Kansainvälinen Cosmos-tutkimuksessa on selvitetty yli 250 000 matkapuhelimen käyttäjällä aivokasvaimien ilmaantuvuutta. Environment International -lehdessä julkaistun tutkimusartikkelin mukaan käytön määrällä ei ole yhteyttä aivokasvaimien saantiriskiin. Hanke käynnistyi vuonna 2009 Säteilyturvakeskuksen ja Tampereen yliopiston yhteistyönä. Mukana on myös linkki tutkimusartikkeliin.

Jättitutkimus todistaa: kännykänkäyttö ei lisää aivokasvaimen riskiä
https://etn.fi/index.php/13-news/15964-jaettitutkimus-todistaa-kaennykaenkaeyttoe-ei-lisaeae-aivokasvaimen-riskiae

Wireless Worries Overshadow Triumphs of RF Research A leading expert in radio-frequency dosimetry dissects distress over 5G—and the differences between exposure and dosage
https://spectrum.ieee.org/foster-qa-hed-tk?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=6978780&utm_medium=social&utm_content=IEEE+Spectrum&utm_source=facebook

The survey, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, looks at the last 75 years of research into RF exposure assessment and dosimetry. In it the co-authors detail how far the field has advanced and why they believe it to be a scientific success story.

Wireless Worries Overshadow Triumphs of RF Research
Share
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INTERVIEW
Wireless Worries Overshadow Triumphs of RF Research A leading expert in radio-frequency dosimetry dissects distress over 5G—and the differences between exposure and dosage
MICHAEL KOZIOL
5 MINUTES AGO7 MIN READ
smart phone emitting different colored light beams
JOHN LAMB/GETTY IMAGES

Kenneth R. Foster has decades of experience researching radio frequency (RF) radiation and its effects on biological systems. And now he’s co-authored a recent survey on the subject with two other researchers—Marvin Ziskin and Quirino Balzano. Collectively, the three of them (all IEEE Life Fellows) have more than a century of experience on the subject.

The survey, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, looks at the last 75 years of research into RF exposure assessment and dosimetry. In it the co-authors detail how far the field has advanced and why they believe it to be a scientific success story.

IEEE Spectrum carried out its conversation with Foster by email to find out more about why RF exposure assessment research has been such a success, what makes RF dosimetry so difficult, and why public worries about health and wireless radiation never seem to go away.

For those who aren’t familiar with the distinction, what’s the difference between exposure and dose?

Kenneth Foster: In the context of RF safety, exposure refers to the fields outside the body, while dose refers to energy absorbed within body tissues. Both are very important for a host of applications—medical treatments, occupational health, and safety studies for consumer electronics, for example.

In your opinion, is exposure assessment a solved problem?

Foster: Measuring RF fields in free space is not a problem. The real problem that arises in some situations is the highly variable nature of RF exposure. For example, a number of scientists are surveying levels of RF fields in the environment, to address the public’s health concerns. Not an easy task, given the multitude of RF sources in the environment and the rapid falloff of RF fields from any source. Accurately characterizing an individual’s exposure to RF fields is a real challenge, at least for the handful of scientists trying to do that.

Foster: Our goal was to point out the remarkable progress over the years in exposure assessment research, which has added a lot of clarity to studies on biological effects of RF fields, and enabled major advances in medical technology.

Foster: The instrumentation for measurement of RF fields in health and safety studies has become smaller and more capable. Decades ago who would have imagined that commercial field meters would be available that are rugged enough to take to a worksite, able to measure RF fields strong enough to pose occupational hazards but also sensitive enough to measure weak fields from distant antennas? And at the same time, determine the precise spectrum of a signal to identify its source?

What about when wireless technologies move into new frequency bands—millimeter and terahertz waves for cellular, for example, or the 6 gigahertz band for Wi-Fi?

Foster: The problem again relates to the complexity of exposure situations, not instrumentation. For example, high band 5G cellular base stations transmit multiple beams that move around in space. That makes it difficult to quantify exposure to people near cellular base stations, to verify that exposures are within safety limits (as they almost invariably are).

“I am personally more concerned about possible effects of excessive screen time on child development and privacy issues.”
—Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania

If exposure assessment is a solved problem, what makes the jump to accurate dosimetry so difficult? What makes the first so much simpler than the latter?

Foster: Dosimetry is much more challenging than exposure assessment. You generally cannot stick an RF probe into someone’s body. There are many reasons you might need that information, such as in hyperthermia treatments for cancer therapy, where tissue must be heated to precisely specified levels. Too little heating and there is no therapeutic benefit, too much and you burn the patient.

Can you tell me more about the ways in which dosimetry is done today? What’s the next best thing, if you can’t stick a probe into someone’s body?

Foster: For many purposes, using the good old RF meter to measure fields in air is okay. That is certainly the case with occupational safety work, where you need to measure the RF fields incident on a worker’s body. For clinical hyperthermia, you may still need to skewer the patient with thermal probes but computational dosimetry greatly improves the accuracy of measuring thermal dose and has led to important advances in the technique. For RF bioeffects studies—for example, using antennas placed against an animal—it is crucial to know how much RF energy is absorbed in the body and where it goes.

Why do you think there’s so much persistent worry about wireless radiation, to the extent people will measure the levels in their homes?

Foster: Risk perception is a complicated business. Wireless radiation has characteristics that tend to raise peoples’ concerns. You can’t see it, there is no immediate connection between exposure and the kinds of effects that some people worry about, people tend to confuse RF energy (which is non-ionizing, meaning that its photons are too weak to break chemical bonds) with ionizing radiation such as X-rays (which are truly dangerous). Some people believe that they are “hypersensitive” to wireless radiation, despite the inability of scientists to demonstrate such sensitivity in properly blinded and controlled studies. Some people feel threatened by the immense number of antennas that are popping up everywhere for wireless communications. The scientific literature contains many reports of varying quality and relevance to health and one can fish through this literature and put together a frightening story. And a few scientists think that there really may be health problems (although health agencies find little to concern them but say that “more research” is needed). The list goes on.

Exposure assessment plays some role in this. Consumers can buy cheap but very sensitive RF detectors and survey their environments for RF signals, of which there are many. Some of these devices emit “clicks” when measuring RF pulses from devices such as Wi-Fi access points, and sound for all the world like a Geiger counter at a nuclear reactor. Frightening. Some RF meters are also sold for hunting ghosts, but that is a different application.

Last year, the British Medical Journal published a call to halt 5G rollouts until the technology’s safety could be determined. What do you make of these kinds of calls? Do you think they help inform the portion of the public that is concerned about the health effects of RF exposure, or cause more confusion?

Foster: You refer to an opinion piece by [epidemiologist John] Frank, much of which I disagree with. Most health agencies that have reviewed the science simply call for more research, but at least one—the Health Council of the Netherlands—has called for a moratorium on rollout of high band 5G until more safety studies are done. Such recommendations are surely concerning to the public (even though HCN also considered it unlikely that any health problems existed).

In his piece, Frank writes that “an emerging preponderance of laboratory studies indicating RF-EMFs’ [radiofrequency electromagnetic fields] disruptive biological effects.” Here is the problem: There are thousands of RF bioeffects studies in the literature that vary widely in endpoint, relevance to health, study quality, and exposure level. Most of them report some kind of effect, over all frequencies and at all exposure levels. However most of the studies have significant risk of bias (inadequate dosimetry, lack of blinding, small size, and so on) and many are inconsistent with other studies.

These consistently fail to find clear evidence for adverse effects of environmental RF fields.

Frank complains about inconsistencies in public discussion of “5G”—but he makes the same error, referring to 5G without reference to the frequency band. In fact, low and midband 5G operates at frequencies close to present cellular bands and would seem to present no new exposure issues. High band 5G operates just below the mm wave range which begins at 30 GHz. Fewer bioeffects studies have been done in that frequency range, but the energy hardly penetrates the skin and health agencies have not expressed concern about its safety at ordinary exposure levels.

The FCC requires licensees to comply with its exposure limits, which are similar to those of most other countries. There is no precedent for requiring new RF technologies to be directly assessed for RF health effects before approval, which would require a potentially endless series of studies. If the FCC limits are unsafe they should be changed.

For a good review of 5G bio-effects studies see [Ken] Karipidis’s article that 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.” The review also called for more research.

So that’s what’s needed at this time? More research?

The scientific literature is uneven, but so far health agencies have not found clear evidence for health hazards from environmental RF fields. But to be sure, the scientific literature on bioeffects of millimeter waves is relatively sparse, with maybe 100 studies, and very mixed in quality.

Governments have made a lot of money selling spectrum for 5G communications, and should invest some of that in high quality health studies, particularly for high-band 5G. I am personally more concerned about possible effects of excessive screen time on child development and privacy issues.

Foster: Probably the major advance has been in computational dosimetry, with the introduction of the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method and numerical models of the body based on high resolution medical images. This allows very precise calculation of the absorption of RF energy in the body from any source. Computational dosimetry has given new life to established medical treatments such as hyperthermia for treatment of cancer, and has facilitated the development of improved MRI imaging systems and many other medical technologies.

“For a good review of 5G bio-effects studies, see [Ken] Karipidis’s article that 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.’”
—Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania
5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6

MOT perehtyi suomalaiseen Sähköherkkyyssäätiöön, joka käyttää varallisuuttaan sähkömagneettisesta säteilystä huolestuneiden neuvontaan. Säteilyltä suojaavien välineiden bisnes kasvaa 5G-pelon myötä.

Onko kännykkäsi lähettämä säteily terveydelle haitallista? Onko piakkoin käynnistyvä 5G-mobiiliverkko uhkarohkea ihmiskoe?

Riippuu keltä kysyy.

Tiedemaailman enemmistön tai WHO:n kaltaisen terveysauktoriteetin vastaus on ei.

Kännykkäsäteilyltä suojaavia välineitä myyvien kauppiaiden vastaus on kyllä.

Sähkömagneettista säteilyä kohtaan koettu epäluulo ja pelko ruokkii kasvavaa bisnestä.

– Kardiologi sanoi, että kun sydän on sähköinen elin, niin se nyt ottaa sähköhäiriötä jostain.

Haaparanta puolestaan on vakuuttunut, että oireiden syy on naapurissa sijaitsevan tukiaseman lähettämä sähkömagneettinen säteily.

Johtopäätöksen tukena on säteilyä koskeva mittausraportti. Raporttia ei ole laatinut Suomen säteilyvalvonnasta vastaava STUK, vaan 2016 perustettu Sähköherkkyyssäätiö.

Kun Haaparanta huolestui tukiasemasta, hän otti yhteyttä säätiöön, joka lähetti hänen kotiinsa insinöörin mittaamaan säteilyarvoja. Säätiön mittauspalvelu on ilmainen.

Säätiön mittausraportin mukaan Haaparannan kodin säteilymäärä oli paikoin “huono”.

– Hän sanoi, että makuuhuoneessani on niin korkeat lukemat, että hän ei suosittele sitä käytettäväksi nukkumatilana. Minä siihen että apua, siellähän minä nukun.

Sähköherkkyyssäätiön insinööri kehotti Haaparantaa vaihtamaan langattoman puhelimensa langalliseen. “Hyvä puoli tässä on se, että tämä ei säteile”

Radiotaajuuksisen säteilyn enimmäismääristä säädetään säteilylaissa. Haaparannan kodista mitattu säteily oli kaukana niistä. Sähköherkkyyssäätiö käyttää kuitenkin suosituksiaan, joissa raja-arvot ovat huomattavasti matalammat.

Nukkumapaikan vaihtamisen lisäksi Haaparannalle kerrottiin, miten hän voisi vähentää asuntonsa säteilyn määrää. Haaparanta sai säätiöltä lainaan säteilymittarin sekä säteilyä heijastavaa kangasta, jolla hän päällysti talonsa kadunpuoleiset seinät.

MOT perehtyi tarkemmin Haaparantaa neuvoneen Sähköherkkyyssäätiön toimintaan.

Sähköherkkyyssäätiön perusti vuonna 2016 Ilona Herlinin sijoitusyhtiö Polttina Oy. Ilona Herlin on Koneen toiseksi suurin osakkeenomistaja ja Suomen harvoja miljardöörejä. Herlin on myös Sähköherkkyyssäätiön puheenjohtaja.

Säätiön hallitukseen kuuluva Hanna Nurminen on puhunut avoimesti sähköherkkyydestään julkisuudessa. Myös Nurminen on sukuyhtiönsä Koneen suurimpia osakkeenomistajia.

Varallisuuttaan Sähköherkkyyssäätiö on käyttänyt esimerkiksi tukemalla tahoja, jotka kampanjoivat 5G-mobiiliteknologiaa vastaan.

“5G-matkaviestinverkon vaikutuksista huolestuneet aktiiviset kansalaiset kampanjoivat pysäyttääkseen verkon rakentamisen lisätutkimusten ajaksi. Säätiö tuki toimintaa maksamalla kampanjan mainoskuluja.”

Ote Sähköherkkyyssäätiön vuoden 2020 tilinpäätöksestä

Säätiö rahoittaa myös sähkömagneettisen säteilyn terveysriskejä selvittävää tutkimusta. Esimerkiksi vuonna 2019 säätiö myönsi 441 927 euroa Turun yliopiston radiotaajuisen säteilyn biologista vaikutusta selvittävään hankkeeseen.

Säätiön keskeisintä toimintaa on kuitenkin sähköherkkien neuvonta ja apuvälinelainaamon pyörittäminen. Ensimmäisen kolmen toimintavuotensa aikana säätiö oli lainannut apuvälineitä yli sadalle henkilölle.

Säätiö lainaa apuvälineitä ilmaiseksi. Mikäli lainaaja haluaa kokeilujakson jälkeen ostaa välineet itselleen, säätiö tarjoaa kauppiaiden yhteystietoja.

Anja Haaparannan säteilyä heijastava kangas on tuhansien eurojen arvoinen. Sen ostaminen on eläkeläiselle iso päätös.

– Mutta se sijoitus on tehtävä. Enhän minä ilman niitä tule toimeen.

Mobiilisäteilyltä suojaavat välineet ovat kasvava bisnes, joka pohjaa kyseenalaisiin väitteisiin säteilyn vaarallisuudesta.

Tarjolla kaikkea maalista vauvanmyssyihin
Haaparannan kankaan on valmistanut sveitsiläinen Swiss Shield. Yritys on valmistanut säteilyä heijastavaa kangasta 1990-luvun lopulta lähtien.

Swiss Shieldin toimitusjohtaja Henrik Tvengen mukaan kankaan kysyntä on kasvanut selvästi viime vuosina.

Tarjonnasta päätellen mobiilisäteilyltä suojaavien välineiden markkinat kasvavat maailmanlaajuisesti. Tarjolla on kaikkea säteilyä heijastavasta maalista kankaisiin ja vauvanmyssyihin.

Will 5G Be Bad for Our Health? IEEE antenna and telecommunications experts address concerns over radio frequency exposure
https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health

Citizens in several cities including Aspen, Colo.; Bern, Switzerland; San Diego, Calif.; and Totnes, England have been protesting the installation of 5G wireless base stations over concerns about the harmful effects these network nodes could have on humans, animals, and plants. They point to the potential danger of radio frequency (RF) radiation emitted from antennas installed in close proximity to people.

Protestors also cite the lack of scientific evidence showing that 5G signals, specifically those transmitting in the millimeter wave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, are safe. Today’s mobile devices operate at frequencies below 6 gigahertz, while 5G will use frequencies from 600 megahertz and above, including the millimeter wave bands between 30 GHz and 300 GHz.

Enough concern has been raised about 5G that some cities have canceled or delayed the installation of the base stations.

Members of the IEEE Future Networks Initiative, which is helping to pave the way for 5G development and deployment, took notice of these news reports. In September, the group issued a short paper titled “5G Communications Systems and Radiofrequency Exposure Limits.” The report reviews existing guidelines for RF exposure.

5G PRIMER

Most of the concerns about 5G’s supposed negative impact on health stem from its cell towers having such a different architecture than the ones supporting today’s 3G and 4G cellular networks, Waterhouse says. Those towers are kilometers apart and placed on tall, raised structures that are typically located away from populated areas. Because a 5G base station can be smaller than a backpack, it can be placed just about anywhere, such as on top of light poles, streetlights, and rooftops. That means the stations will be located near houses, apartment buildings, schools, stores, parks, and farms.

“Wireless companies are going to incorporate the devices into everyday structures, such as benches and bus stops, so they’ll be lower to the ground and closer to people,” Waterhouse says.

“There also will be more of these base stations [compared with the number of cell towers around today] because of their limited reach. A 5G millimeter network requires cell antennas to be located every 100 to 200 meters.”

That being said, one of the benefits of these small base stations is that they would not have to transmit as much power as current cell towers, because the coverage areas are smaller.

“Also, 5G base stations will only be in certain small areas, not everywhere.”

Witkowski says U.S. carriers that already have dense deployments in sub-6 GHz bands will start deployment of 5G in the K/Ka band and millimeter wave. There also will be some swapping of 3G and 4G radios for newer 5G radios.

“For the U.S. carriers that have access to vacated/re-farmed spectrum, such as T-Mobile in 600 MHz and Sprint in 2.5 GHz, their deployment strategy will be to leave 3G/4G alone for now, and add 5G into these lower bands,” Witkowski says.

EXISTING REGULATIONS

Waterhouse points to two international documents that have established safe RF exposure limits. One is the guideline from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which has been around since 1998. The IEEE C95.1, “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields” was developed by the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. and released in 2005. IEEE C95.1 covers the spectrum between 3 kilohertz and 300 GHz. The Future Networks report goes into detail about the various exposure limits for the body listed in those documents.

The ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines, which are periodically revised, were both updated this year.

Waterhouse explains that because RF from cellular sites is on the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, it’s not the kind of radiation that could damage DNA and possibly cause cancer. The only known biological impact of RF on humans is heating tissue. Excessive exposure to RF causes a person’s entire body to overheat to dangerous levels. Local exposure can damage skin tissue or corneas.

Waterhouse admits that although millimeter waves have been used for many different applications—including astronomy and military applications—the effect of their use in telecommunications is not well understood.

The general perception is that millimeter waves are safe but should still be monitored, he says.

“The majority of the scientific community does not think there’s an issue,” Waterhouse says. “However, it would be unscientific to flat out say there are no reasons to worry.”

Many opponents insist that 5G must be proven safe before regulators allow deployments. The problem with this assertion, according to Witkowski, is that it isn’t logically possible to prove anything with 100 percent certainty.

“Showering, cooking breakfast, commuting to work, eating in a restaurant, being out in public—everything we do carries risk,” he says. “Whether we’re talking about 3G, 4G, or 5G, the question of electromagnetic radiation safety (EMR) is whether the risks are manageable. The first medical studies on possible health effects from EMR started almost 60 years ago, and literally thousands of studies since then reported either no health risk or inconclusive findings. A relatively small number of studies have claimed to find some evidence of risk, but those studies have never been reproduced—and reproducibility is a key factor in good science.