Share

Bandara, P., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: It is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(12), e512–e514. 

Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. 

Carpenter DO. (2013) Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health.;28(4):159-72. 

Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (European Parliament), & Belpoggi, F. (2021). Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. Publications Office of the European Union. 

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. Oct 18;21(1):92.  

McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. 

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7.  

Miller, A. B., Morgan, L. L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental Research, 167, 673–683. 

Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. L. (2015). Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports, 5, 14914.

Abdel-Rassoul, G., El-Fateh, O. A., Salem, M. A., Michael, A., Farahat, F., El-Batanouny, M., & Salem, E. (2007). Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. NeuroToxicology, 28(2), 434–440.  

Balmori A. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer Environ Res. 2022 Nov; 214 

Dode, A. C., Leão, M. M. D., Tejo, F. de A. F., Gomes, A. C. R., Dode, D. C., Dode, M. C., Moreira, C. W., Condessa, V. A., Albinatti, C., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of The Total Environment, 409(19), 3649–3665.  

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology, 54(1), 111–127.  

Hardell, L., & Koppel, T. (2022). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Reviews on Environmental Health.  

Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267. 

Koppel, T., Ahonen, M., Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2022). Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas positioned close to pedestrians’ heads. Environmental Research, 208, 112627. 

Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. (2011). Corrigendum: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 19(NA), 495–495. 

López, I., Félix, N., Rivera, M., Alonso, A., & Maestú, C. (2021). What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environmental Research, 194, 110734.  

Meo, S. A., Almahmoud, M., Alsultan, Q., Alotaibi, N., Alnajashi, I., & Hajjar, W. M. (2019). Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health. American Journal of Men’s Health, 13(1), 1557988318816914.  

Meo, S. A., Alsubaie, Y., Almubarak, Z., Almutawa, H., AlQasem, Y., & Hasanato, R. M. (2015a). Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(11), 14519–14528.  

Meo, S. A., Alsubaie, Y., Almubarak, Z., Almutawa, H., AlQasem, Y., & Hasanato, R. M. (2015b). Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(11), 14519–14528. 

Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845.  

Roda, C., & Perry, S. (2014). Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 204–214.  

Rodrigues, N. C. P., Dode, A. C., de Noronha Andrade, M. K., O’Dwyer, G., Monteiro, D. L. M., Reis, I. N. C., Rodrigues, R. P., Frossard, V. C., & Lino, V. T. S. (2021). The Effect of Continuous Low-Intensity Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Radio Base Stations to Cancer Mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1229. 

Santini, R., Santini, P., Le Ruz, P., Danze, J. M., & Seigne, M. (2003). Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 22(1), 41–49.  

Thamilselvan S, Behera A, Nair SK, Chandru CS, Krishnakumar M, Ramani P. (2021) Micronuclei analysis in people residing within 25 m of radiation-exposed areas around mobile towers in Chennai, India: An observational study. J Int Oral Health 13:350-5

Yakymenko, I., Sidorik, E., Kyrylenko, S., & Chekhun, V. (2011). Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: Evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Experimental Oncology, 33(2), 62–70.

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali, M., Lalramdinpuii, M., & Jagetia, G. C. (2017). Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(3), 295–305.  

Igor Belyaev, Sachin Gulati, Pavol Kosik, Matus Durdik, Lukas Jakl, Milan Skorvaga, Eva Markova, Dominika Kochanova, Katarina Vigasova Possible health risks from exposure to microwaves from base stations, Conference Paper Department of Radiobiology, Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, SAV, Bratislava, Slovakia


FACT: The paucity of studies on the biological and health effects of 5G’s higher frequencies does not allow a conclusion of safety.

There has been essentially no research on the biologic or health effects of 5G modulation, especially for long term health effects. 

Dr. Joel Moskowitz noted in August 2022, that according to EMF-Portal, an archive that contains more than 35,000 publications on electromagnetic fields, of the 408 studies on 5G, only 7 were medical/biological studies:

Here are the studies and the findings. 

Biological Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields at 27 GHz on Sperm Quality of Mytilus galloprovincialis 

“electromagnetic fields at 27 GHz can affect the sperm quality in marine mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. The significant decrease observed in sperm motility after only 10 min of exposure represents a crucial factor to be considered because it can threaten the reproductivity of the species. This study provides useful data on the potential impact of high frequency EMFs on aquatic animals and cells, which is currently poorly investigated.” 

Impacts of high dose 3.5 GHz cellphone radiofrequency on zebrafish embryonic development 

“Our results revealed no significant impacts on mortality, morphology or photomotor response and a modest inhibition of startle response suggesting some levels of sensorimotor disruptions.” 

Note: This was a short term study. The researchers followed up with another study. THEN they did find effects. See below. 

Transcriptomic and Long-Term Behavioral Deficits Associated with Developmental 3.5 GHz Radiofrequency Radiation Exposures in Zebrafish | Environmental Science & Technology Letters

“Embryos were grown to adulthood, and then a battery of behavioral assays suggested subtle but significant abnormal responses in RFR-exposed fish across the different assays evaluated that suggest potential long-term behavioral effects. Overall, our study suggests the impacts of RFRs on the developing brain, behavior, and the metabolome should be further explored”

Effects of Acute Exposure to 3500 MHz (5G) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Anxiety-Like Behavior and the Auditory Cortex in Guinea Pigs

“In conclusion, these results suggest that oxidative stress is an important mechanism underlying the biological effects of RF-EMR, which can induce ultrastructural damage to the ACx and cell apoptosis through a mitochondria-dependent mechanism. Moreover, oxidative stress, apoptosis induction and ultrastructural damage increase in a SAR-dependent manner. However, RF-EMR does not increase hearing thresholds or induce anxiety”

“In conclusion, these results suggest that oxidative stress is an important mechanism underlying the biological effects of RF-EMR, which can induce ultrastructural damage to the ACx and cell apoptosis through a mitochondria-dependent mechanism. Moreover, oxidative stress, apoptosis induction and ultrastructural damage increase in a SAR-dependent manner. However, RF-EMR does not increase hearing thresholds or induce anxiety”

3.5-GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation promotes the development of Drosophila melanogaster

“According to the 16S rDNA results, the diversity and species abundance of the microbial community decreased significantly, and according to the functional prediction analysis, the genera Acetobacter and Lactobacillus were significantly increased. In conclusion, 3.5 GHz RF-EMF may enhance thermal stress, oxidative stress and humoral immunity, cause changes in the microbial community, and regulate the insulin/TOR and ecdysteroid signalling pathways to promote fly development.”

Simulated mobile communication frequencies (3.5 GHz) emitted by a signal generator affects the sleep of Drosophila melanogaster

“Drosophila melanogaster was selected as the model organism for our study, in which a 3.5 GHz radiofrequency radiation (RF-EMR) environment was simulated at intensities of 0.1 W/m2, 1 W/m2, and 10 W/m2”

“In conclusion, long-term RF-EMR exposure enhances the heat stress response of offspring flies and then affects the expression of circadian clock and neurotransmitter genes, which leads to decreased activity, prolonged sleep duration, and improved sleep quality.” 

Effects of Electromagnetic Waves with LTE and 5G Bandwidth on the Skin Pigmentation In Vitro.

“It was shown that neither LTE nor 5G exposure induced significant effects on cell viability or pigmentation. The dendrites of MNT-1 were neither lengthened nor regressed after EMF exposure. Skin pigmentation effects of EMFs were further examined in the human keratinocyte cell line (MNT-1-HaCaT) co-culture system, which confirmed the absence of significant hyper-pigmentation effects of LTE and 5G EMFs. Lastly, MelanoDerm™, a 3D pigmented human epidermis model, was irradiated with LTE (1.762 GHz) or 5G (28 GHz), and image analysis and special staining were performed. No changes in the brightness of MelanoDerm™ tissues were observed in LTE- or 5G-exposed tissues, except for only minimal changes in the size of melanocytes. Collectively, these results imply that exposure to LTE and 5G EMFs may not affect melanin synthesis or skin pigmentation under normal smartphone use condition.”

Importantly, these  studies employed carrier frequencies used in 5G, but none of these studies modulated or pulsed the signal as required by 5G or used other features of 5G technology (e.g., beamforming, massive MIMO, and phased arrays) that are likely to affect the nature and extent of biological or health effects from exposure to this radiation.

Update 2023: 

Status of the Neuroendocrine System in Animals Chronically Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields of 5G Mobile Network Base Stations was published in Experimental Biology. Male rats were exposed to 24-h radiation (250 μW/cm2) for 4 months. “Exposure was carried out by 5G/IMT-2020 base stations with simultaneous use of radio channels with 3.6 GHz (n78 with 100 MHz channel bandwidth), 28 GHz (n257 with 100 MHz channel bandwidth) and 37 GHz (n260 with 400 MHz channel bandwidth) central frequencies….”

The neuroendocrine system of rats responded to chronic 4-month EMF exposure by waveform changes of serum levels of ACTH and corticosterone. ACTH content had a tendency to increase after 3 months of the experiment (Fig. 1).

Changes in serum corticosterone content in exposed animals were more pronounced; significant differences from the control group were revealed after 1 and 2 months of exposure and the maximum increase was found 1 month after end of exposure (Fig. 2).

“Chronic exposure induced changes in orientation and exploratory activity and emotional state of experimental animals. These changes were detected starting from 3rd month of exposure, but did not reach significance threshold, and 1 month after the end of irradiation, the excitation and inhibition processes in the CNS returned to normal. Fragmentary peer rewired publications on behavioral reactions of animals exposed to EMF of mobile communication system, including 5G, demonstrate a complex picture with contradictory results [9]. Nevertheless, the dynamics of endocrine markers (hormones of the pituitary and adrenal glands) under the effect of EMF of mobile communication systems are more definite. We revealed distinct reactions of the neuroendocrine system, in particular, the hypothalamic—pituitary—adrenal axis (ACTH and corticosterone levels) [10-12]. Thus, our results suggest that multifrequency EMF exposure of animals led to stressful by nature changes of hypothalamic—pituitary—adrenal axis system function.”

“The results obtained in the open-field test in combination with neuroendocrine system reactions reflect the certain functional state of animals, that can be considered as moderate stress. These changes, reflecting (judging by the response of the hypothalamic—pituitary—adrenal cortex axis), the stressor impact of EMF, were observed under multifrequency animals EMF irradiation (PD 250 μW/cm2) during modeling of 5G system influence.”

“ The exploratory activity of the animals and blood concentrations of ACTH and corticosterone were evaluated at the end of each month of exposure and 1 month after exposure. The results suggest that exposure to multifrequency electromagnetic field simulating the effects of 5G systems affected functional activity of the hypothalamus—pituitary—adrenal axis and was stressful in nature.” 

Share

https://ehtrust.org/5g-4g-3g-small-cell-tower-radiation-health-effects-science/ Source: Environmental Health Trust