European Parliament: 5G Health Effects and Environmental Impacts

Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies

Fiorella Belpoggi. Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology. European Parliamentary Research Service. Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA). PE 690.012. June 2021.

Abstract

The upcoming deployment of 5G mobile networks will allow for significantly faster mobile broadband speeds and increasingly extensive mobile data usage. Technical innovations include a different transmission system (MIMO: use of multiple‐input and multiple‐output antennas), directional signal transmission or reception (beamforming), and the use of other frequency ranges. At the same time, a change is expected in the exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of humans and the environment. In addition to those used to date, the 5G pioneer bands identified at EU level have frequencies of 700 MHz, 3.6 GHz (3.4 to 3.8 GHz) and 26 GHz (24.25 to 27.5 GHz). The first two frequencies (FR1) are similar to those used for 2G to 4G technologies and have been investigated in both epidemiological and experimental studies for different end points (including carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental effects), while 26 GHz (FR2) and higher frequencies have not been adequately studied for the same end points.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency (RF) EMF as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2B) and recently recommended RF exposure for re-evaluation 'with high priority' (IARC, 2019). Since 2011 a great number of studies have been performed, both epidemiological and experimental. The present review addresses the current knowledge regarding both carcinogenic and reproductive/ developmental hazards of RF as exploited by 5G. There are various in vivo experimental and epidemiological studies on RF at a lower frequency range (450 to 6000 MHz), which also includes the frequencies used in previous generations' broadband cellular networks, but very few (and inadequate) on the higher frequency range (24 to 100 GHz, centimetre/MMW).

The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence of reproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals.

Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.

Executive Summary

1. Background

Recent decades have seen an unparalleled development of technologies known as information and communications technologies (ICT), which include wireless communication used for mobile telephones and, for example, Wi-Fi using radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF).

The first generation of handheld mobile phones was available in the late 1980s.

Subsequently, the second (2G), third (3G) and fourth (4G, long-term evolution = LTE) generations dramatically increased their penetration rates in society, so that today in Europe there are more devices than inhabitants. In addition, Wi-Fi and other forms of wireless data transfer have become ubiquitous and are globally available. Nevertheless, there are new inequalities in terms of access to high-speed internet (even within high-income countries) and control by authoritarian regimes shows risks for democracy and European values.

The introduction of the next generation of RF, 5G, has begun on mobile networks. 5G is not a wholly new technology, but an evolution of already existing G1 to G4 technologies. 5G networks will work within several different frequency bands, the lower frequencies of which are being proposed for the first phase of 5G networks. Several of these frequencies have been or are currently being used for earlier mobile communication generations. There are also plans to use much higher radio frequencies at later stages of the 5G technology evolution. The new bands are well above the ultra high frequency (UHF) range, having wavelengths in the centimetre (3–30 GHz) or millimetre ranges (MMW) at 30-300 GHz. These latter bands have traditionally been used for radar and microwave links and very few have been studied for their impact on human health.

2. Methodology

This review of the currently available scientific evidence focuses on both the carcinogenic and the reproductive/developmental effects of RF from mobile phone telecommunications systems using 2G-5G networks, based on both in vivo animal studies and human epidemiological studies. The studies evaluated have been divided into two groups:

1) studies evaluating health effects due to RF at the lower frequency range (FR) (FR1: 450 to 6 000 MHz), which also includes the frequencies used in the existing 2-4 generations of the broadband cellular network. The current evidence from 2G-4G studies is the best evidence currently available. The studies were evaluated using narrative methods;

2) studies evaluating health effects due to RF at the higher FR (FR2: 24 to 100 GHz - MMW). The higher frequencies are new, not previously used for mobile communication and specific to the new 5G technology, which has particular physical characteristics and interactions with biological matter (lower penetration, higher energy, etc.): they were considered separately using a scoping review method.

Narrative review (FR1) will be distinguished from scoping review (FR2), but the selection and assessment criteria indicated for scoping reviews were adopted for both searches and for including/excluding studies on the cancer and reproductive/developmental biological end points.

In finally assessing the results of both epidemiological and experimental study, and of cancer and reproductive/developmental outcomes, consideration was given to the parameters indicated in the IARC Monograph Preamble (2019), tailored to the needs of the present report, and valid for both end points (i.e. cancer and reproductive/developmental effects):

Sufficient evidence: a causal association between exposure to RF-EMF and the specific adverse effect has been established. That is, a positive association has been observed in the body of evidence on exposure to the agent and the specific adverse effect in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding factors were ruled out with reasonable confidence.

Limited evidence: a causal interpretation of the positive association observed in the body of evidence on exposure to RF-EMF and the specific adverse effect is credible, but chance, bias, or confounding factors cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

No evidence: there are no data available or evidence, suggesting lack of adverse effects (to be specified).

The overall evaluation for both cancer and reproductive/developmental effects was obtained by the integration of the human/animal evidence as follows:

3. Exposure assessment

The question of exposure assessment with the introduction of 5G is complicated, above all concerning the monitoring of the continuous changes in activity of both base stations (BS) and user equipment (UE) related to MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) technology. Furthermore, the technical approach to exposure assessment in the future scenario, relating to 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G concurrent emissions, is still being formulated and is hence uncertain.

4. Non-thermal effects

The harmful effects of non-thermal biological interaction of RF-EMF with human and animal tissues have not been included in the determination of the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines (ICNIRP 2020a), despite the huge amount of available scientific publications demonstrating the harmfulness or potential harmfulness of those effects. Athermal bioresponses exist, and indeed some frequencies are being used for therapeutic purposes in a number of branches of medicine. Any drug, as we well know, even the most beneficial, may also entail some adverse effects. So, thermal as well as non-thermal effects of RF-EMF have to be considered in risk assessment.

5. State of the art of the research on RF-EMF

The introduction of wireless communication devices that operate in the RF region of the electromagnetic spectrum (450 to 6 000 MHz, lower frequencies) has triggered a considerable number of studies focusing on health concerns. These studies encompass studies on humans (epidemiological), on animals (rodent experimental studies), and on in-vitro cellular systems.

5G networks will increase the number of wireless devices, necessitating a lot more infrastructure, so as to allow for a higher mobile data volume per geographic area. Moreover, it is necessary to build up increased network density, as the higher frequencies required for 5G (24 to 100 GHz, MMW) have shorter ranges. The studies available on these frequencies are few in number and of mixed quality.

This raises the questions as to whether these higher frequencies would have health and environmental effects different from those at lower frequencies. Worldwide, assessments of RF safety have been performed at different levels, with the publication of scientific and policy papers.

With regard to cancer, the IARC 2011 analysis of the literature reviewed up to 2011 (Baan, 2011), published in 2013, and cited throughout as IARC (2013), defined RF-EMF in the frequency range from 30 kHz to 300 GHz as 'possibly carcinogenic' to humans, based on 'limited evidence of carcinogenicity' in human and in experimental animals. The studies available in 2011 examined RF in the range we here call FR1, that is from 450 to 6 000 MHZ. The FR2 frequencies (24 to 100 GHz) lie in the MMW range.

The IARC 2011 analysis evaluated RF-EMF. While there were no studies on 5G, some studies on high frequency occupational radar and microwave exposures were included.

The new MMW frequencies (FR2: 24 to 100 GHz) will be added to the lower frequencies already in use including in part by 5G. It follows that, for 5G in the range 450 to 6 000 MHz (FR1) there are many studies, many collected in the IARC Monograph in relation to cancer, while for 26 GHz and other MMW frequencies in general there is little literature exploring the possible adverse effects on health. The simple reason for this is that hitherto these frequencies have never been used for mass communication and hence there were few suitable populations exposed to these frequencies to study; there are likewise very few adequate studies on non-thermal effects on laboratory animals.

6. Results of the present review

Using PubMed and the EMF Portal database, and applying the scoping review methodology to our research, we found 950 papers on the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF in humans, and 911 papers on experimental rodent studies, totalling 1 861 studies. Regarding reproductive/developmental studies, we found 2 834 papers for epidemiology and 5 052 studies for experimental rodent studies, totalling 7 886 studies. From the present review of the literature and the considerations reported above, we come to the following conclusions:

6.1 Cancer in humans

FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): there is limited evidence for carcinogenicity of RF radiation in humans. Updating the results of the overall 2011 evaluation to 2020, positive associations have again been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and both glioma (tumour of the brain) and acoustic neuroma, but the human evidence is still limited.

FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the effects of the higher frequencies.

6.2 Cancer in experimental animals

FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): there is sufficient evidence in experimental animals of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation. New studies following the 2011 IARC evaluation showed a positive association between RF-EMF and tumours of the brain and Schwann cells of the peripheral nervous system, the same type of tumours also observed in epidemiological studies.

FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies.

6.3 Reproductive/developmental effects in humans

FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): there is sufficient evidence of adverse effects on the fertility of men. There is limited evidence of adverse effects on fertility in women. There is limited evidence of developmental effects in offspring of mothers who were heavy users of mobile phones during pregnancy.

FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies.

6.4 Reproductive/developmental effects in experimental animals

FR1 (450 to 6000 MHz): there is sufficient evidence of adverse effects on male rat and mouse fertility. There is limited evidence of adverse effects on female mouse fertility. There is limited evidence of adverse effects on the development in offspring of rats and mice exposed during embryo life.

FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies on non-thermal effects were performed on the higher frequencies.

7. Overall evaluation

7.1 Cancer

FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these FR1 frequencies are probably carcinogenic to humans.

FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies.

7.2 Reproductive/developmental effects

FR1 (450 to 6000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility. They possibly affect female fertility. They possibly have adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns.

FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.

8. Policy options

8.1 Opting for novel technology for mobile phones that enables RF-EMF exposures to be reduced

The sources of RF emissions that seem at present to pose the greatest threat are mobile phones. Though transmitting installations (radio base masts) are perceived by some people as providing the greatest risk, actually the greatest burden of exposure in humans generally derives from their own mobile phones, and epidemiological studies have observed a statistically significant increase in brain tumours and Schwann cell tumours of the peripheral nerves, mainly among heavy cell-phone users.

Accordingly, action is needed to ensure that safer and safer telephone devices are manufactured, emitting low energy and if possible only working when at a certain distance from the body. The cable earpiece solves much of the problem but is inconvenient and hence puts users off; on the other hand, it is not always possible to use speakerphone mode. The option of lowering RF-EMF exposure as much as possible in connection with telephones still applies whatever the frequencies being used, from 1G to 5G. Countries such as the US and Canada, which enforced stricter mobile phone SAR limits than in Europe, were still able to build efficient 1G,2G, 3G, 4G communications (Madjar, 2016). Since 5G aims to be more energy-efficient than the previous technologies, adopting stricter limits in the EU for mobile phone devices would be at once a sustainable and a precautionary approach.

8.2 Revising exposure limits for the public and the environment in order to reduce RF-EMF exposure from cell towers

Recently, EU policies (European Commission, 2019) have promoted the sustainability of a new economic and social development model that uses new technologies to constantly monitor the planet's state of health, including climate change, the energy transition, agro-ecology and the preservation of biodiversity. Using the lowest frequencies of 5G and adopting precautionary exposure limits such as those used in Italy, Switzerland, China, and Russia among others, which are significantly lower than those recommended by ICNIRP, could help achieve these EU sustainability objectives.

8.3 Adopting measures to incentivise the reduction of RF-EMF exposure

Much of the remarkable performance of the new wireless lower frequency 5G technology can also be achieved by using optic-fibre cables and by adopting engineering and technical measures to reduce exposure from 1-4G systems (Keiser, 2003; CommTech Talks, 2015; Zlatanov, 2017). This would minimise exposure, wherever connections are needed in fixed sites. For example, optic fibre cables could be used to connect schools, libraries, workplaces, houses, public buildings, and all new buildings etc., and public gathering places could be 'no RF-EMF' areas (along the lines of no-smoking areas) so as to avoid the passive exposure of people not using a mobile phone or long-range transmission technology, thus protecting many vulnerable elderly or immune-compromised people, children, and those who are electro-sensitive.

8.4 Promoting multidisciplinary scientific research to assess the long-term health effects of 5G and to find an adequate method of monitoring exposure to 5G

The literature contains no adequate studies that would rule out the risk that tumours and adverse effects on reproduction and development may occur upon exposure to 5G MMW, or to exclude the possibility of some synergistic interactions between 5G and other frequencies that are already being used. This makes the introduction of 5G fraught with uncertainty concerning both health issues and forecasting and or monitoring the actual exposure of the population: these gaps in knowledge justify the call for a moratorium on MMW of 5G, pending completion of adequate research.

In light of these uncertainties, one policy option is to promote multidisciplinary team research into various factors concerning exposure assessment and also into the biological effects of 5G MMW at frequencies between 6 and 300 GHz, both on humans and on the flora and fauna of the environment, e.g. non-human vertebrates, plants, fungi, and invertebrates.
MMW will only be brought in with the final 5G protocol, i.e. not until three to five years' time. Given this time frame, one option is to study their effects before exposing the whole world population and environment.

Implementing MMW 5G technology without further preventive studies would mean conducting an 'experiment' on the human population in complete uncertainty as to the consequences. To restrict our scope to Europe, this could occur within a field like that of chemistry, currently governed by REACH (EC, 1907/2006).

REACH aims to improve the protection of human health and the environment through better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances. EU REACH regulates the registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemicals. It also aims to enhance the innovation and competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. EU REACH is based on the principle of 'no data, no market', placing responsibility on industry to provide safety information on substances.

Manufacturers and importers are required to gather information on the properties of their chemical substances, which will allow their safe handling, and to register the information in a central database in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). One policy option can be to apply the same approach to all types of technological innovation.

The results of these studies could form the basis for developing evidence-based policies regarding RF-EMF exposure of human and non-human organisms to 5G MMW frequencies. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular.

8.5 Promoting information campaigns on 5G

There is a lack of information on the potential harms of RF-EMF. The information gap creates scope for deniers as well as alarmists, giving rise to social and political tension in many EU countries. Public information campaigns should therefore be a priority.

Information campaigns should be carried out at all levels, beginning with schools. People should be informed of the potential health risks, but also the opportunities for digital development, what infrastructural alternatives exist for 5G transmission, the safety measures (exposure limits) taken by the EU and Member States, and the correct use of mobile phones. Only with sound and accurate information can we win back citizen trust and reach a shared agreement over a technological choice which, if properly managed, can bring great social and economic benefits.

Excerpts

“'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' (Blackman and Forge, 2019)."

"Regarding exposure assessment, Neufeld and Kuster (2018) issued a warning in a paper in Health Physics, urging that existing exposure standards be revised with shorter averaging times to address potential thermal damage from short and strong pulses: “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. ... [Our] results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the ICNIRP guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines” (Neufeld and Kuster, 2018)."

"This study has been written by Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, BSC, PhD, International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology Fellow (IATPF), Ramazzini Institute, Bologna (Italy), at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

The scoping review search was performed by Dr Daria Sgargi, PhD, Master in Biostatistics, and Dr Andrea Vornoli, PhD in Cancer Research, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna.

The author thanks Dr Daniele Mandrioli, MD, PhD, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna (Italy), who advised and reviewed the methodology; Prof. Carlo Foresta, MD, and Prof. Andrea Garolla, MD, Professors of Endocrinology and Andrology, University of Padua (Italy), who critically reviewed the results on reproductive adverse effects in humans; Prof. Fausto Bersani, Physicist, Consultant, Rimini (Italy), who assisted her in the interpretation of papers regarding the exposure scenario."

Open access report:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf

==

Environmental impacts of 5G: A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants

Arno Thielens. Environmental impacts of 5G: A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). European Parliament. 2021, 137 pp. PE 690.021, ISBN 9789284680337. doi: 10.2861/318352.

 

Abstract

 

Telecommunication networks use radio-frequency electromagnetic fields to enable wireless communication. These networks have evolved over time, and have been launched in successive generations. The fifth generation of telecommunication networks will operate at frequencies that were not commonly used in previous generations, changing the exposure of wildlife to these waves. This report reviews the literature on the exposure of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields in anticipation of this change.

 

The review shows that dielectric heating can occur at all considered frequencies (0.4-300 GHz) and for all studied organisms. Summarising and discussing the results of a series of studies of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of wildlife, the review shows that several studies into the effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure on invertebrates and plants in the frequency bands considered demonstrate experimental shortcomings. Furthermore, the literature on invertebrate and plant exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields above 6 GHz is very limited. More research is needed in this field.

 

Executive summary

1. Rationale

Wireless telecommunication is a widespread technology that uses radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) to send information between users. Wildlife can be exposed to these waves, which will partially penetrate biological tissues. These internal fields can have biological effects. Exposure to RF-EMFs and the interaction between the EMFs and organisms will depend on the frequency of the waves. Fifth generation wireless telecommunication networks (5G) will be operating partly at new frequencies that are not very commonly found in the environment. These anticipated changes warrant a review of the existing literature on the effects of RF-EMF exposure of wildlife. This study presents such a review.

2. Methodology

A database search of the current literature in the field found that it is subdivided based on two classifiers. The first is the target group investigated: non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants; the second is the RF-EMF frequency studied, which is subdivided between a lower (0.45-6 GHz) and a higher frequency range (6-300 GHz). The former frequency range includes those frequencies where the current telecommunication networks operate, while the latter is the range in which 5G will partially operate. This resulted in six categories, which are reviewed separately.

3. Results

Dielectric heating due to RF-EMF exposure of biological tissue is shown in all categories. This heating causes internal temperature increases in organisms or cells, which in turn has biological effects such as a thermoregulatory response. This implies that there is always a level of RF-EMF power density that will cause biological effects, referred to as thermal effects. Decoupling effects caused by elevated temperatures and the presence of RF-EMFs within biological tissue are major issues in this field of study.

Many studies focus on demonstrating (the absence of) non-thermal effects. These are effects that are caused by RF-EMF exposure but are not associated with any changes in temperature. A wide variety of other effects of RF-EMF exposure are studied. However, no effect, apart from dielectric heating, is studied in all six categories.

Lower frequency range (0.45-6 GHz)

Vertebrates

In the lower frequency range, in vitro studies on non-human vertebrate cells showed mixed results on cellular genotoxicity and cellular transformation under RF-EMF exposure. Previous reviews on these subjects conclude either that the evidence for such effects is weak or that the literature is inconclusive. Regarding non-genotoxic effects of RF-EMF exposure, there are reports claiming that neural activity can be altered in vitro through RF-EMF exposure. Other cellular effects are either not proven or contested, or there are not enough studies to come to any conclusions on such effects. In vivo studies on genotoxicity of RF-EMFs found contradictory results. There is a debate in the literature on whether RF-EMF exposure can induce (transient) changes in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.

It seems that the most recent studies could not show such effects. There are mixed results regarding the in vivo effects of RF-EMF exposure on the neural system. There seems to be a consensus that animals can hear (pulsed) RF-EMFs above a certain threshold, so-called microwave hearing. However, there is little evidence that telecommunication signals can induce this effect. Environmental studies on RF-EMF exposure and vertebrate behaviour focus mainly on animal nesting, reproduction, orientation and abundance near RF-EMF sources. There are a limited number of studies that conclude that behavioural and reproductive effects might occur for birds and bats under RF-EMF exposure.

Invertebrates

RF-EMF exposure of invertebrates in the lower frequency range has been studied by several authors. In addition to dielectric heating, there is a focus on developmental, genetic, or behavioural effects. In vitro studies have shown increased neural activity in invertebrate neurons. In vivo studies on invertebrates are faced with several experimental problems and present inconclusive results on a series of investigated parameters. More research of higher quality, sham-exposed control groups is necessary. As for the limited number of studies that investigated non-insect invertebrates, they all found effects (in vitro and in vivo). This calls for more research on this topic. A very limited number of environmental studies focus on invertebrates and studies on non-insect invertebrates are under-represented as well. These topics require more research in the future.

Plants and fungi

Dielectric heating of plants has been shown in the lower frequency range. This heating might have beneficial effects, but will also induce plant mortality at a certain level. At lower levels of RF-EMF exposure, the literature on plants and fungi shows contradictory results and is plagued by experimental shortcomings. The numbers of studies and plants studied, especially for fungi, is limited in comparison to those studies that focus on animals. More research in this area is necessary, and should focus on a higher quality of unexposed control and sham control groups, temperature and exposure monitoring, and dosimetry.

Higher frequency range (6 to 300 GHz)

Vertebrates

In the higher frequency range, in vitro studies on both vertebrate and invertebrate neurons have shown effects of RF-EMF exposure on neural activity. In vivo studies on vertebrates have shown that RF-EMF exposure of the eye can induce corneal lesions and cataract. Effects on male fertility have been demonstrated in rodents as well. Mixed results of RF-EMF exposure on behaviour and prevalence of vertebrates are found. One research group demonstrated that RF-EMF exposure can have a hypoalgesic effect in mice. These effects should be replicated by other research groups. There is some evidence that high-frequency RF-EMFs can be used to induce an anti-inflammatory response, up to a certain dosage. A limited number of in vivo studies have shown that high-frequency RF-EMFs can reduce tumor growth.

Invertebrates

In the same frequency range, there have been in vitro demonstrations of neurostimulation and in vivo demonstration of developmental and teratogenic effects on invertebrates at relatively high power-densities. These effects should be investigated further at lower power densities. The literature on invertebrate exposure to RF-EMFs in this frequency range is limited and warrants further investigation.

Plants and fungi

The literature on fungi and plants in the higher frequency range is very limited and no conclusions besides the existence of dielectric heating can be drawn at this moment. It is necessary to execute further research in this area.

4. Conclusions

Dielectric heating due to RF-EMF exposure is shown in all categories studied.

In the lower frequency range (0.45-6 GHz), the majority of the existing literature focuses on vertebrates, for which a series of potential effects are studied. Those studies that investigate RF-EMF exposure of invertebrates in the lower frequency range focus on dielectric heating, and developmental, genetic or behavioural effects. Literature on non-insect invertebrates is very limited. Studies on plant exposure in the lower frequency range, which target exposure outcomes at plant level show experimental shortcomings. The number of studies in this category is limited in comparison to those studies that focus on animals.

In the higher frequency range (6-300 GHz) the number of peer-reviewed publications is in general lower than in the lower frequency range. For vertebrates, a series of potential exposure outcomes are studied, while the literature on invertebrates and plants above 6 GHz is very limited. More research in this field is necessary.

5. Policy options

Given the results of this review, four policy options were formulated.

A first policy option could be to fund research on RF-EMF exposure of plants, fungi and invertebrates at frequencies below 6 GHz and to fund research on non-human vertebrates, plants, fungi and invertebrates at frequencies of between 6 and 300 GHz. These studies could form the basis for evidence-based policies regarding RF-EMF exposure of non-human organisms.

A second policy option could be to call for systematic monitoring of environmental RF-EMFs, since these are the main source of exposure for non-human organisms and it is expected that this exposure will change over time.

A third policy option could be a request to make information on the RF-EMF operational aspects of the telecommunication networks public. This would again be aimed at quantifying

environmental RF-EMF exposure over time.

A fourth policy option could be to require compliance studies for organisms other than humans when base station antennas are installed in the telecommunication network. This would prevent the excessive RF-EMF exposure of non-human organisms near such antennas.

Open access report: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690021/EPRS_STU(2021)690021_EN.pdf

==

June 1, 2021

‘Health impact of 5G’ and ‘Environmental impacts of 5G’

Presentation of the Studies

European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) 

On May 31, 2021, the European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) met to hear presentation of the studies it commissioned on 5G health effects and environmental impacts.

"Over the last decades, novel wireless communication technologies, such as mobile telephones, cellular networks and Wi-Fi, have been developed at unparalleled speed. The forthcoming rollout of 5G technology across the European Union is expected to bring new opportunities for citizens and businesses by enabling faster internet browsing, streaming and downloading, as well as by ensuring better connectivity. However, 5G, along with 3G and 4G, with which it will operate in parallel for several years, may also pose threats to human health. This event will present the results of two STOA studies, which take stock of our present understanding of the impacts of 5G on health and the environment."

The presenters included Fiorella Belpoggi from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, Arno Thielens from Ghent University in Belgium, and Julia Köberlein and Bernhard Scholz from Kontextlab in Germany.

The discussants included Joachim Schüz from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer in France, Kurt Straif from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain, and Martin Vácha from Masaryk University in the Czech Republic.

Dr. Belpoggi made the following conclusions based on her study of 5G health effects:

• Radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure from 450 Megahertz - 6 Gigahertz: 
• Probably carcinogenic to humans.
• Probably affects male fertility.
• Possibly affects female fertility. 
• Possibly has adverse effects on embyros, fetuses, and newborns.
• RFR exposure from 24-100 Gigahertz: 
• No adequate studies were performed. 

Dr. Belpoggi recommended the following policies:

• Manufacture cell phones that emit less RFR.
• Revise RFR exposure limits to reduce exposure from cell towers.
• Adopt measures to reduce RFR in fixed locations.
• Promote multidisciplinary research on long-term health effects of 5G and develop a method to monitor 5G exposure.
• Promote information campaigns on 5G.

Dr. Thielens made the following conclusions based on his study of 5G environmental impacts:

• Wildlife is exposed to RFR from telecommunication networks.
  
• RFR exposure will change in the near future.
• More research is needed on the effects of RFR on wildlife, especially plants, fungi, and invertebrates.

Dr. Thielens recommended the following policies:

• For RFR less than 6 Gigahertz, fund research on plants, fungi, and invertebrates.
• For RFR more than 6 Gigahertz, fund research on all non-human organisms.
• Monitor environmental RFR exposure, especially near cell tower antennas.
  
• Adopt measures to ensure all organisms maintain a minimum separation from antennas.

Video of the entire session (see start and end times for individual presenters below): 

https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/event_20210531-1000-SPECIAL-STOA_vd?start=20210531080934&end=20210531095852

PROGRAM

WELCOME and INTRODUCTION

Eva KAILI, MEP and STOA Chair
Michèle Rivasi, MEP and STOA Panel member
Ivo Hristov, MEP and STOA Panel member

HEALTH IMPACT OF 5G

Fiorella Belpoggi, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy (video: 10:28:28 - 10:48:25)

Slides: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/235270/Belpoggi%20new-Health%20impact%205G-%2031-5-2021.pdf

Key slides:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF 5G

Arno Thielens, Ghent University - imec, Ghent, Belgium  (video: 10:49:46 - 11:09:05)

Slides: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/235271/slides_athielens_30_05_2021.pdf

Key slides:

PRESENTATION OF THE ESMH KNOWLEDGE MAP ON 5G

Julia Köberlein, Bernhard Scholz, Kontextlab, Munich, Germany (video: 11:09:45 - 11:20:43)

Slides: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/235269/210531-ESMH-5G-Mapping-Kontextlab.pdf

Key slide:

DISCUSSANTS

Joachim Schüz, International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO, France  (video: 11:22:08 - 11:28:32) 

Kurt Straif, Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Spain  (video: 11:29:40 - 11:37:45) 

Martin Vácha, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic  (video: 11:38:13 - 11:42:33) 


CLOSING REMARKS

Moderator: Michel Salvator Israel, Medical University, Pleven, Bulgaria  (video: 11:42:34 - 11:45:38)  

Ivo Hristov, MEP and STOA Panel member  (video: 11:45:41 - 11:48:10) 

Michèle Rivasi, MEP and STOA Panel member  (video: 11:48:25 - 11:53:04)    

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/en/events/details/presentation-of-the-studies-health-impac/20210506EOT05461

--

December 14, 2020 (updated December 15)

The Panel for the Future of Science and Technology of the European Parliament held a workshop on the potential health impacts of 5G on December 7, 2020. 

The workshop included testimony from the chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and from five experts.

The ICNIRP chairman claimed that ICNIRP's exposure guidelines for radio frequency (RF) radiation are adequate to protect against all health threats to humans, not just short-term or thermal effects, and that a wealth of research shows that 5G will not cause health problems.

In contrast, the five experts discussed potential impacts of 5G to humans, wildlife and the natural environment. Each of the experts raised concerns about the adequacy of ICNIRP's RF exposure guidelines to protect health. Both members of Parliament who chaired this meeting called for a moratorium on 5G deployment until these concerns are resolved.

Program

• Michèle Rivasi, Member of Parliament (MEP) and STOA (Science and Technology Options Assessment) Panel member
• Ivo Hristov, MEP and STOA Panel member

• Moderator: David Gee, Institute of Environment, Health, and Societies, Brunel University, London, UK; former senior advisor to European Environmental Agency

Health Impact of 5G

• Fiorella Belpoggi, Research Director, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy
• Elisabeth Cardis, Head of Radiation Program, Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Spain
• Rodney Croft, Chairman, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP); Professor of Health Psychology, University of Wollongong, Australia
• Franz Karcher, DG Sante, European Commission

Environmental Impact of 5G

• Arno Thielens, Professor of Engineering, Ghent University, imec, Ghent, Belgium
• Gerard Ledoigt, Professor of Biology, Clermont Université, Clermont-Ferrand, France

 Q&A from Audience and Closing Remarks

• Ivo Hristov, MEP and STOA Panel Member
• Michèle Rivasi, MEP and STOA Panel Member
• David Gee, Moderator

The video of the workshop (with simultaneous translation into six languages) can be viewed at: https://bit.ly/EUparliament5Gworkshop.

The Participants Booklet for this workshop can be downloaded at: https://bit.ly/5GEUparliamentbooklet.

5G Workshop Summary

Note: For the following summary I relied on the English translator so my notes may not accurately reflect the speakers' testimony. I apologize in advance if I misconstrued anyone's comments.

Ivo Hristov (MEP): The recent ICNIRP review of the literature and recommended radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines suffer from a conflict of interest as they were "co-written" by members of industry. 5G should not be deployed until there is a risk assessment and until we have the tools to minimize the risks.

David Gee (moderator, Brunel University): Posed three questions to the panel of experts:

1. Is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's (ICNIRP) 2020 risk assessment of the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic fields sufficiently robust and reliable to define protection policies?

2. Are the exposure limits recommended by the ICNIRP for electromagnetic fields, which are based primarily on short-term tissue warming effects, sufficiently protective to avoid damage from exposures at lower levels and over the long term that are below the ICNIRP limits?

3. Is there sufficient independent research on the health and environmental effects of 5G that would help to reassure the public and minimize future liability?

Rodney Croft (ICNIRP Chairman):

Denied any industry involvement in the ICNIRP review of the literature or the development of RF exposure guidelines. Careful consideration was given to all public input that ICNIRP received.

Science is imperfect and results of a study are not completely reliable. Need to look at the body of research as a whole. The National Toxicology Program rat study is a good example of this. That the study made more than 10,000 statistical comparisons rendered the statistically significant outcomes meaningless. Thus, another study must be conducted to confirm the results.

 ICNIRP recognizes some biologic effects but does not believe there is sufficient data to indicate harm to animals or the environment.

The ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines protect against all health threats to humans, not just short-term or thermal effects.

A wealth of independent research shows 5G will not cause health problems. 5G is a new transmission protocol using RF fields and knowledge about RF is substantial. The RF mechanisms are well known. Science does not find differential effects for different modulations. The effect of frequency is already understood so it doesn't matter that some 5G frequencies are different from 4G.

Elisabeth Cardis (Barcelona Institute for Global Health):

Some recent experimental animal studies and epidemiological studies find harmful effects from low-level RF exposure. ICNIRP dismisses NTP study and epidemiological case-control studies. These observations raise the possibility that the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines provide inadequate protection. However, the evidence is not conclusive.  The widespread use of wireless technology warrants use of an ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) policy.

There is insufficient research on 5G, especially millimeter wave (mmw) effects, and an absence of epidemiological research. Research is also needed on measurement protocols, especially for 5G's massive-MIMO and beam-forming technology; on exposure assessment and mechanisms.

Fiorella Belpoggi (Ramazzini Institute):

We need a risk assessment on 5G (700 - 3500 MHz; 26 GHz). There have been thousands of studies on the lower frequencies; some found biological effects. ICNIRP guidelines do not sufficiently protect us from these lower frequencies, but this is a low risk.

The Interphone study found an increase in brain tumors and tumors on the acoustic nerve.

It is difficult to quantify exposures. There is uncertainty about the long-term effect of mmw's.

5G constitutes a major experiment on the human population. New technologies are being deployed without safety information.

If everyone is exposed to 5G, we will not have an unexposed comparison group in future studies.

We need safer mobile phones, especially for children and women.  Up to 5 volts per meter may be safe at least from carcinogenic effects.

 We need research on the combined effects of mmw's with frequencies in current use.

 Franz Karcher (DG Sante, European Commission):

The European Commission (EC) is reassessing the situation following the ICNIRP new review and guidelines. EC provides guidance to EU countries but does not mandate policies. EC relies on a wide range of advice from more than 100 academies and 40 countries -- free of conflicts of interest.

The EC asked the committee on new emerging health risks to review the evidence. The last review 5 years ago concluded that 1999 exposure limits are still valid including a 50-fold safety factor for the general public and 5-fold for occupational workers. EC member states follow these guidelines or have adopted more rigorous limits (e.g., Italy).

We need more studies as existing studies are inconsistent. EC is funding more research.

EC is aware of public concerns re: 5G.

French study: 5G's massive MIMO is likely to cause a minor increase in RF exposure but much less than current ICNIRP guidelines.

David Gee summary:

1) Exposure guidelines are often too weak to be protective, e.g., with more research chemical exposure limits are usually strengthened over time.

2) The science is complex and uncertain.

3) Not much is known about 5G; we have substantial research on 2G-4G.

4) The Ramazzini Institute never found a cancer effect in animals that did not affect humans.

5) An ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) policy is wise.

6) We need more research. Use ALARA policy in the interim.

Arno Thielens (Ghent University):

The ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines do not consider the scientific literature regarding effects on non-human animals and plants that are unrelated to human health.

The effect of heating is the same in all organisms, but the amount of heating varies. The ICNIRP guidelines only address humans.

The main human exposures come from base station antennas and personal wireless devices. Normal wireless users may have much greater whole-body exposure to RF after 5G deployment. 

Non-user exposures (including other species) may decrease with deployment of 5G over time due to beam-forming. However, some novel wireless applications may increase non-human exposures (e.g., tracking devices). We need to quantify this.

Most of the animal/plant/fungi research is on frequencies less than or equal to 6 GHz.  Little research has been conducted on the effects of frequencies above 6 GHz.

Below 6 GHz, biological effects have been found on invertebrates, plants, especially low frequency fields, but not necessarily harmful.

Gerard Ledoigt (Clermont Université):

RF radiation has important effects on the environment. Bee behavior is affected after 35-45 minutes exposure to mobile phone radiation.

Serious effects on plants after 48 hours of exposure.

Various animals and plants are affected by 1 Volt per meter. Some plants were affected after 10 minutes of exposure including non-thermal effects on plants (900 MHz). The physiological effects in plants depended on modulation of the signal.

There is a risk from long-term exposure to health. Pregnant women and children are more vulnerable. Brain tumor risk increases with long-term exposure. The research is robust. There is a cause-effect relationship.

Increased stress on organisms. Effects on DNA, quality of sperm reduced. Organ damage, liver, affected in newborn. Not due to thermic exposure. Epigenetic responses related to types of RF signals. Cellular division is changed. DNA repair is also affected leading to cancers and neurodegenerative diseases.

5G causes stress proteins and affects cellular membranes. The immune system, the heart and brain will be affected.

Genotoxicity. Prenatal effects in mice and rats.

He advocated for a moratorium on 5G and conduct of research fully independent from any pressure groups.

David Gee (summary):

1) ICNIRP evaluation and guidelines mainly focus on health, not the environment.

2) All life forms are affected by RF and often below ICNIRP levels.

3) 5G may decrease RF exposure for non-users and increase it for users.

4) The evidence is not convincing, but certainly concerning.

5) How much evidence is needed before policy makers take action?

Q&A session

MEP: Asked panelists to compare safety of 5G to 4G.

Rodney Croft: There is very good science. There is no uncertainty re: safety of 5G. All ICNIRP commissioners are 100% independent and can say whatever they like.

David Gee: James Lin, a former ICNIRP commissioner, thinks animal evidence of carcinogenicity is clear and convincing.

Rodney Croft: Lin has not provided a good reason to believe this.

Elisabeth Cardis: Has questions about beamforming -- hotspots for users? Recommends periodic surveys of uses and exposures in different countries.

Professor Tom Butler: Asked panelists to compare the strength of evidence re: RF carcinogenicity in 2011 (IARC review) to now.

Elisabeth Cardis: Largest new evidence is experimental (NTP, Ramazzini). We need to wait on the next IARC review to determine the risk of carcinogenicity.

Rodney Croft: Fifteen years of research in "great detail" finds no evidence of different health outcomes from RF exposure as a function of age or in any sensitive population.

Elisabeth Cardis: Some time ago some countries recommended the use of cabled internet in kindergartens in primary schools. Not sure if this still applies.

Fiorella Belpoggi: The hazard is stronger when we expose pregnant women, embryos, fetuses, and children. Actually, in our study and in the NTP study on Sprague Dawley rats, where exposure started at the beginning of dams' gestation,  we both have shown a statistically significant increase in heart Schwannomas. This didn’t happen in the NTP study on mice or in other previous studies, where exposure started in adulthood. So I am convinced that the hazard is greater for the early life window of susceptibility. For risk assessment purposes we should take into account this finding.

Concluding Remarks

Ivo Hristov (MEP): 

This very interesting debate has shown that 5G is likely to have an adverse impact on humans and the environment. The lack of research on 5G is very important. A plan of action for 5G should take into account the recommendations of the research community.

Michèle Rivasi (MEP): 

ICNIRP says no there is no uncertainty about 5G, and that everyone is protected. But ICNIRP only deals with humans, not the environment. There are major gaps in the research on 5G, especially mmw's. Paris airports have banned 5G due to a technical incompatibility. The NTP and Ramazzini studies show robust evidence of carcinogenicity. It cannot be true that there is no uncertainty. We should set up a group of experts in Europe to conduct a robust evaluation by an independent committee. We need to do this to restore consumer confidence in 5G. We should impose a moratorium on 5G until this is accomplished.

Study: Wireless radiation exposure for children should be hundreds of times lower than federal limits

Health risk assessment based on the NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study.

Scientists affiliated with the Environmental Working Group conclude that, to protect adults from wireless radiation health risks, radiation exposure limits must be 20-40 times more stringent than what the FCC currently allows, and 200-400 times more stringent to protect young children.

Study: Wireless radiation exposure for children should be hundreds of times lower than current federal limits

News Release, Environmental Working Group, July 20, 2021

WASHINGTON – A peer-reviewed study by the Environmental Working Group recommends stringent health-based exposure standards for both children and adults for radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices. EWG’s children’s guideline is the first of its kind and fills a gap left by federal regulators.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health, relies on the methodology developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess human health risks arising from toxic chemical exposures. EWG scientists have applied the same methods to radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices, including cellphones and tablets.

EWG recommends the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adjust its woefully outdated health standards for wireless radiation, last revised a quarter-century ago, well before wireless devices became ubiquitous, heavily used appliances synonymous with modern life. The recommendation draws on data from a landmark 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program, or NTP, one of the largest long-term studies on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

EWG’s new guidelines, the first developed in the U.S. to focus on children’s health, recommend that children’s exposure overall be 200 to 400 lower than the whole-body exposure limit set by the FCC in 1996.

The EWG recommended limit for so-called whole-body Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, for children is 0.2 to 0.4 milliwatts per kilogram, or mW/kg. For adults, EWG recommends a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, which is 20 to 40 times lower than the federal limit.

The FCC has not set a separate standard for children. Its standards for radiofrequency radiation set a maximum SAR of 0.08 watts per kilogram, or W/kg, for whole-body exposure and an SAR for localized spatial peak – the highest exposure level for a specific part of the body, such as the brain – of 1.6 W/kg for the general population.

The NTP studies examined the health effects of 2G and 3G wireless radiation and found there is “clear evidence” of a link between exposure to radiofrequency radiation and heart tumors in laboratory animals. Similar results were reported by a team of Italian scientists from the Ramazzini Institute.

Cellphone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, a conclusion based on human epidemiological studies that found an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, associated with cellphone use.

EWG scientists say that more research is needed on the health impacts of the latest generation of communication technologies, such as 5G. In the meantime, EWG’s recommendation for strict, lower exposure limits for all radiofrequency sources, especially for children.

When the FCC established its radiofrequency radiation limits, following the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, relatively few Americans, and likely no children, owned and used cellphones.

Much has changed since the federal limits were set, including technology and how these devices are used. A survey completed by the nonprofit Common Sense Media in March 2020, just before the start of the Covid-19 spread in the U.S., found that 46 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds, and 67 percent of 5- to 8-year-olds, had their own mobile devices, such as a tablet or smartphone.

With remote learning, a necessity during the Covid-19 pandemic, phones, tablets and other wireless devices became a part of life for young children, tweens and teens nationwide.

“The FCC must consider the latest scientific research, which shows that radiation from these devices can affect health, especially for children,” said Uloma Uche, Ph.D., EWG environmental health science fellow and lead author of the study.

“It has been 25 years since the FCC set its limits for radiofrequency radiation. With multiple sources of radiofrequency radiation in the everyday environment, including Wi-Fi, wireless devices and cell towers, protecting children’s health from wireless radiation exposures should be a priority for the FCC,” she added.

“We have grave concerns over the outdated approach the federal government has relied on to study the health effects of cellphone radiation and set its current safety limit and advice for consumers,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Government guidelines are a quarter-century old and were established at a time when wireless devices were not a constant feature of the lives of nearly every American, including children.”

Reviewing 5G and other aspects of wireless technology should be the focus of public health agencies, noted Cook. “It is long past time the federal government made exposure to 5G wireless devices safe. We strongly believe those exposures deserve far more investigation and scientific rigor than has been applied to date.”

“The evidence shows that children absorb more radiofrequency radiation than adults, and the developing body of a child is more vulnerable to such effects,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG’s vice president for science investigations and co-author of the study.

“More research on the safety and sustainability of wireless technology is essential,” added Naidenko. “Meanwhile, there are simple steps everyone can take to protect their health, such as keeping wireless devices farther from their bodies.”

There are a number of easy, precautionary steps consumers can take until the government conducts the rigorous scientific assessment the issue deserves, which should have occurred years ago.

“Based on our review of the health risks and the inadequacy of current standards to protect children, while the science evolves, it is perfectly reasonable for parents to consider minimizing or eliminating radiofrequency radiation sources at home by relying more on wired internet access, and to urge schools to take comparable steps to reduce classroom and campus exposure,” said Cook.

Other health-protective tips for consumers who want to reduce radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices include using a headset or speaker, texting instead of talking, and limiting the time children spend on smart phones.

Find all of EWG’s tips to reduce exposure to wireless radiation here.

EWG’s recommendation for limits for radiofrequency radiation exposure is its latest effort to advance the public dialogue about science-based standards that protect public health.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2021/07/study-wireless-radiation-exposure-children-should-be-hundreds

--

Study: Wireless radiation exposure should be lower than current federal limits

Environmental Working Group, July 20, 2021 (YouTube video 2:43)

We just released a new peer-reviewed study that recommends stringent health-based exposure standards for radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices for both children and adults. Our guidelines for children are the first of its kind and they fill a gap left by federal regulators. EWG scientists recommend that the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adjust its outdated health standards for wireless radiation, which was last updated more than 25 years ago. Check out our guide to safer cell phone use: https://www.ewg.org/consumer-guides/ewgs-guide-safer-cell-phone-use

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRX5OLj6WU0

--

Q&A

SaferEMR: Why did you choose to model data from the NTP study rather than the Ramazzini study, when the latter study found increased cancer incidence in male rats with much lower RF exposure?

EWG: We were especially interested in the NTP study because of the availability of the NTP data on the health outcomes following interim exposures (for rats, 19 weeks counting from the prenatal exposure). Similar data for health effects in young animals have not yet been published for the Ramazzini Institute study. EWG considers the cardiomyopathy observed in these young animals in the NTP study to be very significant, since these effects occur well before the elevated cancer risk at a time period close to the end of the laboratory rodents’ life span.

 

SaferEMR: Have you thought about why GSM seems more biologically active than CDMA (e.g., GSM's ELF components: 8 Hz and 217 Hz)? Do we have any basis to generalize from your results to other carrier frequencies or modulations? If so, does your study have implications for RF exposure limits pertaining to Wi-Fi (2.4, 5 GHz), 3G (UMTS, W-CDMA), 4G (LTE), or 5G?

EWG: We don’t feel that sufficient mechanistic data are currently available to determine why the adverse health effects of the GSM modulations were more pronounced compared to CDMA. In our view, more research still needs to be done on the health impacts of the latest generation of communication technologies, such as 5G. In the meantime, EWG’s recommendation for strict, lower exposure limits, well below the FCC’s legal limits, applies to exposures from all sources of radiofrequency exposure, including communications technologies that are on the market today.

 

SaferEMR: Are you planning to address the localized peak SAR exposure limit in your next paper or is the NTP study inadequate to address this issue?

EWG: Yes, localized peak SAR exposure limit is definitely the essential next science question to be addressed. The NTP study design did not specifically address the question of localized peak SAR exposure. EWG will continue doing research in this area, and we also hope to see new research effort by the federal government and academia to generate additional data specifically on peak SAR versus whole body SAR. Until such data are publicly available, EWG recommendation is to follow the ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable – principle, by keeping wireless devices away from the body, so as to minimize peak SAR.

--

Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach

Uloma Igara Uche, Olga V Naidenko. Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environ Health 20, 84 (2021). doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1.

Abstract

Background

Epidemiological studies and research on laboratory animals link radiofrequency radiation (RFR) with impacts on the heart, brain, and other organs. Data from the large-scale animal studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute support the need for updated health-based guidelines for general population RFR exposure.

Objectives

The development of RFR exposure limits expressed in whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a metric of RFR energy absorbed by biological tissues.

Methods Using frequentist and Bayesian averaging modeling of non-neoplastic lesion incidence data from the NTP study, we calculated the benchmark doses (BMD) that elicited a 10% response above background (BMD10) and the lower confidence limits on the BMD at 10% extra risk (BMDL10). Incidence data for individual neoplasms and combined tumor incidence were modeled for 5% and 10% response above background.

Results 

Cardiomyopathy and increased risk of neoplasms in male rats were the most sensitive health outcomes following RFR exposures at 900 MHz frequency with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) modulations. BMDL10 for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats following 19 weeks of exposure, calculated with Bayesian model averaging, corresponded to 0.27–0.42 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 0.20–0.29 W/kg for GSM modulation. BMDL10 for right ventricle cardiomyopathy in female rats following 2 years of exposure corresponded to 2.7–5.16 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 1.91–2.18 W/kg for GSM modulation. For multi-site tumor modeling using the multistage cancer model with a 5% extra risk, BMDL5 in male rats corresponded to 0.31 W/kg for CDMA and 0.21 W/kg for GSM modulation.

Conclusion 

BMDL10 range of 0.2—0.4 W/kg for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats was selected as a point of departure. Applying two ten-fold safety factors for interspecies and intraspecies variability, we derived a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, an exposure level that is 20–40-fold lower than the legally permissible level of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body SAR under the current U.S. regulations. Use of an additional ten-fold children’s health safety factor points to a whole-body SAR limit of 0.2–0.4 mW/kg for young children.

Excerpts

In our view, more research is necessary to define what the acceptable, health-protective localized SAR value should be. An appropriate peak spatial SAR can be determined according to the concept of ALARA, or As Low As Reasonably Achievable, a concept developed for human exposures to ionizing radiation. Technical manuals for wireless devices specify that these products are tested for compliance with the SAR values defined under the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regulations, or under the corresponding regulations set by government authorities in other countries. However, investigative reports found that wireless devices may not comply with these regulatory limits if tested in a real-life scenario where the device touches the body directly [59].

Conclusions  

The analysis presented here supports a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg for adults, an exposure level that is 20- to 40-fold lower than the legally permissible limit of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body SAR under the current U.S. regulations. A ten-fold lower level of 0.2–0.4 mW/kg whole-body SAR may be appropriate for young children. Both technology changes and behavior changes may be necessary to achieve these lower exposure levels. Simple actions, such as keeping the wireless devices farther away from the body, offer an immediate way to decrease RFR exposure for the user.

Open access paper: 

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1

Related News Story and Posts

Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others?

Natalie Wolchover, LiveScience, June 23, 2011

"Of 37 studies that have examined GSM phones, 43 percent have found harmful biological effects from the phones — such as a decrease in the expression of genes that help suppress tumors — Moskowitz said, while only 15 percent of the 33 studies that looked at CDMA phones have identified harmful effects."

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