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?
[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 . 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 . 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 .
> 3.3.1. Oxidation mechanism of cellular harm
> A well-studied potential mechanism of harm from radiofrequency radiation is one of cellular oxidation. Healthy biological systems require a balance of oxidation and antioxidation to fight infection and prevent disease (44, 45, 46). A review of the literature by Yakymenko et al. (2016) confirmed that in 93 of 100 studies, non-ionizing radio- frequency radiation caused a cellular stress response with excessive reactive oxygen species. He concluded, “oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”
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.
Reportedly needles are about the same length as a UHF antenna, and so they tend to absorb the radiation.
5G is, I believe, somewhere in the UHF spectrum.
To... halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G... not be harmful
To appoint...independent, truly impartial EMF & health scientists... to re-evaluate the health risks and...study the total and cumulative exposure
Among other things, they are asking for scientific voice in the public policy space rather than the only voice being corporate lobbyists. What's wrong with this again?
That they make bogus claims like:
"RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment."
while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite).
But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.
> The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.
And their first citation in that paragraph  is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program.
Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional.
> Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional.
It's unprofessional to tell people they're wrong, when the scientific consensus says they're wrong? So you can't tell flat earthers the earth is round because that would be 'unprofessional'?
I mean, that's exactly what Columbus did a few hundred years ago. Should he have followed the 'scientific consensus'?
edit, since I can't reply: yes, I know that Eratosthenes measured the circumference in something like the 2nd century BCE. Swap in galileo & heliocentrism if you like, the point still stands.
That's not the point, the following quote from the article roywiggins linked you is:
“no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat.”
> I mean, that's exactly what Columbus did a few hundred years ago. Should he have followed the 'scientific consensus'?
Besides being wrong, see above, that's not at all what I claim. If you think the scientific consensus is wrong, then prove it is wrong with evidence, write it up in a paper and submit it to a respected peer reviewed journal where it can be scrutinized. And don't try to circumvent review by presenting your work to the general public, who has neither the knowledge or the expertise to review your claims.
But until you've done that, your claims are just your opinion, and claiming they are 'proven' is bogus.
The results so far (surveyed across the literature; I'm a biophysicist who is familiar with all sorts of radiation and biology) are not convincing. most studies lack controls, or have poor study design.
But just because 'most studies' into EMF radiation at this frequency are not convincing, does not mean that they all are not. Those poorly conducted studies should be ignored, not used as mud thrown onto good studies.
I thought this one was interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/
As for ignoring poor studies: that's the first and best thing you should do, because otherwise, you'll spend a bunch of time trying to hypothesize your way out of a morass of contradictory, confusing, and ambiguous data.
My proposal, whatever maximum dosage regulators approve, they will get a tower installed next to their house that exposes them to that dosage. Align the incentives.
Ever had an RF burn from an antenna? I have. It can definitely be harmful.
This is false. Just look at the list. It's full of homeopaths, electrosensitive people, 'independent researchers', people totally outside their fields, retirees, or people with degree but no research records in the field.
As a Finn I looked at people from Finland in the list. All cranks.
Prof. Osmo Hänninen has solid science background. After his retirement he has become a pseudo science crackpot. He supervised Dowsing PhD thesis in University of Oulu called "SPONTANEOUS MOVEMENTS OF HANDS IN GRADIENTS OF WEAK VHF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS". It caused a scandal and the PhD thesis was rejected as pseudoscience. http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297601.pdf
I’ve always thought that an independent researcher was someone who studied within their field just had no monetary backing. Ex: a person with a PhD in X that does research on a subset of X, in their free time.
I met an independent researcher (Bob Edgar) who had sold his company to Intel and was bored. He started to attend seminars at Berkeley to find people who wanted his help, met a few folks, and ended up being one of the top people in the field of protein sequence alignment. At first, my advisor helped him by giving him an arbitrary appointment at Berkeley because otherwise journals wouldnt accept his papers because he was "independent". Eventually he reached the point where he could publish with his email address as affiliation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034147). Of course, these days, he'd just publish to biorxiv and put the code in github.
Reading his CV (http://www.drive5.com/papers/resume.html), it seems that even though he is a peer reviewed "Computational Biologist", his PhD is in Theoretical High-Energy Physics, who became a systems developer.
Health "science" is rarely either.
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.
(I'm aware this organization is criticized in the posted article. Nevertheless, it's guidance is widely used by regulatory bodies.)
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.
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]
Well other than having more cell towers than TV repeaters...
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.
I should have linked the US Nation Cancer Institute numbers
As you can see from the graph and numbers this is respects to year over year analysis from 1980's, so I differ they are not growing. Worldwide my opinion is the prognosis has been getting more accurate and with pre screenings are ability to detect cancer is better then ever.
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.
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.
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.
Is that mistaken?