Published Scientific Research on 5G, 4G Small Cells, Wireless Radiation and Health

 

Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G, 3G and 4G – in use today with our cell phones, computers and wearable tech – creates (create) radiofrequency exposures which poses (pose) a serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment. Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done first  to ensure the public and environment are protected.

 

“Small cells” are microwave antennas (basically shorter cell towers) rapidly being installed in public areas on utility poles and street lights in front of homes, parks and schools. Just like cell towers, these wireless antennas generate and emit microwave radiofrequency (RF) radiation to transmit 2G, 3G and 4G network signals. Companies soon plan to add a new technology called 5G which will use current 4G technology plus even higher frequencies. The higher frequencies include millimeter-wave emissions that were not previously released into public areas.

 

Companies state that these 4G and 5G antennas will increase the wireless radiation levels in the area so much that they are working to loosen several governments’ radiation limits in order to roll it out. A 2021 research study found people who are exposed to higher radiation values present more severe headaches, dizziness and nightmares. Moreover, they sleep fewer hours.”

More than 240 scientists published an appeal to the United Nations to reduce public exposure and called for a moratorium on 5G citing “established” adverse biological effects of RF radiation. Peer-reviewed research has linked a myriad of adverse effects to wireless radiofrequency radiation including brain cancer, breast cancer, DNA damage, thyroid cancer, memory damage, sperm damage, brain damage, headaches, diabetes, hyperactivity, liver damage, oxidative stress, behavior problems, synergistic effects, altered brain activity, tumor promotion, impaired growth and more. 

5G will utilize not only the frequencies currently in use, but also higher millimeter wave and sub-millimeter wave frequencies. Small cells being installed in cities are usually 4G technology with a wide variety of frequencies. Thus, when we consider the health impacts of 5G and small cells we are looking at research on current technologies and frequencies in use in addition to research on sub-millimeter and millimeter waves. The 5G standard is new  there are no studies that have looked at long term human exposure to 5G. However the current body of research finding effects from current wireless technology provides enough data for scientists to call for a moratorium.

 

 

 

Published Reviews on 5G

 

 

 

“5G Wireless Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications” published in Environmental Research is a research review that documents the range of reported adverse effects of RF and millimeter waves—effects range from cancer to bacteria growth changes to DNA damage. The study concludes that “a moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted” and “the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome … from both physical and mental health perspectives” (Russell, 2018).

 

 

 

“Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology Under Real  Life Conditions” published in Toxicology Letters identifies the wide-spectrum of adverse health effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation and concludes that 5 G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects as well. They state that 5G will increase the cell tower densities by an order of magnitude. The researchers conclude that in aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum, currently published reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC guidelines can result in: carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia, parotid gland tumors), genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure), mutagenicity, teratogenicity,  neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), neurobehavioral problems, autism, reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, adverse impacts on the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems” and “from this perspective, RF is a highly pervasive cause of disease” (Kostoff et al., 2020).

 

 

 

“Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?” published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health is a research review detailing research findings that millimeter waves can alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes.” The researchers conclude, “available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle” (Di Ciaula, 2018).

 

The paper “A New Look at Three Potential Mechanisms Proposed for the Carcinogenesis of 5G Radiation” puts forward three mechansms. One is that “absorption of 5G radiation in skin can lead to the generation of high levels of free radicals, which in turn increases the risk of skin cancer. Yakymenko et al., have reported that among 100 peer-reviewed publications on oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation included in their review, 93 studies showed that radiofrequency radiation induced oxidative effects in biological systems.”

 

“Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose” published in Health Physics documents how significant tissue heating can be generated by 5G technology’s rapid short bursts of energy.  “The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines” (Neufeld and Kuster, 2018).

 

A review of studies on 6 to 100 GHz (Simkó and Mattsson 2019)  funded by Deutsche Telekom of Germany found that “the available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects.” The review stated, “here is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact.” This study cited research that found “the presence of sweat glands [120,121] and also capillaries in the dermis can cause locally elevated SAR levels [122]. The latter study showed that SAR levels in vessels could be up to 30 times higher than in the surrounding skin, depending on the diameter of the vessels.”

 

Simkó and Mattsson 2019 analyzed the quality of the selected studies according to specific criteria. The studies were categorized by the presence of sham/ control, dosimetry, positive control, temperature control, and whether the study was blinded.  Of the 45 in vivo studies, 78% (35) demonstrated biological responses after exposure to MMW. However when analyzed for quality criteria, “only three publications were identified that met all five criteria [26,51,53].”  (EHT note: These three publications found an effect.) Similarly,  31 of the 53 in vitro studies found an effect. However only 13 studies had 3 of the 5 criteria satisfied and the authors conclude that “the number of examinations and the quality criteria are insufficient for a statistical analysis. It should be stressed that this quality analysis covers all publications dealing with the responses/effects of exposure to 6 to 100 GHz MMW, irrespective of the endpoints tested. To perform a correlation analysis, a larger number of comparable studies (e.g., identical endpoints in a frequency group) would be required.”

 

The study “Physiological effects of millimeter-waves on skin and skin cells: An overview of the to-date published studies” published in Reviews on Environmental Health by Dariusz Leszczynski reviewed 99 studies and concluded that the “scientific evidence concerning the possible effects of millimeter-waves on humans is insufficient to devise science-based exposure limits and to develop science-based human health policies. The sufficient research has not been done and, therefore, precautionary measures should be considered for the deployment of the 5G, before the sufficient number of quality research studies will be executed and health risk, or lack of it, scientifically established.” “In conclusion, there is an urgent need for research on the biological and health effects of mm-waves because, using the currently available evidence on skineffects, the claims that “we know skin and human health will not be affected” as well as the claims that “we know skin and human health will be affected” are premature assumptions that lack sufficient scientific basis.” (PDF of Accepted Manuscript)

Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra high frequency published in the journal Health and Technology( Ugochukwu et al., 2021) concludes that “caution must be applied not to deploy 5G network under ultra-high frequency above 20 GHz due to its adverse health effects.” “On the several findings of the research, deploying 5G network technology under the ultra-high baseband above 20 GHz will produce effects such as heating up of the body tissues due to electromagnetic field inducement on the account that human body is dipolar in nature. The effects will extend to produce dielectric polarization, ionic polarization, interfacial polarization and orientational polarization.”

5G, Wireless and Wildlife

FCC  and ICNIRP limits were not developed to protect our flora or fauna. Wireless radiation “safety” limits for trees, plants, birds and bees simply do not exist. No US agency nor international authority with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever acted to review research and set safety limits for birds, bees, trees and wildlife.

A 2021 review (Balmori 2021) found “sufficient evidence on the damage caused by electromagnetic radiation” to insects to state that “electromagnetic radiation should be considered seriously as a complementary driver for the dramatic decline in insects, acting in synergy with agricultural intensification, pesticides, invasive species and climate change.” The paper concludes that “the precautionary principle should be applied before any new deployment (such 5G) is considered.” 

A 2021 comprehensive research review by  Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) entitled “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment” published in Reviews of Environmental Health found “exponential increases in nearly all environments. ” The abstract states “biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have been observed… It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced.”

This paper, which is one of a three part series that addresses wireless frequencies now in use as well as the complex signals that will be deployed for 5G stating “serious concerns regarding phasing because it interacts with living cells in extremely complex ways that have nothing to do with traditional thermal thresholds. The wave form itself is the biologically active component” and “The reason that phasing may have a unique biological impact is because very fast peak radiation pulses generate bursts of energy that can give rise to what are called Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in living cells that can in turn penetrate and disperse much deeper than traditional models predict. Som- merfeld/Brillouin precursors most notably form with ultra wideband exposures as proposed with 5G.”

A 2020 report of the “biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects” by high voltage, mobile communications and WLAN came to the conclusion that, in addition to pesticides and the loss of habitats, mobile communications radiation also has negative effects on insects and is therefore another factor in weakening the insect world. Read “Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects” by Alain Thill.

Several literature reviews warn that non-ionizing EMFs are an “emerging threat” to wildlife (Balmori 2015, Curachi 2013, Sivani 2012) and impacts to pollinators are documented in published studies (Favre 2011, Kumar et.al., 2011, Lazaro et al., 2016). Field research has found years of exposure to cell tower radiation damages trees (Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. 2016, Helmut 2016, Haggerty 2010) and plants  (Halgamuge 2017, Pall 2016, Halgamuge and Davis 2019). Radiofrequency radiation has been found to affect the magnetic sense of invertebrates (including insects) (Tomanová and Vácha, 2016; Vácha et al., 2009) birds (Engels et al., 2014) and mammals (Malkemper et al., 2015). Furthermore research shows bees and pollinators could suffer serious impacts from the higher frequencies to be used in 5G as the higher frequencies resonate with their bodies resulting in up to 370% higher absorbed power. 

Currently there is no U.S. Government-funded research program into the non-thermal biological effects of RF emissions to the environment. The EPA, which formerly conducted such research, lost all of its research funding in 1996, and has done nothing since.  In July 2020 the Director of the Radiation Protection Division of the EPA  Lee Ann B. Veal wrote Theodora Scarato Executive Director of EHT that  the EPA had no funded mandate to regarding wireless radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment. Read the letter. The EPA stated their last research review was their 1984 Report. The FCC confirmed in a USTTI webinar October 15, 2020 that their limits were for humans only. 

A Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from September 8, 2000. It clarifies how decades ago, when FCC limits were set, the EPA was defunded from properly reviewing the science on harm from electromagnetic fields.

“The Court’s reliance on the EPA was technically correct but substantively naive. What the Court did not realize was that Congress terminated funding for radiation research by EPA in 1996, and no staff has been available at EPA to conduct such research for the past five years.”

5G Millimeter Waves and Human Skin

Some carrriers will incorprate millimeter and submillimeter waves into 5G wireless networks.

“The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not?”, published in Environmental Research, and “The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin”, published in IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, are two papers by physicists presenting research that found higher 5G frequencies are intensely absorbed into human sweat ducts (in skin), at a much higher absorption levels than other parts of our skin’s tissues (Betzalel et al., 2017, Betzalel et al., 2018). In an article published in Environmental Research, researchers conclude, “We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored” (Betzalel, et al., 2018).

A 2020 study  published in the journal Environmental Research and Public Health investigated the combined exposure of 3 G mobile systems at 1950 MHz  RF  and UV found a 24-h RF exposure significantly reduced the MMP-1 enzyme concentration, caused by prior UV exposure. Although they did not find changes in cytokines due to exposure to RF alone or  enhancment of  the effects of UV radiation, their findings indicate changes after exposure  and point to the importance of investigating this and other effects on skin. The authors conclude that, “the investigation of the possible adverse effects on the skin due to the high frequency electromagnetic fields become more and more important before the deployment of 5G mobile systems. Using this new technology, the absorption of exposure to RF in the skin will be enhanced. The skin will be the most important target organ of the RF exposure to 5G. Therefore, our approach of combined (i.e., consecutive) exposure to UV and RF might be important in future research related to 5G and skin.”

A 2021 paper “Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics” by Martin L Pall PHD reviwes the science on howMMwaves can have highly penetrating effects  stating that “in humans, MM-waves have penetrating effects including impacts on the brain, producing EEG changes and other neurological/neuropsychiatric changes, increases in apparent electromagnetic hypersensitivity and produce changes on ulcers and cardiac activity…Specifically, MM-wave electrical fields are almost completely absorbed in the outer 1 mm of the body due to the high dielectric constant of biological aqueous phases. However, the magnetic fields are very highly penetrating. 3. Time-varying magnetic fields have central roles in producing highly penetrating effects. The primary mechanism of EMF action is voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation with the EMFs acting via their forces on the voltage sensor, rather than by depolarization of the plasma membrane…There are three very important findings here which are rarely recognized in the EMF scientific literature: coherence of electronically generated EMFs; the key role of time-varying magnetic fields in generating highly penetrating effects; the key role of both modulating and pure EMF pulses in greatly increasing very short term high level time-variation of magnetic and electric fields. It is probable that genuine safety guidelines must keep nanosecond timescale-variation of coherent electric and magnetic fields below some maximum level in order to produce genuine safety. These findings have important implications with regard to 5G radiation.”

 

5G’s Higher Frequencies Will Impact Insects

“Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports is the first study to investigate how insects (including the Western honeybee) absorb the higher frequencies (2 GHz to 120 GHz) to be used in the 4G/5G rollout. The scientific simulations showed increases in absorbed power between 3% to 370% when the insects were exposed to the frequencies. Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” (Thielens et al., 2018)  

 

According to Belyaev 2019, “the health effects of chronic MMW exposures may be more significant than for any other frequency range.” The abstract states that, “ Various responses to non-thermal microwaves (MW) from mobile communication including adverse health effects related to electrohypersensitivity, cancer risks, neurological effects, and reproductive impacts have been reported while some studies reported no such effects. This presentation provides an overview of the complex dependence of the MW effects on various physical and biological variables, which account for, at least partially, an apparent inconsistence in the published data. Among other variables, dependencies on carrier frequency, polarization, modulation, intermittence, electromagnetic stray fields, genotype, physiological traits, and cell density during exposure were reported. Nowadays, biological and health effects of 5G communication, which will use microwaves of extremely high frequencies (millimeter waves MMW, wavelength 1- 10 mm), are of significant public concern. It follows from available studies that MMW, under specific conditions of exposure at very low intensities below the ICNIRP guidelines, can affect biological systems and human health. Both positive and negative effects were observed in dependence on exposure parameters. In particular, MMW inhibited repair of DNA damage induced by ionizing radiation at specific frequencies and polarizations. To what extend the 5G technology and the Internet of Things will affect the biota and human health is definitely not known. However, based on possible fundamental role of MMW in regulation of homeostasis and almost complete absence of MMW in atmosphere due to effective absorption, which suggests the lack of adaptation to this type of radiation, the health effects of chronic MMW exposures may be more significant than for any other frequency range.”

 

The Bioeffects of Millimeter Waves Documented Years Ago

 

 “Biological Effect of Millimeter Waves”, a Russian review on millimeter waves declassified by the CIA in 2012,  reported multiple research findings and concluded that, “Morphological, functional and biochemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimeter wave caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the process of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism” (Zalyubovskaya, 1977). 

 

 

 

“Current State And Implications Of Research On Biological Effects Of Millimeter Waves: A Review Of The Literature” published in BioElectroMagnetics reviewed dozens of research findings on low-intensity millimeter waves and determined that the reported, “MMW effects could not be readily explained by temperature changes during irradiation.” The review concludes by questioning the adequacy of regulatory limits stating that, “Safety limits for these types of exposure are based solely on predictions of energy deposition and MMW heating, but in view of recent studies this approach is not necessarily adequate” (Pakhomov et al., 1998).

 

“Skin Heating and Injury by Prolonged Millimeter-Wave Exposure: Theory Based on a Skin Model Coupled to a Whole Body Model and Local Biochemical Release From Cells at Supraphysiologic Temperatures”, published in IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science concludes that a consequence of MMW heating is the alteration of cell-membrane permeability. Nearby skin layers are affected by the biophysical mechanism of biochemical release through cell membranes. “The released molecules are delivered to other skin regions by diffusion and into the bloodstream by perfusion, where according to our hypothesis, the molecules interact with susceptible cells. This raises the possibility of additional indirect injury at nearby deeper skin regions that experience insignificant heating. Biochemical release may also lead to injury at distant sites within the body by perfusion clearance that transfers molecules into the systemic circulation to reach other susceptible cells” (Stewart et al., 2006).

 

Siegel et al, 2010 published in Electronics Records reviewed a series of experiments “which show changes in cell membrane potential and the action potential firing rate of cortical neurons under short (1 min) exposures to continuous-wave 60 GHz radiation at mW/cm2 power levels, more than 1000 times below the US govern- ment maximum permissible exposure.”  “At power levels of approximately 300 nW/cm2 and above, we observed strong inhibition of the action potential firing rate in some of the neurons, and increased firing in others, perhaps indicating the functional heterogeneity in the studied neuronal population. …These results are believed to be the first positive correlative measurements of real-time changes in neuronal activity with ultra-low-power millimetre-wave exposures. The experiments point to changes in membrane channel opening….”  

Yes, Adding More Cell Antennas Will Increase Exposures in Communities

 

A 2018 study published in Annals of Telecommunications found increased RF-EMF exposure from small cell LTE networks in two urban cities in France and the Netherlands. Researchers measured the RF-EMF from LTE (Long-Term Evolution) MC (macro cells meaning large cell towers) and SC networks (low-powered small cell base stations)  and found that the small cell networks increased the radio emissions from base stations (called downlink) by a factor of 7–46  while decreasing the radio emissions from user equipment exposure (called ) by a factor of 5–17. So while the devices themselves could emit less radiation, the cell antennas will increase the levels from cell antennas (Mazloum et al., 2019). This study shows the increased exposures would be involuntary. We can turn our phones off, but we cannot turn off the antennas in the neighborhood. 

 

A 2020 paper “Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy,”  presented at the  IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum documents how engineers found significant increases in levels of  radio frequency radiationwould result if a mmWave-based 5G network was fully deployed in Austin Texas. The researchers first mapped the pre-existing LTE antennas and then laid out the real world design for the densification of cell towers and signal repeaters which would be needed in the City in order to fully build out a mmWave-based 5G network. The engineers then simulated the RF power densities that would be experienced in the outdoor environments should the 5G mmWave antennas be installed. They found the fully deployed  5G mmWave network would result in significant increases in outdoor RF levels for the City. The researchers conclude that, “This suggests that 5G mobile networks can not yet be classified as safe for the public, and demands serious considerations before using mmWave communications for 5G networks, given the potential harms it could afflict on the public.” The engineers  created a heat map to show the increased radiation levels should 5G be fully deployed in Austin Texas.

An Australian study published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology also found that children in kindergartens with nearby antenna installations had nearly three-and-a-half times higher RF exposures than children with installations further away by more than 300 meters (Bhatt et al., 2016).   

 

A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International measured RF in several countries. It found that cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas; exposure in urban areas was higher and that exposure has drastically increased. As an example, the measurements the researchers took in Los Angeles, USA were 70 times higher than the US EPA estimate 40 years ago (Sagar et al., 2018). 

 

 

 

As an example of how rapidly RF is increasing from wireless antennas, a 2014 published study from Environmental Research looked at RF in three European cities and found in just one year (between  April 2011 and March 2012) that the total RF-EMF exposure levels in all outdoor areas in combination increased by 57.1%  in Basel, by 20.1% in Ghent and by 38.2% in Brussels. “Exposure increase was most consistently observed in outdoor areas due to emissions from mobile phone base stations” (Urbinello et al., 2014).

 

 

 

Another study, published in Environment International, looked at 529 children in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain who wore meters around the waist or carried in a backpack during the day and placed close to the bed at night. Researchers  found “the largest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink (meaning from cell tower base stations) and broadcast” (Birks et al., 2018).

 

Cell tower radiation is a significant contribution to our daily  exposure to RF. A study recently published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health  equipped Australian adults  with an RF  measuring device in a small hip bag for approximately 24 consecutive hours. The study found “downlink and broadcast are the main contributors to total RF-EMF personal exposure.” Downlink (RF from mobile phone base station) contributed 40.4% of the total RF-EMF exposure (Zeleke et al., 2018).  

 

Another published study in the Science of The Total Environment journal, gave 50 Korean parents and their child a measuring device for 48 hours found that “the contribution of base-station exposure to total RF-EMF exposure was the highest both in parents and children” (Choi et al., 2018).  

The study Exposure of South Korean Population to 5G Mobile Phone Networks (3.4–3.8 GHz) measured exposure to electromagnetic fields in South Korea to evaluate the relative contribution of 5G as compared with other frequencies such as 2G, 3G, and 4G. Results show that the emission of 5G contributes about 15% to total telecommunications emissions. Altough levels were below ICNIRP,  highest levels were observed in the vicinity of 5G antennas (Selmaoui 2021). 

Several countries measure the levels of radiofrequency and post these measurements online- France, Greece, Turkey, India, Israel, French Polynesia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Switzerland, Bahrain, Iceland and Australia. If you look at the measurements by these governments as well as by industry itself the increase from 5G is evident. For example, in Australia the telecom companies report on the levels a this link  https://www.rfnsa.com.au/?first=1 The values are maximum theoretically calculated numbers and they show  large changes with the introduction of 5G. Take the 2021 example found here of the level increasing from 6.44% of the limit to 14.22% of the limit when the 5G network antenna is added. As another example on Queen Street in Melbourne Australia the addition of 5G antennas increased the levels from 1.67% to 3.39% of the limit. 5G antennas near a Melbourne powerpole at Elizabeth and Collins Street increased the 2021 levels from .11% to .42% of the limit and the power density increased from 7.70 

Experts Warn that Measurement Techniques Do Not Adequately Measure 5G Exposures  

 

 

 

A 2019 Report for the European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy published for the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, entitled “5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA, and Asia” explained that “5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory.” “While the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world” (Blackman & Forge, 2019).

 

 

 

A 2020 European Parliament Briefing on the “Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health” reiterates the issues with measurements and also comments on how radiation limits are outdated stating in this summary, “The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account” (Karaboytcheva, 2020).

 

 

 

“Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink” in IEEE International Communications Conference found “that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink” (Nasim & Kim, 2017).

 

 

 

The study “Human EMF Exposure in Wearable Networks for Internet of Battlefield Things” published in  MILCOM 2019 – 2019 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) is the first work that explicitly compares the human EMF exposure at different operating frequencies for on-body wearable communications. The study investigates the exposure effects of the human electromagnetic field (EMF) from on-body wearable devices and compares the results to illustrate how the technology evolution to higher frequencies can impact one’s health. It concludes that the results suggest the average specific absorption rate (SAR) at 60 GHz can exceed the regulatory guidelines within a certain separation distance between a wearable device and the human skin surface (Nasim & Kim, 2019).

 

 

 

Review Publications on Electromagnetic Radiation and RF  

 

A 2019 literature review “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation” published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found that 93 of the 100 peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems (Yakymenko et al., 2016).  

 

“Planetary Electromagnetic Pollution: It Is Time to Assess Its Impact” published in The Lancet Planetary Health documents the significant increase in environmental levels of radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic wireless radiation over the past two decades. The study cites an evaluation that found 68.2% of 2,266 studies in humans, animals, and plants demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields. 89%  of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects and “radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress.” The paper also highlights research that has associated RF exposure with altered neurodevelopment and behavioural disorders, structural and functional changes in the brain and the sensitivity of pollinators. “These findings deserve urgent attention.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” (Bandara & Carpenter, 2018).

 

 

 

The review “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective” published in Environmental Pollution by researchers of the  European Cancer Environment Research Institute in Brussels, Belgium and the Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, NY, USA reviews current research findings and states that, “the mechanism(s) responsible include induction of reactive oxygen species, gene expression alteration and DNA damage through both epigenetic and genetic processes.” The paper affirms that “exposure to low frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at low intensities poses a significant health hazard that has not been adequately addressed by national and international organizations such as the World Health Organization” (Belpomme et al., 2018). 

 

 

 

The  literature review “Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health” published by the Division of Reproductive Biology & Maternal Health, Child Health, Indian Council of Medical Research documents research that has found a link between radiofrequency radiation and oxidative stress and changes to the reproductive system including sperm count, motility, normal morphology and viability. The review concludes that the “available data indicate that exposure to EMF can cause adverse health effects. It is also reported that biological effects may occur at very low levels of exposure” (Singh et al., 2018).

 

 

 

Environmental Review published a 2010 landmark review study on 56 studies that reported biological effects found at very low intensities, including impacts on reproduction, permeability of the blood-brain barrier, behavior, cellular and metabolic changes, and increases in cancer risk (Lai & Levitt, 2010).

 

 

 

Cancer

 

“Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” published in Environmental Research is a comprehensive research review of RF effects in human and animal research. The review concludes that scientific evidence is now adequate to conclude radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic to humans (Miller, 2018). Several previously published studies also concluded that RF causes various types of cancer, for example, Carlberg & Hardell, 2017 published in BioMed Research International; Atzman et al., 2016 published in the International Journal Cancer Clinical Research; and Peleg et al., 2018 published in Environmental Research.

 

 

 

The US National Toxicology Program (NTP)  is a federal, interagency program that conducted  a $30-million study designed to test the basis for federal safety limits.The study on, “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation” found “clear evidence” of cancer, heart damage and DNA damage  (NIEHS, 2018). The heart and brain cancers found in the NTP rats are the same cell type as tumors that researchers have found to be increasing in humans who have used cell phones for over 10 years as published in BioMed Research (Carlberg & Hardell, 2017). Thus, researchers assert in the International Journal of Oncology that the  animal evidence from the NTP study confirms the human evidence associating radio frequency radiation exposure to cancer occurrences/developments (Carlberg & Hardell, 2019).

 

The 2018 report of final brain and heart tumor results from the The Ramazzini Institute (RI) Study on Base Station RF, published in Environmental Research was another large scale rat study that also found increases in the same heart cancers that the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study found—yet the Ramazzini rats were exposed to much lower levels of RF than the NTP rats. In fact, all the RI radiation exposures were below FCC limits, as the study was specifically designed to test the safety of RF limits for cell tower/base stations (Falconi et al., 2018.) Thus, the Ramazzini study corroborates the NTP findings as published on the National Institutes of Health website. 

 

“Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications is a replication study that used very, very low RF exposures (lower than the Ramazzini and NTP study) and combined the RF with a known carcinogen. Researchers found elevated lymphoma and significantly higher numbers of tumors in the lungs and livers in animals exposed to both RF and the carcinogen, leading researchers to state that previous research published in the International Journal of Radiation Biology (Tillman et al., 2010) was confirmed and that “our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors” (Lerchl et al., 2015).

 

 

 

Environment

 

“A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)” published in Environment International reviewed 113 studies finding RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies (Cucurachi et al., 2013). Development and reproduction in birds and insects were the most strongly affected. As an example of the several studies on wildlife impacts, a study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology focused on RF emissions from antennas found increased sperm abnormalities in mice exposed to RF from GSM antennas (Otitoloju et al., 2009).

 

Published studies, in Toxicology International and Apidologie, on bees have found behavioral effects (Kumar et al., 2011; Favre 2011), while other studies from the International Journal of Environmental Sciences and the IIAS-InterSymp Conference attest to disrupted navigation (Goldsworthy, 2009; Sainudeen, 2011; Kimmel et al., 2007). Decreasing egg laying rate and reduced colony strength are documented in Science Direct and the Acta Systemica-IIAS International Journal (Sharma & Kumar, 2010; Harst et al., 2006).

 

Research has also found  high levels of damage to trees from cell antenna radiation.  For example, a field monitoring study, “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations” published in the Science of The Total Environment –spanning 9 years, involving over 100 trees–found trees sustained more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna (Waldmann-Selsam et al., 2016). 

 

 

 

Expanded 4G, 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT) will increase overall use of all types of wireless frequencies. 

 

A published review, in Environmental Research, of effects of Wi-Fi radiation entitled, “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health” found that “repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload (Pall, 2018).  

 

 

 

“The Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base station” is a research study that compared people living close (within 80 meters) and far (more than 300 meters away) from cellular antennas found that the people living closer had several significant changes in their blood predictive of cancer development (Zothansanga et al., 2017).  An earlier 2016 study, on genetic damage in humans populations exposed to radiation from mobile towers published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, evaluated 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects, found DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes (Gulati et al., 2016).

 

“Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations”, published in Science of The Total Environment, is a 10 year study by the Belo Horizonte, Brazil Health Department and several universities in Brazil that found an elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell installations (Dode et al., 2011). Shortly after this study was published, the city prosecutor sued several cell phone companies and requested that almost half of the city’s antennas be removed. Many antennas were dismantled.

 

The 2018 study, “Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health” published in the American Journal of Men’s Health, investigated male students in schools near cell towers. The researchers concluded that exposure to higher RF levels is associated with negative impacts on motor skills, memory and attention (Meo et al., 2019). Examples of other effects linked to cell towers in research studies include neuropsychiatric problems, published in NeuroToxicology; elevated diabetes, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; headaches, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; sleep problems and genetic damage published in the French journal Pathologie Biologie. 

 

A study published in 2018 International Conference on Power Energy, Environment and Intelligent Control (PEEIC) by IEEE entitled, “Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance” took soil samples from four different base stations located in Dausa city, India and control samples from soil far from stations and then isolated and evaluated the microorganisms in the soil. The researchers found greater antibiotic resistance in microbes present in soil near base stations compared to the control. The study concludes, “our findings suggest that mobile tower radiation can significantly alter the vital systems in microbes and turn them multidrug resistant (MDR) which is the most important current threat to public health” (Sharma et al., 2018).

 

 

 

 

 

Research on 3G and 4G

 

 

 

3G and 4G technology is still very much in use around the world. In addition, 5G devices will also have 4G emissions and 5G will utilize the frequencies currently used in 2G, 3G and 4G.  

 

Published in General Physiology and Biophysics, a 2019 study titled, “Chromosome damage in human cells induced by UMTS mobile telephony radiation” examined  human blood from healthy donors. The study found that 3G ) EMF/microwave radiation emissions from mobile telephones, within the current exposure limits, has significant genotoxic effects on human cells and advises that “human exposure to this EMF/radiation should be kept at levels as low as possible” (Panagopoulos, 2019). A series of landmark studies found that effects from microwaves on human lymphocytes can be dependant on carrier frequency  (Markova et al., 2005), that Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) 3G  microwaves can affect chromatin and inhibit formation of DNA double-strand breaks (Belyaev et al., 2009), and that stem cells are most sensitive to microwave exposure (Markova et al., 2010) published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Bio Electro Magnetics, and Environmental Health Perspectives respectively. Children have more active stem cells.  

4G LTE

The fourth generation (4G) of cellular technology called Long Term Evolution (LTE) was launched without premarket safety testing for long term exposure.  Published research has found behavioral changes in mice (Broom et al., 2019), damage to the testes and reproductive potential in mice (Yu et al., 2019), reduction to EEG alpha power (Vecsei et al., 2018), modulation to resting state EEG on alpha and beta bands (Yang et al., 2017), and the ; alteration of spontaneous low frequency fluctuations induced by the acute LTE RF-EMF exposure (Lv et al., 2014); published in Bio Electro Magnetics, Science of the Total Environment, Scientific Reports, Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, and Clinical Neurophysiology respectively.

Published in Bio Electro Magnetics, a 2018 double‐blind, crossover, randomized, and counterbalanced design study about the modulation of brain functional connectivity by exposure to 4G LTE cell phone radiation found that acute LTE‐EMF exposure did modulate connectivity in some brain regions.The authors conclude that, “Our results may indicate that approaches relying on network‐level inferences can provide deeper insights into the acute effects of LTE‐EMF exposure with intensities below the current safety limits on human functional connectivity. In the future, we need to investigate the evolution of the effect over time” (Wei et al., 2018). 

 

The Building Industry

 

 

 

Published in Building and Environment the article, “Building Science and Radiofrequency Radiation: What Makes Smart and Healthy Buildings” with a long list of authors, including former Microsoft Canada President Frank Clegg as well as Anthony Miller MD former Director of the Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada, review research studies finding adverse health effects below regulatory limits. The authors recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation in buildings by installing wired rather than wired internet connections and corded rather than cordless phones (Clegg et al., 2019). 

 

 

 

The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) has developed “Best Practices for LOW EMF Classrooms” that details how schools can replace wireless networks with wired networks. See CHPS Low EMF Criteria

 

 

 

Cell Towers and Health

 

 

 

“Mobile Phone Infrastructure Regulation in Europe: Scientific Challenges and Human Rights Protection”, a 2014 publication in Environmental Science & Policy by human rights experts argue that cell tower placement is a human rights issue for children because “the protection of children is a high threshold norm in Human Right law and the binding language of the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges States Parties to provide a higher standard of protection for children than adults” and “any widespread or systematic form of environmental pollution that poses a long-term threat to a child’s rights to life, development or health may constitute an international human rights violation.”  The article concludes that the “dearth of legislation to regulate the installation of base stations (cell towers) in close proximity to children’s facilities and schools clearly constitutes a human rights concern…” (Roda & Perry, 2014).  

 

“Safety Zone Determination for Wireless Cellular Tower – A Case Study from Tanzania” published in the International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology evaluated the radiation levels and concluded that “respective authorities should ensure that people reside far from the tower by 120m or more depending on the power transmitted to avoid severe health effect” (Nyakyi et al., 2013). 

 

 

 

“Long-term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences from Radars and Mobile Communication Systems”, published in Experimental Oncology reviews research findings on RF-EMF and states that it is “becoming increasingly evident that [the] assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation.” The paper concluded that “everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure” (Yakymenko et al., 2011). 

 

 

 

Published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, a cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals living near cell towers found genetic damage parameters of DNA were significantly elevated. “The genetic damage evident in the participants of this study needs to be addressed against future disease-risk, which in addition to neurodegenerative disorders, may lead to cancer” (Gandhi et al., 2015).  

 

 

 

“Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations” published in NeuroToxicology, concludes that, “Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition” and called  for the revision of standard guidelines for public exposure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas” (Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2006). 

 

“Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations” published in the International Journal of  Occupational Environmental Health reviewed ten epidemiological studies that assessed for health effects of mobile phone base stations and found that 8 of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 meters from base stations. The review concludes that ”current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations” (Khurana et al., 2010). 

 

 “How Does Long Term Exposure To Base Stations And Mobile Phones Affect Human Hormone Profiles?” published in Clinical Biochemistry followed volunteers for six years and found that high radio frequency radiation had effects on pituitary–adrenal axis represented in the reduction of ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin in young females, and testosterone levels (Eskander et al., 2012). 

 

Published in the French journal, Pathologie Biologie a study of 530 people living near mobile phone masts reported more symptoms of headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss and concentration problems the closer they lived to the cellular antennas (Santini et al., 2002).

 

 

 

A study, “The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain” published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found statistically significant associations between field intensity and the symptoms of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems (Navarro et al., 2003). “Subjective Symptoms, Sleeping Problems, And Cognitive Performance In Subjects Living Near Mobile Phone Base Stations” published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found a significant correlation between measured power density and headaches, fatigue, and difficulty in concentration in 365 subjects (Hutter et al., 2006). Published in NeuroToxicology, Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007 found residents living beneath and opposite a long established mobile phone mast reported significantly higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than a control group.

 

 

 

“Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station” published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention found a four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer among residents living within a 300 meter radius of a mobile phone mast after three and seven years of exposure (Wolf & Wolf, 2004). 

 

 

 

“The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer” published in Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, found a three-fold increase in the incidence of malignant tumours after five years of exposure in people living within a 400 meter radius of a mobile phone mast (Eger et al., 2004).

 

 

 

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14914

 

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/607053

 

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. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606

 

Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Research International, 2017, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486

 

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., & Kern, M. et al. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews On Environmental Health, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011

 

Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242(Part A), 643-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019

 

 

 

Research on People Near Cell Towers Links Exposure to Adverse Effects 

 

 

 

Published in the Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine journal, “The Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base station” is a research study that compared people living close (within 80 meters) and far (more than 300 meters away) from cellular antennas and found that the people living closer had several significant changes in their blood predictive of cancer development. The researchers controlled for various demographics, including the use of microwaves and wireless in the homes (Zothansiama et al., 2017).

 

“Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations” is a 10 year study by the Belo Horizonte Brazil Health Department and several universities in Brazil that found an elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell installations (Dode 2011). Shortly after this study was published, the city prosecutor sued several cell phone companies and requested that almost half of the city’s antennas be removed. Many antennas were dismantled.

 

A 2019 studyof students in schools near cell towers found their higher RF exposure was associated with impacts on motor skills, memory and attention (Meo 2019). Examples of other effects linked to cell towers in research studies include neuropsychiatric problems, elevated diabetes, headaches, sleep problemsand genetic damage. Such research continues to accumulate after the 2010 landmark review studyon 56 studies that reported biological effects found at very low intensities, including impacts on reproduction, permeability of the blood-brain barrier, behavior, cellular and metabolic changes, and increases in cancer risk (Lai and Levitt, 2010).

 

A published study entitled, “Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance” took soil samples  from four different base stations located in Dausa city, and control samples from soil far from stations and then isolated and evaluated the microorganisms in the soil. The researchers found greater antibiotic resistance in microbes present in soil near base stations compared to the control and a  statistical significant difference in pattern of antibiotic resistance was found with Nalidixic acid, and cefixime when used as antimicrobial agents. The study concludes, “our findings suggest that mobile tower radiation can significantly alter the vital systems in microbes and turn them multidrug resistant (MDR) which is most important current threat to public health.”

 

Cellular Antennas Create Measurable Increases in Radiation in the Area

 

A 2018 article published in The Lancet Planetary Health points to unprecedented increasing RF exposures (Bandara and Carpenter 2018). Another key finding from Zothansiama 2017was that homes closer to antennas had measurably higher radiation levels—adding to the documentation that antennas increase RF levels. An Australian study also found that children in kindergartens with nearby antenna installations had nearly three-and-a-half times higher RF exposures than children with installations further away (more than 300 meters (Bhatt 2016).  

 

 

 

Research Finds that Cell Tower Base Station Radiation is the Dominant Contributor to Overall Environmental Radiation Exposures 

 

A 2018 multi-country study that measured RF in several countries found that cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas exposure in urban areas was higher and that exposure has drastically increased. As an example, the measurements the researchers took in Los Angeles, USA were 70 times higher than the US EPA estimate 40 years ago (Sagar 2018). 

 

As an example of how rapidly RF is increasing from wireless antennas, a 2014 published study looked at RF in three European cities and found in just one year (between  April 2011 and March 2012) that the total RF-EMF exposure levels in all outdoor areas in combination increased by 57.1%  in Basel by 20.1% in Ghent and by 38.2% in Brussels (Urbinello 2014). “Exposure increase was most consistently observed in outdoor areas due to emissions from mobile phone base stations.”  

 

Another study, Birks 2018, looked at 529 children in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain who wore meters around the waist or carried in a backpack during the day and placed close to the bed at night. Researchers  found “the largest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink (meaning from cell tower base stations) and broadcast.” 

 

 

 

A study on Australian adults where participants carried a measuring device in a small hip bag for approximately 24 consecutive hours also found “downlink and broadcast are the main contributors to total RF-EMF personal exposure.” Downlink (RF from mobile phone base station) contributed 40.4% of the total RF-EMF exposure (Zeleke 2018). 

 

Another published study (Choi 2018) that gave 50 Korean adult child pairs a special radiation measuring device for 48 hours evaluated the types of radiation the participants were exposed to and found that “the contribution of base-station exposure to total RF-EMF exposure was the highest both in parents and children.” These two studies are an important example of the research that shows that radiation from base stations is the dominant contributor to a person’s cumulative exposure. Therefore we cannot only focus on a persons cell phone use as the way people are exposed to this radiation. People are exposed to wireless radiation even when they are not using a mobile device due to cell towers, antennas and hotspots and they have no control over this.  

 

 

References

Russell, C. (2018). 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165, 484-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016

Kostoff, R., Heroux, P., Aschner, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters, 323, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020

Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?. International Journal Of Hygiene And Environmental Health, 221(3), 367-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011

Neufeld, E., & Kuster, N. (2018). Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Physics, 115(6), 705-711. https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000000930

Martin L Pall. Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 26. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0165.

Betzalel, N., Ben Ishai, P., & Feldman, Y. (2018). The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?. Environmental Research, 163, 208-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.032

Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., & Ishai, P. (2017). The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin. IEEE Transactions On Terahertz Science And Technology, 7(5), 521-528. https://doi.org/10.1109/tthz.2017.2736345

Thielens, A., Bell, D., Mortimore, D., Greco, M., Martens, L., & Joseph, W. (2018). Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3

Belyaev, I. (2019). Main regularities and health risks from exposure to non-thermal microwaves of mobile communication. t14th IEEE International Conference meeting on Advanced Technologies, Systems and Services in Telecommunications – TELSIKS 2019 (http://www.telsiks.org.rs), Niš, Serbia.

 

Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3406. Published 2019 Sep 13. doi:10.3390/ijerph16183406

López I, Félix N, Rivera M, Alonso A, Maestú C. What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environ Res. 2021 Mar;194:110734. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110734. Epub 2021 Jan 9. PMID: 33434609.

Cell Antennas Increase Exposures in Communities

Mazloum, T., Aerts, S., Joseph, W., & Wiart, J. (2018). RF-EMF exposure induced by mobile phones operating in LTE small cells in two different urban cities. Annals Of Telecommunications, 74(1-2), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-018-0680-1

Bhatt, C., Redmayne, M., Billah, B., Abramson, M., & Benke, G. (2016). Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. Journal Of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 27(5), 497-504. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.55

Sagar, S., Adem, S., Struchen, B., Loughran, S., Brunjes, M., & Arangua, L. et al. (2018). Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environment International, 114, 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.036

Urbinello, D., Joseph, W., Verloock, L., Martens, L., & Röösli, M. (2014). Temporal trends of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in everyday environments across European cities. Environmental Research, 134, 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.07.003

Birks, L., Struchen, B., Eeftens, M., van Wel, L., Huss, A., & Gajšek, P. et al. (2018). Spatial and temporal variability of personal environmental exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in children in Europe. Environment International, 117, 204-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.026

Choi, J., Hwang, J., Lim, H., Joo, H., Yang, H., & Lee, Y. et al. (2018). Assessment of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from personal measurements considering the body shadowing effect in Korean children and parents. Science Of The Total Environment, 627, 1544-1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.318

Zeleke, B., Brzozek, C., Bhatt, C., Abramson, M., Croft, R., & Freudenstein, F. et al. (2018). Personal Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields among Australian Adults. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 15(10), 2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102234

 

Experts Warn that Measurement Techniques Do Not Adequately Measure 5G Exposures  

 

Blackman, C., & Forge, S. (2019). 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia [PDF]. Study for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

 

Karaboytcheva, M. (2020). Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health [PDF].  European Parliamentary Research Service. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cD0TDOqGHpOmCWPnANN-Y6RBaa0eoQ4ZN0nuUwpVaLL8MIDtt6aKtiYM

 

Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2017). Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03683

Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2019). Human EMF Exposure in Wearable Networks for Internet of Battlefield Things. MILCOM 2019 – 2019 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM). https://doi.org/10.1109/milcom47813.2019.9020889

 

Review Publications on Electromagnetic Radiation and RF  

Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2015). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 35(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

 Bandara, P., & Carpenter, D. (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(12), e512-e514. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30221-3

Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019

Singh, R., Nath, R., Mathur, A. K., & Sharma, R. S. (2018). Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 148, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1056_18

Levitt, B., & Lai, H. (2010). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 18, 369-395. https://doi.org/10.1139/a10-018

 

Cancer

Miller, A., Morgan, L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental Research, 167, 673-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043

Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Research International, 2017, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486

Atzmon, I., Linn, S., Richter, E., & Portnov, B. (2016). Microwave/Radiofrequency (MW/RF) Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk: Meta-Analysis of Accumulated Empirical Evidence. International Journal Of Cancer And Clinical Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.23937/2378-3419/3/1/1040

Peleg, M., Nativ, O., & Richter, E. (2018). Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. Environmental Research, 163, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.003

Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation. Ntp.niehs.nih.gov. (2018). Retrieved 8 May 2020, from https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campaign=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone.

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2018). 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. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606

Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., De Angelis, L., & Gnudi, F. et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research, 165, 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037

Lerchl, A., Klose, M., Grote, K., Wilhelm, A., Spathmann, O., & Fiedler, T. et al. (2015). Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochemical And Biophysical Research Communications, 459(4), 585-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.151

Tillmann, T., Ernst, H., Streckert, J., Zhou, Y., Taugner, F., Hansen, V., & Dasenbrock, C. (2010). Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. International Journal Of Radiation Biology, 86(7), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553001003734501

 

Environment

Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W., Vijver, M., Peijnenburg, W., Bolte, J., & de Snoo, G. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009

Otitoloju, A., Obe, I., Adewale, O., Otubanjo, O., & Osunkalu, V. (2009). Preliminary Study on the Induction of Sperm Head Abnormalities in Mice, Mus musculus, Exposed to Radiofrequency Radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bulletin Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology, 84(1), 51-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-009-9894-2

Kumar, N., Sangwan, S., & Badotra, P. (2011). Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicology International, 18(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6580.75869

Favre, D. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie, 42(3), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x

Goldsworthy, A. (2009). The Birds, the Bees and Electromagnetic Pollution [PDF]. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958012.pdf.

Sainudeen, S. (2011). Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) clashes with honey bees. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1(5), 897-900. https://doi.org/10.5897/jen11.014

Sharma, V., & Kumar, N. (2010). Changes in honey bee behaviour and biology under the influence of cell phone radiations. Current Science, 98(10), 1376-1378. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225187745_Changes_in_honey_bee_behaviour_and_biology_under_the_influence_of_cell_phone_radiations.

 

Kimmel, S., Kuhn, J., Harst, W., & Stever, H. (2007). Electromagnetic Radiation: Influences on Honeybees (Apis mellifera).  IIAS-InterSymp Conference, Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292405747_Electromagnetic_radiation_Influences_on_honeybees_Apis_mellifera_IIAS-InterSymp_Conference

Harst, W., Kuhn, J., & Stever, H. (2006). Can Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Studying Possible Non-Thermal Influences on Honey Bees – An Approach within the Framework of Educational Informatics. IIAS-InterSymp Conference, 1(6), 1-6. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from  http://bemri.org/publications/wildlife-and-plants/100-can-emf-exposure-cause-a-change-in-behaviour-studying-possible-non-thermal-influences-on-bees.html

Kimmel, Stefan & Kuhn, Jochen & Harst, Wolfgang & Stever, Hermann. (2007). Electromagnetic radiation: Influences on honeybees (Apis mellifera). IIAS-InterSymp Conference. Baden-Baden. 1-6.   

Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science Of The Total Environment, 572, 554-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045

Pall, M. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental Research, 164, 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali, M., Lalramdinpuii, M., Jagetia, G., & Siama, Z. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584

Gulati, S., Yadav, A., Kumar, N., Kanupriya, Aggarwal, N., Kumar, R., & Gupta, R. (2015). Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers. Archives Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology, 70(3), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0195-y

Dode, A., Leão, M., Tejo, F., Gomes, A., Dode, D., & Dode, M. et al. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051

Meo, S., Almahmoud, M., Alsultan, Q., Alotaibi, N., Alnajashi, I., & Hajjar, W. (2018). Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health. American Journal Of Men’s Health, 13(1), 155798831881691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988318816914

Abdel-Rassoul, G., El-Fateh, O., Salem, M., Michael, A., Farahat, F., El-Batanouny, M., & Salem, E. (2007). Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology, 28(2), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012

Meo, S., Alsubaie, Y., Almubarak, Z., Almutawa, H., AlQasem, Y., & Hasanato, R. (2015). 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121114519

Hutter, H., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., & Kundi, M. (2006). Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occupational And Environmental Medicine, 63(5), 307-313. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2005.020784

Santini, R., Santini, P., Danze, J., Le Ruz, P., & Seigne, M. (2002). [Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex]. Pathologie Biologie, 50(6), 369-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0369-8114(02)00311-5

Gandhi, G., Kaur, G., & Nisar, U. (2015). A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 34(4), 344-354. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2014.933349

Sharma, A., Lamba, O., Sharma, L., & Sharma, A. (2018). Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance. 2018 International Conference On Power Energy, Environment And Intelligent Control (PEEIC). https://doi.org/10.1109/peeic.2018.8665432

 

 

 Research on 3G and 4G

 

Panagopoulos, D. (2019). Chromosome damage in human cells induced by UMTS mobile telephony radiation. General Physiology And Biophysics, 38(05), 445-454. https://doi.org/10.4149/gpb_2019032

Markovà, E., Hillert, L., Malmgren, L., Persson, B., & Belyaev, I. (2005). Microwaves from GSM Mobile Telephones Affect 53BP1 and γ-H2AX Foci in Human Lymphocytes from Hypersensitive and Healthy Persons. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(9), 1172-1177. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7561

Belyaev, I., Markovà, E., Hillert, L., Malmgren, L., & Persson, B. (2009). Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/γ-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes. Bioelectromagnetics, 30(2), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20445

Markovà, E., Malmgren, L., & Belyaev, I. (2010). Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(3), 394-399. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0900781

Broom, K., Findlay, R., Addison, D., Goiceanu, C., & Sienkiewicz, Z. (2019). Early‐Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J Mice. Bioelectromagnetics, 40(7), 498-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22217

Yu, G., Tang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z., Wang, L., & Cao, H. et al. (2020). Long-term exposure to 4G smartphone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation diminished male reproductive potential by directly disrupting Spock3–MMP2-BTB axis in the testes of adult rats. Science Of The Total Environment, 698, 133860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133860

Vecsei, Z., Knakker, B., Juhász, P., Thuróczy, G., Trunk, A., & Hernádi, I. (2018). Short-term radiofrequency exposure from new generation mobile phones reduces EEG alpha power with no effects on cognitive performance. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36353-9

Yang, L., Chen, Q., Lv, B., & Wu, T. (2016). Long-Term Evolution Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Modulates the Resting State EEG on Alpha and Beta Bands. Clinical EEG And Neuroscience, 48(3), 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1550059416644887

Lv, B., Chen, Z., Wu, T., Shao, Q., Yan, D., & Ma, L. et al. (2014). The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(2), 277-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.018

Wei, Y., Yang, J., Chen, Z., Wu, T., & Lv, B. (2018). Modulation of resting-state brain functional connectivity by exposure to acute fourth-generation long-term evolution electromagnetic field: An fMRI study. Bioelectromagnetics, 40(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22165

Erkin Özdemir, Ülkü Çömelekoglu, Evren Degirmenci, Gülsen Bayrak, Metin Yildirim, Tolgay Ergenoglu, Banu Coşkun Yılmaz, Begüm Korunur Engiz, Serap Yalin, Dilan Deniz Koyuncu, Erkan Ozbay. The effect of 4.5 G (LTE Advanced-Pro network) mobile phone radiation on the optic nerve. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2021 Mar 3;1-27. doi: 10.1080/15569527.2021.1895825.

Clegg, F., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., & Russell, C. et al. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building And Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324

 

Compilation of Research Studies on Cell Tower Radiation and Health 

Shahbazi-Gahrouei, D. (2017). Base transceiver station antennae exposure and human health. International Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 8(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_180_17

Pearce, J. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845

 

Roda, C., & Perry, S. (2014). Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 204-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.009

 

Nyakyi, C., Mrutu, S., Sam, A., & Anatory, J. (2013). Safety zone determination for wireless cellular tower- a case study from Tanzania. International Journal Of Research In Engineering And Technology, 02(09), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.15623/ijret.2013.0209029

 

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, 62-70. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201.

 

Khurana, V., 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. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2010.16.3.263

 

Eskander, E., Estefan, S., & Abd-Rabou, A. (2012). How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?. Clinical Biochemistry, 45(1-2), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.11.006

Navarro, E., Segura, J., Portolés, M., & Gómez‐Perretta de Mateo, C. (2003). The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 22(2-3), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1081/jbc-120024625 

Wolf, R., & Wolf, D. (2004). Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. International Journal Of Cancer Prevention, 1(2). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.652.9315&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Eger, H., Hagen, K., Lucas, B., Vogel, P., & Voit, H. (2004). Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, 17. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from http://avaate.org/IMG/pdf/20041118_naila.pdf.

 

The Bioeffects of Millimeter Waves Documented Years Ago

 

Declassified and Approved for release 2012/05/10: CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120005-6. (1977). Biological effect of millimeter radiowaves (pp. 116-119). Kiev: Vrachebnoye Delo.

Pakhomov, A., Akyel, Y., Pakhomova, O., Stuck, B., & Murphy, M. (1998). Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: A review of the literature. Bioelectromagnetics, 19(7), 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1521-186x(1998)19:7<393::aid-bem1>3.0.co;2-x

EMFscientist.org – International EMF Scientist Appeal. Emfscientist.org. (2020). Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal.

Wang, Q., Zhao, X., Li, S., Wang, M., Sun, S., & Hong, W. (2017). Attenuation by a Human Body and Trees as well as Material Penetration Loss in 26 and 39 GHz Millimeter Wave Bands. International Journal Of Antennas And Propagation, 2017, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2961090

Stewart, D., Gowrishankar, T., & Weaver, J. (2006). Skin Heating and Injury by Prolonged Millimeter-Wave Exposure: Theory Based on a Skin Model Coupled to a Whole Body Model and Local Biochemical Release From Cells at Supraphysiologic Temperatures. IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, 34(4), 1480-1493. https://doi.org/10.1109/tps.2006.878996

Papaioannou, A., & Samaras, T. (2011). Numerical Model of Heat Transfer in the Rabbit Eye Exposed to 60-GHz Millimeter Wave Radiation. IEEE Transactions On Biomedical Engineering, 58(9), 2582-2588. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2011.2159502

 

Reviews

BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). The BioInitiative Report. (2020). Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://bioinitiative.org/.

Moskowitz,, J. (2018). Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Papers Finding Evidence of Harm from Cell Phone Radiation Exposure [PDF]. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zeM5L7-x4Xnu9B6SxpHPQ0J_dHIHMQCy/view.

PowerWatch. (2018). PowerWatch: 1,670 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers on Electromagnetic Fields and Biology or Health [PDF]. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view.

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14914

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/607053

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., & Kern, M. et al. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews On Environmental Health, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011

Le Pogam, P., Le Page, Y., Habauzit, D., Doué, M., Zhadobov, M., & Sauleau, R. et al. (2019). Untargeted metabolomics unveil alterations of biomembranes permeability in human HaCaT keratinocytes upon 60 GHz millimeter-wave exposure. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45662-6

Soubere Mahamoud, Y., Aite, M., Martin, C., Zhadobov, M., Sauleau, R., Le Dréan, Y., & Habauzit, D. (2016). Additive Effects of Millimeter Waves and 2-Deoxyglucose Co-Exposure on the Human Keratinocyte Transcriptome. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0160810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160810

Mandl, P., Pezzei, P., & Leitgeb, E. (2018). Selected Health and Law Issues Regarding Mobile Communications with Respect to 5G. 2018 International Conference On Broadband Communications For Next Generation Networks And Multimedia Applications (CoBCom), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/cobcom.2018.8443980

Tripathi, S., Ben Ishai, P., & Kawase, K. (2018). Frequency of the resonance of the human sweat duct in a normal mode of operation. Biomedical Optics Express, 9(3), 1301. https://doi.org/10.1364/boe.9.001301

Wu, T., Rappaport, T., & Collins, C. (2015). The human body and millimeter-wave wireless communication systems: Interactions and implications. 2015 IEEE International Conference On Communications (ICC), 2423-2429. https://doi.org/10.1109/icc.2015.7248688

Wu, T., Rappaport, T., & Collins, C. (2015). Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 16(2), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1109/mmm.2014.2377587

Ramundo-Orlando, A. (2010). Effects of Millimeter Waves Radiation on Cell Membrane – A Brief Review. Journal Of Infrared, Millimeter, And Terahertz Waves, 31(12), 1400-1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10762-010-9731-z

 

Scientific Citations from the published study “Potential Risks to Human Health Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems”  by Paul Ben-Ishai, PhD and Yuri Feldman, PhD

Feldman, Y., & Ben-Ishai, P. (2017). Potential Risks to Human Health Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems. Jerusalem. Retrieved from https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Yuri-Feldman-and-Paul-Ben-Ishai-Abstract.pdf

Feldman, Y., Puzenko, A., Ben Ishai, P., Caduff, A., & Agranat, A. (2008). Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in the Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Physical Review Letters, 100(12), 128102. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.128102

Hayut, I., Ben Ishai, P., Agranat, A., & Feldman, Y. (2014). Circular polarization induced by the three-dimensional chiral structure of human sweat ducts. Physical Review E, 89(4), 042715. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.89.042715

Hayut, I., Puzenko, A., Ben Ishai, P., Polsman, A., Agranat, A., & Feldman, Y. (2013). The Helical Structure of Sweat Ducts: Their Influence on the Electromagnetic Reflection Spectrum of the Skin. IEEE Transactions On Terahertz Science And Technology, 3(2), 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1109/tthz.2012.2227476

RESEARCH ON MILLIMETER WAVES

Gandhi, O., & Riazi, A. (1986). Absorption of Millimeter Waves by Human Beings and its Biological Implications. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 34(2), 228-235. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmtt.1986.1133316

Sypniewska, R., Millenbaugh, N., Kiel, J., Blystone, R., Ringham, H., Mason, P., & Witzmann, F. (2010). Protein changes in macrophages induced by plasma from rats exposed to 35 GHz millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics, 31(8), 656-663. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20598

Ramundo-Orlando, A., Longo, G., Cappelli, M., Girasole, M., Tarricone, L., Beneduci, A., & Massa, R. (2009). The response of giant phospholipid vesicles to millimeter waves radiation. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Biomembranes, 1788(7), 1497-1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2009.04.006

Chen, Q., Lu, D., Jiang, H., & Xu, Z. (2008). [Effects of millimeter wave on gene expression in human keratinocytes]. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 37(1), 8-23. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18275115.

Feldman, Y., Puzenko, A., Ben Ishai, P., Caduff, A., & Agranat, A. (2008). Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in the Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Physical Review Letters, 100(12). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.128102

Gapeev, A., Rubanik, A., Pashovkin, T., & Chemeris, N. (2007). [Thermoelastic excitation of acoustic waves in biological models under the effect of the high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency]. Biofizika, 52(6), 92-1087. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18225661.

Millenbaugh, N., Kiel, J., Ryan, K., Blystone, R., Kalns, J., & Brott, B. et al. (2006). Comparison of blood pressure and thermal responses in rats exposed to millimeter wave energy or environmental heat. Shock, 25(6), 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.shk.0000209550.11087.fd

Usichenko, T., Edinger, H., Gizhko, V., Lehmann, C., Wendt, M., & Feyerherd, F. (2006). Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Millimeter Waves for Pain Therapy. Evidence-Based Complementary And Alternative Medicine, 3(2), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nel012

Gugkova, O., Gudkov, S., Gapeev, A., Bruskov, V., Rubannik, A., & Chemeris, N. (2005). [The study of the mechanisms of formation of reactive oxygen species in aqueous solutions on exposure to high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequencies]. Biofizika, 50(5). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16248149.

Isakhanian, V., & Trchunian, A. (2005). [Indirect and repeated electromagnetic irradiation of extremely high freguency of bacteria Escherichia coli]. Biofizika, 50(4). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16212062.

Makar, V., Logani, M., Bhanushali, A., Kataoka, M., & Ziskin, M. (2004). Effect of millimeter waves on natural killer cell activation. Bioelectromagnetics, 26(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20046

Lushnikov, K., Shumilina, Y., Yakushina, V., Gapeev, A., Sadovnikov, V., & Chemeris, N. (2004). Effects of Low-Intensity Ultrahigh Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Inflammatory Processes. Bulletin Of Experimental Biology And Medicine, 137(4), 364-366. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:bebm.0000035131.54215.ca  

Sinotova, O., Novoselova, E., Glushkova, O., & Fesenko, E. (2004). [A comparison of the effects of millimeter and centimeter waves on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells]. Biofizika, 49(3). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15327216.

Gapeev, A., Lushnikov, K., Shumilina, I., Sirota, N., Sadovnikov, V., & Chemeris N, N. (2003). [Effects of low-intensity extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation on chromatin structure of lymphoid cells in vivo and in vitro]. Radiatsionnaya Biologiya Radioekologiya, 43(1), 87-92. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12677665.

Lushnikov, K., Gapeedv, A., Shumilina, I., Shibaev, N., Sadovnikov, V., & Chmeris, N. (2003). [Decrease in the intensity of the cellular immune response and nonspecific inflammation upon exposure to extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation]. Biofizika, 48(5). Retrieved 14 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14582420. 

Lushnikov, K., Gapeev, A., & Chemeris, N. (2002). [Effects of extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on the immune system and systemic regulation of homeostasis]. Radiatsionnaya Biologiya Radioekologiya, 42(5). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12449822.

Novoselova, E., Ogaĭ, V., Sinotova, O., Glushkova, O., Sorokina, O., & Fesenko, E. (2002). [Effect of millimeter waves on the immune system in mice with experimental tumors]. Biofizika, 47(5). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12397969.

Ushakov, V., Alipov, E., Shcheglov, V., & Belyaev, I. (2000). Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vivo-dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 48(11), 2172-2179. https://doi.org/10.1109/22.884211

Szabo, I., Rojavin, M., Rogers, T., & Ziskin, M. (2001). Reactions of keratinocytes to in vitro millimeter wave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics, 22(5), 358-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.62

D’Andrea, J., & Chalfin, S. (2000). Effects of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Radiation on the Eye. Radio Frequency Radiation Dosimetry And Its Relationship To The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields, 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4191-8_43

Mason, P., Walters, T., Nelson, M., & Nelson, D. (2000). Skin heating effects of millimeter-wave irradiation-thermal modeling results. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 48(11), 2111-2120. https://doi.org/10.1109/22.884202

Walters, T., Blick, D., Johnson, L., Adair, E., & Foster, K. (2000). Heating and pain sensation produced in human skin by millimeter waves. Health Physics, 78(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200003000-00003

Haas, A., Le Page, Y., Zhadobov, M., Sauleau, R., Dréan, Y., & Saligaut, C. (2017). Effect of acute millimeter wave exposure on dopamine metabolism of NGF-treated PC12 cells. Journal Of Radiation Research, 58(4), 439-445. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrx004

Haas, A., Le Page, Y., Zhadobov, M., Sauleau, R., & Le Dréan, Y. (2016). Effects of 60-GHz millimeter waves on neurite outgrowth in PC12 cells using high-content screening. Neuroscience Letters, 618, 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.02.038

Le Dréan, Y., Mahamoud, Y., Le Page, Y., Habauzit, D., Le Quément, C., Zhadobov, M., & Sauleau, R. (2013). State of knowledge on biological effects at 40–60 GHz. Comptes Rendus Physique, 14(5), 402-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2013.02.005

Sivachenko, I., Medvedev, D., Molodtsova, I., Panteleev, S., Sokolov, A., & Lyubashina, O. (2016). Effects of Millimeter-Wave Electromagnetic Radiation on the Experimental Model of Migraine. Bulletin Of Experimental Biology And Medicine, 160(4), 425-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10517-016-3187-7

Soghomonyan, D., Trchounian, K., & Trchounian, A. (2016). Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields in the environment: what are their effects on bacteria?. Applied Microbiology And Biotechnology, 100(11), 4761-4771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0

 

References on Millimeter waves in Military Non Lethal Weapon Program

 

Non-Lethal Weapons Program > About > Frequently Asked Questions > Active Denial System FAQs. Jnlwp.defense.gov. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/.

 

The Human Effects Advisory Panel. (2008). A Narrative Summary and Independent Assessment of the Active Denial System. Penn State Applied Research Laboratory. Retrieved from https://jnlwp.defense.gov/Portals/50/Documents/Future_Non-Lethal_Weapons/HEAP.pdf

LeVine, S. (2009). The Active Denial System A Revolutionary, Non-lethal Weapon for Today’s Battlefield. Washington, DC: National Defense University Center for Technology and National Security Policy.

Law, D. (2012). Active Denial Technology (ADT). Presentation.

Published Scientific Research on 5G, 4G Small Cells, Wireless Radiation and Health

 

Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G, 3G and 4G – in use today with our cell phones, computers and wearable tech – creates (create) radiofrequency exposures which poses (pose) a serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment. Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done first  to ensure the public and environment are protected.

 

“Small cells” are microwave antennas (basically shorter cell towers) rapidly being installed in public areas on utility poles and street lights in front of homes, parks and schools. Just like cell towers, these wireless antennas generate and emit microwave radiofrequency (RF) radiation to transmit 2G, 3G and 4G network signals. Companies soon plan to add a new technology called 5G which will use current 4G technology plus even higher frequencies. The higher frequencies include millimeter-wave emissions that were not previously released into public areas.

 

Companies state that these 4G and 5G antennas will increase the wireless radiation levels in the area so much that they are working to loosen several governments’ radiation limits in order to roll it out. A 2021 research study found people who are exposed to higher radiation values present more severe headaches, dizziness and nightmares. Moreover, they sleep fewer hours.“

More than 240 scientists published an appeal to the United Nations to reduce public exposure and called for a moratorium on 5G citing “established” adverse biological effects of RF radiation. Peer-reviewed research has linked a myriad of adverse effects to wireless radiofrequency radiation including brain cancer, breast cancer, DNA damage, thyroid cancer, memory damage, sperm damage, brain damage, headaches, diabetes, hyperactivity, liver damage, oxidative stress, behavior problems, synergistic effects, altered brain activity, tumor promotion, impaired growth and more. 

5G will utilize not only the frequencies currently in use, but also higher millimeter wave and sub-millimeter wave frequencies. Small cells being installed in cities are usually 4G technology with a wide variety of frequencies. Thus, when we consider the health impacts of 5G and small cells we are looking at research on current technologies and frequencies in use in addition to research on sub-millimeter and millimeter waves. The 5G standard is new  there are no studies that have looked at long term human exposure to 5G. However the current body of research finding effects from current wireless technology provides enough data for scientists to call for a moratorium.

 

 

 

Published Reviews on 5G

 

 

“5G Wireless Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications” published in Environmental Research is a research review that documents the range of reported adverse effects of RF and millimeter waves—effects range from cancer to bacteria growth changes to DNA damage. The study concludes that “a moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted” and “the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome … from both physical and mental health perspectives” (Russell, 2018).

 

 

 

“Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology Under Real  Life Conditions” published in Toxicology Letters identifies the wide-spectrum of adverse health effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation and concludes that 5 G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects as well. They state that 5G will increase the cell tower densities by an order of magnitude. The researchers conclude that in aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum, currently published reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC guidelines can result in: carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia, parotid gland tumors), genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure), mutagenicity, teratogenicity,  neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), neurobehavioral problems, autism, reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, adverse impacts on the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems” and “from this perspective, RF is a highly pervasive cause of disease” (Kostoff et al., 2020).

 

 

 

“Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?” published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health is a research review detailing research findings that millimeter waves can alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes.” The researchers conclude, “available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle” (Di Ciaula, 2018).

 

The paper “A New Look at Three Potential Mechanisms Proposed for the Carcinogenesis of 5G Radiation” puts forward three mechansms. One is that “absorption of 5G radiation in skin can lead to the generation of high levels of free radicals, which in turn increases the risk of skin cancer. Yakymenko et al., have reported that among 100 peer-reviewed publications on oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation included in their review, 93 studies showed that radiofrequency radiation induced oxidative effects in biological systems.”

 

“Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose” published in Health Physics documents how significant tissue heating can be generated by 5G technology’s rapid short bursts of energy.  “The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines” (Neufeld and Kuster, 2018).

 

A review of studies on 6 to 100 GHz (Simkó and Mattsson 2019)  funded by Deutsche Telekom of Germany found that “the available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects.” The review stated, “here is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact.” This study cited research that found “the presence of sweat glands [120,121] and also capillaries in the dermis can cause locally elevated SAR levels [122]. The latter study showed that SAR levels in vessels could be up to 30 times higher than in the surrounding skin, depending on the diameter of the vessels.”

 

Simkó and Mattsson 2019 analyzed the quality of the selected studies according to specific criteria. The studies were categorized by the presence of sham/ control, dosimetry, positive control, temperature control, and whether the study was blinded.  Of the 45 in vivo studies, 78% (35) demonstrated biological responses after exposure to MMW. However when analyzed for quality criteria, “only three publications were identified that met all five criteria [26,51,53].”  (EHT note: These three publications found an effect.) Similarly,  31 of the 53 in vitro studies found an effect. However only 13 studies had 3 of the 5 criteria satisfied and the authors conclude that “the number of examinations and the quality criteria are insufficient for a statistical analysis. It should be stressed that this quality analysis covers all publications dealing with the responses/effects of exposure to 6 to 100 GHz MMW, irrespective of the endpoints tested. To perform a correlation analysis, a larger number of comparable studies (e.g., identical endpoints in a frequency group) would be required.”

 

The study “Physiological effects of millimeter-waves on skin and skin cells: An overview of the to-date published studies” published in Reviews on Environmental Health by Dariusz Leszczynski reviewed 99 studies and concluded that the “scientific evidence concerning the possible effects of millimeter-waves on humans is insufficient to devise science-based exposure limits and to develop science-based human health policies. The sufficient research has not been done and, therefore, precautionary measures should be considered for the deployment of the 5G, before the sufficient number of quality research studies will be executed and health risk, or lack of it, scientifically established.” “In conclusion, there is an urgent need for research on the biological and health effects of mm-waves because, using the currently available evidence on skineffects, the claims that “we know skin and human health will not be affected” as well as the claims that “we know skin and human health will be affected” are premature assumptions that lack sufficient scientific basis.” (PDF of Accepted Manuscript)

Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra high frequency published in the journal Health and Technology( Ugochukwu et al., 2021) concludes that “caution must be applied not to deploy 5G network under ultra-high frequency above 20 GHz due to its adverse health effects.” “On the several findings of the research, deploying 5G network technology under the ultra-high baseband above 20 GHz will produce effects such as heating up of the body tissues due to electromagnetic field inducement on the account that human body is dipolar in nature. The effects will extend to produce dielectric polarization, ionic polarization, interfacial polarization and orientational polarization.”

5G, Wireless and Wildlife

FCC  and ICNIRP limits were not developed to protect our flora or fauna. Wireless radiation “safety” limits for trees, plants, birds and bees simply do not exist. No US agency nor international authority with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever acted to review research and set safety limits for birds, bees, trees and wildlife.

A 2021 review (Balmori 2021) found “sufficient evidence on the damage caused by electromagnetic radiation” to insects to state that “electromagnetic radiation should be considered seriously as a complementary driver for the dramatic decline in insects, acting in synergy with agricultural intensification, pesticides, invasive species and climate change.” The paper concludes that “the precautionary principle should be applied before any new deployment (such 5G) is considered.” 

A 2021 comprehensive research review by  Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) entitled “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment” published in Reviews of Environmental Health found “exponential increases in nearly all environments. ” The abstract states “biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have been observed… It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced.”

This paper, which is one of a three part series that addresses wireless frequencies now in use as well as the complex signals that will be deployed for 5G stating “serious concerns regarding phasing because it interacts with living cells in extremely complex ways that have nothing to do with traditional thermal thresholds. The wave form itself is the biologically active component” and “The reason that phasing may have a unique biological impact is because very fast peak radiation pulses generate bursts of energy that can give rise to what are called Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in living cells that can in turn penetrate and disperse much deeper than traditional models predict. Som- merfeld/Brillouin precursors most notably form with ultra wideband exposures as proposed with 5G.”

A 2020 report of the “biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects” by high voltage, mobile communications and WLAN came to the conclusion that, in addition to pesticides and the loss of habitats, mobile communications radiation also has negative effects on insects and is therefore another factor in weakening the insect world. Read “Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects” by Alain Thill.

Several literature reviews warn that non-ionizing EMFs are an “emerging threat” to wildlife (Balmori 2015, Curachi 2013, Sivani 2012) and impacts to pollinators are documented in published studies (Favre 2011, Kumar et.al., 2011, Lazaro et al., 2016). Field research has found years of exposure to cell tower radiation damages trees (Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. 2016, Helmut 2016, Haggerty 2010) and plants  (Halgamuge 2017, Pall 2016, Halgamuge and Davis 2019). Radiofrequency radiation has been found to affect the magnetic sense of invertebrates (including insects) (Tomanová and Vácha, 2016; Vácha et al., 2009) birds (Engels et al., 2014) and mammals (Malkemper et al., 2015). Furthermore research shows bees and pollinators could suffer serious impacts from the higher frequencies to be used in 5G as the higher frequencies resonate with their bodies resulting in up to 370% higher absorbed power. 

Currently there is no U.S. Government-funded research program into the non-thermal biological effects of RF emissions to the environment. The EPA, which formerly conducted such research, lost all of its research funding in 1996, and has done nothing since.  In July 2020 the Director of the Radiation Protection Division of the EPA  Lee Ann B. Veal wrote Theodora Scarato Executive Director of EHT that  the EPA had no funded mandate to regarding wireless radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment. Read the letter. The EPA stated their last research review was their 1984 Report. The FCC confirmed in a USTTI webinar October 15, 2020 that their limits were for humans only. 

A Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from September 8, 2000. It clarifies how decades ago, when FCC limits were set, the EPA was defunded from properly reviewing the science on harm from electromagnetic fields.

“The Court’s reliance on the EPA was technically correct but substantively naive. What the Court did not realize was that Congress terminated funding for radiation research by EPA in 1996, and no staff has been available at EPA to conduct such research for the past five years.”

5G Millimeter Waves and Human Skin

Some carrriers will incorprate millimeter and submillimeter waves into 5G wireless networks. 

“The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not?”, published in Environmental Research, and “The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin”, published in IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, are two papers by physicists presenting research that found higher 5G frequencies are intensely absorbed into human sweat ducts (in skin), at a much higher absorption levels than other parts of our skin’s tissues (Betzalel et al., 2017, Betzalel et al., 2018). In an article published in Environmental Research, researchers conclude, “We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored” (Betzalel, et al., 2018).

A 2020 study  published in the journal Environmental Research and Public Health investigated the combined exposure of 3 G mobile systems at 1950 MHz  RF  and UV found a 24-h RF exposure significantly reduced the MMP-1 enzyme concentration, caused by prior UV exposure. Although they did not find changes in cytokines due to exposure to RF alone or  enhancment of  the effects of UV radiation, their findings indicate changes after exposure  and point to the importance of investigating this and other effects on skin. The authors conclude that, “the investigation of the possible adverse effects on the skin due to the high frequency electromagnetic fields become more and more important before the deployment of 5G mobile systems. Using this new technology, the absorption of exposure to RF in the skin will be enhanced. The skin will be the most important target organ of the RF exposure to 5G. Therefore, our approach of combined (i.e., consecutive) exposure to UV and RF might be important in future research related to 5G and skin.”

 A 2021 paper “Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics” by Martin L Pall PHD reviwes the science on howMMwaves can have highly penetrating effects  stating that “in humans, MM-waves have penetrating effects including impacts on the brain, producing EEG changes and other neurological/neuropsychiatric changes, increases in apparent electromagnetic hypersensitivity and produce changes on ulcers and cardiac activity…Specifically, MM-wave electrical fields are almost completely absorbed in the outer 1 mm of the body due to the high dielectric constant of biological aqueous phases. However, the magnetic fields are very highly penetrating. 3. Time-varying magnetic fields have central roles in producing highly penetrating effects. The primary mechanism of EMF action is voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation with the EMFs acting via their forces on the voltage sensor, rather than by depolarization of the plasma membrane…There are three very important findings here which are rarely recognized in the EMF scientific literature: coherence of electronically generated EMFs; the key role of time-varying magnetic fields in generating highly penetrating effects; the key role of both modulating and pure EMF pulses in greatly increasing very short term high level time-variation of magnetic and electric fields. It is probable that genuine safety guidelines must keep nanosecond timescale-variation of coherent electric and magnetic fields below some maximum level in order to produce genuine safety. These findings have important implications with regard to 5G radiation.”

 

5G’s Higher Frequencies Will Impact Insects

“Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports is the first study to investigate how insects (including the Western honeybee) absorb the higher frequencies (2 GHz to 120 GHz) to be used in the 4G/5G rollout. The scientific simulations showed increases in absorbed power between 3% to 370% when the insects were exposed to the frequencies. Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” (Thielens et al., 2018)  

 

According to Belyaev 2019, “the health effects of chronic MMW exposures may be more significant than for any other frequency range.” The abstract states that, “ Various responses to non-thermal microwaves (MW) from mobile communication including adverse health effects related to electrohypersensitivity, cancer risks, neurological effects, and reproductive impacts have been reported while some studies reported no such effects. This presentation provides an overview of the complex dependence of the MW effects on various physical and biological variables, which account for, at least partially, an apparent inconsistence in the published data. Among other variables, dependencies on carrier frequency, polarization, modulation, intermittence, electromagnetic stray fields, genotype, physiological traits, and cell density during exposure were reported. Nowadays, biological and health effects of 5G communication, which will use microwaves of extremely high frequencies (millimeter waves MMW, wavelength 1- 10 mm), are of significant public concern. It follows from available studies that MMW, under specific conditions of exposure at very low intensities below the ICNIRP guidelines, can affect biological systems and human health. Both positive and negative effects were observed in dependence on exposure parameters. In particular, MMW inhibited repair of DNA damage induced by ionizing radiation at specific frequencies and polarizations. To what extend the 5G technology and the Internet of Things will affect the biota and human health is definitely not known. However, based on possible fundamental role of MMW in regulation of homeostasis and almost complete absence of MMW in atmosphere due to effective absorption, which suggests the lack of adaptation to this type of radiation, the health effects of chronic MMW exposures may be more significant than for any other frequency range.”

 

The Bioeffects of Millimeter Waves Documented Years Ago

 

 “Biological Effect of Millimeter Waves”, a Russian review on millimeter waves declassified by the CIA in 2012,  reported multiple research findings and concluded that, “Morphological, functional and biochemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimeter wave caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the process of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism” (Zalyubovskaya, 1977). 

 

 

 

“Current State And Implications Of Research On Biological Effects Of Millimeter Waves: A Review Of The Literature” published in BioElectroMagnetics reviewed dozens of research findings on low-intensity millimeter waves and determined that the reported, “MMW effects could not be readily explained by temperature changes during irradiation.” The review concludes by questioning the adequacy of regulatory limits stating that, “Safety limits for these types of exposure are based solely on predictions of energy deposition and MMW heating, but in view of recent studies this approach is not necessarily adequate” (Pakhomov et al., 1998).

 

“Skin Heating and Injury by Prolonged Millimeter-Wave Exposure: Theory Based on a Skin Model Coupled to a Whole Body Model and Local Biochemical Release From Cells at Supraphysiologic Temperatures”, published in IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science concludes that a consequence of MMW heating is the alteration of cell-membrane permeability. Nearby skin layers are affected by the biophysical mechanism of biochemical release through cell membranes. “The released molecules are delivered to other skin regions by diffusion and into the bloodstream by perfusion, where according to our hypothesis, the molecules interact with susceptible cells. This raises the possibility of additional indirect injury at nearby deeper skin regions that experience insignificant heating. Biochemical release may also lead to injury at distant sites within the body by perfusion clearance that transfers molecules into the systemic circulation to reach other susceptible cells” (Stewart et al., 2006).

 

Siegel et al, 2010 published in Electronics Records reviewed a series of experiments “which show changes in cell membrane potential and the action potential firing rate of cortical neurons under short (1 min) exposures to continuous-wave 60 GHz radiation at mW/cm2 power levels, more than 1000 times below the US govern- ment maximum permissible exposure.”  “At power levels of approximately 300 nW/cm2 and above, we observed strong inhibition of the action potential firing rate in some of the neurons, and increased firing in others, perhaps indicating the functional heterogeneity in the studied neuronal population. …These results are believed to be the first positive correlative measurements of real-time changes in neuronal activity with ultra-low-power millimetre-wave exposures. The experiments point to changes in membrane channel opening….”  

Yes, Adding More Cell Antennas Will Increase Exposures in Communities

 

A 2018 study published in Annals of Telecommunications found increased RF-EMF exposure from small cell LTE networks in two urban cities in France and the Netherlands. Researchers measured the RF-EMF from LTE (Long-Term Evolution) MC (macro cells meaning large cell towers) and SC networks (low-powered small cell base stations)  and found that the small cell networks increased the radio emissions from base stations (called downlink) by a factor of 7–46  while decreasing the radio emissions from user equipment exposure (called ) by a factor of 5–17. So while the devices themselves could emit less radiation, the cell antennas will increase the levels from cell antennas (Mazloum et al., 2019). This study shows the increased exposures would be involuntary. We can turn our phones off, but we cannot turn off the antennas in the neighborhood. 

 

A 2020 paper “Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy,”  presented at the  IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum documents how engineers found significant increases in levels of  radio frequency radiationwould result if a mmWave-based 5G network was fully deployed in Austin Texas. The researchers first mapped the pre-existing LTE antennas and then laid out the real world design for the densification of cell towers and signal repeaters which would be needed in the City in order to fully build out a mmWave-based 5G network. The engineers then simulated the RF power densities that would be experienced in the outdoor environments should the 5G mmWave antennas be installed. They found the fully deployed  5G mmWave network would result in significant increases in outdoor RF levels for the City. The researchers conclude that, “This suggests that 5G mobile networks can not yet be classified as safe for the public, and demands serious considerations before using mmWave communications for 5G networks, given the potential harms it could afflict on the public.” The engineers  created a heat map to show the increased radiation levels should 5G be fully deployed in Austin Texas.

An Australian study published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology also found that children in kindergartens with nearby antenna installations had nearly three-and-a-half times higher RF exposures than children with installations further away by more than 300 meters (Bhatt et al., 2016).   

 

A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International measured RF in several countries. It found that cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas; exposure in urban areas was higher and that exposure has drastically increased. As an example, the measurements the researchers took in Los Angeles, USA were 70 times higher than the US EPA estimate 40 years ago (Sagar et al., 2018). 

 

 

 

As an example of how rapidly RF is increasing from wireless antennas, a 2014 published study from Environmental Research looked at RF in three European cities and found in just one year (between  April 2011 and March 2012) that the total RF-EMF exposure levels in all outdoor areas in combination increased by 57.1%  in Basel, by 20.1% in Ghent and by 38.2% in Brussels. “Exposure increase was most consistently observed in outdoor areas due to emissions from mobile phone base stations” (Urbinello et al., 2014).

 

 

 

Another study, published in Environment International, looked at 529 children in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain who wore meters around the waist or carried in a backpack during the day and placed close to the bed at night. Researchers  found “the largest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink (meaning from cell tower base stations) and broadcast” (Birks et al., 2018).

 

Cell tower radiation is a significant contribution to our daily  exposure to RF. A study recently published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health  equipped Australian adults  with an RF  measuring device in a small hip bag for approximately 24 consecutive hours. The study found “downlink and broadcast are the main contributors to total RF-EMF personal exposure.” Downlink (RF from mobile phone base station) contributed 40.4% of the total RF-EMF exposure (Zeleke et al., 2018).  

 

Another published study in the Science of The Total Environment journal, gave 50 Korean parents and their child a measuring device for 48 hours found that “the contribution of base-station exposure to total RF-EMF exposure was the highest both in parents and children” (Choi et al., 2018).  

The study Exposure of South Korean Population to 5G Mobile Phone Networks (3.4–3.8 GHz) measured exposure to electromagnetic fields in South Korea to evaluate the relative contribution of 5G as compared with other frequencies such as 2G, 3G, and 4G. Results show that the emission of 5G contributes about 15% to total telecommunications emissions. Altough levels were below ICNIRP,  highest levels were observed in the vicinity of 5G antennas (Selmaoui 2021). 

Several countries measure the levels of radiofrequency and post these measurements online- France, Greece, Turkey, India, Israel, French Polynesia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Switzerland, Bahrain, Iceland and Australia. If you look at the measurements by these governments as well as by industry itself the increase from 5G is evident. For example, in Australia the telecom companies report on the levels a this link  https://www.rfnsa.com.au/?first=1 The values are maximum theoretically calculated numbers and they show  large changes with the introduction of 5G. Take the 2021 example found here of the level increasing from 6.44% of the limit to 14.22% of the limit when the 5G network antenna is added. As another example on Queen Street in Melbourne Australia the addition of 5G antennas increased the levels from 1.67% to 3.39% of the limit. 5G antennas near a Melbourne powerpole at Elizabeth and Collins Street increased the 2021 levels from .11% to .42% of the limit and the power density increased from 7.70 

Experts Warn that Measurement Techniques Do Not Adequately Measure 5G Exposures  

 

 

A 2019 Report for the European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy published for the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, entitled “5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA, and Asia” explained that “5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory.” “While the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world” (Blackman & Forge, 2019).

 

 

 

A 2020 European Parliament Briefing on the “Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health” reiterates the issues with measurements and also comments on how radiation limits are outdated stating in this summary, “The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account” (Karaboytcheva, 2020).

 

 

 

“Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink” in IEEE International Communications Conference found “that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink” (Nasim & Kim, 2017).

 

 

 

The study “Human EMF Exposure in Wearable Networks for Internet of Battlefield Things” published in  MILCOM 2019 – 2019 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) is the first work that explicitly compares the human EMF exposure at different operating frequencies for on-body wearable communications. The study investigates the exposure effects of the human electromagnetic field (EMF) from on-body wearable devices and compares the results to illustrate how the technology evolution to higher frequencies can impact one’s health. It concludes that the results suggest the average specific absorption rate (SAR) at 60 GHz can exceed the regulatory guidelines within a certain separation distance between a wearable device and the human skin surface (Nasim & Kim, 2019).

 

 

 

Review Publications on Electromagnetic Radiation and RF  

 

A 2019 literature review “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation” published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found that 93 of the 100 peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems (Yakymenko et al., 2016).  

 

“Planetary Electromagnetic Pollution: It Is Time to Assess Its Impact” published in The Lancet Planetary Health documents the significant increase in environmental levels of radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic wireless radiation over the past two decades. The study cites an evaluation that found 68.2% of 2,266 studies in humans, animals, and plants demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields. 89%  of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects and “radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress.” The paper also highlights research that has associated RF exposure with altered neurodevelopment and behavioural disorders, structural and functional changes in the brain and the sensitivity of pollinators. “These findings deserve urgent attention.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” (Bandara & Carpenter, 2018).

 

 

 

The review “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective” published in Environmental Pollution by researchers of the  European Cancer Environment Research Institute in Brussels, Belgium and the Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, NY, USA reviews current research findings and states that, “the mechanism(s) responsible include induction of reactive oxygen species, gene expression alteration and DNA damage through both epigenetic and genetic processes.” The paper affirms that “exposure to low frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at low intensities poses a significant health hazard that has not been adequately addressed by national and international organizations such as the World Health Organization” (Belpomme et al., 2018). 

 

 

 

The  literature review “Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health” published by the Division of Reproductive Biology & Maternal Health, Child Health, Indian Council of Medical Research documents research that has found a link between radiofrequency radiation and oxidative stress and changes to the reproductive system including sperm count, motility, normal morphology and viability. The review concludes that the “available data indicate that exposure to EMF can cause adverse health effects. It is also reported that biological effects may occur at very low levels of exposure” (Singh et al., 2018).

 

 

 

Environmental Review published a 2010 landmark review study on 56 studies that reported biological effects found at very low intensities, including impacts on reproduction, permeability of the blood-brain barrier, behavior, cellular and metabolic changes, and increases in cancer risk (Lai & Levitt, 2010).

 

 

 

Cancer

 

“Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” published in Environmental Research is a comprehensive research review of RF effects in human and animal research. The review concludes that scientific evidence is now adequate to conclude radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic to humans (Miller, 2018). Several previously published studies also concluded that RF causes various types of cancer, for example, Carlberg & Hardell, 2017 published in BioMed Research International; Atzman et al., 2016 published in the International Journal Cancer Clinical Research; and Peleg et al., 2018 published in Environmental Research.

 

 

 

The US National Toxicology Program (NTP)  is a federal, interagency program that conducted  a $30-million study designed to test the basis for federal safety limits.The study on, “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation” found “clear evidence” of cancer, heart damage and DNA damage  (NIEHS, 2018). The heart and brain cancers found in the NTP rats are the same cell type as tumors that researchers have found to be increasing in humans who have used cell phones for over 10 years as published in BioMed Research (Carlberg & Hardell, 2017). Thus, researchers assert in the International Journal of Oncology that the  animal evidence from the NTP study confirms the human evidence associating radio frequency radiation exposure to cancer occurrences/developments (Carlberg & Hardell, 2019).

 

The 2018 report of final brain and heart tumor results from the The Ramazzini Institute (RI) Study on Base Station RF, published in Environmental Research was another large scale rat study that also found increases in the same heart cancers that the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study found—yet the Ramazzini rats were exposed to much lower levels of RF than the NTP rats. In fact, all the RI radiation exposures were below FCC limits, as the study was specifically designed to test the safety of RF limits for cell tower/base stations (Falconi et al., 2018.) Thus, the Ramazzini study corroborates the NTP findings as published on the National Institutes of Health website. 

 

“Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications is a replication study that used very, very low RF exposures (lower than the Ramazzini and NTP study) and combined the RF with a known carcinogen. Researchers found elevated lymphoma and significantly higher numbers of tumors in the lungs and livers in animals exposed to both RF and the carcinogen, leading researchers to state that previous research published in the International Journal of Radiation Biology (Tillman et al., 2010) was confirmed and that “our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors” (Lerchl et al., 2015).

 

 

 

Environment

 

“A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)” published in Environment International reviewed 113 studies finding RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies (Cucurachi et al., 2013). Development and reproduction in birds and insects were the most strongly affected. As an example of the several studies on wildlife impacts, a study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology focused on RF emissions from antennas found increased sperm abnormalities in mice exposed to RF from GSM antennas (Otitoloju et al., 2009).

 

Published studies, in Toxicology International and Apidologie, on bees have found behavioral effects (Kumar et al., 2011; Favre 2011), while other studies from the International Journal of Environmental Sciences and the IIAS-InterSymp Conference attest to disrupted navigation (Goldsworthy, 2009; Sainudeen, 2011; Kimmel et al., 2007). Decreasing egg laying rate and reduced colony strength are documented in Science Direct and the Acta Systemica-IIAS International Journal (Sharma & Kumar, 2010; Harst et al., 2006).

 

Research has also found  high levels of damage to trees from cell antenna radiation.  For example, a field monitoring study, “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations” published in the Science of The Total Environment –spanning 9 years, involving over 100 trees–found trees sustained more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna (Waldmann-Selsam et al., 2016). 

 

 

 

Expanded 4G, 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT) will increase overall use of all types of wireless frequencies. 

 

A published review, in Environmental Research, of effects of Wi-Fi radiation entitled, “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health” found that “repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload (Pall, 2018).  

 

 

 

“The Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base station” is a research study that compared people living close (within 80 meters) and far (more than 300 meters away) from cellular antennas found that the people living closer had several significant changes in their blood predictive of cancer development (Zothansanga et al., 2017).  An earlier 2016 study, on genetic damage in humans populations exposed to radiation from mobile towers published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, evaluated 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects, found DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes (Gulati et al., 2016).

 

“Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations”, published in Science of The Total Environment, is a 10 year study by the Belo Horizonte, Brazil Health Department and several universities in Brazil that found an elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell installations (Dode et al., 2011). Shortly after this study was published, the city prosecutor sued several cell phone companies and requested that almost half of the city’s antennas be removed. Many antennas were dismantled.

 

The 2018 study, “Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health” published in the American Journal of Men’s Health, investigated male students in schools near cell towers. The researchers concluded that exposure to higher RF levels is associated with negative impacts on motor skills, memory and attention (Meo et al., 2019). Examples of other effects linked to cell towers in research studies include neuropsychiatric problems, published in NeuroToxicology; elevated diabetes, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; headaches, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; sleep problems and genetic damage published in the French journal Pathologie Biologie. 

 

A study published in 2018 International Conference on Power Energy, Environment and Intelligent Control (PEEIC) by IEEE entitled, “Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance” took soil samples from four different base stations located in Dausa city, India and control samples from soil far from stations and then isolated and evaluated the microorganisms in the soil. The researchers found greater antibiotic resistance in microbes present in soil near base stations compared to the control. The study concludes, “our findings suggest that mobile tower radiation can significantly alter the vital systems in microbes and turn them multidrug resistant (MDR) which is the most important current threat to public health” (Sharma et al., 2018).

 

 

 

 

 

Research on 3G and 4G

 

 

 

3G and 4G technology is still very much in use around the world. In addition, 5G devices will also have 4G emissions and 5G will utilize the frequencies currently used in 2G, 3G and 4G.  

 

Published in General Physiology and Biophysics, a 2019 study titled, “Chromosome damage in human cells induced by UMTS mobile telephony radiation” examined  human blood from healthy donors. The study found that 3G ) EMF/microwave radiation emissions from mobile telephones, within the current exposure limits, has significant genotoxic effects on human cells and advises that “human exposure to this EMF/radiation should be kept at levels as low as possible” (Panagopoulos, 2019). A series of landmark studies found that effects from microwaves on human lymphocytes can be dependant on carrier frequency  (Markova et al., 2005), that Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) 3G  microwaves can affect chromatin and inhibit formation of DNA double-strand breaks (Belyaev et al., 2009), and that stem cells are most sensitive to microwave exposure (Markova et al., 2010) published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Bio Electro Magnetics, and Environmental Health Perspectives respectively. Children have more active stem cells.  

4G LTE

The fourth generation (4G) of cellular technology called Long Term Evolution (LTE) was launched without premarket safety testing for long term exposure.  Published research has found behavioral changes in mice (Broom et al., 2019), damage to the testes and reproductive potential in mice (Yu et al., 2019), reduction to EEG alpha power (Vecsei et al., 2018), modulation to resting state EEG on alpha and beta bands (Yang et al., 2017), and the ; alteration of spontaneous low frequency fluctuations induced by the acute LTE RF-EMF exposure (Lv et al., 2014); published in Bio Electro Magnetics, Science of the Total Environment, Scientific Reports, Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, and Clinical Neurophysiology respectively.

Published in Bio Electro Magnetics, a 2018 double‐blind, crossover, randomized, and counterbalanced design study about the modulation of brain functional connectivity by exposure to 4G LTE cell phone radiation found that acute LTE‐EMF exposure did modulate connectivity in some brain regions.The authors conclude that, “Our results may indicate that approaches relying on network‐level inferences can provide deeper insights into the acute effects of LTE‐EMF exposure with intensities below the current safety limits on human functional connectivity. In the future, we need to investigate the evolution of the effect over time” (Wei et al., 2018). 

 

The Building Industry

 

 

 

Published in Building and Environment the article, “Building Science and Radiofrequency Radiation: What Makes Smart and Healthy Buildings” with a long list of authors, including former Microsoft Canada President Frank Clegg as well as Anthony Miller MD former Director of the Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada, review research studies finding adverse health effects below regulatory limits. The authors recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation in buildings by installing wired rather than wired internet connections and corded rather than cordless phones (Clegg et al., 2019). 

 

 

 

The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) has developed “Best Practices for LOW EMF Classrooms” that details how schools can replace wireless networks with wired networks. See CHPS Low EMF Criteria

 

 

 

Cell Towers and Health

 

 

 

“Mobile Phone Infrastructure Regulation in Europe: Scientific Challenges and Human Rights Protection”, a 2014 publication in Environmental Science & Policy by human rights experts argue that cell tower placement is a human rights issue for children because “the protection of children is a high threshold norm in Human Right law and the binding language of the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges States Parties to provide a higher standard of protection for children than adults” and “any widespread or systematic form of environmental pollution that poses a long-term threat to a child’s rights to life, development or health may constitute an international human rights violation.”  The article concludes that the “dearth of legislation to regulate the installation of base stations (cell towers) in close proximity to children’s facilities and schools clearly constitutes a human rights concern…” (Roda & Perry, 2014).  

 

“Safety Zone Determination for Wireless Cellular Tower – A Case Study from Tanzania” published in the International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology evaluated the radiation levels and concluded that “respective authorities should ensure that people reside far from the tower by 120m or more depending on the power transmitted to avoid severe health effect” (Nyakyi et al., 2013). 

 

 

 

“Long-term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences from Radars and Mobile Communication Systems”, published in Experimental Oncology reviews research findings on RF-EMF and states that it is “becoming increasingly evident that [the] assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation.” The paper concluded that “everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure” (Yakymenko et al., 2011). 

 

 

 

Published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, a cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals living near cell towers found genetic damage parameters of DNA were significantly elevated. “The genetic damage evident in the participants of this study needs to be addressed against future disease-risk, which in addition to neurodegenerative disorders, may lead to cancer” (Gandhi et al., 2015).  

 

 

 

“Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations” published in NeuroToxicology, concludes that, “Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition” and called  for the revision of standard guidelines for public exposure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas” (Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2006). 

 

“Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations” published in the International Journal of  Occupational Environmental Health reviewed ten epidemiological studies that assessed for health effects of mobile phone base stations and found that 8 of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 meters from base stations. The review concludes that ”current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations” (Khurana et al., 2010). 

 

 “How Does Long Term Exposure To Base Stations And Mobile Phones Affect Human Hormone Profiles?” published in Clinical Biochemistry followed volunteers for six years and found that high radio frequency radiation had effects on pituitary–adrenal axis represented in the reduction of ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin in young females, and testosterone levels (Eskander et al., 2012). 

 

Published in the French journal, Pathologie Biologie a study of 530 people living near mobile phone masts reported more symptoms of headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss and concentration problems the closer they lived to the cellular antennas (Santini et al., 2002).

 

 

 

A study, “The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain” published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found statistically significant associations between field intensity and the symptoms of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems (Navarro et al., 2003). “Subjective Symptoms, Sleeping Problems, And Cognitive Performance In Subjects Living Near Mobile Phone Base Stations” published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found a significant correlation between measured power density and headaches, fatigue, and difficulty in concentration in 365 subjects (Hutter et al., 2006). Published in NeuroToxicology, Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007 found residents living beneath and opposite a long established mobile phone mast reported significantly higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than a control group.

 

 

 

“Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station” published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention found a four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer among residents living within a 300 meter radius of a mobile phone mast after three and seven years of exposure (Wolf & Wolf, 2004). 

 

 

 

“The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer” published in Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, found a three-fold increase in the incidence of malignant tumours after five years of exposure in people living within a 400 meter radius of a mobile phone mast (Eger et al., 2004).

 

 

 

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14914

 

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/607053

 

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. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606

 

Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Research International, 2017, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486

 

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., & Kern, M. et al. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews On Environmental Health, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011

 

Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242(Part A), 643-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019

 

 

Research on People Near Cell Towers Links Exposure to Adverse Effects 

 

 

Published in the Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine journal, “The Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base station” is a research study that compared people living close (within 80 meters) and far (more than 300 meters away) from cellular antennas and found that the people living closer had several significant changes in their blood predictive of cancer development. The researchers controlled for various demographics, including the use of microwaves and wireless in the homes (Zothansiama et al., 2017).

 

“Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations” is a 10 year study by the Belo Horizonte Brazil Health Department and several universities in Brazil that found an elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell installations (Dode 2011). Shortly after this study was published, the city prosecutor sued several cell phone companies and requested that almost half of the city’s antennas be removed. Many antennas were dismantled.

 

A 2019 studyof students in schools near cell towers found their higher RF exposure was associated with impacts on motor skills, memory and attention (Meo 2019). Examples of other effects linked to cell towers in research studies include neuropsychiatric problems, elevated diabetes, headaches, sleep problemsand genetic damage. Such research continues to accumulate after the 2010 landmark review studyon 56 studies that reported biological effects found at very low intensities, including impacts on reproduction, permeability of the blood-brain barrier, behavior, cellular and metabolic changes, and increases in cancer risk (Lai and Levitt, 2010).

 

A published study entitled, “Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance” took soil samples  from four different base stations located in Dausa city, and control samples from soil far from stations and then isolated and evaluated the microorganisms in the soil. The researchers found greater antibiotic resistance in microbes present in soil near base stations compared to the control and a  statistical significant difference in pattern of antibiotic resistance was found with Nalidixic acid, and cefixime when used as antimicrobial agents. The study concludes, “our findings suggest that mobile tower radiation can significantly alter the vital systems in microbes and turn them multidrug resistant (MDR) which is most important current threat to public health.”

 

Cellular Antennas Create Measurable Increases in Radiation in the Area

 

A 2018 article published in The Lancet Planetary Health points to unprecedented increasing RF exposures (Bandara and Carpenter 2018). Another key finding from Zothansiama 2017was that homes closer to antennas had measurably higher radiation levels—adding to the documentation that antennas increase RF levels. An Australian study also found that children in kindergartens with nearby antenna installations had nearly three-and-a-half times higher RF exposures than children with installations further away (more than 300 meters (Bhatt 2016).  

 

 

 

Research Finds that Cell Tower Base Station Radiation is the Dominant Contributor to Overall Environmental Radiation Exposures 

 

A 2018 multi-country study that measured RF in several countries found that cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas exposure in urban areas was higher and that exposure has drastically increased. As an example, the measurements the researchers took in Los Angeles, USA were 70 times higher than the US EPA estimate 40 years ago (Sagar 2018). 

 

As an example of how rapidly RF is increasing from wireless antennas, a 2014 published study looked at RF in three European cities and found in just one year (between  April 2011 and March 2012) that the total RF-EMF exposure levels in all outdoor areas in combination increased by 57.1%  in Basel by 20.1% in Ghent and by 38.2% in Brussels (Urbinello 2014). “Exposure increase was most consistently observed in outdoor areas due to emissions from mobile phone base stations.”  

 

Another study, Birks 2018, looked at 529 children in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain who wore meters around the waist or carried in a backpack during the day and placed close to the bed at night. Researchers  found “the largest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink (meaning from cell tower base stations) and broadcast.” 

 

 

 

A study on Australian adults where participants carried a measuring device in a small hip bag for approximately 24 consecutive hours also found “downlink and broadcast are the main contributors to total RF-EMF personal exposure.” Downlink (RF from mobile phone base station) contributed 40.4% of the total RF-EMF exposure (Zeleke 2018). 

 

Another published study (Choi 2018) that gave 50 Korean adult child pairs a special radiation measuring device for 48 hours evaluated the types of radiation the participants were exposed to and found that “the contribution of base-station exposure to total RF-EMF exposure was the highest both in parents and children.” These two studies are an important example of the research that shows that radiation from base stations is the dominant contributor to a person’s cumulative exposure. Therefore we cannot only focus on a persons cell phone use as the way people are exposed to this radiation. People are exposed to wireless radiation even when they are not using a mobile device due to cell towers, antennas and hotspots and they have no control over this.  

 

 

References

Russell, C. (2018). 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165, 484-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016

Kostoff, R., Heroux, P., Aschner, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters, 323, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020

Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?. International Journal Of Hygiene And Environmental Health, 221(3), 367-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011

Neufeld, E., & Kuster, N. (2018). Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Physics, 115(6), 705-711. https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000000930

Martin L Pall. Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 26. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0165.

Betzalel, N., Ben Ishai, P., & Feldman, Y. (2018). The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?. Environmental Research, 163, 208-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.032

Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., & Ishai, P. (2017). The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin. IEEE Transactions On Terahertz Science And Technology, 7(5), 521-528. https://doi.org/10.1109/tthz.2017.2736345

Thielens, A., Bell, D., Mortimore, D., Greco, M., Martens, L., & Joseph, W. (2018). Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3

Belyaev, I. (2019). Main regularities and health risks from exposure to non-thermal microwaves of mobile communication. t14th IEEE International Conference meeting on Advanced Technologies, Systems and Services in Telecommunications – TELSIKS 2019 (http://www.telsiks.org.rs), Niš, Serbia.

 

Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3406. Published 2019 Sep 13. doi:10.3390/ijerph16183406

López I, Félix N, Rivera M, Alonso A, Maestú C. What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environ Res. 2021 Mar;194:110734. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110734. Epub 2021 Jan 9. PMID: 33434609.

Cell Antennas Increase Exposures in Communities

Mazloum, T., Aerts, S., Joseph, W., & Wiart, J. (2018). RF-EMF exposure induced by mobile phones operating in LTE small cells in two different urban cities. Annals Of Telecommunications, 74(1-2), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-018-0680-1

Bhatt, C., Redmayne, M., Billah, B., Abramson, M., & Benke, G. (2016). Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. Journal Of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 27(5), 497-504. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.55

Sagar, S., Adem, S., Struchen, B., Loughran, S., Brunjes, M., & Arangua, L. et al. (2018). Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environment International, 114, 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.036

Urbinello, D., Joseph, W., Verloock, L., Martens, L., & Röösli, M. (2014). Temporal trends of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in everyday environments across European cities. Environmental Research, 134, 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.07.003

Birks, L., Struchen, B., Eeftens, M., van Wel, L., Huss, A., & Gajšek, P. et al. (2018). Spatial and temporal variability of personal environmental exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in children in Europe. Environment International, 117, 204-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.026

Choi, J., Hwang, J., Lim, H., Joo, H., Yang, H., & Lee, Y. et al. (2018). Assessment of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from personal measurements considering the body shadowing effect in Korean children and parents. Science Of The Total Environment, 627, 1544-1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.318

Zeleke, B., Brzozek, C., Bhatt, C., Abramson, M., Croft, R., & Freudenstein, F. et al. (2018). Personal Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields among Australian Adults. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 15(10), 2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102234

 

Experts Warn that Measurement Techniques Do Not Adequately Measure 5G Exposures  

 

Blackman, C., & Forge, S. (2019). 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia [PDF]. Study for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

 

Karaboytcheva, M. (2020). Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health [PDF].  European Parliamentary Research Service. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cD0TDOqGHpOmCWPnANN-Y6RBaa0eoQ4ZN0nuUwpVaLL8MIDtt6aKtiYM

 

Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2017). Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03683

Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2019). Human EMF Exposure in Wearable Networks for Internet of Battlefield Things. MILCOM 2019 – 2019 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM). https://doi.org/10.1109/milcom47813.2019.9020889

 

Review Publications on Electromagnetic Radiation and RF  

Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2015). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 35(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

 Bandara, P., & Carpenter, D. (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(12), e512-e514. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30221-3

Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019

Singh, R., Nath, R., Mathur, A. K., & Sharma, R. S. (2018). Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 148, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1056_18

Levitt, B., & Lai, H. (2010). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 18, 369-395. https://doi.org/10.1139/a10-018

 

Cancer

Miller, A., Morgan, L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental Research, 167, 673-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043

Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Research International, 2017, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486

Atzmon, I., Linn, S., Richter, E., & Portnov, B. (2016). Microwave/Radiofrequency (MW/RF) Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk: Meta-Analysis of Accumulated Empirical Evidence. International Journal Of Cancer And Clinical Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.23937/2378-3419/3/1/1040

Peleg, M., Nativ, O., & Richter, E. (2018). Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. Environmental Research, 163, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.003

Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation. Ntp.niehs.nih.gov. (2018). Retrieved 8 May 2020, from https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campaign=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone.

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2018). 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. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606

Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., De Angelis, L., & Gnudi, F. et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research, 165, 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037

Lerchl, A., Klose, M., Grote, K., Wilhelm, A., Spathmann, O., & Fiedler, T. et al. (2015). Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochemical And Biophysical Research Communications, 459(4), 585-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.151

Tillmann, T., Ernst, H., Streckert, J., Zhou, Y., Taugner, F., Hansen, V., & Dasenbrock, C. (2010). Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. International Journal Of Radiation Biology, 86(7), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553001003734501

 

Environment

Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W., Vijver, M., Peijnenburg, W., Bolte, J., & de Snoo, G. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009

Otitoloju, A., Obe, I., Adewale, O., Otubanjo, O., & Osunkalu, V. (2009). Preliminary Study on the Induction of Sperm Head Abnormalities in Mice, Mus musculus, Exposed to Radiofrequency Radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bulletin Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology, 84(1), 51-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-009-9894-2

Kumar, N., Sangwan, S., & Badotra, P. (2011). Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicology International, 18(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6580.75869

Favre, D. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie, 42(3), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x

Goldsworthy, A. (2009). The Birds, the Bees and Electromagnetic Pollution [PDF]. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958012.pdf.

Sainudeen, S. (2011). Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) clashes with honey bees. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1(5), 897-900. https://doi.org/10.5897/jen11.014

Sharma, V., & Kumar, N. (2010). Changes in honey bee behaviour and biology under the influence of cell phone radiations. Current Science, 98(10), 1376-1378. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225187745_Changes_in_honey_bee_behaviour_and_biology_under_the_influence_of_cell_phone_radiations.

 

Kimmel, S., Kuhn, J., Harst, W., & Stever, H. (2007). Electromagnetic Radiation: Influences on Honeybees (Apis mellifera).  IIAS-InterSymp Conference, Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292405747_Electromagnetic_radiation_Influences_on_honeybees_Apis_mellifera_IIAS-InterSymp_Conference

Harst, W., Kuhn, J., & Stever, H. (2006). Can Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Studying Possible Non-Thermal Influences on Honey Bees – An Approach within the Framework of Educational Informatics. IIAS-InterSymp Conference, 1(6), 1-6. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from  http://bemri.org/publications/wildlife-and-plants/100-can-emf-exposure-cause-a-change-in-behaviour-studying-possible-non-thermal-influences-on-bees.html

Kimmel, Stefan & Kuhn, Jochen & Harst, Wolfgang & Stever, Hermann. (2007). Electromagnetic radiation: Influences on honeybees (Apis mellifera). IIAS-InterSymp Conference. Baden-Baden. 1-6.   

Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science Of The Total Environment, 572, 554-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045

Pall, M. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental Research, 164, 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali, M., Lalramdinpuii, M., Jagetia, G., & Siama, Z. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584

Gulati, S., Yadav, A., Kumar, N., Kanupriya, Aggarwal, N., Kumar, R., & Gupta, R. (2015). Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers. Archives Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology, 70(3), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0195-y

Dode, A., Leão, M., Tejo, F., Gomes, A., Dode, D., & Dode, M. et al. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051

Meo, S., Almahmoud, M., Alsultan, Q., Alotaibi, N., Alnajashi, I., & Hajjar, W. (2018). Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health. American Journal Of Men’s Health, 13(1), 155798831881691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988318816914

Abdel-Rassoul, G., El-Fateh, O., Salem, M., Michael, A., Farahat, F., El-Batanouny, M., & Salem, E. (2007). Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology, 28(2), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012

Meo, S., Alsubaie, Y., Almubarak, Z., Almutawa, H., AlQasem, Y., & Hasanato, R. (2015). 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121114519

Hutter, H., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., & Kundi, M. (2006). Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occupational And Environmental Medicine, 63(5), 307-313. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2005.020784

Santini, R., Santini, P., Danze, J., Le Ruz, P., & Seigne, M. (2002). [Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex]. Pathologie Biologie, 50(6), 369-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0369-8114(02)00311-5

Gandhi, G., Kaur, G., & Nisar, U. (2015). A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 34(4), 344-354. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2014.933349

Sharma, A., Lamba, O., Sharma, L., & Sharma, A. (2018). Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance. 2018 International Conference On Power Energy, Environment And Intelligent Control (PEEIC). https://doi.org/10.1109/peeic.2018.8665432

 

 

 Research on 3G and 4G

 

Panagopoulos, D. (2019). Chromosome damage in human cells induced by UMTS mobile telephony radiation. General Physiology And Biophysics, 38(05), 445-454. https://doi.org/10.4149/gpb_2019032

Markovà, E., Hillert, L., Malmgren, L., Persson, B., & Belyaev, I. (2005). Microwaves from GSM Mobile Telephones Affect 53BP1 and γ-H2AX Foci in Human Lymphocytes from Hypersensitive and Healthy Persons. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(9), 1172-1177. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7561

Belyaev, I., Markovà, E., Hillert, L., Malmgren, L., & Persson, B. (2009). Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/γ-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes. Bioelectromagnetics, 30(2), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20445

Markovà, E., Malmgren, L., & Belyaev, I. (2010). Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(3), 394-399. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0900781

Broom, K., Findlay, R., Addison, D., Goiceanu, C., & Sienkiewicz, Z. (2019). Early‐Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J Mice. Bioelectromagnetics, 40(7), 498-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22217

Yu, G., Tang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z., Wang, L., & Cao, H. et al. (2020). Long-term exposure to 4G smartphone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation diminished male reproductive potential by directly disrupting Spock3–MMP2-BTB axis in the testes of adult rats. Science Of The Total Environment, 698, 133860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133860

Vecsei, Z., Knakker, B., Juhász, P., Thuróczy, G., Trunk, A., & Hernádi, I. (2018). Short-term radiofrequency exposure from new generation mobile phones reduces EEG alpha power with no effects on cognitive performance. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36353-9

Yang, L., Chen, Q., Lv, B., & Wu, T. (2016). Long-Term Evolution Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Modulates the Resting State EEG on Alpha and Beta Bands. Clinical EEG And Neuroscience, 48(3), 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1550059416644887

Lv, B., Chen, Z., Wu, T., Shao, Q., Yan, D., & Ma, L. et al. (2014). The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(2), 277-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.018

Wei, Y., Yang, J., Chen, Z., Wu, T., & Lv, B. (2018). Modulation of resting-state brain functional connectivity by exposure to acute fourth-generation long-term evolution electromagnetic field: An fMRI study. Bioelectromagnetics, 40(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22165

Erkin Özdemir, Ülkü Çömelekoglu, Evren Degirmenci, Gülsen Bayrak, Metin Yildirim, Tolgay Ergenoglu, Banu Coşkun Yılmaz, Begüm Korunur Engiz, Serap Yalin, Dilan Deniz Koyuncu, Erkan Ozbay. The effect of 4.5 G (LTE Advanced-Pro network) mobile phone radiation on the optic nerve. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2021 Mar 3;1-27. doi: 10.1080/15569527.2021.1895825.

Clegg, F., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., & Russell, C. et al. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building And Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324

 

Compilation of Research Studies on Cell Tower Radiation and Health 

Shahbazi-Gahrouei, D. (2017). Base transceiver station antennae exposure and human health. International Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 8(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_180_17

Pearce, J. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845

 

Roda, C., & Perry, S. (2014). Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 204-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.009

 

Nyakyi, C., Mrutu, S., Sam, A., & Anatory, J. (2013). Safety zone determination for wireless cellular tower- a case study from Tanzania. International Journal Of Research In Engineering And Technology, 02(09), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.15623/ijret.2013.0209029

 

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, 62-70. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201.

 

Khurana, V., 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. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2010.16.3.263

 

Eskander, E., Estefan, S., & Abd-Rabou, A. (2012). How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?. Clinical Biochemistry, 45(1-2), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.11.006

Navarro, E., Segura, J., Portolés, M., & Gómez‐Perretta de Mateo, C. (2003). The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 22(2-3), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1081/jbc-120024625 

Wolf, R., & Wolf, D. (2004). Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. International Journal Of Cancer Prevention, 1(2). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.652.9315&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Eger, H., Hagen, K., Lucas, B., Vogel, P., & Voit, H. (2004). Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, 17. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from http://avaate.org/IMG/pdf/20041118_naila.pdf.

 

The Bioeffects of Millimeter Waves Documented Years Ago

 

Declassified and Approved for release 2012/05/10: CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120005-6. (1977). Biological effect of millimeter radiowaves (pp. 116-119). Kiev: Vrachebnoye Delo.

Pakhomov, A., Akyel, Y., Pakhomova, O., Stuck, B., & Murphy, M. (1998). Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: A review of the literature. Bioelectromagnetics, 19(7), 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1521-186x(1998)19:7<393::aid-bem1>3.0.co;2-x

EMFscientist.org – International EMF Scientist Appeal. Emfscientist.org. (2020). Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal.

Wang, Q., Zhao, X., Li, S., Wang, M., Sun, S., & Hong, W. (2017). Attenuation by a Human Body and Trees as well as Material Penetration Loss in 26 and 39 GHz Millimeter Wave Bands. International Journal Of Antennas And Propagation, 2017, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2961090

Stewart, D., Gowrishankar, T., & Weaver, J. (2006). Skin Heating and Injury by Prolonged Millimeter-Wave Exposure: Theory Based on a Skin Model Coupled to a Whole Body Model and Local Biochemical Release From Cells at Supraphysiologic Temperatures. IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, 34(4), 1480-1493. https://doi.org/10.1109/tps.2006.878996

Papaioannou, A., & Samaras, T. (2011). Numerical Model of Heat Transfer in the Rabbit Eye Exposed to 60-GHz Millimeter Wave Radiation. IEEE Transactions On Biomedical Engineering, 58(9), 2582-2588. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2011.2159502

 

Reviews

BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). The BioInitiative Report. (2020). Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://bioinitiative.org/.

Moskowitz,, J. (2018). Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Papers Finding Evidence of Harm from Cell Phone Radiation Exposure [PDF]. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zeM5L7-x4Xnu9B6SxpHPQ0J_dHIHMQCy/view.

PowerWatch. (2018). PowerWatch: 1,670 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers on Electromagnetic Fields and Biology or Health [PDF]. Retrieved 12 May 2020, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view.

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14914

Panagopoulos, D., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. (2015). Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/607053

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., & Kern, M. et al. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews On Environmental Health, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011

Le Pogam, P., Le Page, Y., Habauzit, D., Doué, M., Zhadobov, M., & Sauleau, R. et al. (2019). Untargeted metabolomics unveil alterations of biomembranes permeability in human HaCaT keratinocytes upon 60 GHz millimeter-wave exposure. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45662-6

Soubere Mahamoud, Y., Aite, M., Martin, C., Zhadobov, M., Sauleau, R., Le Dréan, Y., & Habauzit, D. (2016). Additive Effects of Millimeter Waves and 2-Deoxyglucose Co-Exposure on the Human Keratinocyte Transcriptome. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0160810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160810

Mandl, P., Pezzei, P., & Leitgeb, E. (2018). Selected Health and Law Issues Regarding Mobile Communications with Respect to 5G. 2018 International Conference On Broadband Communications For Next Generation Networks And Multimedia Applications (CoBCom), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/cobcom.2018.8443980

Tripathi, S., Ben Ishai, P., & Kawase, K. (2018). Frequency of the resonance of the human sweat duct in a normal mode of operation. Biomedical Optics Express, 9(3), 1301. https://doi.org/10.1364/boe.9.001301

Wu, T., Rappaport, T., & Collins, C. (2015). The human body and millimeter-wave wireless communication systems: Interactions and implications. 2015 IEEE International Conference On Communications (ICC), 2423-2429. https://doi.org/10.1109/icc.2015.7248688

Wu, T., Rappaport, T., & Collins, C. (2015). Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 16(2), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1109/mmm.2014.2377587

Ramundo-Orlando, A. (2010). Effects of Millimeter Waves Radiation on Cell Membrane – A Brief Review. Journal Of Infrared, Millimeter, And Terahertz Waves, 31(12), 1400-1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10762-010-9731-z

 

Scientific Citations from the published study “Potential Risks to Human Health Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems”  by Paul Ben-Ishai, PhD and Yuri Feldman, PhD

Feldman, Y., & Ben-Ishai, P. (2017). Potential Risks to Human Health Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems. Jerusalem. Retrieved from https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Yuri-Feldman-and-Paul-Ben-Ishai-Abstract.pdf

Feldman, Y., Puzenko, A., Ben Ishai, P., Caduff, A., & Agranat, A. (2008). Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in the Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Physical Review Letters, 100(12), 128102. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.128102

Hayut, I., Ben Ishai, P., Agranat, A., & Feldman, Y. (2014). Circular polarization induced by the three-dimensional chiral structure of human sweat ducts. Physical Review E, 89(4), 042715. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.89.042715

Hayut, I., Puzenko, A., Ben Ishai, P., Polsman, A., Agranat, A., & Feldman, Y. (2013). The Helical Structure of Sweat Ducts: Their Influence on the Electromagnetic Reflection Spectrum of the Skin. IEEE Transactions On Terahertz Science And Technology, 3(2), 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1109/tthz.2012.2227476

RESEARCH ON MILLIMETER WAVES

Gandhi, O., & Riazi, A. (1986). Absorption of Millimeter Waves by Human Beings and its Biological Implications. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 34(2), 228-235. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmtt.1986.1133316

Sypniewska, R., Millenbaugh, N., Kiel, J., Blystone, R., Ringham, H., Mason, P., & Witzmann, F. (2010). Protein changes in macrophages induced by plasma from rats exposed to 35 GHz millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics, 31(8), 656-663. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20598

Ramundo-Orlando, A., Longo, G., Cappelli, M., Girasole, M., Tarricone, L., Beneduci, A., & Massa, R. (2009). The response of giant phospholipid vesicles to millimeter waves radiation. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Biomembranes, 1788(7), 1497-1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2009.04.006

Chen, Q., Lu, D., Jiang, H., & Xu, Z. (2008). [Effects of millimeter wave on gene expression in human keratinocytes]. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 37(1), 8-23. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18275115.

Feldman, Y., Puzenko, A., Ben Ishai, P., Caduff, A., & Agranat, A. (2008). Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in the Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Physical Review Letters, 100(12). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.100.128102

Gapeev, A., Rubanik, A., Pashovkin, T., & Chemeris, N. (2007). [Thermoelastic excitation of acoustic waves in biological models under the effect of the high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency]. Biofizika, 52(6), 92-1087. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18225661.

Millenbaugh, N., Kiel, J., Ryan, K., Blystone, R., Kalns, J., & Brott, B. et al. (2006). Comparison of blood pressure and thermal responses in rats exposed to millimeter wave energy or environmental heat. Shock, 25(6), 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.shk.0000209550.11087.fd

Usichenko, T., Edinger, H., Gizhko, V., Lehmann, C., Wendt, M., & Feyerherd, F. (2006). Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Millimeter Waves for Pain Therapy. Evidence-Based Complementary And Alternative Medicine, 3(2), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nel012

Gugkova, O., Gudkov, S., Gapeev, A., Bruskov, V., Rubannik, A., & Chemeris, N. (2005). [The study of the mechanisms of formation of reactive oxygen species in aqueous solutions on exposure to high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequencies]. Biofizika, 50(5). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16248149.

Isakhanian, V., & Trchunian, A. (2005). [Indirect and repeated electromagnetic irradiation of extremely high freguency of bacteria Escherichia coli]. Biofizika, 50(4). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16212062.

Makar, V., Logani, M., Bhanushali, A., Kataoka, M., & Ziskin, M. (2004). Effect of millimeter waves on natural killer cell activation. Bioelectromagnetics, 26(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20046

Lushnikov, K., Shumilina, Y., Yakushina, V., Gapeev, A., Sadovnikov, V., & Chemeris, N. (2004). Effects of Low-Intensity Ultrahigh Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Inflammatory Processes. Bulletin Of Experimental Biology And Medicine, 137(4), 364-366. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:bebm.0000035131.54215.ca  

Sinotova, O., Novoselova, E., Glushkova, O., & Fesenko, E. (2004). [A comparison of the effects of millimeter and centimeter waves on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells]. Biofizika, 49(3). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15327216.

Gapeev, A., Lushnikov, K., Shumilina, I., Sirota, N., Sadovnikov, V., & Chemeris N, N. (2003). [Effects of low-intensity extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation on chromatin structure of lymphoid cells in vivo and in vitro]. Radiatsionnaya Biologiya Radioekologiya, 43(1), 87-92. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12677665.

Lushnikov, K., Gapeedv, A., Shumilina, I., Shibaev, N., Sadovnikov, V., & Chmeris, N. (2003). [Decrease in the intensity of the cellular immune response and nonspecific inflammation upon exposure to extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation]. Biofizika, 48(5). Retrieved 14 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14582420. 

Lushnikov, K., Gapeev, A., & Chemeris, N. (2002). [Effects of extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on the immune system and systemic regulation of homeostasis]. Radiatsionnaya Biologiya Radioekologiya, 42(5). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12449822.

Novoselova, E., Ogaĭ, V., Sinotova, O., Glushkova, O., Sorokina, O., & Fesenko, E. (2002). [Effect of millimeter waves on the immune system in mice with experimental tumors]. Biofizika, 47(5). Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12397969.

Ushakov, V., Alipov, E., Shcheglov, V., & Belyaev, I. (2000). Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vivo-dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 48(11), 2172-2179. https://doi.org/10.1109/22.884211

Szabo, I., Rojavin, M., Rogers, T., & Ziskin, M. (2001). Reactions of keratinocytes to in vitro millimeter wave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics, 22(5), 358-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.62

D’Andrea, J., & Chalfin, S. (2000). Effects of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Radiation on the Eye. Radio Frequency Radiation Dosimetry And Its Relationship To The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields, 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4191-8_43

Mason, P., Walters, T., Nelson, M., & Nelson, D. (2000). Skin heating effects of millimeter-wave irradiation-thermal modeling results. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 48(11), 2111-2120. https://doi.org/10.1109/22.884202

Walters, T., Blick, D., Johnson, L., Adair, E., & Foster, K. (2000). Heating and pain sensation produced in human skin by millimeter waves. Health Physics, 78(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200003000-00003

Haas, A., Le Page, Y., Zhadobov, M., Sauleau, R., Dréan, Y., & Saligaut, C. (2017). Effect of acute millimeter wave exposure on dopamine metabolism of NGF-treated PC12 cells. Journal Of Radiation Research, 58(4), 439-445. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrx004

Haas, A., Le Page, Y., Zhadobov, M., Sauleau, R., & Le Dréan, Y. (2016). Effects of 60-GHz millimeter waves on neurite outgrowth in PC12 cells using high-content screening. Neuroscience Letters, 618, 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.02.038

Le Dréan, Y., Mahamoud, Y., Le Page, Y., Habauzit, D., Le Quément, C., Zhadobov, M., & Sauleau, R. (2013). State of knowledge on biological effects at 40–60 GHz. Comptes Rendus Physique, 14(5), 402-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2013.02.005

Sivachenko, I., Medvedev, D., Molodtsova, I., Panteleev, S., Sokolov, A., & Lyubashina, O. (2016). Effects of Millimeter-Wave Electromagnetic Radiation on the Experimental Model of Migraine. Bulletin Of Experimental Biology And Medicine, 160(4), 425-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10517-016-3187-7

Soghomonyan, D., Trchounian, K., & Trchounian, A. (2016). Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields in the environment: what are their effects on bacteria?. Applied Microbiology And Biotechnology, 100(11), 4761-4771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0

 

References on Millimeter waves in Military Non Lethal Weapon Program

 

Non-Lethal Weapons Program > About > Frequently Asked Questions > Active Denial System FAQs. Jnlwp.defense.gov. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/.

 

The Human Effects Advisory Panel. (2008). A Narrative Summary and Independent Assessment of the Active Denial System. Penn State Applied Research Laboratory. Retrieved from https://jnlwp.defense.gov/Portals/50/Documents/Future_Non-Lethal_Weapons/HEAP.pdf

LeVine, S. (2009). The Active Denial System A Revolutionary, Non-lethal Weapon for Today’s Battlefield. Washington, DC: National Defense University Center for Technology and National Security Policy.

Law, D. (2012). Active Denial Technology (ADT). Presentation.