We should err in warning and stop the global rollout of 5G (fifth generation) telecommunications networks to ensure that this technology is completely secure, urging an expert in a piece of opinion to was published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
There are no health concerns about 5G and COVID-19, despite what conspiracy theories have suggested.
But the transmission density required for 5G means that more people are exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, potentially harmful to health, says Professor John William Frank, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
The advent of 5G technology has been viewed by governments and some connected interests as transformational, promising economic and lifestyle benefits, through a significant increase in wireless and mobile connectivity at home. , work, school and in the community, he says.
But it has become a subject of strong controversy, fueled by four key areas of scientific uncertainty and concern.
The lack of clarity as to exactly what technology is included in 5G; and a growing laboratory research group but far from revealing the biological disintegration potential of RF-EMFs
Almost complete absence (to date) of high-quality epidemiological studies on the impact on human health from exposure to 5G EMF
Epidemiological evidence of such effects from previous generations of RF-EMF exposure at lower levels
Consistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities have not based their RF-EMF security policies on the latest science, amid potential conflicts of interest
5G uses much higher frequency radio waves (3 to 300GHz) than before and makes use of relatively new assistive technology – and relatively undeveloped, in terms of safety – to enable their transmission. higher data enabled this, notes Dr. Frank.
Its fragility means that elevated ‘cell’ air transmissions are typically required every 100-300 m – which is much more spatially dense than the transmitters required for 2G technology. , Older 3G and 4G, using lower frequency waves, he says.
A dense distribution network is also required to deliver the ‘everywhere / anytime’ connection promised by 5G developers.
Existing 4G systems can service up to 4000 devices using radio frequency per square kilometer; 5G systems connect up to a million devices per square kilometer – dramatically increasing the speed of data transfer (by a factor of 10) and the amount of data transferred (by a factor of 1000), he explains.
Although several major reviews of the existing evidence on the potential health harms of 5G have been published over the past decade, these have been of “scientific quality variability,” suggesting Professor Frank.
And they have not stopped the plunder from “a growing number of engineers, scientists and doctors internationally … calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more research and stop further public promotions. publication, awaiting clearer evidence of safety, “he writes.
The maximum safety limits allowed for RF-EMF exposure vary widely around the world, he says.
Moreover, ‘5G systems’ is not a consistently defined term, involving very different specific technologies and components.
It is very likely that each of these types of transmission causes slightly different biological effects – making a sound, complete and updated study of these effects almost impossible.. “
John William Frank, Professor, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh
Recent reviews of laboratory data on RF-EMFs indicate that exposures can produce a wide range of effects, including genital, fetal, oncological, neuropsychiatric, skin, eye, and immunological. But there is no evidence to suggest that it is involved in the release of COVID-19, as some conspiracy theorists have suggested, he confirms.
“Informative reporters’ reports on the web dispel this theory, and no scientist or reputable publisher has supported it, ”he says:“ the theory that 5G and EMF co has been linked to the unfounded pandemic. “
But for the current 5G rollout, there is a good basis for introducing the ‘precautionary principle’ due to major doubts about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure, which should be reason enough “to call a moratorium on that publication, pending a proper scientific study of the suspected adverse health effects,” he says.
There is no strong public health or safety philosophy for using 5G fast, he claims. The main benefits promised are either economic, and then perhaps for some more than others, or related to increased user convenience, he suggests.
“Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological perspective, these positive benefits must wait,” he concludes.