10/04/2020
INSIGHTS ON THE EFFECT OF EMF AND 5G ON HUMAN HEALTH
Based on various studies conducted, I found that the academic literature on EMF exposure effects and 5G in particular is growing rapidly. In the past days, I have read some research papers which are in support of possible health risks, and I have also read others which are not in support of this claim. In 2011, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio frequency EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. As a result, the IARC has recently prioritized EMF radiation for review in the next five years (2020-2024) (Reference 1).
A section of the scientific community – mainly doctors and researchers in medical sciences – argues that there are negative impacts from EMF exposure and that these will increase with the implementation of 5G. A 5G appeal was presented to the united nations in 2015 (Reference 2) and to the European from 2017 (Reference 3) with an increasing number of scientists' signing (More than 250 scientists and medical doctors as of December 2019 has signed the document). The signatories state that with the increasingly extensive use of wireless technology, especially when 5G is deployed, nobody could avoid exposure to constant EMF radiation because of the huge number of 5G transmitters with an estimated 10 to 20 billion connections (to self-driving cars, buses, surveillance cameras, domestic appliances, etc.). In addition, the appeal states that a large number of scientific publications illustrate EMF exposure effects such as an elevated risk of cancer, genetic damage, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, etc. The appeal points out not only harm to humans, but also to the environment.
The appeal however recommended a moratorium on the deployment of 5G for telecommunications until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent of industry. They have advised the European Union to follow Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe, as a result demanded that a new assessment is carried out by an independent task force.
Due to this, some scientists consider that it is important to establish new exposure limits that take account of the new characteristics of exposure. Such limits should be based on the biological effects of EMF radiation, rather than on the energy-based specific absorption rate (Reference 4).
However, Non-ionising radiation, which includes radiation from mobile phones and 5G, is perceived as harmless in general, due to its lack of potency. However, some of the above-mentioned scientists point out that, in the particular case of 5G, the issue is not the potency, but the pulse, the frequency to which the whole population will be exposed due to the dense network of antennas and the estimated billions of simultaneous connections. As 5G employs a very high level of pulsations, the idea behind 5G is to use higher frequencies, which allows such high levels of pulsation, to carry very large amounts of information per second. Studies show that pulsed EMF are in most cases more biologically active and therefore more dangerous than non-pulsed EMF. Every single wireless communication device communicates at least partially via pulsations, and the smarter the device, the more pulsations. Consequently, even though 5G can be weak in terms of power, its constant abnormal pulse radiation can have an effect. Along with the mode and duration of exposures, characteristics of the 5G signal such as pulsing seem to increase the biologic and health impacts of exposure, including DNA damage, which is considered to be a cause of cancer. DNA damage is also linked to reproductive decline and neurodegenerative diseases (Reference 5).
In 2018, a review (Reference 6) of more recently published peer-reviewed articles, bordering on the biological and health effects of radio frequency EMF, which include 5G, attest to the available evidence on the effects of millimetre waves. The review concluded that evidence of the biological properties of radio-frequency EMF are accumulating progressively and even though they are, in some cases, still preliminary or controversial, show that the existence of multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems, and to the possibility of oncological and non-oncological (mainly reproductive, metabolic, neurological, microbiological) effects. Furthermore, it shows that, the wide and increasing density of wireless devices and antennas raises particular concerns. Taking this into consideration, "although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increase in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimetre waves". However, there are indications that millimetre waves can increase skin temperature, promote cellular proliferation, and inflammatory and metabolic processes. According to the review, further studies are necessary to improve independent exploration of the health effects of radio-frequency EMF in general and of millimetre waves in particular.
However, little or research exists to conclude the effects of 5G technologies on humans as well as the environment. This is according to a study published in 2018 (Reference 7). Taking into consideration, the already existing complex mix of lower frequencies, it argues that in addition to those, the expected higher frequency 5G radiation would cause negative impacts on physical and mental public health. Concretely in the case of millimetre waves, it analyses the results of studies which find effects on the skin, eyes, and immune system, and bacterial antibiotic resistance. The study suggested that the effects of radio-frequency EMF will be problematic to sort out epidemiologically, as no unexposed control group will remain. The study consequently called for precaution in the deployment of this new technology. The author argues that while physicists and engineers give assurances that the only measure to harm health is heat, medical scientists indicate that there are other mechanisms whereby cellular functioning can be disrupted by non-thermal exposures to radio-frequency.
A study conducted in 2016 (Reference 8), which reviewed scientific articles which covers experimental data on the oxidative effects of low-intensity radio-frequency radiation in living cells, found that, among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies (18 in vitro studies, 73 studies in animals, 3 studies in plants and 6 studies in humans). The extract from the studies revealed that "dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity radio-frequency radiation, in general, 93 confirmed that radio-frequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems". More precisely, in 58 studies of laboratory rats, 54 show positive results, and 4 of 6 studies in humans were positive. In addition, 17 of the 18 of the in vitro studies were positive, including two on human spermatozoa and two on human blood cells. According to the authors, "the analysis of modern data on biological effects of low-intensity radio-frequency radiation (RFR) leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cells".
In 2018 (Reference 9), a study was carried out on animals, and it showed that electromagnetic radiation emitted by WiFi networks can lead to hyperglycaemia increased oxidative stress and impaired insulin secretion in rat pancreatic islets. Hyperglycaemia is a method of creating diabetes (which can lead to kidney deficiency in the long term). The study is conducted on laboratory rats when they are expose WiFi, even briefly, to 2.4 GHz.
Furthermore, a study conducted by Falcioni et al (Reference 10) analyzed the relationship between radio wave exposure and schwannoma (Reference 11) of the heart in male rats. The report concluded that there is some inconsistency in the results between the two studies and that no new causal relationship between EMF exposure and health risks was established. It recommends that further research is important, particularly regarding long-term effects and especially since the entire population will be exposed. It points out that a possible relationship between radio wave exposure and oxidative stress should be a subject of further research, as well as the association between weak low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, as observed in epidemiological studies.
The scientific community reaction in response to this report, is illustrated in the recent "Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on cell phone radio-frequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects" (Reference 12). The author states that the NTP study was designed to test the hypothesis that, at non-thermal exposure intensities, mobile phone radiation could not lead to adverse health effects, and to provide data for assessment of health risks caused by any detected toxic or carcinogenic effects, as little was known about long-term exposure to mobile phone radiation health effects. Regarding the NTP study results, among others, the author defends the use of animal studies that can eliminate the need to wait until enough human cancer data are available before implementing strategies to protect public health. According to the author, the intensity of exposure in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to potential human mobile phone exposures.
In conclusion, there is no noticeable increase in everyday EMF exposure since 2012, despite the increasing use of wireless communication devices, according to another review of studies from 2019. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how well these studies of everyday exposure represent the population's absorbed radio-frequency EMF dose. Taking into consideration, the huge amount of investment that has been made, it is the responsibility of mobile telecommunications industry to convince the masses and governments across the world of economic and social benefits of 5G. They also need to perform widespread marketing campaigns to enlighten the masses regarding this.
OLALEKAN SAMUEL
REFERENCES
1.https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
2. https://emfscientist.org/
3. http://www.5gappeal.eu/
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22676645
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300991
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub
7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300161?via%3Dihub
8. https://europarl-eplibrary.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_informaworld_s10_3109_15368378_2015_1043557&context=PC&vid=32EPA_V1&lang=en_US&search_scope=32EPA_Everything&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,Oxidative%20mechanisms%20of%20biological%20activity%20of%20low-intensity%20radiofrequency%20radiation
9. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09553002.2018.1490039
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300367
11. https://about-cancer.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/other-conditions/schwannoma
12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118304973
