
Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G (2017) [pdf] - _j4jc
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf
======
montenegrohugo
Is this credible? Can someone with more experience weigh in on the mechanism
behind this?

My understanding of physics is that 5G wavelength is much longer than visible
light (millimeter vs nanometer magnitudes) and visible light only really
starts to get harmful in the UV+ spectrum.

How can electromagnetic radiation in the millimeter range do anything but heat
the tissue to a minimal degree? How can it be harmful?

~~~
Roelven
Just browsing the papers linked in the article you can find some relevant
things:

[Effects on trees and plants]

The microwaves may affect vegetables. In the area that received radiation
directly from “Location Skrunda Radio Station” (Latvia), pines (Pinus
sylvestris) experienced a lower growth radio. This did not occur beyond the
area of impact of electromagnetic waves. A statistically significant negative
correlation between increase tree growth and intensity of electromagnetic
field was found, and was confirmed that the beginning of this growth decline
coincided in time with the start of radar emissions. Authors evaluated other
possible environmental factors which might have intervened, but none had
noticeable effects [103]. In another study investigating cell ultrastructure
of pine needles irradiated by the same radar, there was an increase of resin
production, and was interpreted as an effect of stress caused by radiation,
which would explain the aging and declining growth and viability of trees
subjected to pulsed microwaves. They also found a low germination of seeds of
pine trees more exposed [104]. The effects of Latvian radar was also felt by
aquatic plants. Spirodela polyrrhiza exposed to a power density between 0.1
and 1.8 μW/cm2 had lower longevity, problems in reproduction and morphological
and developmental abnormalities compared with a control group who grew up far
from the radar [105].

[source]
[https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09...](https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680\(09\)00003-0/fulltext#Conclusions)

~~~
posterboy
> a lower growth radio

Lol, freudian slip?

You didn't post any causal explanation, just correlation.

Assuming the correlation was significant, maybe low magnetic fields along the
radar are responsible, or transient spikes, high frequency (dys-)harmonics -
because it says "pulsed" but I don't know whether it means square pulse or
rather probably not. Might latvias Equip is slightly out of tune, who knows.
Noisy relais is no rarity at all.

~~~
ovi256
Before conducting controlled experiments (which can verify causality) it's
usual to conduct compared studies, which find the experimental factor occuring
in a population and study its outcome. It's enough to establish correlation,
much cheaper, and you can do it today instead of waiting however long it takes
for the experiment (years if you have to grow trees while exposing them to
microwave radiation)

~~~
bluGill
True, but when you find a lot of random change correlations that are not
really there.

------
twtw
It's useful to have some background on where the existing regulations came
from when thinking about these things. There is quite a pile of inconclusive
research on the medical effects of microwave exposure, and as such none of it
could be used for a scientific approach to regulation. At the end of the day,
a limit needs to be selected.

Instead, IIUC, what happened was the regulators took existing finding on the
"work stoppage limit" for mice/rats (in watts/kg, this is where bad things
start happening like significant temperature rise and no longer moving), made
it 10x lower for occupational exposure, and then made it 5x lower again for
the general public. In the face of uncertainty regarding non-thermal effects,
the current regulations adopted an "innocent until proven guilty" style
approach because any nonthermal effects had not (and to my knowledge, have
not) been demonstrated consistently.

It seems reasonable to me that certain people would prefer a precautionary
approach.

[https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl....](https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf)
(I'm aware this organization is criticized in the posted article.
Nevertheless, it's guidance is widely used by regulatory bodies.)

------
dascritch
In the sign list, for France : Dominique Belpomme is known for fake science
bias, as Marc Arazi.
[https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/e-sante/electrosensibi...](https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/e-sante/electrosensibilite-
le-pr-belpomme-poursuivi-par-l-ordre-des-medecins_120479)

------
scott_s
For the unfamiliar, this current of concern is on the conspiratorial thinking
side, and these people are in the minority of scientists familiar with the
issue. For a skeptical counterpoint, here are a bunch of related articles from
the Science Based Medicine folks: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/cell-
phones/](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/cell-phones/)

~~~
ColanR
> this current of concern is on the conspiratorial thinking side

I wish that it could be possible to address the questions of science directly,
without mudslinging. It's a simple question of what the effect of EMF
radiation is on the environment and the human body, and the risk we run to our
detriment if the questions are ignored.

> these people are in the minority of scientists

That is not a problem in science. Science isn't a democracy, it's a fact-
finding expedition. Who cares if only a few people got it right? The point is
to figure out if they did, and to keep a humble mindset just in case.

~~~
scott_s
The questions have been addressed, to the satisfaction of most scientists and
medical researchers. When a particular group of scientists refuse to engage
with the preponderance of evidence in a good-faith manner, I think we have to
point out that is the case.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Source?

I mean this sincerely. Is there actually any polling of the scientific
community on this issue, or on what basis are you saying this?

[Let's also not include non-researching medical community as data-points]

------
IronBacon
FWIK 5G is going to use mostly the spectrum bands freed by the move from
analog to digital TV, or at least that's what I've read briefly on the
argument, so there's something that I'm missing that makes phones more
dangerous than TVs?

Well other than having more cell towers than TV repeaters...

~~~
gsich
Probably that your device must send too.

~~~
IronBacon
Yeah that too, but I was wondering how different could be than current 3G/4G
devices to be considered harmful...

------
gcb0
almost all of their sources are from these papers
[http://www.bioinitiative.org/research-
summaries/](http://www.bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/)

------
Junk_Collector
The article is incredibly disingenuous.

The first paragraph is the typical goalpost of proving a negative. This is a
common tactic of scare groups opposed to something. See also vaccine denialism
demanding that it be proven that it is safe in all cases.

The second paragraph is just false and belays that they either do not have a
technical understanding of the 5G framework or they are being intentionally
misleading about it.

The third paragraph intentionally conflates 5G and IoT which are only
tangentially related.

They spend a few paragraphs attacking researchers who published results
contradicting theirs, but never address the methodology. They claim that
anyone who has worked in or with either industry or the standards board cannot
be trusted.

Finally, we look at the adverse health effects that they claim are caused by
EMF. Brain cancer, heart cancer, learning and memory deficits, neurological
disorders, negative impacts on general well-being in humans, Alzheimer's
disease, male infertility, Common Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, headaches,
concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy,
fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.

------
AndresToro
Shouldn't cancer rates among humans increase drastically in the 21st century
since we shower the entirety of the US in 2G/3G/4G? Cancer statistics year
over year show a steady decline of new cases even with population growth
increasing, I assume this would be different with the hysteria this paper is
claiming.

~~~
spurcell93
Actually, there are increasing rates of cancer diagnoses, and even population
wide increases in cancer deaths. However, the individual likelihood of cancer
death is lower than ever before.

[https://ourworldindata.org/cancer](https://ourworldindata.org/cancer)
[https://www.medicaldaily.com/cancer-trends-2017-why-are-
canc...](https://www.medicaldaily.com/cancer-trends-2017-why-are-cancer-rates-
increasing-407270)

~~~
gcb0
this is rigth on. if you get number of cancer deaths, then normalize the
improvement of health overal, improvement in treatment efficiency, reduction
of sun exposure, you will probably get a very step line increase wich will
very likely correlate, or not, with new radiation emissions.

------
veli_joza
> 5G technology is effective only over short distance

This is not really true. Yes, the signal range is reduced at higher
frequencies used by 5G (>5 GHz), but this is mitigated by using beam-forming
to concentrate output power where it's needed. This means that with same
output power you get very similar range on high frequencies compared to low
frequencies without beam forming.

There will be increased number of cells due to smart vehicles and IoT, not due
to 5G technology.

I don't know anything about health effects, though. I belive mmWave won't be
built into mobile phones for some time, it's currently needed for high-
bandwidth connections towards buildings, vehicles and portable hotspots.

~~~
mg96226
Beam forming doesn't help it penetrate foliage or even humid air.

~~~
gsich
That all depends on the frequency used.

------
pjc50
I would be _really_ skeptical of this; people have argued for decades that
mobile phone levels of radiation are harmful, with no real evidence.

~~~
ddebernardy
This paper from a separate comment has an overview of the research on the
demonstrated or suspected effects of current and 5G wavelengths:

[https://twin.sci-
hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f...](https://twin.sci-
hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f4/10.1016@j.envres.2018.01.016.pdf#view=FitH)

I'm not savvy enough in the related biological fields to comment on the
soundness of the research and the results, but FWIW there were a few claims
made about millimeter wavelengths (to be used by 5G) that gave me pause.

------
ahsanejaz
Submission statement: I have just submitted the pdf because it was interesting
and I was concerned. I do not support or oppose it.

------
souterrain
Petitions are not science.

~~~
souterrain
Here's[1] a recent article that supports the OP's point-of-view.

Interestingly, Environmental Research "publishes original reports describing
studies of the adverse effects of environmental agents on humans and animals,"
which seems to exclude any research to the contrary.

[1]: [https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016](https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016)

------
rplst8
If it's not ionizing radiation, near the excitation frequency of water, or
extremely high power - it's total B.S.

------
simulate
Related discussion on HN yesterday about Mill Valley banning 5G:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17956130](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17956130)

------
aphextron
As far as my understanding of physics goes, if an EMF is not powerful enough
to cause acute physical pain, then it isn't powerful enough to do any damage.
The same as sitting next to a campfire.

Is that mistaken?

~~~
tropdrop
Note your argument could apply to radium radiation - painting my entire hand
with radium-based paint each day would not cause me to feel acute physical
pain... until a few months to a year later, when the bones in my hand would
disintegrate.

------
xefer
I like how they list these people and their degrees as if a degree is a
"Certificate of Sanity"

~~~
rplst8
I'd posit that the stressor hormones released when worrying about the effects
of cell phones cause more damage to your body than the small amounts of
electromagnetic radiation that are given off.

