4 ms·

Thank you itcrowd for your comments and your sincere and balanced approach, which I respect even though I do not at present share your viewpoint. Thank you also

Thank you itcrowd for your comments and your sincere and balanced approach, which I respect even though I do not at present share your viewpoint. Thank you also for looking into the Lancet and Guardian articles. Regarding the respectability of this subjournal of Lancet, that is useful information. Regarding the Guardian article: after a very brief search, I have also not been able to locate the actual academic article, though there are many references to it in other general-interest articles on the internet. The 326 number referred to Lai's study; the 59 studies refer to the separate article from Environmental Health Perspectives that you link to. I have been following this topic for some time and in everything I have read, I have (until today) never encountered a single reference to a study on the health effects of 5G (and have encountered many statements that 5G has not yet been studied for health effects), thus my initial assertion that there haven't been any studies. What I have encountered is many government and industry spokespeople and mainstream media outlets saying that 5G is safe, without ever citing a single study to support their claim. The few studies that turned up in your brief Google Scholar search are problematic, as I pointed out, due to conflicts of interest. Regarding your last paragraph (I will comment in two parts): > Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful. I don't want to seem uncivil, but I think I missed this evidence? Thus far we have found three studies that address possible health effects from 5G, all of which have problems with conflicts of interest, correct? If there have been no other studies directly testing 5G, what is the scientific evidence (not theorizing, but actual empirical studies) that has been provided? And: > I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users. Firstly, not a single scientific paper has been posted because there haven't been any, yes? (setting aside the 3 we spoke of above). One of the essential points here is that this simply hasn't been studied (apart from the aforementioned problematic studies, unless there are others that we have not found, and that the various parties assuring the public that 5G is safe are likely also unaware of given that they have never cited them either), and the technology is being deployed anyway. Regarding our ignorance of a "mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it": I would tend to place more trust in empirical studies -- what actually happens, are any effects produced? In terms of understanding the mechanism of how it happens, scientists may not have discovered this yet. A current gap in our knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the natural world does not mean that those mechanisms, and the effects that they produce, do not exist. In the meantime (i.e. before we discover the mechanisms), it seems imperative that the empirical effects are determined.

itcrowd 7y ago
Thanks danielst for the kind words. Huge respect for your civil responses. That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to somewhat revise my stance. First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!): 1. 5G does not have ionizing radiation 2. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very accessible article from 2000 [1]. 3. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem. Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry-affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public funding) or mixed funding (public + private money). Now, what I think we don't agree on: 4. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced / suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before widespread 5G rollout. This is where it gets complicated. First, I did a PubMed search for 5g+safety (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AND+safety%5BTitle%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AN...) and it turns up 3 relevant articles [2], [3] and [4] (one search result is unrelated to 5G). Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research. Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect). Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses. We need to look further. I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore). According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and cannot be considered neutral. (See: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ and https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/ https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/) That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation levels). The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G may have some other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time. I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]: > In the respect of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, the development of new RF-EMF communication networks should be paralleled by adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure limits and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population. > On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk(Wu et al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017). [1] Ryan et. al, 2000, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION OF MILLIMETER WAVE LENGTH: POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATING TO SURFACE HEATING, https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=02000&article=00006&type=abstract https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/articleviewer.... [2] McClelland, 2018, The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534 [3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338 [4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642 https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642 [5] Di Ciaula, Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846391... [6] Russel, CL, 2018, 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646 [7] In an interview in Italian he said the following: The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions. (https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-5g-intervista-al-dottor-agostino-di-ciaula/ https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-... and Google translate)

itcrowd 7y ago

Thanks danielst for the kind words. Huge respect for your civil responses. That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to somewhat revise my stance. First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!): 1. 5G does not have ionizing radiation 2. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very accessible article from 2000 [1]. 3. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem. Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry-affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public funding) or mixed funding (public + private money). Now, what I think we don't agree on: 4. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced / suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before widespread 5G rollout. This is where it gets complicated. First, I did a PubMed search for 5g+safety (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AND+safety%5BTitle%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AN...) and it turns up 3 relevant articles [2], [3] and [4] (one search result is unrelated to 5G). Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research. Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect). Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses. We need to look further. I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore). According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and cannot be considered neutral. (See: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ and https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/ https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/) That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation levels). The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G may have some other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time. I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]: > In the respect of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, the development of new RF-EMF communication networks should be paralleled by adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure limits and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population. > On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk(Wu et al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017). [1] Ryan et. al, 2000, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION OF MILLIMETER WAVE LENGTH: POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATING TO SURFACE HEATING, https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=02000&article=00006&type=abstract https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/articleviewer.... [2] McClelland, 2018, The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534 [3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338 [4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642 https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642 [5] Di Ciaula, Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846391... [6] Russel, CL, 2018, 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646 [7] In an interview in Italian he said the following: The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions. (https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-5g-intervista-al-dottor-agostino-di-ciaula/ https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-... and Google translate)