec 11, 2019 (also NBC)

Montgomery Co. considers 5G, but health concerns have residents protesting
Jay Korff, WJLA (Washington, DC), Nov 19, 2019

Carmel homeowners raise concerns over 5G small cell towers
Kara Kenney, WRTV (Indianapolis, IN), Oct 4, 2019

Can 5G cell phone antennas impact your pacemaker?
Jennifer Munoz, WEAR (Pensacola, FL), Sep 27, 2019

Small Cell tower and 5G concerns and benefits
Andrew Donley, WBMA (Birmingham, AL), Sep 23, 2019

Mystery towers going up all over Cincinnati area: Homeowners worry about possible health effects
John Matarese, WCPO (Cincinnati, OH), Sep 20, 2019

5G could come with health risks, critics say
Sharyl Attkisson, WBFF (Baltimore, MD), Sep 15, 2019

Concern, opposition grows to 5G in Colorado Springs
Scott Harrison, KRDO (Colorado Springs, CO), Aug 28, 2019

Los Altos man leads effort to keep AT&T wireless nodes away from daughter's bedroom, neighborhood
Amanda del Castillo, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Jul 11, 2019
Protesters in WDSM for new Verizon 5G installationsAdam Cron, KCWI (Des Moines, IA), Jun 14, 2019
Denver Public Schools faces backlash from parents about placement of cell towers on schools
Russell Haythorn, KMGH (Denver, CO), Jun 7, 2019


West Boca tower proposal meets resistance at zoning meeting
Ron Burke, WPBF (Boca Raton, FL), Jun 7, 2019


Albany residents debate safety of 5G
WNYT (Albany, NY), May 17, 2019

Protesters rally against 5G in San Diego
KGTV (San Diego, CA), May 15, 2019

Local group rallies in Asheville as part of national protest over 5G technology
WLOS (Asheville, NC), May 15, 2019

Group rallies against 5G roll out
KDRV (Medford, OR), May 15, 2019


'On Your Side' West Jacksonville community opposed to cell phone tower
Kenneth Amaro, WTLV (Jacksonville, FL), Mar 29, 2019
5G speeds: National City seeks public input for Small Cells Installation
Rina Nakano, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Mar 12, 2019
5G wireless technology comes with big promises, but city of Portland has big concerns
Keaton Thomas, KATU (Portland, OR), Mar 11, 2019

5G fears: Homeowners worry about mini towers in street
John Matarese, WCPO (Cincinnati, OH), Feb 8, 2019
Local group protests 5G cell tower in Eugene
Madison Glassman, KEZI (Eugene, OR), Jan 26, 2019

5G Fight: Greendale residents don't want cell towers in their yards
Caroline Reinwald, WISN (Milwaukee, WI), Jan 4, 2019
Some Duke Energy customers claim smart meters are making them sick
Tonya Simpson & Diane Wilson, WTVD (Raleigh, NC), Oct 1, 2018
The health effects with 'smart' utility meters
Jennifer Emert, WLOS (Asheville, NC), Sep 27, 2018
Smart meter workshop met with protesters
KDRV (Medford, OR), Sep 22, 2018

Some San Mateo residents upset over planned installation of Verizon antennas on utility poles
Vic Lee, KGO (San Mateo, CA), Sep 20, 2018
Concerned Talent citizens say new smart meters are unhealthyKDRV (Medford, OR), May 31, 2018

Verify: Do diode stickers protect you from cellphone radiation?
WVEC (Norfolk, VA), Apr 18, 2018

Are mini-cell phone towers a health risk in your neighborhood?
WJLA (Washington, DC), Apr 6, 2018
New study on link between cancer and cell phonesTiffany Neely, KAIT (Jonesboro, AR), Apr 3, 2018
Does cell phone radiation cause cancer? Scientists gather at RTP to discuss
WTVD (Raleigh, NC), Mar 28, 2018

The potential health risks of cell phones, explained
Sam Benson Smith & Zak Dalheimer, KESQ (Thousand Palms, CA), Feb 15, 2018

New warning links cell phones to health risks
Good Morning America / ABC Network News, Dec 18, 2017

Ask Dr. Nandi: California sets guidelines to limit cell phone radiation exposure
WXYZ-TV (Detroit, MI), Dec 18, 2017

Hillsborough homeowners fight proposed cell towers
Katie Marzullo, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Dec 9, 2017

Can mobile phone use lead to health problems?
Abigail Elise, WISN (Milwaukee, WI), May 14, 2017

Long Island Residents Outraged by Cellphone Towers in Front of Homes
N.J. Burkett, WABC (New York, NY), May 11, 2017

Cell phones and cancer, is there a connection?
Kerri O'Brien, WRIC (Richmond, VA), Mar 20, 2017

CA Health Dept. Releases Report Saying Cellphone Use May Cause Cancer
Lyanne Melendez, KGO (San Franciscom CA), Mar 3, 2017


Parents fight plan to put cell tower near playground at Virginia elementary school
Richard Reeve, Jay Goldberg, WJLA (Washington, DC), Sep 28, 2016

San Jose residents fight cellphone tower proposal over radiation concerns
Lisa Amin Gulezian, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Aug 13, 2016

Alpine residents outraged over EMF levels from Sunrise Powerlink
Ariel Wesler, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Feb 24, 2016


Notre Dame researchers making a faster and safer phone
Brandon Pope, WBND (South Bend, IN), Feb 5, 2016

New concerns over kids and electronics
Shannon Murray, KVUE (Austin, TX), Dec 3, 2015

Parents upset over cell tower possibly being installed near Weho school
Mayde Gomez, KABC (Los Angeles, CA), Dec 1, 2015

City leaders, neighbors raise concerns about cell towers
Kayla Moody, WHAS (Louisville, KY), Oct 28, 2015

Cell phone industry sues city of Berkeley
Lyanne Melendez, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Aug 20, 2015

Alki Beach residents protest plan for cell antennas near school
Theron Zahn, KOMO (Seattle, WA), May 7, 2015

Lake Ronkonkomo residents speak out against proposed cell tower in neighborhood
Kristin Thorne, WABC (New York, NY), Apr 29, 2015

Workers say cell tower sites putting them at risk
Cristin Severance, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Mar 19, 2015 (updated Mar 24, 2015)

Ann Arbor family has power shut off by DTE in dispute over installing new SMART meter on their home
Dave LewAllen, WXYZ (Detroit, MI), Mar 18, 2015

Smart meters' slammed at House committee hearingWZZM (Lansing, MI), Dec 2, 2014

Man claims OUC's smart meter made him sick, files federal lawsuitWFTV (Orlando, FL), Dec 2, 2014

Alamo Heights residents voice concerns over smart readersKSAT (San Antonio), Sep 22, 2014 (updated Sep 23, 2014

3 Reasons Not to Sleep With Your Phone in the Bed
Camille Chatterjee, ABC News, Aug 5, 2014

City pushes for cancer warning stickers on cell phones
WCVB (Boston), Jul 15, 2014

Berkeley City Council proposes ordinance to get warning labels on cellphones
Tiffany Wilson, KGO (San Francisco), Jul 15, 2014


Fox News

Cell phones and cancer: New UC Berkeley study suggests cell phones sharply increase tumor riskMarla Tellez, KTTV (Los Angeles, CA), July 7, 2021
Hold your cell phone away from your body: Research links cell phones to tumors
André Senior, KTVU (Oakland, CA), July 8, 2021


San Jose neighbors oppose 5G cell equipment installed feet from homes
Brooks Jarosz, KTVU (Oakland, CA), Apr 21, 2021

Hoosiers fight against 5G towers near homesKayla Sullivan, WXIN (Indianapolis, IN), Dec 28, 2020
5G internet antennas being installed in East GR, not everyone happy about it
Michael Martin, WXMI (East Grand Rapids, MI), Aug 31, 2020

Edmond group to voice concerns about 5G towers
KOKH (Oklahoma City, OK), Feb 25, 2020

Group plans to share 5G tower concerns with Edmond city council
William Maetzold, KOKH (Oklahoma City, OK), Feb 19, 2020

Tech companies begin installing 5G poles in New Orleans
Rilwan Balogun, WVUE (New Orleans, LA), Jan 23, 2020

Parents concerned over potential cell tower at local elementary
Jeremy Pierre, WHBQ (Memphis, TN), Jan 14, 2020

Verizon launches 5G service in Boston, but what are the potential drawbacks?
Jim Morelli, WFXT (Boston, MA), Nov 19, 2019

La Mesa residents raise concerns over 5G towers
Justina Myers, KFWB (San Diego, CA), Oct 22, 2019

5G warning posters placed around Downtown Orlando
Matthew Trezza, WOFL (Orlando, FL), Jun 14, 2019

San Francisco is resisting 5G, calling it 'ugly' and 'dangerous'
Brooke Crothers, Fox News network, Jun 1, 2019

Locals plan rally against 5G rollout
KMVU (Medford, OR), May 15, 2019

Parents upset about possible cell tower near Germantown elementary school
Jacque Masse, WHBQ (Memphis, TN), Mar 18, 2019


Are Apple AirPods putting you at risk for cancer?
Dr. Marc Siegel, Tucker Carlson Tonight / Fox News Network, Mar 13, 2019
STL Moms: Kids cellphone safetyKTVI, (St. Louis, Mo), Mar 8, 2019

Town of Union Residents "Devastated" Over Possibility of Cell Tower in Neighborhood
Amanda Pitts, WICZ (Binghamton, NY), Jun 4, 2018

Parents worry cellphone tower could expose children to radiation
Keagan Harsha, KDVR (Denver, CO), Apr 23, 2018


Montgomery County residents fighting rezoning to allow new 5G cell towers
WTTG (Washington, D.C.), April 4, 2018

Could your cell phone be endangering your health?
Jeff Abell, WBFF (Baltimore, MD), Feb 20, 2018

Opposition to cell towers in Hillsborough
Tom Vacar, KTVU (Oakland, CA), Dec 19, 2017

Health officials warn sleeping near cell phone could cause cancer and infertility
Darren Sweeney, WJW (Cleveland, OH), Dec 18, 2017
Family chooses to live with no power rather than a DTE Smart Meter
Hilary Golston, WJBK (Detroit, MI), Nov 9, 2017

Ashland residents meet to discuss potential health risks of wireless radiation
Ted Daniel, WFXT (Boston, MA), Jun 20, 2017

Parents of Cancer Survivors Still Waiting for School District's Response Regarding Cell Phone Tower
Eric Rucker, KTXL (Sacramento, CA), Jun 19, 2017

After 2 Ripon Children Diagnosed with Cancer, Kids and Parents Protest Cell Tower on School Grounds
Kay Recede, KTXL (Sacramento, CA), May 31, 2017
More than 400 MTEMC customers reject company's request to install smart meters
Jeremy Finley, WBRC (Birmingham, AL), May 23, 2016

Controversy surrounding EMF exposure: Do wireless devices pose dangers?
Danielle Miller, KSAZ (Phoenix, AZ), Feb 22, 2016

Cell phones and fertility
Dr. Devi Nampiaparampil, WNYW (New York City, NY), Feb 21, 2016

Health concerns over Wi-Fi technology exposures in schools
Laura Evans, WTTG (Washington, DC), Feb 15, 2016

Cell Phone Dangers?
Stacey Delikat, WNYW (New York City, NY), Jan 16, 2016

High Point neighbors speak out against cell tower project
Jasmine Spencer, WGHP (High Point, NC), Dec 8, 2015

More than 400 MTEMC customers reject company's request to install smart meters
Jeremy Finley, WBRC (Franklin, TN), Nov 23, 2015

Pediatricians express concern over growing cellphone use, radiation exposure for children
WFLX (West Palm Beach, FL), Nov 6, 2015

Scientists: Effects of cell phone radiation on kids is cause for concern
Ashley Daley, Fox Carolina News (Greenville, SC), Nov 6, 2015
Mount Tabor neighbors fight cell phone tower proposal
KPTV (Beaverton, OR), Jun 4, 2015 (updated Jul 2, 2015)

Berkeley passes cell phone safety ordinance
Amber Lee, KTVU (Oakland, CA), May 12, 2015

How to spot potential radiation hiding in your home

Fox News (national), Feb 1, 2015

Experts: Why wearable tech could pose health risks
Brooke Crothers, Fox News (national), Oct 20, 2014


CNN

Cell phone radiation study finds more questions than answers
Jacqueline Howard, CNN, Feb 7, 2018
Electrosensitivity, Vital Signs with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Oct 24, 2017 (also CNN International)
Part 1: Welcome to the National Quiet ZonePart 2: Wireless ExposurePart 3: Living in the National Quiet Zone
Cell phone radiation increases cancers in rats, but should we worry?Carina Storrs, CNN, May 27, 2016

Half of teens think they're addicted to their smartphonesKelly Wallace, CNN, May 3, 2016


Other TV News


Carmel (NJ) residents win legal battle against cellphone tower constructionStaff, News 12 (Edison, NJ), Jul 25, 2022
5G Battle: midtown residents host block parties, rallies and bake sales to stop towers from going upHanna Tiede, KOLD (Tucson, AZ), Jun 21, 2021
Neighborhood residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concernsMatt Ristaino, Spectrum News 1 (Worcester, MA), May 13, 2021
Neighborhood residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concernsNeighborhood residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concernsNeighborhood residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concernsCouple fights to prevent installation of cell tower outside their Long Beach homeKacey Montoya, KTLA (Los Angeles, CA), May 8, 2021

North Shore residents raise concerns about proposed military missile radar Nicky Schenfeld, KHON (Kahuku, HI), Apr 10, 2021
Some residents of Jacksonville townhomes concerned over 5G towerCorley Peel, WJXT (Jacksonville, FL), Jan 21, 2021
Mahopac residents concerned with proposed cellphone tower project
News 12 (Westchester, NY), Aug 12, 2020

White Plains residents make petition against 5G antennas near homes, schools
News 12 (Westchester, NY), Jul 19, 2020

Activists protest against 5G towers
WDVM (Hagerstown, MD), May 15, 2019


Germantown residents protest cell phone tower installation near elementary schoolWMC (Memphis, TN), Mar 18, 2019

Cell Phone Safety for Kids
Tonya Harris, WISH (Indianapolis, IN), Mar 5, 2019

Is 5G Technology Dangerous?
Stephanie Whitfield, KHOU (Houston, TX), Feb 11, 2019

Local Neighborhood Concerned for Possible AT&T Tower
Dan Garrett, KSNT (Topeka, KS), Feb 4, 2019

U.S. Sen. Blumenthal briefing on concerns with possible health risks posed by 5G wireless technology
Congressional news briefing, Connecticut Network (Hartford, CT), Dec 3, 2018
Senator Blumenthal pushes to investigate link between 5G wireless tech and cancerHector Ramirez, WTNH (New Haven, CT), Dec 3, 2018
Controversy in Ozark over where a cell phone tower will be builtBrandon Berg, KY3 (Springfield, MO), Nov 16, 2018
5G wireless will provide faster cellular service. But how safe is it?Sara Girard, WINK (Fort Myers, FL), Nov 7, 2018
Debate continues over 5G wireless towers placed in residential areasShennikia Grimshaw, WDVM (Montgomery County, MD), Sep 25, 2018
Concern grows over cellphone towers on Crown Heights building
News 12 Brooklyn (Brooklyn, NY), Sep 24, 2018

Some Danville residents express radiation concerns over building of small cell towers
Gabe Slate, KRON, (San Francisco, CA), Apr 17, 2018

Homeowners file lawsuit over potential wireless transmitter health risks
Shari Einhorn, News 12 Long Island, NY, Oct 19, 2017
Allergic to Wi-Fi: Woman helps locals suffering from electromagnetic radiation sensitivityWGN (Chicago, IL), Jun 6, 2017
WQAD (Moline, IL), Jun 6, 2017

Can Wireless Technology Make You Sick?
Azia Celestino, Channel One News, May 18, 2017

Cell Phone Radiation Warning Law Causes Controversy
Azia Celestino, Channel One News, May 17, 2017

No Wi-Fi or cellphones allowed in the 'Quietest Town in America'
Julie Unruh, WGN (Chicago, IL), May 15, 2017
The secret inside your cellphone
CBC Marketplace, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mar 24, 2017

Berkeley's Cellphone Crusade
The National, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mar 23, 2017

California Department of Public Health releases draft of document warning against cellphone radiation
Gabe Slate, KRON (San Francisco, CA), Mar 3, 2017

Smart meter opt out fees could be nixed in legislative session

Emily Ikeda, WHAG (Montgomery County, MD), Feb 2, 2017

City Light takes feedback on opt-out for smart meters
Joel Moreno, KOMO (Seattle, WA), Aug 12, 2016

Special Report: The facts about smart meters
Joy Wang, WILX (Lansing, MI), Feb 12, 2016

Very easy changes could limit your exposure to cell phone radiation
Jenny Day, San Diego 6 News, Nov 6, 2015

Cell phones believed to cause sleep problems
KXII (Denison, TX), Jun 26, 2014
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
24.7.2022 18:10

Research on Wireless Radiation Exposure to the Immune System


Immunotoxicity of radiofrequency radiation (Review paper)

Himanshi Yadav, Radhey Shyam Sharma, Rajeev Singh. Immunotoxicity of radiofrequency radiation. Environmental Pollution. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119793.

Highlights

• Drastic growth in communication technologies increased RFR exposure in environment

• Recent evidences show close relation among radiation sensitivity and immune effects
• An intracellular signaling cascade responsible for RFR action on immune system is suggested
• A better understanding of RFR linked cell effects might help radiation protection
• Urgent need to recognize probable hazards of using RFR emitting devices in excess

Abstract

Growing evidence recommends that radiofrequency radiations might be a new type of environmental pollutant. The consequences of RFR on the human immune system have gained considerable interest in recent years, not only to examine probable negative effects on health but also to understand if RFR can modulate the immune response positively. Although several studies have been published on the immune effects of RFR but no satisfactory agreement has been reached. Hence this review aims to evaluate the RFR modulating impacts on particular immune cells contributing to various innate or adaptive immune responses. In view of existing pieces of evidence, we have suggested an intracellular signaling cascade responsible for RFR action. The bio-effects of RFR on immune cell morphology, viability, proliferation, genome integrity, and immune functions such as ROS, cytokine secretion, phagocytosis, apoptosis, etc. are discussed. The majority of existing evidence point toward the possible shifts in the activity, number, and/or function of immunocompetent cells, but the outcome of several studies is still contradictory and needs further studies to reach a conclusion. Also, the direct association of experimental studies to human risks might not be helpful as exposure parameters vary in real life. On the basis of recent available literature, we suggest that special experiments should be designed to test each particular signal utilized in communication technologies to rule out the hypothesis that longer exposure to RFR emitting devices would affect the immunity by inducing genotoxic effects in human immune cells.

Concluding remarks

I. Till date, the bulk of available research articles remarkably indicated the RFR-induced changes in innate and adaptive immune responses. The morphological and physiological modulations in the immune cells were reported such as variation in viability, gene and protein expression, generation of ROS, induction of DNA damage, stimulation of inflammatory markers, altered normal immune functions and eventually provoking inflammatory reactions, chronic allergic reactions, autoimmune responses leading to damaged tissues and organs.

II. The oxidative stress via causing free radical damage to DNA appears to be the main mechanism for RFR action.

III. Many RFR studies showed conflicting conclusions because of the scarcity of subjects, variations in distance from the radiation source, exposure time, RFR frequency, mode of modulation, SAR, or power density used in various studies. Furthermore, studies even with the same experimental design showed varied responses in different types of cells.

IV. On the other hand, the findings from in vitro and in vivo studies on RFR should not be directly linked to human mobile phone usage as the duration and level of exposure to radiofrequency radiation were much higher in experimental studies as compared to what people experience with even high cell phone usage.

V. Collectively, in view of discussed limitations, the available research studies might not be enough to understand the RFR effect on the immune system.

VI. Since, the controversies exist in the recent literature on the effects of RFR on immune cell physiology, substantially more coordinated and detailed studies are needed to set up a definitive trend in RFR effects on immune cells. Such studies are also required to address the important issues of safety for the usage of technologies like cell phones and wireless equipment that are used increasingly in our everyday lives and to revise the current EMF public safety limits.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749122010077
--

Immunity and Electromagnetic Fields (Review paper)
Piotr Piszczek, Karolina Wójcik-Piotrowicz, Krzysztof Gil, Jolanta Kaszuba-Zwoińska. Immunity and electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 2021 Jun 11;111505. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111505.

Abstract

Despite many studies, the question about the positive or negative influence of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on living organisms still remains an unresolved issue. To date, the results are inconsistent and hardly comparable between different laboratories. The observed bio-effects are dependent not only on the applied EMF itself, but on many other factors such as the model system tested or environmental ones. In an organism, the role of the defense system against external stressors is played by the immune system consisting of various cell types. The immune cells are engaged in many physiological processes and responsible for the proper functioning of the whole organism. Any factor with an ability to cause immunomodulatory effects may weaken or enhance the response of the immune system. This review is focused on a wide range electromagnetic fields as a possible external factor which may modulate the innate and/or adaptive immunity. Considering the existing databases, we have compiled the bio-effects evoked by EMF in particular immune cell types involved in different types of immune response, with the common mechanistic models and mostly activated intracellular signaling cascade pathways.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34126050/
Highlights

• Immune system cells are influenced by exposure to EMFs.• EMFs might modulate effector activities of immune response.• Bio-effectiveness is related to the frequency range of EMFs and cell types.• Cellular changes might be enhanced by synergic effects of EMFs and other stressors.
Excerpts
"The theoretical approaches most frequently cited in the literature are based on concepts such as resonant absorption (Blanchard and Blackman, 1994; Engström, 1996), effects on bio-molecules with magnetic properties (Kirschvink, 1992; Pall, 2013; Yamagashi et al., 1992), ionic transport (Gartzke and Lange, 2002; Panagopoulos et al., 2002) and modulation of Ca2+-dependent signaling pathways (Liboff et al., 2003; Pilla, 2012), radical pair mechanism (RPM), and reactive oxygen species (ROS) chemistry (Eveson et al., 2000; Mattsson and Simkó, 2014; Tang et al., 2016)....
Conclusions

Currently it is extremely difficult to select an intracellular mechanism that could play a dominant role in viability and/or effector activities modulation of various types of immune cells under EMF exposure in a wide range of parameters. The large number of results obtained for various EMF parameters and experimental conditions do not allow for a simple comparison of findings across different laboratories. Nevertheless, most of the studies are in agreement that:

(i) there is no generally accepted physical and/or biological mechanism of EMF action independently on type of the studies (i.e., in vivo/in vitro);

(ii) there is lack of conclusive evidence of EMF genotoxic effects;

(iii) findings concerning intracellular effects such as EMF-induced modulation of: gene expression, heat-shock proteins level, surface of cell membrane and cell morphology, signal transduction pathways, ions homeostasis and level of ROS [reactive oxygen species] cannot be excluded;

(iv) significant bio-effects are noticed for simultaneous EMF exposure with other cell stimuli (synergic effects);

(v) the response of various immune cells differs in an EMF type-dependent manner;

(vi) multidirectional research on immune cell cultures are certainly needed to be continued to understand potential risk of EMF exposure;

(vii) the influence of EMF on the innate immunity seems to be interesting issue in the context of aging process (Pawelec et al., 2020).

In summary, EMF seem to be a promising tool for modulation of various immune cell signaling pathways and immune system responses. Moreover, the studies concerning the action of electromagnetic fields alone or combined with medicaments are embedded in the mainstream of interests of EMF-related research in medicine and health care."

--
Mar 18, 2020
For a list of references to EMF immune system studies published since 2000 see: https://bit.ly/saferemrImmuneSystem.
The following paper on the effects on the immune system from exposure to radio frequency radiation consists of excerpts from a research review published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2013 by Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski.
Reaction of the Immune System to Low-Level RF/MW Exposures
Szmigielski S. Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Science of the Total Environment. 2013 Jun 1; 454-455:393-400. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.034.
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiation have been used in the modern world for many years. The rapidly increasing use of cellular phones in recent years has seen increased interest in relation to the possible health effects of exposure to RF/MW radiation. In 2011 a group of international experts organized by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon) concluded that RF/MW radiations should be listed as a possible carcinogen (group 2B) for humans. The incomplete knowledge of RF/MW-related cancer risks has initiated searches for biological indicators sensitive enough to measure the "weak biological influence" of RF/MWs. One of the main candidates is the immune system, which is able to react in a measurable way to discrete environmental stimuli.
In this review, the impacts of weak RF/MW fields, including cell phone radiation, on various immune functions, both in vitro [cell culture studies] and in vivo [live animal studies], are discussed. The bulk of available evidence clearly indicates that various shifts in the number and/or activity of immunocompetent cells [cells that can develop an immune response] are possible, however the results are inconsistent. For example, a number of lymphocyte [small white blood cells especially found in the lymphatic system] functions have been found to be enhanced and weakened within single experiments based on exposure to similar intensities of MW radiation.
Certain premises exist which indicate that, in general, short-term exposure to weak MW radiation may temporarily stimulate certain humoral* or cellular immune functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23562692
Excerpts
"Recently, Jauchem (2008) reviewed the effects of RF/MW radiation on the immune system and concluded that although both positive and negative findings were reported in some studies, in a majority of instances no significant health effects were found. However, most studies had some methodological limitations. Some changes in immunoglobulin levels and in peripheral blood lymphocytes were reported in different studies of radar and radio/television-transmission workers (Moszczyński et al., 1999)."
Immunotropic effects of RF/MW exposure in in vitro studies
"In summary, it may be concluded that non-thermal intensities of RF/MW radiation may exert certain measurable effects and shifts in physiology of immunocompetent cells, however these effects appear to be weak, inconsistent and difficult to replicate. Among other stress reactions, induction of heat-shock proteins, altered reaction of lymphocytes to mitogens, weaken phagocytosis and/or bactericidal activity of macrophages were reported after in vitro exposure of isolated cells to arbitrarily chosen conditions of the exposure (frequency and modulation of the RF/MW radiation, power density, time and schedule of exposure, etc.).
From studies performed in our laboratories (Dąbrowski et al., 2003; Stankiewicz et al., 2006, 2010) it may be concluded that in vitro effects of non-thermal RF/MWs cannot be revealed using basic tests for assessment of function of immunocompetent cells (including typical microculture of lymphocytes with mitogen stimulation) and finer techniques (e.g., immunogenic activity of monocytes (LM index), T-cell suppressive activity (SAT index) or release of cytokines in microcultures of PBMC) are required to study the effects of RF/MW exposures. Nevertheless, nothing can be concluded on thresholds of the above phenomena, their mechanisms or relevance to health risks. None of the above discussed studies provides data which can be directly or indirectly linked to cancer development (Table 1)."
Effects of in vivo RF/MW exposures on function of the immune system
"In summary, studies of immune reactions in animals exposed to MWs provide controversial results with some papers reporting no measurable response, while in others positive results were obtained. The available bulk of evidence from numerous experimental studies in vivo aimed to assess the effects of short-term and prolonged low-level MW exposure on function and status of the immune system clearly indicates that various shifts in number and/or activity of immunocompetent cells are possible. However, the results are incoherent; the same functions of lymphocytes are reported to be weaken[ed] or enhanced in single experiments with MW exposures at similar intensities and radiation parameters. There exist premises that in general, short-term exposure to weak MWs may temporarily stimulate certain humoral or cellular immune functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions (Grigoriev et al., 2010). There exist papers which report changes in NK [natural killer] cell activity or TNF** release in MW-exposed animals, but clinical relevance or relation to carcinogenicity of these findings is doubtful."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713003276

[* Humoral immunity is mediated by macromolecules found in extracellular fluids such as secreted antibodies, complement proteins, and certain antimicrobial peptides.]
[** Tumor necrosis factor is a cell signaling protein involved in systemic inflammation.]
---

A list of studies of the biologic and health effects on the immune system from exposure to radio frequency radiation published since the year 2000 can be downloaded at: https://bit.ly/saferemrImmuneSystem.
---
Dr. Szmigielski signed the Catania Resolution in 2002:
The Catania Resolution
According to several reports, a group of scientists issued a statement on EMF at a meeting in September.
They were attending the international conference "State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields—Scientific and Legal Issues," organized by ISPESL, the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania. ISPESL is a technical-scientific branch of the National Health Service that advises industry on protection of occupational health and well-being in the workplace. In Catania, Italy, on Sept. 13 and 14, 2002, they agreed to the following:
Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence for electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.
We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.
There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the European Union.
The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.
We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.
The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle. https://www.bems.org/node/824




Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
18.7.2022 18:30

Cell Tower Health Effects


Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal radio frequency exposure limits ignore the preponderance of peer-reviewed studies that has found harmful bio-effects from exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation.The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for environmental or health reasons as long they comply with the weak radio frequency exposure limits established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).The public needs to organize and change the Federal law to protect public health and wildlife from exposure to microwave radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations.

As of February 6, 2021, www.antennasearch.com, an industry website, reported 803,000 cell towers and 2.1 million cell antennas in the United States. Texas has the most cell towers (80,300), and California has the most cell antennas (151,000). We cannot verify the accuracy of these data because the FCC only collects data on certain types of cell towers.

Following are some resources regarding the health effects of exposure to cell tower radiation.
Related posts

--

Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations
Balmori, A. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research (2022), doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851.

Abstract
The objective of this work was to perform a complete review of the existing scientific literature to update the knowledge on the effects of base station antennas on humans. Studies performed in real urban conditions, with mobile phone base stations situated close to apartments, were selected. Overall results of this review show three types of effects by base station antennas on the health of people: radiofrequency sickness (RS), cancer (C) and changes in biochemical parameters (CBP). Considering all the studies reviewed globally (n=38), 73.6% (28/38) showed effects: 73.9% (17/23) for radiofrequency sickness, 76.9% (10/13) for cancer and 75.0% (6/8) for changes in biochemical parameters. Furthermore, studies that did not meet the strict conditions to be included in this review provided important supplementary evidence. The existence of similar effects from studies by different sources (but with RF [radio frequency radiation] of similar characteristics), such as radar, radio and television antennas, wireless smart meters and laboratory studies, reinforce the conclusions of this review. Of special importance are the studies performed on animals or trees near base station antennas that cannot be aware of their proximity and to which psychosomatic effects can never be attributed.
Excerpts

Introduction: During the last few decades, hundreds of thousands of mobile phone base stations and other types of wireless communications antennas have been installed around the world, in cities and in nature, including protected natural areas, in addition to pre-existing antennas (television, radio broadcasting, radar, etc.). Only the aesthetic aspects or urban regulations have been generally considered in this deployment, while the biological, environmental and health impacts of the associated non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emissions have not been assessed so far. Therefore, the effects on humans living around these anthropogenic electromagnetic field sources (antennas) have not been considered.

In France, there is a significant contribution of mobile phone base stations in the exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) of urban citizens living nearby (De Giudici et al., 2021). Some studies from India indicate that more than 15% of people have levels of EMF strength above 12 V/m due to their proximity to antennas (Premlal and Eldhose, 2017). Exposure estimates have shown that RF-EMF from mobile telephone systems is stronger in urban than in rural areas. For instance, in Sweden the levels of RF radiation have increased considerably in recent years, both outdoor and indoor, due to new telecommunication technologies, and the median power density measured for RF fields between 30 MHz and 3 GHz was 16 μW/m2 in rural areas, 270 μW/m2 in urban areas and 2400 μW/m2 in city areas (Hardell et al., 2018). Total exposure varies not only between urban and rural areas but also, depending on residential characteristics, between different floors of a building, with a tendency for building exposure to increase at higher floors (Breckenkamp et al., 2012).

Over the past five decades, and more intensively since the beginning of this century, many studies and several reviews have been published on the effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation on humans living around the antennas. The first studies were carried out with radio and television antennas, investigating increases in cancer and leukaemia (Milham, 1988; Maskarinec et al., 1994; Hocking et al., 1996; Dolk et al., 1997a, 1997b; Michelozzi et al., 1998; Altpeter et al., 2000), as well as around radars (Kolodynski and Kolodynska, 1996; Goldsmith, 1997).

Regarding base station antennas, there are scientific discrepancies in their effects: some studies concluded that there are no health-related effects (e.g. Augner and Hacker, 2009; Blettner et al., 2009; Röösli et al., 2010; Baliatsas et al., 2016) whereas others found increases in cancer and other health problems in humans living around antennas (e.g. Santini et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2003; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Shinjyo and Shinjyo, 2014; Gandhi et al., 2015; López et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). There is a specific symptomatology linked to radar and RF exposure at low levels, characterized by functional disturbances of the central nervous system (headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, difficulty in concentration, dizziness, etc.), that has been termed 'RF sickness' (Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998; Navarro et al., 2003).


Methods: Only studies performed in real urban conditions, with mobile phone base stations situated close to apartments, were selected. Studies conducted in larger regions with numerous antennas, based on surveys and geographic data, were also included.

Results: The studies that met the selected criteria are presented in chronological order in Table 1, catalogued as Y/N depending on whether or not they found effects. The selected studies cover three types of effects: radiofrequency sickness (RS) (according to Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998), cancer (C) and changes in biochemical parameters (CBP). Table 1 also includes the authors, year and country, antenna type, study design, diseases and symptoms found/not found and the main conclusions of each study.

Discussion: Considering all the selected studies (n=38), 73.6% (28/38) showed effects: 73.9% (17/23) for radiofrequency sickness, 76.9% (10/13) for cancer and 75.0% (6/8) for changes in biochemical parameters (Figure 1). Therefore, most of the studies carried by research groups from twenty different countries reach the same conclusions.
For the reasons previously explained, the following studies (n=85) were not considered in this review, even though the conclusions of some of these studies will be discussed later due
to their importance regarding the similarities of the electromagnetic radiation types involved and the effects found in many cases....

The results of this review show three types of effects by base station antennas on the health of humans: radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters (Fig. 1). From among all these studies, most of them found effects (73.6%). Thus, despite some limitations and differences in study design, statistical measures, risk estimates and exposure categories (Khurana et al., 2010), together they provide a consistent view of the effects on the health of people living in the vicinity of base station antennas.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private organization that issues exposure guidelines that are then adopted by governments, but it has been accused of having conflicts of interest (Hardell and Carlberg, 2020; Hardell et al., 2021). The ICNIRP (2010, 2020) limits are thousands of times above the levels where effects are recorded for both extremely low frequency and RF man-made EMF and account only for thermal effects, whereas the vast majority of recorded effects are non-thermal. These existing guidelines for public health protection only consider the effects of acute intense (thermal) exposures and do not protect from lower level long-term exposures (Israel et al., 2011; Yakimenko et al., 2011; Blank et al., 2015; Starkey, 2016; Belpomme and Irigaray, 2022). The exposure duration is crucial to assess the induced effects.

Conclusion: In the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals (Blank et al., 2015; Hardell and Nyberg, 2020). However, the media, the responsible organizations (World Health Organization, 2015) and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population, who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis not only for health but also for the technology itself, as it is unsustainable and harmful to the environment and the people.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781
--
What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid
Isabel López, Nazario Félix, Marco Rivera, Adrián Alonso, Ceferino Maestú. What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environ Res. 2021 Mar;194:110734. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110734.

Abstract

Background: Exposure of the general population to electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations is one of the greater concerns of residents affected by the proximity of these structures due to the possible relationship between radiated levels and health indicators.

Objectives: This study aimed to find a possible relationship between some health indicators and electromagnetic radiation measurements.

Methods: A total of 268 surveys, own design, were completed by residents of a Madrid neighborhood surrounded by nine telephone antennas, and 105 measurements of electromagnetic radiation were taken with a spectrum analyzer and an isotropic antenna, in situ and in real-time, both outside and inside the houses.

Results: It was shown statistically significant p-values in headaches presence (p = 0.010), nightmares (p = 0.001), headache intensity (p < 0.001), dizziness frequency (p = 0.011), instability episodes frequency (p = 0.026), number of hours that one person sleeps per day (p < 0.001) and three of nine parameters studied from tiredness. Concerning cancer, there are 5.6% of cancer cases in the study population, a percentage 10 times higher than that of the total Spanish population.

Discussion: People who are exposed to higher radiation values present more severe headaches, dizziness and nightmares. Moreover, they sleep fewer hours.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33434609/
Excerpts
Highlights
• People who are exposed to higher radiation values present more severe headaches, dizziness and nightmares.
• The methodology for obtaining electromagnetic radiation measurements should be reviewed.
• The population continues to receive radiation peaks in distances greater than 200 meters, no one is free from exposure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the data obtained shows that there is a relationship between the power density of radiation that a person receives at home every day and the presence of headaches, as well as the presence of sleep disorders. People who receive higher doses of radiation sleep less hours and have nightmares at night. In addition, these people suffer from headaches with greater intensity and are more prone to dizziness. In this study, indicators like fainting episodes, presence of tachycardias or instability cannot be related. No conclusive results were found for fatigue, since, out of nine parameters studied, only a statistically significant relationship was found in three of them. The study of how electromagnetic fields affect health, should not only be done in relation to cancer, but also health indicators related to day to day. The methodology for obtaining electromagnetic radiation measurements should be reviewed, the averaged radiation measurements that are described in the CENELEC standard are not the most appropriate, they should be carried out in a narrow band and with maximum peak measurements.
The measured intensity depends fundamentally on the direction of the fundamental radiation beam and not so much on the distance to the antenna. In the beam direction, differences are found in the presence of pathologies with respect to distances, when these are greater than 200 meters. Even at this distance, the population continues to receive radiation peaks, so that no one is free from exposure to these radiation sources.

The need for this study is related to the situation before 5G in terms of electromagnetic radiation rates. This study may be compared with the new radiant procedures that will be adopted in a short time.
--
Research on Cell Tower Radiationand Children and Adolescents' Health
May 31, 2019
The following seven studies were found in a search of the EMF-Portal database for mobile phone base station (i.e., cell towers) and children or adolescents. For additional studies of cell tower health effects see https://bit.ly/celltowerEMR.
Summary of Results
Meo et al (2019): Higher exposure to cell tower RFR was associated with delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention among adolescents compared to students exposed to lower levels of cell tower RFR. (13-16 years of age)
Durusoy et al (2017): An association was found between mobile phone use and headache, concentration difficulties, fatigue, sleep disturbances and warming of the ear showing a dose-response. Limited associations were found between vicinity to cell towers and some general symptoms; however, no association was found with school RFR levels. (high school students)
Schoeni et al (2016): In the cohort approach, an association was found between modelled RFR exposure from fixed site transmitters and tiredness and concentration difficulties in adolescents. (12-17 years of age)
Guxens et al (2016): Higher residential RFR exposure from cell towers and presence of indoor sources was associated with improved inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility whereas higher personal cordless phone use was associated with reduced inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. Higher residential cell tower exposure was associated with reduced visuomotor coordination whereas improved visuomotor coordination was associated with residential indoor sources of RFR and higher personal cell phone use. (5-6 years of age)
Calvente et al (2016): Children living in higher RFR exposure areas had lower verbal expression and comprehension scores and more internalizing and total problems, and were more likely to have obsessive-compulsive and post-traumatic stress disorders, in comparison to those living in areas with lower RFR exposure. These associations were stronger when maximum RFR exposures were examined as opposed to average exposures. (9-11 years of age)
Meo et al (2015): Students exposed to higher cell tower RFR had a significantly greater risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (p = 0.016) relative to others exposed to lower cell tower RFR. High cell tower RFR was associated with elevated levels of HbA1c and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. (12-17 years of age)
Huss et al (2015): Children exposed to higher levels of cell tower RFR had worse sleep duration but fewer sleep disruptions. (7 years of age)
The abstracts for these seven studies: https://bit.ly/childrencelltower

The above summary was prepared for the following news story:

Could A New Cell Tower Hurt You Financially? CBS13 InvestigatesA new cell tower could put a local preschool out of business. Julie Watts, CBS Sacramento, June 27-28, 2019 and CBS San Francisco, July 6-7, 2019
09:26 video

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/06/28/cell-tower-hurt-financially-cbs13-investigates/
--

Mar 10, 2019

Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing near cell towers
Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584.
Abstract
Radiofrequency radiations (RFRs) emitted by mobile phone base stations have raised concerns on its adverse impact on humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Therefore, the present study was envisaged to evaluate the effect of RFR on the DNA damage and antioxidant status in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) of individuals residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations and comparing it with healthy controls.

The study groups were matched on various demographic data including age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use.
The RF power density of the exposed individuals was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control group. The HPBLs were cultured and the DNA damage was assessed by cytokinesis blocked micronucleus (MN) assay in the binucleate lymphocytes. The analyses of data from the exposed group (n = 40), residing within a perimeter of 80 meters of mobile base stations, showed significantly (p < 0.0001) higher frequency of micronuclei (MN) when compared to the control group, residing 300 meters away from the mobile base station/s.
The analysis of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed a significant association among reduced GSH concentration (p < 0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p < 0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and LOO (p < 0.001) with increasing RF power density.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669
My note
All of the recorded RFR power density values in this study were well below the Federal Communication Commission's maximum permissible exposure limits in the U.S. for the general population. These limits are are 6,000 mW/m2 [milliwatts per square meter] for 900 MHz and 10,000 mW/m2 for 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation. In contrast, the highest recorded value in this study was 7.52 mW/m2 of RFR. The "exposed individuals" who resided within 80 meters of a cell antenna received an average of 5.00 mW/m2 of RFR in their bedrooms.
Excerpts
RFR may change the fidelity of DNA as the increased incidence of cancer has been reported among those residing near mobile phone base stations (Abdel-Rassonl et al., 2007; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Cherry, 2000; Eger et al., 2004; Hardell et al., 1999; Hutter et al., 2006; Wolf and Wolf, 2004). RFR emitted frommobile base stations is also reported to increase the DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes of mobile phone users and individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile base station/s (Gandhi and Anita, 2005; Gandhi et al., 2014). Exposure of human fibroblasts and rat granulosa cells to RFR (1800 MHz, SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg) has been reported to induce DNA single- and double-strands breaks (Diem et al., 2005). Irreversible DNA damage was also reported in cultured human lens epithelial cells exposed to microwave generated by mobile phones (Sun et al., 2006). The adverse health effects of RFR are still debatable as many studies indicated above have found a positive correlation between the DNA damage and RFR exposure; however, several studies reported no significant effect of RFR on DNA strand breaks and micronuclei formation in different study systems (Li et al., 2001; Tice et al., 2002; McNamee et al., 2003;Maes et al., 2006). The potential genotoxicity of RFR emitted by mobile phone base stations can be determined by micronucleus (MN) assay, which is an effective tool to evaluate the genotoxic or clastogenic effects of physical and chemical agents. This technique has also been used to quantify the frequencies of radiation-induced MN in human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) (Fenech and Morley, 1985; Jagetia and Venkatesha, 2005; Prosser et al., 1988; Yildirim et al., 2010).
Six mobile phone base stations, operating in the frequency range of 900 MHz (N = 2) and1800MHz (N = 4), erected in the thickly populated areas of Aizawl city were selected for the present study… The power output of all the base stations is 20 W, with their primary beam emitting radiation at an angle of 20°. Power density measurements (using HF-60105V4, Germany) were carried out in the bedroom of each participant where they spent most of the time and hence have the longest constant level of electromagnetic field exposure. Power density measurement was carried out three times (morning, midday and evening), and the average was calculated for each residence around each base station. The main purpose of the measurement of power density was to ensure that RFR emission from each site did not exceed the safe public limits and to determine any difference in power density between selected households that were close to (within 80 m) and far (>300 m) from the mobile phone base stations. The safety limits for public exposure from mobile phone base stations are 0.45 W/m2 for 900 MHz and 0.92 W/m2 for 1800 MHz frequency as per Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, New Delhi guidelines (DoT, 2012).
… some residences are located horizontally with the top of the towers from which RFR are emitted, making it possible to get an exposure at a short distance of 1–20 m, despite being erected on the rooftop or in the ground. A minimum of two individuals were sampled from each household and at least five individuals were sampled around each mobile base station. Individuals sampled around each base station were matched for their age and gender (Table 1). The exposed group consisted of 40 healthy individuals who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of being above 18 years of age and residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (within 80 m radius). The control group comprised of 40 healthy individuals matched for age and gender who had been living at least 300 m away from any mobile phone base stations…. Sampling was also done only from those residences who did not use microwave oven for cooking, Wifi devices and any other major source of electromagnetic field as they are known to cause adverse effects (Atasoy et al., 2013; Avendaño et al., 2012).
The groups matched for most of the demographic data such as age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, mobile phone usage, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use (Table 2). A highly significant variation (p < 0.0001) was observed for the distance of household from the base station (40.10 ± 3.02 vs. 403.17 ± 7.98 in m) between exposed and control groups.
The RF power density of the exposed group (2.80–7.52 mW/m2; average 5.002 ± 0.182 mW/ m2) was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control group (0.014–0.065 mW/m2; average 0.035 ± 0.002 mW/m2). The highest power density was recorded at a distance of 1–20 m (6.44 ± 0.31 mW/m2), which is significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than those at a distance of 21–40 m (4.79 ± 0.33), 41–60 m (4.48 ± 0.22) and 61–80 m (4.61 ± 0.10).
The highest measured power density was 7.52mW/m2. Most of the measured values close to base stations (Table 1) are higher than that of the safe limits recommended by Bioinitiative Report 2012 (0.5mW/m2), Salzburg resolution 2000 (1 mW/m2) and EU (STOA) 2001 (0.1 mW/m2). However, all the recorded values were well below the current ICNIRP safe level (4700 mW/m2) and the current Indian Standard (450 mW/m2).
The exact mechanism of action of RFR in micronuclei induction and reduced antioxidant status is not apparent. The possible putative mechanism of generation of DNA damage may be the production of endogenous free radicals due to continuous exposure. RFR has been reported to produce different free radicals earlier (Avci et al., 2009; Burlaka et al., 2013; Barcal et al., 2014; Kazemi et al., 2015). Cells possess a number of compensatory mechanisms to deal with ROS and its effects. Among these are the induction of antioxidant proteins such as GSH, SOD and CAT. Enzymatic antioxidant systems function by direct or sequential removal of ROS, thereby terminating their activities. An imbalance between the oxidative forces and antioxidant defense systems causes oxidative injury, which has been implicated in various diseases, such as cancer, neurological disorders, atherosclerosis, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, asthma, hypertension and ischemia (Andreadis et al., 2003; Comhair et al., 2005; Dhalla et al., 2000; Finkel and Holbrook, 2000; Kasparova et al., 2005; Sayre et al., 2001; Sohal et al., 2002). Because of the significant decrease in endogenous antioxidants and increased LOO among the exposed group, the extra burden of free radicals is unlikely to get neutralized, and these surplus ROS may react with important cellular macromolecules including DNA forming either DNA adducts or stand breaks, which may be later expressed as micronuclei once the cell decides to divide. The decline in the antioxidant status may be also due to the suppressed activity of Nrf2 transcription factor which is involved in maintaining the antioxidant status in the cells.

The present study has reported that [radiofrequency radiation] increased the frequency of [micronuclei] and [lipid peroxidation] and reduced [glutathione] contents, [catalase] and [superoxide dismutase] activities in the plasma of the exposed individuals. The induction of [micronuclei] may be due to the increase in free-radical production. The present study demonstrated that staying near the mobile base stations and continuous use of mobile phones damage the DNA, and it may have an adverse effect in the long run. The persistence of DNA unrepaired damage leads to genomic instability which may lead to several health disorders including the induction of cancer.

--
Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted bycell tower base stations and other antenna arrays
Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews.18: 369–395 (2010) doi:10.1139 /A10-018.
Open Access Paper:
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys

Abstract
The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that international exposure standards will be followed.

Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.

The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting. Further epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted.

Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first described in 1978. Nonionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines.

Excerpts

In lieu of building new cell towers, some municipalities are licensing public utility poles throughout urban areas for Wi-Fi antennas that allow wireless Internet access. These systems can require hundreds of antennas in close proximity to the population with some exposures at a lateral height where second- and third-story windows face antennas. Most of these systems are categorically excluded from regulation by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or oversight by government agencies because they operate below a certain power density threshold. However, power density is not the only factor determining biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
An aesthetic emphasis is often the only perceived control of a municipality, particularly in countries like America where there is an overriding federal preemption that precludes taking the "environmental effects" of RFR into consideration in cell tower siting as stipulated in Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (USFCC 1996). Citizen resistance, however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR exposures to those who live near the infrastructure. Many citizens, especially those who claim to be hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields, state they would rather know where the antennas are and that hiding them greatly complicates society's ability to monitor for safety.
Industry representatives try to reassure communities that facilities are many orders of magnitude below what is allowed for exposure by standards-setting boards and studies bear that out (Cooper et al. 2006; Henderson and Bangay 2006; Bornkessel et al. 2007). These include standards by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) used throughout Europe, Canada, and elsewhere (ICNIRP 1998). The standards currently adopted by the U.S. FCC, which uses a two-tiered system of recommendations put out by the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) for civilian exposures (referred to as uncontrolled environments), and the International Electricians and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for professional exposures (referred to as controlled environments) (U.S. FCC 1997). The U.S. may eventually adopt standards closer to ICNIRP. The current U.S. standards are more protective than ICNIRP's in some frequency ranges so any harmonization toward the ICNIRP standards will make the U.S. limits more lenient.
All of the standards currently in place are based on RFRs ability to heat tissue, called thermal effects. A longstanding criticism, going back to the 1950s (Levitt 1995), is that such acute heating effects do not take potentially more subtle non-thermal effects into consideration. And based on the number of citizens who have tried to stop cell towers from being installed in their neighborhoods, laypeople in many countries do not find adherence to existing standards valid in addressing health concerns. Therefore, infrastructure siting does not have the confidence of the public (Levitt 1998).
The intensity of RFR decreases rapidly with the distance from the emitting source; therefore, exposure to RFR from transmission towers is often of low intensity depending on one's proximity. But intensity is not the only factor. Living near a facility will involve long-duration exposures, sometimes for years, at many hours per day. People working at home or the infirm can experience low-level 24 h exposures. Nighttimes alone will create 8 hour continuous exposures. The current standards for both ICNIRP, IEEE and the NCRP (adopted by the U.S. FCC) are for whole-body exposures averaged over a short duration (minutes) and are based on results from short-term exposure studies, not for long-term, low-level exposures such as those experienced by people living or working near transmitting facilities. For such populations, these can be involuntary exposures, unlike cell phones where user choice is involved.
The U.S. FCC has issued guidelines for both power density and SARs. For power density, the U.S. guidelines are between 0.2–1.0 mW/cm2….
At 100–200 ft (about 30–60 meters) from a cell phone base station, a person can be exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm2)….
For the purposes of this paper, we will define low-intensity exposure to RFR of power density of 0.001 mW/cm2
Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensities comparable to what the population experiences within 200 to 500 ft (60–150 m) of a cell tower, including effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures and animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Effects reported include: genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk….
Ten years ago, there were only about a dozen studies reporting such low-intensity effects; currently, there are more than 60. This body of work cannot be ignored. These are important findings with implications for anyone living or working near a transmitting facility. However, again, most of the studies in the list are on short-term (minutes to hours) exposure to low-intensity RFR. Long-term exposure studies are sparse. In addition, we do not know if all of these reported effects occur in humans exposed to low-intensity RFR, or whether the reported effects are health hazards. Biological effects do not automatically mean adverse health effects, plus many biological effects are reversible. However, it is clear that low-intensity RFR is not biologically inert. Clearly, more needs to be learned before a presumption of safety can continue to be made regarding placement of antenna arrays near the population, as is the case today.
… The previously mentioned studies show that RFR can produce effects at much lower intensities after test animals are repeatedly exposed. This may have implications for people exposed to RFR from transmission towers for long periods of time.
The conclusion from this body of work is that effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure.Since most studies with RFR are short-term exposure studies, it is not valid to use their results to set guidelines for long-term exposures, such as in populations living or working near cell phone base stations.Numerous biological effects do occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR but potential hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not well established, despite increasing evidence as demonstrated throughout this paper. Unfortunately, not enough is known about biological effects from long-term exposures, especially as the effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. It is the long-term, low-intensity exposures that are most common today and increasing significantly from myriad wireless products and services.People are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi systems that appear to be classic "microwave sickness syndrome," also known as "radiofrequency radiation sickness." First identified in the 1950s by Soviet medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression, irritability, and memory impairment, among others. The Soviet researchers noted that the syndrome is reversible in early stages but is considered lethal over time (Tolgskaya et al. 1973).
The present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up to date. The most recent IEEE and NCRP guidelines used by the U.S. FCC have not taken many pertinent recent studies into consideration because, they argue, the results of many of those studies have not been replicated and thus are not valid for standards setting. That is a specious argument. It implies that someone tried to replicate certain works but failed to do so, indicating the studies in question are unreliable. However, in most cases, no one has tried to exactly replicate the works at all.... In addition, effects of long-term exposure, modulation, and other propagation characteristics are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure and the U.S. FCC should take steps to update their regulations by taking all recent research into consideration without waiting for replication that may never come because of the scarcity of research funding. The ICNIRP standards are more lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations. The U.S. standards should not be "harmonized" toward more lenient allowances. The ICNIRP should become more protective instead. All standards should be biologically based, not dosimetry based as is the case today.Exposure of the general population to RFR from wireless communication devices and transmission towers should be kept to a minimum and should follow the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) principle. Some scientists, organizations, and local governments recommend very low exposure levels — so low, in fact, that many wireless industries claim they cannot function without many more antennas in a given area. However, a denser infrastructure may be impossible to attain because of citizen unwillingness to live in proximity to so many antennas. In general, the lowest regulatory standards currently in place aim to accomplish a maximum exposure of 0.02 V/m, equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cm2, which is in line with Salzburg, Austria's indoor exposure value for GSM cell base stations. Other precautionary target levels aim for an outdoor cumulative exposure of 0.1 μW/cm2 for pulsed RF exposures where they affect the general population and an indoor exposure as low as 0.01 μW/cm2 (Sage and Carpenter 2009). In 2007, The BioInitiative Report, A rationale for a biologically based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF), also made this recommendation, based on the precautionary principle (Bioinitiative Report 2007).
Citizens and municipalities often ask for firm setbacks from towers to guarantee safety. There are many variables involved with safer tower siting — such as how many providers are co-located, at what frequencies they operate, the tower's height, surrounding topographical characteristics, the presence of metal objects, and others. Hard and fast setbacks are difficult to recommend in all circumstances. Deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to avoid exposure of the public to unnecessary high levels of RFR. As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft (500 m) from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft (50 m). Several of the papers previously cited indicate that symptoms lessen at that distance, despite the many variables involved. However, with new technologies now being added to cell towers such as Wi-Max networks, which add significantly more power density to the environment, setback recommendations can be a very unpredictable reassurance at best. New technology should be developed to reduce the energy required for effective wireless communication.
In addition, regular RFR monitoring of base stations should be considered….



--
Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from cell towers
Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263-7.
Abstract
Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of long-term mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Review PapersBhattacharya, R, Roy, R. Impacts of communication towers on avians: A review. IJECT. 4(1): 137- 139. 2013. https://www.iject.org/vol4/spl1/c0046.pdf
Chronic Exposure Web Site. Research on mobile base stations and their impact on health.
https://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html

Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations-Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 16(2-3):123-135. 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261451

Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Review. 18:369–395. 2010. .
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys
Manville, A. A briefing memorandum: What we know, can infer, and don't yet know about impacts from thermal and non-thermal non-ionizing radiation to birds and other wildlife — for public release. July 14, 2016. https://bit.ly/savewildlifeRFR

Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem--a review. Biology and Medicine. 4(4):202-216. 2012. https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017477145

Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation of mobile telephony devices. Experimental Oncology. 32(2):54-60. 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693976
Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Experimental Oncology. 33(2):62-70. 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

Yakymenko I., Tsybulin O., Sidorik E. Henshel D., Krylenko O., Krylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biologic activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 7:1-16. 2015.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230
Recent StudiesAl-Quzwini O, Al-Taee H, Al-Shaikh S. Male fertility and its association with occupational and mobile phone towers hazards: An analytic study. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. Avail. online Apr 8, 2016. https://bit.ly/1SRUWWs

Baliatsas C, van Kamp I, Bolte J, Kelfkens G, van Dijk C, Spreeuwenberg P, Hooiveld M, Lebret E, Yzermans J. Clinically defined non-specific symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: A retrospective before-after study. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Sep 15;565:714-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27219506

Bienkowski P, Zubrzak B. Electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base station - variability analysis. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Sep;34(3):257-61. https://1.usa.gov/1TEXygr

Black B, Granja-Vazquez R, Johnston BR, Jones E, Romero-Ortega M (2016) Anthropogenic Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Elicit Neuropathic Pain in an Amputation Model. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0144268. https://bit.ly/1R7g4vN

Cammaerts MC, Johansson O. Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d'Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study. Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany 2015; 84: 132-137.
https://bit.ly/EMRcress

Eskander EF, Estefan SF, Abd-Rabou AA. How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles? Clinical Biochemistry, Volume 45, Issues 1–2. 2012, Pages 157-161. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021
Gandhi G, Kaur G, Nisar U. A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 9:1-11.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006864

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Kanupriya, Aggarwal NK, Kumar R, Gupta R. Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015 Aug 5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26238667

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Priya K, Aggarwal NK, Gupta R. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of antioxidant enzyme system in human population exposed to radiation from mobile towers. Mol Cell Biochem. 2017 Aug 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28819931

Hardell L, Koppel T, Carlberg M, Ahonen M, Hedendahl L. Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology. Published online Aug 12, 2016. Open access: https://bit.ly/2aI93Ut
Marinescu I, Poparlan C. Assessment of GSM HF-Radiation impact levels within the residential area of Craiova (Romania) city. Procedia Environmental Sciences 32:177-183. 2016. https://bit.ly/28Q6EEy

Martens AL, Slottje P, Timmermans DR, Kromhout H, Reedijk M, Vermeulen RC, Smid T. Modeled and Perceived Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields From Mobile-Phone Base Stations and the Development of Symptoms Over Time in a General Population Cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 7:1-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28398549

Meo SA, Alsubaie Y, Almubarak Z, Almutawa H, AlQasem Y, Hasanato RM. Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Nov 13;12(11):14519-14528. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/11/14519

Sagar S, Dongus S, Schoeni A, Roser K, Eeftens M, Struchen B, Foerster M, Meier N, Adem S, Röösli M. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28766560

Singh K, Nagaraj A, Yousuf A, Ganta S, Pareek S, Vishnani P. Effect of electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone base stations on general health and salivary function. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2016;6:54-9. https://bit.ly/1USYGNs

Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Aug 20;572:554-569. https://bit.ly/2cbXNBy

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669

ResourcesBest Best & Krieger. Letter to EMF Safety Network: Local Authority Over Wireless Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. Apr 24, 2018. https://bit.ly/BBKletter04242018

Campanelli & Associates, P.C. Cell tower lawyers. https://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/

Center for Municipal Solutions. Excellent resource re: regulation of cell towers & wireless
facilities. https://bit.ly/1GX4mPY

Karish G, Barket E (Best Best & Krieger). Issues of Local Control and Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Presented at League of California Cities City Attorneys' Spring Conference, May 3, 2018. 22 pp. https://bit.ly/wirelesscontrol

League of Minnesota Cities. Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems. Nov 4, 2016. https://bit.ly/2k5PQz0

San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU)
https://www.antennafreeunion.org/neighborhoodaction.htm

NewsRCR Wireless News. Appeals Court rules that California cities have the right to block small cell based on aesthetic concerns. Sep 16, 2016. https://bit.ly/2cE9GhN

Rouhan Sharma. A Towering Problem. Infrastructure Today, Feb 2016. https://bit.ly/1QcHSxO
Special Correspondent. "Radiation levels of mobile towers should be cut." The Hindu. Feb 7, 2016. https://bit.ly/1Pt5Sck
"Stating that the current level of radiation (electromagnetic field, EMF) emitted by mobile phone towers was still high, Girish Kumar, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay, on Saturday, urged the Centre to reduce the radiation level further.
The mobile tower radiation had been reduced [in India] from 45,000 milliwatt per square metre to 450 milliwatt a few years ago. It should be reduced to 10 milliwatt, he said ...."
Note: The FCC allows the American general public to be exposed from 5,800 milliwatts per square meter to 10,000 milliwatts per square meter depending on the frequency.
Lydia Beyoud. Not All 'Small Cells' Created Equal, Say Municipalities in Wireless Siting Rules Suit. Bloomberg BNA. Apr 27, 2015. https://www.bna.com/not-small-cells-n17179925917/
"... the number of small cell and DAS installations is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years. As many as 37 million small cell installations could be in place by 2017, and up to 16 million distributed antenna system (DAS) nodes could be deployed by 2018, according to the FCC."

Joel Moskowitz. Press Release: Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC. Mar 2014.
https://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.htmlIanthe Jeanne Dugan and Ryan Knutson. Cellphone Boom Spurs Antenna-Safety Worries. Wall Street Journal, Oct 2, 2014.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055
сайт не использует куки, не шпионит, не следит
для использования сайта мы проверяем:
страна: CZ · город: Hluboka nad Vltavou · айпи: 45.138.104.49
устройство: computer · браузер: CCBot 2 · платформы:
счетчик: 1 · online:
created and powered by:
RobiYogi.com - профессиональные адаптивные сайты
00:00
00:00
близко
 пожалуйста, подождите, пока идет загрузка данных...