Is 5G Technology Really A Health Risk?

[JeanTate]

From that Epoch Times article we read:



Find Dr. Pall's paper "5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them" here: https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards--dr-martin-l.-pall--eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf and more here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Pall

See video with Dr. Pall, "Dr. Martin Pall To The NIH: 'The 5G Rollout Is Absolutely Insane.'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsUWbUB6PE

MH, a straightforward question for which I’d like a straightforward answer: are you prepared to discuss the technical (scientific) details of these, um, claims?

 

[Reality Check]

Science is not opinions stated by a scientist in long YouTube video

From that Epoch Times article we read:

A bad source (The Epoch Times) citing a deluded source - a "peaceinspace" blog with a "There is substantive evidence of a planned and ongoing massive depopulation of targeted human communities using a roll-out of 5G+ devices and DEW directed energy weapons" on the main page !
Science is not a book written by a Dr. Pall in a PDF hosted on a deluded "peaceinspace" web site !
A book is not a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper.
Science is not opinions by this Dr. Martin L Pall in a YouTube video.

Dr. Martin L Pall is a retired professor of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences with an idea about EMFs causing "life threatening cardiac effects", "very early onset dementias, including Alzheimer’s, digital and other types of dementias", "ADHD and autism", etc. He has a theory about voltage-gated calcium channels being the mechanism via which EMFs do that. We can only hope that his book being on a deluded web site is them stealing it rather than him willingly giving it to them.

 

[MattNelson]

MH? Claims? I'm an English B.A. I'll try to discuss anything with you to further everyone's understanding of this controversial issue.

 

[MattNelson]

Good catch before I edited my post with another link to the same paper on another site. We're talking about a Ph.D. who spent a good portion of his life researching this. Your dismissal requires matching credentials. What are yours, Reality Check?

 

[Reality Check]

MH? Claims? I'm an English B.A. I'll try to discuss anything with you to further everyone's understanding of this controversial issue.

Good. Then start with citing Dr. Martin Pall's relevant published scientific papers so that we can discuss them in a thread about 5G technology.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

MH? Claims? I'm an English B.A. I'll try to discuss anything with you to further everyone's understanding of this controversial issue.

Cool.

Let’s start with this simple question: in your sources, what is the frequency (or wavelength, if you prefer) range of the “5G”?

In what units is the intensity (or flux, or luminosity, or ...) measured?

In that “5G” frequency band, what other sources are there? Please include both man-made and natural (e.g. the Sun).

 

[Reality Check]

Good catch before I edited my post with another link to the same paper on another site.

Again with the "paper" error - it is a personal PDF on a few web sites.

We're talking about a Ph.D. who spent a good portion of his life researching this.

Wrong - we're talking about a Ph.D. who spent a good portion of his life researching other things. You have not cited a single paper by Pall relevant to this thread. You have not even extracted his relevant papers to 5G technology papers from his PDF.

Your dismissal requires matching credentials. What are yours, Reality Check?

My dismissal requires the fact you have not cited any scientific literature relevant to his thread.

Credentials are irrelevant. You have an English B.A. but that does not mean that you do not understand what you cite. I have an M.Sc. but that does not mean that I understand what you cite. What is relevant is what experts in the field write about what you cite.

 

[JeanTate]

Good catch before I edited my post with another link to the same paper on another site. We're talking about a Ph.D. who spent a good portion of his life researching this. Your dismissal requires matching credentials. What are yours, Reality Check?

I think you are new to this, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board of the ISF.

Here, we like to insist on primary sources, which is usually (but not always) a paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal. Many of us are both comfortable and familiar with such sources.

Asking for “credentials”, but not discussing content, is IMHO a poor way to begin.

 

[MattNelson]

Thanks.


Cool.

Let’s start with this simple question: in your sources, what is the frequency (or wavelength, if you prefer) range of the “5G”?

In what units is the intensity (or flux, or luminosity, or ...) measured?

In that “5G” frequency band, what other sources are there? Please include both man-made and natural (e.g. the Sun).

5G uses a number of frequencies. Here's a good snapshot of them, by country. (source is a slide by Polish engineer Pawel Wypychowski here) I'm not clear on how the lower bands (600-700 MHz and 3.3-7.1 GHz) are used in combination with the higher (24-71 GHz) millimeter waves, but I know the lower offer more coverage area than the higher. Your last question seems like you have a specific answer in mind, so how about you go ahead and share? ☺

 

[MattNelson]

Again with the "paper" error - it is a personal PDF on a few web sites..
..
You have not cited a single paper by Pall relevant to this thread. You have not even extracted his relevant papers to 5G technology papers from his PDF.

I appreciate your high standards for source info. I will do more research and find better, more original sources. Yet the content to fuel our discussion does seem to be there, conveniently disregarded by such standards.

 

[catsmate]

I was unable to find a discussion here relating to 5G technology. So, I thought I'd start one.

There are those who claim 5G technology emits extremely high levels of radiation and that it causes reduced fertility and cancer, etc.

(If really pressed for time, begin the video below at 15:30.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdsIY5ixxyw

Conspiracy theory?

Genuine risk to health?

What are your thought?

It's rubbish.

Rather OT, but I feel a better question might be just how much 5G is hype (including the rollout schedule)?

Secure IoT backbone? Please!

Coverage as good as 4G? In your dreams!

Etc.

1. Lots of hype. Be skeptical.
2. Wrt the rollout schedule I can't speak about the US. In Europe it's going ahead fairly well.
3. There's been a lot of interest in IoT security and much emphasis on it. The main problems are always going to be cheap, mass markets, consumer devices.
4. Almost certainly not, especially in rural areas. In urban centres the coverage will be as good.

 

[catsmate]

Well no because 5G isn't like an actual thing that exists. It's a marketing term that doesn't really apply to any specific technology.

It refers to the use of far higher radio frequencies than currently, typically >30GHz rather than <6GHz.

 

[catsmate]

I doubt that 5G fries your brain but one thing it does is interfere with the weather radar that local metrologists use too scan for storms.

This is another over-hyped myth. I assume you're referring to McMahon and the Nature article? One word:
Propagation.

 

[catsmate]

5G poses the same health risks as other cell phone technologies, and I'm ashamed to see skeptics trying to push these under the rug. The list of risks is huge:

1. Texting while driving
2. Walking into traffic while staring at Candy Crush on the phone
3. Inciting murder while blocking the line at the fast food place while you just finish up that "quick text"

There are hundreds more...

Indeed, these risks should be addressed. In the last three weeks I've seen four people in text based accidents. Well one wasn't an accident, the scrape I inflicted on his car was entirely deliberate...

 

[catsmate]

That reminds me (off topic warning!) of a few years ago when I came out of a supermarket, walked up to our car, pulled out my key and pushed the button, and was rewarded with an answering beep. Except it was the wrong key and our car was still locked.
I've since regretted not pushing the lock button to lock it back up. Whoever's it was.

'Master' keys are very easy to obtain or make. Not long ago a co-worker lost his keys and I opened his car and started the engine for him.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

5G uses a number of frequencies. Here's a good snapshot of them, by country. (source is a slide by Polish engineer Pawel Wypychowski here) I'm not clear on how the lower bands (600-700 MHz and 3.3-7.1 GHz) are used in combination with the higher (24-71 GHz) millimeter waves, but I know the lower offer more coverage area than the higher.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there an agency, a regulating body, that oversees the allocation of EMR to classes of users or for purposes? Maybe an international body, with at least some regional and/or national ones too.

Would the information from such a body (or bodies) be a better source than a slide from a YT video?

Your last question seems like you have a specific answer in mind, so how about you go ahead and share? ☺

I do not have “a specific answer in mind”. I am pretty sure, though, that the Sun emits EMR right across the spectrum, including kHz to THz. Also, isn’t the universe bathed in an almost perfectly isotropic sea of EMR? One that’s got a spectrum that’s an almost perfect black body?

In my house we have “a microwave”. I guess that emits EMR. So too does our “wireless router”, I guess. Then there’s “Bluetooth”, whatever that is. When he was much younger, my brother was quite a handyman. I vaguely remember the racket his electric welder made, and how we couldn’t listen to the radio while he was using it. Maybe it was emitting EMR? We had quite a light show last night; I wonder, does lightning emit EMR?

Is there any particular reason you didn’t answer my second question? The one about units of intensity?

 

[casebro]

It has to be more dangerous, it has more 'G's. 66% more than 3G does.

 

[Belz...]

"World’s Largest Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link"


- https://www.collective-evolution.co...on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

You should pick better sources, not just those that agree with you.

 

[MattNelson]

You should pick better sources, not just those that agree with you.

Understood. There are so many, though. Try this one, "World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – A Hard Nut to Crack (Review)." Hardell, L., International Journal of Oncology, 51:405-413 (2017).

Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogenesis such as on DNA repair, oxidative stress, down regulation of mRNA and DNA damage with single strand breaks (9–13). A report was released from The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in USA on the largest ever animal study on cell phone RF radiation and cancer (14). An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in rats. Acoustic neuroma or vestibular schwannoma is a similar type of tumour as the one found in the heart, although benign. Thus, this animal study supported human epidemiological findings on RF radiation and brain tumour risk (8).

(8) Carlberg M and Hardell L: Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints form 1965 on association or causation. BioMed Res Int. 2017:92184862017. View Article

(9) Markovà E, Malmgren LO and Belyaev IY: Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118:394–399. 2010. PubMed/NCBI

(10) Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Tripathi AK, Ahmed R and Abegaonkar MP: Low intensity microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Neurotoxicology. 51:158–165. 2015. View Article

(11) Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Erdal ME, Erdal N, Ay OI, Ay ME, Yilmaz SG, Tasdelen B and Yegin K: Effects of 2.4 GHz radio-frequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. 91:555–561. 2015. View Article : PubMed/NCBI

(12) Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O and Kyrylenko S: Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 35:186–202. 2016. View Article

(13) Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Karabulut D, Caner Y and Adalier N: Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats? J Chem Neuroanat. 75:116–122. 2016. View Article

(14) Wyde M, Cesta M, Blystone C, Elmore S, Foster P, Hooth M, Kissling G, Malarkey D, Sills Rhttps://mail.yahoo.com/, Stout M, et al: Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). US National Toxicology Program (NTP); 2016, doi: org/10.1101/055699. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2017.

Reality Check already offered his dismissal of the huge US National Toxicology Program study. Here's some words of wisdom:

The NTP findings are most important because the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as a “possible human carcinogen” based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR strengthens the animal-to-human association. This commentary addresses several unfounded criticisms about the design and results of the NTP study that have been promoted to minimize the utility of the experimental data on RFR for assessing human health risks. In contrast to those criticisms, an expert peer-review panel recently concluded that the NTP studies were well designed, and that the results demonstrated that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR were carcinogenic to the heart (schwannomas) and brain (gliomas) of male rats.

- Ronald L. Melnick, "Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects," Environmental Research, Vol. 168, January 2019, Pages 1-6.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) first classified RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) in 2011. Authors of the literature review say IARC should now upgrade RFR’s designation to carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

This of course would devastate the modern world. Thus, it won't ever happen because we need cell phones and wireless communication. The solution is to create laws that limit EMF/RF exposure, such as in France where WIFI is not permitted in nursery schools and used only when needed at elementary schools.

As a "possible human carcinogen" in the same category as lead, we must wonder why lead paint is no longer used, why leaded gasoline is not used, and why the electronics industry adopted the RoHS (restriction of hazardous substances) standard to reduce lead content, but the telecom industry has done nothing to inform the public of its status as a proven hazard. That's because they own the FCC (https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf ).

Where are the tests on lab rats with 5G millimeter wave tech? Until we get the results of such tests hopefully in the works now, WE are the rats. Since there are no studies available, people can wrongly argue the higher frequencies will be less dangerous. The opposite is true, because 5G antennae will be on street corners, the sides of buildings, light poles, and utility poles, less than 300 meters apart, beaming millimeter waves at people directly and by ricochet. See video from IEEE Spectrum, "Everything You Need To Know About 5G," vrt 3:21 - 4:19.

 

[JeanTate]

Understood. There are so many, though. Try this one, "World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – A Hard Nut to Crack (Review)." Hardell, L., International Journal of Oncology, 51:405-413 (2017).



(8) Carlberg M and Hardell L: Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints form 1965 on association or causation. BioMed Res Int. 2017:92184862017. View Article

(9) Markovà E, Malmgren LO and Belyaev IY: Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118:394–399. 2010. PubMed/NCBI

(10) Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Tripathi AK, Ahmed R and Abegaonkar MP: Low intensity microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Neurotoxicology. 51:158–165. 2015. View Article

(11) Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Erdal ME, Erdal N, Ay OI, Ay ME, Yilmaz SG, Tasdelen B and Yegin K: Effects of 2.4 GHz radio-frequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. 91:555–561. 2015. View Article : PubMed/NCBI

(12) Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O and Kyrylenko S: Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 35:186–202. 2016. View Article

(13) Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Karabulut D, Caner Y and Adalier N: Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats? J Chem Neuroanat. 75:116–122. 2016. View Article

(14) Wyde M, Cesta M, Blystone C, Elmore S, Foster P, Hooth M, Kissling G, Malarkey D, Sills Rhttps://mail.yahoo.com/, Stout M, et al: Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). US National Toxicology Program (NTP); 2016, doi: org/10.1101/055699. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2017.

Reality Check already offered his dismissal of the huge US National Toxicology Program study. Here's some words of wisdom:


- Ronald L. Melnick, "Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects," Environmental Research, Vol. 168, January 2019, Pages 1-6.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) first classified RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) in 2011. Authors of the literature review say IARC should now upgrade RFR’s designation to carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

This of course would devastate the modern world. Thus, it won't ever happen because we need cell phones and wireless communication. The solution is to create laws that limit EMF/RF exposure, such as in France where WIFI is not permitted in nursery schools and used only when needed at elementary schools.

As a "possible human carcinogen" in the same category as lead, we must wonder why lead paint is no longer used, why leaded gasoline is not used, and why the electronics industry adopted the RoHS (restriction of hazardous substances) standard to reduce lead content, but the telecom industry has done nothing to inform the public of its status as a proven hazard. That's because they own the FCC (https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf ).

Where are the tests on lab rats with 5G millimeter wave tech? Until we get the results of such tests hopefully in the works now, WE are the rats. Since there are no studies available, people can wrongly argue the higher frequencies will be less dangerous. The opposite is true, because 5G antennae will be on street corners, the sides of buildings, light poles, and utility poles, less than 300 meters apart, beaming millimeter waves at people directly and by ricochet. See video from IEEE Spectrum, "Everything You Need To Know About 5G," vrt 3:21 - 4:19.

Perhaps you already know - if so, please provide sources - but has there been any work done on the effect of leaky microwave ovens on humans? rats?

How about the effects of RFR from TV and radio stations (lots of people live very close to transmitters of such)?

Ditto, RFR from radars, say near airports, air force or navy bases, or meteorological stations?

How well studied is the incidence of cancer in regions with exceptionally high numbers of thunderstorms?

If you think "cell phone RFR" is deadly (as in, causes cancer), are you not even more worried about all the other sources of RFR (many of which have been with us for far longer than cellphones)?