Before I get to my criticism of the Mayor’s interpretation of the Knapp paper it’s worth stepping back and considering the big picture.
Competing views
Two fundamentally opposed perspectives were on stark display at the December 8, 2021 Town Council meeting.
The Council, and many of its appointees to the Wildfire Preparedness Committee, appear to believe that until definitive scientific data shows otherwise, home hardening and vegetation management are sufficient tools to mitigate and contain the fire hazards we face. They ask us to assume that adoption of the minimal building separation standards required by State regulation and recommended by the National Fire Protection Association should be avoided until shown to be absolutely necessary.
Many residents, myself included, hold a different view. We believe that the adoption of minimally prudent land use and development standards is critically important for our safety, especially when we lack clear scientific certainty about the multitude of factors that combine to cause the rapid, catastrophic destruction of entire neighborhoods, or the effectiveness of other measures to protect us against structure-to-structure fire spread. We believe that declining to adopt minimally prudent standards established by competent, authoritative sources increases the hazard for the entire community, and that unsafe land use and development imposes increased risk on all of us. In short, we believe that the perceived advantages of foregoing prudent land use and development standards does not justify or excuse the imposition of substantially increased risk and unsafe conditions on all of us.
While Cal Fire and multiple national associations have provided minimal wildfire prevention standards for many aspects of local development projects, such as land use, neighborhood access and egress, water supply, building construction, etc, for brevity I’ll focus on building separation and structure density.
The findings, recommendations, and directives from the following independent authoritative sources are clear and consistent: substantial building separation and low structure density is necessary for safe development in wildland interface and inter-mix areas such as ours.
Cal Fire regulations and State fire safety mandates
The National Fire Protection Association
Academic research
Insurance industry research
Woodside Fire Protection District
Is the Town Council aware of this consensus? If so, why is it being ignored? Cal Fire regulations and State fire safety mandates
State law and Cal Fire regulations impose minimum fire safe standards for all subdivision, development, and building projects wherever a local authority has formally designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
With respect to building separation, Cal Fire’s current minimum fire safe development regulations expressly require:
(a) All parcels shall provide a minimum thirty (30) foot setback for all buildings from all property lines and/or the center of a road.
(b) When a thirty (30) foot setback is not possible for practical reasons, which may include but are not limited to parcel dimensions or size, topographic limitations, or other easements, the local jurisdiction shall provide for same practical effect. (i) Same practical effect requirements shall reduce the likelihood of home-tohome ignition. (ii) Same practical effect options may include, but are not limited to, noncombustible block walls or fences; five (5) feet of noncombustible material horizontally around the structure; installing hardscape landscaping or reducing exposed windows on the side of the structure with a less than thirty (30) foot setback; or additional structure hardening such as those required in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations title 24, part 2, Chapter 7A. (14 CCR 1276.01) (links here , here , and here ) 3 4 5 In other words, right now, Cal Fire’s minimal safety regulation would require 30’ setbacks - resulting in 60’ separation between buildings on adjacent lots - for new development projects by Cal Fire safety regulations in Portola Valley if the Town Council had made the formal designations recommended to it over 12 years ago by Cal Fire, Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD), and the Town’s consultant, Moritz Arboricultural Consulting. But Portola Valley declined to make such designations.
In short, declining to formally designate very high hazard areas precludes the application of Cal Fire’s minimum development standards designed to protect all of us from the hazards and risks we face. Why? Why are we denied the protection of these minimum fire safety mandates? Notably, the Town of Woodside - unlike Portola Valley - accepted the 2008 recommendations and adopted an ordinance designating the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones identified by Cal Fire within its local jurisdiction. Consequently, the residents of Woodside are today protected by Cal Fire’s minimum fire safety development regulations throughout much of their Town (link) . 6
If Portola Valley had made the hazard designations recommended by our fire safety professionals in 2008, what areas of Portola Valley would have State-mandated 30’ setbacks? The only field-confirmed hazard assessments that have been conducted in Portola Valley were done by WFPD and Moritz in 2008.
WFPD’s analysis is depicted in Fig. 1. Moritz’s analysis is depicted in Fig. 2.
Had the Town accepted the recommendations of WFPD and Moritz, 30’ setbacks would be required by State fire safety regulations in all of these areas. 3 www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/Cal-Code-Regs-Tit-14-SS-1270-01 4 www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/Cal-Code-Regs-Tit-14-SS-1270-02 5 www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/Cal-Code-Regs-Tit-14-SS-1276-01 6 library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal_code? nodeId=CD_ORD_TITXVLAUS_CH150BURE_ARTIADSTCO_S150.01BUCORECOAM
In contrast to the hazard inspections and assessments performed by WFPD and Moritz, Cal Fire’s 2007-2008 assessment was based entirely on aerial surveillance and a rudimentary classification of vegetative fuel loading and topography within 20 acre and 200 acre quadrants.
That assessment, shown as a composite map in Fig. 3, indicated that 60% of Portola Valley was in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and that the remaining 40% was of Moderate severity. (Links to original Cal Fire maps are here and here).
Page of 5 12
Fig. 1. Depiction of locations that WFPD identified as
Very High Hazard Severity Zone in 2008, based on
the written description provided in a June 17, 2021
Town Memorandum.
Fig. 2. Map from the 2008 Moritz Report. Circles
show “Highest Hazard” areas within Portola Valley.
Fig. 3. Composite Cal Fire map showing
Moderate (yellow), High (tan), and Very High
(red) Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as
assessed in 2007-2008.
In none of the assessments was any attempt made to account for the fire hazards created by fuel sources other than vegetation, such as buildings, vehicles, or power and gas lines. Bearing in mind that the assessments of the WFPD, Moritz, and Cal Fire were conducted over 13 years ago and neglected the greatest fuel sources on the landscape, isn’t it likely that the VHFHSZs in Portola Valley are actually more extensive than depicted? Why is Portola Valley denied the benefits of State fire safety mandates for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones when significant portions of our town clearly meet the criteria for such designations.
National Fire Protection Association Standards
NFPA 1140 Standard for Wildland Fire Protection defines best practices for wildfire prevention and safety standards for lands such as ours. 1140 is explicit:
“12.2.1 Unless governed by other locally adopted regulations, any building shall be separated from any other buildings by at least 30 ft (9.144m) and be set back at least 30 ft (9.144 m) from a property line.” (Link here, page 1140-27) 7 Academic Research
Despite the Mayor’s claims to the contrary, the findings of the Knapp study (referenced above) are unambiguous: building separation was a primary determinant of structure loss in the Paradise fire.
“Distance to nearest destroyed structure and the total number of destroyed structures within 100 m were consistently the strongest predictors in our analyses. This makes intuitive sense because burning structures produce a substantial amount of radiant heat, which can ignite adjacent homes or break glass in windows, allowing embers to enter the home.” (Page 12)
“Houses built amongst wildland vegetation (intermix) survived at a higher rate (29%) than houses built in more of a subdivision arrangement with wildland fuels nearby (interface) (16%). … If proximity to wildland fuels had been the dominant driver, greater percentage losses in the wildland urban intermix would have been expected. The higher survival of intermix homes may therefore have been more a function of greater average distance to nearest destroyed structure (24 m vs 11 m in the intermix and interface, respectively) and lower average density (7.7 vs 11.1 structures within 100 m in the intermix and interface, respectively).” (Page 11)
Mayor Hughes claims that the Knapp paper shows “that pre-fire building separation has no effect on survivability.” In fact the authors examined that very issue using a correlate of building separation - building density - and their conclusion was exactly opposite of what the Mayor claims:
“When only pre-fire variables were included, housing density had the largest effect size, with greater survival when the number of structures within 100 m was low”. (Page 9) 7 www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail? code=1140
In other words, the more homes were separated from one another before the fire, the lower the likelihood of structure loss during the fire.
See below for my analysis of the fallacies underlying the Mayor’s and Town Manager’s interpretation of the Knapp paper.
Insurance Industry Research
The insurance industry is highly motivated to characterize risk accurately. It employs advanced, state of the art data analytics to do so. The published findings of Zesty.ai, an independent 8 data analytics firm, and the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety are consistent with those of the Knapp paper. As shown in Fig. 4, their analysis found that the likelihood of home destruction is 1.7x greater if there is another building within 30 ft, and 1.9x greater if there is another building within 30-100 ft.
Woodside Fire Protection District
In a December 14, 2021 letter to the Town Council, Fire Marshal Bullard wrote, with bolded 9 font in his letter:
“I cannot stress enough that increased density in Very High and High Fire Severity Zones could lead to the potential loss of life for residents and fire personnel.” Recall that by Cal Fire’s assessment over a decade ago, 60% of Portola Valley was in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. For a host of reasons, as the District and Moritz both pointed out at the time, there is every reason to believe that the extent and severity of Portola Valley’s wildfire hazard was significantly greater than Cal Fire’s 2008 assessment indicated. ibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/IBHS-Zesty-WildfireFuelMgmt.pdf 8 www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_council/meeting/32404/item_b_- 9 _letter_on_sb_9_from_don_bullard_2021-12-13.pdf
Page of 7 12
Fig. 4. From Table 3 of the referenced publication. Risk reduction for properties in neighborhoods with moderate to high vegetation coverage (30% or more coverage within 30-100ft of the home) and buildings partly or entirely covering the zone, compared to no buildings within the zone.
Zone Destruction rate Destruction rate Difference in likelihood of Building present No buildings present destruction
Area based on the A building partly or No buildings within the Presence of buildings vs no rooftop outline completely within the zone zone buildings 0-30 ft from the 58.9% 34.3% 1.7x
structure
30-100 ft from the 60.4% 31.2% 1.9x
structure
The Town Council to which the Fire Marshal’s December 14 letter was addressed was not ours; it was Woodside’s. In contrast to WFPD’s advice to Woodside, our Town Council was told “And it's erroneous for me to say right now that 30 feet of separation is going to solve it all. Maybe it will, and maybe the magic threshold will turn out to be 45 feet. Right now we don't have the science and it's an unknown”10
It’s important to recognize that, first, the Knapp study unequivocally shows there is no “scientific uncertainty” about the highly dangerous effect of inadequate separation between structures. Science is clear that separation distance matters. In Knapp’s analysis it is one of the “strongest” determinants of home survival. Fire Marshal Bullard acknowledged this widely recognized fact at the meeting:
“I assume that 60 feet is going to be better than 30 feet, which is going to be better than 15 feet, which will be better than five feet…”11
But even more importantly, the notion that lack of “scientific certainty” should preclude the application of minimally prudent building separation standards, especially standards that truly competent experts — such as Cal Fire and the National Fire Protection Association — all agree are critically important, turns the protection of public safety on its head. It is precisely in circumstances of highly dangerous uncertainty where minimally prudent safeguards are most urgently needed.
Finally, why are the residents of Woodside urged to avoid increasing density in High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones while residents of Portola Valley are told that density doesn’t matter? Why are residents of Portola Valley told that “scientific uncertainty” precludes a 30 ft minimum separation distance between buildings in Portola Valley when Cal Fire’s minimum development regulations already require a 60 ft separation between buildings on adjacent parcels throughout much of Woodside? Why are the residents of Woodside encouraged to pursue one set of prudent standards by WFPD while the residents of Portola Valley are given very different guidance and advice by the same agency?
Fallacies in the Mayor’s interpretation of the Knapp paper In arguing that the Knapp paper shows that separation distance doesn’t matter, Mayor Hughes illustrates a number of common fallacies. The following examples are not exhaustive.
1. Selective approach to the data.
Instead of viewing the data and analyses as a whole, the Mayor focuses on a single entry in the large table of summary data that he argues supports the position he advocates. To ignore the great bulk of data and analyses, not to mention the authors’ express findings and conclusions of the study, is striking.
This is not an example of science informing policy decisions. It’s an example of an advocate straining to support a pre-conceived policy position by taking a minor, insignificant fact out of context and ignoring the far more extensive and significant facts, analyses, and conclusions that contradict the advocate’s preferred policy.
10 Fire Marshal Bullard, December 8, 2021 Town Council Meeting 11 Fire Marshal Bullard, December 8, 2021 Town Council Meeting
2. Presenting lack of evidence of an effect as proof that the effect doesn’t exist.
We know from the extensive, peer-reviewed multivariate analysis performed in the paper that distance and structure density had highly significant effects on the probability of home survival in Paradise. In contrast, the univariate analysis of an insensitive variable like distance to nearest structure lacks the statistical power to detect these effects, even when the effects are present and “surprisingly strong”, to paraphrase the authors.
Focusing only on a method that is not sufficiently sensitive to detect an effect, the Mayor argues that the failure to demonstrate an effect implies that the effect doesn’t exist. This is a logical fallacy.
3. Exclusive focus on an insensitive parameter.
Statistical analysis attempts to find evidence of a ‘signal’ (ie, a significant relationship or effect) that is buried in ‘noise’ (ie, inherent variability of the data). To do this, the researchers carefully select variables and methods that are the most sensitive, ie, best able to detect and distinguish a signal amidst its surrounding noise. The ability of a study to do this is referred to as its statistical power.
A primary objective of the Knapp study was to determine whether and how the proximity of a home to a nearby burning structure influenced the probability of the home’s destruction (page 4, left column). The authors found that it does, and that its effect is “surprisingly strong”.
Indeed, the effect of proximity was exceedingly significant (p < 0.001 ). 12 In designing the study they identified ‘distance to nearest destroyed structure’ as the parameter of greatest interest because they wished to determine whether a house’s proximity to a burning structure affected the probability of its survival.
The Mayor asks us to focus on an insensitive parameter that can obfuscate both the existence and significance of the effect of separation distance on home survival. Focusing solely on distance to nearest structure, as opposed to nearest burned structure, distorts the analysis by overlooking the effect of a nearby burning structure
4. Exclusive focus on an insensitive statistical methodology Comparing the average distance to nearest structure for homes that survived vs homes that were destroyed is an example of univariate analysis - analysis based on a single variable. The statistical techniques of univariate analysis are notoriously insensitive, ie, they have limited power to detect an effect in the presence of multiple, possibly confounding variables and The “p-value” is a measure of statistical significance. Statistical studies address whether an apparent 12 difference in data obtained from two or more groups is entirely due to intrinsic variability in the measurements rather than some real, underlying difference between the groups. The p-value is an estimate of the probability that an observed difference is attributable entirely to inherent variability - that there is no underlying difference between the groups. A large p-value suggests that the observed apparent difference in the data is purely due to inherent variability. A small p-value means that we can’t reasonably attribute the difference to inherent variability in the data, rather, there is in fact a real, underlying difference between the two groups. P = 0.05 is generally accepted as the threshold below which an effect is recognized as being present and the hypothesis that the numerical difference is due only to inherent variability is rejected. P < 0.001 is very highly significant.
statistical variability (noise) . That’s why, in addition to using a more sensitive variable, the 13 authors of the paper also used a multivariate analysis, in which potentially competing and confounding variables are accounted for. In fact, the study would almost certainly have failed peer review if the authors relied exclusively on univariate analyses.
It’s notable that the Mayor does not direct the reader to Fig. 4 of the paper, which shows the results of the much more sensitive and important multivariate analysis the authors used to reach their conclusions. In both parts (a) (which incorporates variables that were available before and after the fire) and (b) (which is limited to variables that would have been known only before the fire) the only variables found to be significant in predicting the probability of home destruction were building separation or its correlate, building density, and canopy cover 30-100m from the home. Home hardening, as reflected in year of construction, was found to be statistically insignificant as a determinant of home survival.
5. Invoking non-public knowledge.
The beauty of science is that the data and analysis are provided so that we can all review it to arrive at our own opinions about the validity of the conclusions that are offered. The Mayor cites a private conversation with the author as evidence that his interpretation is correct. Doing so is anti-science because it’s based on alleged private knowledge, not data freely available to all in the public domain. We don’t have an opportunity to assess the veracity or interpretation of this private knowledge. Instead, we have to rely on the Mayor’s report. Even if we heard the authors directly, their opinions and characterizations are secondary to the data and analysis that is published in their peer-reviewed paper.
I have also discussed the paper with the author. As a scientist, should I rely on my private conversations with the author to rebut the Mayor’s claims about his private conversations with the author? No. As titillating as it would be to recount my conversations, doing so would politicize what should be completely apolitical scientific work. Such private conversations are simply irrelevant when assessing the validity and significance of the data and analyses presented in a peer-reviewed, scientific paper. Since no one else participated in my private conversations with the author, no one can examine my claims and assess their validity. That’s why scientists do not cite or rely on such private conversations to interpret or assess published science.
6. Going all in on a red herring.
Mayor Hughes seems to impute great importance to the fact that the authors focus on distance to the nearest destroyed structure rather than distance to any nearest structure, whether A limitation of univariate analysis, and the reason it often lacks the power to yield meaningful 13 conclusions, is because there are multiple factors that influence an outcome. With wildfire, such factors include building separation, building age, roofing and building materials and techniques, vegetation, topography, fencing and accessory structures, vehicles parked in the driveway, local wind conditions, etc. These multiple other factors can ‘bury’ a signal we’re looking for in ‘noise’ in two ways:
1. Increase the variability, so that the ‘noise’ swamps the ‘signal’. One house with large separation from its neighbors happens to have a bone-dry wood fence connected to its wooden siding, another house a short distance from its neighbors has a concrete block fence, etc.
2. Correlated parameters. Houses with larger separation from neighboring structures were developed later in Paradise in less accessible terrain. If the benefits of increased separation were negated by, say, location in an areas with steeper slopes then univariate analysis would fail to detect the benefits of separation. In fact, Table 2 of the paper shows that distance to nearest structure is in fact highly significantly correlated with slope. Multivariate analysis allows effects such as these to be tease apart.
surviving or destroyed. He suggests that this, along with the lack of statistical significance reported in Table 1, implies that distance to nearest structure doesn’t matter. In fact, in the Methods section the authors explain why they focus on distance to nearest destroyed structure rather than any structure:
“When independent variables were highly correlated (R > 0.6), only the one most clearly mechanistically linked to outcome was included. For example, “distance to nearest structure” was highly correlated with “distance to the nearest destroyed structure,” and “total structures–100 m” was highly correlated to “total structures destroyed—100 m” (Table 1), so only the latter were included.” (Page 5, right-hand column) In other words, the reason the authors chose to focus on ‘distance to destroyed structure’ rather than ‘distance to any structure’ as a variable of study is precisely because they chose to avoid redundancy by using the more sensitive, mechanistically relevant variable.
7. There may be an error in the data.
Mayor Hughes highlights the very high p-value associated with the difference in average distance to nearest structure between homes that were destroyed vs survived. The reported the p-value is indeed incredibly high, essentially indistinguishable from unity. In fact, it is implausibly high. The chance of seeing a p-value this high - of seeing sample averages that are precisely identical - when making random selections from a distribution whose standard deviation is huge compared to the average (as the Table shows) is remote.
As others have observed, a critical reader would wonder whether there’s an error in the data, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of an effect of structure separation on home survival shown throughout the same paper.
An advocate with a pre-conceived position, searching for supporting evidence, wouldn’t.
I have downloaded the data and begun analyzing it in order to examine the accuracy of the values reported in the Table.
The authors perspective - The role of home hardening and building separation My interpretation of the authors’ perspective is as follows:
What do we do about existing homes whose proximity to neighboring structures increases the hazard of home ignition and destruction? The Knapp paper’s data and analysis shows that the proximity and density of existing structures have a highly significant adverse effect on home survival. But obviously we cannot change the separation distances that already exist between currently existing structures. So we had better redouble efforts to fire-harden existing homes, even though the analysis found that Chapter 7A standards did not produce a significantly greater probability of home survival. In no way do the paper’s authors suggest that home hardening is adequate compensation for suboptimal separation, nor do they suggest that home hardening obviates the need for adequate separation between future homes.
What do we do about future developments, where we can control the separation distance between newly-developed structures? The authors don’t address this. Their recommendations appear to be limited to the problem of existing suboptimal separation and do not address optimal standards for future development. They certainly aren’t arguing that we should ignore minimally prudent regulations and standards that call for 30’ setbacks, 30’ building separations, and a number of other safety measures that Portola Valley has declined to adopt.
In summary, the 2021 Knapp paper, other academic research, and insurance industry research clearly support the minimum building separations and low housing density required by Cal Fire regulations and advocated by the NFPA and WFPD for wildland urban intermix and interface areas such as ours.
Let’s stop ignoring the compelling and obvious fact that separation distance matters greatly to the survivability of the structures we build.
I urge Mayor Hughes and Town Manager Dennis to publicly correct their mischaracterization of the paper’s findings.
I urge the Town Council to candidly acknowledge the fire hazards we face and employ all recommended methods for mitigating them, including minimum setbacks and building separation.
Thank you,
Robert Turcott
Cc Mayor Hughes
Town Manager Dennis
Town Attorney Silver, with an invitation to correct errors about legal claims, if any Wildfire Preparedness Committee
PV Forum
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Thursday – January 20, 2022
1. Agenda (Cancellation) – Architectural & Site Control Commission – Monday, January 24, 2022
2. Agenda – Conservation Committee – Tuesday, January 25, 2022
3. Resident email from C. Vertongen re Smart Meters and Health Risks Attached Separates (Council Only)
(placed in your Town Hall mailbox)
1. None
NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE CONTROL COMMISSION
MEETING REGULARLY SCHEDULED FOR
Monday, January 24, 2022
Notice is hereby given that the Portola Valley Architectural and Site Control Commission meeting regularly scheduled for January 24, 2022 has been cancelled.
The next meeting of the Portola Valley Architectural and Site Control Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 14, 2022 at 4:00 PM.
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
4:00 PM – Special Meeting of the Architectural and Site Control Commission (ASCC)
Monday, January 24, 2022
Historic Schoolhouse
765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
1 #1
SPECIAL VIDEOCONFERENCE MEETING AGENDA
Remote Meeting Covid-19 Advisory: On September 16, the Governor signed AB 361, amending the Ralph M.
Brown Act (Brown Act) to allow legislative bodies to continue to meet virtually during the present public health emergency. AB 361 is an urgency bill which goes into effect on October 1, 2021. The bill extends the teleconference procedures authorized in Executive Order N-29-20, which expired on September 30, 2021, during the current COVID-19 pandemic and allows future teleconference procedures under limited circumstances defined in the bill.
Portola Valley Town Council and commission and committee public meetings are being conducted electronically to prevent imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The meeting is not available for in-person attendance.
Members of the public may attend the meeting by video or phone linked in this agenda.
To access the meeting by computer, click on the link below:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84994133704
To access the meeting by phone, dial:
1-699-900-6833
1-877-853-5247 (toll-free)
Mute/Unmute - press *6 Raise Hand - press *9
Meeting ID: 849 9413 3704
Password: 187962
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
1) Call to Order
2) Oral Communications
3) Approval of Minutes for November 23, 2021
4) Election of Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary
5) Permits
a) Site Permits
b) Tree Permits
6) Old Business
a) Broom Pull 2/26 – get organized
b) Oversight of Town Owned Properties
i) SpringDown – Murphy
c) Committee/Town Cooperation
i) Public Works – Murphy
ii) Trails – Coleman
iii) Open Space - Chiariello
iv) Committee on Committees for Housing Element revision - Murphy (1) Recommendations (see Appendix A)
v) Fire Ad-Hoc – Plunder resigned – new representive?
vi) Each member to review minutes of a committee that does not have a liaison d) Backyard Habitat – Plunder – Nona’s video
e) Tip of the Month – Magill (3 minutes)
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Special Conservation Committee
Virtual Meeting
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 – 7:00 PM
Special Videoconference Meeting via Zoom
#2
f) Kudos – Richards (5 minutes)
g) What’s Blooming Now – Magill (3 minutes)
7) New Business
a) Conservation items for ADU and other ministerial checklist (see Appendix B) b) Expand recommended native plant list
8) Next Meeting Tuesday February 22 7:00pm Zoom
9) Adjournment aspirationally 8:30, Hard Stop 9:00
1 Sharon Hanlon
From: Town Center
Attachments: Our water supply quality and infrastructure.pdf; Electromagnetic Radiation Safety 5G Wireless Technology Is 5G Harmful to Our Health.pdf
From: caroline Vertongen
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:27 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Sarah Wernikoff <[email protected]>; Maryann Moise Derwin <[email protected]>; Craig Hughes <[email protected]>; John Richards <[email protected]>; Jeff Aalfs <[email protected]>; Jeremy Dennis <[email protected]> Subject: Smart meters and health risks
Good morning Chair Unnash,
Members of the Sustainability Committee, staff and members of Town Council; My apologies for this late email, but I first had to contact Town staff and ask them to update your website so we could communicate our concerns regarding smart meters, health risks, and CalWater issues.
First of all thank you for your time and dedication to assist the Town of Portola Valley in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing comprehensive water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction programs, and engaging and educating the residents of Portola Valley to meet the goals outlined in the Sustainability Element of the General Plan.
That Sustainability Element was created in 2009 - and among its goals is to develop programs that educate residents and /or local professionals on best practices in resource use and efficiency.
However the Sustainability Element also has a safety component that is well outlined and well documented with full analysis and studies.
This is not the first time I have addressed safety concerns.
Many residents have addressed the health risks associated with smart meters when PG&E introduced the plan many years ago. Like many PV residents, I have shared my concerns over the years with the Sustainability Committee, Town Council and many others.
Today you are discussing the implementation of smart meters for CalWater Smart meters might detect water waste, but only if CalWater acts when it sees a spike in water consumption. It is my experience and the experience of many others that CalWater does not care. PV residents have shared their concerns over the years. These concerns are well documented in the minutes, emails, and other public records.
Residents of Palmer Lane have had a variety of issues with CalWater - the most recent example started 4 years ago and the issues are still not all solved. We brought up some of these issues because the lack of adequate water pressure affects our fire hydrants; the irregular water pressure and shut offs without notification has caused damage to irrigation systems, booster pumps, and yes caused water leaks. Then there are the issues of water quality , water quantity and availability, maintenance and upgrading of outdated infrastructure.
Since the Sustainability and Safety Element were established (2009 and 2010) we, California residents, have been exposed to more and more RF radiation especially with the use of cell phones, wireless connections, smart meters etc… There are many studies about the health risks associated with smart meters e. g. This one from the Cancer Society https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/smart-meters.html Or this one by Berkeley Professor Joel Moskowitz, PhD:
So I hope you will review the advantages and the disadvantages of smart meters and educate the residents of Portola Valley about the health risks and effects of RF radiation.
Thank you,
Caroline Vertongen
#3
Scientific and policy developments regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and other wireless technology including 5G, the fifth generation of cellular technology. This website has had more than two million page views. @berkeleyprc Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Tuesday, November 2, 2021
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
See the bottom of this page for additional resources.
Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks
Lennart Hardell. Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks. World J Clin Oncol 2021; 12(6): 393-403 doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393.
Abstract
Currently the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be rolled out worldwide. Many persons are concerned about potential health risks from radiofrequency radiation. In September 2017, a letter was sent to the European Union asking for a moratorium on the deployment until scientific evaluation has been made on potential health risks (http://www.5Gappeal.eu).
This appeal has had little success. The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards (http://www.emfscientist.org). The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.
Core Tip: In this comment, guidelines for radiofrequency radiation are discussed in relation to a recent evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands. The Committee recommends that for the deployment of 5G the frequency band 26 GHz should not be used. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are recommended. However, these guidelines are not based on an objective evaluation of health risks, which is discussed in this paper.
Conclusion
In conclusion regarding cancer, current scientific evidence clearly demonstrates an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma for use of mobile and/or cordless phones. In this review other tumor types and health endpoints are not discussed. The increased risk for brain and head tumors is based on human cancer epidemiology studies and is supported by similar tumor types found in animal studies. In fact, these animal studies confirmed the earlier results in case-control studies on increased tumor risk for use of wireless phones (both mobile and cordless phones). Mechanistic aspects on carcinogenesis come from laboratory findings on, e.g., the increase of reactive oxygen species[5] and DNA damage[4]. The current evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands is based on a WHO draft and SSM report. It also recommends using ICNIRP guidelines, considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards, such as cancer, by the majority of the scientists in this field (https://www.emfscientist.org). The report does not represent a thorough, balanced, objective, and up-to-date evaluation of cancer risks and other hazardous effects from RF radiation. It is also strikingly contradictory as it concludes that serious health effects such as cancer and birth defects are “possible.” Yet it has no objection to the roll-out of 5G and recommends that later studies are performed to study health outcomes such as cancer and birth defects. Thus, no lessons are learned from existing observations on increased cancer risks[49]. The conclusion by the Commission that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G up to 3.5 GHz because of no “proven adverse health effects,” merely reflects the biased conclusions by ICNIRP dominated groups. Thus that conclusion must be dismissed, and new guidelines for previous and new frequencies must be established considering the new technology, the different propagation pattern for 5G, and increased RF radiation. A moratorium is urgently required on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication[13]. Ultimately, wired solutions are preferred.
Open access paper: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v12/i6/393.htm --
Related Posts
Regulators Steamroll Health Concerns as the Global Economy Embraces 5G (Washington Spectator) "We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (Scientific American) Scientific American Created Confusion about 5G's Safety: Will They Clear It Up? (includes "5G, Public Health and Uncomfortable Truths") 5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
5G Wireless Technology: Cutting through the Hype
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G
Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2020 Report on 5G 5G and Health (Netherlands Health Council)
European Parliament: 5G Health Effects and Environmental Impact ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects Cell Tower Health Effects
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Physicians for Safe Technology
Environmental Health Trust
Microwave News
--
5G Cellular Standards. Total Radiobiological Assessment of the Danger of Planetary Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure to the Population (in Russian)
Y.G. Grigoriev, A.S. Samoylov. 5G-cellular standards. Total radiobiological assessment of the danger of planetary electromagnetic radiation exposure to the population. G384; М.: SRC — FMBC, Moscow, 2020.
Abstract
The book discusses the implementation of the 5G-standard in the cellular communication system. 5G-technology works with millimeter waves (MMW) with simultaneous distribution of the IoT (Internet of Things) program — Internet connection between «things», both for home use, and other objects, for example, in transport, in production. MMW are easily shielded. Given this, only the skin and sclera of the eyes will be affected.
A new radiobiological approach to hazard assessment of the 5G-standard is presented. The significance of radiobiological criteria and the degree of risk are considered, taking into account the appearance of new critical organs and the load on existing critical organs and systems during lifetime exposure to EMF in the population. This point of view of the authors is used to assess the total radiobiological danger of planetary electromagnetic radiation exposure to the population.
Ways of possible reduction of the electromagnetic load on the population are suggested.
Relevance of the book by L.A. Ilyin, RAS academician
Both in Russia and in countries abroad, there have been active discussions over the past few years about a promising proposal for optimizing cellular communications — the planetary introduction of a new 5G-standard that will guarantee fast transmission of a large amount of data. For this purpose, millimeter waves (MMW) will be used.
The techno-economic advantage of this offer is obvious and widely reported by the media in many countries. However, the degree of danger of this type of electromagnetic radiation to public health and the environment remains unclear.
Unfortunately, the appeals of scientists and medical professionals to the UN and the European Union about the need for preliminary medical and biological research before implementing the 5G-standard remain beyond real implementation. A number of countries refuse to place the 5G-standard on their territory.
Book by Yu.G. Grigoriev and A.S. Samoylov "5G-CELLULAR STANDARD. TOTAL RADIOBIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DANGER OF PLANETARY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EXPOSURE TO THE POPULATION" considers the implementation of the 5G-standard in the cellular communication system. Unlike existing wireless technologies 2G, 3G and 4G, which use electromagnetic fields of the radio frequency range, the 5G-standard works with millimeter waves with simultaneous distribution of the IoT (Internet of Things) program — Internet communication between "objects", both for home use and other objects, for example, in transport and in production.
For stable delivery of MMW to the entire territory of our planet, Earth satellites are used. It is planned to launch 4,425 satellites for the implementation of the universal Internet access program, but there are already 800 satellites in space under this program.
It should be noted that there are currently several thousand satellites in orbit, which is of great concern to astronomers and the security service of manned space flights in Russia.
In fact, the entire population will be trapped for life in the electromagnetic grid of millimeter waves and no one will be able to avoid their impact.
MMW are easily shielded. Naturally, to cover a certain area with a millimeter cell, you will need to increase the number of base stations (BS). For example, with a cell radius of only 20 meters, you will need about 800 base stations per square kilometer and located 3-5 meters from the consumer. This is in sharp contrast, for example, with 3G and 4G-standards, which use large cells and have ranges from 2 to 15 km or more.
Given that MMW is absorbed in biotissues at a depth of up to 2 mm, only the skin and sclera of the eyes will be affected by them. Therefore, the authors rightly believe that when assessing the risk of MMV, it is necessary to take into account the appearance of new critical organs — the skin and eyes. The skin is a very complex biostructure, has a large number of receptors and is actually a "bio-relay" between the external environment and the functional state of the body.
Naturally, the introduction of 5G-technology raises new questions. First, the technical part of providing this type of communication. A significantly larger number of micro-antenna base station antennas per unit area with satellite support is needed. Second, there is a lack of a consistent methodology for hygienic rationing. Third, there are only assumptions about possible biological effects in the lifetime impact of MMW on populations and ecosystems. There are no data on possible bioeffects with constant exposure to MMW on the skin and sclera of the eyes. Targeted research is still not carried out both in Russia and abroad.
There are different perspectives on the assessment of the dangers of this new technology. The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assess the hazard only by adding the absorbed dose to existing standards. This is a small addition, and therefore the existing FCC and ICNIRP standards, approved in 1996, are not being revised. International standards, despite criticism from the scientific community and the European Union, have remained unchanged for more than 20 years.
The authors of the reviewed book consider this approach erroneous, because in this case, the radiation load on new critical organs — the skin and eyes--is not taken into account. They considered the significance of radiobiological criteria and the degree of risk, taking into account the emergence of new critical organs and the load on existing critical organs and systems, taking into account the lifetime exposure of the population to EMF. From this point of view, the book presents an assessment of the total radiobiological danger of planetary electromagnetic radiation exposure to the population.
The book offers new ways to reduce the electromagnetic load, taking into account 5G on the population. It is necessary to explain to the population that EMF is considered harmful and their safety is regulated by certain hygiene standards.
Exposure to EMF that exceeds these standards may negatively affect the health of the mobile user. In this regard, the population should strictly follow the existing hygiene recommendations. However, most people perceive gadgets simply as an element of convenient everyday communication without time limits, as a toy for children, for entertainment, using cellular communication without the need. The population should understand that by violating hygiene recommendations, they are putting themselves at a certain risk. This danger must be persistently explained and, above all, through the media. It is recommended to introduce such a concept as "The conscious risk". This is the first generalization on the problem of the danger of 5G-technologies, both in Russia and abroad.
Open access book (in Russian; 196 pp. pdf): http://bit.ly/Grigoriev5G My comments: A considerable amount of research suggests that exposure to millimeter waves can affect many organs of the body, not just the skin and the eyes.
--
John William Frank. Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? J Epidemiol Community Health. Published Online First: 19 January 2021. doi: 10.1136/jech-2019-213595.
Abstract
New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.
Conclusions and recommendation
In assessing causal evidence in environmental epidemiology, Bradford Hill himself pointed out that ‘the whole picture matters;’ he argued against prioritising any subset of his famous nine criteria for causation. One’s overall assessment of the likelihood that an exposure causes a health condition should take into account a wide variety of evidence, including ‘biological plausibility’. After reviewing the evidence cited above, the writer, an experienced physician-epidemiologist, is convinced that RF-EMFs may well have serious human health effects. While there is also increasing scientific evidence for RF-EMF effects of ecological concern in other species, both plant and animal, these have not been reviewed here, for reasons of space and the author’s disciplinary limitations. In addition, there is convincing evidence, cited above, that several nations’ regulatory apparatus, for telecommunications innovations such as the 5G roll-out, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, significant elements in that apparatus appear to have been captured by vested interests. Every society’s public health—and especially the health of those most likely to be susceptible to the hazard in question (in the case of EMFs, children and pregnant women)—needs to be protected by evidence-based regulations, free from significant bias.
Finally, this commentary would be remiss if it did not mention a widely circulating conspiracy theory, suggesting that 5G and related EMF exposures somehow contributed to the creation or spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are knowledgeable commentators’ reports on the web debunking this theory, and no respectable scientist or publication has backed it. Indeed, combatting it is widely viewed by the scientific community as critical to dealing with the pandemic, as conspiracy theorists holding this view have already carried out violent attacks on mobile phone transmission facilities and other symbolic targets, distracting the public and authorities at a time when pandemic control actions are paramount. 42 This writer completely supports that view of the broader scientific community: the theory that 5G and related EMFs have contributed to the pandemic is baseless.
It follows that, for the current 5G roll-out, there is a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’. This is the environmental and occupational health principle by which significant doubt about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure should be a reason to call a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects. In short, one should ‘err on the side of caution’. In the case of 5G transmission systems, there is no compelling public health or safety rationale for their rapid deployment. The main gains being promised are either economic (for some parties only, not necessarily with widely distributed financial benefits across the population) or related to increased consumer convenience. Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological point of view, those putative gains need to wait.
Open access paper: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595 or https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595.full.pdf --
Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra high frequency
Ugochukwu O. Matthew, Jazuli S. Kazaure. Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra high frequency. Health Technology (Berl). 2021 Jan 27: 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12553-020-00501-x.
Abstract
The wide-spectrum of non-ionizing, non-visible radiation emitted from the novel 5G network deployment was investigated and found liable to produce effects capable of heating up and altering human body nomenclature. The Ultra-high frequency magnetic fields, induced circulation of currents in the surrounding human body when potentially exposed. The quantum of these electromagnetic charges is influenced by the magnitude of the external magnetic field. The Magnetic fields warming is the major organic consequence of the electromagnetic fields radiofrequency radiation emitted from 5G network installation especially at a very high frequencies. From the current research, the levels of electromagnetic fields to which individuals are naturally unmasked under 4G network and 5G network technology in SCENARIO1, SCENARIO 2 and SCENARIO 3 are very negligible to alter human body dipolar chemistry. On the several findings of the research, deploying 5G network technology under the ultrahigh frequency above 20 GHz will produce effect that will heat up the human body tissues due to electromagnetic field inducement since human body is dipolar in nature. The research established that while the current digital society will continue investment into 5G network technology, caution must be applied not to deploy 5G network under ultra-high frequency above 20 GHz due to its adverse health effects.
Conclusions
From the knowledge and principle of electromagnetism, human beings are constituted of substantial amount of oriented cells with diverse electromagnetic field attributes. The Biological attributes of the human tissue under diverse electromagnetic radiative emission are studied and that had provided the basis upon which the current research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on the human body. The heating consequences of the radio electromagnetic waves from 5G network technology deployment had formed the fundamental basis for current research. 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. This is generally on the account that variations on dielectric properties of biological tissues with the frequency of the electromagnetic field inducement are very dissimilar. While it is very imperative to determine the frequency distribution in deploying the novel 5G network to avoid adverse dielectric dispersion that may flow into the human body.
Open access paper: https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/chemical-polarization-effects-of-electromagnetic-fieldradiation/18805704 --
New IEEE paper questions safety of exposure to 5G cell phone radiation There has been considerable public pressure in many countries including the U.S. to stop deployment of 5G due to potential health risks. Most of the attention has focused on the cell towers or base stations; however, the safety of using 5G cell phones and other 5G personal devices may be an even greater concern due to the proximity of these devices to our bodies.
A new peer-reviewed paper, "Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz," questions the safety of exposure to 5G millimeter waves. The authors found in a simulation study that use of a 5G cell phone at 28 GHz could exceed ICNIRP (i.e. international) radio frequency exposure limits when held at 8 centimeters (i.e., 3 inches) or closer to the head or body. Whereas the ICNIRP exposure limit for the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is 2.0 watts per kilogram averaged over 10 grams of tissue, the FCC limit is 2-3 times more conservative, namely the SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over only 1 gram of tissue. This means compliance with the FCC exposure limit would require a greater separation distance from the body than 8 centimeters in the U.S.
Although there have been numerous peer-reviewed papers that have raised serious concerns about the safety of exposure to 5G radiation and/or millimeter waves, this new paper is significant because it is published in an industry-sponsored journal, the November/December issue of IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine.
Seungmo Kim, Imtiaz Nasim. Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine. 9(6):41-48. Nov. 1 2020. DOI: 10.1109/MCE.2019.2956223.
Abstract
The fifth-generation wireless (5G) has already started showing its capability to achieve extremely fast data transfer, which makes itself considered to be a promising mobile technology. However, concerns have been raised on adverse health impacts that human users can experience in a 5G system by being exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This article investigates the human EMF exposure in a 5G system and compares them with those measured in the previous-generation cellular systems. It suggests a minimum separation distance between a transmitter and a human user for keeping the EMF exposure below the safety regulation level, which provides consumers with a general understanding on the safe use of 5G communications. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9090831
Excerpts
"First, we discuss the human EMF exposure in the downlink as well as the uplink. Most of the prior work studies the uplink only, while hardly paying attention to EMF emissions generated by BSs [base stations or cell towers] in a 5G network. Recall the aforementioned changes that the 5G adopts: 1) operation at higher carrier frequencies; 2) reduction of cell size (which leads to increase in number of BSs; and 3) concentration of higher EMF energy into an antenna beam. They all imply that in 5G, unlike the previous-generation wireless systems, the downlink can also be a threat to human health as well as the uplink.
Second, we suggest that both SAR [Specific Absorption Rate] and PD [power density] should be used to display human EMF exposure for a wireless system. The reason is that SAR captures an amount of EMF energy that is actually “absorbed” into human tissues, whereas PD is an efficient metric only to present the EMF energy being introduced to a human user.
Third, we present an explicit comparison of human EMF exposure in 5G to those in the currently deployed wireless standards....
Fourth, we consider the maximum possible exposure that a human user can experience...." "... in a 5G network, a consumer is likely to be exposed to high EMF energy more consistently. Nevertheless, it is easier to apply a “compliance distance” [17] in a downlink than in an uplink. Thus, this article suggests 1) an overhaul of the compliance distances defined in different standards and 2) the consumers’ discretion on being close to a BS...." "... the fact that a high-frequency EMF cannot penetrate deep into human skin does not mean that it is not dangerous.
Specifically, although the penetration is limited only at the skin surface, the SAR (illustrated as a heat map in Figure 4) can be higher within the concentrated area, which can cause subsequent health problems such as skin heating." Downlink vs. Uplink
"Figure 3(c) and (d) compare PD and SAR in uplink to the ICNIRP guidelines set at 10 W/m2 and 2W/kg, respectively. PD and SAR are remarkably higher in uplink than those in downlink, shown via a comparison of the results for uplink to those for downlink shown in Figure 3(a) and (b). It is attributed to smaller separation distance between a transmitter and a human body.
Imagine one talking on a voice call; it is a “direct” physical contact of the phone and the head! Also, it is significant to notice that no regulation exists at 28 GHz where this article investigates for 5G. As such, we refer to the ICNIRP's guideline that is set to be 2 W/kg by ICNIRP[11] at a frequency “below 10 GHz.” In Figure 3(d), it provides a ““inferred” understanding on SAR in an uplink. The zoom-in look shown in Figure 3(d) suggests that in 5G, use of a handheld device within the distance of 8 cm causes an EMF absorption exceeding 2 W/kg, which would have been prohibited if the carrier frequency was lower than 10 GHz. This implies the gravity of human EMF exposure in an uplink of 5G." Conclusion
"This article has discussed human EMF exposure in 5G operating at 28 GHz, while most of the prior work focuses only on the technological benefits that the technology brings. Considering the significance of wireless technologies in our daily life, the potential danger of using them should also be emphasized for sustainable advancement of the technologies. In this article, the first case study has demonstrated how much EMF exposure is caused in a 5G system compared to 4G and 3.9G. Then, the latter case study has suggested an adequate separation distance from a transmitter, in order to keep a human user from being exposed to EMF below a regulatory guideline. This article is expected to ignite continued interest in overarching research on the design of future wireless systems that achieve high performance while keeping consumer safety guaranteed.
However, considering the gravity of this issue, we suggest several directions to be achieved in our future research.
Human EMF exposure mitigation strategy: We are particularly interested in exploiting the technical features in future wireless systems—i.e., a larger number of BSs within a unit area. Such a paradigm change will enable a holistic, network-based approach to mitigate the EMF exposure as an optimization problem with a set of constraints representing the PD, SAR, and skin-temperature elevation.
Further studies regarding exact human health impacts caused by EMF exposure: The particular focus will be put on 1) skin dielectric effect with respect to frequency and 2) the effect of radiation when the body is covered with clothing or garment materials."
--
Modelling of Total Exposure in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios
Sven Kuehn, Serge Pfeifer, Beyhan Kochali, Niels Kuster. Modelling of Total Exposure in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios. Final Report of Project CRR-816. A report on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Zurich, IT'IS Foundation. 24 June 2019.
Executive Summary
In January 2019, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) mandated the IT’IS Foundation to evaluate the total human exposure in hypothetical 5G mobile networks for varied topologies and user scenarios to identify factors that would minimize the total exposure of the population. In this study, total exposure is defined as the combined exposure from network base stations, the user’s own device, as well as bystanders’ mobile devices.
The influence of various factors on total exposure in mobile communication networks (as defined above) was modeled and analyzed with the help of the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Total exposure is described as the local peak specific absorption rate (SAR) spatially averaged over any 10 g of tissue mass (psaSAR10g) averaged over a period of 6 minutes. The unit psaSAR10g was chosen because it defines the governing basic restriction for wireless exposure as the whole-body average SAR limits (wbaSAR) are intrinsically met if the limits of local exposure are satisfied. The averaging duration of 6 minutes constitutes the internationally accepted averaging time to prevent thermal hazards at frequencies below 6 GHz as instant values have little justification. However, it should be noted that some regulators define shorter averaging time periods, e.g., the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of 100 s.
In a first step, we analyzed the tissue-specific exposure as a function of frequency. The preliminary dosimetric study showed that exposure of the human brain to the 3.6 GHz band, that has been recently added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, is reduced by a factor of >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile network operation at <1 GHz.
This reduction is due to the smaller penetration depth at higher frequencies. This conclusion, however, does not apply to exposed tissues close to the surface or skin (eyes, testicles, etc.) when the peak SAR in this tissue is evaluated. The peak SAR in the grey matter remains in approximately the same order of magnitude (3 dB) over all frequencies but the area of high exposure is reduced at 3.6 GHz.
In a second step, we used data measured in 4G systems and analyzed the latest mobile network standards to extrapolate the exposures for various 5G network scenarios. These measured data were also used to extrapolate the exposure to the future development of data usage in 5G networks.
Specifically, we analyzed the effect on the total exposure of (i) the network topology by varying the cell size and amount of indoor coverage in the network, as well as the usage of (ii) an individual’s own device, and (iii) devices of close bystanders.
The results – based on simulations of more than 200 different exposure scenarios – reveal that, for all user types, except for non-users (including passive mobile phone users and users dominantly using downlink data traffic, e.g., video streaming), total exposure is dominated by the person’s own mobile device. Compared to non-users, the exposure is increased (i) for light users (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or a factor of 4 to 10), (ii) for moderate users (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or a factor of 20 to >300), and (iii) for heavy users by 15 – 40 dB (or a factor of 30 to >10000). Further, the results show that peak exposure of non-users is not defined by exposure to base stations but by exposure to mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.
While a reduction of the mobile cell size leads to a reduction in total exposure by a factor of 2 to10 for people actively using their mobile devices, this might also lead to a small increase by a factor of 1.6 in total exposure of non-users due the generally increased incident signal levels from the surrounding base stations.
Similarly, the exposure of active users can be reduced by a factor of 4 to 600 by increasing the indoor network coverage. Yet, in line with the results for the mobile cell sizes, increased indoor coverage will also lead to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. This increase, however, starts at a level 1000 times lower than the typical total exposure of active users.
The results of this study show that the personal mobile device is the dominant exposure source for active mobile network users.
Besides a person’s own usage behavior, total exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network with a lower path loss, i.e., smaller cells and additional indoor coverage, helps to reduce total exposure. The exposure per transmitted bit is reduced by a factor of <3 by the increased spectral efficiency of the 5G technology, and the reduced penetration depth associated with the new bands at 3.5 – 3.8 GHz.
The results presented above are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated in this report. Furthermore, it only considers time-averaged (6 min) and not instant exposures. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links, for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), and (iii) millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.
Conclusions
The results of this study show that the absorption of energy by the human brain, resulting from exposure to the 3.6 GHz band newly added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, is reduced by a factor >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile networks operating at <1 GHz, and by a factor of >2 when compared to the frequency bands at 1.8 – 2GHz.
For deep brain regions, the reduction is much larger.
The reduced exposure for these regions is due to lower penetration depths at higher frequencies. Close to the surface (eyes, testicles, etc.) the exposure can be higher. At the most exposed surface of the grey matter, the values remain approximately 3 dB over all frequencies whereas the area of high exposure is reduced.
More than 200 Monte Carlo simulated exposure scenarios have been analyzed to evaluate total human exposure in 5G Networks for different topologies and user scenarios. The results show that for all users (except non-users), the total exposure is dominated by a person’s own mobile device. Compared to a non-user, the exposure is increased for a light user (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or by a factor 4 to 10), for a moderate user (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or by a factor of 20 to >300), and for a heavy user by 25 – 40 dB (or a factor of 300 to >10000). The peak exposure of nonusers is further not defined by exposure to surrounding base stations but by mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas, resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.
Reducing the diameter of the mobile cell leads to a decreased overall exposure by a factor of 2 to 10 for people who actively use their mobile devices. At the same time, the reduction in cell size might lead to a small increase by a factor <2 in exposure for non-users. The exposure of active users can be reduced by factors ranging from 4 to 600 by increasing indoor network coverage which, in turn, will be linked to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. However, such an increase is by a factor 1000 lower than the typical exposure of active users. The results of this study are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated earlier in this report. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO and multi-user MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links – for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and (iii) millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.
In summary, the results of this study show that the user’s own mobile device is the dominant source of exposure for the population of active mobile network users. Besides personal usage patterns, totl exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network that decreases the path loss by means of smaller cells and additional indoor coverage will help to reduce the total exposure of the population. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/en/dokumente/elektrosmog/externe-studien-berichte/modelling-of-total-exposure-in-hypothetical-5g-mobile-networks-for-variedtopologies-and-user-scenarios.pdf.download.pdf/Modelling%20of%20Total%20Exposure%20in%20Hypothetical%205G%20Networks%20-%20Schlussbericht.pdf --
Oct 14, 2020
5G Research from the EMF-Portal Archive
As of June 1, 2020, the EMF-Portal archive listed 133 papers and letters to the editor published in professional journals and presentations at professional conferences that focus on 5G research. Although most discuss technical or dosimetric issues (n = 92), 41 citations address other issues including potential biologic or health effects.
In all, the EMF-Portal archive references more than 30,000 publications and presentations on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. The Portal is a project based at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany.
Currently, no peer-reviewed, empirical studies of the biologic or health effects from actual exposure to 5G radiation have been published. Hence, those who claim that 5G is safe because it complies with radiofrequency exposure guidelines are engaging in sophistry.
These guidelines were designed to protect the population from short-term heating (or thermal) risks. However, numerous peerreviewed studies have found adverse biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity or non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Hence, more than 240 EMF scientists who have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal have recommended that “guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened”:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines….
The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.” To download the list of 133 papers and presentations: bit.ly/EmfPortal5G --
5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik. 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand. ACNEM Journal. 39(1). July 2020.
No abstract.
Excerpts
"There is an urgent need for clinicians and medical scientists in the Australia-New Zealand region to engage in an objective discussion around the potential health impacts of the fifth generation (5G) wireless technology currently being deployed. The statements of assurance by the industry and government parties that dominate the media in our region are at odds with the warnings of hundreds of scientists actively engaged in research on biological/health effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation/fields (EMR/EMF). (1) There have been worldwide public protests as well as appeals by professionals and the general public (2) that have compelled many cities in Europe to declare moratoria on 5G deployment and to begin investigations. In contrast, there is no medically-oriented professional discussion on this public health topic in Australia and New Zealand, where 5G deployment is being expedited. 5G is untested for safety on humans and other species and the limited existing evidence raises major concerns that need to be addressed. The vast body of research literature on biological/health effects of ‘wireless radiation’ (radiofrequency EMR) (3,4) indicates a range of health-related issues associated with different types of wireless technologies (1G-4G, WiFi, Bluetooth, Radar, radio/TV transmission, scanning and surveillance systems). These are used in a wide range of personal devices in common use (mobile/cordless phones, computers, baby monitors, games consoles etc) without users being aware of the health risks. Furthermore, serious safety concerns arise from the extra complexity of 5G as follows:
• 5G carrier waves use a much broader part of the microwave spectrum including waves with wavelengths in the millimetre range (hence called ‘millimetre waves’) which will be used in the second phase of 5G). Until now, millimetre waves have had limited applications such as radar, point-to-point communications links and non-lethal military weapons. (5)
• Extremely complex modulation patterns involving numerous frequencies form novel exposures. • Beam formation characteristics can produce hotspots of high unknown intensities. • A vast number of antenna arrays will add millions of microwave transmitters globally in addition to the existing RF transmitters thereby greatly increasing human exposure. This includes 5G small cell antennas to be erected every 200- 250 metres on street fixtures, such as power poles and bus shelters, many of which will be only metres from homes with the homeowners having absolutely no say in where the antennas will be located.
This massive leap in human exposure to RF-EMR from 5G is occurring in a setting where the existing scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates biological interference, (3,4) therefore suggesting the need to urgently reduce exposure...." "As for the new 5G technology, it is concerning that leading experts in the technical field (6) have reported the possibility of damaging thermal spikes under the current exposure guidelines (from beam forming 5G millimetre waves that transfer data with short bursts of high energy) and some animals and children may be at an increased risk due to smaller body size. Even working within the entirely thermally-based current regulatory process, they pointed out 5G millimetre waves “may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines”. (6) Microwave experts from the US Air Force have reported on ‘Brillouin Precursors’ created by sharp transients at the leading and trailing edges of pulses of mm waves, when beam forming fast millimetre waves create moving charges in the body which penetrate deeper than explained in the conventional models, and have the potential to cause tissue damage. (7) In fact, concerns about moving charges affecting deep tissue are associated with other forms of pulsed RF radiation currently used for wireless communications. This may be one factor explaining why the pulsed radiation used in wireless communication technologies is more biologically active than continuous RF radiation. (8) Such effects of high energy 5G mm waves could have potentially devastating consequences for species with small body size and also creatures that have innate sensitivity to EMF, which include birds and bees that use nature’s EMFs for navigation. (9) Unfortunately, non-thermal effects and chronic exposure effects are not addressed in the current guidelines. (10)"
"Our investigation into the scientific literature has found RF-EMR to be a potent inducer of oxidative stress even at so-called “low-intensity” exposures (which are in fact billions of times higher than in nature (26)) such as those from commonly used wireless devices. An analysis (22) of 242 publications (experimental studies) which had investigated endpoints related to oxidative stress - biomarkers of oxidative damage such as 8-oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine (indicating oxidative DNA damage) and/or altered antioxidant levels - revealed that 216 studies (89%) had reported such findings (Fig. 1). This evidence base on RFassociated oxidative stress from 26 countries (only one study from Australia and none from New Zealand) is relatively new and mostly post 2010, i.e. after the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMR as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. Moreover, 180 studies out of the 242 (74.7%) were in vivo studies (including several human studies) which presents strong evidence.
"Proponents of 5G often dismiss concerns about health risks claiming that 5G microwaves will minimally penetrate the skin and therefore any effects are limited to minor skin heating (and they acknowledge that there is some uncertainty around heating effects on the eyes). The medical community understands that skin is the largest organ of the human body and a key part of the neuro-immune and neuro-endocrine systems. Natural UVA and UVB (also so-called non-ionizing radiation) that penetrate the skin less than 5G millimetre waves have profound effects on health and wellbeing of humans. Therefore, artificial 5G waves must be subjected to rigorous safety testing."
"Unfortunately, the questionable conduct of regulatory agencies such as ARPANSA and WHO’s international EMF Project (43) with conflicts of interest due to funding links to the wireless industry (44) remains to be investigated. More open questioning and protests are appearing in Europe and North America where there is some level of engagement on the part of government bodies in response to warnings of adverse health effects of anthropogenic EMF/EMR by expert medical bodies such as EUROPAEM and AAEM (31,32) (despite industry opposition)."
--
5G Communication Technology and Coronavirus Disease [Health Matters] James C. Lin. 5G Communication Technology and Coronavirus Disease [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 21(9):16-
19. Sep 2020.
No abstract.
Excerpts
"The fact is that there is no link between the COVID-19 virus and 5G cell phone technology or 5G base-station communication towers. These are totally different constructs; they are not even close. None of the conspiracy theories that try to link 5G and the coronavirus make any sense scientifically."
"For biological matters, it is not obvious whether the biological responses to high-band 5G radiation will be akin to earlier generations or low-band 5G radiations, given the distinctive characteristics of mm-wave [millimeter wave] and its interaction with the complex structure and composition of pertinent biological tissues." "It is important to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini RF exposure studies presented similar findings in terms of heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. Thus, two relatively well-conducted RF exposure studies employing the same strain of rats showed consistent results in significantly increased cancer risks. More recently, an advisory group for the IARC has recommended including reevaluation of the carcinogenicity of human exposure to RF radiation, with high priority, in their monograph series [7]."
"... the 5G frequency domain is divided into low, mid, and high bands. The operating frequencies at low and mid bands can overlap with the current 4G band at 6 GHz or below. Thus, the biological effects of RF radiation at these lower frequency bands are likely to be comparable to 2, 3, or 4G. However, the scenarios of high-band 5G—especially for 24–60 GHz in the mm-wave region for high-capacity, short-range wireless data communications—are relatively recent arrivals and pose considerable challenge to health risk assessment. There is a paucity of data on permittivity and coupling, such as reflection, transmission, and induced energy deposition, in biological tissues in the mm-wave frequency band." "Induced energy deposition increases with mm-wave frequency. However, at the highest frequencies, the energy deposition in the deeper regions inside the skin is lower because of the reduced penetration depth at these frequencies [11]." "A recently published review [13] included 45 in vivo studies conducted using laboratory animals and other biological preparations and 53 in vitro studies involving primary cells and cultured cell lines.... This industry-supported review noted that, aside from the wide frequency ranges, the studies were diverse both in subjects and in the end points investigated. Biological effects were observed to occur both in vivo and in vitro for different biological endpoints studied. Indeed, the percentage of positive responses at nonthermal levels in most frequency groups was as high as 70%." "While many of these investigations with mm-wave exposures reported biological responses, there is inconsistency in the dependence of biological effects and mm-wave intensity used for exposure. Also, the reported in vitro and in vivo laboratory investigations are modest in number and diverse in subject matter, considering the wide 5G/mmwave frequency domain. The jury on the biological effect or health impact is still out on 5G. Moreover, there is a lack of ongoing controlled laboratory investigations. Simply put, the existing scientific data are too limited for any reliable assessment or conclusion with certainty." https://ieeexplore-ieee-org/document/9154657
--
Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020 Jul;41(5):392-397. doi: 10.1002/bem.22267.
Abstract
Current limits for exposures to nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are set, based on relatively short-term exposures. Longterm exposures to weak EMF are not addressed in the current guidelines. Nevertheless, a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long-term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health.
If they do, the public health issues could be important because of the very large fraction of the population worldwide that is exposed. We also discuss research that needs to be done to clarify questions about the effects of weak fields. In addition to the current short-term exposure guidelines, we propose an approach to how weak field exposure guidelines for long-term exposures might be set, in which the responsibility for limiting exposure is divided between the manufacturer, system operator, and individual being exposed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32311139/
Excerpts
“Both IEEE and ICNIRP base their analyses on rigorous reviews of the scientific literature and on established firm evidence of health effects in humans. The present guidelines are based on acute exposures; to date both IEEE and ICNIRP have not found sufficient evidence to include health effects of long-term exposures at lower levels. However, over the last 20 years the evidence has become extremely strong that weaker EMF over the whole range for frequencies from static through millimeter waves can modify biological processes. There is now solid experimental evidence and supporting theory showing that weak fields, especially but not exclusively at low frequencies, can modify reactive free radical concentrations and that changes in radical concentration and that of other signaling molecules, such as hydrogen peroxide and calcium, can modify biological processes …”
“The evidence that weak radiofrequency (RF) and low-frequency fields can modify human health is still less strong, but the experiments supporting both conclusions are too numerous to be uniformly written off as a group due to poor technique, poor dosimetry, or lack of blinding in some cases, or other good laboratory practices. Based on recent studies by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) [Smith‐Roe et al., 2020] and the Ramazzini Foundation [Falcioni et al., 2018] as well as laboratory data, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has declared RF fields as possible human carcinogens [IARC, 2013]. A recent paper extends the NTP studies by evaluating genotoxicity in animals exposed to fields at or over the guideline limits and found DNA damage in Comet assays [Smith‐Roe et al., 2020]. Many other papers indicate similar results, but many negative results are also in the literature.”
“PROPOSED APPROACH TO SETTING EXPOSURE LIMITS
From these and other lines of solid research, the guidelines for exposure could be revised. Increased emphasis on long-term exposures may require refining the concept of dose to more flexibly combine exposure time and field intensity or energy absorbed. Eventual guidelines might suggest limiting cell phone calls to X hours per day with exposure levels above Y W/m2, and for Z days per week exposure should be less than Y W/m2 to allow the body to reset its baseline.” “What is missing in the current guidelines or regulations are guidelines for long-term exposure to weak EMF….” “Guidelines should be set at three levels: the individual user, local company, and national or international level…. External guidance, in terms of informed recommendations or at least analysis of various intensities and styles of usage from some agency such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or NIH, would be useful.
Limits on the time for operations of base stations and exposures in adjacent living spaces are not controlled by the user and must be set by competent authorities, based on scientific evidence. It is likely to be difficult to specify times when exposures to RF signals are zero or below some limit. What will be needed is being able to say with some certainty that exposure below a given level has not been shown to cause changes in body chemistry above some level. A starting point might be current levels from TV and radio stations that are large enough to give signal-to-noise ratios around 20 dB (100-fold) with typical receiving systems. Currently, mean values for the population's exposure to these systems are estimated to be around 0.1 V/m and peak exposures range up to 2 V/m, which exceed current exposure limits for a small fraction of the population. Therefore, one starting point for exposure limits might be an average of 0.1 V/m, not based on research but on practicality, until further research results dictate either a lower or higher limit.”
--
Effects of 5G Wireless Communication on Human Health
Karaboytcheva M. Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).
Briefing document: PE 646.172. March 2020.
Summary
The fifth generation of telecommunications technologies, 5G, is fundamental to achieving a European gigabit society by 2025.
The aim to cover all urban areas, railways and major roads with uninterrupted fifth generation wireless communication can only be achieved by creating a very dense network of antennas and transmitters. In other words, the number of higher frequency base stations and other devices will increase significantly.
This raises the question as to whether there is a negative impact on human health and environment from higher frequencies and billions of additional connections, which, according to research, will mean constant exposure for the whole population, including children.
Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce. Accordingly, a section of the scientific community considers that more research on the potential negative biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and 5G is needed, notably on the incidence of some serious human diseases. A further consideration is the need to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular medicine and physics or engineering, to conduct further research into the effects of 5G.
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.
In this Briefing
Difference between 5G and current technology
Regulation of electromagnetic fields and 5G exposure
European Parliament Research on EMF and 5G effects on human health Stakeholders' views
The road ahead for 5G
Open access paper: http://bit.ly/EUParl5G
--
Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions Kostoff RN, Heroux P, Aschner M, Tsatsakis A. Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters. 323(1):35-40. May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020.
Highlights
• Identifies wide-spectrum of adverse health effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation • Most laboratory experiments were not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of real-life conditions • Many experiments do not include the real-life pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal • Vast majority of experiments do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli with wireless radiation • 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects as well Abstract
This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation.
This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31991167
--
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation Hardell L, Nyberg R. [Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. Molecular and Clinical Oncology. Published online January 22, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2020.1984.
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz‑300 GHz is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non‑Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non‑governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non‑thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry‑independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.
Excerpt
In conclusion, this article demonstrates that the EU has given mandate to a 13‑member, non‑governmental private group, the ICNIRP, to decide upon the RF radiation guidelines. The ICNIRP, as well as SCENIHR, are well shown not to use the sound evaluation of science on the detrimental effects of RF radiation, which is documented in the research which is discussed above (9,10,21‑24,54,55). These two small organizations are producing reports which seem to deny the existence of scientific published reports on the related risks. It should perhaps be questioned whether it is in the realm of protecting human health and the environment by EU and whether the safety of EU citizens and the environment can be protected by not fully understanding the health‑related risks.
Open access paper: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mco.2020.1984/download --
Spatial and Time Averaging Restrictions Within the Electromagnetic Exposure Safety Framework in the Frequency Range Above 6 GHz
Neufeld E, Samaras T, Kuster N. Discussion on Spatial and Time Averaging Restrictions Within the Electromagnetic Exposure Safety Framework in the Frequency Range Above 6 GHz for Pulsed and Localized Exposures. Bioelectromagnetics. 2019 Dec
30. doi: 10.1002/bem.22244.
Abstract
Both the current and newly proposed safety guidelines for local human exposure to millimeter-wave frequencies aim at restricting the maximum local temperature increase in the skin to prevent tissue damage. In this study, we show that the application of the current and proposed limits for pulsed fields can lead to a temperature increase of 10°C for short pulses and frequencies between 6 and 30 GHz. We also show that the proposed averaging area of 4 cm2 , that is greatly reduced compared with the current limits, does not prevent high-temperature increases in the case of narrow beams. A realistic Gaussian beam profile with a 1 mm radius can result in a temperature increase about 10 times higher than the 0.4°C increase the same averaged power density would produce for a plane wave. In the case of pulsed narrow beams, the values for the time and spatial-averaged power density allowed by the proposed new guidelines could result in extreme temperature increases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31885092
Excerpts
.... In this letter, we look at limits, such as those currently proposed or recently approved for the revised ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE standard, and investigate whether such limits are consistent with the stated goals of the exposure safety frameworks of preventing excessive heating in the case of pulsed and/or localized radiation. In cases when they are not consistent, we discuss how consistency can be achieved. In line with the above mentioned safety standards and exposure guidelines, the presented analysis focuses exclusively on the magnitude of the tissue temperature increase as a risk factor and does not consider other aspects, such as the thermoelastic effect related to the rapidity of temperature increase.....
In conclusion, the results presented above demonstrate that, in the case of very short pulses, pulse‐duration‐independent limits imposed on transmitted energy density (fluence) alone cannot preclude the induction of high‐temperature increases in the skin.
Pulse‐duration‐dependent limits should be applied also for pulses less than 1 s and possibly less than 30 GHz as well. Even though the amplifiers of the currently developed consumer devices will not allow the full exploitation of the limits of the guidelines, the guidelines should not implicitly rely on this, as they will be used to develop exposure assessment standards with the aim of ensuring safety of any future technology, e.g. IEC/IEEE 63195 [2018]. Accordingly, either assumption must be explicitly stated in the guidelines, or the limits should be adapted to be intrinsically safe. In the absence of limitations applied to the peak‐to‐average power ratio of pulses, it is possible to deliver to the body large amounts of energy within a very short time interval. For millimeter‐wave frequencies, where the absorption is superficial, this results in fast and dramatic temperature rises, as the step response function is proportional to the rapidly rising ... rather than the ... commonly encountered for deeper heating.
As far as spatial averaging is concerned, it has been shown that an averaging area smaller than 4 cm2 should be introduced in Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
EMR Safety Home Page
Overview of Contents
Latest News
Cell phone cancer risk: Spin vs. Fact
Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure
About / Welcome to EMR Safety
Key Posts
▼ 2021 (35)
▼ November (7)
The "Havana syndrome": A special case of electrohy...
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electrom...
Health Effects of Cellphone & Cell Tower Radiation...
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
Female Infertility & Cell Phone Radiation
Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies
Overview of Contents
► October (3)
► September (4)
► August (3)
► July (6)
► June (2)
► May (2)
► April (1)
► March (4)
► February (2)
► January (1)
► 2020 (26)
► 2019 (18)
► 2018 (20)
► 2017 (11)
► 2016 (24)
► 2015 (26)
► 2014 (10)
► 2013 (40)
Archive
More Create Blog Sign In
pgg , gg
order to avoid peak PDs in narrow beams [Neufeld and Kuster, 2018] that overheat the tissues. With increasing beam radius, e.g. at larger distances from the antenna(s), the tolerable averaging area increases rapidly, provided that there are no sharp exposure peaks. Duration‐independent limits on the fluence of pulses are not suitable. They should either be replaced by duration‐dependent fluence limits for pulses or by limits on the (temporal) peak exposure. In both cases, the limits should be set after taking narrow‐beam exposures into consideration. These limits will depend on the chosen spatial and temporal averaging schemes and the maximum temperature increase deemed acceptable. Forward‐looking knowledge about the technical needs and priorities of the industry could allow for selecting the balance between thresholds (averaging time and area, peak‐to‐average ratio, PD) to minimally impact the technological potential using the same limit‐setting framework. --
5G mobile networks rated as "high impact" risk for insurance industry in new Emerging Risk report from Swiss Re
Swiss Re, one of the world's leading providers of insurance and reinsurance, rated 5G as a "high impact" risk for the insurance industry that may affect property and casualty claims in more than 3 years.
Off the leash – 5G mobile networks
"5G – short for fifth generation – is the latest standard for cellular mobile communications. Providing ultrafast broadband connection with higher capacity and lower latency, 5G is not only heaven for your smartphone. It will enable wireless connectivity in real time for any device of the Internet of things (IoT), whether that be autonomous cars or sensor-steered factory. In doing so, it will allow decentralised seamless interconnectivity between devices. To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence.
Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker. A large-scale breakthrough of autonomous cars and other IoT applications will mean that security features need to be enhanced at the same pace. Without, interruption and subversion of the 5G platform could trigger catastrophic, cumulative damage. With a change to more automation facilitated by new technology like 5G, we might see a further shift from motor to more general and product liability insurance. There are also worries about privacy issues (leading to increased litigation risks), security breaches and espionage. The focus is not only on hacking by third parties, but also potential breaches from built-in hard- or software “backdoors.” In addition, the market for 5G infrastructure is currently focussed on a couple of firms, and that raises the spectre of concentration risk. Potential impacts:
· Cyber exposures are significantly increased with 5G, as attacks become faster and higher in volume. This increases the challenge of defence.
· Growing concerns of the health implications of 5G may lead to political friction and delay of implementation, and to liability claims. The introductions of 3G and 4G faced similar challenges. · Information security and national sovereignty concerns might delay implementation of 5G further, increasing uncertainty for planning authorities, investors, tech companies and insurers. · Heated international dispute over 5G contractors and potential for espionage or sabotage could affect international cooperation, and impact financial markets negatively. · As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency."
Source: Swiss Re. SONAR – New emerging risk insights. Zurich, Switzerland: Sustainability, Emerging and Political Risk Management, Swiss Re Institute, Strategy Development & Performance Management. May 2019. page 29. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html --
5G Deployment
Blackman C, Forge S. 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA, and Asia. Study for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg, 2019.
Download the report at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf Excerpts
“It is becoming clear that 5G [fifth generation cellular technology] will cost much more to deploy than previous mobile technologies (perhaps three times as much) as it is more complex and requires a denser coverage of base stations to provide the expected capacity. The European Commission has estimated that it will cost €500 billion to meet its 2025 connectivity targets, which includes 5G coverage in all urban areas.
As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment. However, we are yet to see significant “demand-pull” that could assure sales. These campaign efforts are also aimed at the MNOs [mobile network operators] but they have limited capacity to invest in the new technology and infrastructure as their returns from investment in 3G and 4G are still being recouped.
The notion of a “race” is part of the campaign but it is becoming clear that the technology will take much longer than earlier generations to perfect. China, for instance, sees 5G as at least a ten-year programme to become fully working and completely rolled out nationally. This is because the technologies involved with 5G are much more complex. One aspect, for example, that is not well understood today is the unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation.”
“Although lower frequencies, many in the UHF [ultra high frequency] range, are being proposed for the first phase of 5G networks, much higher radio frequencies are also projected in bands traditionally used for radars and microwave links. Whether this will transpire is still open to question. These frequencies are being commercially tested by some (e.g. by AT&T in the USA at 28 GHz [gigahertz]). The new bands are well above the UHF ranges, being either in centimetric (3-30 GHz) or in millimetric bands (30-300 GHz) and popularly branded “mmWave”, but present technical challenges that are expensive to solve.” “Although many 5G networks currently being piloted will use the much lower bands, those upper frequencies being proposed for the future may offer propagation ranges only in the order of hundreds or even tens of metres. Higher frequency signals are also subject to more interference from weather – rain, snow, fog – and obstacles - wet foliage or buildings and their walls. This means that, at higher frequencies, indoor use may be problematic if based on through-wall or window penetration. Consequently, re-use of the existing UHF bands and also those just above in the 3-10 GHz range (“mid-range”) are emphasised today, to give 5G signals greater range with fewer technical challenges.” “With higher frequencies and shortened ranges, base stations will be more closely packed into a given area to give complete coverage that avoids “not-spots”. Ranges of 20-150 metres may be typical, giving smaller coverage areas per “small cell”. A cell radius of 20 metres would imply about 800 base stations per square kilometre (or small area wireless access points (SAWAPs), the term used in the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)). That contrasts with 3G and 4G which use large or “macro” cells. Traditionally they offer ranges of 2-15 km or more and so can cover a larger area but with fewer simultaneous users as they have fewer individual channels.”
5G Electromagnetic Radiation and Safety
“Significant concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G. Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.
The 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.”
USA
“The USA is moving towards some form of rollout of mobile broadband as 5G but not necessarily in a holistic, well-orchestrated operation. It is more a set of ad hoc commercial manoeuvres. Some of these are simply rebranding existing LTE, rather than delivering novel networks. Re-use of the LTE spectrum in the UHF ranges (300 MHz to 3 GHz) is significant. The latter decision is probably warranted by its geography of large rural spaces and high density urban centres situated more on the coasts. Thus, the insistence for 5G on high centimetric bands (25–30 GHz and higher) is probably less justified than for the dense conurbations of Asia and the EU.
A significant challenge concerns the administrative local barriers to small cell rollout. The need for many small cells implies long delays and high costs. Local regulations continue to prevail despite the FCC’s mandate on a light-touch regime and minimal permit costs. This has led to a wide divide between local and central government on the principles of having to obtain permission for rollout and the charges for that. Local administrations, especially in the larger municipalities, are at loggerheads with the FCC (Zima, 2018). Several court challenges are being made to the FCC mandate of August 2018 that overrides local objections to a “one-touch” regime.”
--
How Harmful is 5G?
Harald Schumann and Elisa Simantke. How harmful is 5G really? Der Tagesspiegel, Jan 15, 2019. (In German. For English translation email me at [email protected].)
"5G should transfer huge amounts of data quickly. But it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger." Investigate Europe reports on the current state of the science and exposes the harmful roles that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization's International EMF Project, and the EU Commission's Scientific Committee on New Health Risks (SCENIHR) have played in paving the way for the deployment of 5G without regard to health consequences.
Investigate Europe is a pan-European journalist team that researches topics of European relevance and publishes the results across Europe. The project is supported by several foundations, the Open Society Initiative for Europe, and readers' donations.
Among the media partners for the report on 5G include "Newsweek Polska", "Diario de Noticias", "Il Fatto Quotidiano", "De Groene Amsterdamer", "Efimerida ton Syntakton", "Aftenbladet" and the "Falter". In addition to the authors, Crina Boros, Wojciech Ciesla, Ingeborg Eliassen, Juliet Ferguson, Nikolas Leontopoulos, Maria Maggiore, Leila Minano, Paulo Pena and Jef Poortmans contributed to this.
More about the project: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/the-5g-mass-experiment/ https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/mobilfunk-wie-gesundheitsschaedlich-ist-5g-wirklich/23852384.html Literature Reviews
5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz
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 Sep 13;16(18). pii: E3406. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183406.
Abstract
The introduction of the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication will increase the number of high-frequency-powered base stations and other devices. The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6-100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact. This review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations. Each study was characterized for: study type (in vivo, in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density), results, and certain quality criteria. Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects.
The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.
Conclusions
Since the ranges up to 30 GHz and over 90 GHz are sparingly represented, this review mainly covers studies done in the frequency range from 30.1 to 65 GHz.
In summary, the majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses. From this observation, however, no indepth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6–100 GHz frequency range. The studies are very different and the total number of studies is surprisingly low. The reactions occur both in vivo and in vitro and affect all biological endpoints studied.
There does not seem to be a consistent relationship between intensity (power density), exposure time, or frequency, and the effects of exposure. On the contrary, and strikingly, higher power densities do not cause more frequent responses, since the percentage of responses in most frequency groups is already at 70%. Some authors refer to their study results as having “nonthermal” causes, but few have applied appropriate temperature controls. The question therefore remains whether warming is the main cause of any observed MMW effects?
In order to evaluate and summarize the 6–100 GHz data in this review, we draw the following conclusions:
Regarding the health effects of MMW in the 6–100 GHz frequency range at power densities not exceeding the exposure guidelines the studies provide no clear evidence, due to contradictory information from the in vivo and in vitro investigations.
Regarding the possibility of “non-thermal” effects, the available studies provide no clear explanation of any mode of action of observed effects.
Regarding the quality of the presented studies, too few studies fulfill the minimal quality criteria to allow any further conclusions.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/18/3406 --
EMF safety guidelines are fraudulent:
The consequences for microwave frequency exposures and 5G Pall M. Eight repeatedly documented findings each show that EMF safety guidelines do not predict biological effects and are, therefore fraudulent: The consequences for both microwave frequency exposures and also 5G. Second Edition, May 23, 2019.
Abstract
ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines.
Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses.
The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety.
Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these “safety guidelines.” Open access paper: http://bit.ly/RFguidelinesPall190523 --
5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health & Environmental Implications Russell CL. 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research. 2018 Aug;165:484-495. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016.
Abstract
The popularity, widespread use and increasing dependency on wireless technologies has spawned a telecommunications industrial revolution with increasing public exposure to broader and higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit data through a variety of devices and infrastructure. On the horizon, a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to power the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT promises us convenient and easy lifestyles with a massive 5G interconnected telecommunications network, however, the expansion of broadband with shorter wavelength radiofrequency radiation highlights the concern that health and safety issues remain unknown. Controversy continues with regards to harm from current 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies. 5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects.
It is argued that 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 both from both physical and mental health perspectives.
Radiofrequency radiation (RF) is increasingly being recognized as a new form of environmental pollution. Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be nonlinear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated.
This article will review relevant electromagnetic frequencies, exposure standards and current scientific literature on the health implications of 2G, 3G, 4G exposure, including some of the available literature on 5G frequencies. The question of what constitutes a public health issue will be raised, as well as the need for a precautionary approach in advancing new wireless technologies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646
Conclusion
Although 5G technology may have many unimagined uses and benefits, it is also increasingly clear that significant negative consequences to human health and ecosystems could occur if it is widely adopted. Current radiofrequency radiation wavelengths we are exposed to appear to act as a toxin to biological systems. A moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted, along with development of independent health and environmental advisory boards that include independent scientists who research biological effects and exposure levels of radiofrequency radiation. Sound regulatory policy regarding current and future telecommunications initiative will require more careful assessment of risks to human health, environmental health, public safety, privacy, security and social consequences. Public health regulations need to be updated to match appropriate independent science with the adoption of biologically based exposure standards prior to further deployment of 4G or 5G technology.
Considering the current science, lack of relevant exposure standards based on known biological effects and data gaps in research, we need to reduce our exposure to RF EMR where ever technically feasible. Laws or policies which restrict the full integrity of science and the scientific community with regards to health and environmental effects of wireless technologies or other toxic exposures should be changed to enable unbiased, objective and precautionary science to drive necessary public policies and regulation. Climate change, fracking, toxic emissions and microwave radiation from wireless devices all have something in common with smoking. There is much denial and confusion about health and environmental risks, along with industry insistence for absolute proof before regulatory action occurs (Frentzel-Beyme, 1994; Michaels 2008). There are many lessons we have not learned with the introduction of novel substances, which later became precarious environmental pollutants by not heeding warning signs from scientists (Gee, 2009). The threats of these common pollutants continue to weigh heavily on the health and well being of our nation. We now accept them as the price of progress. If we do not take precautions but wait for unquestioned proof of harm will it be too late at that point for some or all of us? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161 --
Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are there Health Implications? Di Ciaula A. Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Apr;221(3):367- 375. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011.
Highlights
• RF-EMF exposure is rising and health effects of are still under investigation. • Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested. • 5G networks could have health effects and will use MMW, still scarcely explored. • Adequate knowledge of RF-EMF biological effects is also needed in clinical practice. • Underrating the problem could lead to a further rise in noncommunicable diseases.
Abstract
The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as "possible carcinogenic to humans", and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance.
In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW).
Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics.
Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696
--
Effects of Millimeter Waves Radiation on Cell Membrane - A Brief Review Ramundo-Orlando A. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane - A brief review. J Infrared Milli Terahz Waves. 2010; 30 (12): 1400-1411.
Abstract
The millimeter waves (MMW) region of the electromagnetic spectrum, extending from 30 to 300 GHz in terms of frequency (corresponding to wavelengths from 10 mm to 1 mm), is officially used in non-invasive complementary medicine in many Eastern European countries against a variety of diseases such gastro duodenal ulcers, cardiovascular disorders, traumatism and tumor.
On the other hand, besides technological applications in traffic and military systems, in the near future MMW will also find applications in high resolution and high-speed wireless communication technology. This has led to restoring interest in research on MMW induced biological effects. In this review emphasis has been given to the MMW-induced effects on cell membranes that are considered the major target for the interaction between MMW and biological systems. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10762-010-9731-z Excerpts
“Several studies on the effects induced by millimeter radiation on biological systems have been reported in the literature.
Diverse effects have been observed on cell free systems, cultured cells, isolated organs of animals and humans. The subject has been extensively reviewed by Motzkin [17] and more recently by Pakhomov [3]. At the cellular level these effects are mainly on the membrane process and ion channels, molecular complexes, excitable and other structures. Many of these effects are quite unexpected from a radiation penetrating less than 1 mm into biological tissues [3, 18, 19]. However none of the findings described in the above reviews has been replicated in an independent laboratory, thus they cannot be considered as established biological effects.”
“…a large number of cellular studies have indicated that MMW may alter structural and functional properties of membranes (Table 2).”
Conclusion
“In this review emphasis has been given to the low-level MMW effects on cell membranes. Above all, it should be mentioned that the reported effects are of a non-thermal character, that is, the action of radiation does not produce essential heating of the biological system or destroy its structure. In this context it appears that no permanent structural change of lipid bilayer could arise under low level (less than 10 mW/cm2) millimeter waves irradiation.
On the other hand, MMW radiation may affect intracellular calcium activities, and, as a consequence, several cellular and molecular processes controlled by Ca2+ dynamics themselves. The effects of MMW radiation on ion transport may be the consequence of a direct effect on membrane proteins as well as on phospholipid domain organization. Water molecules seem to play an important role in these biological effects of MMW radiation. Unfortunately, detailed cellular and molecular mechanisms mediating physiological responses to MMW exposure remain largely unknown.
Usually the search at a molecular level is simpler if we can reduce the complexity of our biological samples. This is the case for cell membranes by using model systems. They can be formed by a simple lipid bilayer without interfering components and they give independence from biological activity that can create complication in searching for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. The emphasis is on the search for molecular mechanisms of the membrane effect induced by MMW with different frequencies and power density. Furthermore, replication studies are needed including good temperature control and appropriate internal control samples. It is also advantageous if the future studies are multidisciplinary, invoking an integration of high quality exposure and effects methodologies.
Clearly a significant amount of accurate experimental work is still required in order to fully understand the interactions between MMW radiation and cell membrane.”
Research Papers (updated 1/10/2021)
Sven Kuehn, Serge Pfeifer, Beyhan Kochali, Niels Kuster. Modelling of Total Exposure in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios. Final Report of Project CRR-816. A report on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). IT'IS Foundation, Zurich. 24 June 2019.
Executive Summary
In January 2019, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) mandated the IT’IS Foundation to evaluate the total human exposure in hypothetical 5G mobile networks for varied topologies and user scenarios to identify factors that would minimize the total exposure of the population. In this study, total exposure is defined as the combined exposure from network base stations, the user’s own device, as well as bystanders’ mobile devices.
The influence of various factors on total exposure in mobile communication networks (as defined above) was modeled and analyzed with the help of the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Total exposure is described as the local peak specific absorption rate (SAR) spatially averaged over any 10 g of tissue mass (psaSAR10g) averaged over a period of 6 minutes. The unit psaSAR10g was chosen because it defines the governing basic restriction for wireless exposure as the whole-body average SAR limits (wbaSAR) are intrinsically met if the limits of local exposure are satisfied. The averaging duration of 6 minutes constitutes the internationally accepted averaging time to prevent thermal hazards at frequencies below 6 GHz as instant values have little justification. However, it should be noted that some regulators define shorter averaging time periods, e.g., the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of 100 s.
In a first step, we analyzed the tissue-specific exposure as a function of frequency. The preliminary dosimetric study showed that exposure of the human brain to the 3.6 GHz band, that has been recently added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, is reduced by a factor of >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile network operation at <1 GHz.
This reduction is due to the smaller penetration depth at higher frequencies. This conclusion, however, does not apply to exposed tissues close to the surface or skin (eyes, testicles, etc.) when the peak SAR in this tissue is evaluated. The peak SAR in the grey matter remains in approximately the same order of magnitude ( 3 dB) over all frequencies but the area of high exposure is reduced at 3.6 GHz.
In a second step, we used data measured in 4G systems and analyzed the latest mobile network standards to extrapolate the exposures for various 5G network scenarios. These measured data were also used to extrapolate the exposure to the future development of data usage in 5G networks.
Specifically, we analyzed the effect on the total exposure of (i) the network topology by varying the cell size and amount of indoor coverage in the network, as well as the usage of (ii) an individual’s own device, and (iii) devices of close bystanders.
The results – based on simulations of more than 200 different exposure scenarios – reveal that, for all user types, except for non-users (including passive mobile phone users and users dominantly using downlink data traffic, e.g., video streaming), total exposure is dominated by the person’s own mobile device. Compared to non-users, the exposure is increased (i) for light users (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or a factor of 4 to 10), (ii) for moderate users (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or a factor of 20 to >300), and (iii) for heavy users by 15 – 40 dB (or a factor of 30 to >10000). Further, the results show that peak exposure of non-users is not defined by exposure to base stations but by exposure to mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.
While a reduction of the mobile cell size leads to a reduction in total exposure by a factor of 2 to10 for people actively using their mobile devices, this might also lead to a small increase by a factor of 1.6 in total exposure of non-users due the generally increased incident signal levels from the surrounding base stations.
Similarly, the exposure of active users can be reduced by a factor of 4 to 600 by increasing the indoor network coverage. Yet, in line with the results for the mobile cell sizes, increased indoor coverage will also lead to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. This increase, however, starts at a level 1000 times lower than the typical total exposure of active users.
The results of this study show that the personal mobile device is the dominant exposure source for active mobile network users.
Besides a person’s own usage behavior, total exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network with a lower path loss, i.e., smaller cells and additional indoor coverage, helps to reduce total exposure. The exposure per transmitted bit is reduced by a factor of <3 by the increased spectral efficiency of the 5G technology, and the reduced penetration depth associated with the new bands at 3.5 – 3.8 GHz.
The results presented above are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated in this report. Furthermore, it only considers time-averaged (6 min) and not instant exposures. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links, for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), and (iii) millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.
Conclusions
The results of this study show that the absorption of energy by the human brain, resulting from exposure to the 3.6 GHz band newly added to the Swiss mobile communication frequencies, isreduced by a factor >6 for the tissue averaged SAR when compared to mobile networks operating at <1 GHz, and by a factor of >2 when compared to the frequency bands at 1.8 – 2GHz.
For deep brain regions, the reduction is much larger.
The reduced exposure for these regions is due to lower penetration depths at higher frequencies. Close to the surface (eyes, testicles, etc.) the exposure can be higher. At the most exposed surface of the grey matter, the values remain approximately 3 dB over all frequencies whereas the area of high exposure is reduced.
More than 200 Monte Carlo simulated exposure scenarios have been analyzed to evaluate total human exposure in 5G Networks for different topologies and user scenarios. The results show that for all users (except non-users), the total exposure is dominated by a person’s own mobile device. Compared to a non-user, the exposure is increased for a light user (with 100 MByte uplink data per day) by 6 – 10 dB (or by a factor 4 to 10), for a moderate user (with 1 GByte uplink data per day) by 13 – 25 dB (or by a factor of 20 to >300), and for a heavy user by 25 – 40 dB (or a factor of 300 to >10000). The peak exposure of nonusers is further not defined by exposure to surrounding base stations but by mobile devices of close bystanders in urban areas,resulting in 6 dB (or a factor of 4) higher exposure than from a nearby base station antenna.
Reducing the diameter of the mobile cell leads to a decreased overall exposure by a factor of 2 to 10 for people who actively use their mobile devices. At the same time, the reduction in cell size might lead to a small increase by a factor <2 in exposure for non-users. The exposure of active users can be reduced by factors ranging from 4 to 600 by increasing indoor network coverage which, in turn, will be linked to increased exposure of non-users by a factor of 2 to 10. However, such an increase is by a factor 1000 lower than the typical exposure of active users. The results of this study are limited due to the network data that has been used and the definition of total exposure as stated earlier in this report. This study does not consider (i) the effect of upcoming massive MIMO and multi-user MIMO systems in 5G networks, (ii) alternative data transmission links – for instance the use of Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and (iii)millimeter wave frequencies in 5G mobile networks.
In summary, the results of this study show that the user’s own mobile device is the dominant source of exposure for the population of active mobile network users. Besides personal usage patterns, totl exposure is also closely linked to the network infrastructure. Generally speaking, a network that decreases the path loss by means of smaller cells and additional indoor coverage will help to reduce the total exposure of the population. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/en/dokumente/elektrosmog/externe-studien-berichte/modelling-of-total-exposure-inhypothetical-5g-mobile-networks-for-varied-topologies-and-user-scenarios.pdf.download.pdf/Modelling% 20of%20Total%20Exposure%20in%20Hypothetical%205G%20Networks%20-%20Schlussbericht.pdf --
El-Hajj AM, Naous T. Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy. 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF), Bangalore, India IEEE, 2020: 448-453, ISBN 9781728173009. (Austin, TX simulation) Abstract
In a world where many overlapping 2G, 3G, and 4G electromagnetic radiation sources already exist, concerns regarding the potential increase in these radiation levels following the roll-out of 5G networks are growing. The deployment of 5G is expected to increase power density levels drastically, given the limitations of mmWave communications that impose a notably higher number of base stations to cover a given area of interest. In this paper, we propose a gradual deployment strategy of a 5G network for a small area in downtown Austin, Texas, using the already existing 4G LTE sites of the area. The radiated power density of the proposed 5G network is then analyzed according to several electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure limits and compared to the radiation levels of the same area where only the LTE network is present. Simulation results for the selected area demonstrate the significant increase in radiation levels resulting from the addition of 5G cell towers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9221314
For the frequency range of 2 to 300 GHz, the IEEE C95.1-2019 standard [18] specifies a limit power density value of 10 W/m2 in restricted environment and 50 W/m2 in unrestricted environments. These correspond to an averaging time of 30 minutes. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields [19] specify the general public exposure limit at 10 W/m2 for frequencies between 2 and 300 GHz with the averaging time being 30 minutes. Similar limits are specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in [20] where a restriction of 10 W/m2 for the general public has been set. In contrast, the institute for building biology and sustainability (IBN) in Germany have specified the exposure limit to be less than 0.1 W/m2 in their 2015 Standard of Building Biology Measurement Technique (SBM-2015) [21], which is a million-fold lower than what is specified by the aforementioned guidelines. This suggests that negative health effects can occur at levels much lower than 10 W/m2. Finally, the Chinese ministry of health [22] have set the power density exposure limit to 0.1 W/m2.
This paper presented an analysis of the radiation levels in a deployed 5G network in an urban outdoor environment. Under the constraints of exposure limits, several challenges face the design and planning of such radiation aware 5G networks. Cell ranges need to be reduced to comply with the maximum allowed radiated power, requiring the densification of small cells in small areas and making it more costly to deploy these radiation-aware 5G networks. Although in this work we considered the maximum allowed EIRP prior to network deployment, results showed power density levels that do not satisfy all the exposure limits set by several sources. In this regard, a positive impact can be imposed by radiationaware 5G networks on several levels. On a governmental level, the exposure limits for the power density need to be revised using today’s data and approaches to bridge the gap between the thresholds specified by the different institutes and commissions. On a technological and scientific level, the radiation exposure constraint can open the door for innovative 5G solutions targeted to limit the health risks and economic barriers associated with this problem. This work can be extended by developing an analytical framework to efficiently rank and rate different cell allocation alternatives to minimize the potential radiations given a carefully chosen list of key performance indicators.
--
Absorption of 5G radiation in brain tissue as a function of frequency, power and time David H. Gultekin, Peter H. Siegel. Absorption of 5G radiation in brain tissue as a function of frequency, power and time. IEEE Access. Published online June 12, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002183.
Abstract
The rapid release of 5G wireless communications networks has spurred renewed concerns regarding the interactions of higher radiofrequency (RF) radiation with living species. We examine RF exposure and absorption in ex vivo bovine brain tissue and a brain simulating gel at three frequencies: 1.9 GHz, 4 GHz and 39 GHz that are relevant to current (4G), and upcoming (5G) spectra. We introduce a highly sensitive thermal method for the assessment of radiation exposure, and derive experimentally, accurate relations between the temperature rise (ΔT), specific absorption rate (SAR) and the incident power density (F), and tabulate the coefficients, ΔT/ΔF and Δ(SAR)/ΔF, as a function of frequency, depth and time. This new method provides both ΔT and SAR applicable to the frequency range below and above 6 GHz as shown at 1.9, 4 and 39 GHz, and demonstrates the most sensitive experimental assessment of brain tissue exposure to millimeter-wave radiation to date, with a detection limit of 1 mW.
We examine the beam penetration, absorption and thermal diffusion at representative 4G and 5G frequencies and show that the RF heating increases rapidly with frequency due to decreasing RF source wavelength and increasing power density with the same incident power and exposure time. We also show the temperature effects of continuous wave, rapid pulse sequences and single pulses with varying pulse duration, and we employ electromagnetic modeling to map the field distributions in the tissue.
Finally, using this new methodology, we measure the thermal diffusivity of ex vivo bovine brain tissue experimentally.
Summary
In this paper, we present for the first time, a simple, highly accurate test system for measuring the temperature rise and the specific absorption rate in tissue samples and liquid or gel simulants as a function of frequency, RF exposure power and time – pulsed and CW. We use this set up to make, and compare, carefully calibrated measurements of bovine brain tissue and a gel simulant, Triton X and water, at both 4G (1.9 GHz) and newly allocated 5G frequency bands (4 GHz - 39 GHz). We show the effects of beam concentration, focusing, absorption and heat diffusion at all three frequencies and delineate a linear range over which we can derive highly accurate coefficients (ΔT/ΔF and Δ(SAR)/ΔF) that can be used to predict the temperature rise and the specific absorption rate at prescribed depths and exposure times within the tissue or gel at power levels that go down to detectable limits (<1 mW). This method may be used to evaluate a wide range of RF radiation sources, tissues and simulants.
We also note that the impact of relatively modest incident RF power (1 W) and short exposure times (6 minutes CW and 30 second pulsed) at 39 GHz using a single mode waveguide source for the exposure, results in extremely large power density (16.5 kW/m2) and temperature rise (> 60°C for CW, > 35°C for 30 s pulse) in both bovine brain tissue and gel. This same temperature rise can be expected on skin (which has very similar dielectric properties) when such large surface power densities are present in very close proximity to the RF source or antenna, perhaps emanating from millimeter-wave base stations, handsets, or wireless-enabled appliances or kiosks. Although, current safety limits of 28.76 and 143.8 W/m2 for power density in unrestricted (public) and restricted (occupational) environments, respectively should prevent such exposures, the resulting limits on RF power generation of only 1.7 to 8.5 mW from a directional RF source, such as our waveguide at 39 GHz, in the vicinity, will greatly limit the application potential for any such communications system.
In the USA, the FCC and FDA are overseeing the implementation of millimeter wave technology in the public realm and more studies are needed to help guide the science, technology and policy. Our experimental method can provide threshold temperature and SAR values for both occupational and public exposures to millimeter waves with surface power densities from
16.5 W/m2 to 16.5 kW/m2 and exposure times from 1 second to 30 minutes.
Finally, we use our new data and this RF method to derive a thermal diffusivity coefficient for the ex vivo bovine brain tissue that is consistent with our prior measurements using an MRI. This is the first time that the thermal diffusivity of ex vivo bovine brain tissue has been directly measured by this thermal RF method [47, 50, 51, 70].
Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9115853 --
A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation on the Measurement of the Electromagnetic Field Level Radiated by 5G Base Stations
Adda S, Aureli T, D’elia S, Franci D, Grillo E, Migliore MD, Pavoncello S, Schettino F, Suman R. A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation on the Measurement of the Electromagnetic Field Level Radiated by 5G Base Stations. IEEE Access 2020. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998448.
Abstract
This paper presents some theoretical considerations and experimental results regarding the problem of maximum power extrapolation for the assessment of the exposure to electromagnetic fields radiated by 5G base stations. In particular the results of an extensive experimental campaign using an extrapolation procedure recently proposed for 5G signal is discussed and experimentally checked on a SU-MIMO signal. The results confirm the effectiveness of the extrapolation technique. Starting from an analysis (that represents a further novel contribution of this paper) on the impact of Spatial Division Multiple Access techniques used in 5G on the measurement of EMF level, some indications of possible extension of the technique to the highly complex MU-MIMO case are also given.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9103530
--
Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body
Nasim I, Kim S. Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body. 2019 SoutheastCon. Huntsville, AL. 11-14 April 2019. DOI:
10.1109/SoutheastCon42311.2019.9020454
Abstract
The increasing demand for higher data rates and uninterrupted reliable service have made the frequency spectrum above 6 GHz a very promising candidate for future wireless communications because of its massive amount of raw bandwidth and extremely high data transfer capabilities. However, increasing concerns of communications at high frequencies on human health have gained international alarm that suggests more research before it is deployed successfully. In this context, this paper aims to investigate the human electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from fifth-generation (5G) downlink communications and compare its impacts with the present cellular technologies considering the features that the 5G systems will likely adopt. Our simulation results suggest that while the impacts from 5G beamforming communications cross the regulatory borders at downlinks for a very short range between base stations (BSs) and user equipment (UE), the exposure level remains on a high throughout the entire network compared to the present systems. Also, this paper urges for more research on the exposure level from future communications to determine any possible threats below the existing guidelines. This paper also highlights the significance of considering SAR for the measurement of exposure compliance in downlinks.
Excerpt
... this paper urges the regulatory authorities to set SAR guidelines for 5G systems at far-field exposure also for frequencies above 6 GHz. Also, the minimum AP-UE [access point - user equipment] distance should be maintained at least 6 m [meters] for 5G and further space should be left for a conservative operation regarding human safety.
Conclusions
This paper has highlighted the significance of the human EMF exposure issue in the downlink of a cellular communications system. This paper measured the exposure level in terms of PD and SAR and compared them to those calculated in the 3.9G and 4G specifications. Distinguished from the prior art that studied uplinks only, this paper has found that the downlinks of a 5G can also yield a higher level of emissions in terms of SAR compared to concurrent cellular systems. Our results emphasized that this increase stems from more highly concentrated EMF energy per downlink RF beam due to the use of larger phased arrays within small cells of a 5G network. However, only skin effects are being taken into consideration for simplicity. This paper has also suggested the minimum AP-UE distance for human safety in cellular communications at high frequencies such as 28 GHz.
To this end, this paper urges to investigate any possible threats at the exposure level shown in this work for future 5G systems before it is finally globalized.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9020454
--
A Survey on Electromagnetic Risk Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism for Future Wireless Communication Systems
Jamshed MA, Heliot F, Brown T. A Survey on Electromagnetic Risk Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism for Future Wireless Communication Systems. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology. May 20, 2019. DOI:
10.1109/JERM.2019.2917766
Abstract
The accurate measurement of electromagnetic exposure and its application is expected to become more and more important in future wireless communication systems, given the explosion in both the number of wireless devices and equipments radiating electromagnetic-fields (EMF) and the growing concerns in the general public linked to it. Indeed, the next generation of wireless systems aims at providing a higher data rate,better quality of service (QoS), and lower latency to users by increasing the number of access points, i.e. densification, which in turn will increase EMF exposure. Similarly, the multiplication of future connected devices,e.g. internet of things (IoT) devices, will also contribute to an increase in EMF exposure. This paper provides a detailed survey relating to the potential health hazards linked with EMF exposure and the different metrics that are currently used for evaluating,limiting and mitigating the effects of this type of exposure on the general public. This paper also reviews the possible impacts of new wireless technologies on EMF exposure and proposes some novel research directions for updating the EMF exposure evaluation framework and addressing these impacts in future wireless communication systems. For instance, the impact of mmWave or massive-MIMO/beamforming on EMF exposure has yet to be fully understood and included in the exposure evaluation framework.
Conclusions
A thorough survey on exposure risk assessment, evaluation, limitation and mitigation for current and future wireless devices and equipments has been provided in this paper. From the human health point of view, it seems that the possibility of brain tumor is still the main cause of concerns related to the extensive use of wireless devices, even though the effects of EMF exposure is now being investigated in new parts of the body (e.g. eyes). Meanwhile, with the advent of 5G, more efforts are now been made to understand the thermal and non-thermal effects of mmWave exposure on the human body. When it comes to the evaluation of EMF exposure, we have presented the most common evaluation frameworks and metrics that are utilized in wireless communications to measure the exposure. We have also explained how new more generic metrics have been defined by combining existing metrics to better reflect the exposure of large geographical areas and have argued that a generic metric for measuring the individual exposure would also be of interest. We have also reviewed the existing exposure guidelines and have explained how they can be updated for better reflecting the true nature of EMF exposure, i.e. by better taking into account the duration of exposure. Finally, we have provided some views on how key 5G enabling technologies such as densification, massive MIMO and mmWave will impact the EMF exposure in the near future; for instance, the dense deployment of small cells and IoT devices is very likely to increase the overall ambient exposure. We also believe that there could be some technical opportunities in 5G to increase the exposure awareness of wireless system users and to let them decide if they want to reduce it at the cost of, for instance, a lower QoS.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8718293
--
Assessment of Maximally Allowable Power-Density Averaging Area for EMF Exposure above 6 GHz
Neufeld E, Carrasco E, Murbach M, Balzano Q, Christ A, Kuster N. Theoretical and numerical assessment of maximally allowable power-density averaging area for conservative electromagnetic exposure assessment above 6 GHz.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Dec;39(8):617-630. doi: 10.1002/bem.22147.
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to determine a maximum averaging area for power density (PD) that limits the maximum temperature increase to a given threshold for frequencies above 6 GHz. This maximum area should be conservative for any transmitter at any distance >2 mm from the primary transmitting antennas or secondary field-generating sources. To derive a generically valid maximum averaging area, an analytical approximation for the peak temperature increase caused by localized exposure was derived. The results for a threshold value of 1 K temperature rise were validated against simulations of a series of sources composed of electrical and magnetic elements (dipoles, slots, patches, and arrays) that represented the spectrum of relevant transmitters. The validation was successful for frequencies in which the power deposition occurred superficially (i.e., >10 GHz). In conclusion, the averaging area for a PD limit of 10 W/m2 that conservatively limits the temperature increase in the skin to less than 1 K at any distance >2 mm from the transmitters is frequency dependent, increases with distance, and ranges from 3 cm2 at <10 GHz to 1.9 cm2 at 100 GHz. In the far-field, the area depends additionally on distance and the antenna array aperture. The correlation was found to be worse at lower frequencies (<10 GHz) and very close to the source, the systematic evaluation of which is part of another study to investigate the effect of different coupling mechanisms in the reactive near-field on the ratio of temperature increase to incident power density. The presented model can be directly applied to any other PD and temperature thresholds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383885
--
The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver - Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not? Betzalel N, Ben Ishai P, Feldman Y. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver - Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environ Res. 2018 May;163:208-216.
Highlights
• The sweat duct is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band, reflectance depends on perspiration. • We outline the background for non-thermal effects based on the structure of sweat ducts. • We have introduced a realistic skin EM model and found the expected SAR for the 5G standard.
Abstract
In the interaction of microwave radiation and human beings, the skin is traditionally considered as just an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water. In previous works, we showed that this view is flawed when we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band.
Experimentally we showed that the reflectance of the human skin in the sub-THz region depends on the intensity of perspiration, i.e. sweat duct's conductivity, and correlates with levels of human stress (physical, mental and emotional). Later on, we detected circular dichroism in the reflectance from the skin, a signature of the axial mode of a helical antenna. The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still unclear. We also revealed correlation of electrocardiography (ECG) parameters to the sub-THz reflection coefficient of human skin. In a recent work, we developed a unique simulation tool of human skin, taking into account the skin multi-layer structure together with the helical segment of the sweat duct embedded in it.
The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band.
In this paper, we summarize the physical evidence for this phenomenon and consider its implication for the future exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by wireless communication. Starting from July 2016 the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for wireless broadband operations above 24 GHz (5 G). This trend of exploitation is predicted to expand to higher frequencies in the sub-THz region. One must consider the implications of human immersion in the electromagnetic noise, caused by devices working at the very same frequencies as those, to which the sweat duct (as a helical antenna) is most attuned.
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303
Excerpt
The need for high data transmission rates, coupled with advances in semiconductor technology, is pushing the communications industry towards the sub-THz frequency spectrum. While the promises of a glorious future, resplendent with semi-infinite data streaming, may be attractive, there is a price to pay for such luxury. We shall find our cities, workspace and homes awash with 5 G base stations and we shall live though an unprecedented EM smog. The benefits to our society of becoming so wired cannot ignore possible health concerns, as yet unexplored. There is enough evidence to suggest that the combination of the helical sweat duct and wavelengths approaching the dimensions of skin layers could lead to non-thermal biological effects. Such fears should be investigated and these concerns should also effect the definition of standards for the application of 5G communications.
--
On Measuring Electromagnetic Fields in 5G Technology
Pawlak R, Krawiec P, Żurek J. On measuring electromagnetic fields in 5G technology. IEEE Access. 7: 29826-29835. March 5, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902481
Abstract
At the awakening of the new 5G network as the network of services, issues related to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) will become one of the key aspects for the cost-effective establishment of the 5G infrastructure. The new 5G services will meet the rigorous demand for bandwidth through the implementation of a large number of densely located base stations operating in the millimeter-wave range. Introduction of new emission sources, working in parallel with already existing 2G/3G/4G mobile technologies, raises concerns about exceeding the admissible EMF exposure limits. This paper analyzes issues and challenges related to EMF measurements in 5G technology, which are crucial for the assessment of EMF compliance with regulatory limits.
We point out that the existing methodologies, dedicated to EMF measurements in 2G, 3G, and 4G networks, are not suitable for 5G. The reason is the use of new techniques, such as massive MIMO and precise beamforming together with higher frequency bands so that the existing measurement methods can lead to significantly overestimated results when they will be applied to 5G networks. Such results, in conjunction with the restrictive legislation on the EMF limits that apply in some countries, may have the negative impact on 5G network deployment, making it difficult to achieve the intended 5G network capabilities. We also propose an alternative method of EMF exposure assessment that is based on calculations and simulations and allows obtaining
Newer Post Home Older Post
Labels: 5G, 5G health effects, 5G radiation, 5G technology, 5G wavelength, bioeffect studies, cellular technology, FCC, FDA, Golomb, millimeter waves, SB 649, small cell
an accurate estimation of the EMF distribution in the 5G environment.
Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8660395 --
Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Assessment for Future 5G Networks Persia S, Carciofi C, Barbiroli M, Volta C, Bontempelli D, Anania G. Radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure assessment for future 5G networks. IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2018. IEEE, 2018. doi:10.1109/PIMRC.2018.8580919 Abstract
The fifth generation of mobile network (5G) will relay not only on the expansion of existing fourth (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, but thanks to the introduction of new radio access in the millimetre wave bands will allow to meet new requirements in terms of connectivity and capacity. Specifically, 5G network will be characterized by the use of new spectrum at higher frequencies with a very large number of antenna elements deployment. As a consequence, the RF EMF (Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field) compliance assessments with the regulatory requirements for human exposure for the installation permission needs to be revised accordingly. In this work, a Country case (Italy), where a more restrictive regulatory framework than the ICNIRP Guidelines is applied, has been analysed to investigate the impact of the restrictive approach on the future 5G mobile networks roll-out.
Conclusions
The EMF evaluations of existing cellular networks has been analysed in this work in order to highlight how restrictive regulatory framework than International Guidelines can affect 5G and future network deployment. Italy case study is considered as an example, due to its restrictive regulation to verify if it can permit an efficient 5G roll-out. This consideration has been confirmed by evaluations of the trend of saturated sites from 2010 to 2017 in Italy. Simulations demonstrate that in Italy the strong development expected for the evolution of 4G networks and, in the perspective of 5G systems, can be threatened with the stringent constraints imposed by the current regulatory framework for exposure to electromagnetic fields. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8580919
--
Derivation of Safety Limits for 5G RF Exposure
Based on Analytical Models & Thermal Dose
Neufeld E, Kuster N. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Phys. 2018 Sep 21. 705-711. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000930.
Abstract
Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds.
Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. In this paper, a novel analytical approach to pulsed heating is developed and applied to assess the peak-to-average temperature ratio as a function of the pulse fraction α (relative to the averaging time T; it corresponds to the inverse of the peak-to-average ratio). This has been analyzed for two different perfusion-related thermal time constants (τ1 = 100 s and 500 s) corresponding to plane-wave and localized exposures. To allow for peak temperatures that considerably exceed the 1 K increase, the CEM43 tissue damage model, with an experimental-data-based damage threshold for human skin of 600 min, is used to allow large temperature oscillations that remain below the level at which tissue damage occurs. To stay consistent with the current safety guidelines, safety factors of 10 for occupational exposure and 50 for the general public were applied. The model assumptions and limitations (e.g., employed thermal and tissue damage models, homogeneous skin, consideration of localized exposure by a modified time constant) are discussed in detail.
The results demonstrate that the maximum averaging time, based on the assumption of a thermal time constant of 100 s, is 240 s if the maximum local temperature increase for continuous-wave exposure is limited to 1 K and α ≥ 0.1. For a very low peak-toaverage ratio of 100 (α ≥ 0.01), it decreases to only 30 s. 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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338
--
Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink
Nasim I, Kim S. Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Submitted on 10 Nov 2017 to IEEE International Communications Conference. arXiv:1711.03683v1.
Abstract
While cellular communications in millimeter wave (mmW) bands have been attracting significant research interest, their potential harmful impacts on human health are not as significantly studied. Prior research on human exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields in a cellular communications system has been focused on uplink only due to the closer physical contact of a transmitter to a human body. However, this paper claims the necessity of thorough investigation on human exposure to downlink RF fields, as cellular systems deployed in mmW bands will entail (i) deployment of more transmitters due to smaller cell size and (ii) higher concentration of RF energy using a highly directional antenna. In this paper, we present human RF exposure levels in downlink of a Fifth Generation Wireless Systems (5G). Our results show 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. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03683
--
Implications of EMF exposure limits on output power levels for 5G devices above 6 GHz Colombi D, Thors B, Törnevik C. Implications of EMF exposure limits on output power levels for 5G devices above 6 GHz. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters. 14:1247-1249. 04 February 2015. DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2400331.
Abstract
Spectrum is a scarce resource, and the interest for utilizing frequency bands above 6 GHz for future radio communication systems is increasing. The possible use of higher frequency bands implies new challenges in terms of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure assessments since the fundamental exposure metric (basic restriction) is changing from specific absorption rate (SAR) to power density. In this study, the implication of this change is investigated in terms of the maximum possible radiated power (P max ) from a device used in close proximity to the human body. The results show that the existing exposure limits will lead to a non-physical discontinuity of several dB in P max as the transition is made from SAR to power density based basic restrictions. As a consequence, to be compliant with applicable exposure limits at frequencies above 6 GHz, P max might have to be several dB below the power levels used for current cellular technologies. Since the available power in uplink has a direct impact on the system capacity and coverage, such an inconsistency, if not resolved, might have a large effect on the development of the next generation cellular networks (5G).
Conclusion
Above 6 GHz for FCC and 10 GHz for ICNIRP, EMF exposure limits are defined in terms of free-space power density rather than SAR. It was shown that at the transition frequency where the exposure metric changes, the maximum radiated power to meet compliance with ICNIRP and FCC EMF limits, for a device used in close proximity of the body, presents a strong discontinuity (in the order of 6 dB for the investigated case). This discrepancy has no scientific basis and is due to inconsistencies in the exposure limits. As a consequence, the estimated maximum output power in uplink for devices operating at frequencies above 6- 10 GHz is about 18 dBm and 15 dBm for ICNIRP and FCC, respectively. These figures were obtained by numerical simulations of a canonical dipole at frequencies up to 70 GHz. It was shown that for more directive antennas, the maximum available power can be substantially lower. For the IEEE limits, the incongruity at the transition frequency is less evident. This is because the IEEE PD limits make use of a larger averaging area than the ICNIRP and FCC limits. The IEEE limits, however, have not yet been adopted in any national regulations.
With a growing interest for utilizing frequency bands above 6 GHz for mobile communications, it is important that the inconsistencies at the transition frequency from SAR to PD based basic restrictions are timely solved. If not, the observed discrepancy might have a large impact on the development of future mobile communication networks. We therefore encourage the relevant standardization organizations and regulatory authorities responsible for defining EMF exposure limits to address this issue.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7031364
Expert Opinions
May 20, 2019
5G: The Unreported Global Threat
Devra Davis, PhD, Medium, May 18, 2019
https://medium.com/@devradavis/5g-the-unreported-global-threat-717c98c9c37d --
Aug 18, 2017 (Updated Sep 27, 2017)
Scientists and Physicians Oppose
"Small Cell" Antenna Bill (Calif. SB 649)
I have been hearing from scientists around the world who are deeply concerned about the deployment of fifth generation (5G) wireless technology without adequate research on the health effects of exposure to this type of radio frequency radiation.
Following is a sample of letters sent to California Governor Brown asking him to veto SB 659, a "small cell" antenna bill written by the cellular industry that paves the way for deployment of 5G wireless technology across the state.
Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine in the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Golomb's letter begins with the following warning:
"I urge in the strongest terms that you vigorously oppose California SB 649.
If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result.
This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.
My research group at UC San Diego alone has received hundreds of communications from people who have developed serious health problems from electromagnetic radiation, following introduction of new technologies.
Others with whom I am in communication, have independently received hundreds of similar reports. Most likely these are a tip of an iceberg of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of affected person. As each new technology leading to further exposure to electromagnetic radiation is introduced – and particularly introduced in a fashion that prevents vulnerable individuals from avoiding it – a new group become sensitized to health effects.
This is particularly true for pulsed signals in the radiowave and microwave portion of the spectrum, the type for which the proposed bill SB 640 will bypass local control." In the letter, Dr. Golomb summarizes the research on the effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation and advocates for "safer, wired and well shielded technology – not more wireless." Appended to the letter are 360 references to the scientific literature.
The letter can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/SB649Golomb822.
Professor Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, explains in his letter to the Governor his peer-reviewed research which has documented ... "exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the voltage sensors in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology in the cells of our bodies." "This new understanding [1-7] means we can debunk the claims of the wireless industry that there cannot be a mechanism for effects produced by these weak EMFs. The 20 years plus of industry propaganda claims are false.
Rather the thousands of studies showing diverse health impacts of these EMFs can be explained. We now have a mechanism, one that is supported by both the biology and the physics, both of which are pointing in exactly the same direction."
"5G will be much more active in activating the VGCCs and producinghealth impacts because of its rapid absorption by materials in the body, because of its very rapid pulsations and because of the huge number antennae they are planning to put up, at least 200 times the number of antennae from all current cell phone towers. What this means is that the impacts on the outer one to two inches of our bodies will be massive." His letter discusses the potential health impacts on humans and on agriculture with exposure to 5G radiation.
The letter can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/SB649Pall Dr. Michael Lipsett, MD, JD, a retired public health physician with extensive experience in environmental health, mentions in his letter the recent demand for a 5G moratorium by more than 180 scientists and physicians and the study of cell phone radiation conducted by the National Toxicology Program.
He points out that while individuals can take precautions to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless devices, this is not feasible with exposure from cell antennas. He notes that ... "laboratory and human health investigations designed and conducted by independent researchers have reported associations linking exposure to radiation from cell phones or similar devices with multiple adverse effects (e.g., headaches, impacts on brain function, memory, learning and sleep; decreased sperm counts and quality) as well as with DNA damage and tumors of the brain and nervous system." "Potential health impacts of wireless communication have been ignored or obscured for decades by the telecommunications industry, which has implied that cell phones and other devices are safe because they comply with federal safety standards. However, these standards were established more than 20 years ago and were based on assumptions that have since been called into question by health research studies. The push to establish a 5G network, exemplified by SB 649, is based on a similarly unproven assumption: i.e., that round-the-clock exposure to 5G frequencies will not affect human health or the environment.
Establishment of a 5G network will be irreversible, as will the pattern of near-universal exposure of California residents to high-frequency, as-yet-untested 5G electromagnetic radiation." The letter can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/LipsettSB649. --
June 23, 2017
EMF Scientist Appeal Advisors Call for Moratorium on Policies for 5G “Small Cell” Antennas
The advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in opposition to a proposed change in FCC rules that would allow rapid deployment of 5th generation (5G) wireless infrastructure throughout the nation. A copy of the Appeal was appended to the letter. 5G involves transmission of millimeter waves which operate at much higher frequencies than currently used for cellular transmission (30 to 300 gigahertz). Because the range of these signals is limited (i.e., less than a football field), hundreds of thousands of new “small cell” antennas will be required in the U.S. The wireless industry wants to install these not-so-small cellular antennas on existing public utility poles.
The FCC intends to streamline the approval of these antennas which would further undermine the regulatory authority of cities and states over cell towers.
Meanwhile the wireless industry is lobbying for legislation in many states across the country that would limit local authority over cell antenna deployment.
Due to the concern that the FCC’s new rules will result in increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), the Appeal’s advisors oppose the new rules and call for a “public health review of the growing body of scientific evidence that includes reports of increasing rates of cancer and neurological diseases that may be caused by exposure to EMF from wireless sources.” The Appeal reflects the concerns of 225 EMF experts from 41 nations about the impact of EMF exposure on public health. All of the experts who signed this appeal have published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals about the biologic or health effects of EMF.
According to the Appeal’s signatories, current national and international EMF exposure guidelines are obsolete and inadequate to protect human health and the environment. The FCC’s radio frequency guidelines were adopted in 1996.
The letter (dated June 9, 2017) is signed by the five advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal: Drs. Martin Blank, Magda Havas, Henry Lai, and Joel Moskowitz, and Elizabeth Kelley.
For more information:
FCC filing detail (June 9, 2017)
FCC letter submitted by Advisors to International EMF Scientist Appeal FCC submission: International EMF Scientist Appeal
International EMF Scientist Appeal Official Website
International EMF Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology --
May 8, 2017
A 5G Wireless Future:
Will it give us a smart nation or contribute to an unhealthy one? Dr. Cindy Russell, The (SCCMA) Bulletin, Jan/Feb 2017
Safety testing for 5G is the same as other wireless devices. It is based on heat. This is an obsolete standard and not considering current science showing cellular and organism harm from non-thermal effects. There is a large gap in safety data for 5G biological effects that has been demonstrated in older studies including military.
Recommendations
1. Do not proceed to roll out 5G technologies pending pre-market studies on health effects.
2. Reevaluate safety standards based on long term as well as short term studies on biological effects.
3. Rescind a portion of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which preempts state and local government regulation for the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects so that health and environmental issues can be addressed.
4. Rescind portions of The Spectrum Act which was passed in 2012 as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which strips the ability city officials and local governments to regulate cellular communications equipment, provides no public notification or opportunity for public input and may potentially result in environmental impacts.
5. Create an independent multidisciplinary scientific agency tasked with developing appropriate safety regulations, pre-market testing and research needs in a transparent environment with public input.
6. Label pertinent EMF information on devices along with appropriate precautionary warnings.
Dr. Russell provides a brief review of the research on millimeter wave bioeffects in this article: http://bit.ly/5GRussell. --
Aug 17, 2016 (Updated Aug 19)
5G cellular technology will employ much higher frequency microwaves than current cell phone technologies: 2G, 3G, and 4G.
These microwaves, known as millimeter waves, won't penetrate building materials like the current technology which is why industry may need one cell antenna base station for every 12 homes.
But millimeter waves can affect your eyes and penetrate your skin.
When the Los Angeles Times reporter contacted me for the story below, I did a quick search and found several recently published articles examining biological effects of millimeter waves (see references below). This form of microwave radiation is most likely to affect our skin and neuronal cells in the upper dermis.
Moreover, widespread adoption of 5G cellular technology in the U.S. may have profound effects on our ecosystem by altering bacteria, possibly creating harmful bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
History has proved that we cannot trust the FCC and the FDA to protect our health from microwave radiation exposure.
I submitted an open letter to the FCC in July calling for "an independent review of the biologic and health research to determine whether the RF standards should be modified before allowing additional spectrum to be used for new commercial applications." Moreover, the FCC has ignored the 800-plus submissions that call upon the agency to adopt rigorous radio frequency standards to protect the public’s health. Instead the agency maintains its 20-year old exposure guidelines that control only for heating or thermal risks. The FDA has ignored the thousands of studies that find nonthermal biologic effects, and the human studies that find a wide range of health effects including increased cancer risk and reproductive harm from exposure to low intensity microwaves.
In my opinion, precaution is warranted before unleashing 5G technology on the world. I suspect most of the 221 scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal (referenced in the article below), would support this assertion.
However, more research is also needed as specific characteristics of the millimeter waves (e.g., pulsing, modulation) to be employed in 5G cellular technology may be more important than the frequency or intensity of the waves in terms of biologic and health effects. The research funding must be independent of industry as conflicts of interest have been found to undermine the science in this field.
For an unbiased summary of the partial findings of the National Toxicology Program study of cancer risk from 2G cell phone radiation, see http://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html. --
Low-intensity millimeter waves
used for pain therapy have side effects
The Russians have pioneered millimeter wave therapy (MWT) using low intensity millimeter waves to reduce pain including headaches, joint pain, and postoperative pain.
Although the following review paper documents some positive effects from short-term exposure to MWT, the authors note that there are side effects including fatigue, sleepiness, and paresthesia (an abnormal sensation, tingling or pricking [“pins and needles”] caused by pressure on or damage to peripheral nerves). "We conclude that there is promising data from pilot case series and small-scale randomized controlled trials for analgesic/hypoalgesic effects of electromagnetic millimeter waves in frequency range 30–70 GHz. Large-scale randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of this non-invasive therapeutic technique are necessary." "In the studies reviewed the authors did not report any health-related side effects of MWT. Slight paresthesias, previously mentioned in several case reports and non-controlled case series (10,11), appeared in almost 50% of patients in studies where the effects of MWT were carefully described (21,27,28,31). The paresthesias were of short duration and reported as pleasant (‘warmth’) or neutral. General fatigue and sleepiness during the treatment sessions in almost 80% of the patients was a rather desirable side effect of MWT, as also described in previous reviews on biomedical effects of MWT (10,11,21,27,28)." From: Usichenko TI, Edinger H, Gizhko VV, Lehmann C, Wendt M, Feyerherd F. Low-intensity electromagnetic millimeter waves for pain therapy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Jun;3(2):201-7. URL:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475937/
Little research is available on long-term exposure to millimeter waves (see below). Most of the studies referred to in this review paper did not modulate or pulse the carrier waves which will be required for information-carrying millimeter waves employed in 5G technologies. Prior research suggests that such waves will be more biologically active than pure sine waves.
Additional Resources
(Updated 11/13/2021)
Sally Beare. How green is 5G? Envirotec Magazine, Nov 2021.
Sam Aerts, Kenneth Deprez, Davide Colombi, Matthias Van den Bossche, Leen Verloock, Luc Martens, Christer Törnevik, Wout Joseph. In Situ Assessment of 5G NR Massive MIMO Base Station Exposure in a Commercial Network in Bern, Switzerland. Appl. Sci. 11(8): 3592. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083592.
Kyuri Kim, Young Seung Lee, Nam Kim, Hyung-Do Choi, Dong-Jun Kang, Hak Rim Kim, Kyung-Min Lim. Effects of Electromagnetic Waves with LTE and 5G Bandwidth on the Skin Pigmentation In Vitro. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Dec 26;22(1):E170. doi: 10.3390/ijms22010170.
El-Hajj AM, Naous T. Radiation analysis in a gradual 5G network deployment strategy. 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF), Bangalore, India IEEE, 2020: 448-453, ISBN 9781728173009. (Austin, TX simulation) Koh TH, Choi JW, Seo M, Choi H-D, Kim KH. Factors affecting risk perception of electromagnetic waves from 5G network base stations. Bioelectromagnetics. 31 August 2020. Open access paper.
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. 5G Research from the EMF-Portal Archive: 133 papers and presentations. Apr 1, 2020.
Lin JC. Telecommunications health and safety: US FCC affirms its current safety limits for RF radiation and 5G wireless.
Radio Science Bulletin 2019; 2019 (371): 87-89.
Pujol F, Manero C, Ropert S, Enjalbal A, Lavender T, Jervis V, Rudd R, Marcus JS. Study on using millimetre waves bands for the deployment of the 5G ecosystem in the Union: Final Report. A study prepared for the European Commission. doi:
10.2759/703052. 2019.
Mehdizadeh AR, Mortazavi SMJ. Editorial. 5G technology: Why should we expect a shift from RF-induced brain cancers to skin cancers? J Biomed Phys Eng. 2019.
"In summary, although 5G technology brings new risks, it should be noted that regarding mobile phone use and cancer, the level of exposure is a factor that really matters."
The essential 5G glossary of key terms and phrases
Michaela Goss, Tech Target, Aug 12, 2019
Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Hearing, Feb 6, 2019 (5 minute video) "We're kind of flying blind here so far as health and safety is concerned." Is 5G Harmful for Humans and the Environment?
Kashyap Vyas, Interesting Engineering, Jan 27, 2019
U.S. Senator Blumenthal briefing on possible health risks posed by 5G wireless technology Congressional news briefing, Connecticut Network, Dec 3, 2018 (22 minute video) Congressional letter to FCC Commissioner requesting evidence for safety of 5G Richard Blumenthal, Anna G. Eshoo, Dec 3, 2018
Resistance to 5G: Roadblock to a High Tech Future or Warning of a Serious Health Risk? Conan Milner, Epoch Times, November 9, 2018
The roll out of 5G wireless service is 'a massive health experiment,' public health expert warns as cell companies install 800,000 towers across the US
Natalie Rahhal, Daily Mail, May 29, 2018
The 5G telecommunication technology--emitted millimeter waves: Lack of research on bioeffects Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, Presentation at 5th Asian & Oceanic IRPA Regional Congress on Radiation Protection, Melbourne, Australia, May 22, 2018
NEPA rollback now official for small wireless projects
Sobczyk N, GreenWire, May 3, 2018
5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them Martin L. Pall, PhD, undated
5G and Internet of Things: A Trojan Horse
Paul Héroux, PhD, The Green Gazette, Mar 27, 2018
Residents worried about small cell safety have been waiting years for federal guidance Ryan Barwick, Center for Public Integrity, Mar 2, 2018
5G Cell Service Is Coming. Who Decides Where It Goes?
Allan Holmes, New York Times, Mar 2, 2018
‘Tsunami of data’ could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025 The Guardian, Dec 11, 2017
California: Bill to ease permits for cellular antennas could impact health Tracy Seipel. Mercury News (San Jose, CA), Aug 31, 2017 Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiation Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times, Aug 8, 2016
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.
From: Smithson, Dawn [email protected]
Subject: RE: Our water supply, quality, and infrastructure Date: July 16, 2021 at 11:51 AM
To: Caroline Vertongen [email protected]
Hi Caroline.
Sorry that I was out of town when you returned.
To address the points we were able to briefly discuss several weeks ago:
· Water Quality – We conducted 8,472 water quality tests last year. Per our conversation, water quality samples are not collected only at our stations. These samples are collected at sample points throughout our system, which are approved by Department of Water Resources. All water quality samples were in compliance with all water quality regulations and requirements. Our most recent Consumer Confidence Report is attached.
· Water Pressure – General Order 103 (PUC rules for governing water service) requires a water utility provide water pressure greater than 40 psi, except during periods near highest demand, then the pressure should not be less than 30 psi.
This is the pressure as it is measured at the customer’s meter.
We measured the pressure in fire hydrant nearest your home on Thursday, June 17, which you may recall was an extremely hot day (~100 degrees). We would have expected water pressure to be near its lowest pressures on that day.
Additionally, we measured the pressure during a high water usage time of day, so we would expect this to further reduce the pressure in the water system at that time. The pressure in the hydrant was 54 psi. I know your meter is a little bit higher in elevation than the hydrant, so I would expect the pressure at your meter to be a little bit less than 54 psi at your meter. I believe your home is also up an incline from the meter; that would further reduce the pressure from the meter to your home.
Unfortunately we can’t easily raise the elevation of the tank in your pressure zone, which is what dictates the pressure you see at your home. Elevation differences aside, we are looking into what we can do to increase the pressure in your area. · The hydrants near your home have been maintained and are in good working condition. They were was last serviced on 9/18/2019, and they are inspected annually.
Take care,
Dawn
Dawn Smithson, P.E.
District Manager - Bear Gulch
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
650-561-0014
C
Quality. Service. Value.
Quality. Service. Value.
calwater.com
From: Smithson, Dawn
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 8:50 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Brandi de Garmeaux' <[email protected]>; 'Laura Russell' <[email protected]>; 'Maryann Moise Derwin' <[email protected]>; 'Sarah Wernikoff' <[email protected]>; 'Craig Hughes' <[email protected]>; 'John Richards' <[email protected]>; 'Jeff Aalfs' <[email protected]>; 'Jeremy Dennis' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Our water supply, quality, and infrastructure Hello Caroline,
I hope you are doing well. I’d love to talk to you more about your concerns listed below.
I’ll reach out to you tomorrow.
Take care,
Dawn
Dawn Smithson, P.E.
District Manager - Bear Gulch
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
650-561-0014
Quality. Service. Value.
calwater.com
From: Caroline Vertongen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:51 AM
To: Brandi de Garmeaux <[email protected]>; Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Cc: Maryann Moise Derwin <[email protected]>; Sarah Wernikoff <[email protected]>; Craig Hughes <[email protected]>; John Richards <[email protected]>; Jeff Aalfs <[email protected]>; Jeremy Dennis <[email protected]>
Subject: Our water supply, quality, and infrastructure
Good morning Assistant to Town Manager de Garmeaux and Planning Director Russell, C
As many PV residents have mentioned in the last few years we do have several problems with CalWater. These problems include:
1) fire hydrants
2) water quality
3) water pressure
4) infrastructure
As I have repeatedly mentioned to you, Town Council, and other Portola Valley committee members, l there are several concerns that need to be addressed before new housing gets constructed in Alpine Hills.
We have seen several new constructions on HillView. Palmer lane added 2 new houses and 1 ADU since we bought our house in 1993 and will add 2 more houses soon.
No idea how many renters have been added to the list.
CalWater added a new water line across from the fire hydrant by 60/70 Palmer lane earlier this year to provide additional water for 77 Palmer. Once again CalWater failed to notify the neighbors before shutting off the water, causing us again to pay for high repair costs.
We do not know how many other housing plans have been approved, how many plans have been submitted, and how many more will be added in the next few years as part of the new housing bills.
As I stated in my email of June 2, 2021 and during Town Council and other committee meetings, CalWater is ignoring the ongoing problems, yet continues to increase our water bill and continues to add staffing without providing solutions. The most recent supervisor Mr. Lee Blevins replies as follow: "Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention, but we need to supply the demand” - Town Manager Dennis confirmed that the fire department no longer conduct its annual exercise checking the fire hydrants because California is in a drought. This was in 2017. The Fire Department claims CalWater is responsible for the maintenance of the fire hydrants. We are being told there is a maintenance list of all fire hydrants that would show their status, but we still have to see that list.
We are still in a drought. Portola Valley has been a high risk for fire and earthquakes since 2009 and now have been added to the list of ‘ high wildfire risk” .
Yet Portola Valley continues to add housing and more people who need more water without addressing the problems linked to our water supply including water quality and its infrastructure.
We, several residents on Palmer Lane, have reported the inconsistent low water pressure to CalWater for years. CalWater will fix the problem, but the fix is only temporarily. CalWater does not want to increase our water pressure because they are afraid that their old infrastructure cannot handle more pressure.
I did have independent water testing done in 2019 and ever since we have seen the
I did have independent water testing done in 2019 and ever since we have seen the results have been using bottled water.
The Town is responsible for public safety as well as the quality and quantity of necessities like water.
We, residents from all corners in Portola Valley, have brought up these issues on several occasions in the last few years during Town Hall meetings and by email, yet nothing has been done to improve our water supply, its quality, and its infrastructure.
We, PV residents, pay the water bills, but you in collaboration with Town Manager Dennis negotiate the contracts with our utility companies. You then make recommendations to Town Council, so I I hope you will address these important issues with Town Council and encourage them to find solutions for the outdated CalWater infrastructure now before more housing goes up.
Portola Valley is a high fire risk and this has been well reported since 2009. We are now a “wildfire” risk and housing is being accelerated without addressing the issues around water.
For all reasons mentioned above, it is imperative that Portola Valley collaborates with CalWater to invest and improve our water supply, our water quality, and our infrastructure to ensure public safety for its residents now.
I hope you will provide me with answers and solutions.
Thank you,
Caroline Vertongen
100 Palmer lane
This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain California Water Service Group proprietary information and is confidential. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail and then deleting it from your system. bg-bg-2020.pdf