Is 5G really safe?
You might be seeing headlines assuring you that 5G radiation is within the limits of what’s safe. It’s tempting to accept these reports as evidence enough and not ask any more questions. After all, if 5G posed no danger to anyone that would be ideal. We all wish it were the case.
But here’s the thing. Just because 5G radiation emissions can fall within current safety limits does not mean that 5G is safe.
In this post we’ll take a look at why safety reports shouldn’t be taken at face value.
Is 5G Safe? 5 Points To Consider
1. Existing standards are outdated
Technology moves fast. Assumedly, safety standards also have to move fast to keep up. Otherwise they’re simply not reflecting the current reality.
But are they keeping up?
Here’s the FCC:
“On August 1, 1996, the Commission adopted the NCRP’s recommended Maximum Permissible Exposure limits for field strength and power density […] In addition, the Commission adopted the specific absorption rate (SAR) limits for devices operating within close proximity to the body as specified within the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 guidelines.”
Yes, you read that right. The standards in use right now were adopted in the 1990s. They’re nearing on 30 years old.
So how can they possibly measure up to the dramatic advances in technology that have occurred over the past few decades?
(Short answer is, they can’t.)
2. Existing standards are based on thermal effects
There are other reasons why EMF safety standards are flawed. As we’ve touched on before, established safety standards are based around protecting people from what’s known as the thermal effects of EMF. Think about when you hold your phone up to your ear. Before long it becomes very hot. There’s a limit to how much of that heat human tissue can withstand before it starts to effectively cook and break down.
But what about the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic radiation?But what about the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic radiation?
Non-thermal effects aren’t as easy to see or feel, which is why they’re often overlooked, neglected or denied. But a growing volume of evidence suggests the effects are real. And they’re numerous.
For example, a 2013 study published in Journal of Andrology reviewed existing research into the effects of mobile phones on male reproduction. The researchers concluded that “together, the results of these studies have shown that RF‐EMR decreases sperm count and motility and increases oxidative stress.”
Or the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 16-year, $28-million study, which found that exposing rats to cell phone radiation at non-thermal levels lead to issues like DNA damage and malignant tumors.
Since safety standards don’t take non-thermal effects into account, results like these are ignored.
3. Cumulative and long-term effects are not taken into account
When we talk about a “safe” level of anything, we must take into account the total amount that’s being consumed or absorbed. Otherwise it simply doesn’t make sense.
Toxic substances add up over time. Drink to excess one day and your body can recover. Drink to excess every day and eventually your liver will start to fail.
And at the same time, drinking three units of alcohol from one source per day (e.g. wine) may be safe, but if you drink three units per day from multiple sources (e.g. three from wine, three from spirits) you’re no longer within the safety threshold.
Why should it be any different for electromagnetic radiation?
Safety standards for EMF do not attempt to take into account that we’re exposed to multiple sources of EMF almost constantly. Nor do they factor in the cumulative, long-term effects of that exposure.
4. Who is doing the testing?
Consider this headline from major tech website ZDNet: “Telstra finds 5G energy levels sitting well under safety limits”. What’s wrong with this picture?
Telstra is an Australian telecommunications company—the largest in the country. ZDNet’s article—a scathing and sarcastic dig at anyone who questions whether 5G is really safe—is based on information released by Telstra themselves.
That means that the testing was not independent or unbiased.
And while there’s a possibility telcos like Telstra can and do conduct objective and trustworthy tests, how can we know that they’re not serving their own interests? Independent testing exists for a reason, and it’s what the public deserves.
For any safety report, from any country, ask yourself: who is doing the testing?
5. Concerns are genuine
Reporting like the ZDNet piece above is not uncommon, and that’s a shame. It not only trivializes the issue, it aims to manipulate readers into wanting to distance themselves from it lest they be labelled as crazed conspiracy theorists.
And as we’ve seen by the global opposition mounting in response to 5G’s dangers, it’s not a conspiracy theory: it’s a concern being expressed by esteemed scientists, medical professionals, mayors, and senators. And more than anything, it’s a concern expressed by citizens.
Parents who understand that children are more vulnerable to any threat. Pregnant women who have seen the results of research into EMF and miscarriage. Adults who aren’t sure what years of exposure to cell phone radiation might have already done to their bodies.
No-one should be belittled for wanting answers to questions that concern their health and safety.
So When Will We Know If 5G Is Really Safe?
The main point we’re making here is that there are a number of good reasons why current safety standards aren’t up to scratch (we haven’t even gone into them all), and on top of that, good reasons to question any news reporting you see that claims they are.
What we need right now is for the concerns around 5G to be taken seriously—by governments, by regulatory bodies, by telecommunications providers themselves. The least we should have is better testing and more up-to-date standards, in order to ensure a minimum level of health and safety for all involved.
We’ll be keeping tabs on any news and advancements relating to 5G, so if you haven’t already done so, be sure to subscribe to our mailing list to be kept up to date.