Turns out 5G is safe – yay
Updated guidelines from experts on this sort of thing show that, even at millimetre wave, 5G in its current form poses no additional risk to health.
The International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has updated its guidelines for the protection of humans exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These aren’t so much specific to 5G technology, but to the fact that, as a result of 5G, we’re going to be zapping higher frequencies radio EMF around the place than we had previously.
An important part of the name of the German organisation, which seems to be lost on some of the more unhinged 5G conspiracy theorists, is the ‘non-ionizing’ part. Radio is at the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum (see below, credit: NASA’s Imagine the Universe) to ionizing radiation such as gamma rays. That means it’s not mutagenic and any threat it poses concerns local bodily temperature rises, something that increases as you get closer to microwave frequencies.
“We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease,” said ICNIRP Chairman, Dr Eric van Rongen. “The guidelines have been developed after a thorough review of all relevant scientific literature, scientific workshops and an extensive public consultation process. They provide protection against all scientifically substantiated adverse health effects due to EMF exposure in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz range.”
The main changes to the organization’s first lot of recommendations on radio for mobile, published in 1998, concern frequencies above 6 GHz. They include: the addition of a restriction for exposure to the whole body; the addition of a restriction for brief (less than 6 minute) exposures to small regions of the body; and the reduction of the maximum exposure permitted over a small region of the body. You can see then summarised in the table below, which was taken from a video you can view here.
“When we revised the guidelines, we looked at the adequacy of the ones we published in 1998. We found that the previous ones were conservative in most cases, and they’d still provide adequate protection for current technologies,” said Van Rongen. “However, the new guidelines provide better and more detailed exposure guidance in particular for the higher frequency range, above 6 GHz, which is of importance to 5G and future technologies using these higher frequencies. The most important thing for people to remember is that 5G technologies will not be able to cause harm when these new guidelines are adhered to.”
Of course this won’t stop some people hearing the word ‘radiation’ and thinking nuclear fallout or being turned into the Incredible Hulk, but for the rest of us this seems to put the matter to rest. Conflating correlation with causation is a common mistake among paranoid types, which is why some nutters are even trying to draw a line between the coronavirus pandemic and 5G. Ignore them.
No mention of the National Toxicity program and the Italian Ramazinni institute studies that linked this pulsed radiation to rare tumours and cancers in rats and mice. Short term effects may not show effects but only over time will we know the full story.
“They provide protection against all scientifically substantiated adverse health effects,” you say. “Scientifically substantiated”–aka “established”–aka “conclusive”…but no definition of what those words mean, and exactly who makes that determination. How about IARC? How about the peer reviewed NTP study?
It is rare that officials speaking for the industry say, “…provides protection against all adverse health effects,” and the reason they don’t is that half the research shows bioeffects that could be capable of leading to adverse health effects–in fact, most of the non-industry funded studies do show those bioeffects. If the officials don’t insert those qualifier words, they know they would become particularly liable for any injury to health that should ensue from use of their products. So those are legally important words. The reinsurance industry knows better–that’s why they prefer not to cover the wireless industry for health-related claims.
As you point out, the radiation from phones, and from 5G signals, is all non-ionizing radiation, not ionizing. True enough. But that proves nothing, because the studies on non-ionizing radiation also show biological effects. You’ve got the PR down, but you don’t know the studies.
My guess is that you are not aware of what the “established” thermal limits are based on—primarily early animal behavior studies, that is, levels of exposure that caused animals to stop performing in experiments. It had little to do with what was going on under the hood in their physiology. We know a lot more about that now. Not everything, but a lot more. That’s why so many scientists are concerned. Not paranoid. Concerned.
I don’t have much faith in the “thorough review” you speak of. I’ve asked higher up industry people for the 10 most convincing studies that demonstrate to them that there is no evidence of adverse effects, and they never cite such a list. It’s much easier to be vague about a “weight of evidence” than to actually specify which studies you are including, and consider weighty, and why, and which you are leaving out, and why.
The bottom line is that, wittingly or not, you are participating in a disinformation tradition that goes back decades. You think you are spreading real information, but what you are spreading is the party line.
If only I’d had a proper expert like you available when I wrote it. Oh well.
Studies on mice and rats are not representative of human body. IARC considered that studies on large mammals like dogs and larger should be basis for human exposure levels. Such studies have been done during cold war era extensively, which gave the basis for ICNIRP. Please stop giving examples on mice and rats as a pretext for radiophobia.
Scott Bicheno Oh well? Has not China switched off 5G and CV cases dive
You tell me, boss.
Great propaganda Scott, funny how that 5ghz was lifted to 6 huh? I have a friend who’s a doctor and he is terrified with the prospect of 5G, 40 years as a doctor and he said he’s more concerned than ever- but i guess your the expert ? This is propaganda. When 5G rears it’s ugly head i hope you remember this little article.
Just saw this John – apologies. So it seems opinion is divided on this matter. Your paranoid doctor mate (if they even exist) is worried and everyone else isn’t. What a dilemma!
telecoms companies need to find new ways of delivering technology. Utilising unnatural radio frequencies to our environment is NOT the way forward. Its almost archaic. Human bodies were not designed to absorb all these frequencies. We have earths natural frequency along with solar radiation etc.. but we have evolved to cope with it. the telecoms companies have a vested interest in protecting their claims but many many other highly educated people including physicists, scientists etc have definately found health issues surrounding wifi radiation so lets not keep kidding ourselves and everyone else who is being rubbed on the back with a supportive ‘you will be fine’ gesture as we are being let to the gallows. Its very sad that people who have studied in this field for decades are ridiculed because of telecoms companies power. Lets all wake up and start treating mother earth as she deserves to be treated and start using the inteligence you were born with to find new, innovative and above all SAFE technology that will bring the human race to new heights. If you could see radio waves, right now with the layers of different freuencies we are being bombarded with, it would appear like a black heavy blanket being laid over us, that is electrosmog. I am all in favour of technology and all it has bought both good and bad but now is the time to realise that we cant keep going through the g’s and we need to find another way of utilising mothers earths healing frequencies instead. Nicola Tesla understood this.
It seems Scott is towing the party line as aforementioned.
You may notice when you do some research that 14 people on ICRNIP also worked for WHO which means that cross pollinate “experts” – it’s a safety net or a no risk paradigm in business lingo. They ignore studies as far back as 1953 and from what I can see they are self elected and there are many industry funded studies so industry loyalty leads to COI and not public health as the number 1 priority. Scott you are shamelessly part of a disinformation campaign that reminds me of the tobacco debacle. Enough of the not so one liner replies (it’s all you have).
Better late than never, Tom.