5G Poses Possible Health Risks

The implementation of technology in the international tech industry almost always has unforeseen consequences that impact society, innovation, the economy and the health of users. 5G has been announced for multiple years before its rolling out in AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. These network providers deployed various networks in the first half of 2019 and 5G will get a true place in more than a handful of towns and cities.

Carriers and device manufacturers continue to join the 5G bandwagon, such as Samsung’s new Galaxy S10 and Galaxy Fold, which unfolds into a tablet. Other models include LG, Huawei, ZTE and Motorola. 5G offers a variety of improvements to the previous upgrade, 4G, which started in 2009. 5G is claimed to provide between 10 and 20 gigabytes per second. Features such as network latency will drop from 30ms to about 1ms, which could deliver environments perfect for video game streaming, Internet of Things and online video. This is poised to connect sensors, devices and computers with extremely low latency. Thus, the high speeds and low latency will allow for almost real-time potency of various devices, transmittance of information and movements at unprecedented quality.

However, with every new implementation in technology, the consequences are often criticisms to the incorporation of the mechanism in people’s daily lives. The latest fears about radiation occur with fears about electromagnetic radiation. This comes from the controversy of the health risks of technologies such as smart meters and cellphone towers, which rely on packed higher energy radiation that could affect or damage DNA in human beings and lead to cancer. Some 5G critics claim that the network may lead to oxidative stress, disruption of cell metabolism and other illnesses through the generation of stress proteins. Various articles cite these worrisome effects, even reputable organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO).

5G offers unforeseen improvements in network performance, but concerns arose when a small percentage of people experienced symptoms from sensitivities to the presence of an electromagnetic field. The WHO offers psychological evaluation for people afflicted with this illness. Michael McKean’s sickness to electromagnetic radiation on the television series “Better Call Saul” is an instance of popular media recognizing these concerns. Decades of studies have shown little link between cell phones, cancers and brain tumors. However, this has not stopped cities such as San Francisco from passing laws that require stores to display whether they have radiation emitted by handsets, implying risk to consumers.

The root of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) concerns is their connection to the electromagnetic spectrum from microwaves to x-rays and from light from the sun to the light on a computer monitor. Scientists claim that the health risk of RFR depends on its category of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Radiation that is non-ionizing is far too weak and low frequency to break apart chemical bonds, leading to oxidative stress and, ultimately, cancers. This includes harmless frequencies such as ultraviolet, visible light, infrared and radio waves. Technologies such as FM radio and Wi-Fi also fall into this range. Frequencies above UV, such as x-rays and gamma rays, are strong enough to be ionizing.

Dr. Steve Novella, an assistant professor of neurology at Yale University and editor of Science-Based Medicine, argues that people are concerned about radiation at a general level rather than considering the different types and their capacity to biologically damage an individual.

“Using the term radiation is misleading because people think of nuclear weapons - they think of ionizing radiation that absolutely can cause damage. It can kill cells. It can cause DNA mutations,” Novella said. However, non-ionizing radiation does not damage DNA or tissue and most concerns regarding cell phone RFR are misguided because there are virtually no known mechanisms for non-ionizing radiation to have any biological effect, according to Novella.

On the other hand, it is not completely true that no effect exists, even if there is no biological effect. For instance, researchers continue to examine how exposure to RFR is correlated with health effects. For instance, the National Toxicology Program, an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services, has made a study about cell phone radiofrequency radiation in which exposure to 3G RFR led to some cases of brain tumors, adrenal gland tumors in male rats and cancerous heart tumors. The study demonstrates the difficulty in determining a clear mechanism or cause for any damages when facing statistical barriers or biases. For instance, no cancer link was found for female rats or the mice studied and exposures used may not be directly compared to the anatomy and physiology of a human being. Dr. Frank De Vocht, who helps advise the government on mobile phone safety, says that “some research suggests a statistical possibility of increased cancer risks for heavy users, no evidence to data for a causal relation is not sufficiently convincing to suggest the need for a precautionary action.”

Furthermore, due to the lower power of 5G transmitters, there will be an increased amount of them, requiring hundreds of thousands of wireless antennas all over cities, towns and neighborhoods. Novella says that the dose of 5G electromagnetic radiation will increase overall. Skeptics claim that one should not conflate this variable with radiation posing a higher risk. Going out in the sun, an individual is bathed in far greater frequency than these cell towers. RadiationHealthRisks.com reports that 1G to 4G use between 1 and 5 gigahertz frequency, whereas 5G uses between 24 and 90 gigahertz frequency, asserting that the higher the frequency within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the more likely it is dangerous to live organisms. In other nations besides the U.S., there are claims that a small increase in overall exposure is expected to remain low.

As for heating dangers, part of the 5G spectrum is classified under the microwave band of electromagnetic radiation. Microwaves generate heat in objects in which they pass. The maximum radio frequency level that someone could be exposed to from 5G is extremely small and no temperature increase has been observed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is in charge of licensing the spectrum for public use, has strong opinions about the subject. Neil Derek Grace, a communications officer at the FCC, says, “For 5G equipment, the signals from commercial wireless transmitters are typically far below the RF exposure limits at any location that is accessible to the public.” The FCC communicates with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for specific health risk assessments in which it has claimed the scientific evidence clearly shows no linkage of cell phones to health issues. In 2011, the WHO said that RF Radiation is a Group 2B agent in which it is classified as potentially cancer-causing, along with other substances such as caffeine and nickel. The WHO declares that it is focused on hazards, not risk. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal said that the FCC and FDA have insufficient research regarding the potential risks.

Hence, although a substance can theoretically cause risk to health in the right conditions and quantity, it does not mean that it is undeniably damaging. Scientists are testing new technology to ensure that these networks remain safe. Everything known about 5G networks shows that there is no evidence of harm.