Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest.

Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg
Author Information
  1. Lennart Hardell: The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, SE-702 17 Örebro, Sweden.
  2. Michael Carlberg: The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, SE-702 17 Örebro, Sweden.

Abstract

The fifth generation, 5G, of radiofrequency (RF) radiation is about to be implemented globally without investigating the risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate among concerned individuals in numerous countries. In an appeal to the European Union (EU) in September 2017, currently endorsed by >390 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on 5G deployment was requested until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences has been conducted. This request has not been acknowledged by the EU. The evaluation of RF radiation health risks from 5G technology is ignored in a report by a government expert group in Switzerland and a recent publication from The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Conflicts of interest and ties to the industry seem to have contributed to the biased reports. The lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology places populations at risk. Furthermore, there seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.

Keywords

References

  1. Health Phys. 1998 Apr;74(4):494-522 [PMID: 9525427]
  2. Gen Physiol Biophys. 2019 Sep;38(5):445-454 [PMID: 31516130]
  3. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:496-503 [PMID: 29530389]
  4. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Feb 7;93(3):203-7 [PMID: 11158188]
  5. Occup Environ Med. 2014 Jul;71(7):514-22 [PMID: 24816517]
  6. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Aug 17;103(16):1264-76 [PMID: 21795665]
  7. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2016 Apr;70(3):615-25 [PMID: 26238667]
  8. PLoS One. 2017 Oct 4;12(10):e0185461 [PMID: 28976991]
  9. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jun;20(6):763-764 [PMID: 31005580]
  10. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1999 Feb;48(1):177-80 [PMID: 10228585]
  11. Electromagn Biol Med. 2016;35(2):186-202 [PMID: 26151230]
  12. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9218486 [PMID: 28401165]
  13. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Jul;86(7):529-41 [PMID: 20545575]
  14. Environ Pollut. 2018 Nov;242(Pt A):643-658 [PMID: 30025338]
  15. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2018 Nov;(596): [PMID: 33562896]
  16. Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Jun;102(6-7):590-1 [PMID: 9679121]
  17. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2019 Jul - Sep;781:53-62 [PMID: 31416578]
  18. Pathophysiology. 2015 Mar;22(1):1-13 [PMID: 25466607]
  19. J Environ Public Health. 2018 Jun 24;2018:7910754 [PMID: 30034480]
  20. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:673-683 [PMID: 30196934]
  21. Int J Oncol. 2017 Aug;51(2):405-413 [PMID: 28656257]
  22. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002 Oct 18;298(1):95-102 [PMID: 12379225]
  23. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65 [PMID: 23802593]
  24. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:221-238 [PMID: 30633716]
  25. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2018 Nov;(595): [PMID: 33562898]
  26. Environ Health. 2011 Dec 19;10:106 [PMID: 22182218]
  27. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Dec 1;31(4):493-503 [PMID: 27902455]
  28. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015 Apr 17;459(4):585-90 [PMID: 25749340]
  29. Int J Oncol. 2013 Oct;43(4):1036-44 [PMID: 23877578]
  30. Health Phys. 2020 May;118(5):483-524 [PMID: 32167495]
  31. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr;37(3):190-192 [PMID: 26688202]
  32. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Apr 03;12(4):3793-813 [PMID: 25854296]
  33. Int Rev Cytol. 1995;158:279-338 [PMID: 7721540]
  34. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:484-495 [PMID: 29655646]
  35. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):624-6 [PMID: 21845765]
  36. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;39(3):675-94 [PMID: 20483835]
  37. Health Phys. 2020 May;118(5):525-532 [PMID: 31464775]
  38. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97 [PMID: 27454111]
  39. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2020 Feb;61(2):276-290 [PMID: 31633839]
  40. Mol Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar;12(3):247-257 [PMID: 32064102]
  41. Front Public Health. 2017 Nov 20;5:279 [PMID: 29214149]
  42. Oncol Lett. 2019 Nov;18(5):5383-5391 [PMID: 31612047]
  43. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2013;102(Pt 2):1-460 [PMID: 24772662]
  44. Rev Environ Health. 2012;27(1):51-8 [PMID: 22755267]
  45. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Apr;221(3):367-375 [PMID: 29402696]
  46. Health Phys. 2009 Sep;97(3):257-8 [PMID: 19667809]
  47. Health Phys. 2018 Dec;115(6):705-711 [PMID: 30247338]
  48. Environ Res. 2019 Jan;168:1-6 [PMID: 30243215]
  49. Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 2;8(1):3924 [PMID: 29500425]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.05GradiationrisksevaluationradiofrequencyhealthRadiationinterestHealthRFindividualsEuropeanUnionEUmoratoriumproperscientifictechnologySwitzerlandInternationalCommissionNon-IonizingProtectionriskconflictselectromagneticfieldfifthgenerationimplementedgloballywithoutinvestigatinghumanenvironmentcreateddebateamongconcernednumerouscountriesappealSeptember2017currentlyendorsed>390scientistsmedicaldoctorsdeploymentrequestedpotentialnegativeconsequencesconductedrequestacknowledgedignoredreportgovernmentexpertgrouprecentpublicationConflictstiesindustryseemcontributedbiasedreportslackunbiasedplacespopulationsFurthermoreseemscartelmonopolizingcommitteesthusreinforcingno-riskparadigmbelieveactivityqualifymisconductincludingassessedexpertsScientificCommitteeEmergingNewlyIdentifiedRisksSwedishSafetyAuthorityWorldOrganizationappealsmicrowavenon-ionizingguidelines

Similar Articles

Cited By