The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused
many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone
radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless
technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded,
we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public
about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about
the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
recently announced through a press release that the commission
will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure
limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are
based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave
radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating
risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research
from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more
than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects
from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant
heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who
have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health
effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the
International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger
exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF
affects living organisms at levels well below most international
and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk,
cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic
damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive
system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and
negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes
well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of
harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the
majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They
have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in
professional journals.

The FCC's RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure,
taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but
ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the
patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of
the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic
and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are
needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover,
these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change
in a laboratory rat's behavior.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to
humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the
U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found "clear evidence"
that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in
male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The
Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the
NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure
to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and
animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently
prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years.
Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence
to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen,
the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in
the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a
systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA
recently reaffirmed the FCC's 1996 exposure limits in a letter to
the FCC, stating that the agency had "concluded that no changes
to the current standards are warranted at this time," and that
"NTP's experimental findings should not be applied to human cell
phone usage." The letter stated that "the available scientific
evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in
humans due to exposures at or under the current limits."

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves
for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in
use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited
reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters,
exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also
employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of
beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs,
known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring
exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of
human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term
exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral
nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system.
The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health
risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular
melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health
effects, so we are "flying blind" to quote a U.S. senator.
However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects
of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a
10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in
funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in
certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which
may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of
cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results
from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone
users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future
and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects
from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall
risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not
the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes
neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to
oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars
deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the
installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the
U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250
scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that
calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and
demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt
biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and
safety.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and
Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University
of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and
disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects
since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper
that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of
brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has
had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid
advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians
for Safe Technology.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
--
Miner