> The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect.
Alright thank you, if that is the case, sounds like physics-wise we should be relatively safe. If you have any other links to actual studies besides what is in that post, please link them!
Thank you itcrowd, I am quite interested to see these studies on 5G that I did not know existed until now.
I just had a look at [4]; the authors are
Davide Colombi
"Since 2009, he has been with Ericsson Research, Stockholm, Sweden, where he has been involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment."
Björn Thors
"Since 2005, he has been with Ericsson Research, where he is currently a Senior Specialist, involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure assessment of wireless equipment."
Christer Törnevik
"He joined Ericsson in 1991, and has, since 1993, been involved in research activities related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment. He is currently a Senior Expert with Ericsson Research and is responsible for electromagnetic fields and health within the Ericsson Group."
And
Quirino Balzano
No listed affiliation with Ericsson, but "His group was essential in the development of the cell phone technology."
Hmmm....
As a thought experiment: can anyone imagine these three authors, employed by Ericsson (the prominent wireless company), conceivably publishing a paper showing that wireless technology has adverse health effects?
Regarding [5] the authors are:
Theodore S. (Ted) Rappaport
"His Ph.D. study provided fundamental knowledge of indoor wireless channels and was used to create the first Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11)... He co-founded the Virginia Tech Summer School and Wireless Symposium, in 1991, the Texas Wireless Summit, in 2003, and the Brooklyn 5G Summit (B5GS), in 2014...He is the Founder and the Director of NYU WIRELESS, a multidisciplinary research center focused on the future of wireless communications and applications. He conducted fundamental work that led to the first U.S. Digital cellphone standards, TDMA IS-54/IS-136 and CDMA IS-95. He and his students engineered the world’s first public Wi-Fi hotspots, and more recently, his work proved the viability of millimeter waves for mobile communications. The global wireless industry adopted his vision for fifth-generation (5G) cellphone networks."
So he is one of the "creators" of wireless, as it were. It would be rather surprising if he were to publish findings about negative health effects of his "brainchild."
Ting Wu
Affiliation
NYU WIRELESS
Brooklyn
NY 11201, USA
(Rappaport's company)
and
Christopher M. Collins
(no immediately apparent conflict of interest)
In addition, the title ("Safe for Generations to Come") would be, for me, a clear "red flag."
Regarding [3] the authors are
Ronald C. Petersen
"Until his retirement in July 2001, he managed the Wireless and Optical Technologies Safety Department (WOTS), which serves as the Lucent Technologies Inc. resource for all nonionizing radiation matters and as a resource for Lucent wireless customers on RF safety and FCC compliance issues."
and
Eleanor R. Adair
(no immediately apparent conflicts of interest)
Independently of the authors' conflicts of interest, it would be necessary to know the source of the funding for each of these research papers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, industry-funded and independently-funded studies yield quite different results. The quote from the Guarian article is worth repeating here:
"When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."
[1] and [2] do not relate to 5G. Regarding pre-5G radio frequency technologies, it has already been established that the majority of (independent) studies show these technologies to have adverse health effects. To quote again from the recently-mentioned article in The Lancet:
"A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation."
So after having a look at the three articles cited above that relate to 5G, I must revise what I said earlier ("No studies on 5G have been done"). In fact, it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done.
They reviewed not 326 but only 59 studies with 12 funded fully by industry. The statistical power is much lower, although I agree with you that there is a worrying trend that should be properly investigated.
Additionally, the potential conflict of interest you mention in the papers is interesting. I didn't go fully into their backgrounds as you did, which is interesting. I would be hesitant to conclude "it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done" because my list of references is very non-exhaustive and only the result of a cursory Google Scholar search.
Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful. I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.
Thank you itcrowd for your comments and your sincere and balanced approach, which I respect even though I do not at present share your viewpoint. Thank you also for looking into the Lancet and Guardian articles. Regarding the respectability of this subjournal of Lancet, that is useful information. Regarding the Guardian article: after a very brief search, I have also not been able to locate the actual academic article, though there are many references to it in other general-interest articles on the internet. The 326 number referred to Lai's study; the 59 studies refer to the separate article from Environmental Health Perspectives that you link to.
I have been following this topic for some time and in everything I have read, I have (until today) never encountered a single reference to a study on the health effects of 5G (and have encountered many statements that 5G has not yet been studied for health effects), thus my initial assertion that there haven't been any studies. What I have encountered is many government and industry spokespeople and mainstream media outlets saying that 5G is safe, without ever citing a single study to support their claim. The few studies that turned up in your brief Google Scholar search are problematic, as I pointed out, due to conflicts of interest.
Regarding your last paragraph (I will comment in two parts):
> Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful.
I don't want to seem uncivil, but I think I missed this evidence? Thus far we have found three studies that address possible health effects from 5G, all of which have problems with conflicts of interest, correct? If there have been no other studies directly testing 5G, what is the scientific evidence (not theorizing, but actual empirical studies) that has been provided?
And:
> I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.
Firstly, not a single scientific paper has been posted because there haven't been any, yes? (setting aside the 3 we spoke of above). One of the essential points here is that this simply hasn't been studied (apart from the aforementioned problematic studies, unless there are others that we have not found, and that the various parties assuring the public that 5G is safe are likely also unaware of given that they have never cited them either), and the technology is being deployed anyway.
Regarding our ignorance of a "mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it": I would tend to place more trust in empirical studies -- what actually happens, are any effects produced? In terms of understanding the mechanism of how it happens, scientists may not have discovered this yet. A current gap in our knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the natural world does not mean that those mechanisms, and the effects that they produce, do not exist. In the meantime (i.e. before we discover the mechanisms), it seems imperative that the empirical effects are determined.
Thanks danielst for the kind words. Huge respect for your civil responses.
That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to somewhat revise my stance.
First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!):
1. 5G does not have ionizing radiation
2. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very accessible article from 2000 [1].
3. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem.
Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry-affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public funding) or mixed funding (public + private money).
Now, what I think we don't agree on:
4. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced / suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before widespread 5G rollout.
Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research.
Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect).
Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses.
We need to look further.
I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore). According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and cannot be considered neutral. (See: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ and https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/)
That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation levels).
The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G may have some other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time.
I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]:
> In the respect of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, the development of new RF-EMF
communication networks should be paralleled by adequate and active involvement of public
institutions operating in the field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure
limits and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population.
> On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF
exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in
consideration of evidences pointing to the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer
risk(Wu et al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable
diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017).
[3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338
[4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642
[7] In an interview in Italian he said the following:
The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions. (https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-... and Google translate)
Thank you itcrowd for your thoughtful reply and for going deeper into this. I think you have spelled out our common ground in points 1-3 very well. And thank you also for digging up these other articles. I had a look at [5].
So our difference seems to be, as you mentioned, whether we believe 5G deployment (sorry, I avoid the term "rollout" since I cannot stomach this term any more, it is used so repeatedly and reflexively in practically every article dealing with the subject :) ) should be halted or slowed before more research has been done as to its health effects. I see this as a question of ethics. The technology, of course, is being rushed to deployment and by its nature will will reach everyone within range of its multitude of base stations. The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. At our current state of knowledge, we do not know whether the new 5G technology poses a significant threat of harm to humans, or a moderate threat, or a small threat, or no threat at all. The previous, related technology (3G, 4G, wi-fi, cell phones themselves, etc.) has been shown by the majority of the (independent) literature to pose health risks that are very much worthy of concern. The 5G technology involves a much greater number of base stations at close proximity to each other and humans, as well as a different, higher frequency whose effects on humans are unknown since apparently untested. Looking at this situation as a whole from the point of view of ethics, I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the new 5G technology could have significant health effects and that immersing the population in the radiofrequency radiation from this technology without first ruling out these plausible health effects, in the interest of not impeding the progress of the technology, is seriously problematic.
"The precautionary principle" is often cited in this connection, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with it.
Another aspect to take into account is that if the technology is studied thoroughly beforehand as to its possible health effects, it may be possible to amend the technology if necessary, or formulate precautionary measures, to minimize the health impact while still introducing the technology.
Deploying the technology before thorough testing amounts, I believe, to a crapshoot, "flying blind" as the U.S. Senator Blumenthal said in a congressional hearing in which he questioned senior members of the wireless industry. The technology is being pushed forward (for which the wireless industry and the government certainly have their own interests which do not overlap with those of the public, though one could argue that the higher download speeds (which I consider to be pretty trivial in the big picture) and other, future as-of-yet ill-defined applications of 5G (internet of things, etc.) could be of benefit to the public), and effectively we are just going to wait and watch and see if it hurts people a lot, a little, or not at all. I do not see how this can be considered in the least responsible.
I would be interested to know your thoughts and reflections on this ethical question, and of any other members of this forum who would like to chime in.
Ah, ethics. Here's my opinion. No literature this time [happy]
To keep in your cited "flying blind" analogy: I don't think we're flying blind. I think we have a good understanding of the dominant mechanisms that
could cause biological harm (i.e. ionization and heating).
I would rather say that we are flying with 98% vision. Are there some blind spots? Yes! We don't have full knowledge of all effects of millimeter-wave
radiation, but the picture gradually becomes more complete.
That's why it is important to keep researching.
However, we cannot be moving the goalposts. Let's imagine that it is shown that millimeter-wave radiation does not cause brain cancer.
Then other "sceptics" may say "well, what about skin cancer?" and later "what about alzheimer's?" or "what about lung infections?". While I don't want
to trivialize the seriousness of these diseases, I think it is fair to ask: when is 5G safety demonstrated sufficiently? Even after answering
these questions, people may come up with yet another disease to investigate. This is what I meant earlier when I said you "can't prove a negative":
you can't prove safety, you can only prove unsafety. [1]
That is why I think it is of paramount importance to identify mechanisms by which harm could occur and then investigate:
- what phenomenon (phenomena) are influenced by this mechanism?
- does this phenomenon actually occur [in the human body or animals], or is it only deep inside [the human body] where radiation doesn't penetrate?
- how harmful / beneficial is this, i.e. what is the extent of the effect?
I think we are starting to identify some biological effects that (in my opinion) are not major concerns. This is where the science is not clear-cut.
As for the "precautionary principle", yes we must be cautious about any new technology.
But how many times can the goalposts be shifted before we acknowledge its safety?
How can the industry prove or at least demonstrate an acceptable safety level?
---
> The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation.
I think that's accurate and a reason that scientists need to clearly communicate the findings of their studies to the general public. A well-informed decision must be made. The level of discussion (other than
this one) is pathetic, to be honest. Industry claiming its safe, some interest groups saying its unsafe and the public left stuck in the middle with no
real clue of what to do. The one with the highest circulation of clickbait articles filled with fake statistics circulating on social media "wins" the discussion. Science be damned.
---
As for the purpose of 5G: I think it is completely overblown, media-hyped tech and the biggest buzzword of the last year(s). In my (academic) circles, I see 5G being
the new "quantum" in the sense that it brings in a ton of research money (public and private!) if you can somehow manage to squeeze in the word "5G" in your
powerpoint proposal for research funding. For me personally, I haven't seen any "killer application" of 5G. That's not
to say that that can't come, of course. If 5G adoption must be halted for several years because significant health implications are suspected, I am
(personally) fine with that. My opinion however, is that there is no scientific foundation for such drastic measures.
---
[1] Note the irony here, in that I am actually saying that the negative (unsafety) can be proven while the positive (safety) cannot.
Alright thank you, if that is the case, sounds like physics-wise we should be relatively safe. If you have any other links to actual studies besides what is in that post, please link them!