Convenience, speed, instant gratification… That’s what we want from the Internet. The more we have it, the more we need it. As existing networks become overworked, providers look to the next big technology solution: 5G. So it’s natural to wonder, what are the health risks of 5G?
Table of Contents
Why Do We Need 5G?
You’ve heard all the talk about self-driving cars, smart homes and appliances that manage themselves. The broader term for this is the Internet of Things (IoT), and for it to become a reality, wireless networks have to evolve to meet increasing data demands. Wireless companies tout fifth generation (5G) networks as the answer.
The wireless companies promise 5G will bring greater capacity, a higher density of users, faster download speeds, and more reliable connectivity than our current 4G networks.
The companies are planning to use existing infrastructure to install the new 5G devices. They’ll be mounted on things like utility poles and buildings in a tightly-knit network to help keep the signal strong.
A lot of these 5G receptors are about the size of smoke detectors. This makes them less noticeable and therefore makes them seem like less of an intrusion to homeowners living nearby.
Even so, many people are becoming concerned after seeing the 5G cell towers pop up in their neighborhoods, wondering if 5G is bad for health.
Why Is 5G a Cause for Concern?
5G subscriptions are already booming. A report from Swedish telecom Ericsson has estimated that subscriptions will reach 190 million this year alone.
This will result in unprecedented exposure to a particular type of radiation.
All wireless technology functions by sending and receiving signals using electromagnetic radiation (or EMF). So each and every wireless device – as well as the towers and routers that connect them – is a source of EMF.
If you read my post about 5G cell towers, you’ll realize that the leap to 5G means:
- we will have more 5G connected devices
- communicating with more and new forms of energy
- to and from more 5G towers and small cell sites
- closer to the ground
Taken together, this means 5G will lead to an exponential increase in human exposures to EMF radiation – at frequencies that have never been used in consumer applications before.
These exposures are not only unprecedented. They are also untested. There have been no surveys to indicate the levels of 5G EMF radiation to which people will be exposed.
Since there have been no 5G safety studies into short or long-term 5G health effects, and the health impacts of 5G are untested, we cannot say with certainty what 5G effects are on the human body. (Though we do know there are no safe radiation levels of EMF.)
There have been no long term 5G health studies. Despite the absence of studies into the long-term health effects of 5G, Dr. Joel Moskowitz from UC Berkeley School of Public Health has explained, “we have no reason to believe that 5G is safe.”
5G is a type of EMF radiation. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated this type of EMF as a Class 2B carcinogen. And other research has demonstrated that EMF is genotoxic, which means it can destroy your DNA.
And in 2018, the US National Toxicology Program released the results from a $30 million study finding “clear evidence” that exposure to cell phone radiation increased the incidence of cancer and genetic damage in mice.
Beyond cancer, multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies have also demonstrated that exposure to this type of radiation can result in a wide variety of conditions, including:
- Hair loss
- Low energy
- Appetite loss
- Bone marrow damage
- Organs damage
- Incapacitation and death
Even if 5G radiation emissions fall within current safety limits (and, to be clear, there is strong evidence that new 5G exposures do not fall within these limits) does not mean that 5G is safe. Despite the fact that 5G is leading to increased exposures to higher energy forms of EMF radiation, there has been no change to the safety standards that govern the technology.
One characteristic of 5G is its use of millimeter waves.
4G networks use radio waves to broadcast data. But the radio spectrum is already crammed full of signals. 5G seeks to use a whole new spectrum — that of millimeter waves — to allow for more traffic. Think of it like building a second highway when the first one gets too packed with cars.
Millimeter waves get their name because they’re much shorter than radio waves at only 1 to 10mm in length. Shorter waves mean these are higher frequency, which means they transmit more energy.
Millimeter waves are generally considered to be absorbed by the body within a few millimeters of the skin. Since millimeter waves have never been used before in consumer applications, there is limited scientific data on their health consequences.
However, research has demonstrated that even short-term exposures can harm the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system.
Skin Amplifies 5G Health Risks
5G health risks may be amplified because of how, according to one study, 5G EMF radiation interacts with the human body.
The study lead by Dr. Yuri D Feldman at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that human sweat ducts act as an array of tiny, helix-shaped antennas when exposed to millimeter waves.
The findings suggest that human skin not only absorbs but actually amplifies the radiation from millimeter wave networks.
According to Dr. Feldman and team, “the full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still very unclear”. They add that further study is “poignant now because of the interest of industry to exploit precisely this signal range (100 GHz – 400 GHz) for communications and possible consequent side effects on the public.”
Other Health Risks of 5G & Millimeter Waves
Beyond the more widely known risks from EMF exposure of cancer and infertility, other studies highlight additional 5G network dangers.
For example, an article by Dr. Cindy Russell in Santa Clara Medical Association’s The Bulletin references a number of studies linking 5G millimeter wavelengths to heart problems, birth defects, decreased antibiotic sensitivity, cataracts, and immune system suppression. Dr. Russell calls strongly for the development of safety regulations and thorough pre-market testing of 5G technologies.
In his book about 5G health risks, Dr. Martin Pall outlines eight pathophysiological effects caused by exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF radiation:
1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern.
2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it is a travesty to ignore these findings.
3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases.
4. Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations.
5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.
6. Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells.
7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signaling.
8. Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation.
Dr. Pall argues at length that each of these negative health effects from EMF exposures will be exacerbated by the rollout of 5G.
A research study published in 1977 by a Russian scientist N.P. Zalyubovskaya in a Russian-language journal titled Vracheboyne Delo says,
“Morphological, functional, and biochemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimeter waves caused changes in the body manifested in the structural alterations in the skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the process of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism.N.P. Zalyubovskaya, 1977
The degree of unfavorable effect of millimeter waves depended on the duration of the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.”
In short, Dr. Zalyubovskaya found several biological effects from exposure to millimeter waves, in the skin, organs, blood, bone marrow and other physiological processes.
And, significantly, Dr. Zalyubovskaya was also able to conclude that the effects worsened in a dose-response relationship. Meaning, the more you’re exposed to the waves, the worse the effects are.
The study was classified until 2012. The Central Intelligence Agency declassified the paper to the public in 2012.
David O Carpenter (University at Albany, State University of New York) says, “The potential effects of Radio Frequency Radiations (Radio Waves) on human health are major.”
His paper “Are There Health Hazards Coming From the Rollout of 5G?” suggests that radiofrequency can cause cancer in animals.
He says the following:
- Two recent studies have proven that RF radiation causes cancer in animals
- The US National Toxicology Program has just released a study where rats and mice were exposed to RF radiation like that coming from a mobile phone. Male rats developed the same two cancers seen in humans who use a mobile phone extensively.
- The Ramizzini Institute in Italy did a similar study but with 15-time lower exposure to mimic that experienced by living near to a mobile phone tower. They also found cancer in rats.
Millimeter Waves Have Been Weaponized
It’s not just scientists that have recognized the harm that can result from exposure to millimeter waves. So has the military.
As far back as the 1980s, scientists began testing whether “millimeter wave energy could create a repel effect that might serve as a non-lethal weapon.” This led to the creation of the Active Denial System (ADS).
According to the US Department of Defense, the ADS “generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam” that penetrates the skin’s surface and causes an intense stinging or burning. It is used for purposes like crowd control because “within seconds, an individual feels an intense heating sensation that stops when the transmitter is shut off or when the individual moves out of the beam.”
Mobile networks operate in a different way to ADS weapons. ADS beams are strong and directional, and cause serious injury if exposure is too high or too long. But the existence of such weaponry demonstrates that this type of radiation can indeed have strong, disabling bio effects on human health. Which prompts the question: what happens when we’re exposed to many, constant, low-level beams long term?
5G And Your Child: The Health Risks of 5G for Children
If you’re concerned that the increase in electromagnetic radiation might be detrimental to adults, then here’s something else to bear in mind: the dangers of 5G for children and babies are even greater.
Children And Radiation Absorption
Before we delve into children’s health risks of 5G specifically, it’s important to understand why children and babies are at greater risk from EMF.
One of the main reasons is absorption. Says a 2014 study, published in Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, “Children absorb more MWR [microwave radiation] than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller.”
This is therefore true for any kind of radiofrequency radiation, whether it’s emitted by a cell phone, wifi router, wireless baby monitor, or other device. This has also been confirmed by other studies — like a Brazilian study from 2015 and, more recently, this 2018 study which concludes that “young eyes and brains absorb substantially higher local radiation doses than adults’”.
One related point of concern is around cell phone safety standards. FCC safety standards are based upon a testing model known as SAM (Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin) — which is a plastic model of an adult male head. This means that, in the words of a 2012 scientific paper, the safety standards are “greatly underestimating the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile phone users, especially children”.
The Specific Absorption Rate for a 10-year old is “up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model,” says the study. “When electrical properties are considered, a child’s head’s absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull’s bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults.”
So to put it another way: our cell phone safety guidelines are based on the absorption rate of a 220-pound adult male, when multiple research has shown that smaller bodies — especially children’s — absorb at a much higher rate.
Of course, it’s not just cell phones children are being exposed to. What happens if we take other types of exposure into account?
Children And Cumulative Effect
This leads us to another factor in regards to electromagnetic radiation and children: cumulative effect. Children are now being exposed to EMF from a much younger age, as well as in greater amounts, which means that by the time they reach adulthood their cumulative exposure will be at a level not yet seen — and certainly never before tested — in humans.
As the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure study referenced above explains, microwave radiation from wireless devices “has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood.”
In short, it could be years before the true health consequences are known.
There are other reasons, too, why children are at a higher risk and require more protection. Like the fact that their bodies and brains are still in development. As British physicist Barrie Trower explains, “Children are physiologically and neurologically immature. It takes years for the blood-brain barrier to form, leaving children more prone to cell-leakage from microwave radiation. And a person’s immune system, which fights off damage, takes 18 years to develop.”
5G Health Risks for Children
This leads us to the introduction of 5G networks, and the subsequent risks of 5G for children.
As we’ve explored above, the health risks of having a 5G network are not yet known. These next-generation networks are being rolled out without testing and without adequate updates to safety standards. What we do know is that the potential for danger is so real that 5G rollouts are facing massive opposition — from concerned citizens, from scientists around the world, from local councils, and others.
The reason for the concern is that 5G requires thousands of “small cell” towers to be posted around a city in order for it to work. Because these receptors will be so ubiquitous, residents will have no choice but to have their exposure to EMF dramatically increased.
With 5G, anywhere you go, radiation will follow.
So, when we consider the health and safety risks of 5G for children, the heightened exposure is the key cause for concern. If, as we’ve seen above, children absorb more radiation, are more susceptible to health effects due to their developing bodies, and will have increased cumulative exposure across their lifetimes, when we multiply this with the vastly amplified exposure of 5G the threat becomes very real.
With 5G, children may be exposed to radiofrequency radiation constantly: at home, at school, even out in the street. Parents lose the ability to choose, because the bombardment of EMF from 5G cell receptors is outside of their control.
Cumulative Exposure: 5G Will Not Replace 4G
The new 5G networks, devices and technology will not replace 4G. For the foreseeable future, as millions of new 5G towers and wireless devices are deployed into the world, they will run concurrently with the existing 4G infrastructure.
This means that exposures to 5G radiation will be in addition to the EMF to which we are all already exposed on a daily basis.
And this ties into what I call the fundamental flaw in EMF safety standards. Namely, that such standards exist to regulate the emissions from a single wireless device. These safety standards do not consider concurrent exposures from multiple devices, or cumulative exposures over time.
So what happens when you are exposed to EMF radiation from dozens – or even hundreds – of sources simultaneously? Remember: 5G isn’t just for cell phones– it will also power the networks for your smart homes and smart cars and numerous other devices in your life.
5G means millions of new antennas posted not just in cities but along power lines and street corners in residential neighborhoods.
With cell phone use already linked to cancer, reproductive issues and numerous other negative health issues, the explosive increase in signals that 5G will bring about, and the potential negative effects of 5G networks, is a serious concern.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests that there are significant 5G health risks. The prudent approach would be to adopt the precautionary principle and demand that our governments invest further research into the concerns, health effects and dangers of this new technology.
5G, DNA Damage & the Future of the Human Genome
This post focuses heavily on the impact of 5G on human health. In other words, the risks of 5G to your health, and the health of your family, friends and loved ones.
And that’s an important topic – one that obviously matters to you.
But it’s also worth taking a moment to consider the impact on humanity as a whole.
Some time ago I gave a talk at the “What If…?” conference in Las Vegas entitled “What If Wireless Technology Is Altering Humanity’s Gene Pool?” This question is now more relevant than ever. Because with 5G, DNA damage is even more likely. And that damage could have serious implications for the future of the human genome.
I’ll explain why. But first, here’s the talk. It’s only eight minutes long and it’ll help contextualize what I’m about to talk about.
Featured Video: What If Wireless Technology Is Altering Humanity’s Gene Pool?
Your Radiation Exposure Is Increasing Exponentially
The first thing to note is that exposure to electromagnetic radiation has skyrocketed since the invention of wireless devices. And our exposure levels are on the brink of again being amplified exponentially.
This fact is not in question.
And 5G does not only mean ushering in an era of new exposures to new types of EMF. It also means a lot more of those exposures.
The new generation of wireless technology requires a vast number of cell receptors and a veritable blanket of EMF in order to function. Even from outer space.
One reason 5G is contentious is that it will be virtually impossible to avoid being constantly bombarded with radio frequency radiation.
So what does this have to do with DNA and the human genome?
With 5G, DNA Damage Risk Increases
Concerns about cell phones and cancer are common. But few people are aware that electromagnetic radiation also has the potential to damage DNA.
Findings by Dr. Henry Lai and colleagues, replicated in various studies across years of research, show that exposure to both pulsed and continuous radio frequency radiation can cause DNA strand breaks in living cells.
In other words, the DNA information stored in those cells becomes corrupted. Sometimes irreparably.
This brings us to sperm. Sperm are more vulnerable to this type of DNA damage as they lack the ability to repair it.
What This Means For Our Genes
We already know that sperm counts have dropped by more than half since the 1970s. What’s causing male fertility to plummet? There’s no one definitive answer, but there is plenty of research to show that electromagnetic fields negatively impact sperm quality.
“From currently available studies it is clear that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have deleterious effects on sperm parameters (like sperm count, morphology, motility), affects the role of kinases in cellular metabolism and the endocrine system, and produces genotoxicity, genomic instability and oxidative stress,” says one 2018 study published in the journal Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology.
“A correlation exists between mobile phone radiation exposure, DNA–fragmentation level and decreased sperm motility,” says another from 2014.
Or take the most recent research out of Japan which concluded that “EM waves from a portable WiFi router decreases the motile rate and increases the death rate of human sperm,” an effect that was at least mitigated by using EMF shielding.
Infertility is a growing and unsolved problem. But the bottom line here is that even if increased exposure to radiation doesn’t make us infertile per se, it can still lead to an increase in abnormal sperm. Sperm that contain mutated genetic information, which is then passed onto our offspring.
This may mean that, across the generations, the gene pool is irreversibly altered.
A Problem of Reliance
I hardly need to point out how reliant we’ve become on EMF-emitting technology. Our lifestyles have become inextricably linked to it. You only need imagine what would happen if the internet suffered a global outage, even temporarily: our transport, payment systems, hospitals, communications, everything, would collapse.
This is not the first time in history society has become heavily reliant on a hazardous infrastructure. In my talk I draw an analogy to Ancient Rome, where plumbing systems proved a revolutionary advancement in civil engineering. The only problem? Rome’s pipes were made of lead. And lead is poisonous to humans.
And I ask, what if wireless radiation is our lead pipes? A brilliant technological advancement that has become an ingrained part of our lives — yet is slowly poisoning us?
How Big Wireless Obscures The Truth
With so much basis for concern about the health risks of 5G technology, why aren’t we hearing more about it? And why is the 5G rollout continuing at such a fast pace, seemingly without consideration of the potential impact?
Even as questions mount around the negative effects of 5G, the wireless industry continues to grow in power and influence. According to a 2018 report, the U.S. wireless industry now contributes $475 billion annually to America’s economy, and generates over $1 trillion in economic output.
It’s no wonder: there are hundreds of millions of smartphones plus over 180 million connected devices in the U.S alone, and network demand is constantly increasing.
Big Wireless And The Economy Of Doubt
If we’ve learned anything from other scandals like those surrounding like “Big Tobacco” and “Big Oil” its that powerful industries employ powerful tactics to keep the public on their side.
Spreading doubt is one of them. To keep people buying a product you don’t necessarily need to convince them it’s safe — you just need to convince them there’s no conclusive evidence to the contrary.
“Doubt is our product,” said an infamous 1969 memo from a tobacco executive, “since it is our best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public.” To put it another way, Big Tobacco couldn’t claim that cigarettes were good for health, but they were able to keep people smoking simply by casting doubt on the evidence they were bad.
(The tobacco playbook works so well, the NFL was even able to convince Congress, regulators, the media – and the entire country – that getting smashed in the head tens of thousands of times didn’t cause brain damage.)
“Big wireless” trades on the same economy of doubt. As long as the research results on the safety of electromagnetic radiation is conflicting, the public can’t be sure of the truth.
Who’s Funding The Research?
An in-depth investigative piece in The Nation magazine dug into the tactics used by Big Wireless to convince the public cell phones are safe. They point to another key method of manipulation: funding friendly research. This “conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided,” says the piece. “Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage… industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree.”
As a member of the public catching news reports on the latest research, it’s often near impossible to tell how a study was funded. The Nation recounts one professor who analyzed 326 safety-related studies into the biological effects of cell phone radiation. The results showed that about half the studies found negative effects while the other half didn’t. The scientific community seemed completely split.
But here’s where it gets interesting. When he redid the analysis to take funding sources into account, two-thirds of independent studies found a biological effect while only 28 percent of industry-funded studies did.
A 2007 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives looked at the effect of funding sources on research outcomes, and landed on a similar conclusion. It found that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely to report a biological effect of EMF. “Results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation,” conclude the authors, “should take sponsorship into account.”
If there’s one thing without doubt it’s that the value of the wireless industry gives it a political advantage. As we’ve already seen, 5G health concerns have done little to hold back the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in their push to win the “race to 5G”. On the contrary, the FCC has ruled to remove barriers for Big Wireless by lowering fees and barring state and local governments from regulating the advancement of 5G.
While some local councils have kicked back against the ruling, concerned for the health of their citizens, lawmakers at a national level have the interests of the economy at heart. An industry worth so many billions holds sway — and the FCC are already hearing that money talk.
Marketing The Product, Not The Means
For 5G to work, it requires cities to be blanketed in countless “small cell” receptors. This means EMF radiation will be ubiquitous, unavoidable, and stronger than ever.
Of course, it’s not in the interest of providers to point this out. Telecoms companies market 5G as revolutionary and exciting. They appeal to our growing desire for speed and instant gratification. Verizon, for example, promotes 5G as an “innovation that changed the world”, declaring it the Fourth Industrial Revolution. They promote its speed and tell you how to order it, but nowhere do they explain how 5G actually works or what’s needed to set it up.
Unless the consumer goes out of their way to research for themselves, the potential negative effects of 5G could remain completely unknown.
5G Dangers Debunked? How the New York Times Joined the Economy of Doubt
If you want a fantastic illustration of how the economy of doubt plays out, look no further than the July 16, 2019 article published in the New York Times entitled “The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t”.
And I’m going to dig a bit into the details here, because this is a really instructive lesson in how media distorts and manipulates science in the interest of wireless technology.
The Health Hazard That Is(n’t)
As the title suggests, the article sets out to demonstrate that impending 5G technology poses no threat to human health. Its argument hinges on one thing: a flaw in a graph drawn up by physicist Bill P. Curry in the year 2000.
To summarize: While investigating the effects of radio waves on human cells, Curry produced a report with a graph titled “Microwave Absorption in Brain Tissue (Grey Matter).” The graph, says The Times, “purported to show that tissue damage increases with the rising frequency of radio waves”.
According to The Times, there was just one problem. Curry’s tests were conducted in a lab, with isolated samples of tissue. In other words, they didn’t take real world conditions into account. And in real world conditions, cells deep inside the body are shielded by an important protective layer—our skin.
The NYT is calling out an important point here. One can’t assume that a causal relationship in one situation can automatically be applied to another.
And to ignore the shielding effects of skin is a pretty big oversight.
It’s after this that things get tricky, though. The piece claims that Curry’s discredited graph was the seed that, almost single-handedly, led to all future concerns about radiofrequency radiation.
“To no small degree,” says The Times, “the blossoming anxiety over the professed health risks of 5G technology can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart.”
This is not true.
An Incomplete Picture
Times writer William J. Broad dismisses Curry’s research outright based on the protective qualities of human skin.
“At higher radio frequencies, the skin acts as a barrier… Human skin blocks the even higher frequencies of sunlight,” he says.
But as we know, the skin is not a perfect barrier. It has limits: for example, too much sunlight (which is a higher energy form of EMF) causes melanoma.
What’s more, as Dr. Devra Davis points out in her excellent response to the piece, the graph refers to absorption, not tissue damage.
In fact, as discussed above, human skin may actually amplify the negative consequences of EMF.
Research by Dr Paul Ben-Ishai et al at Ariel University in Israel has shown that the sweat glands in our skin act as antennae which amplify the absorption of radio frequency waves. “The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band,” they concluded.
The research, which Ben-Ishai, colleague Yuri Feldman and team have been working on for over a decade, proves that the amount of radiation your skin blocks or absorbs depends on a lot of factors, including how active your sweat glands are at the time of exposure.
You can already see how The Times’ assertion—that skin shields us from electromagnetic radiation and therefore 5G is safe—is simplistic to the point of misleading.
One Chart is the Cause?
What about the assertion that 5G health concerns can be traced back to a single scientist and a single chart?
The Times article seems to suggest that no other research exists that would lead to such concerns. This is simply not true. In focusing on one allegedly-flawed graph, Broad’s article ignores hundreds of credible studies, reports and expert warnings that draw links between EMF and various health issues.
So vast is the body of research that we can’t go into all of it here—you need only read our blog, as we discuss new findings regularly. To make our point, though, here are a few random examples out of many:
A 2017 report from the Department of Oncology at Örebro University in Sweden looked at mobile phones and brain tumor risk. “Conclusion. RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma.”
A 2016 meta-analysis of 57 different studies found that “Accumulated empirical evidence points to an increased risk of lymphoma, leukemia, melanoma, breast and brain/CNS cancers associated with exposure to MW/RF radiation.”
A 2017 study that tracked more than 900 pregnant women found that “pregnant women exposed to high radiation levels from sources like cell phones, wireless devices and cell towers miscarried at nearly three times the rate as those exposed to low levels.”
And so on.
If such research isn’t enough to convince news outlets like The Times that 5G might be a problem, it should, at a minimum, prevent them from ruling out concerns all together.
Why Did The New York Times Publish This Effort to Debunk 5G Health Concerns?
There are plenty of reasons to trust The New York Times. It provides quality reporting in an increasingly substandard world of news. Mr. Broad himself is a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist.
But even The Times can get things wrong, or be hasty to make a judgement call that gives the public a wrong or incomplete picture.
And the question of corporate interests looms large.
The New York Times has received paid sponsorships from Sprint and Qualcomm. In April 2019 they announced the launch of a 5G Journalism Lab: “We’ve partnered with Verizon, which is providing us with early access to 5G networking and equipment for us to experiment with,” they said.
Whether these partnerships consciously influence their reporting or not, the eye of The Times could easily be drawn in the direction of what is most in its benefit to see.
“Mainstream scientists continue to see no evidence of harm from cellphone radio waves”, writes Broad, ignoring the mounting opposition to 5G from hundreds of scientists and medical experts around the world.
The New York Times’ outright dismissal of 5G’s potential to cause harm is, in a way, a dismissal of citizens’ right to be concerned.
The paper’s reputability and reach means they have just as much power to engender an erroneous “fact”, if not more, than that of an expert like Dr. Curry.
Diligence is required, as is unbiased reporting, and the painting of a picture, if not complete—as no one denies the fast-moving evolution of technology is a complex issue—then at lease with space to represent both sides.
What Can You Do?
The reality is that the wireless industry is both powerful and growing. With the rollout of 5G they’ll be able to deliver speeds that will change the game for many industries and bring numerous benefits to consumers.
But all that should not be at the cost of human health. At the very least, 5G should be properly tested and regulated before being implemented across the country. Instead, the rollout is being expedited. Conflicting research, much of it industry-funded, keeps the public in doubt about the negative effects of 5G. And the value of Big Wireless makes it politically favored, meaning they have virtual free reign to implement new technologies faster than they can be evaluated.
For the public, this makes it difficult to get to the truth. So what can you do?
Since wireless technology is so bound up in every aspect of modern life, our problem of reliance is even more complicated than Roman plumbing. But we can start by asking the right questions.
Like, what can we do to better test and regulate new generations of technology like 5G and health impacts like 5G DNA damage?
What would we have to invest and what tradeoffs would we have to make to create safer technology? Technology that still provides the benefits to society whilst simultaneously mitigating the risks?
And, what can we do to protect our DNA and the future of the human genome?
These are big questions, and I’m not suggesting there are easy answers.
That said, there are some simple things we can do as a starting point.
1. Learn About 5G and 5G Health Risks
Learn as much as you can about 5G and how it is being rolled out near you. Reading this post is a great start.
The more you know, the more educated you will be about what 5G is and what you can do about it.
And be on the lookout for misinformation. The wireless industry is actively seeking to confuse and mislead consumers about the health risks of 5G radiation, such as we saw in the New York Times’ attempt to debunk 5G health concerns, to lead you to conclude that 5G is not dangerous.
2. Contact Local Officials About 5G Health Risks
The best way to oppose the rollout of 5G is on the local level. Contact local officials — like your mayor, city council, and your county council – to express your opposition and learn more about the status of the 5G rollout in your area.
Here is a sample letter you can use when contacting government officials with your 5G health concerns.
3. Share What You Learn
As you learn more about 5G, and how it is being rolled out in your region, share what you learn with friends, family and colleagues.
Don’t browbeat them, but let them know what this technology is, what it can do to them and their loved ones, and what they can do about it.
4. Boycott 5G Products
As more and more devices come out with 5G connections and capabilities, object by not buying them. And get others on board.
The fewer people that buy 5G devices, the slower it will roll out. Vote with your wallet and you’ll make a difference.
5. It Starts at Home
Even if 5G is installed in your city, even if you can detect dozens of wifi networks around you, and even if you live in an area that’s extremely polluted by EMFs, what you do with your own devices and at home matters a lot.
So develop some of the habits that can drastically reduce your exposure to EMF.
The easiest thing to do to decrease your risk of developing health issues from 5G is to limit your exposure to EMF overall. It boils down to two key rules:
- Minimize your use of EMF-emitting technology;
- Maximize the distance between you and your technology when you do use it.
There are many ways to accomplish these goals. For example, three simple things you can do to make a huge difference in your exposure are:
- Turn off your wifi router at night.
- Don’t sleep with your phone.
- Don’t carry your phone in your pocket.
Habits like these are completely free and the best way to reduce your exposure to EMF.
6. EMF Shielding Protection Products
Even once you start adopting these EMF reducing tips and techniques, you may still want additional protection from EMF.
Here at SYB, we have a catalog of EMF protection products to help you live healthier by reducing your exposure to harmful radiation.
For example, our SYB 5G Phone Shield and SYB Phone Pouch which make it safer to carry your phone. Both have been laboratory tested to block up to 99% of EMF radiation – including harmful 5G frequencies – away from your body, to help protect yourself from 5G health risks.