Does 5G frequency radiation harm us?

I recently ordered a taxi and discussed 5G with my driver. At some point he commented he had heard that 5G might be dangerous for our health.

Understanding the radio waves have formed a foundation for our communication services for decades, including wireless telegraphy, radio and TV, walkie-talkies, radars, navigation and Wi-Fi, I started to wonder what type of information there actually flows on the topic in different forums. It is logical that we all are concerned about things impacting our wellbeing and health so it would be great to get more concrete clarity for the claims the taxi driver had heard from his clients on 5G.

So where to start with the exploration? To understand what type of discussions there are, social media should give some hints. Twitter search for “5G effects” brings up a list of variety of discussions. In fact, the daily amount of posts indicating doubts on 5G looks somewhat overwhelming. Some of the statements sound quite confusing and indicate also lack of basic understanding on the topic while some messages are either humoristic, furious or something in between. In essence, Twitter does not seem to provide easily answers to this topic.

The word “radiation” seems to cause the major confusion. Based on the common knowledge, the radiation can be either ionizing or non-ionizing. These are the differences:

1. Ionizing radiation, originated from such sources as X-ray equipment, has enough energy to detach electrons from atoms or molecules ionizing them. As a consequence, the ionizing radiation can harm human cells and cause health problems such as cancer. For that reason, it is a good idea to try to minimize exposure to e.g. CAT scanning.
2. Non-ionizing radiation is a type of radiation the mobile communication is based on. It thus cannot modify atoms or molecules of human beings. Nevertheless, strong Radio Frequency (RF) radiation originated from sources such as high-power pulse radars could heat living tissue if the safety zones are not obeyed. Another example is the micro oven which is based on high-power radiation making water molecules vibrate, which in turn heats up the food as a result of the respective friction.

Due to this heat effect, the mobile industry follows established, strict rules set by regulators for the RF radiation safety limits. As an example, although Wi-Fi device can work on the same band as microwave oven, it would not cause thermal effects. Mobile communication specifications are designed accordingly limiting the maximum radiating power level of both base stations as well as mobile devices. Operators need to ensure that the total maximum radiating power levels of base stations stay within the regulated range while mobile device manufacturers design the power levels of their equipment to comply with the limits which are presented as SAR (Specific Absorption Rate). The SAR refers to the amount of energy, produced by e.g. mobile phone, and absorbed by a mass of a biological tissue. The regulators have set the maximum value typically within the range of 1.6 – 2 W/kg.

So, what news we might have for better understanding the potential effects of the mobile radiation? In order to obtain fresh, unbiased updates on the topic, common sense suggests it is safest to seek for high-quality, objective scientific studies. The benefit of the peer-reviewed, open scientific studies is to understand whether the investigated item, such as the use of mobile phone, can be shown to contribute systematically to brain tumors or other health issues while the study team is aware of potential other sources that may contribute to the results. The latter is important as in our modern environment, there are plenty of potential causes for health issues, such as previous or current exposure on, e.g., radon gas, radiation treatment, asbestos and other environmental carcinogens, to mention some. Also, naturally occurring diseases, exposure to ultra violet radiation of the sun and environmental chemicals, and many more reasons may interfere the analysis.

Many international authorities and organizations have analyzed these type of study reports and have made statements based on the findings. Some examples of the observations are the following:

US National Cancer Institute:

• “In 2011, the American Cancer Society (ACS) stated that the IARC [the International Association for Research on Cancer] classification [please see reference 5 for the other evaluated items] means that there could be some cancer risk associated with radiofrequency radiation, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency radiation exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.”
• “In summary, most studies of people published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. However, these studies have had some important limitations that make them unlikely to end the controversy about whether cell phone use affects cancer risk.”
• “With these limitations in mind, it is important that the possible risk of cell phone exposure continue to be researched using strong study methods, especially with regard to use by children and longer-term use.”

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 399 GHz; Safety Code 6”:

• “Despite the advent of numerous additional research studies on RF fields and health, the only established adverse health effects associated with RF field exposures in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz relate to the occurrence of tissue heating and nerve stimulation (NS) from short-term (acute) exposures. At present, there is no scientific basis for the occurrence of acute, chronic and/or cumulative adverse health risks from RF field exposure at levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6. The hypotheses of other proposed adverse health effects occurring at levels below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6 suffer from a lack of evidence of causality, biological plausibility and reproducibility and do not provide a credible foundation for making science-based recommendations for limiting human exposures to low-intensity RF fields.”

Swisscom is one of the entities collecting statements on the mobile safety topics in order to provide answers for doubts, and to tackle the increasing disinformation circulating in Internet. The respective information source can be found at 5G Mobile Technology Fact Check. The statements include the following:

• “According to all current scientific knowledge, there are no health risks that can be attributed to mobile radiation. When it comes to cancer, however, the data available is still somewhat unclear. Thus, to be on the safe side, the IARC classifies mobile phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic” – the exact same classification they give to coffee and many other substances.”

Furthermore, among many intentions to clarify the situation in public, this YouTube video by CNBC describes the current field in a common-sense way.

Along with the deployment of 5G, which may use considerably higher radio frequencies of tens of GHz, these frequencies are still far away from the ionizing frequency area, or even from the visible light which resides between the non-ionizing and ionizing radiation zones. It can thus be argued if the new radio bands of 5G would bring along new health considerations.

Referring to GSMA (source 4), expert groups and public health agencies such as the World Health Organization broadly agree that no health risks have been established from exposure to the low-level radio signals used for mobile communications. Furthermore, based on experience with 3G and 4G networks and the results from 5G trials, the overall levels in the community will remain well below the international safety guidelines. Also, compliance assessment of 5G network antennas and devices are dictated by international standards which include new approaches for smart antennas and the use of new frequency ranges.

Please feel free to comment and discuss the topic! While waiting for further clarifications from the scientific field, the following links help the interested ones to find more information on the theme:

1. Radiation and Environmental Health Department of Protection of the Human Environment. World Health Organization: Establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields
2. National Cancer Institute: Cellular phones and can­cer risk
3. Government of Canada: Safety Code 6, 2015
4. GSMA: Safety of 5G Mobile Networks
5. IARC classifications: https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/
6. Is the incidence of brain tumors really increasing? A population-based analysis from a cancer registry (2011): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21327863

 
Published 9/15/19, www.5g-simplified.com

---