6 ms·

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 r

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)

l8rlump 7y ago
This is what HN is all about for me. Great conversation and great info :)
- danielst 7y ago
  Yes, I am also really appreciating this forum (which I just discovered) where people can have truly thoughtful and intelligent exchanges.
danielst 7y ago
Thank you itcrowd for your thoughtful reply and for going deeper into this. I think you have spelled out our common ground in points 1-3 very well. And thank you also for digging up these other articles. I had a look at [5]. So our difference seems to be, as you mentioned, whether we believe 5G deployment (sorry, I avoid the term "rollout" since I cannot stomach this term any more, it is used so repeatedly and reflexively in practically every article dealing with the subject :) ) should be halted or slowed before more research has been done as to its health effects. I see this as a question of ethics. The technology, of course, is being rushed to deployment and by its nature will will reach everyone within range of its multitude of base stations. The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. At our current state of knowledge, we do not know whether the new 5G technology poses a significant threat of harm to humans, or a moderate threat, or a small threat, or no threat at all. The previous, related technology (3G, 4G, wi-fi, cell phones themselves, etc.) has been shown by the majority of the (independent) literature to pose health risks that are very much worthy of concern. The 5G technology involves a much greater number of base stations at close proximity to each other and humans, as well as a different, higher frequency whose effects on humans are unknown since apparently untested. Looking at this situation as a whole from the point of view of ethics, I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the new 5G technology could have significant health effects and that immersing the population in the radiofrequency radiation from this technology without first ruling out these plausible health effects, in the interest of not impeding the progress of the technology, is seriously problematic. "The precautionary principle" is often cited in this connection, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with it. Another aspect to take into account is that if the technology is studied thoroughly beforehand as to its possible health effects, it may be possible to amend the technology if necessary, or formulate precautionary measures, to minimize the health impact while still introducing the technology. Deploying the technology before thorough testing amounts, I believe, to a crapshoot, "flying blind" as the U.S. Senator Blumenthal said in a congressional hearing in which he questioned senior members of the wireless industry. The technology is being pushed forward (for which the wireless industry and the government certainly have their own interests which do not overlap with those of the public, though one could argue that the higher download speeds (which I consider to be pretty trivial in the big picture) and other, future as-of-yet ill-defined applications of 5G (internet of things, etc.) could be of benefit to the public), and effectively we are just going to wait and watch and see if it hurts people a lot, a little, or not at all. I do not see how this can be considered in the least responsible. I would be interested to know your thoughts and reflections on this ethical question, and of any other members of this forum who would like to chime in.

l8rlump 7y ago

This is what HN is all about for me. Great conversation and great info :)

danielst 7y ago
Yes, I am also really appreciating this forum (which I just discovered) where people can have truly thoughtful and intelligent exchanges.

danielst 7y ago

Thank you itcrowd for your thoughtful reply and for going deeper into this. I think you have spelled out our common ground in points 1-3 very well. And thank you also for digging up these other articles. I had a look at [5]. So our difference seems to be, as you mentioned, whether we believe 5G deployment (sorry, I avoid the term "rollout" since I cannot stomach this term any more, it is used so repeatedly and reflexively in practically every article dealing with the subject :) ) should be halted or slowed before more research has been done as to its health effects. I see this as a question of ethics. The technology, of course, is being rushed to deployment and by its nature will will reach everyone within range of its multitude of base stations. The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. At our current state of knowledge, we do not know whether the new 5G technology poses a significant threat of harm to humans, or a moderate threat, or a small threat, or no threat at all. The previous, related technology (3G, 4G, wi-fi, cell phones themselves, etc.) has been shown by the majority of the (independent) literature to pose health risks that are very much worthy of concern. The 5G technology involves a much greater number of base stations at close proximity to each other and humans, as well as a different, higher frequency whose effects on humans are unknown since apparently untested. Looking at this situation as a whole from the point of view of ethics, I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the new 5G technology could have significant health effects and that immersing the population in the radiofrequency radiation from this technology without first ruling out these plausible health effects, in the interest of not impeding the progress of the technology, is seriously problematic. "The precautionary principle" is often cited in this connection, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with it. Another aspect to take into account is that if the technology is studied thoroughly beforehand as to its possible health effects, it may be possible to amend the technology if necessary, or formulate precautionary measures, to minimize the health impact while still introducing the technology. Deploying the technology before thorough testing amounts, I believe, to a crapshoot, "flying blind" as the U.S. Senator Blumenthal said in a congressional hearing in which he questioned senior members of the wireless industry. The technology is being pushed forward (for which the wireless industry and the government certainly have their own interests which do not overlap with those of the public, though one could argue that the higher download speeds (which I consider to be pretty trivial in the big picture) and other, future as-of-yet ill-defined applications of 5G (internet of things, etc.) could be of benefit to the public), and effectively we are just going to wait and watch and see if it hurts people a lot, a little, or not at all. I do not see how this can be considered in the least responsible. I would be interested to know your thoughts and reflections on this ethical question, and of any other members of this forum who would like to chime in.