Heather Bedard, C.H.E.
There aren’t too many things that get the blood pumping of natural health advocates and technology geeks like a good throw down on 5G. Some natural health advocates liken 5G to the coming apocalypse while technology gurus hail it as the ticket to a world of wonders with unparalleled connection to the Internet of Things. With such starkly opposing views, perhaps we can find some middle ground and determine the truth of what 5G is and how it can and will affect our lives day to day.
5G is a term that the telecommunication industry uses to refer to the fifth generation of wireless technology. This particular technology allows devices to pack more data into each signal and can support more users at one time than 4G can. This technology is made possible thanks to an increase in the computing power of newer devices and wireless stations. There is nothing magical about 5G – it’s already something you use if you have use a 5G capable device.
It’s important to understand what people mean by 5G when they say it, as 5G can mean different things to different people. Industry itself refers to 5G as 5G NR (Fifth Generation New Radio) when it’s referring to the technology allowing the ability to increase data carrying loads and improve latency time, which is the time between when a signal is first given and then received. This technology currently uses existing bands considered low frequency. These bands are what we already use for 4G wireless technology and travel at 600MHz, 1900MHz, and 2.5GHz. This means that the new 5G NR technology has all the benefits of utilizing existing 4G networks and has the same capabilities, such as having long range and moving through walls and windows. To top it off, 5G NR gives the user 35% greater speed; at least theoretically. The one major issue is that this low band is full of devices and technologies utilizing Bluetooth, wireless remotes, phone services, wifi routers, security services etc. This array of uses slows down the lower band’s ability to operate at top speeds. Because of this, many countries around the world have now opened up the higher frequency capability of radio frequency called millimeter waves (MMW). MMW travel much faster and are currently used mainly for military operations, radar, and airport security. Even with the many benefits these higher frequencies seem to afford, they do have a downside. MMW are much less powerful and do not travel as far as the lower band radio frequencies. Weather and solid objects such as windows and walls can stop its movement. This means that at least 2,000,000 small cell towers will need to be implemented across the United States alone to ensure uninterrupted coverage. This doesn’t include femtocells, which are small cells in people’s homes that will allow the high frequencies to travel indoors, and other signal boosting devices. These small cell towers will primarily be implemented in cities and areas with a close concentration of people. It will not be feasible, at least initially, to have the small cell towers in rural areas. Environmental and natural health advocates as well as some doctors and scientists, are generally referring to the ability of 5G NR to utilize these higher frequency MMW when they voice concerns over 5G safety. To understand their concerns, we will first look at the history of concern regarding similar technology rollouts.
As modern technology increases at unprecedented rates, it’s only natural for people to have concerns about things they don’t understand. In 2007 people allegedly responded to the erection of a cell tower mast in the North Yorkshire village of Sheriff Hutton by pouring concrete into the base station when local leaders would not listen to their petitions to have the mast removed due to health concerns. Other protests have occurred in many countries around the world as 4G towers became more noticeable and consumers began to educate themselves on the technology. From 1896 when the first wireless telegraph was invented up until now, electromagnetic frequency exposure has grown exponentially due to the explosion of wireless technology. One could see why people might be alarmed when taking into consideration the sheer magnitude of the number devices in use, as well as the radiation (energy) emitted from each. The difficulty comes in determining what kind of real-life consequences this radiation has, if any.
In 1979 the first cellular network was launched in Tokyo as what we now consider 1G. This was followed in 1983 by the first cellular network launched in the United States by Ameritech Mobile Communications. Shortly thereafter, in 1985, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted its first safety regulation to ensure that people were not exposed to “thermal effects” or harmful levels of heat from cellphone radiation.[1]
This brings up an important point regarding radiation. While radiation (energy) is all around us, there are two main types of radiation that people are concerned about: ionizing radiation which can break molecules and damage DNA (x-rays and gamma rays from radioactive elements etc.) and nonionizing radiation (visible light, microwaves, radio frequencies etc.). Although the radio frequency that cell phones and wireless technologies are utilizing is considered nonionizing radiation, these frequencies can heat objects due their energy which causes molecules to move, thus producing friction (heat). Under current 4G utilizations, cell phones give off radio frequencies which range in power based on numerous circumstances. These include how long the person is on the phone, the amount of cell traffic at the time, and the distance the person is from the cell tower. This is because it requires more energy to get a good signal the further away the person is from the tower. Additionally, radiation exposure drops off considerably with distance. Another important consideration would be the model of the phone being used as different models give off different amounts of energy. These factors make it extremely difficult to create studies that measure the exact amounts of radiation a person will experience in any meaningful way. All of this is all added to the amount of background radiation from powerlines which have no federal standards of limitations according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In 1996 the FCC created a guideline called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) that quantified the measure of rate of energy that a user should be exposed to. This was set at 1.6watts per kilogram of body weight per 30-minute on-ear cell phone call.[2] However, this guideline only applies to thermal effects and not biological ones. This is further confirmed in a letter from the EPA which states this specifically.[3] This is part of the reason critics of 5G are very concerned about the current safety guidelines. These guidelines have not changed since 1996 and do not address the biological effects of radiation. Another reason that critics are concerned is the amount of radiation a human is exposed to overall; as the 5G rollout includes not only the existing 4G network and associated regulations, but also the use of millimeter waves. The current frequencies will not be replaced but simply added to. Because the MMW do not reach as far, more infrastructure will be required to support its use as mentioned above. Critics of the use of these frequencies are concerned about the increased radiation emitted from all of the cell towers in activation as well as the over 2,000,000 small cells that will be required to support 5G MMW’s in the United States. Advocates of the use of 5G with MMW’s continually emphasize that there are no studies showing that the increase in cell towers will increase radiation exposure or increase damaging health effects in any meaningful way, but studies are mixed at best. In general, electromagnetic frequencies (EMF’s) have been shown to have biological effects as shown in a study on the acute effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phone on brain function.[4] This study showed possible sleep disruption with EMF’s. Another popular study used to say that EMF’s cause biological harm is “Radiations and Male Fertility”. [5] This study showed negative effects on sperm count and found that it produces genotoxicity and oxidative stress. An important thing to keep in mind is that the majority of studies like these are done either in vivo or in vitro and neither are real world applications. Often times the study environments are not well controlled and the results could be due to a multitude of different variables. On the other hand, industry funded studies are typically done in the lab and do not relate to real world experience either. For example, the FCC’s safety study to determine SAR consisted of taking a mannequin head, filling it with a liquid to simulate a brain and then measuring the heat effects or the radiation absorbed.[6] It would make sense to say that a human brain is not liquid and thus this simulation isn’t a good representative of what would happen in a real human brain. Furthermore, because this simulation only studies heat and not biological effects, there are still many important avenues to be discussed.
Regardless of what the FCC, or any other safety agency, says its safety guidelines are, there are a few things to think about as you try to make an educated decision on what EMF levels really mean for you.
The first area to think about is radiation. The average person is exposed naturally to about 3.1 mSv of radiation per year. Any medical screenings or wireless use is added to that. While everything radiation related gets lumped into the category electromagnetic frequencies (EMF), it is important to note that there are important differences between natural and manmade EMF’s. According to a study titled, “Millimeter wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics”, manmade EMF’s are more coherent which produces higher electrical and magnetic forces than natural EMF’s would.[7] They are also polarized in contrast to natural EMF’s. The magnetic fields force free ions around other cells to move in phase with the polarized field.[8] While the electric part of the MMW frequency only penetrates 0.5mm into the human body, the magnetic field does penetrate deeply, and this is an area that more research is needed. Due to the fact that MMW penetrate the skin to some extent, one of the main areas of concern should be the effects of MMW on the skin and eyes as these are the first line of absorption in the human body. A 2018 study on the human skin as a sub-THz receiver describes the effect of MMW’s on the skin.[9] The effects of electromagnetic radiation changes with frequency and there is insufficient data for a well-structured assessment of health risks.
This brings us to the effect of high frequency pulsed EMF’s on the body. The body has magnetic as well as electric components. Take for example, the brain, heart, and intracellular electrical communication. These electrical currents produce a magnetic field which is sensitive to the environment around it. We also know that the rapid release of pulsed electromagnetic frequencies stresses the voltage gated calcium channels (VGCC) in the body, affecting contraction, secretion, and gene expression in various cell types. Voltage sensors are sensitive to electrical forces coming from outside of the body and reverberate with that frequency. Furthermore, frequencies operating above 10GHz can send small bursts of energy with quicker speeds and possibly cause small temperature spikes in the user according to a study on Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose.[10]Another well-known observational study on Cuban diplomats attempts to explain the effects they allegedly experienced from pulsed EMF’s.[11] These symptoms included sleep problems, headaches, and hearing loss. The source of the symptoms was never proven, however. Claims are also made on pulsed EMF’s causing aggression or worsening seizure.[12] However, these studies, again, are done on rodents and are not fully applicable to humans. So, while the thermal effects of EMF are well documented, the jury is still out on the biological effects on humans. The reality is that much more research needs to be done and the tech companies are not interested in waiting.
---------------------
[1] https://images.procon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/FCC_1985_RF_Regulations.pdf
[2] https://images.procon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/FCC_Aug1996_Rules.pdf
[3] https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/USEPA_Letter.pdf
[4]Zhang J, Sumich A, Wang GY. Acute effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phone on brain function. Bioelectromagnetics. 2017;38(5):329-338. doi:10.1002/bem.22052
[5]Kesari KK, Agarwal A, Henkel R. Radiations and male fertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16(1):118. Published 2018 Dec 9. doi:10.1186/s12958-018-0431-1
[6] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361473A1.pdf
[7]Pall ML. Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics [published online ahead of print, 2021 May 26]. Rev Environ Health. 2021;10.1515/reveh-2020-0165. doi:10.1515/reveh-2020-0165
[8]Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O. & Carlo, G. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Sci Rep 5, 14914 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14914
[9]Betzalel N, Ben Ishai P, Feldman Y. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver - Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?. Environ Res. 2018;163:208-216. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.032
[10]Neufeld E, Kuster N. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Phys. 2018;115(6):705-711. doi:10.1097/HP.0000000000000930
[11]Golomb BA. Diplomats' Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation. Neural Comput. 2018;30(11):2882-2985. doi:10.1162/neco_a_01133
[12]Cinar N, Sahin S, Erdinc OO. What is the impact of electromagnetic waves on epileptic seizures?. Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2013;19:141-145. Published 2013 May 10. doi:10.12659/MSMBR.883907