Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G

Posted on by LVsA

Published 18oct2022 – ehjournal.biomedcentral com

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G
.

by International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

Authors

Igor Belyaev, Carl Blackman, Kent Chamberlin, Alvaro DeSalles, Suleyman Dasdag, Claudio Fernández, Lennart Hardell, Paul Héroux, Elizabeth Kelley, Kavindra Kesari, Don Maisch, Erica Mallery-Blythe, Ronald L. Melnick, Anthony Miller, Joel M. Moskowitz, Wenjun Sun & Igor Yakymenko

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G

Abstract

In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies……

Continue Reading HERE

…..(14) Assumptions underlying exposure limits for RF radiation and the scientific evidence demonstrating that these assumptions are not valid…..

…….Finally, we note our concern about the worldwide deployment of 5G communication networks for faster transfer of large amounts of data, but with no adequate health effects studies demonstrating the safety of high frequency millimeter waves. Because of limitations of the penetration and distance of travel of millimeter waves, dense networks of base stations are being mounted on structures such as utility poles in highly populated cities. Also, because the absorption of EMF at frequencies above 6 GHz is minimal, ICNIRP [5] has specified absorbed power density (Sab) as the dosimetric parameter for “heating effects” at the higher frequencies. Sab is a function of the incident power density (Sinc) and the input reflection coefficient (Γ). In near field scenarios, the Sinc does not have a singular value; this is largely due to the heterogeneous nature of human body tissues and their relevant parameters (such as the permittivity, equivalent conductivity, mass density), which vary in different body regions and with frequency. Therefore, unless a powerful EMF simulation method together with realistic human models are used, the Sinc and the reflection coefficient values would be difficult to accurately estimate, making the resulting Sab unreliable.

The assumption that 5G is safe at the power density limits recommended by ICNIRP (50 W/m2 and 10 W/m2 averaged over 6 min for occupational and 30 min for public exposures, respectively) because of its minimal penetration into the body does not justify the dismissal of the need for health effects studies prior to implementing 5G networks. The new communication networks will result in exposures to a form of radiation that has not been previously experienced by the public at large (Assumption 14). The implementation of 5G technology without adequate health effects information raises many questions, such as: Will exposure to 5G radiation: (i) compromise the skin’s ability to provide protection from pathogenic microorganisms? (ii) will it exacerbate the development of skin diseases? (iii) will it increase the risk of sunlight-induced skin cancers? (iv) will it increase the risk of damage to the lens or cornea? (v) will it increase the risk of testicular damage? (vi) will it exert deeper tissue effects either indirectly following effects on superficial structures or more directly due to deeper penetration of the ELF components of modulated RF signals? (vii) will it adversely affect wildlife populations? Answers to these questions and others that are relevant to human and wildlife health should be provided before widespread exposures to 5G radiation occur, not afterwards. Based on lessons that should have been learned from studies on RFR at frequencies below 6 GHz, we should no longer rely on the untested assumption that current or future wireless technology, including 5G, is safe without adequate testing. To do otherwise is not in the best interest of either public or environmental health.

Download PDF HERE

Source – Environmental Health Journal – Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health 21, 92 (2022).

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).

ICBE-EMF – Flawed Assumptions presented by Dr Magda Havas Oct 2022

This is a short video (15 minutes) on the publication from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) that critiqued 14 flawed assumptions by FCC/ICNIRP on Radiofrequency Radiation limits.