D Charles 2019-04-28
The peer reviewed scientific study that informs this article on the health effects of 5G infrastructure is the “Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays” by B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai (Nov 2010).
5G in 5 minutes
According to N. Pineault, who described 5G in 5 minutes, “5G” stands for the 5th generation of wireless cellular technology. In plain English, 5G promises a dramatic transformation in the wireless technology we currently have, lighting-fast download speed and ubiquitous connectivity. 5G uses a mix of frequencies that are currently used by 2G to 4G networks (0.6 to 7.1 GHz), but also new frequencies that are much, much higher on the EMF (electromagnetic field) spectrum. These higher frequencies fall into what’s called the “millimeter wave” range (mmW) — and might go from 24 GHz to about 71 GHz.2 One of the most common concerns about 5G is the fact that it requires an unprecedentedly high number of new cellular antennas to be installed — up to one new antenna on every block in downtown areas, and every few homes in residential areas. For example, in the city of Montreal alone, the 5G rollout would require increasing the number of antennas by up to 50-fold — from 1,200 3G/4G antennas to about 60,000 new antennas with 5G capabilities. NO study has been done by the cell industry to ensure 5G’s safety. Pineault N. (The EMF Guy)
Microwave Sickness Syndrome
Levitt & Lai (2010, p.388) makes the case that Classic “Microwave Sickness Syndrome” also known as “radiofrequency radiation (RFR) sickness” may be behind the symptoms that are increasingly being reported by people living in close proximity to cell towers and other RFR-sources today, such as “headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness and sleep disorders” as originally identified in the 1950s by medical researchers in the Soviet Union. These early researchers found the symptoms to be reversible in early exposure but considered it to be lethal over time having noted the following clinical manifestations amongst other “dermographism, tumours, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression, irritability and memory impairment.” They argue that exposures between 800 MHz and 2 GHz only came with the advent of cellular telecommunications technology and infrastructure sited close to residential areas and that started to affect much of the population. This is in contrast to microwave ovens that use a high RF intensity but where the usage is for brief periods and the product is shielded from leakage. Therefore, the focus of their meta-study is on long-term low intensity exposures, an area they say is still largely under-researched irrespective of the 50+ year observational period which exists as a solid foundation.
Radiation risk and effects on public health
With this backdrop, it is disconcerting that in recent times the biggest issue around Huawei 5G development in Britain is one of security or unauthorised disclosure with no mention of the radiation risk and effects on public health as is already the case in America, specifically California and Texas. Though the exposé of Huawei’s installation of 5G equipment headlining in British media does make the case for the highest level of vigilance at every stage, including a retrospective look at studies detailing the health risks related to high frequency radiation. So even if Prime Minister May decided to trust reports that recommend 5G, that level of education or informed consent has yet to cascade down to the British public. Therefore, Britain must seek to raise awareness and verify through existing research the best way forward to mitigate any “fears” or mention of adverse health effects. A little known fact is that the only paragraph on health in the NIC report that informed UK on “5G Infrastructure Requirements in the UK”, (pp. 89-90) put the burden of compliance with radiation standards from ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) squarely on the shoulders of mobile operators such as Huawei. Considering the UK does not have laws or a regulatory infrastructure for radiation, coupled to the fact that ICNIRP standards are more lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations according to Levitt & Lai (2010), does pose a potential point of conflict in and of itself, should biological effects from exposure lead to public health hazards in UK:
“Finally, mass deployment of base stations can stir a public reaction to potential radiation hazards. To address concerns about radiation from masts, deployed in residential areas, or close to schools, mobile operators adhere to ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) regulations. ICNIRP is an independent scientific organisation, whose aims are to provide guidance and advice on the health hazards of non-ionizing radiation exposure (NIR). ICNIRP considerations are part of every mobile site design. In practice, this limits the location of certain types of antenna and dictates what needs to be done in terms of operational maintenance processes to maintain safe working practices. This can also limit the location and types of antennas in an environment where lots of people can come in close proximity to the antenna.” NIC report that informed UK on “5G Infrastructure Requirements in the UK”, (pp. 89-90)
Of note from scientific research for exposure of the general population to RFR from wireless communication devices and transmission towers is it should be kept to a minimum and should follow the ‘‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’’ (ALARA) principle (Levitt & Lai 2010).
Past research on EMF and health effects
Drawing on past research, the Lilienfield study 1953 – 1976 proved conclusively long-term very low level exposures had caused “microwave sickness” to personnel in the US Embassy in Moscow. This had nothing to do with tissue heating properties on which most radiation standards today are based according to Levitt & Lai (2010). Moreover, the very low power densities and propagation characteristics were found to be mirroring conditions in the present day cell phone base stations. Lilienfield found four symptoms that matched the Soviet’s description of “dermographism”, namely – “eczema, psoriasis, allergic and inflammatory reactions.” Additionally they also found “neurological problems with diseases of peripheral nerves and ganglia in males; reproductive problems in females during pregnancy, childbearing, and the period immediately after delivery (puerperium); tumour increases (malignant in females benign in males); hermatological alterations; and effects on mood and well-being including irritability, depression, loss of appetite, concentration, and eye problems.” They found the symptoms as described in early literature to be a very close match with later studies by Santini, Abdel-Rassoul and Narvarro (2002). This in turn corroborates with anecdotal accounts from communities “where broadcast facilities have switched from analog to digital signals at power intensities that are remarkably similar.” That is notwithstanding complaints received from individuals suffering from electromagnetic-hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS). Adverse effects on well-being due to close proximity of cell infrastructure is now being reported worldwide. This should not come as a surprise if one considers the deluge of RFR-emitting devices since and the steady stream of new wireless products entering the market that any one individual is exposed to.
Levitt & Lai (2010) have highlighted specific studies on exposure to cell tower transmissions, since the 1980’s when it was presumed to be safe and relatively so to broadcast towers, to where it had been confirmed in certain cities that both contribute significantly to the total ambient levels of RFR (Sirav and Seyhan 2009; Joseph et al. 2010). Of note are the adverse effects in this study selection:
| No. | Study | Adverse Effects |
| 1. | Henderson and Anderson 1986 | Significant increases for all cancers in both men and women living near broadcast towers |
| 2. | Maskarinec et al. 1994, Ha et al. 2003, Park et al. 2004 | Childhood leukaemia clusters |
| 3. | Hocking et al. 1996; Michelozzi et al. 2002; Ha et al. 2007); | Adult leukaemia and lymphoma clusters and elevated rates of mental illness |
| 4. | Dolk et al. 1997a, 1997b | Elevated brain tumour incidence |
| 5. | Altpeter et al. 2000) | Sleep disorders, decreased concentration, anxiety, elevated blood pressure, headaches, memory impairment, increased white cell counts, and decreased lung function in children |
| 6. | Kolodynski and Kolodynski 1996 | Motor, memory, and learning impairment in children |
| 7. | Colorado Department of Public Health 2004 | Nonlinear increases in brain tumour incidence |
| 8. | Hallberg and Johansson 2002 | Increases in malignant melanoma |
| 9. | Boscol et al. 2001 | Nonlinear immune system changes in women |
This is a small cross-section of empirical studies with confirmed adverse effects studied by Levitt & Lai (2010) that underline the fact that serious mitigation efforts are long overdue. This is also backed up by definitive health industry reports such as The Bioinitiative Report 2012, with far more dense evidence of adverse health effects that cannot merely be ignored. Scientists worldwide have been calling for a halt to the 5G Roll-out due to the associated “health risks” of which the long term consequences are unknown. Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G, 3G and 4G – in use today with our cell phones, computers and wearable tech – creates radiofrequency radiation exposures (RFR) which poses a serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment. Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done first to ensure the public and environment are protected.
Despite the fact that Levitt & Lai found several biological effects from a 50 year range of observations which occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR, with the advent of 2G, 3G, 4G and the imminent 5G roll-out, potential long term hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not well established. But it does not mean that communities should have to become the first casualties in unconfirmed social experiments either. Therefore mitigation of radiation exposure has to be undoubtedly the most important consideration for those already living in neighbourhoods where cell tower base stations exist as well as for those yet to choose to invest in property, schools and places of work.
The holistic mitigation approach suggested by Levitt & Lai is truly inspiring and is in the context of 1.) past studies together with 2.) the surge in RFR-emitting devices today, coupled to 3.) many more new product developments waiting to be commercialised, that will dramatically increase total exposures to the population from infrastructure alone, makes sense to approach mitigation from an aggregate exposure perspective. They say it might be better to consider ambient outdoor and indoor RFR exposures – as inspired by environmental hazards such as chemicals from building materials that cause “sick building syndrome”. Therefore the advice when governments consider public health is that the emphasis be on aggregate exposures from multiple sources, rather than continuing to focus on individual source points like cell and broadcast base stations. In that way many more devices will be included which will greatly improve the accuracy of measurements of those individuals exposed to total radiation. Here they suggest Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, smart grids and exposures to smart metering which has also been installed across the greater UK in our drive for smart homes. Only in that way do they say, will low-level electromagnetic energy exposures be understood, as the broad environmental factor that it is.
Radiofrequency radiation as energetic air pollution
To view Radiofrequency radiation as energetic air pollution makes much sense as it can also then be better controlled as such. Hopefully governments like the UK will refrain from deregulating or breaking up services but start to adopt this big-picture thinking which governments originally came into force for to give the greatest number the best chance to a better quality of life.
References: See Hyperlinks
Recent Comments