Is 5G completely safe and secure?
Is 5G radiation more or less dangerous than currently used 2G/3G/4G?
Just read this article and advice also other people to read (including two earler articles referenced). It tries to cover both the sides that say 5G is safe and 5G could potentially dangerous. But does it succeed in covering that properly?
https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4462072/Does-5G-pose-health-risks—part-3-
Part 1 examined the potential ionization and thermal health risks posed by 5G. These are the conventional risks widely recognized and well controlled.
Part 2 examined electromagnetic (EM) effects. Here, the outcome was not so clear.
144 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Security News This Week: This $350 ‘Anti-5G’ Device Is Apparently Just a USB Stick
https://www.wired.com/story/5g-usb-stick-covid-19-qatar-livejournal-security-news/amp
Plus: A LiveJournal hack, Qatar’s contact-tracing privacy failure, and more of the week’s top security news.
Tomi Engdahl says:
It Shields from 5G! It’s a USB Stick! It’s Both!
https://www.mwrf.com/technologies/systems/article/21132637/it-shields-from-5g-its-a-usb-stick-its-both?utm_source=RF+MWRF+Today&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS200528032&o_eid=7211D2691390C9R&rdx.ident%5Bpull%5D=omeda%7C7211D2691390C9R&oly_enc_id=7211D2691390C9R
For those looking to ward off all that harmful 5G electromagnetic radiation—and store a few files—look no further.
Unable to restrain themselves from examining such an amazing device, Pen Test Partners picked up three 5GBioShield devices and undertook a teardown of what, from external appearances, seems to be nothing more than a USB memory stick.
Well, guess what? The 5GBioShield is a USB memory stick that provides a whopping 128 MB of memory, in addition to its “quantum holographic nano-layer catalyst technology”—all for the bargain price of £283 for one and £795 for three. Now, there was what appeared to be an ordinary circular black sticker on the device’s housing. That must be what does all of the shielding and harmonization. I guess.
Meanwhile, I coincidentally stumbled across another link to something called the Vortex BioShield. It turns out that these folks are direct competitors of the 5GBioShield, but with radically different technology involving… quartz crystals. I don’t quite know how a teardown could be performed on one of those.
For grins, we posted a few spoof tech articles for April Fool’s Day.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G Doesn’t Cause COVID-19! Here’s Everything You Need to Debunk the Myth
The idea that 5G causes COVID-19 may be one of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories ever. Here’s some of the strongest evidence to the contrary.
https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/5g-doesn-t-cause-covid-19-heres-everything-you-need-debunk-myth/65563191263037?ADTRK=InformaMarkets&elq_mid=13297&elq_cid=876648
Tomi Engdahl says:
Valheenpaljastaja: Suomalainen yritys kauppaa 5G-säteilysuojavaatteita – Fysiikan professori: Yhtä hyvin voisi pukeutua folioon
https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2020/06/02/valheenpaljastaja-suomalainen-yritys-kauppaa-5g-sateilysuojavaatteita-fysiikan
Nurmijärveläinen nettikauppa myy vaatteita, joiden se väittää suojaavan haitalliselta 5G-säteilyltä. Yritys perustelee tuotteidensa toimivuutta tieteellisen näköisillä väittämillä. Asiantuntijoiden mukaan hopeakankaalla voi kyllä vaimentaa säteilyä, mutta se ei ole tarpeellista.
5G-verkkojen terveysvaikutuksista on levitetty kuluvana keväänä erityisen paljon misinformaatiota
5G:n – samoin kuin koronaviruksen – ympärillä pyörii myös kukoistava vaihtoehtoisten hoitomuotojen ja torjuntakeinojen bisnes. Koronaviruksen ehkäisyyn ja hoitoon myydään erilaisia luonnontuotteita ja vitamiinia harhaanjohtavilla terveysväittämillä. Tällaisten tuotteiden yhteydessä on tyypillistä viitata tutkimuksiin ja muuhun tieteelliseltä vaikuttavaan sisältöön, jotta väittämät näyttäisivät uskottavilta.
BBC uutisoi toukokuun lopulla 5G-suojana myytävästä usb-muistitikusta. Mainospuheen mukaan tikku käyttää “ainutlaatuista holografista nanokerroskatalyyttitekniikkaa”. Kävi ilmi, että yli 300 euron 5G-suojain oli aivan tavallinen muistitikku, jonka päälle oli liimattu tarra.
Maallikon voi olla vaikea arvioida tieteelliseltä kuulostavien väittämien luotettavuutta, etenkin kun niitä höystetään vakuuttavan oloisilla grafiikoilla ja taulukoilla. Lisäksi tuotteiden tehoa perusteellaan viittauksilla tieteellisen kuuloisiin instituutteihin ja organisaatioihin. Harva kuluttaja tutkii tarkemmin, kuinka uskottavasta tahosta on kyse.
EM Suojaus -niminen verkkosivusto kaupittelee 5G-säteilyltä suojaavia vaatteita ja maalia. Sivustolla kerrotaan, että sen myymät ”Silvercell-säteilysuojavaatteet” on valmistettu käsityönä ”100% hopeakankaasta, joka suojaa erittäin tehokkaasti korkeataajuista (HF) säteilyä vastaan”. Yritys myy myös säteilysuojamaalia ja -verhoja.
Esimerkiksi EM Suojauksen mainostaman naisten sinisen hupparin voi ostaa reilun parinkymmenen euron hintaan useista eri verkkokaupoista. EM Suojaus myy tätä ”naisten 5G säteilysuojahupparia” hintaan 189 euroa.
EM Suojauksen ”vauvan 5G säteilysuoja potkuhousut”, hinta 159 euroa
EM Suojauksen mukaan vaatteisiin ommellaan Suomessa hopeakangas, joka puolestaan tulee Kiinasta. Yritys kertoo myös valmistavansa esimerkiksi alusvaatteita ja legginsejä suoraan hopeakankaasta.
– Suurin osa eli 2/3 on hopeakankaan hankintahintaa ja tämän lisäksi tulee kotimaisen ompelutyön kustannus sekä säteilysuojavaatteiden pohjana käytettävien Russell HD -malliston vaatteiden hinta
Asiantuntijat: Hopeakangas vaimentaa säteilyä, mutta sen käyttö on turhaa
Aalto-yliopiston fysiikan professori Tapio Ala-Nissilä kävi Valheenpaljastajan pyynnöstä läpi EM Suojauksen sivustolla esitettyjä väittämiä. Aloitetaan siitä, voiko hopeakankaalla suojautua sähkömagneettiselta säteilyltä?
– Kyllä periaatteessa voi, mutta suoja toimisi vain niissä kehon kohdissa, jotka kangas peittäisi. Eli kun pukee päälleen hopeakangashupparin, kädet, pää ja alaruumis jäävät vaille suojaa. Suoja riippuu tietenkin myös siitä, kuinka tiivis kangas on. Jos se lupaa täyttä suojaa, silloinhan kangas ei hengitä ollenkaan. Saman tien voisi pukeutua alumiinifolioon.
– Jos peität ihmisen kokonaan tällaisella tiiviillä säteilysuojalla, hän kuolee. Se estää lämmön haihtumisen iholta
– Ei vaate voi olla Faradayn häkki, jos siitä tulee pää ja kädet ulos. Sen pitäisi olla niin tiivis, ettei se päästä mitään säteilyä läpi. Voit kyllä tehdä itse Faradayn häkin vaikkapa päällystämällä pahvilaatikon tiiviisti alumiinilla.
– Siinä on sama juttu kuin vaatteissa, eli aukkoja jää väkisinkin. Ikkunat ja ovet esimerkiksi. Et voi tehdä makuuhuoneesta Faradayn häkkiä. Säteilyä tulee joka tapauksessa sisään, mutta ei se vaarallista ole.
Ovatko 5G-verkot ja niiden tukiasemat haitallisia ihmisten terveydelle?
– Eivät. Ne ovat samaa säteilyä kuin kaikki muukin. Näissä 5G-verkoilla pelottelevissa jutuissa annetaan ymmärtää, että kännykkäsäteily olisi jotenkin erilaista säteilyä, mutta samaa se on kuin esimerkiksi auringon ja ihmisen tuottama säteily. Sitä on joka puolella.
– Ainoa ero 4G- ja 5G-säteilyssä on se, että 5G ei edes tunkeudu kehoon vaan jää ihon pintaan. Ihmisen oma keho siis muodostaa tehokkaan suojan niin sanottua 5G-säteilyä vastaan.
– Aikoinaan puhuttiin, että televisio on vaarallinen, samoin radioaallot. Sitten tuli 3G ja 4G, nyt 5G. Vuosikymmenestä toiseen toistetaan samoja perättömiä argumentteja. Ne puetaan usein tieteellisyyden kaapuun. Törkeintä tässä on se, että on henkilöitä, jotka hyötyvät tästä ja tekevät rahaa ihmisten peloilla.
Säteilyturvakeskuksen asiantuntija: Epätieteellisiä väittämiä
Säteilyturvakeskuksen (STUK) johtava asiantuntija Lauri Puranen on samoilla linjoilla Tapio Ala-Nissilän kanssa: hopeakankaalla voi kyllä vaimentaa matkapuhelinverkkojen säteilyä, mutta se ei ole tarpeellista. Purasen vastuualueeseen kuuluu ionisoimattoman säteilyn – kuten juuri matkapuhelinverkkojen radiotaajuisen säteilyn – valvonta.
STUK seuraa säteilyaltistuksen raja-arvoja ja alan tutkimustiedon kehittymistä.
Suojausfirman materiaalissa esitetään altistuksen raja-arvoja, jotka ovat paljon tiukempia kuin Suomessa sovellettavat altistuksen raja-arvot. Mistä nämä ovat peräisin, Lauri Puranen?
– Nämä tiukemmat raja-arvot perustunevat Bioiniative-ryhmän tekemään katsaukseen radiotaajuisen säteilyn biologisista vaikutuksista. Bioiniative-ryhmä ei ole kuitenkaan esittänyt kriteereitä, joiden perusteella tutkimukset on valittu katsaukseen.
On selvää, että uuden sukupolven 5G-matkaviestinverkot aiheuttavat monissa ihmisissä huolta. Suomessakin kerätään nettiadresseja tukiasemien rakentamista vastaan. Onko matkapuhelimista ja tukiasemista tuleva sähkömagneettinen säteily vaarallista?
– Nykytiedon mukaan 5G-verkoista ei ole terveydellistä haittaa ihmisille. Altistuminen on niin vähäistä. Siinä ollaan altistusraja-arvojen alapuolella. Netissä kun kaikenlaista kirjoitetaan, niin ymmärrettävästi se lisää ihmisten huolta.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Belief in 5G conspiracy theories goes hand-in-hand with small explosions of rage, paranoia and violence, researchers claim
Ironic, because new tech is supposed to solve the micro-burst issue
https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/22/5g_conspiracy_theories_rage_violence_paranoia/
Psychologists from Northumbria University have published a research paper examining the connection between beliefs in 5G COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and the willingness to act violently upon them. Surprise surprise, if you believe 5G is part of a Soros-backed depopulation plan, you might be tempted to take up a Super Soaker in arms.
The data showed a positive correlation between belief in 5G conspiracy theories and state anger – and thus a willingness to justify and participate in violent acts against the telecoms sector. These findings were especially pronounced in those who reported higher levels of paranoia.
Paterson, a senior lecturer in psychology, said: “These findings are notable because of their possible practical implications. As conspiracy beliefs can be resistant to change, our research suggests that targeting the link between anger and violence may be an effective initial approach to mitigate the relationships between conspiracy beliefs, anger and violence.”
Even before the start of the pandemic, the telecommunications sector was forced to deal with a range of incorrect theories about 5G. The Advertising Standards Authority was forced to shoot down ads from last summer that claimed 5G caused infertility in men and cancer in humans. This year, the fifth gen tech was blamed social media-driven fake news linking 5G cellular technology to COVID-19.
The spread of anti-5G conspiracies has also lead to telecommunications engineers – who are regarded as key workers – being harassed and, in some shocking cases, physically attacked.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G networks are supposed to use more robust security protocols, but they’ll be undermined by the flaws of 3G and 4G for years to come.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/5g-networks-will-juggle-legacy-security-issues-for-years
There is a lot of excitement over 5G’s promise of blazing speeds, lower latencies, and more robust security than 3G and 4G networks. However, the fact that each network operator has its own timetable for rolling out the next-generation cellular technology means early 5G will actually be a patchwork of 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G networks. The upshot: For the next few years, 5G won’t be able to fully deliver on its promises
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G tests Switzerland’s limits on cybersecurity
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/safe-bet-_5g-tests-switzerland-s-limits-on-cybersecurity/45298646
Tomi Engdahl says:
Page critical to 5g
https://5gtieto.fi/blogi/
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G Networks Will Inherit Their Predecessors’ Security Issues
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/5g-networks-will-juggle-legacy-security-issues-for-years
Tomi Engdahl says:
Fact check: Metal strip in medical masks is not a 5G antenna
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-metal-strip-medical-masks-5-idUSKBN24A2O1
Social media users have been sharing a video in which a man claims that a metal strip in medical masks is a 5G antenna. This claim is untrue.
A voice narrates: “Yes, indeed. The antenna killer 5G antenna killer that’s inside the masks that they are telling everybody to wear. Now for everybody that don’t speak Hebrew, this video came out in Hebrew saying they wanted to show you the number one killer inside the masks. So, we took this here out which is a 5G antenna that’s inside the mask, right.” The narrator then shows the metal strip that is inside the top part of a medical mask, used to mold the mask around the user’s nose.
He continues: “They tell you to put it on so that you can breathe right above your nostrils so you can inhale and it can go straight to your brain and begin to destroy. Like they say they kill people in the First World War, the Second World War, through antennas, through the 5G. Not 5G, 5G is new now.
The man then advises watchers to make their own masks instead.
The metal strip in medical masks serves quite a different purpose. A spokesperson for 3M, which makes protective equipment, told Reuters via email that the metal strip in their surgical masks allows them to “be shaped to form against the wearer’s nose to help provide a better fit.”
Previous Reuters fact checks have debunked other false information related to 5G technology, including the suggestion that 5G networks, not the coronavirus, are making people sick
False claim: 5G networks are making people sick, not Coronavirus
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-5g/false-claim-5g-networks-are-making-people-sick-not-coronavirus-idUSKBN2133TI
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://safetechnology4sa.home.blog/2020/07/02/resources-for-medical-health-practitioners/
Tomi Engdahl says:
This particular question & answer about people’s misguided fear of 5G is just brilliant. Gold!
https://www.facebook.com/21364447686/posts/10157152732607687/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Everybody: Aargh! 5G is unsafe!
Them: Let’s…uh…just call it “6G” then
Everybody: Phew! We’re safe now!
Tomi Engdahl says:
The state is a decade or more behind the game. Modern companies that care about security assume that all networks are compromised and act accordingly. See https://cloud.google.com/beyondcorp
The Clean Network program is the Trump Administration’s comprehensive approach to safeguarding the nation’s assets including citizens’ privacy and companies’ most sensitive information from aggressive intrusions by malign actors, such as the Chinese Communist Party.
The Clean Network addresses the long-term threat to data privacy, security, human rights and principled collaboration posed to the free world from authoritarian malign actors.
The Clean Network is rooted in internationally accepted digital trust standards. It represents the execution of a multi-year, all-of-government, enduring strategy, built on a coalition of trusted partners, and based on rapidly changing technology and economics of global markets.
The Clean Network
https://www.state.gov/5g-clean-network/
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G fear-mongering?
https://safe-electrowaves.com/home/
https://www.emf-portal.org/en
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-08-20
Tomi Engdahl says:
Wikipedia: 5G will use spectrum in the existing LTE frequency range (600 MHz to 6 GHz) and also in millimeter wave (mmWave) bands (24–86 GHz). 5G technologies have to satisfy ITU IMT-2020 requirements and/or 3GPP Release 15; while IMT-2020 specifies data rates of 20 Gbit/s, 5G speed in sub-6 GHz bands is similar to 4G.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G FUD site?
https://safeg.net/home/
Tomi Engdahl says:
SafeG Alliance is a nonprofit educational program which seeks to unite those who view 5G as dangerous
https://safeg.net/home/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Some crazy conspiracy claims that 5G causes corona because:
5 = penta, g = gram
pentagram = 666 = black magic = illuminati
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ericsson Warns that Open RAN Compromises Security
https://www.eetimes.com/ericsson-warns-that-open-ran-compromises-security/
Just as the open RAN concept is gaining traction -– with more and more operators around the world rolling out limited networks and others finalizing trials; an exciting roll-call of component and systems suppliers joining the party; and market analysts poring over the numbers and coming up with ambitious and perhaps overly enthusiastic projections — along comes Ericsson to dampen the mood.
The Swedish group has issued the wireless infrastructure sector a stern warning that the underlying technology could be inherently insecure.
Perhaps we should not be completely surprised. Ericsson is not far behind arch-rival Huawei with its reservations about the whole concept of “openness” for next generation mobile networks, and clearly has serious concerns about the wave of support for its alternative to the established set-up for the radio access network (RAN).
Open RAN (O-RAN) is a way to separate the various elements of a network so that operators will be able to mix and match products from different vendors in the same set-up. Its proponents argue it could be significantly more cost effective than the current set up where giant groups such as Ericsson, Huawei and Nokia typically sell highly integrated and often proprietary hardware and software in a package.
“The introduction of new and additional touch points in O-RAN architecture, along with the decoupling of hardware and software, has the potential to expand the threat and attack surface of the network in numerous ways,” warns Boswell.
Some of the dangers he refers to include:
New interfaces increasing the threat surface, for instance open front-haul;
Near-real time RAN intelligent controller (RIC) and 3PP xApps introducing new threats that could be exploited;
Decoupling of hardware increasing the threat to the trust chain;
Management interfaces not being secured to industry best practices;
…and one not exclusive to O RAN…
Adherence to open source best practices.
Boswell concludes that as with any nascent technology, “security cannot be an afterthought and should be built upon a security-by-design approach.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G death beams are rubbish for killing your foes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8yQeQdMBk
There are over 1600 technical videos on this channel and only ONE that has comments disabled. The reason? Not censorship, but because of comment-bombing. Pasting the same reply linking to biased research on almost every single comment left by others. The comment area on this channel is very active and I spend a lot of time every single day replying to genuinely technical questions. That was being limited by the amount of time being spent cleaning up the mess left by the disciples of the AFG cult.
For reference, the 60GHz frequency is considerably attenuated by oxygen and as such is only used for very short links between towers. It has already been in use for a while.
The prototype military weapon based on it used absolutely massive amounts of RF energy to heat the air and cause the sensation of a heat wave. The communications applications use very low power as they just need to send a weak signal to a receiver. Comparing an energy weapon to a communication system is like comparing an elephant to an ant.
The grid of low power beacons being considered will be a fraction of the number of 2.4GHz and 5GHz wifi routers, phones, tablets and laptops in almost every single home already. They will transmit on similar frequencies to existing 4G, but will be lower power as they are closer. This also means your phone will transmit at lower power too as it doesn’t have to communicate so far.
At this point in time I know of no street light heads with any 5G circuitry in them. The antennas are for low level communication for turning the lights on and off and most don’t use the phone network at all.
There are concept units that are suitable for use as public wifi access points (actually very similar to the small area communication idea) but they are an obvious big chunky add-on about the same size as the LED light itself.
So my own personal opinion is that a sensibly implemented 5G system is safe. If implemented properly it will reduce your exposure to RF energy, nit just in the street, but also from your own phone, since it won’t have to transmit anywhere near as much power to communicate with a small local beacon.
If the scaremongering, incitement of vandalism and targeting of street lighting and communication workers results in an injury or death, then the people responsible for causing that should be held accountable. You wouldn’t like to be attacked at your work, so don’t think it’s acceptable to do it to others.
It appears that 3G may get phased out before 2G, with 2G being maintained to service all the legacy GSM control systems.
Tomi Engdahl says:
RF EMF GUIDELINES 2020
https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/rf-guidelines-2020-published.html
The ICNIRP Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields are for the protection of humans exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF) in the range 100 kHz to 300 GHz. The guidelines cover many applications such as 5G technologies, WiFi, Bluetooth, mobile phones, and base stations. This publication replaces and superseeds the 100 kHz to 300 GHz part of the ICNIRP (1998) radiofrequency guidelines, as well as the 100 kHz to 10 MHz part of the ICNIRP (2010) low-frequency guidelines.
Tomi Engdahl says:
EU countries sound alarm about growing anti-5G movement
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-needs-plan-to-counter-anti-5g-movement-capitals-say/
Brussels needs to send a ‘clear and loud message’ about the benefits of the technology, 15 countries tell EU chiefs.
A growing anti-5G movement is getting in the way of Europe’s digital ambitions, 15 capitals warned the EU Commission as they called for a robust strategy to counter concerns about the new technology.
“It is clear … that we are witnessing increasing activity of the anti-5G movement across the European Union,” the group said, adding that recent attacks on telecom infrastructure “are not only a threat to the economy of the affected member states but hinder also the ability for the European Union to meet its ambitious 5G goals.”
The group sent a letter to Commission vice presidents Margrethe Vestager and Věra Jourová as well as digital commissioner Thierry Breton late last week. The letter was initiated by Poland and backed by Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden.
Industry groups earlier this year warned of increasing pushback from protest groups on 5G rollout and even attacks including mast torchings and harassment of telecom engineers.
The opposition against the next-generation telecom technology has coalesced around Stop 5G groups on social media, which have successfully pushed some authorities to start investigating health effects from the technology. Groups have also spread wild — and wildly untrue — theories linking 5G to the spread of coronavirus in recent months.
Updated figures from telecom industry lobby group GSMA showed there had been 221 arson attacks across 18 countries globally so far, with the U.K. (87), France (50) and the Netherlands (30) being most heavily hit.
Of the 27 EU countries, 10 had seen arson attacks on telecom infrastructure.
Little evidence exists linking cell phone radiation to health problems, the World Health Organization underlines in its evaluation.
“To date, and after much research performed, no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies,” it said, adding that “so far, only a few studies have been carried out at the frequencies to be used by 5G.”
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which sets global health standards on telecom technology, in March updated its guidelines to cover many 5G applications, hoping it “will help put people at ease,” its Chairman Eric van Rongen then said.
But the movement which demands further research on the issue has gained traction with politicians
“We should be able not only to provide EU citizens and local authorities with scientific research but, also, with [a] clear and loud message coming from a trusted sources,” they wrote, adding “a broad and inclusive debate will ultimately contribute to creating trust.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://moitaas.fi/blogi/onko-5g-verkko-vaarallinen/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://global.techradar.com/fi-fi/news/onko-5g-vaarallista
Tomi Engdahl says:
Neuroscientist Dr. James Giordano. Neuro-Weapons. Directed Energy Weapons. Brain Implants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzW9GjCYdw
Tomi Engdahl says:
Has Moscow been secretly microwaving our spies for years? CIA investigates after the world was shocked by claims Indian troops had been ‘cooked alive’ by Chinese electromagnetic pulse weapon
https://mol.im/a/8973805
The existence of directed-energy weapons (DEWs) has long been known, yet this seems to be the first time such a weapon has been used openly.
The US military has developed its own DEW, the non-lethal Active Denial System, which was deployed in Afghanistan in 2010 but was withdrawn without seeing combat.
The Indian Army dismisses Prof Jin’s claim about the incident in the Himalayas as ‘fake news’. However, one person who believes it is MP Tobias Ellwood, the chairman of the Defence Select Committee.
Mr Ellwood is among those who suspect the victims have, like the Indian soldiers, been hit with some form of DEW.
Some scientists say pesticides could be to blame, or some form of psychosomatic illness. Others suggest mass hysteria. There are, however, at least two factors indicating that a foreign power – most likely Russia – is behind the Havana Syndrome. The first is that the American authorities seem to be covering up the cause, which suggests a foreign government might be involved.
The second reason for suspecting the Russians is more straightforward: they have done it before. For more than a quarter of a century, from 1953 to late 1979, the Soviets bombarded the US embassy in Moscow with microwave radiation that resulted in numerous American officials being found with abnormal white cell counts, causing severe health problems.
So what were the Soviets doing? One theory is that the microwaves were being used to trigger listening devices secretly installed in the embassy. Another suggests the radiation was caused by a Soviet attempt to jam the Americans’ roof top devices that eavesdropped on Soviet officials in their cars.
The American DEW is thought to be known as MEDUSA – which stands for Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio – and it beams microwaves that are turned into sound inside the head. It is not thought to be hazardous and could potentially be used as a form of crowd control.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Conspiracy Theorists Buy Faraday Cages To “Protect” Themselves Then Complain When They Work
https://www.iflscience.com/technology/conspiracy-theorists-buy-faraday-cages-to-protect-themselves-then-complain-when-they-work/
The pandemic has seen an absolute boom in conspiracy theories, from the benign (a conspiracy involving Captain America turned out to be explained by spaghetti) to the downright sinister.
Some unscrupulous people have clearly decided to take advantage of the conspiracy theories surrounding 5G and Covid in order to make a quick buck. As well as people selling “cures” for the virus (spoiler: if there was a proven cure we would all have heard about it, not just some dodgy website you found on Ask Jeeves), some people have started selling products to “protect” you from 5G.
People on Amazon are selling Faraday router shields or guards to place over your Wi-Fi router to block 5G.
Faraday cages are an enclosure made of a mesh of conductive metals designed to protect electronic equipment from external interference, eg from electromagnetic radiation.
While Faraday suits and cages are awesome for powerline technicians who want to remain not dead, and really, really cool to demonstrate in front of tesla coils, they are the last thing you want to place over a Wi-Fi router, as a lot of conspiracy theorists are now discovering.
Customers that have bought these Faraday cages have also left angry reviews when it turned out they performed like a Faraday cage. Underneath one product that sells itself as “Large WiFi Router Guard (Blocks About 90% of WiFi Router EMF While You can Still use The Router) Blocks 5G!” there are a fair few verified purchasers who have complained about how they’re now radiation AND Wi-Fi-free.
“The box does work at keeping radiation in but also Wi-Fi will not work unless you’re in same room as router! It decreases the signal by 90%!!” one reviewer wrote. “We really wanted to like it but it was impossible to use our phones in any other room in the house. Also the seller keeps the shipping fee $25 so that was annoying.”
If you’re wondering whether the sellers believe the conspiracy or are just making a buck off those who do, one of the sellers left a pretty conclusive clue.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Buying 5G protectio shield seems to be a zero sum game where you always loose: If you get product that works as advertised you will loose your connectivity and if you buy a non-working you loose your money to a scammer.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Crackpots are buying Faraday cages for routers then bemoaning bad Wi-Fi
Buyers are enraged that it’s ruining their Wi-Fi signal. Amazon doesn’t care and continues to sell the devices conspiracy theorists claim “protect” against 5G.
https://www.inputmag.com/tech/crackpots-buying-faraday-cages-for-their-routers-on-amazon-then-bemoan-bad-wi-fi?utm_content=bufferf171a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_stoptheantisciencemovement
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Most types of non-ionizing radiation have not been found to cause cancer.”
Dependent on the energy and exposure time, non-ionising radiation can cause localised heating, or photochemical reactions. Non-ionizing radiation doesn’t have enough energy to dislodge electrons.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently stated that there could be some risk from non- ionizing radiation to humans
Although RF radiation is not thought to cause cancer by damaging the DNA in cells the way ionizing radiation does, there has been concern that in some circumstances, some forms of non-ionizing radiation might still have other effects on cells that might somehow result in cancer. For example ultraviolet light, even in the non-ionizing range, can produce free radicals that induce cellular damage, and can be carcinogenic.
Tomi Engdahl says:
FBI probing if 5G paranoia was behind Nashville Christmas bombing
https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/fbi-probing-if-nashville-bomber-was-paranoid-about-5g-technology/
FBI agents working the Nashville Christmas bombing are asking around about whether Anthony Quinn Warner — a local computer expert named as a “person of interest” — was paranoid about 5G technology, according to a report.
Agents are probing if Warner, 63, feared that 5G technology was being used to spy on Americans, a source close to the investigation told the NBC News affiliate in Nashville.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G-verkko puhuttaa enemmän kuin aiemmat – Säteilyturvakeskuksen mukaan säteilyn raja-arvojen ja terveyshaittojen välille jää reilu turvaväli
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11757881
Tutkimusta aiempien sukupolvien verkoista voidaan STUKin mukaan soveltaa luotettavasti myös 5G:hen, jonka osalta terveysvaikutusten tutkimus on vasta alkutaipaleella.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G-verkko puhuttaa enemmän kuin aiemmat Säteilyturvakeskuksen mukaan
säteilyn raja-arvojen ja terveyshaittojen välille jää reilu turvaväli
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11757881
Tutkimusta aiempien sukupolvien verkoista voidaan STUKin mukaan
soveltaa luotettavasti myös 5G:hen, jonka osalta terveysvaikutusten
tutkimus on vasta alkutaipaleella.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Miten varmistan tietoturvan 5G-verkkoyhteydelle?
Tietoturva kannattaa laittaa kerralla kuntoon
https://global.techradar.com/fi-fi/news/miten-varmistan-tietoturvan-5g-verkkoyhteydelle?fbclid=IwAR2QXJSHy0AydioyN0E1STeYfDVBkg6xw4TnUAj_BNEd9wK1ta7u-EGwetE
Tomi Engdahl says:
New 5G Flaw Exposes Priority Networks to Location Tracking and Other
Attacks
https://thehackernews.com/2021/03/new-5g-flaw-exposes-priority-networks.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
#TBT: “Showering, cooking breakfast, commuting to work, eating in a restaurant, being out in public—everything we do carries risk. Whether we’re talking about 3G, 4G, or 5G, the question of electromagnetic radiation safety is whether the risks are manageable.”
Will 5G Be Bad for Our Health? IEEE antenna and telecommunications experts address concerns over radio frequency exposure
https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health
Citizens in several cities including Aspen, Colo.; Bern, Switzerland; San Diego, Calif.; and Totnes, England have been protesting the installation of 5G wireless base stations over concerns about the harmful effects these network nodes could have on humans, animals, and plants. They point to the potential danger of radio frequency (RF) radiation emitted from antennas installed in close proximity to people.
Protestors also cite the lack of scientific evidence showing that 5G signals, specifically those transmitting in the millimeter wave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, are safe. Today’s mobile devices operate at frequencies below 6 gigahertz, while 5G will use frequencies from 600 megahertz and above, including the millimeter wave bands between 30 GHz and 300 GHz.
Enough concern has been raised about 5G that some cities have canceled or delayed the installation of the base stations.
Members of the IEEE Future Networks Initiative, which is helping to pave the way for 5G development and deployment, took notice of these news reports. In September, the group issued a short paper titled “5G Communications Systems and Radiofrequency Exposure Limits.” The report reviews existing guidelines for RF exposure.
5G PRIMER
Most of the concerns about 5G’s supposed negative impact on health stem from its cell towers having such a different architecture than the ones supporting today’s 3G and 4G cellular networks, Waterhouse says. Those towers are kilometers apart and placed on tall, raised structures that are typically located away from populated areas. Because a 5G base station can be smaller than a backpack, it can be placed just about anywhere, such as on top of light poles, streetlights, and rooftops. That means the stations will be located near houses, apartment buildings, schools, stores, parks, and farms.
“Wireless companies are going to incorporate the devices into everyday structures, such as benches and bus stops, so they’ll be lower to the ground and closer to people,” Waterhouse says.
“There also will be more of these base stations [compared with the number of cell towers around today] because of their limited reach. A 5G millimeter network requires cell antennas to be located every 100 to 200 meters.”
That being said, one of the benefits of these small base stations is that they would not have to transmit as much power as current cell towers, because the coverage areas are smaller.
“Also, 5G base stations will only be in certain small areas, not everywhere.”
Witkowski says U.S. carriers that already have dense deployments in sub-6 GHz bands will start deployment of 5G in the K/Ka band and millimeter wave. There also will be some swapping of 3G and 4G radios for newer 5G radios.
“For the U.S. carriers that have access to vacated/re-farmed spectrum, such as T-Mobile in 600 MHz and Sprint in 2.5 GHz, their deployment strategy will be to leave 3G/4G alone for now, and add 5G into these lower bands,” Witkowski says.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
Waterhouse points to two international documents that have established safe RF exposure limits. One is the guideline from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which has been around since 1998. The IEEE C95.1, “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields” was developed by the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. and released in 2005. IEEE C95.1 covers the spectrum between 3 kilohertz and 300 GHz. The Future Networks report goes into detail about the various exposure limits for the body listed in those documents.
The ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines, which are periodically revised, were both updated this year.
Waterhouse explains that because RF from cellular sites is on the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, it’s not the kind of radiation that could damage DNA and possibly cause cancer. The only known biological impact of RF on humans is heating tissue. Excessive exposure to RF causes a person’s entire body to overheat to dangerous levels. Local exposure can damage skin tissue or corneas.
Waterhouse admits that although millimeter waves have been used for many different applications—including astronomy and military applications—the effect of their use in telecommunications is not well understood.
The general perception is that millimeter waves are safe but should still be monitored, he says.
“The majority of the scientific community does not think there’s an issue,” Waterhouse says. “However, it would be unscientific to flat out say there are no reasons to worry.”
Many opponents insist that 5G must be proven safe before regulators allow deployments. The problem with this assertion, according to Witkowski, is that it isn’t logically possible to prove anything with 100 percent certainty.
“Showering, cooking breakfast, commuting to work, eating in a restaurant, being out in public—everything we do carries risk,” he says. “Whether we’re talking about 3G, 4G, or 5G, the question of electromagnetic radiation safety (EMR) is whether the risks are manageable. The first medical studies on possible health effects from EMR started almost 60 years ago, and literally thousands of studies since then reported either no health risk or inconclusive findings. A relatively small number of studies have claimed to find some evidence of risk, but those studies have never been reproduced—and reproducibility is a key factor in good science.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Suomen rikkaimman suvun rahoilla pyöritetään säätiötä, joka neuvoo välttämään kännykkäsäteilyä – ihmisiä jopa kehotettu harkitsemaan muuttoa
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12271456
MOT perehtyi suomalaiseen Sähköherkkyyssäätiöön, joka käyttää varallisuuttaan sähkömagneettisesta säteilystä huolestuneiden neuvontaan. Säteilyltä suojaavien välineiden bisnes kasvaa 5G-pelon myötä.
Onko kännykkäsi lähettämä säteily terveydelle haitallista? Onko piakkoin käynnistyvä 5G-mobiiliverkko uhkarohkea ihmiskoe?
Riippuu keltä kysyy.
Tiedemaailman enemmistön tai WHO:n kaltaisen terveysauktoriteetin vastaus on ei.
Kännykkäsäteilyltä suojaavia välineitä myyvien kauppiaiden vastaus on kyllä.
Sähkömagneettista säteilyä kohtaan koettu epäluulo ja pelko ruokkii kasvavaa bisnestä.
– Kardiologi sanoi, että kun sydän on sähköinen elin, niin se nyt ottaa sähköhäiriötä jostain.
Haaparanta puolestaan on vakuuttunut, että oireiden syy on naapurissa sijaitsevan tukiaseman lähettämä sähkömagneettinen säteily.
Johtopäätöksen tukena on säteilyä koskeva mittausraportti. Raporttia ei ole laatinut Suomen säteilyvalvonnasta vastaava STUK, vaan 2016 perustettu Sähköherkkyyssäätiö.
Kun Haaparanta huolestui tukiasemasta, hän otti yhteyttä säätiöön, joka lähetti hänen kotiinsa insinöörin mittaamaan säteilyarvoja. Säätiön mittauspalvelu on ilmainen.
Säätiön mittausraportin mukaan Haaparannan kodin säteilymäärä oli paikoin “huono”.
– Hän sanoi, että makuuhuoneessani on niin korkeat lukemat, että hän ei suosittele sitä käytettäväksi nukkumatilana. Minä siihen että apua, siellähän minä nukun.
Sähköherkkyyssäätiön insinööri kehotti Haaparantaa vaihtamaan langattoman puhelimensa langalliseen. “Hyvä puoli tässä on se, että tämä ei säteile”
Radiotaajuuksisen säteilyn enimmäismääristä säädetään säteilylaissa. Haaparannan kodista mitattu säteily oli kaukana niistä. Sähköherkkyyssäätiö käyttää kuitenkin suosituksiaan, joissa raja-arvot ovat huomattavasti matalammat.
Nukkumapaikan vaihtamisen lisäksi Haaparannalle kerrottiin, miten hän voisi vähentää asuntonsa säteilyn määrää. Haaparanta sai säätiöltä lainaan säteilymittarin sekä säteilyä heijastavaa kangasta, jolla hän päällysti talonsa kadunpuoleiset seinät.
MOT perehtyi tarkemmin Haaparantaa neuvoneen Sähköherkkyyssäätiön toimintaan.
Sähköherkkyyssäätiön perusti vuonna 2016 Ilona Herlinin sijoitusyhtiö Polttina Oy. Ilona Herlin on Koneen toiseksi suurin osakkeenomistaja ja Suomen harvoja miljardöörejä. Herlin on myös Sähköherkkyyssäätiön puheenjohtaja.
Säätiön hallitukseen kuuluva Hanna Nurminen on puhunut avoimesti sähköherkkyydestään julkisuudessa. Myös Nurminen on sukuyhtiönsä Koneen suurimpia osakkeenomistajia.
Varallisuuttaan Sähköherkkyyssäätiö on käyttänyt esimerkiksi tukemalla tahoja, jotka kampanjoivat 5G-mobiiliteknologiaa vastaan.
“5G-matkaviestinverkon vaikutuksista huolestuneet aktiiviset kansalaiset kampanjoivat pysäyttääkseen verkon rakentamisen lisätutkimusten ajaksi. Säätiö tuki toimintaa maksamalla kampanjan mainoskuluja.”
Ote Sähköherkkyyssäätiön vuoden 2020 tilinpäätöksestä
Säätiö rahoittaa myös sähkömagneettisen säteilyn terveysriskejä selvittävää tutkimusta. Esimerkiksi vuonna 2019 säätiö myönsi 441 927 euroa Turun yliopiston radiotaajuisen säteilyn biologista vaikutusta selvittävään hankkeeseen.
Säätiön keskeisintä toimintaa on kuitenkin sähköherkkien neuvonta ja apuvälinelainaamon pyörittäminen. Ensimmäisen kolmen toimintavuotensa aikana säätiö oli lainannut apuvälineitä yli sadalle henkilölle.
Säätiö lainaa apuvälineitä ilmaiseksi. Mikäli lainaaja haluaa kokeilujakson jälkeen ostaa välineet itselleen, säätiö tarjoaa kauppiaiden yhteystietoja.
Anja Haaparannan säteilyä heijastava kangas on tuhansien eurojen arvoinen. Sen ostaminen on eläkeläiselle iso päätös.
– Mutta se sijoitus on tehtävä. Enhän minä ilman niitä tule toimeen.
Mobiilisäteilyltä suojaavat välineet ovat kasvava bisnes, joka pohjaa kyseenalaisiin väitteisiin säteilyn vaarallisuudesta.
Tarjolla kaikkea maalista vauvanmyssyihin
Haaparannan kankaan on valmistanut sveitsiläinen Swiss Shield. Yritys on valmistanut säteilyä heijastavaa kangasta 1990-luvun lopulta lähtien.
Swiss Shieldin toimitusjohtaja Henrik Tvengen mukaan kankaan kysyntä on kasvanut selvästi viime vuosina.
Tarjonnasta päätellen mobiilisäteilyltä suojaavien välineiden markkinat kasvavat maailmanlaajuisesti. Tarjolla on kaikkea säteilyä heijastavasta maalista kankaisiin ja vauvanmyssyihin.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sähköherkkyyden syynä pidetään nosebo-ilmiötä
Kyselytutkimusten mukaan 1,6 prosenttia suomalaisista kertoo saavansa sähkömagneettisesta säteilystä terveydellisiä oireita.
Sähköherkkien oireet ovat todellisia. Niiden syynä ei kuitenkaan pidetä sähkömagneettista säteilyä itsessään.
Sen sijaan oireiden syynä pidetään keskushermoston herkistymistä asialle, jonka mieli tulkitsee vaaralliseksi.
Oireet voivat viedä työkyvyn. Tanskassa tehtyjen tutkimusten mukaan noin kahdeksan prosenttia työkyvyttömyyseläkkeistä johtuu sähköherkkyyden kaltaisesta oireilusta, johon ei löydetä syytä henkilön elimistöstä.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12271456
Tomi Engdahl says:
Valheenpaljastaja: Suomalainen yritys kauppaa 5G-säteilysuojavaatteita – Fysiikan professori: Yhtä hyvin voisi pukeutua folioon
https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2020/06/02/valheenpaljastaja-suomalainen-yritys-kauppaa-5g-sateilysuojavaatteita-fysiikan
Tomi Engdahl says:
A preeminent expert in RF dosimetry dissects distress over 5G—and the differences between RF exposure and dosage.
Wireless Worries Overshadow Triumphs of RF Research A leading expert in radio-frequency dosimetry dissects distress over 5G—and the differences between exposure and dosage
https://spectrum.ieee.org/foster-qa-hed-tk?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=6978780&utm_medium=social&utm_content=IEEE+Spectrum&utm_source=facebook
The survey, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, looks at the last 75 years of research into RF exposure assessment and dosimetry. In it the co-authors detail how far the field has advanced and why they believe it to be a scientific success story.
Wireless Worries Overshadow Triumphs of RF Research
Share
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INTERVIEW
Wireless Worries Overshadow Triumphs of RF Research A leading expert in radio-frequency dosimetry dissects distress over 5G—and the differences between exposure and dosage
MICHAEL KOZIOL
5 MINUTES AGO7 MIN READ
smart phone emitting different colored light beams
JOHN LAMB/GETTY IMAGES
Kenneth R. Foster has decades of experience researching radio frequency (RF) radiation and its effects on biological systems. And now he’s co-authored a recent survey on the subject with two other researchers—Marvin Ziskin and Quirino Balzano. Collectively, the three of them (all IEEE Life Fellows) have more than a century of experience on the subject.
The survey, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, looks at the last 75 years of research into RF exposure assessment and dosimetry. In it the co-authors detail how far the field has advanced and why they believe it to be a scientific success story.
IEEE Spectrum carried out its conversation with Foster by email to find out more about why RF exposure assessment research has been such a success, what makes RF dosimetry so difficult, and why public worries about health and wireless radiation never seem to go away.
For those who aren’t familiar with the distinction, what’s the difference between exposure and dose?
Kenneth Foster: In the context of RF safety, exposure refers to the fields outside the body, while dose refers to energy absorbed within body tissues. Both are very important for a host of applications—medical treatments, occupational health, and safety studies for consumer electronics, for example.
In your opinion, is exposure assessment a solved problem?
Foster: Measuring RF fields in free space is not a problem. The real problem that arises in some situations is the highly variable nature of RF exposure. For example, a number of scientists are surveying levels of RF fields in the environment, to address the public’s health concerns. Not an easy task, given the multitude of RF sources in the environment and the rapid falloff of RF fields from any source. Accurately characterizing an individual’s exposure to RF fields is a real challenge, at least for the handful of scientists trying to do that.
Foster: Our goal was to point out the remarkable progress over the years in exposure assessment research, which has added a lot of clarity to studies on biological effects of RF fields, and enabled major advances in medical technology.
Foster: The instrumentation for measurement of RF fields in health and safety studies has become smaller and more capable. Decades ago who would have imagined that commercial field meters would be available that are rugged enough to take to a worksite, able to measure RF fields strong enough to pose occupational hazards but also sensitive enough to measure weak fields from distant antennas? And at the same time, determine the precise spectrum of a signal to identify its source?
What about when wireless technologies move into new frequency bands—millimeter and terahertz waves for cellular, for example, or the 6 gigahertz band for Wi-Fi?
Foster: The problem again relates to the complexity of exposure situations, not instrumentation. For example, high band 5G cellular base stations transmit multiple beams that move around in space. That makes it difficult to quantify exposure to people near cellular base stations, to verify that exposures are within safety limits (as they almost invariably are).
“I am personally more concerned about possible effects of excessive screen time on child development and privacy issues.”
—Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania
If exposure assessment is a solved problem, what makes the jump to accurate dosimetry so difficult? What makes the first so much simpler than the latter?
Foster: Dosimetry is much more challenging than exposure assessment. You generally cannot stick an RF probe into someone’s body. There are many reasons you might need that information, such as in hyperthermia treatments for cancer therapy, where tissue must be heated to precisely specified levels. Too little heating and there is no therapeutic benefit, too much and you burn the patient.
Can you tell me more about the ways in which dosimetry is done today? What’s the next best thing, if you can’t stick a probe into someone’s body?
Foster: For many purposes, using the good old RF meter to measure fields in air is okay. That is certainly the case with occupational safety work, where you need to measure the RF fields incident on a worker’s body. For clinical hyperthermia, you may still need to skewer the patient with thermal probes but computational dosimetry greatly improves the accuracy of measuring thermal dose and has led to important advances in the technique. For RF bioeffects studies—for example, using antennas placed against an animal—it is crucial to know how much RF energy is absorbed in the body and where it goes.
Why do you think there’s so much persistent worry about wireless radiation, to the extent people will measure the levels in their homes?
Foster: Risk perception is a complicated business. Wireless radiation has characteristics that tend to raise peoples’ concerns. You can’t see it, there is no immediate connection between exposure and the kinds of effects that some people worry about, people tend to confuse RF energy (which is non-ionizing, meaning that its photons are too weak to break chemical bonds) with ionizing radiation such as X-rays (which are truly dangerous). Some people believe that they are “hypersensitive” to wireless radiation, despite the inability of scientists to demonstrate such sensitivity in properly blinded and controlled studies. Some people feel threatened by the immense number of antennas that are popping up everywhere for wireless communications. The scientific literature contains many reports of varying quality and relevance to health and one can fish through this literature and put together a frightening story. And a few scientists think that there really may be health problems (although health agencies find little to concern them but say that “more research” is needed). The list goes on.
Exposure assessment plays some role in this. Consumers can buy cheap but very sensitive RF detectors and survey their environments for RF signals, of which there are many. Some of these devices emit “clicks” when measuring RF pulses from devices such as Wi-Fi access points, and sound for all the world like a Geiger counter at a nuclear reactor. Frightening. Some RF meters are also sold for hunting ghosts, but that is a different application.
Last year, the British Medical Journal published a call to halt 5G rollouts until the technology’s safety could be determined. What do you make of these kinds of calls? Do you think they help inform the portion of the public that is concerned about the health effects of RF exposure, or cause more confusion?
Foster: You refer to an opinion piece by [epidemiologist John] Frank, much of which I disagree with. Most health agencies that have reviewed the science simply call for more research, but at least one—the Health Council of the Netherlands—has called for a moratorium on rollout of high band 5G until more safety studies are done. Such recommendations are surely concerning to the public (even though HCN also considered it unlikely that any health problems existed).
In his piece, Frank writes that “an emerging preponderance of laboratory studies indicating RF-EMFs’ [radiofrequency electromagnetic fields] disruptive biological effects.” Here is the problem: There are thousands of RF bioeffects studies in the literature that vary widely in endpoint, relevance to health, study quality, and exposure level. Most of them report some kind of effect, over all frequencies and at all exposure levels. However most of the studies have significant risk of bias (inadequate dosimetry, lack of blinding, small size, and so on) and many are inconsistent with other studies.
These consistently fail to find clear evidence for adverse effects of environmental RF fields.
Frank complains about inconsistencies in public discussion of “5G”—but he makes the same error, referring to 5G without reference to the frequency band. In fact, low and midband 5G operates at frequencies close to present cellular bands and would seem to present no new exposure issues. High band 5G operates just below the mm wave range which begins at 30 GHz. Fewer bioeffects studies have been done in that frequency range, but the energy hardly penetrates the skin and health agencies have not expressed concern about its safety at ordinary exposure levels.
The FCC requires licensees to comply with its exposure limits, which are similar to those of most other countries. There is no precedent for requiring new RF technologies to be directly assessed for RF health effects before approval, which would require a potentially endless series of studies. If the FCC limits are unsafe they should be changed.
For a good review of 5G bio-effects studies see [Ken] Karipidis’s article that found “no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health.” The review also called for more research.
So that’s what’s needed at this time? More research?
The scientific literature is uneven, but so far health agencies have not found clear evidence for health hazards from environmental RF fields. But to be sure, the scientific literature on bioeffects of millimeter waves is relatively sparse, with maybe 100 studies, and very mixed in quality.
Governments have made a lot of money selling spectrum for 5G communications, and should invest some of that in high quality health studies, particularly for high-band 5G. I am personally more concerned about possible effects of excessive screen time on child development and privacy issues.
Foster: Probably the major advance has been in computational dosimetry, with the introduction of the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method and numerical models of the body based on high resolution medical images. This allows very precise calculation of the absorption of RF energy in the body from any source. Computational dosimetry has given new life to established medical treatments such as hyperthermia for treatment of cancer, and has facilitated the development of improved MRI imaging systems and many other medical technologies.
“For a good review of 5G bio-effects studies, see [Ken] Karipidis’s article that found ‘no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health.’”
—Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania
5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-the-whos-cellphone-cancer-statement-really-means
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.uusiteknologia.fi/2024/03/11/tutkimus-eniten-matkapuhelinta-kayttavilla-ei-ole-muita-suurempaa-aivokasvainten-riskia/
Kansainvälinen Cosmos-tutkimuksessa on selvitetty yli 250 000 matkapuhelimen käyttäjällä aivokasvaimien ilmaantuvuutta. Environment International -lehdessä julkaistun tutkimusartikkelin mukaan käytön määrällä ei ole yhteyttä aivokasvaimien saantiriskiin. Hanke käynnistyi vuonna 2009 Säteilyturvakeskuksen ja Tampereen yliopiston yhteistyönä. Mukana on myös linkki tutkimusartikkeliin.
Jättitutkimus todistaa: kännykänkäyttö ei lisää aivokasvaimen riskiä
https://etn.fi/index.php/13-news/15964-jaettitutkimus-todistaa-kaennykaenkaeyttoe-ei-lisaeae-aivokasvaimen-riskiae