Thursday, August 5, 2021

Cellphone Radiation Health Risks: Dr. Joel Moskowitz interview by UC Berkeley News in multiple languages

 Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

The vast majority of American adults — 97% — own a cellphone of some kind, according to the Pew ResearchCenter. (Photo by Susanne Nilsson via Flickr)

For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.

“People are addicted to their smartphones,” said Moskowitz. “We use them for everything now, and, in many ways, we need them to function in our daily lives. I think the idea that they’re potentially harming our health is too much for some people.”

Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1984, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones. And although cellphonesare now used by nearly all American adults, considerable research suggests that long-term use poses health risks from the radiation they emit, said Moskowitz.

Joel Moskowitz is a researcher in the School of Public Health and director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley. (School of Public Health photo)

“Cellphones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments,” said Moskowitz. “Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s.”

Since then, he said, research has shown significant adverse biologic and health effects — including brain cancer — associated with the use of cellphones and other wireless devices. And now, he said, with the fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G,there is an even bigger reason for concern.

Berkeley News spoke with Moskowitz about the health risks of cellphone radiation, why the topic is so controversial and what we can expect with the rollout of 5G.

Berkeley News: I first heard you speak about the health risks of cellphone radiation at Berkeley in 2019, but you’ve been doing this research since 2009. What led you to pursue this research?

Joel Moskowitz: I got into this field by accident, actually. During the past 40 years, the bulk of my research has been focused on tobacco-related disease prevention. I first became interested in cellphone radiation in 2008, when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a physician scientist with the National Cancer Center of South Korea, came to spend a year at the Center for Family and Community Health. He was involved in our smoking cessation projects, and we worked with him and his colleagues on two reviews of the literature, one of which addressed the tumor risk from cellphone use.

At that time, I was skeptical that cellphone radiation could be harmful. However, since I was dubious that cellphone radiation could cause cancer, I immersed myself in the literature regarding the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation, emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices.

After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage — I became increasingly convinced that what we were observing in our review of human studies was indeed a real risk.

While Myung and his colleagues were visiting the Center for Family and Community Health, you reviewed case-control studies examining the association between mobile phone use and tumor risk. What did you find?

Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that heavy cellphone use was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that used higher quality methods and studies that had no telecommunications industry funding.

Last year, we updated our review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, based on a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as we used for our 2009 review — and obtained similar findings. Our main takeaway from the current review is that approximately 1,000 hours or more of lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain tumors.

One thing I think we should address upfront is how controversial this research is. Some scientists have said that these findings are without basis and that there isn’t enough evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. How do you respond to that?

Well, first of all, few scientists in this country can speak knowledgeably about the health effects of wireless technology. So, I’m not surprised that people are skeptical, but that doesn’t mean the findings aren’t valid.

A big reason there isn’t more research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation exposure is because the U.S. government stopped funding this research in the 1990s, with the exception of a $30 million rodent study published in 2018 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program, which found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity from cellphone radiation.

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.

More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.

Why did the government stop funding this kind of research?

The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC, according to Captured Agency, a monograph written by journalist Norm Alster during his 2014-15 fellowship at Harvard University’s Center for Ethics. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now.

The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA, which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. According to one of their spokespersons, lobbyists meet roughly 500 times a year with the FCC to lobby on various issues. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level.

It reminds me of when the U.S. Surgeon General released a landmark report in 1964 that linked cigarettes with dangerous health effects, including cancer and heart disease. Even though the 10-person committee consulted more than 7,000 articles already available in biomedical literature, the report’s findings were very controversial when they came out.

Yes, there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public. In the 1940s, tobacco companies hired doctors and dentists to endorse their products to reduce public health concerns about smoking risks. The CTIA currently uses a nuclear physicist from academia to assure policymakers that microwave radiation is safe. The telecom industry not only uses the tobacco industry playbook, it is more economically and politically powerful than Big Tobacco ever was. This year, the telecom industry will spend over $18 billion advertising cellular technology worldwide.

You mentioned that cellphones and other wireless devices use modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation. Can you explain how cellphones and other wireless devices work, and how the radiation they emit is different from radiation from other household appliances, like a microwave?

Basically, when you make a call, you’ve got a radio and a transmitter. It transmits a signal to the nearest cell tower. Each cell tower has a geographic cell, so to speak, in which it can communicate with cellphones within that geographic region or cell.

Then, that cell tower communicates with a switching station, which then searches for whom you’re trying to call, and it connects through a copper cable or fiber optics or, in many cases, a wireless connection through microwave radiation with the wireless access point. Then, that access point either communicates directly through copper wires through a landline or, if you’re calling another cellphone, it will send a signal to a cell tower within the cell of the receiver and so forth.

The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.

What, specifically, are some of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level modulated radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices?

Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.

In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.

Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center forEnvironmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.

Let’s talk about the fifth generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, which is already available in limited areas across the U.S. What does this mean for cellphone users and what changes will come with it?

For the first time, in addition to microwaves, this technology will employ millimeter waves, which are much higher frequency than the microwaves used by 3G and 4G. Millimeter waves can’t travel very far, and they’re blocked by fog or rain, trees and building materials, so the industry estimates that it’ll need 800,000 new cell antenna sites.

Each of these sites may have cell antennas from various cellphone providers, and each of these antennas may have microarrays consisting of dozens or even perhaps hundreds of little antennas. In the next few years in the U.S., we will see deployed roughly 2.5 times more antenna sites than in current use unless wireless safety advocates and their representatives in Congress or the judicial system put a halt to this.

How are millimeter waves different from microwaves, in terms of how they affect our bodies and the environment?

Millimeter wave radiation is largely absorbed in the skin, the sweat glands, the peripheral nerves, the eyes and the testes, based upon the body of research that’s been done on millimeter waves. In addition, this radiation may cause hypersensitivity and biochemical alterations in the immune and circulatory systems — the heart, the liver, kidneys and brain.

Millimeter waves can also harm insects and promote the growth of drug-resistant pathogens, so it’s likely to have some widespread environmental effects for the microenvironments around these cell antenna sites.

What are some simple things that each of us can do to reduce the risk of harm from radiation from cellphones and other wireless devices?

First, minimize your use of cellphones or cordless phones — use a landline whenever possible. If you do use a cellphone, turn off the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you’re not using them. However, when near a Wi-Fi router, you would be better off using your cellphone on Wi-Fi and turning off the cellular because this will likely result in less radiation exposure than using the cellular network.

Second, distance is your friend. Keeping your cellphone 10 inches away from your body, as compared to one-tenth of an inch, results in a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body. Store your phone in a purse or backpack. If you have to put it in your pocket, put it on airplane mode. Text, use wired headphones or speakerphone for calls. Don’t sleep with it next to your head — turn it off or put it in another room.

Third, use your phone only when the signal is strong. Cellphones are programmed to increase radiation when the signal is poor, that is when one or two bars are displayed on your phone. For example, don’t use your phone in an elevator or in a car, as metal structures interfere with the signal.

Also, I encourage people to learn more about the 150-plus local groups affiliated with Americans for Responsible Technology, which are working to educate policymakers, urging them to adopt cell tower regulations and exposure limits that fully protect us and the environment from the harm caused by wireless radiation.

For safety tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation from the California Department of Public Health and other organizations, visit Moskowitz’s website, saferemr.com, Physicians forSafe Technology and the EnvironmentalHealth Trust.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/

==


La radiación de los teléfonos móviles es dañina para la salud, pero poca gente quiere creerlo

Durante más de una década, Joel Moskowitz, investigador de la Escuela de Salud Pública de UC Berkeley y director del Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria de Berkeley, ha estado en la búsqueda para demostrar que la radiación de los teléfonos móvil no es segura. Pero al ver el nivel de ignorancia de la Sociedad dijo, la mayoría de la gente no quiere escucharlo.

“La gente es adicta a sus teléfonos smartphone”, dijo Moskowitz. “Los usamos para todo y, de muchas maneras, los necesitamos para funcionar en nuestra vida diaria. Creo que la idea de que potencialmente están dañando nuestra salud es demasiado para algunas personas ".

Desde que los teléfonos móviles salieron al mercado por primera vez en 1984, han pasado de dispositivos torpes con mala recepción a los elegantes teléfonos Smartphone multifunción de hoy en día. Y aunque casi todos los adultos estadounidenses utilizan ahora los teléfonos móviles, una investigación considerable sugiere que el uso a largo plazo plantea riesgos para la salud por la radiación que emiten, dijo Moskowitz.

"Los teléfonos móviles, las torres de telefonía móvil y otros dispositivos inalámbricos están regulados por la mayoría de los gobiernos", dijo Moskowitz. "Nuestro gobierno, sin embargo, dejó de financiar la investigación sobre los efectos de la radiación de radiofrecuencia en la salud en la década de 1990".

Desde entonces la investigación ha mostrado importantes efectos biológicos y de salud adversos, incluido el cáncer de cerebro, asociados con el uso de teléfonos móvil es y otros dispositivos inalámbricos. Y ahora, dijo, con la quinta generación de tecnología móvil, conocida como 5G, hay un motivo aún mayor de preocupación.

Berkeley News habló con Moskowitz sobre los riesgos para la salud de la radiación de los teléfonos móvil es, por qué el tema es tan controvertido y qué podemos esperar con el lanzamiento de 5G.

Berkeley News: Lo escuché por primera vez hablar sobre los riesgos para la salud de la radiación de los teléfonos móvil es en Berkeley en 2019, pero ha estado haciendo esta investigación desde 2009. ¿Qué lo llevó a realizar esta investigación?

Joel Moskowitz: Entré en este campo por accidente, de hecho. Durante los últimos 40 años, la mayor parte de mi investigación se ha centrado en la prevención de enfermedades relacionadas con el tabaco. Me interesé por primera vez en la radiación de los teléfonos móviles en 2008, cuando el Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, un científico médico del Centro Nacional del Cáncer de Corea del Sur, vino a pasar un año en el Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria. Participó en nuestros proyectos para dejar de fumar y trabajamos con él y sus colegas en dos revisiones de la literatura, una de las cuales abordó el riesgo de tumores por el uso de teléfonos móvil.

En ese momento, era escéptico de que la radiación de los teléfonos móviles pudiera ser dañina. Sin embargo, como tenía dudas de que la radiación de los teléfonos móviles pudiera causar cáncer, me sumergí en la literatura sobre los efectos biológicos de la radiación de microondas de baja intensidad, emitida por teléfonos móviles y otros dispositivos inalámbricos.

Después de leer muchos estudios de toxicología animal que encontraron que esta radiación podría aumentar el estrés oxidativo (radicales libres, proteínas de estrés y daño al ADN), me convencí cada vez más de que lo que estábamos observando en nuestra revisión de estudios en humanos era de hecho un riesgo real.

Mientras Myung y sus colegas visitaban el Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria, usted revisó los estudios de casos y controles que examinaban la asociación entre el uso de teléfonos móviles y el riesgo de tumores. ¿Que encontraste?

Nuestra revisión de 2009 , publicada en el Journal of Clinical Oncology , encontró que el uso intensivo de teléfonos móvil es se asoció con una mayor incidencia de cáncer de cerebro, especialmente en estudios que utilizaron métodos de mayor calidad y estudios que no tenían financiación de la industria de las telecomunicaciones.

El año pasado, actualizamos nuestra revisión, publicada en la Revista Internacional de Investigación Ambiental y Salud Pública , con base en un metanálisis de 46 estudios de casos y controles, el doble de los estudios que usamos para nuestra revisión de 2009, y obtuvimos hallazgos similares. Nuestra principal conclusión de la revisión actual es que aproximadamente 1,000 horas de uso del teléfono móvil de por vida, o aproximadamente 17 minutos por día durante un período de 10 años, se asocia con un aumento estadísticamente significativo del 60% en el cáncer de cerebro.

Una cosa que creo que deberíamos abordar desde el principio es cuán controvertida es esta investigación. Algunos científicos han dicho que estos hallazgos no tienen fundamento y que no hay suficiente evidencia de que la radiación de los teléfonos móvil es sea dañina para nuestra salud. Como respondes a eso?

Bueno, en primer lugar, pocos científicos de este país pueden hablar con conocimiento de causa sobre los efectos de la tecnología inalámbrica en la salud. Entonces, no me sorprende que la gente sea escéptica, pero eso no significa que los hallazgos no sean válidos.

Una gran razón por la que no hay más investigaciones sobre los riesgos para la salud de la exposición a la radiación de radiofrecuencia es que el gobierno de EE. UU. Dejó de financiar esta investigación en la década de 1990, con la excepción de un estudio con roedores de 30 millones de dólares publicado en 2018 por el Instituto Nacional de Ciencias de la Salud Ambiental. 'Programa Nacional de Toxicología, que encontró "evidencia clara" de carcinogenicidad de la radiación de los teléfonos móviles.

En 1996, la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones, o FCC, adoptó pautas de exposición que limitaban la intensidad de la exposición a la radiación de radiofrecuencia. Estas pautas fueron diseñadas para evitar un calentamiento significativo de los tejidos debido a la exposición a corto plazo a la radiación de radiofrecuencia, no para protegernos de los efectos de la exposición a largo plazo a niveles bajos de radiación de radiofrecuencia modulada o pulsada, que es producida por teléfonos móviles y otros dispositivos inalámbricos, incluido Wi-Fi. Sin embargo, la preponderancia de las investigaciones publicadas desde 1909 encuentra efectos biológicos y para la salud adversos de la exposición prolongada a la radiación de radiofrecuencia, incluido el daño del ADN.

Más de 250 científicos, que han publicado más de 2.000 artículos y cartas en revistas profesionales sobre los efectos biológicos y en la salud de los campos electromagnéticos no ionizantes producidos por dispositivos inalámbricos, incluidos los teléfonos móviles, han firmado el Llamamiento internacional para científicos de EMF , que exige advertencias sanitarias y límites de exposición más estrictos. Entonces, hay muchos científicos que coinciden en que esta radiación es perjudicial para nuestra salud.

¿Por qué el gobierno dejó de financiar este tipo de investigación?

La industria de las telecomunicaciones tiene un control casi completo de la FCC, según Captured Agency, una monografía escrita por el periodista Norm Alster durante su beca 2014-15 en el Centro de Ética de la Universidad de Harvard. Existe una puerta giratoria entre los miembros de la FCC y las personas de alto nivel dentro de la industria de las telecomunicaciones que ha estado sucediendo durante un par de décadas.

La industria gasta alrededor de $ 100 millones al año presionando al Congreso. La CTIA , que es el principal grupo de presión de las telecomunicaciones, gasta 12,5 millones de dólares al año en 70 cabilderos. Según uno de sus portavoces, los cabilderos se reúnen aproximadamente 500 veces al año con la FCC para cabildear sobre diversos temas.

La industria en su conjunto gasta 132 millones de dólares al año en cabildeo y proporciona 18 millones de dólares en contribuciones políticas a miembros del Congreso y otros a nivel federal.

Me recuerda cuando el Cirujano General de EE. UU. Publicó un informe histórico en 1964 que vinculaba los cigarrillos con efectos peligrosos para la salud, incluidos el cáncer y las enfermedades cardíacas. A pesar de que el comité de 10 personas consultó más de 7,000 artículos ya disponibles en la literatura biomédica, los hallazgos del informe fueron muy controvertidos cuando se publicaron.

Sí, existen fuertes paralelismos entre lo que ha hecho la industria de las telecomunicaciones y lo que ha hecho la industria del tabaco, en términos de marketing y control de mensajes al público. En la década de 1940, las empresas tabacaleras contrataron a médicos y dentistas para respaldar sus productos y reducir las preocupaciones de salud pública sobre los riesgos de fumar. La CTIA utiliza actualmente a un físico nuclear del mundo académico para asegurar a los legisladores que la radiación de microondas es segura. La industria de las telecomunicaciones no solo usa el manual de la industria del tabaco, es más poderosa económica y políticamente de lo que alguna vez fue Big Tobacco. Este año, la industria de las telecomunicaciones gastará más de 18.000 millones de dólares en publicidad de tecnología móvil en todo el mundo.

Usted mencionó que los teléfonos móviles son otros dispositivos inalámbricos que usan radiación de radiofrecuencia modulada o pulsada. ¿Puede explicar cómo funcionan los teléfonos móviles y otros dispositivos inalámbricos y en qué se diferencia la radiación que emiten de la radiación de otros electrodomésticos, como un microondas?

Básicamente, cuando haces una llamada, tienes una radio y un transmisor. Transmite una señal a la torre móvil más cercana. Cada torre móvil tiene una celda geográfica, por así decirlo, en la que puede comunicarse con teléfonos móvil es dentro de esa región geográfica o celda.

Luego, esa torre móvil se comunica con una estación de conmutación, que luego busca a quién está tratando de llamar, y se conecta mediante un cable de cobre o fibra óptica o, en muchos casos, una conexión inalámbrica a través de radiación de microondas con el punto de acceso inalámbrico. . Luego, ese punto de acceso se comunica directamente a través de cables de cobre a través de una línea fija o, si está llamando a otro teléfono móvil , enviará una señal a una torre móvil dentro de la celda del receptor y así sucesivamente.

La diferencia es el tipo de radiación de microondas que emite cada dispositivo. Con respecto a los teléfonos móviles, Wi-Fi y Bluetooth, existe un componente de recopilación de información. Las ondas se modulan y pulsan de una manera muy diferente a la de su horno microondas.

¿Cuáles son, específicamente, algunos de los efectos sobre la salud asociados con la exposición prolongada a la radiación de radiofrecuencia modulada de bajo nivel emitida por dispositivos inalámbricos?

Muchos biólogos y científicos de campos electromagnéticos creen que la modulación de los dispositivos inalámbricos hace que la energía sea más biológicamente activa, lo que interfiere con nuestros mecanismos móvil es, abriendo canales de calcio, por ejemplo, y permitiendo que el calcio fluya hacia la célula y hacia las mitocondrias dentro de la célula. interfiriendo con nuestros procesos móvil es naturales y conduciendo a la creación de proteínas de estrés y radicales libres y, posiblemente, daño al ADN. Y, en otros casos, puede provocar la muerte móvil .

En 2001, sobre la base de la investigación epidemiológica biológica y humana, los campos de baja frecuencia fueron clasificados como "posiblemente cancerígenos" por la Agencia Internacional para la Investigación del Cáncer (IARC) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. En 2011, la IARC clasificó la radiación de radiofrecuencia como “posiblemente cancerígena para los humanos”, basándose en estudios de radiación de teléfonos móvil es y riesgo de tumores cerebrales en humanos. Actualmente, tenemos mucha más evidencia que justificaría una clasificación más sólida.

Más recientemente, el 1 de marzo de 2021, el exdirector del Centro Nacional de Salud Ambiental de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades publicó un informe que concluyó que existe una "alta probabilidad" de que la radiación de radiofrecuencia emitida por los teléfonos móvil es cause gliomas y neuromas acústicos, dos tipos de tumores cerebrales.

Hablemos de la quinta generación de tecnología de teléfonos móviles, conocida como 5G, que ya está disponible en áreas limitadas en los EE. UU. ¿Qué significa esto para los usuarios de teléfonos móviles y qué cambios vendrán con él?

Por primera vez, además de las microondas, esta tecnología empleará ondas milimétricas, que tienen una frecuencia mucho más alta que las microondas utilizadas por 3G y 4G. Las ondas milimétricas no pueden viajar muy lejos y están bloqueadas por la niebla o la lluvia, los árboles y los materiales de construcción, por lo que la industria estima que necesitará 800.000 nuevos sitios de antenas móvil es.

Cada uno de estos sitios puede tener antenas móvil es de varios proveedores de telefonía móvil, y cada una de estas antenas puede tener ‘microrays’ que consisten en docenas o incluso quizás cientos de pequeñas antenas. En los próximos años en los EE.UU., Veremos desplegados aproximadamente 2,5 veces más sitios de antenas que en el uso actual, a menos que los defensores de la seguridad inalámbrica y sus representantes en el Congreso o el sistema judicial pongan fin a esto.

¿En qué se diferencian las ondas milimétricas de las microondas en términos de cómo afectan nuestros cuerpos y el medio ambiente?

La radiación de ondas milimétricas se absorbe en gran medida en la piel, las glándulas sudoríparas, los nervios periféricos, los ojos y los genitales, según el conjunto de investigaciones que se han realizado sobre ondas milimétricas. Además, esta radiación puede causar hipersensibilidad y alteraciones bioquímicas en los sistemas inmunológico y circulatorio: corazón, hígado, riñones y cerebro.

Las ondas milimétricas también pueden dañar a los insectos y promover el crecimiento de patógenos resistentes a los medicamentos, por lo que es probable que tengan algunos efectos ambientales generalizados para los microambientes alrededor de estos sitios de antenas móvil.

¿Cuáles son algunas cosas simples que cada uno de nosotros puede hacer para reducir el riesgo de daño por radiación de teléfonos móvil es y otros dispositivos inalámbricos?

Primero, minimice el uso de teléfonos móvil es o teléfonos inalámbricos; use un teléfono fijo siempre que sea posible. Si usa un teléfono móvil, apague el Wi-Fi y el Bluetooth si no los está usando. Sin embargo, cuando esté cerca de un enrutador Wi-Fi, será mejor que use su teléfono móvil en Wi-Fi y apague el móvil porque esto probablemente resultará en una menor exposición a la radiación que usar la red móvil.

En segundo lugar, la distancia es tu amiga. Mantener su teléfono móvil a 10 centímetros de su cuerpo, resulta en una reducción de 10,000 veces en la exposición. Por lo tanto, mantenga su teléfono alejado de su cabeza y cuerpo. Guarde su teléfono en un bolso o mochila. Si tiene que guardarlo en su bolsillo, póngalo en modo avión. Envía mensajes de texto, usa auriculares con cable o altavoz para llamadas. No duerma con él al lado de su cabeza, apáguelo o colóquelo en otra habitación.

En tercer lugar, use su teléfono solo cuando la señal sea fuerte. Los teléfonos móviles están programados para aumentar la radiación cuando la señal es deficiente, es decir, cuando se muestran una o dos barras en su teléfono. Por ejemplo, no use su teléfono en un ascensor o en un automóvil, ya que las estructuras metálicas interfieren con la señal.

Además, animo a las personas a aprender más sobre los más de 150 grupos afiliados a Americans for Responsible Technology , que están trabajando para educar a los legisladores, instándolos a adoptar regulaciones de torres de telefonía móvil y límites de exposición que nos protejan completamente a nosotros y al medio ambiente del daño causado por la radiación inalámbrica.

Joel Moskowitz es investigador de la Escuela de Salud Pública y director del Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria de UC Berkeley. Desde 2009, Moskowitz ha estado difundiendo investigaciones sobre tecnología inalámbrica, salud pública y políticas.

https://plataforma.quieroauditoriaenergetica.org/blog/14-categoria-blog-1/593-radiacion-telefonos-moviles-mata/

== 

Moskowitz: A radiação do celular é prejudicial, mas poucos querem acreditar

Por Anne Brice , Berkeley News | 1 ° DE JULHO DE 2021

A grande maioria dos adultos americanos – 97% – possui algum tipo de celular, de acordo com o Pew Research Center . (Foto de Susanne Nilsson via Flickr)

Por mais de uma década, Joel Moskowitz , pesquisador da Escola de Saúde Pública da UC Berkeley e diretor do Centro de Saúde Familiar e Comunitária de Berkeley, tem procurado provar que a radiação de telefones celulares não é segura. Mas, disse ele, a maioria das pessoas não quer ouvir.

“As pessoas são viciadas em smartphones”, disse Moskowitz. “Nós os usamos para tudo agora e, de muitas maneiras, precisamos que funcionem em nosso dia a dia. Acho que a ideia de que eles estão potencialmente prejudicando nossa saúde é demais para algumas pessoas. ”

Desde que os telefones celulares chegaram ao mercado em 1983, eles passaram de dispositivos desajeitados com má recepção para smartphones multifuncionais elegantes de hoje. E embora os telefones celulares sejam usados por quase todos os adultos americanos , pesquisas consideráveis sugerem que o uso a longo prazo apresenta riscos à saúde por causa da radiação que emitem, disse Moskowitz.

Joel Moskowitz é pesquisador da Escola de Saúde Pública e diretor do Centro de Saúde Familiar e Comunitária da UC Berkeley. (Foto da Escola de Saúde Pública)

“Celulares, torres de celular e outros dispositivos sem fio são regulamentados pela maioria dos governos”, disse Moskowitz. “Nosso governo, no entanto, parou de financiar pesquisas sobre os efeitos da radiação de radiofrequência na saúde na década de 1990”.

Desde então, ele disse, a pesquisa mostrou efeitos biológicos e de saúde adversos significativos – incluindo câncer no cérebro – associados ao uso de telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio. E agora, disse ele, com a quinta geração da tecnologia celular, conhecida como 5G, há um motivo ainda maior para preocupação .

O Berkeley News conversou com Moskowitz sobre os riscos à saúde da radiação de celulares, por que o assunto é tão polêmico e o que podemos esperar com o lançamento do 5G.

Berkeley News: Acho que devemos abordar o quanto essa pesquisa é controversa. Alguns cientistas afirmam que essas descobertas são infundadas e que não há evidências suficientes de que a radiação do celular seja prejudicial à saúde. Como você responde a isso?

Joel Moskowitz: Bem, em primeiro lugar, poucos cientistas neste país podem falar com conhecimento de causa sobre os efeitos da tecnologia sem fio na saúde. Portanto, não estou surpreso que as pessoas sejam céticas, mas isso não significa que as descobertas não sejam válidas.

Um grande motivo pelo qual não há mais pesquisas sobre os riscos à saúde da exposição à radiação de radiofrequência é porque o governo dos EUA parou de financiar essa pesquisa na década de 1990, com exceção de um estudo de roedores de $ 30 milhões publicado em 2018 pelo National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ‘Programa Nacional de Toxicologia, que encontrou “evidências claras” de carcinogenicidade da radiação do celular.

Em 1996, a Federal Communications Commission, ou FCC, adotou diretrizes de exposição que limitavam a intensidade da exposição à radiação de radiofrequência. Essas diretrizes foram elaboradas para evitar o aquecimento significativo do tecido devido à exposição de curto prazo à radiação de radiofrequência, não para nos proteger dos efeitos da exposição de longo prazo a baixos níveis de radiação de radiofrequência modulada ou pulsada, que é produzida por telefones celulares, sem fio telefones e outros dispositivos sem fio, incluindo Wi-Fi. No entanto, a preponderância de pesquisas publicadas desde 1990 encontra efeitos adversos biológicos e para a saúde da exposição de longo prazo à radiação de radiofrequência, incluindo danos ao DNA.

Mais de 250 cientistas, que publicaram mais de 2.000 artigos e cartas em periódicos profissionais sobre os efeitos biológicos e à saúde de campos eletromagnéticos não ionizantes produzidos por dispositivos sem fio, incluindo telefones celulares, assinaram o International EMF Scientist Appeal , que pede advertências e limites de exposição mais fortes. Portanto, há muitos cientistas que concordam que essa radiação é prejudicial à nossa saúde.

Ouvi você falar pela primeira vez sobre os riscos à saúde da radiação de telefones celulares em Berkeley em 2019, mas você tem feito essa pesquisa desde 2009. O que o levou a fazer essa pesquisa?

Eu entrei neste campo por acidente, na verdade. Durante os últimos 40 anos, a maior parte da minha pesquisa se concentrou na prevenção de doenças relacionadas ao tabaco. Eu comecei a me interessar pela radiação de telefones celulares em 2008, quando o Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, um médico cientista do National Cancer Center da Coreia do Sul, veio passar um ano no Center for Family and Community Health. Ele estava envolvido em nossos projetos de cessação do tabagismo e trabalhamos com ele e seus colegas em duas revisões da literatura, uma das quais abordou o risco de tumor pelo uso de telefones celulares.

Naquela época, eu não acreditava que a radiação do celular pudesse ser prejudicial. Porém, por ter dúvidas de que a radiação do celular pudesse causar câncer, mergulhei na literatura a respeito dos efeitos biológicos da radiação de micro-ondas de baixa intensidade, emitida por celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio.

Depois de ler muitos estudos de toxicologia animal que descobriram que essa radiação poderia aumentar o estresse oxidativo – radicais livres, proteínas do estresse e danos ao DNA – fiquei cada vez mais convencido de que o que estávamos observando em nossa revisão de estudos em humanos era de fato um risco real.

Enquanto Myung e seus colegas estavam visitando o Center for Family and Community Health, você revisou estudos de caso-controle que examinaram a associação entre o uso de telefone celular e o risco de tumor. O que você achou?

Nossa revisão de 2009 , publicada no Journal of Clinical Oncology , descobriu que o uso pesado de telefones celulares estava associado ao aumento da incidência de câncer no cérebro, especialmente em estudos que usaram métodos de maior qualidade e estudos que não tiveram financiamento da indústria de telecomunicações.

No ano passado, atualizamos nossa revisão , publicada no Jornal Internacional de Pesquisa Ambiental e Saúde Pública , com base em uma meta-análise de 46 estudos de caso-controle – o dobro de estudos que usamos em nossa revisão de 2009 – e obtivemos resultados semelhantes. Nossa principal conclusão da revisão atual é que aproximadamente 1.000 horas de uso vitalício do celular, ou cerca de 17 minutos por dia em um período de 10 anos, está associado a um aumento estatisticamente significativo de 60% no câncer cerebral.

Por que o governo parou de financiar esse tipo de pesquisa?

O setor de telecomunicações tem o controle quase total da FCC, de acordo com a Captured Agency , uma monografia escrita pelo jornalista Norm Alster durante sua bolsa de 2014-15 no Centro de Ética da Universidade de Harvard. Há uma porta giratória entre a filiação à FCC e pessoas de alto nível na indústria de telecomunicações que já dura algumas décadas.

A indústria gasta cerca de US $ 100 milhões por ano fazendo lobby no Congresso. A CTIA , que é o maior grupo de lobby de telecomunicações, gasta US $ 12,5 milhões por ano com 70 lobistas. De acordo com um de seus porta-vozes, os lobistas se reúnem cerca de 500 vezes por ano com a FCC para fazer lobby em várias questões. A indústria como um todo gasta US $ 132 milhões por ano em lobby e fornece US $ 18 milhões em contribuições políticas para membros do Congresso e outros no nível federal.

A influência da indústria de telecomunicações sobre a FCC, como você descreve, me lembra da indústria do tabaco e do poder da publicidade que ela tinha ao minimizar os riscos de fumar.

Sim, existem fortes paralelos entre o que a indústria de telecomunicações fez e o que a indústria do tabaco fez, em termos de marketing e controle de mensagens para o público. Na década de 1940, as empresas de tabaco contrataram médicos e dentistas para endossar seus produtos a fim de reduzir as preocupações de saúde pública sobre os riscos do fumo. O CTIA atualmente usa um físico nuclear da academia para garantir aos formuladores de políticas que a radiação de microondas é segura. A indústria de telecomunicações não apenas usa o manual da indústria do tabaco, mas é mais econômica e politicamente poderosa do que as Big Tobacco jamais foram. Este ano, a indústria de telecomunicações gastará mais de US $ 18 bilhões em publicidade de tecnologia celular em todo o mundo.

Você mencionou que os telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio usam radiação de radiofrequência modulada ou pulsada. Você pode explicar como os telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio funcionam e como a radiação que eles emitem é diferente da radiação de outros eletrodomésticos, como um microondas?

Basicamente, quando você faz uma chamada, você tem um rádio e um transmissor. Ele transmite um sinal para a torre de celular mais próxima. Cada torre de celular possui uma célula geográfica, por assim dizer, na qual pode se comunicar com telefones celulares dentro daquela região geográfica ou celular.

Em seguida, essa torre de celular se comunica com uma estação de comutação, que então procura para quem você está tentando ligar e se conecta por meio de um cabo de cobre ou fibra óptica ou, em muitos casos, uma conexão sem fio por radiação de microondas com o ponto de acesso sem fio . Então, esse ponto de acesso se comunica diretamente por meio de fios de cobre por meio de um telefone fixo ou, se você estiver ligando para outro celular, enviará um sinal para uma torre de celular dentro da célula do receptor e assim por diante.

A diferença é o tipo de radiação de microondas que cada dispositivo emite. No que diz respeito aos telefones celulares e Wi-Fi e Bluetooth, existe um componente de coleta de informações. As ondas são moduladas e pulsadas de uma maneira muito diferente do seu forno de micro-ondas.

Quais são, especificamente, alguns dos efeitos à saúde associados à exposição de longo prazo à radiação de radiofrequência modulada de baixo nível emitida por dispositivos sem fio?

Muitos biólogos e cientistas do campo eletromagnético acreditam que a modulação de dispositivos sem fio torna a energia mais biologicamente ativa, o que interfere em nossos mecanismos celulares, abrindo canais de cálcio, por exemplo, e permitindo que o cálcio flua para a célula e para as mitocôndrias dentro da célula, interferindo em nossos processos celulares naturais e levando à criação de proteínas de estresse e radicais livres e, possivelmente, danos ao DNA. E, em outros casos, pode levar à morte celular.

Em 2001, com base na pesquisa epidemiológica biológica e humana, os campos de baixa frequência foram classificados como “possivelmente carcinogênicos” pela Agência Internacional de Pesquisa sobre o Câncer (IARC) da Organização Mundial da Saúde. Em 2011, o IARC classificou a radiação de radiofrequência como “possivelmente carcinogênica para humanos”, com base em estudos de radiação de celular e risco de tumor cerebral em humanos. Atualmente, temos consideravelmente mais evidências que justificariam uma classificação mais forte.

Mais recentemente, em 1º de março de 2021, foi divulgado relatório do ex-diretor do Centro Nacional de Saúde Ambiental dos Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças , que concluiu que há uma “alta probabilidade” de que a radiação de radiofrequência emitida por celulares cause gliomas e neuromas acústicos, dois tipos de tumores cerebrais.

Vamos falar sobre a quinta geração da tecnologia de celular, conhecida como 5G, que já está disponível em áreas limitadas nos Estados Unidos. O que isso significa para os usuários de celular e que mudanças virão com isso?

Pela primeira vez, além do micro-ondas, essa tecnologia vai empregar ondas milimétricas, que têm frequência muito maior do que as micro-ondas usadas pelo 3G e 4G. As ondas milimétricas não podem viajar muito longe e são bloqueadas por neblina ou chuva, árvores e materiais de construção, então a indústria estima que precisará de 800.000 novos locais de antenas de celular.

Cada um desses sites pode ter antenas celulares de vários provedores de telefonia celular, e cada uma dessas antenas pode ter microarrays consistindo em dezenas ou mesmo centenas de pequenas antenas. Nos próximos anos, nos Estados Unidos, veremos a implantação de cerca de 2,5 vezes mais antenas do que o uso atual, a menos que os defensores da segurança sem fio e seus representantes no Congresso ou no sistema judiciário parem com isso.

Como as ondas milimétricas são diferentes das microondas, em termos de como elas afetam nossos corpos e o meio ambiente?

A radiação de ondas milimétricas é amplamente absorvida na pele, nas glândulas sudoríparas, nos nervos periféricos, nos olhos e nos testículos, com base no corpo de pesquisas que tem sido feito em ondas milimétricas . Além disso, essa radiação pode causar hipersensibilidade e alterações bioquímicas nos sistemas imunológico e circulatório – coração, fígado, rins e cérebro.

Ondas milimétricas também podem prejudicar insetos e promover o crescimento de patógenos resistentes a medicamentos, portanto, é provável que tenham alguns efeitos ambientais generalizados para os microambientes ao redor dessas antenas celulares.

Quais são algumas coisas simples que cada um de nós pode fazer para reduzir o risco de danos causados pela radiação de telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio?

Primeiro, minimize o uso de telefones celulares ou sem fio – use um telefone fixo sempre que possível. Se você usa um telefone celular, desligue o Wi-Fi e o Bluetooth se não os estiver usando. No entanto, quando estiver perto de um roteador Wi-Fi, seria melhor usar seu celular no Wi-Fi e desligar o celular, porque isso provavelmente resultará em menos exposição à radiação do que usar a rede celular.

Em segundo lugar, a distância é sua amiga. Manter o celular a 25 centímetros de distância do corpo, em comparação com um décimo de polegada, resulta em uma redução de 10.000 vezes na exposição. Portanto, mantenha o telefone longe da cabeça e do corpo. Guarde seu telefone em uma bolsa ou mochila. Se você tiver que colocá-lo no bolso, coloque-o no modo avião. Envie mensagens de texto, use fones de ouvido com fio ou viva-voz para fazer chamadas. Não durma com ele próximo à sua cabeça – desligue-o ou coloque-o em outro cômodo.

Terceiro, use o telefone apenas quando o sinal for forte. Os telefones celulares são programados para aumentar a radiação quando o sinal é fraco, ou seja, quando uma ou duas barras são exibidas em seu telefone. Por exemplo, não use o telefone no elevador ou no carro, pois as estruturas metálicas interferem no sinal.

Além disso, incentivo as pessoas a aprenderem mais sobre os mais de 150 grupos locais afiliados ao Americans for Responsible Technology , que estão trabalhando para educar os formuladores de políticas, incitando-os a adotar regulamentos de torres de celular e limites de exposição que protegem totalmente a nós e ao meio ambiente dos danos causados por radiação sem fio.

Para dicas de segurança sobre como reduzir a exposição à radiação sem fio do Departamento de Saúde Pública da Califórnia e outras organizações, Moskowitz recomenda que os leitores visitem seu site, saferemr.com , Physicians for Safe Technology e Environmental Health Trust.

https://blogs.correiobraziliense.com.br/aricunha/deixem-a-cultura-arder-no-fogo/

Friday, July 23, 2021

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 6000 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 6000 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 6000 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 1861 studies. Regarding reproductive/developmental studies, we found 2834 papers for epidemiology and 5052 studies for experimental rodent studies, totalling 7886 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 6000 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 6000 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 6000 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:


==

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

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)

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)


Key slides:




ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF 5G

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


Key slides:



PRESENTATION OF THE ESMH KNOWLEDGE MAP ON 5G

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


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.