See the bottom of this page for additional resources.
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.
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.
--
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.
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.”
--
--
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."
--
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.
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)
[Smith‐Roe 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 [Smith‐Roe 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
--
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.
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.
--
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.
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.
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:
“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/
