Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation

2020 · Harm · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

HarmInsufficient evidencePaper 1596

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typepolicy

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation Hardell L, Nyberg R. [Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. Molecular and Clinical Oncology. Published online January 22, 2020. Abstract Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a 'possible' human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment. spandidos-publications.com Excerpt In conclusion, this article demonstrates that the EU has given mandate to a 13-member, non-governmental private group, the ICNIRP, to decide upon the RF radiation guidelines. The ICNIRP, as well as SCENIHR, are well shown not to use the sound evaluation of science on the detrimental effects of RF radiation, which is documented in the research which is discussed above (9,10,21-24,54,55). These two small organizations are producing reports which seem to deny the existence of scientific published reports on the related risks. It should perhaps be questioned whether it is in the realm of protecting human health and the environment by EU and whether the safety of EU citizens and the environment can be protected by not fully understanding the health-related risks. Open access paper: spandidos-publications.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

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This comment argues that evidence on radiofrequency radiation health effects has strengthened since the 2011 IARC Group 2B classification and asserts that RF radiation may warrant Group 1 classification. It summarizes a 2017 appeal and subsequent rebuttals requesting an EU moratorium on 5G deployment until health and environmental risks are comprehensively investigated, and criticizes reliance on ICNIRP/SCENIHR guidelines focused on thermal effects.

Outcomes measured

carcinogenicity (cancer risk)
human health risks (general)
environmental risks (general)

Limitations

Commentary/policy-oriented article; no original empirical study described in the abstract
No quantitative exposure metrics (e.g., frequency for 5G, SAR, duration) reported
No study population, sample size, or specific health endpoints measured are provided

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "5G",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "carcinogenicity (cancer risk)",
    "human health risks (general)",
    "environmental risks (general)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This comment argues that evidence on radiofrequency radiation health effects has strengthened since the 2011 IARC Group 2B classification and asserts that RF radiation may warrant Group 1 classification. It summarizes a 2017 appeal and subsequent rebuttals requesting an EU moratorium on 5G deployment until health and environmental risks are comprehensively investigated, and criticizes reliance on ICNIRP/SCENIHR guidelines focused on thermal effects.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Commentary/policy-oriented article; no original empirical study described in the abstract",
    "No quantitative exposure metrics (e.g., frequency for 5G, SAR, duration) reported",
    "No study population, sample size, or specific health endpoints measured are provided"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "radiofrequency radiation",
    "microwave radiation",
    "moratorium",
    "EU",
    "ICNIRP",
    "SCENIHR",
    "IARC Group 2B",
    "carcinogen classification",
    "non-thermal effects"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Focuses on appeals for an EU moratorium on 5G deployment and related policy responses."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.85,
      "reason": "Substantial discussion and critique of ICNIRP guidelines and their role in EU decision-making."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.3892/mco.2020.1984
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library