Two months ago, the U.S. state of New Hampshire introduced a bipartisan bill requiring wireless antennae to be placed at least 500 metres away from residences, businesses and schools as well as putting measures in place to inform the public about the health risks of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) and to replace Wi-Fi with wired technology in schools. The measures are based on the findings of the New Hampshire Commission to “Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology”.
In many countries including the U.K., mobile communications base stations can be placed as close as 20 to 25 metres to residential properties. Over the last few years, many of these masts have been upgraded to 5G using frequencies of 3.5 GHz and including a complex set of special signal modulations, pulses, polarisation, phased arrays and novel equipment designs to enable faster and larger data downloads.
But what are the health implications of placing these new high tech 5G base stations so close to living and working accommodation? Professor Lennart Hardell, an Oncologist from the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Sweden, and Mona Nilsson from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation have just completed a series of eight 5G case studies, in which they study 18 people in a real-life 5G environment.
The authors state in their introduction to the fifth study, that:
5G base stations for wireless communication have been deployed on a broad scale since 2019-2020 in many countries despite [there being] no previous research on possible negative effects from the radiation emitted from 5G on human health and the environment.
They go on to explain that there are now a few animal studies involving the frequency of 3.5 GHz as used for 5G, but that they lack most other elements of the 5G real-life environment, which include modulation, pulsation and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies. Even without these extra elements, however, the studies showed negative effects such as oxidative stress in the liver, kidneys, the plasma, degenerated neurons in the brain as well as oxidative stress in muscles and negative effects on bone strength. Furthermore, modified behaviour after foetal exposure was reported.
Thus, the Hardell/Nilsson case studies are groundbreaking because they study the effects on humans of living in a real-life 5G environment for the very first time. They can be found here: first study, second study, third study, fourth study, fifth study, sixth study, seventh study, eighth study.
Precise radiation measurements are given for different areas of the participants’ accommodation in relation to the distance from the masts involved. Generally speaking, the studies describe how previously healthy people developed symptoms of microwave syndrome immediately after 5G phone masts were installed near their accommodation at distances of between five and 500 metres. Most of the symptoms disappeared within days of them moving to less irradiated accommodation, but reappeared when they returned to the strongly irradiated accommodation. In two cases, symptoms appeared more quickly than before on return to a strongly irradiated environment, suggesting that these participants had become more sensitive.
Their symptoms included neurological symptoms, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress, skin disorders, joint and muscle pain, cardiovascular abnormalities and blood pressure variability. Participants were asked to fill in questionnaires about their health before the 5G masts had been installed, after installation and after they had moved away to less irradiated accommodation. They were asked to grade the severity of their symptoms, with 10 being unbearable. The results are produced in tables in the studies and show that many symptoms were unbearable while near the 5G base stations.
These studies are highly readable in themselves. Here, I will highlight elements of some of the later studies, as well as of the very first one and present some of the background they provide. I introduced the first four studies in another article.
In the first study it is noteworthy that readings of the radiation levels prior to the 5G mast deployment were available. A couple had lived in their apartment for 10 years under a 3G and 4G mast without obvious health problems and, when they heard that the mast was to be upgraded, arranged for measurements to be taken beforehand. The maximum (peak) measurement was 9,000 μW/m2 (microwatts per square metre). However, after installation of the 5G mast, very high radio-frequency radiation (RFR) with maximum levels of 354,000, 1,690,000 and over 2,500,000 μW/m2 were measured in their flat.
Thus, there was a massive increase in RFR after the installation of the 5G masts, from 9,000 µW/m2 to 2,500,00µW/m2 peak levels, but even these high levels are well below the limits considered safe by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which allows whole body exposure to be as high as 10,000,000 μW/m2 averaged over 30 minutes.
However, the safety exposure guidelines set by ICNIRP, a self-appointed private organisation in Germany, are based only on heating (thermal) effects that appear within an hour or less. They do not protect against effects that appear below the heating threshold, nor do they protect against long-term exposure. A critique of these guidelines with its 14 flawed assumptions was made recently by International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).
Hardell and Nilsson illustrate that even for previous generations of mobile communications, with very much lower readings than for 5G, numerous health effects have been shown. An example is the German study on the effect on stress hormones and PEA (phenylethylamine) of a newly installed base station, with average readings of only 76.9 μW/m2, the highest measured value at one participant’s home being 320 μW/m2. The participants also had neurological symptoms.
The authors point out that the updated Bioinitiative Report has listed thousands of studies from previous decades on the adverse health effects of pre-5G technology. A clear majority of studies shows:
A clear and consistent pattern of adverse effects that form the basis of the mechanisms whereby RFR [radio-frequency radiation] can cause the cancers seen in human populations. Of 261 studies looking at oxidative effects from RFR exposure, 240 (91%) showed damage. Of 346 studies on effects of RFR on genes, 224 (65%) reported genetic damage. Oxidative stress and genetic damage are the major mechanisms leading to cancer. In addition, RFR exposure causes effects on brain and behaviour. Of 336 studies published on RFR neurological effects, 73% reported effects and only 27% showed no effect.
With such clear results from decades of research into the previously lower levels of radio-frequency radiation, why do so many governments forge ahead with this technology, just leaving it to bodies such as the WHO or ICNIRP to vouch for its safety?
In the fifth case study, shortly after the deployment of a new 5G base station 20 metres from his home, a previously healthy 49-year old man developed “a headache that he described as ‘extreme’, a sense of tingling in his body, and dry eyes. The slightest effort, such as doing the dishes or lifting up something, caused pain in his chest. His body swelled and he got bruises all over the body”.
These symptoms disappeared after a few hours at work where RFR exposure was much lower but after one week of living in his flat (while still going to work) after the 5G mast was installed, he became so seriously ill that he moved out of the apartment completely. Since then, he has noticed that his sensitivity to exposure to RF radiation has increased, as his symptoms develop more quickly when he enters a highly irradiated area, and disappear more slowly once he returns to his new low-level radiation apartment. The levels of radiation measured in his original apartment were very high and at the top limit of the Safe and Sound metre which was 3,180,000 µW/m2, yet even these levels are far lower than the ICNIRP maximum levels of 10,000,000 µW/m2.
Similarly, the sixth study, involving a family visiting its holiday cottage situated 125 metres from a base station which had just been upgraded to 5G, showed that an entire family of two adults and three children developed symptoms of microwave syndrome very soon after arriving there. The symptoms disappeared when the family returned to their own home with much lower RF radiation.
The seventh study involves a woman of 82, who already had electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and whose symptoms worsened considerably after two 5G base stations were installed approximately 500 metres from her home. Her husband, aged 83, did not have EHS, but developed microwave syndrome after the base stations were installed. This happened despite the readings being lower than in other studies and the masts being much further away. The readings were very much lower than ICNIRP guidelines.
In the eighth study, an eight year boy developed unbearable headaches and also some dizziness and fatigue at school after the installation of 5G base stations 200 metres from his school. The radiation varied between 83,332 and 267,536 μW/m2 in the playground and between 2,560 and 76,590 μW/m2 within the school building. Since wearing a shielding cap and jacket, his symptoms have more or less disappeared.
The authors point out that scientific groups other than ICNIRP have suggested far lower limits than presently followed. For instance, the EuropaEM EMF guidelines 2016 recommended levels of pulsed RF-radiation not to be higher than 100 μW/m2 and “in a study on previous mobile phone generations exposures it was reported that levels exceeding 500 μW/m2 caused increased risk of headache among people living near base stations”.
In conclusion of this study, Hardell and Nilsson state that:
Radio-frequency radiation is an environmental pollutant. The exposure to RF radiation at the boy’s school is so high that it can cause acute symptoms in the form of headache, fatigue and dizziness… In the long term there is also the possibility of increased cancer risk. It can be assumed that more children at this school and other schools with 5G antennas in close proximity also suffer from symptoms caused by the increased RF-radiation from 5G. Children are generally more sensitive than adults to harmful environmental factors. This case study underscores the urgent need for a moratorium on 5G deployment (www.emfcall.org, www.5Gappeal.eu).
Increasingly, measures are being taken to protect children, who may be more vulnerable, from radio-frequency radiation. In Arizona, Desert Sage High School is in the process of shielding classrooms from the wireless radiation emissions from a nearby phone mast. Last week it was reported that a school board in New Hampshire unanimously rejected the installation of a new phone mast near a primary school following parents’ concerns about potential health effects for children. In the U.K., at an Upper Tribunal hearing in July 2022, a local authority was mandated to make low-EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS.
However, the controversy continues. The U.K. Government would have us believe that, when it comes to 5G, “there should be no consequences for public health”. In its ‘5G in the U.K.‘ document out this week, the House of Commons Library re-iterates that ICNIRP limits are protective and that “planning authorities are not allowed to prohibit the building of mobile masts in specified areas, such as near schools”. At the other extreme, David Gee, the instigator of the European Environment Agency’s ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ project (2001 and 2013), has compared the issue of radio-frequency radiation to the asbestos scandal, in one of his chapters in the French volume Humanité et numérique published in April 2023.
New Hampshire has completed its investigations into wireless radiation. Massachusetts is bringing in legislation to protect residents and the environment from the negative effects of wireless technology. Some countries have adopted safety limits that are 10 times or 100 times lower than the current ICNIRP limits. Will our Government finally take note of the findings of respected scientists and heed the appeals for a moratorium on 5G for the sake of both human and environmental health, or will its goals continue to be to “blanket the country with the fastest most reliable wireless coverage available”, as Mr. Sunak recently informed me?
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.
I’m far more concerned about people becoming completely brainwashed by government propaganda via their 3/4/5G devices. Look at the last four years, for crying out loud.
Never mind all the Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, neck ache, and complete inability to concentrate on anything for longer than 30 seconds after all the instant gratification.
Even mature adults find it hard enough to moderate the use of smartphones. But the children?
On point, the strength of “radio frequency” (i.e. electromagnetic) radiation of all frequencies blasted at us from our own sun is thousands of times higher than any 5G mast. And if anyone says,
“Yes, but the sun is natural!”
I say,
“Yes, so is extreme sunburn!”
100% agree with your comments regarding the impact on people of internet connected devices. I was thinking the other day that their negative impact is similar to drugs and alcohol. I don’t want them banned though – just wish people would use them more healthily (including me).
Come on, Sceptics: seventeen of you need to elaborate!
Safe and Effective™
No evidence for…
… because we’re not looking.
Yet again Gillian presents us with a few anecdotal stories and no quantitative blind trials.
This is a further case of scaremongering.
5G istallations are widespread now and have been in common use for a number of years.
Where are the epidemics of cases?
There won’t be any, because all of this RF energy even at mm wavelengths is non-ionising, a photon at these frequencies does not possess sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds in molecules inside the body.
Thermal effects are small, the only part of the body at risk of thermal damage is the crystalline lens in the eye, because it has no blood supply to carry heat away.
Thermal effects are dependent on frequency, power and the dielectric and thermal characteristics of the exposed materials. It’s more complicated than blood supply.
Wireless/cellular devices have a warning of minimum distance the device should be from the body e.g. a wireless speaker or home hub can be 30cm. The manufacturers recognise the risk albeit in small print.
You may have noticed trivial warnings on all sorts products. This is not an admission of danger based on scientific analysis but an insistence by their lawyers that they have disclaimers. You may have seen the dire warnings of the danger of placing plastic bags over your head.
You might find these devices are scientifically analysed to determine whether they meet regulations for RF exposure.
I used to work in mobile telephony manufactuing and my office wes next door the the RF testing lab. We called it measurement not analysis. and it was engineering not science.
I think you might be surprised at how unscientific estimations of exposure were, involving a lot of wet fingers in the air.
Thanks for the example that testing takes place to measure exposure and that it is clearly more complex than just blood supply otherwise it wouldn’t be a case of “unscientific estimations”.
Floors, walls, ceilings, carry electrical wiring all of which emits EM radiation, as do appliances and devices and cars.
The Earth is bombarded with EM radiation from Big Lamp in sky belong Jesus, as well as Space, along with Cosmic Rays which include particulate radiation.
What with that and ‘additives’ and ‘chemicals’ in and on our food – it’s amazing any of us survive beyond the age of 12 months.
I sense agitation yet I haven’t made any comment on the article, just responded to comments.
You’re welcome to correct what I have said but an argument based on all frequencies and power levels of EM radiation having the same effect or risks regardless of distance from the source isn’t a very good one.
Hello again Tyrbiter, did you read the review paper I cited in a previous discussion regarding the adequacy/inadequacy of considering only thermal effects.
Here’s the link again:
https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272
There is a very helpful explanation of why simplifying the extremely complex interactions of manmade RF emissions with cellular processes to consideration only of thermal effects is inadequate.
It also cites many other papers addressing these issues. I hope you will find these will help you to come to a better understanding of the issues involved.
“Will our Government finally take note of the findings of respected scientists and heed the appeals for a moratorium on 5G for the sake of both human and environmental health, or will its goals continue to be to “blanket the country with the fastest most reliable wireless coverage available”
———–
As they’ve demonstrated so clearly over the past 4 years, they don’t give a 4X for human and environmental health. As far as they’re concerned 5G is essential to carry out their planned programme of surveillance and control of every aspect of our lives, so I think we all know what the decision will be.
Respected scientists – they from the Covid will kill millions, safe & effective snake-oil, global climate boiling crowd?
More nonsense.
I am unconvinced, sorry.
These appear to be studies of people who are worried about the radiation. And most of the symptoms measured by the study are completely subjective.
Look at the details given of the first study:
“A couple had lived in their apartment for 10 years under a 3G and 4G mast without obvious health problems and, when they heard that the mast was to be upgraded, arranged for measurements to be taken beforehand.”
So they were clearly worried about it.
If you ask people to look for subjective health problems after masts are erected, having told them you are doing a study into health effects of the masts, it is no surprise when they report such symptoms!
My thoughts exactly
And what of the effect on birds ?
Lets place some new 5G towers to test the theory, lets say on the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace, and outside the UK on the EU building in Brussels, Bill Gates house, etc
Such an serious important topic. Why did thy relax the planning laws to rollout these at a rapid rate of knots over the plandemic period? Its not like we need more connectivity in this world. In fact we need the opposite.
Its not simply profit, nor simply to gain more cancers to treat more people. Its far far more sinister. Anyone familiar with all Juan Enriquez’s videos on Ted Talks?