Thank you itcrowd for your thoughtful reply and for going deeper into this. I think you have spelled out our common ground in points 1-3 very well. And thank you also for digging up these other articles. I had a look at [5].
So our difference seems to be, as you mentioned, whether we believe 5G deployment (sorry, I avoid the term "rollout" since I cannot stomach this term any more, it is used so repeatedly and reflexively in practically every article dealing with the subject :) ) should be halted or slowed before more research has been done as to its health effects. I see this as a question of ethics. The technology, of course, is being rushed to deployment and by its nature will will reach everyone within range of its multitude of base stations. The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. At our current state of knowledge, we do not know whether the new 5G technology poses a significant threat of harm to humans, or a moderate threat, or a small threat, or no threat at all. The previous, related technology (3G, 4G, wi-fi, cell phones themselves, etc.) has been shown by the majority of the (independent) literature to pose health risks that are very much worthy of concern. The 5G technology involves a much greater number of base stations at close proximity to each other and humans, as well as a different, higher frequency whose effects on humans are unknown since apparently untested. Looking at this situation as a whole from the point of view of ethics, I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the new 5G technology could have significant health effects and that immersing the population in the radiofrequency radiation from this technology without first ruling out these plausible health effects, in the interest of not impeding the progress of the technology, is seriously problematic.
"The precautionary principle" is often cited in this connection, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with it.
Another aspect to take into account is that if the technology is studied thoroughly beforehand as to its possible health effects, it may be possible to amend the technology if necessary, or formulate precautionary measures, to minimize the health impact while still introducing the technology.
Deploying the technology before thorough testing amounts, I believe, to a crapshoot, "flying blind" as the U.S. Senator Blumenthal said in a congressional hearing in which he questioned senior members of the wireless industry. The technology is being pushed forward (for which the wireless industry and the government certainly have their own interests which do not overlap with those of the public, though one could argue that the higher download speeds (which I consider to be pretty trivial in the big picture) and other, future as-of-yet ill-defined applications of 5G (internet of things, etc.) could be of benefit to the public), and effectively we are just going to wait and watch and see if it hurts people a lot, a little, or not at all. I do not see how this can be considered in the least responsible.
I would be interested to know your thoughts and reflections on this ethical question, and of any other members of this forum who would like to chime in.
Thank you itcrowd for your comments and your sincere and balanced approach, which I respect even though I do not at present share your viewpoint. Thank you also for looking into the Lancet and Guardian articles. Regarding the respectability of this subjournal of Lancet, that is useful information. Regarding the Guardian article: after a very brief search, I have also not been able to locate the actual academic article, though there are many references to it in other general-interest articles on the internet. The 326 number referred to Lai's study; the 59 studies refer to the separate article from Environmental Health Perspectives that you link to.
I have been following this topic for some time and in everything I have read, I have (until today) never encountered a single reference to a study on the health effects of 5G (and have encountered many statements that 5G has not yet been studied for health effects), thus my initial assertion that there haven't been any studies. What I have encountered is many government and industry spokespeople and mainstream media outlets saying that 5G is safe, without ever citing a single study to support their claim. The few studies that turned up in your brief Google Scholar search are problematic, as I pointed out, due to conflicts of interest.
Regarding your last paragraph (I will comment in two parts):
> Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful.
I don't want to seem uncivil, but I think I missed this evidence? Thus far we have found three studies that address possible health effects from 5G, all of which have problems with conflicts of interest, correct? If there have been no other studies directly testing 5G, what is the scientific evidence (not theorizing, but actual empirical studies) that has been provided?
And:
> I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.
Firstly, not a single scientific paper has been posted because there haven't been any, yes? (setting aside the 3 we spoke of above). One of the essential points here is that this simply hasn't been studied (apart from the aforementioned problematic studies, unless there are others that we have not found, and that the various parties assuring the public that 5G is safe are likely also unaware of given that they have never cited them either), and the technology is being deployed anyway.
Regarding our ignorance of a "mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it": I would tend to place more trust in empirical studies -- what actually happens, are any effects produced? In terms of understanding the mechanism of how it happens, scientists may not have discovered this yet. A current gap in our knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the natural world does not mean that those mechanisms, and the effects that they produce, do not exist. In the meantime (i.e. before we discover the mechanisms), it seems imperative that the empirical effects are determined.
Thank you itcrowd, I am quite interested to see these studies on 5G that I did not know existed until now.
I just had a look at [4]; the authors are
Davide Colombi
"Since 2009, he has been with Ericsson Research, Stockholm, Sweden, where he has been involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment."
Björn Thors
"Since 2005, he has been with Ericsson Research, where he is currently a Senior Specialist, involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure assessment of wireless equipment."
Christer Törnevik
"He joined Ericsson in 1991, and has, since 1993, been involved in research activities related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment. He is currently a Senior Expert with Ericsson Research and is responsible for electromagnetic fields and health within the Ericsson Group."
And
Quirino Balzano
No listed affiliation with Ericsson, but "His group was essential in the development of the cell phone technology."
Hmmm....
As a thought experiment: can anyone imagine these three authors, employed by Ericsson (the prominent wireless company), conceivably publishing a paper showing that wireless technology has adverse health effects?
Regarding [5] the authors are:
Theodore S. (Ted) Rappaport
"His Ph.D. study provided fundamental knowledge of indoor wireless channels and was used to create the first Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11)... He co-founded the Virginia Tech Summer School and Wireless Symposium, in 1991, the Texas Wireless Summit, in 2003, and the Brooklyn 5G Summit (B5GS), in 2014...He is the Founder and the Director of NYU WIRELESS, a multidisciplinary research center focused on the future of wireless communications and applications. He conducted fundamental work that led to the first U.S. Digital cellphone standards, TDMA IS-54/IS-136 and CDMA IS-95. He and his students engineered the world’s first public Wi-Fi hotspots, and more recently, his work proved the viability of millimeter waves for mobile communications. The global wireless industry adopted his vision for fifth-generation (5G) cellphone networks."
So he is one of the "creators" of wireless, as it were. It would be rather surprising if he were to publish findings about negative health effects of his "brainchild."
Ting Wu
Affiliation
NYU WIRELESS
Brooklyn
NY 11201, USA
(Rappaport's company)
and
Christopher M. Collins
(no immediately apparent conflict of interest)
In addition, the title ("Safe for Generations to Come") would be, for me, a clear "red flag."
Regarding [3] the authors are
Ronald C. Petersen
"Until his retirement in July 2001, he managed the Wireless and Optical Technologies Safety Department (WOTS), which serves as the Lucent Technologies Inc. resource for all nonionizing radiation matters and as a resource for Lucent wireless customers on RF safety and FCC compliance issues."
and
Eleanor R. Adair
(no immediately apparent conflicts of interest)
Independently of the authors' conflicts of interest, it would be necessary to know the source of the funding for each of these research papers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, industry-funded and independently-funded studies yield quite different results. The quote from the Guarian article is worth repeating here:
"When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."
[1] and [2] do not relate to 5G. Regarding pre-5G radio frequency technologies, it has already been established that the majority of (independent) studies show these technologies to have adverse health effects. To quote again from the recently-mentioned article in The Lancet:
"A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation."
So after having a look at the three articles cited above that relate to 5G, I must revise what I said earlier ("No studies on 5G have been done"). In fact, it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done.
Thanks for the link to the article. It is worth quoting from it, I think:
"At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world's largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation."
You write: "Radio simply cannot give you cancer. It's been proven. We understand the physics. It's been tested to death."
I am not sure how to reconcile this with the two meta analyses of studies I mention in another post, the majority of which (of the independently-funded studies, that is) show that radio frequency radiation has adverse health effects.
The difficulty is that with 5G, there is no option to stay away or pick the safer choice (save moving to some remote area), as the 5G base stations will transmit to everyone indiscriminately with no possibility of opting out.
Very interesting, so there are a few studies! Thank you for pointing this out, I had been under the impression that there were none whatsoever. I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from these few studies at present (I found four or five on the Google Scholar link). It would be interesting if someone with the requisite technical background could read and assess them. (And the question of funding, as discussed in the Guardian article I linked to in another post, is also relevant, as empirically speaking, industry-funded studies on the whole do lead to significantly different results from independently-funded studies).
I am not sure it is necessary to prove a negative, as you spoke of in a previous post. New drugs are subject to very rigorous testing before being released onto the market. While such drugs, when approved, are not proven definitively and with utter certainty to be 100% safe in all regards, the rigorous prior testing serves to show that they are very likely safe enough to be used. Drugs are not simply released onto the market without any testing, with the idea that we simply wait and see what happens when millions of people take the drugs. This would be regarded as highly unethical, and I do not see why the deployment of 5G technology without prior testing is any less unethical.
I think it makes sense for a reasonable assumption of safety to be demonstrated before deploying new technology that could plausibly be unsafe, and for it to be demonstrated by independently-funded studies.
Given that 67% of independently-funded studies show that the prior, related technologies have adverse health effects, I think it is completely reasonable to hypothesize that 5G could also possibly have negative health effects.
>Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi?
Wouldn't it be sensible to do controlled studies of 5G in some form or other prior to deploying the technology on a large scale and immersing the population in 5G 24/7? Otherwise, as many have pointed out, we become the "guinea pigs."
>Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."
non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe!
I don't expect they would be directly paying off scientists. This article is worth reading:
From the article: “Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up.” —Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki
charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias.
This is an interesting point I had not thought of, thank you for bringing it up. It would be interesting to know if the independently-funded studies were less well-funded than the industry-funded studies.
[1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe
I don't expect there has been paying of bribes. The 28% in spite of the industry pressure may reflect a degree of resilience of science itself, and/or some level of integrity of the scientists despite the pressure.
Regarding: "It would be nice if the Times article devoted more ink to studies showing 5G to be safe, instead of 95% focusing on how the claims that it is dangerous are shaky, and barely mentioning studies proving its safety."
There have been no studies showing 5G to be safe, because there have been no studies on 5G.
This three-part article is written by an electrical engineer who approaches the subject without any preconceptions or previous bias one way or another (make sure to read all 3 parts):
Regarding your comment "Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more."
Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects.
Secondly, the previous, related technologies have, and the majority of independent studies show harmful health effects from these technologies.
To quote from the article:
"When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."