…This blog is first, about something funny, but then comes something not funny at all. Bear with me till the end…
Few days ago two review articles on 5G millimeter-waves were published by scientists from Australia.
The articles in question appeared in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, published by the prestigious British NATURE:
- ‘5G mobile networks and health – a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz.’ by Ken Karipidis, Rohan Mate, David Urban, Rick Tinker & Andrew Wood
- ‘Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves.’ by Andrew Wood, Rohan Mate & Ken Karipidis
Australian ARPANSA has published a news story, on March 17, 2021, about both reviews and… boasted that the reviews are “World-first reviews into 5G radio waves”.
There is no doubt that in science being “the first” is important. Any scientist interviewed by a journalist gets a question “is this the first?”. However, it is good to be first but it is better to check beforehand that indeed something is “the first”.
ARPANSA claim of the “world-first reviews into 5G radio waves” is incorrect, and laughable. Simple check on PubMed database shows that in 2019 and 2020 were published reviews on 5G millimeter waves:
2019: Myrtill Simkó, Mats-Olof Mattsson. 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16(18):3406 (doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183406).
2020: Dariusz Leszczynski. Physiological effects of millimeter-waves on skin and skin cells: an overview of the to-date published studies. Rev Environ Health 2020; 35(4):493-515 (doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0056)
… and laughable it is because, while Leszczynski 2020 was not mentioned in the studies from Australia, the Simkó & Mattsson 2019 was used as a reference by Australians. They knew that 2 years ago review on 5G was published and that the Australian reviews are “not-world-first reviews into 5G radio waves”.
Now, something not laughable and pretty serious.
Both Australian reviews are misleading readers.
Abstract of the Australian review #1 is as follows [emphasis added by DL]:
“The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) fields above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This state-of-the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF fields above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffects including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF fields above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.”
This review looked at 107 experimental studies and 31 epidemiological. First what comes to mind is that when the massive deployment of the 5G is ongoing, all experimental and epidemiological evidence is 138 studies = extremely small !!!
What is even more startling is the opinion, expressed by the authors of the review, about the quality of the studies: “Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control”
This means that this claimed to be “state-of-the science review” has found only 138 studies and of poor quality.
Based on this “scientific evidence” the authors of the review have arrived at a SHOCKING (sorry for this shout out) conclusion: “This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health”
Once again, to sink in this “discovery” from ARPANSA:
138 poor studies show no health risk of 5G!
We, the users of 5G are safe? Someone is insane!
It is simply scientifically outrageous that such review article has passed peer-review in NATURE published “Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology”. Journal should sack reviewers that performed peer-review.
Australian reviews should be retracted for corrections.
PS: What is not mentioned at all in the reviews, as potential conflict-of-interest, is that Ken Karipidis is member of ICNIRP, and articles “pretend to confirm” that ICNIRP safety guidelines are correct.
Thanks for answering my question, Dariusz. Would you explain what is the “difference between “observing effect in some studies” and really proving that effect exists, whenever it is tested.” What would that proof require, how many tests, and is that the same standard required for other public health hazards? Have any of the generally recognized health effects been proven sufficiently in your opinion?
Do you think what Igor Belyaev said in 2019, “Main Regularities and Health Risks from Exposure to Non-Thermal Microwaves of Mobile Communication” is true: “Contrary to some statements, no one from positive studies (reporting NT MW effects) has been dismissed in a valid replication….Of note, no one negative study (showing no effects) has been independently replicated”?
There is difference between “observing effect in some studies” and really proving that effect exists, whenever it is tested.
Sorry for the confusion, but the other person is me, as well. I’m not sure why the comment posted as anonymous; that was not my intention. I asked the question again because after your reply, I still didn’t understand what seems like an inconsistency: The authors did not prove the safety of 5G, certainly. But did they adequately support their findings in the calcium movement review, in particular, the statement that you emphasized, “Overall, experimental studies have not validated that RF affects Ca2+ transport into or out of cells”? In your opinion, is that really true. From what I remember, even FCC Bulletin 65 or 56 admits that calcium ion flux occurs in some exposures, they just debate whether or not that effect is adverse or merely “biological”.
Pingback: Smart Meter News
I responded already to other person asking the same question.
Yes, but how did you on December 3rd, 2020 consider ‘Radiofrequency Fields and Calcium Movements Into and Out of Cells’, their exhaustive 30 study review, spanning 50 years of these our modern times sufficient in quality and quantity to be “good science”, a veritable “‘nail to the coffin’ of the EMF non-thermal effects acting through VGCC” by “experts in the area of biological and health effects of RF-EMF”? Do you honestly think it sufficient enough in quality and quantity to be an honest scientific review of the subject?
Reviews of science itself, in both reviews, are acceptable to me. The problem I have is that insufficient in quality and quantity evidence is claimed to prove safety of 5G.
Dariusz, I’m surprised you did not find the less than comprehensive “review” ‘Radiofrequency Fields and Calcium Movements Into and Out of Cells’ by Andrew Wood and Ken Karipidis, which you wrote about in the your blog on December 3, 2020, equally laughable and deficient with this one. Instead you say, “both authors are experts in the area of biological and health effects of RF-EMF and their [30 study] [alleged] review [of the last 50 years worth of literature on emf’s and their effect on calcium ion transport ] is good science.” You go on to say, “Summa summarum, Wood and Karipidis indicate that the current knowledge [in the scientific community? the unsuspecting public?], and calculations presented by them [as if there are no others], do not support the notion that VGCC would be involved in RF-exposure-induced calcium signalling and the potentially related non-thermal effects.” Don’t you think they needed to dig just a little deeper? “Finally, Wood and Karipidis stress the need for better quality in the future studies.” Here, here! And they should start with their own. If they are, as you say, “good” scientists, they are intentionally misleading the public whose health is entrusted to them about what is already generally accepted and known about the many different ways electromagnetic fields affect calcium ion transport and the implications for health. All 3 of the last papers by Wood and Karipidis are dishonest and deficient. How did you honestly consider their review of the literature regarding calcium flux comprehensive and good?
Pingback: ARPANSA’s misinformation – Guest blog by Victor Leach of ORSAA | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Casper – You are mistaken. Wi-Fi networks work on a single channel (frequency) at a time. All devices must be set to the same channel (for dual-band access points, it can be one channel in each band). You really need to do more reading on how Wi-Fi works. I won’t be commenting further on this topic.
Here is a video that might help you understand how multiple devices share a single channel in a Wi-Fi network:
Thomas, well no. I have to disagree with you now after reading that study. They used saturated connections ONLY, to run their tests. Exactly like I explained in my previous comment, that this is the problem.
A single user in a classroom setting will not normally saturate the environment. Multiple users will. This leads to the simple conclusion: more users equals more radiation, because more users will be more likely to saturate the channel(s), while a single user is unlikely to do so.
You cannot deny this, it is simple mathematical probability, and you do not even need to measure to come to this conclusion.
In addition, if all students bring with them their cell phones, you have the addition of several different types of antennae and wireless modes. Not only WiFi, but BT, and cellular transmissions are now also increased.
Casper – In fact, it is just that simple!
You need to do your own research on how Wi-Fi works, as I don’t do tutorials.
You may want to check out this case study which includes measuring 32 laptops simultaneously in the same room:
Thomas I do not think it’s quite that simple, but correct me if I’m wrong.
First, the 2.4 GHz band has 11 channels, with 3 non-overlapping channels. A transmitter may utilize any of these channels, and multiple transmitters may run simultaneous data links at the same time on separate channels.
Second, rarely will a single device utilize the full channel capacity at all times. Rather, each device will send bursts of data utilizing only a portion of the available bandwidth. This means more devices with partial utilization are needed to saturate the channel permanently. Therefore, in general, more devices will produce more radiation.
Only once the channel is fully saturated, will we reach a point where more devices will not necessarily increase the total radiation significantly. I suspect saturation is rare, unless every person in the classroom decides to stream a video at the same time. Therefore, more pupils will in general equal more radiation, because saturation should not usually be reached.
Paul – In a Wi-Fi system only one device at a time is transmitting. So, there is a barely perceptible difference in signal level due to the number of devices being used. Read about Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) here:
Does ARPANSA and Ken Karipidis have any credibility amongst the scientific community???
I personally stopped trusting APRANSA and Ken Karipidis after their so called “comprehensive measurement study” of RF EME from Wi-fi in 23 schools throughout Victoria and New South Wales. The study focused on the measurement of the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) levels resulting from the use of Wi-fi networks in these schools, and compared this level against the public exposure limits in the Australian Standard. According to their website, the Wi-fi in schools measurement study conducted by ARPANSA & Ken Karipidis showed that exposure to RF EME from wi-fi in schools is much lower than the limit for public exposure specified in the ARPANSA Standard. However when you dig a little deeper and find the published paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927334/#ncw370C15 you will see that (and I quote)
“the majority of schools (20) the measurements in the current study were conducted in an empty classroom (to avoid lesson disruption) with an access point and one laptop. In (3) schools, measurements were conducted with students or teachers present and using Wi-Fi devices. A comparison between measurements conducted in empty classrooms and classrooms with multiple students/teachers using Wi-Fi showed no significant difference in the RF levels (p > 0.1 for all); although this may have been due to low numbers (only 3 schools measured with multiple users in the classroom).”
When you take a sample size of 23 classrooms, and 20 of them are empty with just one laptop, and then take the average reading of the 23 sample size, is this not manipulating the testing methods to manufacture a result?
Anyone would know that the modern day classroom does not have one laptop downloading from WiFi. The modern day classroom would have 25 pupils with 25 laptops/iPads, plus 25 mobile phones (as the kids carry them in their pockets). And I know a teacher who says he’s continually having to tell students off for streaming videos from youtube on their laptop in class.
Having said all the above, even if ARPANSA did do the research study impartially, then because ARPANSA safety standards are so out of touch and astronomically higher, I’m sure that their measurements would still have fallen below their absurd safety standard limits.
According to Igor Belyaev, 2019, “Main Regularities and Health Risks from Exposure to Non-Thermal Microwaves of Mobile Communication”: “Contrary to some statements, no one from positive studies (reporting NT MW effects) has been dismissed in a valid replication….Of note, no one negative study (showing no effects) has been independently replicated.”
No need to read the text Dariusz. Seeing the authors’ names is indicative of the famous conclusion “papers of poor quality and methodology”. This was the same answer I got from the SCENIHR chairman a few years ago when I asked why they excluded from their evaluation certain papers.
What else is new in this field? Sounds like a par for the course “study”. You want to play with the big boyz? Well, then you do not find any evidence of harm, ever. That’s how you keep your club membership in tip top shape.