Front. Comms. Net., 10 August 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frcmn.2021.721925

Foster KR and Vijayalaxmi (2021) Needed: More Reliable Bioeffects Studies at “High Band” 5G Frequencies. Front. Comms. Net 2:721925. doi: 10.3389/frcmn.2021.721925

One major source of controversy related to possible health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is the large number of reported statistically significant effects of exposure, over the entire RF part of the spectrum and over a wide range of exposure levels, even as health agencies do not find clear evidence for health hazards of exposure at levels within current IEEE and ICNIRP exposure limits. This Perspective considers 31 studies related to genetic damage produced by exposure to RFR at frequencies above 6 GHz, including at millimeter-wave (mm-wave) frequencies. Collectively, the papers report many statistically significant effects related to genetic damage, many at exposure levels below current exposure limits. However, application of five risk of bias (RoB) criteria and other considerations suggest that the studies in many cases are vulnerable to false discovery (nonreplicable results). The authors call for improvements in study design, analysis and reporting in future bioeffects research to provide more reliable information for health agencies and regulatory decision makers. This Perspective is a companion to another Perspective by Mattsson et al. elsewhere in this volume (Mattsson et al., 2021)¹.

Copyright © 2021 Foster and Vijayalaxmi.

The post Needed: More Reliable Bioeffects Studies at “High Band” 5G Frequencies appeared first on EMFSA.

The Brussels Regional Government is relaxing radiation norms to allow the roll-out of a new 5G telecommunications network in the Belgian and Flemish capital.  “As the capital of Europe Brussels can’t afford to stick behind” the government says.

Colin Clapson

The radiation norm setting out how much radiation will be permitted is being increased to 14.5 V / m. The decision means Brussels still has the strictest norm in the country.  It is below values recommended by the World Health Organisation and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.

The Brussels government was acting on the basis of the second report of the 5G co-ordination platform and recommendations from the 5G consultative committees. Brussels also hopes to limit the impact this new technology will have on the environment as much as possible.

Read more at: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2021/07/24/brussels-relaxes-radiation-norms-for-5g-roll-out/

The post Brussels relaxes radiation norms for 5G roll-out appeared first on EMFSA.

https://map.sciencemediahub.eu/5g#m=4/605.26142/641.10925,p=70

https://map.sciencemediahub.eu/5g#m=1/806.78584/463.05557

Fiorella Belpoggi, STOA 5G Panel, 31st May 2021:

The post STOA, 5G: Environment – Animals, Plants and Fungi appeared first on EMFSA.

Bio James C. Lin

James C. Lin is a professor of bioengineering and electrical engineering at the University of Illinois Chicago. At the University of Illinois, Lin has served as head of the Bioengineering Department, Director of the Robotics and Automation Laboratory, and Director of Special Projects in the College of Engineering. He also held an appointment as the NSC Research Chair from 1993-1997. Lin is the author of more than 140 journal papers, and author or editor of seven books. After beginning his higher education at Whitworth College in Spokane, Wash., he received the BS, MS and PhD (1971)degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, Seattle. Lin’s academic career took him from teaching and research in Seattle, on to positions at Wayne State University in Detroit and finally at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where he has served as a professor of electrical engineering, bioengineering and physiology and biophysics since 1980. Professor Lin’s research interests include: Biomedical instrumentation; Electromagnetic Engineering for Biology and Medicine; Imaging and Sensing; Bioelectromagnetics; Mobile Telecommunication Safety; Biological Interactions of Electromagnetic Radiation Including RF (Radio Frequency), Microwaves, and Lasers.

Source:

Proceedings of the Workshop on Conducting Evaluations of Evidence that are Transparent, Timely and Lead to Health-Protective Actions February 8-11, 2021

https://prhe.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra341/f/wysiwyg/Proceedings_Final_05_10.pdf

The post Professor James C. Lin – Some Key Differences in the ICNIRP and IARC Evaluations of RF Evidence appeared first on EMFSA.

Source https://www.royalgazette.com/technology/business/article/20210516/ra-lifts-moratorium-on-5g/

Scott Neil Updated: May 16, 2021 03:08 PM

A moratorium on the deployment of 5G technology in Bermuda has been lifted by the Regulatory Authority.

It paves the way for telecom companies with the appropriate licence to roll-out Fifth Generation wireless technology, which allows for faster data speeds than 4G networks used on the island today.

However, 5G technology has attracted debate, with concerns being raised about alleged health impacts from its use of higher frequency microwaves than previous mobile networks.

The RA last year put a moratorium on the deployment of the technology and launched a public consultation.

It has now conducted what it said was an “extensive review process”, which included a report from an independent advisory panel.

In the report, the panel concluded that radiation safety science did not support the view that 5G will be harmful to people, or to flora or fauna. The panel recommended the lifting of the moratorium on 5G roll-out.

Snippet:

The safety standards, in respect of human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, are those published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, or the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Read the article at https://www.royalgazette.com/technology/business/article/20210516/ra-lifts-moratorium-on-5g/

RA’s 5G final report https://rgb-prod-public-pdfs.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/cVj4GENJmjZ7mE7aiFfz48WCXgU.pdf

The post RA lifts moratorium on 5G appeared first on EMFSA.

Source: Microwave News https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/italys-6vm-risk

May 3, 2021

Italy’s 6 V/m RF exposure standard, one of the strictest in the world, may soon fall victim to 5G.

The Italian limit, adopted more than 20 years ago, is widely perceived as standing in the way of the build-out of 5G infrastructure, which will require the installation of many more RF antennas. The proposed solution is to make the standard ten times weaker and bring it in line with ICNIRP’s 61 V/m guideline.*

The standard is a target of Italy’s post-pandemic national recovery plan (known as the Next Generation Italia or PNRR). The plan allocates over €40 billion (~US$48 billion) to advance the digitization of the country, including promoting 5G technology and increasing broadband speeds nationwide, currently among the slowest in Europe.

All the major political parties, except one, favor loosening the 6 V/m limit, according to La Repubblica, the second most widely read (non-sport) newspaper in Italy. The one holdout is the Fratelli d’Italia party (Brothers of Italy), a far-right, neo-fascist group —and even it is on record as wanting to make the siting of antennas easier for telecom operators.

The proposal has galvanized a coalition of Italian environmental researchers and activists, as well as members of the international RF research community. They have appealed to the government to save the 6 V/m limit. (See Tweets below.)

One appeal, sent to Mario Draghi, the recently installed prime minister, on April 26, had been signed by more than 8,700 supporters within a couple of days, according to Fiorella Belpoggi, the scientific director of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, who is helping coordinate the campaign.

Italy has long been a hotbed of anti-5G activism. A petition calling for a moratorium on 5G, launched two years ago, has garnered more than 63,000 signatures. The Italian Stop 5G Alliance has been a major force in promoting this petition.

The protests —including a hunger strike by over 150 people— appears to have softened the government’s approach. When the lower house of the Parliament approved the recovery plan at the end of April, the proposal to eliminate the 6 V/m limit had been dropped and replaced by a call to review the standard. But, Belpoggi told Microwave News, “the door for a change remains open.”

All Eyes on Vittorio Colao

Much of the public furor at the potential weakening of the exposure limit has been directed at Vittorio Colao, the Harvard-educated minister for innovation, technology and digitization in the new Draghi government.

Read more at https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/italys-6vm-risk

Related

The post Italy’s 6 V/m RF Limit at Risk appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract: Discusses how the COVID-19 health pandemic worldwide was complicated by not only health and medical concerns, but the inclusion of politics, conspiracy theories, and social media.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9393739

Extract

Recently, a privately constituted group, with self-appointed membership, published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to RF electromagnetic fields in the 100-kHz and 300-GHz frequency range [7]. The proposed guidelines were primarily based on the tissue-heating potentials of RF radiation to elevate animal body temperatures to greater than 1° C.

While recognizing that the two aforementioned studies used large numbers of animals, best laboratory practice, and animals exposed for the entirety of their lives, the private group preferred to quibble with alleged “chance differences” between treatment conditions and the fact that the measured animal body core temperature changes reached 1° C, implying that a 1° C body core temperature rise is carcinogenic, ignoring the RF exposure.

The group then pronounced that, when considered either in isolation or within the context of other animal carcinogenicity research, these findings do not provide evidence that RF radiation is carcinogenic.

Furthermore, the group noted that, even though many epidemiological studies of RF radiation associated with mobile phone use and cancer risk had been performed, studies on brain tumors, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and parotid gland tumors had not provided evidence of an increased cancer risk. It suggested that, although somewhat elevated odds ratios were observed, inconsistencies and limitations, including recall or selection bias, precluded these results from being considered for setting exposure guidelines.

The simultaneous penchant to dismiss and criticize positive results and the fondness for and eager acceptance of negative findings are palpable and concerning.

In contrast, the IARC’s evaluation of the same epidemiological studies ended up officially classifying RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans [2], [3].

An understandable question that comes to mind is this: How can there be such divergent evaluations and conclusions of the same scientific studies?

When confronted with such divergent assessments of science, the ALARA— as low as reasonably achievable—practice and principle should be followed for RF health and safety.

https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/09393739.pdf

Added note by EMFSA:

Lin was a member of ICNIRP, 2004-2016. He is the editor-in-chief of Bioelectromagnetics.

The post Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters] appeared first on EMFSA.

5G & Health with Dariusz Leszczynski

In 2020, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published updated safety guidelines for exposures to radio-frequency radiation (RF-EMF) emitted by wireless communication devices and networks, such as mobile phones or mobile phone base stations. This publication replaced the ICNIRP 1998 RF-EMF guidelines.

These guidelines, recommended by the World Health Organization, have been adopted by a majority of countries around the world, becoming part of their wireless regulatory framework. US uses IEEE/ICES and FCC guidelines, but seeks to “harmonize” with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Safety according to ICNIRP

The basic principle underlying these safety guidelines is that, according to ICNIRP, the only proven health-related effects induced by this kind of radiation exposure are those that occur when the temperature of human tissue is increased by more than 1 degree Celsius — the so-called thermal effects.

When the temperature of human tissue does not increase by more than 1 degree Celsius, the radiation is considered by ICNIRP to be harmless to human health. In their opinion, the level of radiation emitted by wireless devices meeting ICNIRP safety guidelines is insufficient to cause a health-affecting increase in temperature in human tissue. Furthermore, according to ICNIRP’s review of science, there are no proven effects occurring without such a temperature increase.

Given that ICNIRP considers that only thermal effects of radiation exposure can cause health effects, ICNIRP has designed safety guidelines to protect users from any thermal effects that could affect health. In ICNIRP’s opinion, prevention of thermal effects by the currently used safety limits is sufficient to protect the health of all users.

However, there is a long list of experimentally-observed biological effects in animals or in cells grown in the laboratory, that have been induced by exposures to wireless radiation at levels well below the current exposure limits set by ICNIRP. Scientists are concerned that if such non-thermal effects were to occur in users, they might lead to health effects.

According to ICNIRP’s understanding of science, these non-thermal effects should not be happening. However, unless all scientists observing non-thermal effects are hallucinating, there is something wrong with ICNIRP’s evaluation of the scientific evidence.

ICNIRP’s guidelines, in addition to being set to prevent only thermal effects, are also based only on short-term, acute exposures (from minutes to hours). The guidelines do not provide information on whether they will be protective for continuous and long-term exposures, those lasting from months to decades. Thus, while there is available published research on the acute effects, those that occur during or shortly after exposure, there is very little research on long-term chronic exposures. This suggests that applying ICNIRP guidelines to long-term exposures is based on an assumption of safety and not on the scientific evidence.

The ICNIRP guidelines are also being promoted as protective for all users, no matter their age or health status. ICNIRP claims that whether it be the growing and developing body of a small child, the ailing body of an old person with chronic or potentially lethal diseases, or the robust body of a young and healthy adult — all are equally protected.

Read more at https://blogbrhp.medium.com/5g-is-testing-the-limits-of-trust-8180d578e140

The post Dariusz Leszczynski – 5G is testing the limits of trust appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

This study examines the nonuniform exposure to the cornea from incident millimeter waves at 94-100 GHz. Two previous studies measured temperature increases in the rhesus cornea exposed to brief (1-6 s) pulses of high-fluence millimeter waves (94 GHz), one of which also estimated thresholds for corneal damage (reported as ED50, the dose resulting in a visible lesion 50% of the time). Both studies noted large variations in the temperature increase across the surface of the cornea due to wave interference effects. This study examines this variability using high-resolution simulations of mm-wave absorption and temperature increase in the human cornea from exposures to plane wave energy at 100 GHz. Calculations are based on an earlier study. The simulations show that the peak temperature increases in the cornea from short exposures (up to 10 s) to high-intensity mm-wave pulses are 1.7-2.8 times the median increase depending on the polarization of the incident energy. A simple one-dimensional “baseline” model provides a good estimate of the median temperature increase in the cornea. Two different estimates are presented for the thresholds for producing thermal lesions, expressed in terms of the minimum fluence of incident 100 GHz pulses. The first estimate is based on thresholds for thermal damage from pulsed infrared energy, and the second is based on a thermal damage model. The mm-wave pulses presently considered far exceed current IEEE or ICNIRP exposure limits but may be produced by some nonlethal weapons systems. Interference effects due to wave reflections from structures in and near the eye result in highly localized variations in energy absorbed in the cornea and surrounding facial tissues and are important to consider in a hazard analysis for exposures to intense pulsed millimeter waves.

Copyright © 2021 Health Physics Society.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33760769/

The post Nonuniform Exposure to the Cornea from Millimeter Waves appeared first on EMFSA.

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:

1. ‘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
2. ‘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.

Read the complete post at: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/03/19/arpansas-unfounded-claims-on-5g-safety-nature-publisher-should-be-embarrassed-and-retract/

The post Leszczynski-two new Australian reviews on 5G safety are misleading appeared first on EMFSA.