According to increasing numbers of scientists and health experts, 5G poses a serious, if not existential, threat to humans as well as the wider biosphere. The type of radio waves used in 5G (millimetre microwaves or MMWs) have not been tested on human populations and their health effects over long periods of time are not known; however, there is research to show potentially profound damage to biological organisms.
Halts to the Rollout of 5G on Health Grounds
Rollouts have been frozen in Brussels, parts of Geneva, parts of Rome, parts of Australia and parts of the US due to safety concerns and legal action. Councillors in Glastonbury have called a halt to the rollout and demanded safety testing by independent scientists. 5G is currently being vigorously challenged at council levels on the Isle of Wight.
Some MPs and councillors in the UK are now questioning health concerns around 5G.
Evidence of bioeffects from existing WiFi, 3G and 4G wireless radiation
According to some researchers (see more, below), current guidelines from public health bodies such as Public Health England are based on information which requires updating, particularly in the light of recent studies.
Early studies ‘mixed’ due to bias:
The World Health Organisation’s Interphone Study of 2010 found ‘suggestions of an increased risk of glioma [a type of aggressive brain tumour] at the highest exposure levels’, and, after correcting for bias, an eighty per cent higher likelihood of having a brain glioma for heavy users. The study found no overall link between mobile phone use and cancer, but note that the study included several studies, some of which did show a link with tumours, which may disguise the overall result 6, 7 The study has also since been re-analysed with different conclusions (see below). The study authors wrote that the overall finding was ‘possibly reflecting participation bias or other methodological limitations.’ Clearly further research was required, yet the study is widely used by the telecoms industry to claim safety, despite the finding for gliomas.
Industry-funded studies confound the result:
Research has shown that industry-funded studies are less likely than independent studies to show a link with wireless radiation and health problems. 8, 9
Prasad et al (2017) write: “In our review of the literature and meta-analysis of case–control studies, we found evidence linking mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours especially in long-term users (greater than 10 years). We also found a significantly positive correlation between study quality and outcome in the form of risk of brain tumour associated with use of mobile phones. Higher quality studies show a statistically significant association between mobile phone use and risk of brain tumour. Even the source of funding was found to affect the quality of results produced by the studies.” 10
A ‘probable carcinogen’?
Mobile phone radiation was classified a class 2B ‘possible carcinogen’ by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2011 after advice from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), along with advice to ban children from using mobile phones. But in the light of two studies on rats (below), researchers have called for the classification to be upgraded to ‘probable carcinogen’ (Group 2A) or ‘carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 1).
New research – three large recent studies
Tumours in rats:
The US Department of Health National Toxicology Program study (2018) showed a ‘clear link’ between mobile radiation and cancer. When 7000 rats and mice were exposed to mobile radiation for nine hours a day, DNA strands were damaged in brain cells and male rats developed more tumours on the heart muscles and, again in males only, incidences of brain tumours were three per cent higher. There were also lower birth rates and higher rates of infant mortality. The study was reviewed for accuracy by fifteen external physicians who confirmed the conclusion that mobile radiation causes cancer. It should be noted that although three per cent is a relatively small amount proportionally, in real numbers of humans this could translate to millions or tens of millions of people globally. 11
Critics are quick to point out that overall, statistically the exposed rats lived longer than the control group, since there seemed to be fewer incidences of kidney problems for reasons which are not clear from the study report. However, this does not detract from the result clearly linking mobile radiation and cancer.
The Director of the US Food and Drug Administration, Jeffrey Shuren, stated immediately: ‘We deny the conclusions of the report,’ based on the fact that everyday exposure of mobile radiation to humans is lower than in the tests. However, independently and at the same time, using verifiable strict standards of laboratory science, cancer researcher Fiorella Belpoggi of Bologna studied 2000 rats exposed to the equivalent amount of radio frequency radiation as humans are over a lifetime and obtained similar results. 12
In a 2015 study in Germany, rats grew more tumours when exposed to mobile phone radiation ‘well below exposure limits for users of mobile phones.’ 13
Humans and tumours
A Swedish study led by Lennart Hardell suggested that young people who use mobile phones for making phone calls have a five times higher risk of developing glioma than those who do not; those who use cordless phones have a four times higher risk. They were also five times more likely to develop acoustic neuromas, benign tumours which cause deafness. After the age of twenty, when the brain is fully developed, the risk was reduced. Hardell recommends that young people only use mobile phones for phone calls in emergencies and that they text rather than calling. He added that most tumours develop decades after the exposure period, and that as mobile phones are relatively new, it could take many years for the problem to show. 14, 15
In a 2017 article in the International Journal of Oncology, Hardell states: In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. 16
Rats and humans: rats are relevant research subjects because they have almost identical disease patterns to humans, according to the Human Genome Project research. 17
Since these two studies, the ICNIRP (see below for more on this group) has declined to update their guidelines. Professor Ronald Melnick of the National Toxicology Program study has spoken against the ICNIRP refusal to reassess cell phone radiation exposure guidelines, now 20 years old, after the US National Toxicology Program’s ‘clear evidence of cancer in experimental animals.’ He has refuted every point of the ICNIRP document claiming that it has ‘numerous false and misleading statements.’ His paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research documents the ‘unfounded criticisms’ of the National Toxicology Program paper. Dr Belpoggi has also posted comments to say that no bias affected the NTP results or her own Ramazzini Institute results. ‘We are scientists, our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vinyl chloride.’ (Ramazzini Institute Statement on ICNIRP Note). (Critique of the ICNIRP Note of Sept 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies.)
New study: glioma rates have doubled in England
Studies of brain tumour incidence have hitherto shown mixed results. However, a large new study reveals that rates of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), the specific type of brain tumour associated with mobile radiation, have doubled. Researchers analysed 79,241 malignant brain tumours over 21 years and found that cases of GBM in England have increased from 1,250 per year in 1995 to just under 3,000. This is the first study to analyse in detail the different types of tumours; scientists at the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) say that the increase of GMB has until now been masked by the overall fall in incidence of other types of brain tumour, which could explain the lack of an apparent spike in brain tumours. The researchers concluded that the increasing rate of tumours in the frontal temporal lobe ‘raises the suspicion that mobile and cordless phone use may be promoting gliomas.’ Professor Denis Henshaw said ‘Our findings illustrate the need to look more carefully at, and try to explain the mechanisms behind, these cancer trends, instead of brushing the causal factors under the carpet and focusing only on cures.’18
Epidemiologist and Professor Emeritus Anthony Miller says that link with cancer ‘can no longer be ignored’:
Miller, an expert cancer researcher and advisor to the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has issued his scientific opinion that radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source – such as the signals emitted by cell phones, other wireless and cordless and sensor devices, and wireless networks – fully meets criteria to be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogenic to humans” agent, based on scientific evidence associating RF exposure to cancer development and cancer promotion.
He says, ’The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored.’ His opinion includes recent scientific publications which include the 2017 re-analysis of data from the Interphone study, the 2014 French National CERENAT Study, several new publications on Swedish cancer data, and the 2016 results of the National Toxicology Program.
Dr. Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg have published several epidemiological studies that found increased brain cancer associated with long-term cell phone use and conclude that “RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma.” A review of epidemiological studies by Hardell and Carlsberg (Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014) shows persons diagnosed with brain cancer had decreased survival rates associated with higher wireless phone use. The abstract states: Due to the relationship with survival the classification of IARC is strengthened and RF-EMF should be regarded as a human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.
A December 2018 review in The Lancet of the existing 2,000+ peer-reviewed studies on the impact of wireless technology on human and animal systems revealed that 68.2% find significant biological effects. The Lancet review concludes: “This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radio-frequency exposure levels”. 19
Sperm damage and brain development
The Environmental Health Trust online lists studies including:
Dr. Devra Davis has shown that wireless radiation results in sperm damage and alters brain development.
Dr. Marc Arazi presented data released by the cell phone radiation test program of the Government of France, which found that when cell phones are tested in body contact positions, RF radiation exposure exceeds regulatory limits.
Damage to the blood-brain barrier
It is commonly claimed that wireless radiation does not penetrate the blood-brain barrier, which is key to protecting the brain from damage. However, a Swedish study from 1997 showed that this is not the case. 20
“Neuronal damage may not have immediately demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. It may, however, in the long run, result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of ageing. We cannot exclude that after some decades of (often), daily use, a whole generation of users, may suffer negative effects such as autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases maybe already in their middle age”. 21
Numbers of people reporting symptoms (such as headache, dizziness and tinnitus) anecdotally are growing. Read more…
Research from Professor Martin Pall
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry Dr Martin Pall has extensively studied the way in which existing wireless radiation has a detrimental impact on health, including DNA damage and oxidative stress. New research shows mechanisms by which damage from non-ionising radiation occurs involving calcium channels in cells. The US Federal Communications Commission standard is based on the thermal effect – how much it heats tissue – but the regulations are 20 years old. Pall shows how safety studies are based only on thermal effects but that non-thermal effects are extensively documented and essential to recognise.
Pall (widely quoted as saying ‘5G is the stupidest idea in the history of the world’) lists four main dangers to humans from 5G: 1) an extraordinary number of antennae are required, 2) high outputs are needed for penetration, 3) pulsation levels will be very high, and 4) 5G will have an impact on the human body’s cellular electrical field. He warns that pulsed radiation used by 5G satellites is biologically active and can produce radiation effects deep within human bodies. The voltage sensors within human cells are sensitive to radiation, and when cells are exposed to radiation, excessively charged ions flow into the cell. Side-effects may include: DNA damage causing cancer and mutations, cancer caused by several mechanisms, endocrine (hormonal) system disruption, lowered libido, lowered fertility, neurological damage, nervous system damage, neuropsychiatric effects, cell apoptosis, free radical damage, excessive intracellular calcium.
Pall’s paper looking at 23 controlled, scientific studies:
‘Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health.’ Environmental Research,Volume 164, July 2018, Pages 405-416 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
ABSTRACT: Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes: oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism. Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose-response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults. These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions. In conclusion, there are seven repeatedly found Wi-Fi effects which have also been shown to be caused by other similar EMF exposures. Each of the seven should be considered, therefore, as established effects of Wi-Fi.
Pall’s booklet can be downloaded free online.
Video: Pall’s presentation to the NIH (9 minutes):
Other expert sources
Ronald Melnick PhD, retired Senior Toxicologist at the US National Institute of Environmental Health, has spoken publicly about the threat to health from wireless radiation.
Dr Sharon Goldberg is a radiation researcher and expert witness at legal cases against 5G masts in the US who states that there is no longer any debate around the harm to health posed by our existing wireless radiation.
Dr Erica Mallory-Blythe is a UK authority whose work can be found at phire.org.
- Schoemaker M et al (2005) Moblie phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case–control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer 93: 842–848
- Hardell L, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Påhlson A, Lilja A (2002) Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 11: 377–386
- See: Henry Lai
- https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf , https:// niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
- Belpoggi https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389
- Hardell and Carlberg 2009 Int J Oncol. 35: 5-17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 19513546
- Hardell and Carlberg 2015 Pathophysiology 22: 1-13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 25466607
- National Human Genome Research Institute website – quote from paper in Nature
- Ref: Journal of Public Health and Environment https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/ 2018/7910754/
- Salford, Dr. Nittby, and Dr. Persson in ‘Effects of Electromagnetic Fields From Wireless Communication upon the Blood Brain Barrier’ The Bioinitiative Report 2012.