Transmitter density means greater exposure to population at high levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields.
We need to stay on the alert side and stop the worldwide rollout of 5G (fifth generation) telecommunications networks until we are sure that this technology is completely secure, requests an expert in an opinion piece published online in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
There are no health issues about 5G and COVID-19, despite what conspiracy theorists have suggested.
But the transmitter density required for 5G means more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that are emerging from evidence, potentially harmful to health, argues Professor John William Frank, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
The advent of 5G technology is seen by governments and certain vested interests as transformative, promising clear economic and lifestyle benefits by promoting the wireless and mobile connectivity at home, work, school and in the community on a large scale, he says.
But it has become the subject of fierce controversy, fueled by four key areas of scientific uncertainty and concern.
The lack of clarity about exactly what technology is included in 5G; and a growing but far from comprehensive laboratory study indicating the biological disruptive potential of RF EMFs
A Factual Total Lack (So Far) of High-Quality Epidemiological Studies on the Impact on Human Health Due to Exposure to 5G EMF
The building up of epidemiological evidence of such effects of previous generations of exposure to RF-EMF at lower levels
Persistent allegations that some national telecommunications authorities have not based their RF-EMF security policy on the latest science, amid possible conflicts of interest
5G uses much higher frequency radio waves (3 to 300 GHz) than in the past, and it uses many new – and relatively unpredictable, security-assisted technologies to enable this higher data transmission capability, Professor Frank points out.
Its inherent fragility means that transmission-enhancing ‘cell’ antennas are usually needed every 100-300m – which is wider than the transmission masts needed for older 2G, 3G and 4G technology, with lower frequency waves, he said.
A dense transmission network is also needed to achieve the ‘anywhere / anytime’ connectivity promised by 5G developers.
Existing 4G systems can operate up to 4000 radio frequency-using devices per square kilometer; 5G systems will connect up to one million devices per square kilometer, which significantly increases the speed of data transfer (by a factor of 10) and the amount of data transferred (by a factor of 1000), he explains.
Although several important reviews of the existing evidence on the potential health damage of 5G have been published over the past decade, it was’ of ‘different scientific quality’, Professor Frank suggests.
And they have not thwarted the growing number of engineers, scientists and doctors internationally … calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF EMFs, investigate more and better and further increase in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety, ”he writes.
Permitted maximum safety limits for exposure to RF-EMF vary considerably around the world, he points out.
What’s more, ‘5G systems’ is not a defined term, which contains very different specific technologies and components.
“It is highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects, making thorough and comprehensive and current research on the effects virtually impossible,” he explains.
Recent reviews of laboratory data on RF EMFs indicate that exposure may produce widespread effects, including reproductive, fetal, oncological, neuropsychiatric, skin, ophthalmic, and immunological. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is involved in the spread of COVID-19, as some conspiracy theorists have suggested, he emphasizes.
“There are expert reports from commentators on the internet unraveling this theory, and no respected scientist or publication supports it,” he says, adding: “the theory that 5G and related EMFs contributed to the pandemic is unfounded.”
But for the current 5G implementation, there is a good basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’ due to significant doubts about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure, which should be reason enough ‘to impose a moratorium on the exposure pending an adequate scientific investigation into the alleged adverse health effects, ”he says.
There are no compelling public health or safety reasons for the rapid implementation of 5G, he insists. The major gains promised are economic, and then possibly for some more than for others, or as a result of increased consumer convenience, he suggests.
“Until we know more about what we do, from a health and ecological point of view, these supposed gains must wait,” he concludes.
Reference: “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” January 19, 2021, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
DOI: 10.1136 / jech-2019-213595