• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

How Safe Really is 5G?

by Gillian Jamieson
1 February 2023 7:00 AM

Few of the general public I speak to have any awareness of the possible health harms of radio-frequency radiation such as 5G or Wi-Fi. Could this be because Government and mainstream media have colluded to ignore these risks? In fact, the Court of Appeal has recently given permission for a judicial review challenging the Government for “failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects”. This hearing, led by Michael Mansfield QC will take place on February 6th and 7th in London.  

Politicians, however, are undeterred in continuing with the proliferation of electronic communication, now in the form of 5G. The Government states that it has a “clear ambition for the U.K. to be a global leader in the next generation of mobile technology, 5G”, and that there is “enormous potential to boost productivity and grow the economy” through it. It’s worth noting that almost all independent commentators on 5G suggest that the motives for its launch are entirely economic, not humanitarian. Certainly I don’t know anyone who is enthusiastic about smart cities, smart motorways, driverless cars or the intensification of electronic communications in healthcare settings, for example.

Regarding the health risks of 5G, the Government states, “there should be no consequences for public health”. Does that reassure you? What evidence is being relied upon? Isn’t there just a hint of unfounded optimism in that statement? Given my own health issues discussed here, I am highly sceptical, but, aware of my own lack of medical and scientific knowledge, I have enlisted the help of Professor John W. Frank, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy at Edinburgh University and an experienced epidemiologist/physician. I will summarise his 2021 peer-reviewed article entitled, “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” Professor Frank has kindly reviewed and checked the scientific accuracy of my work.

Before outlining Professor Frank’s article, I would like to clarify some terms. Radio-frequency radiation (RFR) refers to communication signals from Wi-Fi routers, mobile phones, cordless phones, suburban towers, masts and panels on buildings (including hospitals), bluetooth devices, smart meters, Fitbits, smart watches, baby monitors, game consoles, smart diapers (nappies) and more. RFR may also be referred to as electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or non-ionising radiation. In clarification of the frequencies used for 5G, a Government Guide explains that most 5G technology uses already existing frequencies, but the higher frequencies of 26GHz and 40 GHz (millimetre wave) are likely to be allocated soon for commercial use. I note that 60 GHz is already in use for 5G testbeds such as the one in Liverpool.

I now come to the essence of Professor Frank’s article. He explains that as well as higher frequencies, “5G will also make use of very new — and thus relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety — supportive technology (including pulsing, beaming, phased arrays and multiple-input and mulitple-output (MIMO)) to enable a higher data transmission capacity”. Because the new higher frequencies do not penetrate objects, signal boosters or ‘small cell’ antennae will be required on every second or third lamppost, thus creating a dense transmission network, which is likely to mean a substantial increase to overall population exposure.

Current controversy as to the health impact of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is evidenced by reviews by public health agencies and others with widely differing results and recommendations. On the one hand, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, while others such as the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have set very high (lax) safety exposure guidelines, which are based on the results of behavioural studies involving the exposure of five monkeys and eight rats  to RFR over a period of one hour. Behaviour disruption was linked to increase in body temperature. This is controversial because studies have found that there may be health impacts without any heating of tissue and because the studies did not take account of continuous exposure or possible chronic or long-term effects.

Independent radiation and health scientists have expressed concern about the rollout of 5G because of the likely huge increase in exposure to a wide range of frequencies and because there is hardly any evidence on the safety of 5G-specific RFR emissions, while there is, to quote Professor Frank, a “growing body of research suggesting harms from other current RFR exposures, which have been studied for much longer”. Further references can be found in Professor Frank’s article.

Several international groups such as the EMF Scientist Appeal and the 5G Appeal  have asked governments for a moratorium on 5G until more research has been done and for better safety exposure guidelines. Certain countries have taken some precautions such as banning Wi-Fi in pre-schools and some areas have banned 5G antennae. The USA, U.K. and some parts of Europe have followed the ICNIRP guidelines but other countries have adopted guidelines which are 10-fold or 100-fold lower (stricter).  

Professor Frank then identifies four areas of “scientific uncertainty and concern”. The first is the lack of a clear definition of 5G internationally as regards frequencies to be used. Equally confusing is the “complex set of special signal modulations, pulses, polarisation, phased arrays and novel equipment designs — for example, ‘massive MIMO antennas’ — which represent the cutting edge technologies that accompany 5G system installation. He states that it is “highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects — making sound, comprehensive and up-to-date research on those effects virtually impossible”. These difficulties are compounded because many of these technologies are protected by patent, so that researchers cannot know their precise technical nature.

The second area that worried Professor Frank concerns the preponderance of laboratory studies showing the negative biological effects of RFR, in which, however, there are many knowledge gaps. As regards recent innovative technology around 5G, studies with the same combination of radio frequencies, modulation and pulse patterns have not been replicated (replication being the “hallmark of reliable research”). Despite that, biological effects are remarkably similar irrespective of the combination used, according to a high quality review.  Another review states that “some of the new RFR technologies are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up — that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects”. One Israeli study throws serious doubt on the theory that 5G is less dangerous than its predecessors supposedly because it only penetrates the outside layer of skin.

Importantly however, the reviews reveal “a growing body of evidence that RFR exposures produce effects spanning reproductive, oncological (cancer-related), neuropsychiatric, skin, eye and immunological body systems. In addition, there are many fundamental effects at the subcellular level, in terms of oxidation, DNA alteration, gene expression and bacterial antibiotic resistance”. These are unrelated to heating effects. Professor Frank then discusses the widely cited National Toxicology Program studies using rats, which link RFR exposure to cancer, but he finds too many methodological weaknesses to allow a clear interpretation of the results. His conclusion is that laboratory studies “cannot replace high-quality human epidemiological studies” i.e., studies of the precise relationship between exposure and disease in large numbers of persons at different levels of exposure.

The third area concerns epidemiological studies. In 2019, an international expert team led by Canada’s most senior cancer epidemiologist Professor Tony Miller (Miller et al.) summarised the “human epidemiological evidence linking human breast and brain tumours, male reproductive outcomes and child neurodevelopmental conditions to RFR exposures” and found “compelling evidence of carcinogenesis, especially in the brain and acoustic nerve, as well as the breast, from strong RFR exposures to previous generations of mobile phone transmissions”.

However these results do not apply to novel 5G systems, as this type of epidemiological study designed to prove causation requires “decades of follow-up to detect delayed health effects, such as most cancers.”

In his review, Miller called for an update on the IARC classification of RFR as “possibly carcinogenic” and predicted that it would at least be changed to “probable” on the basis of the latest evidence. I note that the IARC review will now not take place until 2024 at the earliest. 5G will not be risk assessed by IARC until 2025.

The fourth area of concern is the unscientific basis for present health protection guidelines as well as conflicts of interest on scientific advisory panels, such as ICNIRP. The Swedish epidemiologist Hardell suggests that ICNIRP’s narrow focus on the heating of tissues being the only measure of harm is due to its pro-industry bias. This focus has remained unchanged for 25 years in the face of widespread criticism by other scientists. An important article from October 2022 has highlighted the 14 false assumptions made by ICNIRP in creating its guidelines. The article and a slide summary can be found here.

Professor Frank also highlights Hardell’s evidence of the number of cross-appointments held by six members of the WHO IARC Monograph Group across five major international advisory panels on the health effects of non-ionising radiation as well as their strong personal links to the telecommunications industry. These observations are confirmed by an article written last year about the self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines. In addition, a 90-page document written by two MEPs has confirmed all these concerns about ICNIRP.

In conclusion, as a result of his review of the evidence, Professor Frank “is convinced that RFR may well have serious human health effects” and that “there is also increasing scientific evidence for RFR effects of ecological concern in other species both plant and animal”, though reviewing this would be outside the scope of his expertise. He states that “several nations’ regulatory apparatus for telecommunications innovations such as the 5G rollout is not fit for purpose” and seems to have been captured by vested interests.

Professor Frank states that, as regards 5G, “there is a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’” due to “significant doubt about the safety of this new and potentially widespread human exposure” and that there should be “a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects”.

This article was written in collaboration with Professor John W. Frank, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy at Edinburgh University.

Tags: 5GElectromagnetic radiationJudicial ReviewPublic Health

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

An Honest Voice at Last

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

74 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Monro
Monro
11 months ago

Brilliant! Thank you.

This is certainly why I continue to subscribe to this site; an oasis of sanity in a weird, weird world.

And the central premise is spot on. Britain is such a weird out at the moment because of the size of the public sector……and the public sector is run by Abilene’s Paradox (thank you: today’s round up).

The Abilene Paradox revisited – how we have turbocharged groupthink in the workplace and what to do about it

Blair’s Britain: socialist fascism, probably by accident………

Last edited 11 months ago by Monro
42
0
Hester
Hester
11 months ago

Excellent piece of investigation. Is it any wonder that this is the “none of the above” election?, when politicians tax us to death and then waste it on this pathetic, infantalising nonsense.
I always thought self care was about personal hygiene, clealry not these days, self care appears to be fostering a race of weak, scared, pathetic self decalred victims who need to be nursery nursed all the time.

46
0
CircusSpot
CircusSpot
11 months ago

As Oscar Wilde said a play will be either good or bad and the audience will decide.
There is nothing offensive or difficult that cannot be dramatised in the right way to make the audience think about the subject and The Father and The Producers are good examples of this.

21
0
Freddy Boy
Freddy Boy
11 months ago

Great piece ,keep up the good work 👏, it’s amazing that no such care was available before or after The Jabathon ! The Hypocrisy is overwhelming !!!…

20
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
11 months ago
Reply to  Freddy Boy

Good point Freddy.

I believe “Informed Consent” has been deleted from the medical lexicon has it not?

6
0
Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
11 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

.. and First, Do No Harm.

3
0
varmint
varmint
11 months ago

How did human beings ever evolve in the first place? There was no one to warn us of the dangers of the damp cave. No one to provide therapy for our fear of Sabre Toothed Tigers. No phoneline to talk us through the trauma of losing our 3 kids to a pack of Hyena’s who ripped the guts out of them in front of us.

26
0
RW
RW
11 months ago

Why would a play about relationship issues of a Lesbian criminal after a sudden power cut look like a relief from anything? Looks like the (obviously female) author revisiting her past group therapy sessions for want of anything else to do.

Ain’t got nothin’ to say but gonna talk a lot, anyway!

Last edited 11 months ago by RW
7
-1
Alan M
Alan M
11 months ago

“Self-care advice – Breathe”. I find breathing is an excellent self care tool – just to keep alive.

18
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
11 months ago
Reply to  Alan M

Quite partial myself.

5
-1
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
11 months ago

I am a big believer in supporting the arts but not where nonsense like this is concerned. This level of wokerarty is sinister and malevolent and taxpayers should not be used to fund this crap. If the theatres responsible for this grotesquery had to fund this rubbish without grants it would cease within a month.

There are two words for the audiences visiting these plays / shows : Grow Up.

14
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
11 months ago

I have always been puzzled by the term “lived experience.” Would it’s opposite be “dead experience?” If so it strikes me as being oxymoronic.

Surely living is synonymous with experience.

13
0
RW
RW
11 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

The opposite would be hearsay or book learning. Obviously, everybody has a lived experience but this individual lived experience is usually not about the really important issues of our time, like the unspeakable terror of the gay adult entertainment performer who’s denied entry into the kindergarten (assuming this was still the case). That’s a lived experience of anti-trans discrimination while the typical member of polite society will only have heard of such horrific abuses.

3
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
11 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

It’s a deliberate distortion of the English language I think. It seems to mean a few things – the most important being that how certain favoured victim groups view and interpret the world trumps hard evidence and the “lived experience” of people not in those favoured victim groups. Another attempt to deny objective reality which keeps coming up with inconvenient truths.

7
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
11 months ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

Thanks tof 👍

1
0
DickieA
DickieA
11 months ago

Hear hear!
Personally, I’d be far more worried about being mugged coming out of the Bush Theatre or Broadway Theatre in Catford than any of the “self-care” bollox they’re banging on about.

12
0
Whomakesthisstuffup
Whomakesthisstuffup
11 months ago

I’m shocked that this article didn’t have a trigger warning! I’m now traumatised at the amount of Taxpayers (my) cash spent on this, and I’n not sure which of the many funded support groups I should call

15
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
11 months ago
Reply to  Whomakesthisstuffup

Brilliant 👍

😀 😀 😀

4
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
11 months ago

I love “the arts” but my default assumption until I see strong evidence to the contrary is that anything new will be woke and is to be avoided. There’s plenty of old stuff that I have not seen or read – great stuff that will last me a lifetime.

10
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Episode 36 of the Sceptic: Karl Williams on Starmer’s Phoney Immigration Crackdown, Dan Hitchens on the Assisted Suicide Bill and Tom Jones on Reform’s Local Council Challenge

by Richard Eldred
16 May 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

15 May 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

16 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

16 May 2025
by Will Jones

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

29

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

25

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

19

News Round-Up

18

Chris Packham is the New St Francis of Assisi

39

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Renaud Camus on the Destruction of Western Education

15 May 2025
by Dr Nicholas Tate

‘Why Can’t We Talk About This?’

15 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

POSTS BY DATE

February 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728  
« Jan   Mar »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences