The implementation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication has been stopped in three cantons in Switzerland (Jura, Geneva and Vaud) until effects on health and environment have been investigated. This is in line with what we have asked for in the 5G appeal, see www.5gappeal.eu.
Thus, we asked for a moratorium until investigations on adverse effects have been studied by independent scientists. The appeal has been signed by more than 230 scientists and medical doctors.
In the article “World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review)” published in 2017 we showed low levels of radiofrequency radiation in the investigated part of the WHO Geneva building. The conclusion was: Ironically enough, whether knowingly or not, the WHO staff seems to protect themselves from high involuntary RF radiation levels at least in the measured areas within the Geneva building.
Those employed at the WHO office in Geneva will now be protected from 5G radiation. The question is if this is justified since people in most parts of the world are not protected and WHO seems not to take action for prevention. As discussed in the article WHO seems to rely on a small group of scientists in the biased ICNIRP group.
Already in the 1970’s Russian researchers published animal studies on health effects from radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range that is currently for 5G use; mm waves. These studies were declassified by CIA in 2012 and are now available at internet.
A whole range of detrimental effects on the nervous system, different organs, hormones and the immune system were presented.
These results strengthen the warnings to implement the 5G system before adverse effects on humans and the environment have been investigated by researchers independent from industry.
Unfortunately these appeals seem to have had little or no effect, 5G has its own track, see www.5gappeal.eu and www.emfcall.org.
We have published results on measurements of radiofrequency (RF) radiation in central parts of Stockholm, Sweden. The published article can be found here. Especially high levels were found at the Hay Market and Sergel Plaza; mean levels 10,728 and 7,768 microWatt/m2, respectively. Also at central streets high ambient RF radiation was found from nearby base stations.
The figure below shows the result for the Hay Market. We have inserted the 30-60 microWatt/m2 line for lowest level of biological effects (red line).
We measured radiofrequency (RF) radiation at the Järntorget square in the Stockholm Old Town in a new study recently published. In a previous study of the Old Town we found especially high RF radiation at that square. The maximum level in the present study was 11.6 V/m at the center of the square, where the antenna was focused. Järntorget’s mean value was 5.2 V/m, median 5.0 V/m, range 1.2-11.6 V/m.
Of interest is that this level can be compared to life-span carcinogenicity study on rats exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM environmental radiation performed at the Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy. A statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant Schwannoma in the heart was found in male rats at the highest dose, 50 V/m. In treated female rats at the highest dose the incidence of malignant glial tumors was increased, although not statistically significant. In conclusion our study showed RF radiation levels at one square, Järntorget, in Sweden was only one order of magnitude lower than those showing increased incidence of tumours in the RI animal study. An increased cancer risk cannot be excluded for those working next to or at Järntorget for longer time periods.
These results indicate that it is pertinent to measure RF radiation levels in the environment and in homes. Such exposure levels should be declared for those intending to settle down in any dwelling.
We measured radiofrequency radiation in an apartment in Stockholm. The study is open under open access. Due to nearby bases stations high radiation levels were measure both in the apartment and on balconies.
A total of 74,531 measurements were made corresponding to ~83 h of recording. The total mean RF radiation level was 3,811 μW/m2 (range 15.2‑112,318 μW/m2) for the measurement of the whole apartment, including balconies. Particularly high levels were measured on three balconies and 3 of 4 bedrooms. The total mean RF radiation level decreased by 98% when the measured down‑links from the base stations for 2, 3 and 4 G were disregarded. The results are discussed in relation to the detrimental health effects of non‑thermal RF radiation. Due to the current high RF radiation, the apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who may be more sensitive than adults. For a definitive conclusion regarding the effect of RF radiation from nearby base stations, one option would be to turn them off and repeat the measurements. However, the simplest and safest solution would be to turn them off and dismantle them.
Thus, we concluded that of special concern is the levels in bedrooms, especially those two used by children, since they seem to be more vulnerable to adverse health effects than grown‑ups. They have also a longer expected life in which illnesses may later become manifest. The results indicate that this apartment is unsuitable for long‑term living based on current knowledge of the potential adverse effects on health of RF radiation.
Another conclusion is that RF radiation should be measured in homes, especially before moving into a new one.
This Italian study on exposure to radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rats was started in 2005. It was a whole life-span study including 2448 animals. They were divided into 4 groups; 0 exposure (control group), 5 V/m, 25 V/m or 50 V/m. It has now been published and interestingly the results are similar as in the NTP study.
A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m). Furthermore, an increase in the incidence of heart Schwann cells hyperplasia was observed in treated male and female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although this was not statistically significant. An increase in the incidence of malignant glial tumors was observed in treated female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although not statistically significant.
The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.
Considering this study, the NTP study, increasing incidence of glioma, and human epidemiology studies showing increased risk for glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma) for persons using wireless phones it is time for International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to make a new risk assessment. The results indicate that radiofrequency radiation should be a Group 1 carcinogen to humans (sufficient evidence).
This study is now under peer review during March 26 to 28, 2018; the reports can be found here (NTP TR 595; rats) and here (NTP TR 596; mice). It has been able to submit comments and our views can be found here.
Our overall evaluation of levels of evidence of carcinogenic activity are:
Glioma: Clear evidence
Meningioma: Equivocal evidence
Vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma): Clear evidence
Pituitary tumor (adenoma): Equivocal evidence
Thyroid cancer: Some evidence
Malignant lymphoma: Equivocal evidence
Skin (cutaneous tissue): Equivocal evidence
Multi-site carcinogen: Some evidence
Based on the IARC preamble to the monographs, RF radiation should be classified as Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
’This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.’ (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php)