Posted on March 19, 2021
Few days ago two review articles on 5G millimeter-waves were published by scientists from Australia.
The articles in question appeared in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, published by the prestigious British NATURE:
- ‘5G mobile networks and health – a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz.’ by Ken Karipidis, Rohan Mate, David Urban, Rick Tinker & Andrew Wood
- ‘Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves.’ by Andrew Wood, Rohan Mate & Ken Karipidis
Australian ARPANSA has published a news story, on March 17, 2021, about both reviews and… boasted that the reviews are “World-first reviews into 5G radio waves”. (EMFSA: Read the blog post to see why the claim about “world first” is not accurate).
Both Australian reviews are misleading readers.
Abstract of the Australian review #1 is as follows [emphasis added by DL]:
“The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) fields above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This state-of-the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF fields above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffects including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF fields above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.”
This review looked at 107 experimental studies and 31 epidemiological. First what comes to mind is that when the massive deployment of the 5G is ongoing, all experimental and epidemiological evidence is 138 studies = extremely small !!!
What is even more startling is the opinion, expressed by the authors of the review, about the quality of the studies: “Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control”
This means that this claimed to be “state-of-the science review” has found only 138 studies and of poor quality.
Based on this “scientific evidence” the authors of the review have arrived at a SHOCKING (sorry for this shout out) conclusion: “This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health”
Once again, to sink in this “discovery” from ARPANSA:
138 poor studies show no health risk of 5G!
We, the users of 5G are safe? Someone is insane!
It is simply scientifically outrageous that such review article has passed peer-review in NATURE published “Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology”. Journal should sack reviewers that performed peer-review.
Australian reviews should be retracted for corrections.
PS: What is not mentioned at all in the reviews, as potential conflict-of-interest, is that Ken Karipidis is member of ICNIRP, and articles “pretend to confirm” that ICNIRP safety guidelines are correct.