Is 5G completely safe and secure?
Is 5G radiation more or less dangerous than currently used 2G/3G/4G?
Just read this article and advice also other people to read (including two earler articles referenced). It tries to cover both the sides that say 5G is safe and 5G could potentially dangerous. But does it succeed in covering that properly?
https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4462072/Does-5G-pose-health-risks—part-3-
Part 1 examined the potential ionization and thermal health risks posed by 5G. These are the conventional risks widely recognized and well controlled.
Part 2 examined electromagnetic (EM) effects. Here, the outcome was not so clear.
144 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Check also earlier post
http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/2019/04/06/does-5g-pose-health-risks-edn/comment-page-1/#comment-1644768
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G has already been source lots bad quallty news articles – repeating vague marketing promises, technically incorrect and lots of FUD
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
A discussion of mmWave and terahertz signals would not be complete without mentioning health issues and the need for further study. On the biological front, the paper’s authors say that “heating is believed to be the only primary cancer risk” but much work is needed to “understand the biological and molecular impact of THz radiation on human health, even though THz is three orders of magnitude lower in frequency that ionizing radiation,” that being X-ray radiation.
Source: https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4462105/Initial-6G-work-is-underway
Tomi Engdahl says:
Berliinissä naapurini ahdistuu kännykkämastosta – Saksassa 5G-verkko herättää Suomea enemmän kysymyksiä
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10893215
Parhaillaan rakennettava 5G-verkko on Euroopassa niin iso puheenaihe, että Venäjäkin näkee siinä hämmentämispotentiaalin.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Stupid is as stupid does.
Orkney pupils kept at home over 5G mobile health fears
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-49401068
Two families are keeping their children from going to a school in Orkney amid concerns about a 5G mast.
But regulators insist there is no risk to public health.
Its head of digital communications, Ian Walker, said in a letter to parents: “The equipment we’re using for the 5G broadcast radio trial is based around 4G technology, which is widely used across the UK, and the radio frequencies being used are the same that are used to broadcast TV.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391
Those hawking specious safety concerns about the new technology have found common cause with some of America’s most powerful mayors
Jack Tibbetts, a member of the Santa Rosa, Calif., city council, knew he had a problem. It was early 2018, and he’d started getting calls from constituents at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The common thread: cellular antennas going up next to their homes, causing concerns over property values and health.
Tomi Engdahl says:
It looks like many frear-mongrters follow the conspiracy theorist logic that if it new, slightly more complicated than you can understand and offers fast Internet, it must be lethally dangerous and no scientifically sound proof is needed for that.
This is the logic that has been “successfully” applied to 3G, 4G, 5G and earlier WiFi.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://medium.com/@tomsparks/is-5g-dangerous-405a19e9ea88
Tomi Engdahl says:
Saying that we haven’t studied 5G long enough to see if it has adverse health effects is like saying we haven’t done enough studies to see if 40C water will cause burns. Like water temperature, we know at what frequencies electromagnetic radiation becomes dangerous, and it’s much higher than where 5G sits. https://www.androidauthority.com/5g-dangers-895776/ (Image:Jose Conejo Saenz (CC))
Tomi Engdahl says:
Huawei believes banning it from 5G will make countries insecure
https://www.zdnet.com/article/huawei-believes-banning-it-from-5g-will-make-countries-insecure/
Chinese giant warns of potential for backdoors in 6G thanks to AI.
Huawei may be lacking 5G contracts and 100 former employees in Australia as a result of its banning in 2018, but one thing it is certainly not lacking is gumption.
“Blocking companies from certain countries does nothing to make Australia any safer from cybersecurity issues — in fact it just makes things worse because they are not addressing the real issues on cybersecurity,” Soldani said
The CTSO warned that thanks to Huawei being ahead of its rivals in 6G research, it could see how insecure those networks could potentially be as the attack surface becomes larger.
“With the converge of management and control plane, AI will poses a significant impact on network security, as it might be exploited to launch more effective attacks, and in some scenarios, the security of AI systems is a matter of life and death,” he said
Tomi Engdahl says:
The following text from the article seems to be clear indication that we are dealing here with pseudoscience:
“It seems that all types of human-made EMFs and electromagnetic radiation (EMR), in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR, are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, possibly due to their ability to generate constructive interference forces, which magnify their concentrations at many places.”
Article link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/09/09/an-electromagnetic-health-crisis/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Valerie/#76616c657269
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is the following paper science or pseudo-science?
Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
“In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR – in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR – are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity”
“These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR. This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution”
“A large and increasing number of studies during the past few decades have indicated a variety of adverse biological effects to be triggered by exposure to man-made EMFs, especially of radio frequency (RF)/microwaves, and extremely low frequency (ELF).”
“Solar EMR intensity incident upon a human body ranges normally between 8 and 24 mW/cm2 (depending on season, atmospheric conditions, geographical location, etc) “
Tomi Engdahl says:
Woman with ‘Wi-Fi allergy’ sleeps in $500 copper sleeping bag
https://nypost.com/2019/09/27/woman-with-wi-fi-allergy-sleeps-in-500-copper-sleeping-bag/?utm_campaign=iosapp&utm_source=facebook_app
A woman who claims to be allergic to Wi-Fi is asking her hometown to discontinue their wireless internet to ease her condition
Rosi Gladwell, 70, currently spends much of her time tucked inside a copper and silver thread sleeping bag, which cost her $500, to avoid electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by modern technology such as Wi-Fi and cellphones. She’s worried that the rollout of 5G in her current residence in the UK may cause irreversible damage to her health.
Gladwell has spent hundreds on gear to protect her against electromagnetic radiation, such as a $250 radiation detector, according to the Sun. She frequently travels with her husband to her remote hometown in Spain via ferry, where she stays wrapped for 30 hours in a protective sheet. She launched a campaign in her hometown of Polopus, near Granada in Spain, in hopes they will shut down their citywide Wi-Fi, reports the Olive Press.
She says she began to feel unwell six years ago — then suddenly felt better after switching off her Wi-Fi and cordless phones.
Tomi Engdahl says:
It seems EMF sensivity is a true thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is 5G bad for your health? It’s complicated, say researchers
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/5g-bad-your-health-it-s-complicated-say-researchers.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=share
Countries such as Switzerland, the UK and Germany are already rolling out next generation networks. 5G is projected to be 100 times faster than 4G and would allow new technologies such as connected cars and augmented reality to flourish. But despite the big promises, concerns about its potential health effects are also growing.
So how different is 5G and could it impact our health? The reality, experts say, is complex.
‘We have been involved in hundreds of studies about electromagnetic radiation and human health,’ said Professor Niels Kuster, founder and director of the Swiss IT’IS Foundation. He was project coordinator for ARIMMORA, a study into the relation between the electromagnetic radiation emitted by power lines and childhood leukaemia.
Non-ionising radiation can affect us in two ways, according to Prof. Kuster. Just like a microwave oven heats food using non-ionising radiation, telecom gear can do the same to the human body if it emits too much.
‘That’s well understood scientifically and there are clear safety guidelines for this,’
We have less of an understanding of the second way in which non-ionising radiation can affect us – how it interferes with us biologically, says Prof. Kuster.
Prof. Kuster says that there is very little clear scientific evidence showing that radiation causes the exhibited symptoms associated with electrohypersensitivity. The World Health Organization noted that double-blind studies have been unable to establish a correlation.
The evidence around cancer is, however, more difficult to interpret. Several large-scale epidemiological studies showed mixed results.
‘no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones’
Some animal or lab-based cell studies have shown certain negative health effects from radiation. This eventually led the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify electromagnetic radiation as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans.’
This may sound scary but refers largely to uncertainty in the results.
Tomi Engdahl says:
European risk report flags 5G security challenges
https://tcrn.ch/2VsfbnX
European Union Member States have published a joint risk assessment report into 5G technology which highlights increased security risks that will require a new approach to securing telecoms infrastructure.
But the report flags risks to 5G from what it couches as “non-EU state or state-backed actors” — which can be read as diplomatic code for Huawei. Though, as some industry watchers have been quick to point out, the label could be applied rather closer to home in the near future, should Brexit comes to pass…
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=62132
Tomi Engdahl says:
Amid security concerns, the European Union puts 5G — and Huawei — under the microscope
https://tcrn.ch/2Mxuvf4
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is 5G bad for your health? It’s complicated, say researchers
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/5g-bad-your-health-it-s-complicated-say-researchers.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/01/08/20000-satellites-for-5g-to-be-launched-sending-focused-beams-of-intense-microwave-radiation-over-entire-earth/
Oh look, more 5g fearmongering
Tomi Engdahl says:
Depending on who you believe 5G can cure or kill us. Or it can help business to grow or be quite useless for the applications it is marketed for.
The only thing that you can be sure of is that there are lots of fake news on 5G everywhere.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G is non-ionizing radiation. If that killed people, the golden age of radio would have wiped out all life on Earth.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718301007
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718301007
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ericsson 5G Blackbox
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ErQlwCfUP0&feature=youtu.be
Ericsson is offering the hackers a unique opportunity to test state-of-the-art next-generation telecom equipment that enables use cases like smart manufacturing and remote health care. This challenge offers a unique opportunity to get your hands-on Ericsson’s 5G radio infrastructure to see if you can hack it. Can you find any vulnerabilities?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://ultrahack.org/5gcyberhack
Tomi Engdahl says:
“The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation” — Dr Devra Davis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
The Lecture
What are the health effects of mobile phones and wireless radiation? While Australia has led the world in safety standards, including compulsory seat-belt legislation, plain packaging on cigarettes, and product and food disclosure legislation, it falls behind in addressing the significant issues associated with mobile phone use. In this Dean’s Lecture, epidemiologist and electromagnetic radiation expert, Dr Devra Davis, will outline the evolution of the mobile phone and smartphone, and provide a background to the current 19 year old radiation safety standards (SAR), policy developments and international legislation. New global studies on the health consequences of mobile/wireless radiation will be presented, including children’s exposure and risks.
Tomi Engdahl says:
As 5G Rolls Out, Troubling New Security Flaws Emerge
Researchers have identified 11 new vulnerabilities in 5G—with time running out to fix them.
https://www.wired.com/story/5g-vulnerabilities-downgrade-attacks/
It’s not yet prime time for 5G networks, which still face logistical and technical hurdles, but they’re increasingly coming online in major cities worldwide. Which is why it’s especially worrying that new 5G vulnerabilities are being discovered almost by the dozen.
The researchers from Purdue University and the University of Iowa are detailing 11 new design issues in 5G protocols that could expose your location, downgrade your service to old mobile data networks, run up your wireless bills, or even track when you make calls, text, or browse the web. They also found five additional 5G vulnerabilities that carried over from 3G and 4G. They identified all of those flaws with a new custom tool called 5GReasoner.
One purported benefit of 5G is that it protects phone identifiers, like your device’s “international mobile subscriber identity,” to help prevent tracking or targeted attacks. But downgrade attacks like the ones the researchers found can bump your device down to 4G or put it into limited service mode, then force it to send its IMSI number unencrypted.
The researchers submitted their findings to the standards body GSMA, which is working on fixes.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.rfpage.com/what-are-5g-frequency-bands/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Then there was THIS ” brilliant ” decision.
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=21764
NOAA, NASA, and the Navy have raised concerns with Congress that the new 24 GHz radio frequency band for 5G may interfere with critical water vapor sensors on US weather satellites. The 24 GHz band is one several new mmWave bands the FCC is making available for mmWave 5G service. Verizon and AT&T are deploying 5G this year in the 28 and 39 GHz mmWave bands. The FCC’s auction of the 24 GHz band is expected to conclude on May 28th. The weather sensors in question operate at 23.8 GHz. The new 24 GHz band being auctioned spans 24.25 — 25.25 GHz
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/news-from-around-ieee/the-institute/ieee-member-news/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health
Tomi Engdahl says:
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 cancelled or delayed the installation of the base stations.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/news-from-around-ieee/the-institute/ieee-member-news/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Microwaves sit 100 times below Australia’s EME safety limit, and 5G is one or two orders of magnitude safer.”
[https://www.zdnet.com/article/5g-radiation-no-worse-than-microwaves-or-baby-monitors-australian-telcos/?](https://www.zdnet.com/article/5g-radiation-no-worse-than-microwaves-or-baby-monitors-australian-telcos/)
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.uusiteknologia.fi/2019/11/29/5g-verkkojen-tietoturvariskit-listattu-oulu-testaa-ongelmat/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/5g-radiation-no-worse-than-microwaves-or-baby-monitors-australian-telcos/
Tomi Engdahl says:
New Attacks Against 4G, 5G Mobile Networks Re-Enable IMSI Catchers
https://thehackernews.com/2019/02/location-tracking-imsi-catchers.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
IEMI – Threat of Intentional Electromagnetic Interference
https://5g.security/cyber-kinetic/threat-of-iemi/
As our cities, our transportation, our energy and manufacturing – our everything – increasingly embrace Internet of Things (IoT) and Industrial Controls Systems (ICS), securing its underlying cyber-physical systems (CPS) grows ever more crucial. Yet, even among engineers and cybersecurity specialists, one potential attack trajectory is often overlooked: Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI).
ICS and IoT – digital systems that run today’s modern society – rely on changes in electrical charges flowing through physical equipment.
electromagnetic wave-based communication can be disturbed or stopped by external electromagnetic interference (EMI) sources causing unpredictable results.
The industry has established a number of legal requirements and standards for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). The goal is to ensure correct operation of devices in common electromagnetic environment and resilience to unintentional EMI. With the exception of aircrafts, these EMC requirements are typically not sufficient to protect against intentional electromagnetic interferences (IEMI) generated by malicious actors in order to disrupt performance of electronic equipment. This might invite terrorists, criminals and other adversaries to intentionally interfere or damage critically important CPSes such as telecommunications, power networks, financial systems, medical care, broadcast media, industrial plants, traffic control systems, food and water supply, critical manufacturing, mass transit and others.
IEMI was until the turn of the millennium essentially a military concern but have since then generated quite a lot of interest in the civil arena. Capabilities of IEMI attackers have been growing steadily over the last two decades. On the other hand, growing complexity and distribution of CPSes and decreasing power requirements for the devices that make up the Internet of Things (IoT) make it increasingly possible to connect more and more components of our physical world to monitoring and control devices. This provides a growing pool of increasingly vulnerable targets for attackers. Together, these few trends increase the threat of IEMI attacks exponentially.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.uusiteknologia.fi/2019/12/12/vuoden-turhake-on-korjauskelvoton-elektroniikka/
Suomen luonnonsuojeluliiton aikakauslehti on valinnut vuoden 2019 turhakkeeksi korjauskelvottoman elektroniikan.
Äänestyksessä turhakkeiksi oli ehdolla myös 5G ja 5G:n säteily.
Tomi Engdahl says:
[<](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html?partner=IFTTT)>
The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t
How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology.
Credit…Golden Cosmos
By William J. Broad
July 16, 2019
172
In 2000, the Broward County Public Schools in Florida received an alarming report. Like many affluent school districts at the time, Broward was considering laptops and wireless networks for its classrooms and 250,000 students. Were there any health risks to worry about?
The district asked Bill P. Curry, a consultant and physicist, to study the matter. The technology, he reported back, was “likely to be a serious health hazard.” He summarized his most troubling evidence in a large graph labeled “Microwave Absorption in Brain Tissue (Grey Matter).”
The chart showed the dose of radiation received by the brain as rising from left to right, with the increasing frequency of the wireless signal. The slope was gentle at first, but when the line reached the wireless frequencies associated with computer networking, it shot straight up, indicating a dangerous level of exposure.
“This graph shows why I am concerned,” Dr. Curry wrote. The body of his report detailed how the radio waves could sow brain cancer, a terrifying disease that kills most of its victims.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Over the years, Dr. Curry’s warning spread far, resonating with educators, consumers and entire cities as the frequencies of cellphones, cell towers and wireless local networks rose. To no small degree, the blossoming anxiety over the professed health risks of 5G technology can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart.
Except that Dr. Curry and his graph got it wrong.
According to experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, radio waves become safer at higher frequencies, not more dangerous. (Extremely high-frequency energies, such as X-rays, behave differently and do pose a health risk.)
In his research, Dr. Curry looked at studies on how radio waves affect tissues isolated in the lab, and misinterpreted the results as applying to cells deep inside the human body. His analysis failed to recognize the protective effect of human skin. At higher radio frequencies, the skin acts as a barrier, shielding the internal organs, including the brain, from exposure. Human skin blocks the even higher frequencies of sunlight.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
[Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]
“It doesn’t penetrate,” said Christopher M. Collins, a professor of radiology at New York University who studies the effect of high-frequency electromagnetic waves on humans. Dr. Curry’s graph, he added, failed to take into account “the shielding effect.”
Dr. Marvin C. Ziskin, an emeritus professor of medical physics at Temple University School of Medicine, agreed. For decades, Dr. Ziskin explored whether such high frequencies could sow illness. Many experiments, he said, support the safety of high-frequency waves.
Despite the benign assessment of the medical establishment, Dr. Curry’s flawed reports were amplified by alarmist websites, prompted articles linking cellphones to brain cancer and served as evidence in lawsuits urging the removal of wireless classroom technology. In time, echoes of his reports fed Russian news sites noted for stoking misinformation about 5G technology. What began as a simple graph became a case study in how bad science can take root and flourish.
“I still think there are health effects,” Dr. Curry said in an interview. “The federal government needs to look at it more closely.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
An authoritative mistake
Dr. Curry was not the first to endorse the idea that advances in wireless technology could harbor unforeseen risks. In 1978, Paul Brodeur, an investigative journalist, published “The Zapping of America,” which drew on suggestive but often ambiguous evidence to argue that the growing use of high frequencies could endanger human health.
In contrast, Dr. Curry’s voice was authoritative. He became a private consultant in the 1990s after federal budget cuts brought his research career to an end. He had degrees in physics (1959 and 1965) and electrical engineering (1990). His credentials and decades of experience at federal and industrial laboratories, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, seemed to make him a very strong candidate to conduct the Broward study.
FROM TOP STORIES| SEE MORE
Trump’s Defense Team Calls Impeachment Charges ‘Brazen’ as Democrats Make Legal Case
Jan. 18, 2020
Ukraine’s President Said He’d Fight Corruption. Resistance Is Fierce.
Jan. 19, 2020
These Syrian Women Rarely Left the House. Then the Men Disappeared.
Jan. 19, 2020
How 17 Outsize Portraits Rattled a Small Southern Town
Jan. 19, 2020
Harry and Meghan Give Up Royal Titles, Forgo State Funding
Jan. 18, 2020
What Did Virginia Learn From Charlottesville?
Jan. 18, 2020
Trump on Virginia Gun Dispute: 2nd Amendment ‘Under Very Serious Attack’
Jan. 18, 2020
11 of Our Best Weekend Reads
Jan. 18, 2020
“He was a very bright guy,” recalled Gary Brown, an expert in the district’s technology unit who worked with Dr. Curry to prepare the reports. But Dr. Curry lacked biological expertise. He could solve atomic and electromagnetic puzzles with ease, but he had little or no formal training in the intricacies of biomedical research.
In 2000, Dr. Curry, writing on letterhead from his home office in the Chicago suburbs, sent the Broward district two reports, the first in February 2000 and the second in September of that year. The latter study went to the superintendent, the school board and the district’s head of safety and risk management.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The frequency graph in the second report was far more detailed. Its rising line bore annotations noting the precise locations for the wireless-network dose and, far lower down, for radio, television and cellphone signals.
5G’s Place in the Spectrum
The newest generation of cellphones, 5G, will operate near the highest frequencies of the radio wave spectrum. Lower down in the spectrum are wireless networks used in homes and schools.
Electromagnetic
spectrum
FREQUENCY
GAMMA
RAYS
300 GHz
Novel EHF
therapies
X-RAYS
UV
VISIBLE
LIGHT
30 GHz
INFRARED
Airport
scanners
300 GHz
5G
RADIO WAVE
SPECTRUM
5 GHz
BANDS USED
FOR WIRELESS
NETWORKS
2.4 GHz
Existing
cellphones
3 KHz
ULTRA LOW
FREQUENCY
Broadcast
television
(UHF)
300 MHz
By The New York Times | Sources: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Academies of Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Congressional Research Service, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Over all, Dr. Curry’s reports cast the emerging topic as crucial for public health. He warned that children were especially vulnerable to the cancer risk of wireless technology. “Their brains are developing,” he noted in his first report.
Dr. Curry belonged to a national group of wireless critics, and his two reports for the Broward district soon began to circulate widely among industry foes. One reached Dr. David O. Carpenter, who for decades had clashed with the science establishment on the health risks of radio waves.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Dr. Carpenter’s credentials were impressive. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1959 and cum laude from its medical school in 1964. From 1985 to 1997, he served as dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York in Albany, and in 2001 became director of its Institute for Health and the Environment, where he still works. His resumé lists hundreds of journal reports, jobs, grants, awards, advisory boards, books and legal declarations.
Dr. Carpenter stirred global controversy in the 1980s by asserting that high-voltage power lines could cause leukemia in nearby children. He appeared as an authority in Mr. Brodeur’s 1989 book, “Currents of Death.” But federal researchers failed to find solid evidence to support the warnings.
In late 2011, Dr. Carpenter introduced Dr. Curry’s graph in a lawsuit that sought to force the Portland, Ore., public schools to abandon their wireless computer networks. The suit had been filed by a worried parent.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
As an expert witness, Dr. Carpenter said in a legal declaration on Dec. 20, 2011, that the graph showed how the brain’s absorption of radio-wave energy “increases exponentially” as wireless frequencies rise, calling it evidence of grave student danger. The graph “illustrates the problem with the drive of the wireless industry toward ever higher frequencies,” he said.
In response to such arguments, the industry noted that it obeys government safety rules. The judge in the Portland case said the court had no jurisdiction over federal regulatory matters, and dismissed the lawsuit.
Despite the setback, Dr. Carpenter’s 2011 declaration, which included Dr. Curry’s graph, kept drawing attention. In 2012, he introduced it as part of his testimony to a Michigan state board assessing wireless dangers, and it soon began circulating online among wireless critics.
And he saw a new danger. Between 2010 and 2012, the frequencies of the newest generation of cellphones, 4G, rose past those typical of the day’s wireless networks. Dr. Carpenter now had a much larger and seemingly more urgent target, especially since cellphones were often held snugly against the head.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“There is now much more evidence of risks to health, affecting billions of people,” he said in introducing a 1,400-page report on wireless dangers that he edited with an aide. “The status quo is not acceptable.”
His BioInitiative Report, released in late 2012, gained worldwide notice. But mainstream science rejected its conclusions. Two Oxford University researchers described it as “scientifically discredited.”
A ‘fact’ is born
Unbowed, Dr. Carpenter worked hard to revise established science. In 2012, he became editor in chief of Reviews on Environmental Health, a quarterly journal. He published several authors who filed alarmist reports, as well as his own.
“The rapid increase in the use of cellphones increases risk of cancer, male infertility, and neurobehavioral abnormalities,” Dr. Carpenter wrote in 2013.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
In subsequent years, as the frequencies of wireless devices continued to rise, an associated risk of brain cancer was repeated uncritically, often without attribution to Dr. Curry or Dr. Carpenter. Instead, it came to be regarded by activists as an established fact of modern science.
“The higher the frequency, the more dangerous,” according to Radiation Health Risks, a website, in reference to signals from 5G towers. The idea was echoed by a similar website, 5G Exposed — “Higher frequencies are more dangerous to health” — on a page entitled “Scientific Discussion.” Over all, the site bristled with brain-cancer warnings.
Recently, Dr. Carpenter told RT America, a Russian television network, that the newest cellphones represented a dire health threat. “The rollout of 5G is very frightening,” he said. “Nobody is going to be able to escape the radiation.”
In recent months, the network has run a series of segments critical of 5G technology. “The higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms,” a RT reporter told viewers in March. The show described children as particularly vulnerable.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The new cellphones are to employ a range of radio frequencies up to dozens of times higher than those Dr. Curry identified two decades ago as endangering student health. But mainstream scientists continue to see no evidence of harm from cellphone radio waves.
“If phones are linked to cancer, we’d expect to see a marked uptick,” David Robert Grimes, a cancer researcher at the University of Oxford, wrote recently in The Guardian. “Yet we do not.”
In a recent interview, Dr. Carpenter defended his high-frequency view. “You have all this evidence that cellphone radiation penetrates the brain,” he said. But he conceded after some discussion that the increasingly high frequencies could in fact have a difficult time entering the human body: “There’s some legitimacy to that point of view.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
He noted that, in cities, 5G service requires the placement of many antenna towers, because walls, buildings, rain, leaves and other objects can block the high-frequency signals. “That’s why they put the towers so close together,” he said. “The waves don’t penetrate.” If human skin also blocks 5G signals, Dr. Carpenter acknowledged, “maybe it’s not that big a deal.”
Dr. Curry, now 82, was less forthcoming. In an interview, he said he no longer follows the wireless industry and disavowed any knowledge of having made a scientific error.
“They can say whatever they want,” Dr. Curry said of his detractors. “I’ll leave it to the young in the business and let them figure it out.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Site Index
Go to Home Page »
NEWS
OPINION
ARTS
LIVING
LISTINGS & MORE
Site Information Navigation
© 2020 The New York Times Company
NYTCoContact UsWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioYour Ad ChoicesPrivacyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapHelpSubscriptions
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html?partner=IFTTT
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.uusiteknologia.fi/2020/01/20/kannykoiden-terveysvaikutuksia-tutkitaan-5g-mukaan/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://etn.fi/index.php/13-news/10350-sateilylla-pelottelu-ei-lopu-huomenna-mielenosoitus-new-yorkissa
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.stuk.fi/aiheet/matkapuhelimet-ja-tukiasemat
Tomi Engdahl says:
oliohattu vaimentaa monia taajuuksia, mutta jos huonosti käy se voi jopa tän jutun mukaan voimistaa esimerkiksi 5G käytössä olevaa 2.6 GHz taajuusaluetta https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Switzerland halts rollout of 5G over health concerns
The country’s environment agency has called time on the use of all new towers
https://www.ft.com/content/848c5b44-4d7a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5?fbclid=IwAR2BQhrRsUWUH2SZ7_M2XOcu4EiBNXTX1e8RZgCNlC6HH4-c6J4gkMzuVX0
Switzerland, one of the world’s leaders in the rollout of 5G mobile technology, has placed an indefinite moratorium on the use of its new network because of health concerns.
a letter sent by the Swiss environment agency, Bafu, to the country’s cantonal governments at the end of January, has now in effect called time on the use of all new 5G towers
Bafu has said it cannot yet provide universal criteria without further testing of the impact of 5G radiation.
The agency said it was “not aware of any standard worldwide” that could be used to benchmark recommendations. “Therefore Bafu will examine exposure through adaptive [5G] antennas in depth, if possible in real-world operational conditions. This work will take some time,” it said.
Swiss law on the effects of radiation from telecoms masts is broadly in line with that of European peers, but specifies the application of more stringent precautionary measures in certain cases.
Tomi Engdahl says:
foliohattu vaimentaa monia taajuuksia, mutta jos huonosti käy se voi jopa tän jutun mukaan voimistaa esimerkiksi 5G käytössä olevaa 2.6 GHz taajuusaluetta https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.stuk.fi/aiheet/matkapuhelimet-ja-tukiasemat/matkapuhelimet
Ultraviolettinen ja radioaktiivinen aiheuttaa syöpää koska ne rikkoo solujenmolekyylejä. Kännykkäsäteilyllä ei ole tällaista vaikutusta. Radion kuuntelukaan ei aiheuta syöpää
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tin Foil Hats Actually Make it Easier for the Government to Track Your Thoughts
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/262998/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Your iPhone 11 Pro Emits Twice the Amount of Radiation for Safe Use
Should you be worried?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a30857609/iphone-11-pro-radiation/
RF Exposure Lab in San Marcos, California found that the iPhone 11 Pro emits over twice the FCC’s legal safety limit for radiofrequency radiation from a cell phone.
The testing builds on former investigative work by the Chicago Tribune, which also found that an iPhone 7—and other smartphones— exceeded federal radiation levels.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5G is not going to microwave your brain: All the myths, debunked (Updated)
https://www.androidauthority.com/5g-dangers-895776/
With the transition to new networking technology, some familiar scare stories are reemerging. You might even have seen a few in the comments here. “5G will give you cancer,” “mmWave technology leads to brain tumors,” and “smartphones are microwaving our bodies,” or so the stories go.
It’s all hogwash.
Many of the persistent myths about cell tower radiation still hang over the industry from as far back as the 2G days. Many are wrongly concerned about the dangers even faster 5G technologies.
There’s a major difference between safe radiation and the bad type associated with places like Chernobyl or X-ray machines. This is the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
The FCC’s safe limit for mobile phones is a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.6 watts per kg (1.6 W/kg) of mass, nowhere near enough to warm up your body.
ICNIRP guidelines used in Europe and most other countries set this limit at around 2.0 W/kg. These are the absolute legal limits of exposure. Most of the time the real-world values are significantly lower
In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared cellphones as a Class 2B carcinogen, meaning the technology may be linked to cancer. This does not instantly imply the level of exposure from commercial products is dangerous. Other Class 2B carcinogens include pickles, aloe vera leaf extract, and being a firefighter.
There have been no conclusive results indicating mobile technologies are eminently dangerous to humans, many astroturfers rely on how difficult it is to contextualize scientific results to make wild claims that go unchecked for a long time. In particular, they often cite one specific study as “proof” for their misinformation.
the overwhelming evidence points to the safety of cellphones and technologies like Bluetooth and WiFi
What about 5G and mmWave?
There is no compelling evidence linking cellular networks cancer, but what about upcoming 5G technologies. Most of these frequencies occupy existing low frequency and Wi-Fi bands, so there aren’t really any new risks. Higher frequency mmWave technologies still don’t reach close to ionizing wavelengths and the technology actually extends further away from the maximum human RF absorption frequency of about 70MHz.
MmWave will mostly deploy in the 24 to 29GHz spectrum, which suffers from very high reflection rates. Therefore, energy absorption is confined to the surface layers of the skin rather than deeper tissue touched by lower frequencies. Penetrating bones or the skull is out of the question, so you can throw out those brain tumor arguments.
mmWave 5G devices are bound by the same safety standards as existing 4G LTE, Bluetooth, and WiFi products
The FCC’s FR safety regulations apply all the way up to 100GHz, so mmWave 5G devices are bound by the same safety standards and energy limits as existing 4G LTE, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi products
Still unconvinced?
Scare stories make for popular headlines, but the reality is that small pieces of potential evidence are often quickly blown out of proportion. The most popularly cited research papers on the issue have major faults.