Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks

2021 · Harm · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

HarmInsufficient evidencePaper 1107

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typepolicy

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks Lennart Hardell. Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks. World J Clin Oncol 2021; 12(6): 393-403 doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393. Abstract Currently the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be rolled out worldwide. Many persons are concerned about potential health risks from radiofrequency radiation. In September 2017, a letter was sent to the European Union asking for a moratorium on the deployment until scientific evaluation has been made on potential health risks (5gappeal.eu). This appeal has had little success. The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards (emfscientist.org). The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication. Core Tip: In this comment, guidelines for radiofrequency radiation are discussed in relation to a recent evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands. The Committee recommends that for the deployment of 5G the frequency band 26 GHz should not be used. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are recommended. However, these guidelines are not based on an objective evaluation of health risks, which is discussed in this paper. Conclusion In conclusion regarding cancer, current scientific evidence clearly demonstrates an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma for use of mobile and/or cordless phones. In this review other tumor types and health endpoints are not discussed. The increased risk for brain and head tumors is based on human cancer epidemiology studies and is supported by similar tumor types found in animal studies. In fact, these animal studies confirmed the earlier results in case-control studies on increased tumor risk for use of wireless phones (both mobile and cordless phones). Mechanistic aspects on carcinogenesis come from laboratory findings on, e.g., the increase of reactive oxygen species [5] and DNA damage [4]. The current evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands is based on a WHO draft and SSM report. It also recommends using ICNIRP guidelines, considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards, such as cancer, by the majority of the scientists in this field (emfscientist.org). The report does not represent a thorough, balanced, objective, and up-to-date evaluation of cancer risks and other hazardous effects from RF radiation. It is also strikingly contradictory as it concludes that serious health effects such as cancer and birth defects are “possible.” Yet it has no objection to the roll-out of 5G and recommends that later studies are performed to study health outcomes such as cancer and birth defects. Thus, no lessons are learned from existing observations on increased cancer risks [49]. The conclusion by the Commission that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G up to 3.5 GHz because of no “proven adverse health effects,” merely reflects the biased conclusions by ICNIRP dominated groups. Thus that conclusion must be dismissed, and new guidelines for previous and new frequencies must be established considering the new technology, the different propagation pattern for 5G, and increased RF radiation. A moratorium is urgently required on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication [13]. Ultimately, wired solutions are preferred. Open access paper: wjgnet.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typepolicy

Effect directionharm

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 26000 MHz

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This comment/review argues that current evidence demonstrates increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma with mobile and/or cordless phone use, supported by animal studies and laboratory findings (e.g., reactive oxygen species and DNA damage). It criticizes the Health Council of the Netherlands 5G evaluation as insufficiently objective and supports a moratorium on 5G implementation; it notes the committee recommendation not to use the 26 GHz band until health risks are studied.

Outcomes measured

Cancer risk
Glioma
Acoustic neuroma
Brain and head tumors
Birth defects (mentioned)
Reactive oxygen species (mechanistic)
DNA damage (mechanistic)

Limitations

Commentary/review focused on cancer; other tumor types and health endpoints are not discussed
No original study methods, sample size, or quantitative effect estimates reported in the abstract
Claims about bias/impartiality are asserted without methodological details in the provided text

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "5G / wireless communication (mobile and cordless phones discussed)",
    "frequency_mhz": 26000,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cancer risk",
    "Glioma",
    "Acoustic neuroma",
    "Brain and head tumors",
    "Birth defects (mentioned)",
    "Reactive oxygen species (mechanistic)",
    "DNA damage (mechanistic)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This comment/review argues that current evidence demonstrates increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma with mobile and/or cordless phone use, supported by animal studies and laboratory findings (e.g., reactive oxygen species and DNA damage). It criticizes the Health Council of the Netherlands 5G evaluation as insufficiently objective and supports a moratorium on 5G implementation; it notes the committee recommendation not to use the 26 GHz band until health risks are studied.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Commentary/review focused on cancer; other tumor types and health endpoints are not discussed",
    "No original study methods, sample size, or quantitative effect estimates reported in the abstract",
    "Claims about bias/impartiality are asserted without methodological details in the provided text"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "radiofrequency radiation",
    "RF",
    "26 GHz",
    "3.5 GHz",
    "ICNIRP",
    "WHO",
    "Health Council of the Netherlands",
    "cancer",
    "glioma",
    "acoustic neuroma",
    "moratorium"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Discusses 5G rollout, moratorium request, and national evaluation/recommendations including 26 GHz band."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Critiques WHO draft basis and recommends/criticizes ICNIRP guidelines."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library