Heather Bedard, C.H.E.
Some industry specialists claim that with the implementation of 5G MMW, radiation exposure may increase as 5G technology initially will be used on the existing 4G system and then as the transition is made toward MMW, exposure should lessen. This is because the high frequency exposure will only happen when the signal is opened. Even when people have femtocells in their homes, the cells will not constantly be emitting MMW frequencies and the power outputs will be very low. Additionally, these MMW’s will not be multi-directional like the current low frequency waves but will be directed at individuals creating a direct-to-consumer signal.
While the surrounding environment should not experience an increase in radiation, the signal receiver will experience increased levels of 5-6volts per minute when using and 0-3 volts per meter when not. An important consideration on any effects of this increased radiation would be whether or not this user has the cell phone at their head or in their hands. 6 V/m is the equivalent of what your TV puts out, but no studies have been done on whether or not standing with your head on the TV has any damaging biological effects. This 6 V/m emission is almost 5 times the current FCC guidelines for cell phone use, but, after all, 5G advocates state that this radiation is short term and likely to result in far less exposure in the long run. As with most things on this subject, the available studies are mixed. The French Agency ANFR in “Etude de l’exposition du public aux ondes radioélectriques”, October 2017, found that in more than 80% of locations exposure was less than 1 V/m and in less than 1% of locations the radiation exposure was greater than 6 V/m.[1]
Critics argue that there is no way this is true, as 5G MMW will add another level of frequency and not replace the current 4G exposure. Advocates of 5G argue that these small towers are less powerful than the macro towers and therefore will not increase radiation exposure. It is true that the transmission power of a cell tower has gone down as the distance between the towers has decreased. One small cell tower will have the transmission power of 100 milliwatts compared to the 20 watts of a macrocell tower. So even with the greater quantity of towers, the transmitting power is lowered by a significant amount. According to a study done on the Time-Averaged Realistic Maximum Power Levels for the Assessment of Radio frequency Exposure for 5G Radio Base Stations Using Massive MIMO, even though the maximum power in 5G is higher than 4G, the radiation intensity is only 25% of the maximum exposure for 95% of the cases.[2] In other words, 5G MMW frequency is more powerful but only targets the user and, in most cases, for much less time than lower frequencies. This is known as beamforming. This study was industry funded and simulated; however, the information gives an interesting launch point for discussion.
In contrast critics say that because this beam-forming technology is more directed it is therefore more dangerous. Nonetheless, basic wireless technology information doesn’t seem to support this. The base station, which connects the towers, controls the power output of the phone and does so in a way to make sure that the power levels from the phone, and surrounding phones, are at the lowest possible emission to conserve energy and bandwidth. Sometimes, if the signal is bad, the phone will need to use more energy to connect; but this energy will never exceed 1.5V/m (SAR guidelines) and is why the energy output from the phone varies so much depending on location. In a comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments, the electromagnetic fields do vary depending on country and urban setting.[3] All-in-all, more quality studies need to be done to determine what is really going on for individual wireless users and should take into account the biological response of the organism and not just the thermal effect.
The next consideration would be the effect of cumulative exposures. Although advocates of 5G will tell you that it is completely safe, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and the World Health Organization recognize injuries from ionizing and non-ionizing radiation in the International Code of Disease (ICD). The diagnosis codes include designations for radiation sickness, exposure to radio frequencies, and changes in skin due to nonionizing radiation. Alongside this, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) states that radiation levels are significantly increased with the 5G rollout in Austin, Texas.[4] People who suffer from symptoms are diagnosed as having electromagnetic sensitivity or radiation sickness.
The BioIntiative Report released charts on the exposure of people to different electromagnetic fields, the level they were exposed to, and their reactions. They found that people responded at levels much less than the current safety limits of the FCC, which are purported to be thousands of times within the safety range.[5] The FCC argues that these effects are due to circumstances other than EMF’s in the studies and are largely not applicable to humans. But 5G critics are quick to remind the FCC that their safety studies are largely based on research that is over 30 years old. Currently the FCC safety limits for magnetic fields is 10,000mG compared to the Austrian Medical Associations normal limits of less than or equal to 0.2mG. For radiation, the FCC guidelines are 10,000 uWatts/m2 while the Austrian Medical Association guidelines are set at less than or equal to 0.1 uWatts/m2. The discrepancies are far from small primarily because the FCC guidelines are based on thermal exposure only. The Austrian guidelines are more in line with what the BioInitiative report expresses as the lowest-level radiation exposure effects and these governments overall have shown themselves to be more likely to err on the side of caution.
These biological experiences and lack of recent safety studies have resulted in an increase in lawsuits against the FCC and tech companies as the 5G rollouts have continued. These lawsuits include reports from doctors and individuals documenting their experiences as case reports. While case reports shouldn’t be relied on heavily as proof of harm, the amount of them and the concerning effects should give pause. One current example is the recent Children’s Health Defense lawsuit against the FCC in which they won the right to require the FCC to present further safety information. The court ruled that “…The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer…”[6]
Another example is the firefighters that were given an exemption to not have cell towers placed on their buildings in California. In 2004, testing was conducted by Dr. Gunnar Heuser on firefighters who were complaining of neurological symptoms associated with wireless radiation. These symptoms included, fatigue, memory loss, unexplained anger, anesthesia-like sleep, and headaches. All of these symptoms were unexplained and not found in the physical exams done on the men when they were hired by the fire department. These firefighters were experiencing symptoms at 1/1,000th to 1/500th of the FCC’s allowable limits showing once again that the FCC was basing its safety parameters around physics (thermal effects) and not biological effects.[7] The evidence given to the International Association of Fire Fighters in 2004 was enough to cause them to take a position against the use of cellular antennas on firehouses.[8] Fire fighters were then given an exemption in California AB57, Section 65964.1 and California SB649, Section 65964.2 giving them the option of not having cellular antennas on their fire stations.
Other government documents that claim the biological effects of radio and microwave radiation includes a 1971 Navy report.[9] While this report is 40 years old, not much has changed since then except increased EMF exposure. A formal appeal to the European Union was filed in 2017 by over 180 doctors and scientists from 36 different countries about the potential health risks of 5G.[10]
Another important consideration would be long-term effects of 5G particularly related to cancer. Unfortunately, many of the studies on cancer have been done at 10 years when it can take 15-20 years for cancer to develop. More long-term studies are needed to determine the percentage of risk that cellphone radiation exposure will give. In the meantime, rodent studies are what we have, and while they give some insight into how a human may respond, they are not a good one-to-one comparison. Some doctors point to the fact that melatonin production may play a role in the prevention of some cancers as a reason for caution with EMF’s.[11] This is because EMF’s have been shown to reduce melatonin production or affect it as shown in this study of non-thermal biomarkers of exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation.[12] Again, these reviews or studies are done on rodents and show inconclusive and irregular results.
In 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified cell phones as a class 2B carcinogen which means that it is possibly carcinogenic to humans. In this case, this classification occurred as a result of evidence showing inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, but sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Many scientists are pushing the need for more human studies as people are also concerned that once the 5G technology is fully installed on the 4G system, there will be no way to turn it off. It will be beamed continually into your home. This will make tracking health risks extremely difficult and for others who consider themselves to have electromagnetic sensitivity, there will be nowhere for them to go.
As an aside, some interesting theories have evolved surrounding the 5G rollout in 2020 and COVID-19. Some people are adamant that 5G caused COVID-19 or causes the symptoms. Other people claim that COVID-19 is all a hoax to cover up the installation of the 5G networks. The first claim that 5G caused COVID-19 is relatively easy to discount, as COVID-19 is a virus and viruses cannot travel wirelessly through 5G. Moreover, many countries in a good part of Latin America and Africa had COVID cases yet did not have any 5G infrastructure. A similar theory is that in October 2019, the 5G rollout in Wuhan, China resulted in acute radiation sickness mimicking the symptoms of COVID-19. The larger cities across the globe, which just so happened to have recently turned on their 5G networks, experienced the largest “outbreaks” of COVID-19/radiation sickness. Correlation does not equal causation and one important detail is that these larger cities and a larger outbreak is because they had more people.
Issues arise when the people who make these claims do not differentiate between ionizing and nonionizing radiation as well. Although pneumonia symptoms and radiation induced pneumonia (pneumonitis) have similar presentations, nonionizing radiation cannot cause pneumonitis. In the same way, while radiation sickness symptoms and COVID-19 can look similar, 5G MMW is not the same as ionizing radiation. One other theory is that 5G MMW’s and EMF’s damage people’s biological systems so much so that their immune systems are weakened and are more susceptible to the virus. While this theory has some interesting points and possible mechanisms of action, I couldn’t find any studies to conclusively prove this.
While the studies are mixed on humans and EMF’s, the literature is ripe with publications showing the effects on plant and animal life. How this applies to humans is unknown, but we can see negative effects on other living organisms. In a 2014 letter to the United States Department of the Interior, William R. Taylor, Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance recommended changes to policy based on the effects on birds and migration.[13] A study in 2016 spanning 9 years found that radiation had damaged trees in close proximity to cell towers.[14] In addition to this, a control study on bee colonies found that the bees exposed to increased EMF, along with pesticide stressors, had behavioral alterations, disease, and biochemical anomalies.[15]
The problem with all the hype about 5G is that it is likely no one will experience the promised incredibly high speeds until the MMW technology is implemented fully across the United States and globally. This is because these noticeably high speeds will only be found in the millimeter band and it could be years before that infrastructure is complete and stable enough. Additionally, the MMW technology would need to have the capability to communicate through moving objects if you’re going to expect that kind of speed on the road as MMW’s do not have the power to move through objects. This presents a whole new question. If 5G MMW cannot travel through windows or walls, is this issue relevant to people while in their own homes? Maybe. For this to be the case, you would need to install an inside/outside receiver in your home (femtocell) for the signal to relay properly. Currently this option is not widely available for MMW. Consumers should keep in mind that marketed speeds are done in labs under certain conditions and do not, as of yet, mimic real-life experiences.
The controversy around 5G may leave some wondering if there are safer alternatives. The current stalemate is that the level of technology and bandwidth that is in use is all but maximized. Without the next best thing, technology and telecommunication companies have nowhere to go. Consumers have been conditioned to expect faster speeds and mind-blowing capabilities each year and that will probably not change. Regardless of potential health effects the world finds itself in a race for market share. In regard to safety, fiber optics is a safer alternative offering the same or better latency improvements as 5G MMW as well as the ability to travel further distances than 5G millimeter technology. For example, 5G NR utilizing a 4G tower can travel 100m, while through fiber optics that same signal can travel 70Kms without losing signal. The reason for this is that 5G uses radio frequency and fiber optics uses light.
Another added benefit is the lack of radiation that the environment is exposed to as the wires are grounded and do not require the incredible increase in bulky antennae that 5G is requiring. One drawback to fiber is the cost that it takes to lay the fiber and the final cost to the end user. But, in the end, the fiber companies will make out with much lower operational costs. To fully understand the 5G MMW issue, one would need to also note that the federal government is working hand in hand with communications companies to ensure the quick and smooth rollout of 5G and this comes at the expense of local cities and communities.
In September 2018 the United States Conference of Mayors put out a statement saying, “The U.S. Conference of Mayors strongly opposes recent proposals by the Federal Communications Commission to grant communications service providers subsidized access to local public property and to dictate how local governments manage their own local rights-of-ways and public property.”[16] This fact alone makes many wonder about the need for 5G. Why is it being pushed so hard and so fast, and why is it at the expense of the desire of the local communities? It would seem that world governments are between a rock and a hard place in balancing public health with the need for technological advances or their own need for data mining disguised as national security. Even if national security is the true reason, and there aren’t any malevolent motivations, there’s not much chance of local communities slowing down the 5G MMW rollout.
According to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), “If the wireless telecom industry were a country, its economy would be bigger than that of Egypt, and, if measured by gross national product would rank as the 46th largest country in the world.[17] With money and power like that to lobby the FCC and to court governments, comes the ability to determine the course of technology as a whole. With all of this being said, if an individual felt concerned and wanted to make some small changes to protect themselves from EMF’s, a router cage or “sock” could be purchased that would reduce the signal to only what is needed for that home or business. This would keep unwanted wireless signals from bleeding into other areas where people don’t want that type of exposure.
At the end of the day, the studies just do not exist to say emphatically that there is conclusive damage from 5G MMW radiation in the way that it’s intended to be used, or that the levels or radiation that will be used will equivocally cause harm. However, enough studies do exist to warrant caution before the environment and humanity is subjected to potentially irreversible damage through untested MMW exposure. Well-designed studies do need to explore further the effects of magnetic fields on the body created by manmade EMF’s and not just thermal effects as well as the real-life effects on actual humans. In parallel to this, as with all things in which Big Business and the government is involved, it’s always a good idea to keep questioning the narrative. Is 5G safe or will we be sorry? No one seems know for sure and so it looks like the decision is up to you.
--------------------- [1] https://www.anfr.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/documents/expace/Analyse_mesures_2016_VF_9oct.pdf [2]B. Thors, A. Furuskär, D. Colombi and C. Törnevik, "Time-Averaged Realistic Maximum Power Levels for the Assessment of Radio Frequency Exposure for 5G Radio Base Stations Using Massive MIMO," in IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 19711-19719, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2753459 [3] Sanjay Sagar, Seid M. Adem, Benjamin Struchen, Sarah P. Loughran, Michael E. Brunjes, Lisa Arangua, Mohamed Aqiel Dalvie, Rodney J. Croft, Michael Jerrett, Joel M. Moskowitz, Tony Kuo, Martin Röösli, Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context, Environment International, Volume 114, 2018, Pages 297-306, ISSN 0160-4120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.036 [4]A. M. El-Hajj and T. Naous, "Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy," 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF), 2020, pp. 448-453, doi: 10.1109/5GWF49715.2020.9221314. [5] https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf [6] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-v-fcc-we-won-judgement.pdf [7] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022117660.pdf [8] https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower-radiation/ [9] https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/naval_research_1971_on_rf.pdf [10] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuZnUzaWRNSjhuMkU/view?resourcekey=0-Qy99txRMoS_YV2iustg0Hg [11]Li Y, Li S, Zhou Y, et al. Melatonin for the prevention and treatment of cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8(24):39896-39921. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.16379 [12] Trošić I, Pavičić I, Marjanović AM, Bušljeta I. Non-thermal biomarkers of exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2012;63 Suppl 1:67-73. doi:10.2478/10004-1254-63-2012-2123 [13] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1070795887708/Department%20of%20Interior%20Feb%202014%20letter%20on%20Birds%20and%20RF.pdf [14] Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Alfonso Balmori-de la Puente, Helmut Breunig, Alfonso Balor, Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base station, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 572, 2016, Pages 554-569, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045 [15]Lupi D, Palamara Mesiano M, Adani A, Benocci R, Giacchini R, Parenti P, Zambon G, Lavazza A, Boniotti MB, Bassi S, Colombo M, Tremolada P. Combined Effects of Pesticides and Electromagnetic-Fields on Honeybees: Multi-Stress Exposure. Insects. 2021; 12(8):716. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12080716 [16] https://www.usmayors.org/2018/09/10/statement-by-u-s-conference-of-mayors-ceo-executive-director-tom-cochran-on-fccs-order-proposing-to-usurp-local-property-rights/ [17] https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/technology/2005Report_OVUM_Economy.pdf