CC:0
CC:0

EXPERT REACTION: Should we pause the 5G roll out until safety is confirmed?

Embargoed until: Publicly released:
Not peer-reviewed: This work has not been scrutinised by independent experts, or the story does not contain research data to review (for example an opinion piece). If you are reporting on research that has yet to go through peer-review (eg. conference abstracts and preprints) be aware that the findings can change during the peer review process.

Opinion piece/editorial: This work is based on the opinions of the author(s)/institution.

A UK researcher has suggested that the roll out of 5G networks be halted until we are sure of its safety, in an opinion piece. He suggests that, as 5G transmitters are putting out radio frequency electromagnetic fields at levels that emerging evidence suggests are potentially harmful, it might be smarter to confirm their safety before building towers everywhere. There are four main points of concern, he states: a lack of clarity about what tech is in 5G transmitters, very few epidemiological studies on 5G's effect on humans, past evidence of last-gen exposure on our bodies, and persistent allegations that telcos aren't basing their safety policies on the latest science, potentially due to having conflicts of interest. Additionally, while it's slightly depressing that this needed to be stated, the researcher also made sure to emphasise that "the theory that 5G and related EMFs have contributed to the pandemic is baseless."

Journal/conference: Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

Link to research (DOI): 10.1136/jech-2019-213595

Organisation/s: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Funder: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for- profit sectors.

Media release

From: The BMJ

Stop global roll out of 5G networks until safety is confirmed, urges expert

Transmitter density means greater population exposure to high levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields

We should err on the side of caution and stop the global roll out of 5G (fifth generation) telecoms networks until we are certain this technology is completely safe, urges an expert in an opinion piece published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

There are no health concerns about 5G and COVID-19, despite what conspiracy theorists have suggested.

But the transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health, argues Professor John William Frank, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.

The advent of 5G technology has been hailed by governments and certain vested interests as transformative, promising clear economic and lifestyle benefits, through massively boosting wireless and mobile connectivity at home, work, school and in the community, he says.

But it has become the subject of fierce controversy, fuelled by four key areas of scientific uncertainty and concern.

·  The lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; and a growing but far from comprehensive body of laboratory research indicating the biologically disruptive potential of RF-EMFs

·  An almost total lack (as yet) of high quality epidemiological studies of the impact on human health from 5G EMF exposure

·  Mounting epidemiological evidence of such effects from previous generations of RF-EMF exposure at lower levels

·  Persistent allegations that some national telecomms regulatory authorities haven’t based their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, amid potential conflicts of interest

5G uses much higher frequency (3 to 300GHz) radio waves than in the past and it makes use of very new—and relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety—supportive technology to enable this higher data transmission capacity, points out Professor Frank.

Its inherent fragility means that transmission boosting ‘cell’ antennae are generally required every 100–300 m—which is far more spatially dense than the transmission masts required for older 2G, 3G and 4G technology, using lower frequency waves, he says.

A dense transmission network is also required to achieve the ‘everywhere/anytime’ connectivity promised by 5G developers.

Existing 4G systems can service up to 4000 radio frequency-using devices per square kilometre; 5G systems will connect up to one million devices per square kilometre—greatly increasing the speed of data transfer (by a factor of 10) and the volume of data transmitted (by a factor of 1000), he explains.

While several major reviews of the existing evidence on the potential health harms of 5G have been published over the past decade, these have been of “varying scientific quality,” suggests Professor Frank.

And they have not stopped the clamour from “a growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally...calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety,” he writes.

Permitted maximum safety limits for RF-EMF exposure vary considerably around the world, he points out.

What’s more, ‘5G systems’ is not a consistently defined term, comprising quite different specific technologies and components.

“It is highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects—making sound, comprehensive and up-to-date research on those effects virtually impossible,” he explains.

Recent reviews of lab data on RF-EMFs indicate that exposures can produce wide-ranging effects, including reproductive, fetal, oncological, neuropsychiatric, skin, eye and immunological.  But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is implicated in the spread of COVID-19, as some conspiracy theorists have suggested, he emphasises.

“There are knowledgeable commentators’ reports on the web debunking this theory, and no respectable scientist or publication has backed it,” he says, adding: “the theory that 5G and related EMFs have contributed to the pandemic is baseless.”

But for the current 5G roll-out, there’s a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’ because of significant doubts about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure, which should be reason enough “to call a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects,” he says.

There is no compelling public health or safety rationale for the rapid deployment of 5G, he insists. The main gains being promised are either economic, and then possibly for some more than for others, or related to increased consumer convenience, he suggests.

“Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological point of view, those putative gains need to wait,” he concludes.

Attachments:

Note: Not all attachments are visible to the general public

Expert Reaction

These comments have been collated by the Science Media Centre to provide a variety of expert perspectives on this issue. Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named. They do not represent the views of the SMC or any other organisation unless specifically stated.

Professor Andrew Wood is from the Department of Health Sciences and Biostatistics in the School of Health Sciences at Swinburne University of Technology

Dr Frank contends that there is lack of clarity regarding the types of technology resulting from 5G roll-out. However, in Australia at least, the technologies are well-defined and 5G is already being deployed, using the range of frequencies currently in use for 4G. It is true that by the end of this year, the so-called ‘millimetre wave’ band will be used, with a frequency around five time higher than those currently in use.

A higher frequency does not mean higher radiation intensity. Beam-steering to specific points rather than a 360° coverage will tend to reduce exposure. Although it is true that more transmitters may be used, these will be low power devices. Currently, exposure from base stations is a few per cent of the general public limit and carriers are keen for the overall percentage to stay more or less the same. Data on exposure levels are freely available on www.rfnsa.com.au.

Dr Frank also contends that there are gaps in knowledge on in vivo and in vitro effects. Although there are certainly gaps, since millimetre wave technologies have been in use for several decades there are already several hundred primary studies on possible bioeffects. In papers which will shortly be published, results of a collaborative review between myself and scientists from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) identified just over 100 in vitro/in vivo and 31 epidemiological papers involving levels below the limits for the general public and found ‘no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health’.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the RF standard in place in Australia for the last 19 years is about to be replaced by an updated standard, based on the latest science. However, the recommended limits will not be very different from the previous limits. The details of these new limits are already publicly available on the ARPANSA website.

Last updated: 15 Feb 2021 10:54am
Declared conflicts of interest:
Andrew declares that Some of the Bioelectromagnetics Research Group are telecommunications industry employees.

Dr Ken Karipidis is Assistant Director, Assessment and Advice at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)

The opinion paper by Frank, J. discusses selected research results indicating the possibility of harmful effects from 5G and the recommendation of greater precaution. However, it is important to stress that this opinion is not supported by health authorities worldwide, mainstream science, and the total body of available research. The radiofrequency (RF) exposure levels from mobile telecommunications sources, including 5G, are much lower than the safety limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which are considered international best practice.

Further, ICNIRP provide declarations of Conflict of Interest on their website and a requirement of commission participation is that members are not affiliated with industry. The ICNIRP limits take into account all of the research on RF exposure and health effects, including studies reporting effects at non-thermal exposure levels. The limits are precautionary as they are set well below the levels at which established health effects occur to provide additional protection and account for uncertainty.

Further, the ICNIRP limits account for all modes of RF transmission, such as modulation, pulses, and polarisation. When all of the research on RF and health is assessed in its totality, adverse health effects from exposure to RF at levels below the widely accepted ICNIRP safety limits haven’t been demonstrated.

Last updated: 15 Feb 2021 10:53am
Declared conflicts of interest:
Ken declares that he is the chair of the Working Group developing the new ARPANSA RF Safety Standard and is also a member of the ICNIRP Main Commission.
Professor Rodney Croft is Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research and Professor of Health Psychology in the School of Psychology at the University of Wollongong

The essay by William Frank provides an unbalanced assessment of the radiation safety science related to mobile telecommunications, including 5G. Of particular note is that the views expressed in his essay do not correspond to the scientific consensus, and he does not provide support for these non-standard claims. In terms of his main claims: 1/ it is not true that there is emerging evidence that 5G transmitters are emitting electromagnetic fields at levels that are potentially harmful; 2/ there is a substantial body of scientific literature assessing the effect of the physical agent that is relevant to 5G – and the physical agent is the only aspect of 5G that is relevant to health; and 3/ it is not true that there is industry influence on the scientific consensus relating to radiation safety, and accordingly none is provided either in this essay or in the opinion piece that William Frank refers to.

  There is an extensive body of science that has evaluated the safety of mobile telecommunications, with the effect of electromagnetic field power and frequency on human health understood. Science has not been able to find any adverse health effects related to the electromagnetic fields emitted by telecommunications technologies such as 4G and 5G technologies.

Last updated: 15 Feb 2021 10:52am
Declared conflicts of interest:
Rodney has declared he has no conflicts of interest
Dr Mary Redmayne is an independent researcher based in New Zealand

There seems to be some confusion around this topic perhaps due to lack of clarity on what is meant by “public”. In this case “public” almost certainly means exposures from fixed transmitters such as mobile phone base stations, which I will refer to as environmental exposures. Advice and opinions given, and measurements taken, on behalf of governments often refer to this type of exposure. Reports on environmental exposures provide measurements of chronic (on-going) background exposures that have been averaged over time.

Transmission during a phone call is not constant but has gaps that people cannot discern audibly. Because of these gaps, there may only be a small percentage of time during use when a device is transmitting. However, both environmental and personal exposures are reckoned after averaging. So, although peak exposures may be at fairly high levels, the averaged environmental exposures should officially remain well within the Australian standard (and others based on ICNIRP Guidelines).

The highest exposures for members of the public however, come from the devices that people use, especially if carried on the body and used against the body/head.  I will refer to this as personal exposures. Such exposure increases rapidly as the device is brought closer to the body/head. When measured, personal exposures are also averaged. In many cases, the permitted exposure without 5G is already exceeded when the device is against the body such as in the hand or in tight-fitting clothing.

It does seem that under the averaging regime the extremely high frequency millimeter wave component of fully functioning 5G signals may not add much to existing environmental (ie “public”) exposures. This is because the millimeter component will be directed to specific user devices in a beam only during active use. Those not in line with a beam would not experience a higher exposure from that 5G component. Environmental 5G averaged exposures will increase in densely populated areas and as the numbers of users increases and multiple beams encounter individuals en route to a device or to the base station.

On the other hand, it seems that 5G will increase personal exposures for at least two reasons: first, due to beam-forming which focuses the energy into a beam as opposed to scattering it, and second, because the phone will transmit during both send and receive modes.  2G, 3G, and 4G transmit when sending but not receiving. This increase could be significant (see last paragraph).

However, the exposure standard is designed to prevent surface or internal heat damage. Since average exposure is relevant when considering heat-damage, Prof Rodney Croft, Chair of ICNIRP; Ken Karipidis, ARPANSA and ICNIRP; and Prof Andrew Wood, ICNIRP, can reasonably confidently say heat-damage is not currently occurring if devices are used no closer than the distance used when tested for compliance. It is too early to be confident that heat damage will not be able to occur from permitted exposures once 5G is beam-forming using frequencies in the tens of GHz (millimetre waves).

There is very little specific research on the impacts of the 5G transmission protocol, but the ability of the new ICNIRP standard to ensure no heat-damage is actively being researched. For instance, Neufeld et al, 2020, have calculated that, “In the case of pulsed narrow beams, the values for the time and spatial‐averaged power density allowed by the proposed new guidelines could result in extreme temperature increases” (Neufeld, Samaras, & Kuster, 2020). This assumes 5G using millimetre waves. 5G trials in Australasia are currently mostly using below 4 GHz which do not carry such heating ability at the intensities used.

It should be noted there is considerable evidence showing biological and neurological impacts on living tissue from common everyday exposure levels without 5G. This applies to low, chronic environmental exposures and to more sporadic, more intense exposure from devices. The ICNIRP Guidelines and Australian Standard do not regard these as health effects, however there are some medically acknowledged disease endpoints to some of the common types of biological and neurological impacts.

Adding further to the existing, already highly varied radio-frequency load without prior laboratory testing using relevant, say 26 GHz, beam-forming is rash. I agree with Professor Frank’s call for “a moratorium on further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.”

 

 

Neufeld, E., Samaras, T., & Kuster, N. (2020). Discussion on Spatial and Time Averaging Restrictions Within the Electromagnetic Exposure Safety Framework in the Frequency Range Above 6 GHz for Pulsed and Localized Exposures. Bioelectromagnetics, 41(2), 164-168.

Last updated: 15 Feb 2021 10:49am
Declared conflicts of interest:
Mary provides occasional unpaid opinions and feedback for EHT, PHIRE, ORSAA, and BBE-NZ

News for:

New Zealand
International
NSW
VIC

Media contact details for this story are only visible to registered journalists.