FEATURED ISSUE
Controversy about 5G
There is building excitement that 5G (fifth generation) cell phone coverage is predicted to reach full nationwide coverage during 2020-2021. While there are many technical advantages to 5G, some consumers have voiced concern about a number of potential health hazards, including the impact of RFR(radio frequency radiation),SAR (specific absorption rate), and EMF (electromagnetic field), as well as the density and proximity of cell phone antennas. As each concern carries its own complex issues, we will address them in separate AHHA Featured Issues.

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set RFR safe exposure guidelines for field strength and power density of transmitters operating at frequencies of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. At that time, the FCC adopted the recommendations of the Radiation Emergency Medical Management (NCRP) for Maximum Permissible Exposure limits. These limits were based upon a behavioral change in rats—not human beings—exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. These guidelines have not been revised in more than 23 years.

Two key studies being cited on the impact of RFR are: (1) a study by theNational Toxicology Program(NTP), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, demonstrating that high exposure to 3G RFR resulted in cancerous heart tumors, brain tumors, and adrenal tumors of male rats and (2) a study at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy that replicated the key findings of the NTP study, but used a different carrier frequency and much lower exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. As you read the articles below, note the two contradictory interpretations.
* Those championing the opinion that RFR does not indicate a danger to humans—interpret the study results as saying that the number of tumors detected could statistically have occurred by chance. While there were tumors in the test rats, they considered that these results would not be relevant to humans. At the 5G millimeter wave frequencies, they feltthat RFR would not penetrate deep enough into the human body to reach the organ tissues.This group states that without replicable, concrete proof that radiation from cellphones or wireless networks causes serious adverse health effects in humans, there’s no reason to stop the rollout of 5G.
* Those championing the opinion that RFR does indicate a danger to humans—interpret the study results to show that the RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage in test rats.DNA damage and cancer tumors in the test rats could indicate possible RFR harm to humans. RFR dissipates with distance, so 5G antennas must be closer to each other, which means there will be many more of them, and so the antennas will be closer to humans, thus will increase human exposure to RFR. This group thinks there’s enough evidence to put a moratorium on the rollout of new technologies like the proposed 5G infrastructure build-out until more research has been done.

There have been ten years and $30 million spent on RFR research protocols…
* but the tested lab rats did not provide results that could be translated to possible impact on humans. “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cellphone.”
* that didn’t look for RFR-caused neurological disorders and reproductive harm in lab rats, then possibly in humans.
* that did not clarify exactly how human exposure to RFR will change.
* and future lab rat research protocols are being developed as “if scientists can better understand biological changes in animals, they will know more about what to look for in humans.”

Missing items include
* mention of the studies of human use of cell phones that found DNA damage indicators in hair follicle cells in the ear canal that were higher in the RFR exposure groups than in the control subjects.
* adapting studies to advances in RFR-related technologies, such as Wi-Fi and 5G.

ISSUE: Credibility of research proving 5G safety related to RFR

AHHA strives to maintain a neutral position on issues and views knowledge as power. For those interested in the RVR concern with 5G and want to learn more about this topic, the articles below were selected to offer you some resources to begin your research. As you review articles, you are encouraged to keep in mind the matters noted above. Other concerns will be addressed in future issues.

FCC Policy on Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (1996):
Chairman Pai Proposes To Maintain Current Radiofrequency Exposure Safety Standards (8/8/19)
Federal Communications Commission

Radio Frequency Safety
Federal Communications Commission

RF Safety FAQ (11/25/15)
Federal Communications Commission

FOR position on RFR safety research adaptable to 5G:
NTP scientist weighs in on 5G technology (Jan 2020)
by Sheena Scruggs
Environmental Factor

5G Dangers: What the Experts Say About Health Risks (10/27/19)
by Caitlin McGarry
Tom’s Guide

Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation (May 1999)
National Toxicology Program

AGAINST position on RFR safety research adaptable to 5G:
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe (9/27/19)
by Joel M. Moskowitz
Scientific American

5G: The Unreported Global Threat (5/18/19)
by Devra Davis
Medium Tips

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 (10/24/18)
by Lennart Hardell& Michael Carlberg
International Journal of Oncology

We encourage you to go to our blog at https://ahha.org/blog and post your comments. You are invited to share additional resources you have found relating to this issue.

To review past ISSUES, visit the Special Updates Archives.