The Dangers of 5G Devices: Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, By Brian Simpson

The article entitled "Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields From 5G Devices: An Analysis," published in Frontiers in Public Health (DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1058454),

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1058454/full#B4

investigates the safety of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by 5G technology, focusing on exposure levels and potential health risks. It reviews existing scientific literature, regulatory guidelines, and experimental data to assess whether 5G EMF exposure poses a significant threat to human health. The authors emphasize that 5G operates at higher frequencies (including millimetre waves, typically 24–100 GHz) compared to previous generations (e.g., 4G, which uses frequencies below 6 GHz), and this shift has sparked public concern about increased health risks.

Key points from the article include:

1.Exposure Levels: Measurements of EMF from 5G base stations and devices show that exposure remains well below the limits set by international guidelines, such as those from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These limits are designed to prevent thermal effects (tissue heating), which is the primary established biological effect of radiofrequency (RF) EMF.

2.Health Effects: The article finds no conclusive evidence linking 5G-specific frequencies to adverse health outcomes beyond thermal effects. Studies on non-thermal effects (e.g., cancer, neurological disorders) remain inconclusive, with most research showing no consistent or significant risk at current exposure levels.

3.Research Gaps: The authors acknowledge limitations in long-term data due to 5G's relatively recent deployment (as of 2023). They call for ongoing monitoring and further studies, particularly on millimetre-wave exposure, to address public concerns and refine safety standards.

4.Conclusion: Based on available evidence, the article concludes that 5G EMF exposure, under current regulatory limits, does not present a clear safety hazard. However, it stresses the importance of transparency, public education, and continued research to maintain trust and ensure safety as 5G networks expand.

While the article suggests that 5G is safe within current guidelines, several major safety concerns persist, rooted in scientific uncertainty, public perception, and potential oversights in the establishment narrative.

Insufficient Long-Term Evidence

Concern: The article admits that long-term studies on 5G-specific frequencies (especially millimetre waves) are lacking due to the technology's novelty. Most safety assurances rely on extrapolations from studies of lower-frequency EMF (e.g., 2G, 3G, 4G), which may not fully apply to 5G's unique characteristics.

Argument: This gap undermines claims of absolute safety. Biological effects from chronic, low-level exposure—particularly non-thermal effects like oxidative stress or DNA damage—may take years to manifest (e.g., cancer latency periods). Without decades of data, regulators and industry may be prematurely dismissing risks, prioritizing deployment over precaution.

1.Millimetre Waves and Skin Penetration

Concern: 5G's use of millimetre waves penetrates only the outer layers of skin (1–2 mm), unlike lower frequencies that penetrate deeper. The article notes this limits systemic exposure but doesn't fully address skin-specific risks.

Argument: Skin is a critical organ with immune and neurological functions, and concentrated energy absorption could disrupt cellular processes (e.g., inflammation, heat shock protein production). The lack of targeted studies on skin health—beyond thermal thresholds—raises a red flag, especially since 5G networks will increase the density of EMF sources (e.g., small cells near homes).

2.Non-Thermal Effects Ignored or Downplayed

Concern: The article aligns with ICNIRP's focus on thermal effects, dismissing non-thermal effects as unproven. However, a growing body of independent research suggests possible links between RF-EMF and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, or neurological symptoms (e.g., headaches, fatigue).

Argument: By sidelining non-thermal effects, the article reflects a bias toward industry-friendly standards that prioritise measurable, short-term outcomes over subtler, cumulative risks. Historical examples—like asbestos or tobacco—show that "inconclusive" evidence can later solidify into harm, suggesting a need for a precautionary approach rather than blind trust in current limits.

3.Increased Environmental Exposure

Concern: 5G requires a denser network of antennas, potentially increasing ambient EMF levels in urban areas. The article confirms compliance with guidelines but doesn't explore cumulative exposure from multiple sources (e.g., base stations, IoT devices).

Argument: Even if individual sources meet safety thresholds, the combined effect of ubiquitous 5G infrastructure could push total exposure into uncharted territory. This is particularly concerning for vulnerable populations (children, elderly, electromagnetically sensitive individuals), whose risks remain understudied.

4.Public Mistrust and Regulatory Capture

Concern: The article calls for public education to counter "misinformation," implying that safety concerns stem from ignorance. Yet, it doesn't address why distrust persists—e.g., industry influence on guidelines or regulators like the FCC and ICNIRP.

Argument: Public scepticism isn't baseless; it reflects a history of delayed acknowledgment of environmental health risks (e.g., leaded petrol). If regulatory bodies are overly aligned with telecom interests, their assurances may lack credibility, amplifying fears that 5G safety is more about economics than science.

The Frontiers in Public Health article provides a measured reassurance that 5G, as currently deployed, aligns with safety standards and lacks evidence of immediate harm. However, its reliance on short-term data, thermal-focused guidelines, and an optimistic tone overlooks legitimate concerns: the absence of long-term studies, potential skin-specific risks, unaddressed non-thermal effects, cumulative exposure, and eroded public trust. A critical examination suggests that while 5G may not be an imminent danger, declaring it unequivocally "safe" is premature. Ongoing scrutiny, independent research, and stricter precautionary measures are warranted to protect public health as this technology scales globally.

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/the-5g-safety-myth-assumed-safe-not

"The Assumption of Safety in 5G Deployment

The study argues that the rollout of 5G is based on an assumption of safety rather than conclusive scientific evidence.

Government and industry stakeholders have misinterpreted scientific uncertainty as an indication that no risks exist.

The lack of long-term health data on 5G mmWave exposure is being used to justify widespread deployment rather than as a reason for caution.

Biological and Health Risks of 5G mmWave Exposure

The study highlights findings from existing literature suggesting biological effects, including:

Oxidative Stress – Increased production of reactive oxygen species, which can lead to inflammation and cellular damage.

Immune System Effects – Potential impacts on immune function, raising concerns about biological responses to long-term exposure.

Genotoxicity – Evidence of DNA damage in some studies, though findings are not universally consistent.

Neurological Effects – Some research suggests possible changes in neuronal activity, warranting further investigation.

Cellular Disruption – Increased cell membrane permeability, which may influence various biological processes.

The study identifies biases and logical fallacies in regulatory assessments that downplay potential risks:

Faulty Analogy – Comparing 5G mmWave exposure to short-term exposures like airport scanners, ignoring key differences in frequency, modulation, and duration.

Red Herring – Emphasizing that mmWaves only penetrate a few millimetres into the skin while overlooking their potential systemic effects through neural and immune pathways.

Appeal to Ignorance – Concluding that because definitive harm has not been proven, 5G must be safe, rather than acknowledging that safety has not been established.

Regulatory and Scientific Integrity Concerns

Industry Influence – Many safety assessments are based on reviews that disproportionately cite industry-funded studies, which tend to report fewer adverse effects.

ICNIRP Guidelines – The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) focuses primarily on thermal effects, ignoring potential non-thermal biological effects.

Lack of Transparency – Many relevant studies showing biological effects have been excluded from key safety reviews, limiting the scope of risk assessment.

Independent Research – The study calls for rigorous, independent research to properly evaluate the long-term health effects of 5G.

Reevaluation of Safety Standards – Current guidelines must account for both thermal and non-thermal effects to ensure adequate public protection.

Precautionary Principle – Given the limited but concerning evidence of biological effects, policies should prioritize safety first, rather than waiting for definitive proof of harm.

Public Awareness – More transparency is needed in communicating the actual state of scientific knowledge regarding 5G risks.

As the authors conclude,

The potential long-term health risks from global EMF continue to rise as exposures in the built environment increase in time and density. Mankind has chosen to base the justification for this rollout on shaky foundations, where there is minimal understanding of the impact of new radiofrequencies being introduced into the environment on long-term human and planetary health."