More concerns raised on 5G technology

You may be aware of the coming conversion of cell phones to a new technology called, “5G”. This next generation of our current (4G, 3G) has created a wide range of controversy, with those who are against wide scale deployment being painted as ‘tin hat’ lunatics in some quarters, or simply dismissed. I for one, always come down on the side of science, real science, peer reviewed by other scientists in the field and science that is able to be replicated in the lab. I have been standing back and waiting to form an opinion on the topic, while assuming that if 4G has been relatively benign (and that is also debatable given the sea of cancer that we are currently swimming in), that 5G should be not all that much worse.

However, recently, voices have been raised that are impossible to ignore. In Scientific American’s blog on Oct 17, 2019, a key researcher with significant credibility, Joel Moskowitz, put forward a very credible arguement about why we citizens should be concerned about this technology.

His article, entitled, “We have no reason to believe that 5G is safe”, and subtitled, “The technology is coming , but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks,” is an appeal to take seriously the over 500 studies that found health risks of radio frequency radiation (RFR).

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits.

According to Mr. Moskowitz, the FDA, with no formal risk assessment done, has approved the technology. He concludes by stating:

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

Also, no less than the ex-president of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg, has recently also come out strongly endorsing a moratorium on 5G.

To be clear, Mr. Clegg’s opinion on this is his, and not that of Microsoft. Also, Mr. Moskowitz’ article is an opinion piece in the Scientific American blog, not the main magazine. It is not the editors of the magazine endorsing the point of view. They are individuals commenting on the growing body of evidence that there could be a problem if we deploy this in wide spread use, covering virtually all people in developed countries, from birth to death.

It is stated, and many including myself believe, that modern society has seen a growing number of brain tumors since the advent of the cellular phone. However, it’s not easy to pin it to one specific cause. I have heard medical researchers state that with an aging population, that may be a given. But I have also heard many extremely intelligent people argue that there are real concerns. They often are dismissed.

However, those looking at rounding up data on the subject should also be heard. As stated in a Forbes article by science writer Jeffery Kabat, recently, “Many epidemiological studies, show little evidence of an association.” His research using PubMed and Google, clearly shows that there is a variety of ways to understand the data on brain cancers, which in themselves are a rare form of cancer, and that there is not a consensus by brain tumor specialists that there has been an increase in brain cancers over the last decades. Some cancers have been recategorized into other categories, skewing the numbers of that category and appearing as if there has been huge increases.

5G is not a foregone conclusion. But the time to ask our legislators for a halt to deployment and additional significant research is here, now. The push by business to demand this deployment and belittle the concerns is very hard to fight. While I am not yet totally convinced there is a real threat, I am concerned enough to ask for a moratorium while a wide range of independent scientists look into this further. Having lost my best friend to brain cancer (and he was a voracious cell phone user for two decades), I cannot just sit back and accept industry and government assurances (especially given the behavior of the current government in regards to research results) that there will be no harm.

3 Responses

  1. WHO, FDA, CDC, & manufactures self justifying science — where were they when cigarette smokers and smoking, tobacco chewers: — was so cool and deemed not harmful by manufactures of this extremely massive tobacco fortune industry. Need I say more?

  2. You have every reason to be concerned. The FCC uses a simple heat exposure standard to determine the safety of wireless devices, and they recently raised the exposure limit because 5G was exceeding it. They do not take into account any possible health risks beyond heat damage. In fact it is, and has been for quite some time, illegal to consider the health effects of communications devices in approving there implementation. The article above mentions over 500 studies. There has in fact been well over 10,000 studies on the effect of EMFs (Electro Magnetic Frequencies / Wireless) on various forms of life. The vast majority show at least some adverse effect. The problem is the studies, while ample evidence in and of themselves, do not take into consideration the sea of of EMFs we live in every day. Walking around and in our homes we are immersed in 3G, 4G, wifi, bluetooth, and radio waves 24 hours per day. While adverse effects to environment or ecology have been shown from all of these individually at various exposure levels, no one has done a comprehensive study of all of them combined. Nearly every scientist in the field will tell you it’s not good. Adding 5G to the mix, which needs to be installed every 250 feet or so to be effective, as Dr. Martin Pall (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University) has stated, is “complete insanity”. Google him to read more. 5G is a quantum leap in exposure levels. It will be installed on every street light down the freeway, and multiple locations on every residential block, it will be unavoidable. In February of 2020 SpaceX will begin broadcasting 5G from satellites in the ionosphere to all of the United States, this will have unknown effects on the Schumann Resonance which all life depends. Please see the 5G Space Appeal here: There are links to many of the applicable studies on that page. This is a giant science experiment and we are the test subjects. You need to write your Federal, State, and Local representatives and ask them to demand a moratorium on 5G in space and on the ground, and Small Cell Site implementation until the wireless/EMF safety standards set by the FCC are brought up to current science and comprehensive, independent studies are complete on 5G as well as the combined effects of the EMFs we are all exposed to every day. Do your research and spread the word.

  3. I, too, am uncertain about the 5G debate. And I’m increasingly concerned that corporate science is being replaced by honest, independent science.

    But readers of Al’s excellent summary of Joel Moskowitz’s blog might also want to read the rebuttal by David Grimes, a noted scientist and writer.

    A rough summary, in his words:

    “…claims such as Moskowitz’s are a complete misrepresentation of the evidence base. Far from being a harbinger of medical woe, the scientific consensus points starkly in the opposite direction. A multitude of quality studies conducted over the past few decades have found no measurable detrimental effect of RF radiation (RFR) on human health. In the words of the World Health Organization, “a large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”

    Personally, I think we face more harm from the deluge of pesticides that we’re pouring into the environment.

Comments are closed.