Preskočite na glavni sadržaj
EN
5G Network

PhD Mirta Milić, Institute of Medical Research and Occupational Health Zagreb

Following the answers of the professors who are electro technical professions, PhD Mirta Milić gave an additional overview of certain issues, primarily related to the impact on 5G networks on the human body:

Studies on the harmfulness and impact of 5G mobile communications networks
  • What have the studies shown on the effect of the radiation of mobile communications networks on human organism so far?
  • Are there studies on the impact of 5G networks on human bodies and its possible harmfulness?
  • What makes the study professionally and scientifically relevant?
 
As fellow professors have already stated, the effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on humans and other living beings has been studied for many years. Many studies have been conducted to learn on the effects of electromagnetic fields depending on the frequency, power and time of exposure to cells, tissues and living organisms on the basis of which the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) made recommendations to determine health based exposure limits. Research and studies have not been completed by adopting recommendations, but are still being implemented, and recommendations are being revised based on new results and findings. The determination and possible modification of the permitted level of exposure to electromagnetic fields must be based on medical and biomedical research, i.e. a sufficient degree of correlation between the impact of the electromagnetic field (a certain level over a certain period of time) and the biological effect of that impact must be established.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) are also involved in human protection against exposure to electromagnetic fields. IARC has classified electromagnetic fields in category 2B (categories 1 - validated carcinogens for humans based on experiments and evidence in humans and experimental animals; 2A - possible carcinogens for humans - sufficient evidence in experimental animals but insufficient clear evidence in humans, 3 - agents that cannot be confirmed or proven to be carcinogenic for humans - insufficient evidence in experimental animals and limited evidence unclearly confirmed in humans, 3 - agents that cannot be confirmed or proven to be carcinogenic to humans. IARC, if necessary, creates a working group which gathers and studies all scientific papers on the subject (agent) being processed, and publishes its results and conclusions of the critical independent research in the form of monographs. It is important to say that in these monographs it is estimated whether exposure to an agent can cause malignant disease in humans, but it does not assess how much it is necessary to be exposed in order for a possible malignant disease to occur (for example, every day for ten hours, tens of years or only once in 10 minutes). These monographs encourage further research and real risk assessment by adequate research in real conditions, noting always that experimental conditions and the choice of experimental animals do not have to give at all the same answer in the real conditions and environment, and if there are scientific studies that have proven harmful effects, IARC and WHO are thereby protected from possible individual charges.

Radio frequency electromagnetic fields (i.e. part of the electromagnetic field used for communication) were processed as early as 2011 and classified in category 2B, and several monographs (volume 102) were issued. The rest of the electromagnetic spectrum was treated in the form of radiation from the Sun and UV radiation (volume 55), ionizing radiation (volume 75 and 78), and nonionizing radiation - extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (volume 80).

For the purposes of comparison, in the category 2B according to the IARC there is also coffee among all known substances, as well as pickled vegetables, steam gasoline and extract from the leaf of aloe vera. Of course, the IARC categorization is not definite and an individual agent can be moved to another category based on new scientific evidence. Therefore, research is still ongoing and citizens are not left to the mercy of international corporations or lobbies. By placing high frequency electromagnetic fields in category 2B, IARC has given additional impetus for further research in this field, especially for the approval of new studies and higher financial resources for research groups. The results mentioned by IARC refer to an increased number of glioma and acoustic neurons (benign brain tumor on the acoustic nerve) in a human study (4 major studies and a few small ones), but not to other types of tumors (see IARCA conclusions, volume 102). The research conducted did not show a trend of exposure to cell phones and tumor occurrence in all individuals, nor was the exposure of individuals clearly defined and determined in each individual, and it was undoubtedly possible to link that the exposure and use of mobile communications has an impact on the occurrence of tumors, and that they could not be caused by other factors or the predisposition (genomic instability) of the individual, nor the extent to which the exposure should occur in order for the disease to occur. Also, a real-time study in people who really use full and long mobile communication did not show an increased trend of glioma formation. We repeat that the IARC does not assess whether the risk is real for getting malignant disease, but only confirms that several experiments on animals or humans have shown this with an unclear picture of the true exposure of individuals. An excellent example of this is coffee classified in the same category. Studies in humans in insufficiently clearly designed studies concerning exposure do not undoubtedly prove the correlation between drinking cup of coffee with increased tumor formation. Considering how much coffee is widespread in the world, only categorizing coffee to group 2B would greatly increase the number of tumors in humans, but this did not happen in the real world. But as for coffee, research continues for these forms of radiation.

When interpreting the results of scientific research and studies, caution should also be exercised (e.g. coffee). Only summaries of such studies are often available on the Internet, summarizing tens or hundreds of pages of material in several sentences. Such summaries rarely present the entire discussion of the authors themselves about any shortcomings of the method used, the sample chosen or the factors that might have affected the result. In addition, the impact factor of the journal in which the results were published is also important, as well as the credibility of the institution or laboratory which authors represent. In addition, in order for the result to be accepted as scientific evidence, it must be possible to repeat the results of the research in another, independent laboratory or research group. All this requires time for this great human and financial resources, which is why the public often gets the impression that research is not done enough or that a conspiracy is in place to cover up those results that “prove” their prerequisites.

One of the common examples of deliberate or unintentional misinterpretation of the results of a study is a study based on which the International Cancer Research Agency (IARC) changed the classification of high-frequency electromagnetic fields into group 2B. This document is often emphasized in opposition to setting up base stations in urban areas. However, this study investigated the effects of cell phone radiation on the head of the user rather than the radiation of base stations. Because of the difference in distances, the cell phone next to the head produces a much higher level of power density than any base station.

Regardless of WHO and IARC, another major research and regulatory agency is the Food and Drug Agency, which has proven (the 2020 document) that there is no evidence that exposure to this type of radiation without doubt causes increased damage to this malignant formation (see document). And the FDA also continues research and collects new data.
 
5G and COVID-19
  • According to your knowledge, is there a connection between the use of 5G technology and the outbreak of COVID-19?
According to available information, there is no link between the use of 5G technology and the outbreak of COVID-19. The stories which are connecting bats, 5G, COVID-19 and chipping people with vaccine monitoring have no real scientific grounds. Why am I saying a real? The reason for that was scientific Article published by Chris Van Kerckhoven, a doctor, in the Belgian magazine Het Laatste Nieuws on January 22. In the magazine, the doctor mentions the connection between the constructed 5G towers around Wuhan and the new virus activated by such a network, which is why it is dangerous for control of humans and animals. Although the article was withdrawn after few hours, it was exposed to the public long enough to initiate a wave of conspiracy theories.

Moreover stories that tell us that China is destroying its 5G antennas and centers are not standing, but rather new areas are being accelerated and built that will use this system, especially in medical centers for accelerating operations, especially in the orthopedic area using specialized robots that would be operated from a distance using 5G technology.
 
The ban of 5G networks and impact on technological development
  • Do you think 5G technology should be banned and what are the possible consequences of such a ban?
There is currently no scientifically confirmed evidence of possible harm to human health of existing wireless technologies, provided that the limits on maximum exposure values for a particular frequency and for total exposure at all frequencies are respected and therefore there is no reason to prohibit the deployment of 5G technology as long as appropriate exposure levels are respected.
 
5G technology creates preconditions for technological advancement and development of new solutions that will improve the quality of life and environmental protection. Many medical centers have already designed or plan to build centers or parts that will be equipped with 5G telecommunication networks that could not only exchange large quantities of information between developed medical centers and less developed centers, but also perform complex operations using robots that could coordinate from developed medical centers, thus resolving the lack of available working and educated strength of the entire team of surgeons in operating rooms, and more complex interventions that require great preparation and manpower. This could help developing countries as well as those who are chronically missing trained medical personnel and reduce the amount of medical, infectious waste generated.

Of course, by introducing 5G technology each country continues scientific research that will provide new evidence of the impact of 5G technology on human health and the environment.