The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies

Abstract

The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies Nyberg NR, McCredden JE, Weller SG, Hardell L. The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2022. doi:10.1515/reveh-2022-0106. Abstract The fifth generation of radiofrequency communication, 5G, is currently being rolled out worldwide. Since September 2017, the EU 5G Appeal has been sent six times to the EU, requesting a moratorium on the rollout of 5G. This article reviews the 5G Appeal and the EU’s subsequent replies, including the extensive cover letter sent to the EU in September 2021, requesting stricter guidelines for exposures to radiofrequency radiation (RFR). The Appeal notes the EU’s internal conflict between its approach to a wireless technology-led future, and the need to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It critiques the reliance of the EU on the current guidelines given by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that consider only heating and no other health relevant biological effects from RFR. To counteract the ICNIRP position, the 2021 cover letter briefly presented recent research from the EU’s own expert groups, from a large collection of European and other international studies, and from previous reviews of the effects of RFR on humans and the environment. The 5G Appeal asserts that the majority of scientific evidence points to biological effects, many with the potential for harm, occurring below the ICNIRP public limits. Evidence to establish this position is drawn from studies showing changes to neurotransmitters and receptors, damage to cells, proteins, DNA, sperm, the immune system, and human health, including cancer. The 2021 Appeal goes on to warn that 5G signals are likely to additionally alter the behaviour of oxygen and water molecules at the quantum level, unfold proteins, damage skin, and cause harm to insects, birds, frogs, plants and animals. Altogether, this evidence establishes a high priority for the European Union towards (i) replacing the current flawed guidelines with protective thresholds, and (ii) placing a moratorium on 5G deployment so as to (iii) allow industry-independent scientists the time needed to propose new health-protective guidelines. This 2021 Appeal’s relevance becomes even more pressing in the context of the EU plans to roll out the sixth generation of wireless technologies, 6G, further adding to the known risks of RFR technology for humans and the environment. This all leads to an important question: Do EU decision makers have the right to ignore EU´s own directives by prioritising economic gain over human and environmental health? Excerpts Exposure of captured agencies The deficits of industry-biased bodies are now beginning to be exposed. In 2021, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was deemed by a US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling as having been negligent for two decades in its role as protector of public health, in that when it decided that its 1996 emission guidelines protected public health, it neglected to consider (a) impacts of long term wireless exposure, (b) unique impacts to children, (c) testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, (d) impacts to wildlife and the environment and (e) impacts to the developing brain and reproduction [96]. The book Captured Agency describes the compromised position of the FCC in its role as public protector [97]. The compromised actions of ICNIRP since their inception, including inviting industry representatives to the table, are described by Maisch [98, Chapter 4]. As noted by the Turin Court of Appeal [43], opinions from such conflicted advisory bodies as ICNIRP are not reliable. Safety-first Alternative guidelines to protect citizens have been created by four groups of industry-independent scientists, based on best available scientific evidence; i.e., setting exposure levels lower than where biological effects with health implications have been found. As described in [101] these four groups recommend the following limits for human exposures to RF-EMR: 1. Building biologists [102] suggest a very low radiation level of no more than 0.1 µW/m2 (in sleeping areas); 2. EuropaEM-EMF Environmental Medicine researchers [103] suggest 1 µW/m2 during the night and 10 µW/m2 during the day time; 3. The BioInitiative-group conclusions (2012 update) [20], made by 29 prominent researchers, and based on 2,200+ scientific reports, suggest 3–6 µW/m2 as the upper limit for exposures; 4. The Council of Europe (CoE) Resolution 1815 [104] Section 8.2.1 says set preventative thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 V per metre [1,000 µW/m2], and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 V per metre [100 µW/m2]. While there is some variation in the above recommendations, they are all far lower than the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines [14] which, for all frequencies from 2–300 GHz, allow a 30 min average whole body exposure of 10,000,000 µW/m2 (10 W/m2; Table 5, p. 495). For the more recent, higher 5G frequencies of 6–300 GHz, the ICNIRP guidelines allow an average 6 min local exposure over a 4-cm2 region of 200,000,000 µW/m2 (200 W/m2; p. 490). Furthermore, An additional specification of 400 W m −2 has been set for spatial averages of square 1-cm2 regions, for frequencies >30 GHz ([14], p. 490). These ICNIRP specifications mean that future 5G cell phones may send narrow directional beams that impact small regions of body tissue with intensities of 200,000,000–400,000,000 µW/m2. However, the maximum intensity should be no higher than 1–10 μW/m2, according to recommendations 1), 2), 3) above that are aimed at protecting human health. The above comparisons reveal that ICNIRP and most European states allow incident power densities at least a million times higher than the first three independent advisory bodies mentioned above. This is because the ICNIRP guidelines consider only temperature rises in “tissue simulants” in plastic “heads” but no other risks, like biological effects on living glial cells, blood or DNA, which have been well documented in EU’s sponsored research and reviews [1, 3, 4, 6, 7]. Concluding remarks At the current juncture, millions of EU citizens are relying on the EU to address the issues raised in the EU 5G Appeal. The EU decision makers need to put aside their industry-fuelled fantasies of a digital saviour for mankind and instead, ensure that industry acts according to EU laws, made to prioritise humans and planetary health above industry profit or science fiction futures. Any economic benefits from 5G are likely to be outweighed by the risk of harm to the health of billions of people around the world [33]. If the EU continues to fail to act on these warnings, Europe may end up being faced with a non-reversible burgeoning health impact on humans, especially children and the environment. To allow the levels and frequencies of exposures to continue unfettered is to put the world population and the environment at great risk, especially young people [28]. Open access paper: degruyter.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This article reviews the EU 5G Appeal and the EU’s replies, arguing that EU policy prioritizes economic goals over health protection in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. It critiques reliance on ICNIRP guidelines as focusing on heating effects and asserts that much of the scientific evidence indicates biological effects, including potentially harmful effects, at exposure levels below ICNIRP public limits. The paper advocates replacing current guidelines with more protective thresholds and calls for a moratorium on 5G deployment to allow development of new, industry-independent health-protective guidelines.

Outcomes measured

• Biological effects below guideline limits (as asserted)
• Neurotransmitters and receptors changes (as cited)
• Cell, protein, DNA damage (as cited)
• Sperm and immune system effects (as cited)
• Cancer and human health effects (as cited)
• Environmental/wildlife impacts (insects, birds, frogs, plants, animals) (as asserted)
• Policy/regulatory reliance on ICNIRP guidelines
• Calls for stricter exposure guidelines and moratorium on 5G

Limitations

• Narrative/policy-focused review of an advocacy appeal and institutional replies rather than a systematic review with explicit search and appraisal methods (as described in the abstract).
• Specific included studies, selection criteria, and quality assessment are not detailed in the provided abstract.
• Many claims are presented as assertions of the Appeal/cover letter rather than results from a single empirical study.

Suggested hubs

• 5g-policy (0.95)
  Focuses on EU decision-making, the EU 5G Appeal, and calls for a 5G moratorium and stricter policy.
• who-icnirp (0.9)
  Central critique of reliance on ICNIRP guidelines and their scope (thermal-only) in EU policy.

{
    "publication_year": 2022,
    "study_type": "review",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "5G rollout / wireless technologies (including 6G context)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Biological effects below guideline limits (as asserted)",
        "Neurotransmitters and receptors changes (as cited)",
        "Cell, protein, DNA damage (as cited)",
        "Sperm and immune system effects (as cited)",
        "Cancer and human health effects (as cited)",
        "Environmental/wildlife impacts (insects, birds, frogs, plants, animals) (as asserted)",
        "Policy/regulatory reliance on ICNIRP guidelines",
        "Calls for stricter exposure guidelines and moratorium on 5G"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This article reviews the EU 5G Appeal and the EU’s replies, arguing that EU policy prioritizes economic goals over health protection in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. It critiques reliance on ICNIRP guidelines as focusing on heating effects and asserts that much of the scientific evidence indicates biological effects, including potentially harmful effects, at exposure levels below ICNIRP public limits. The paper advocates replacing current guidelines with more protective thresholds and calls for a moratorium on 5G deployment to allow development of new, industry-independent health-protective guidelines.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Narrative/policy-focused review of an advocacy appeal and institutional replies rather than a systematic review with explicit search and appraisal methods (as described in the abstract).",
        "Specific included studies, selection criteria, and quality assessment are not detailed in the provided abstract.",
        "Many claims are presented as assertions of the Appeal/cover letter rather than results from a single empirical study."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "stance": "concern",
    "stance_confidence": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
    "summary": "This review discusses the EU 5G Appeal and EU responses, framing EU decision-making as prioritizing economic objectives over health in the rollout of RF technologies. It criticizes reliance on ICNIRP guidelines for focusing on thermal effects and argues that evidence indicates biological effects, including potential harm, below current public limits. The authors call for stricter exposure thresholds and a moratorium on 5G while new, industry-independent guidelines are developed.",
    "key_points": [
        "The article reviews the EU 5G Appeal and subsequent EU replies regarding 5G deployment and RF exposure limits.",
        "It critiques ICNIRP guidelines as considering only heating effects and not other biological effects.",
        "The paper asserts that most evidence points to biological effects, many potentially harmful, below ICNIRP public limits.",
        "It cites reported effects in the literature on neurotransmitters/receptors, cellular and DNA damage, sperm, immune function, and cancer.",
        "It warns of potential additional impacts from 5G signals and broader environmental harms to wildlife and ecosystems.",
        "The authors recommend replacing current guidelines with more protective thresholds and implementing a moratorium on 5G deployment.",
        "The discussion is framed as a policy and governance issue, questioning whether EU decision makers can ignore health and environmental directives."
    ],
    "categories": [
        "5G",
        "Radiofrequency (RF)",
        "Policy & Regulation",
        "Exposure Guidelines",
        "Environmental Health"
    ],
    "tags": [
        "5G",
        "6G",
        "Radiofrequency Radiation",
        "RF-EMF",
        "ICNIRP Guidelines",
        "European Union Policy",
        "Precautionary Principle",
        "Moratorium",
        "Exposure Limits",
        "Health Risk Claims",
        "Environmental Impacts",
        "Cancer",
        "DNA Damage",
        "Sperm Quality",
        "Regulatory Capture"
    ],
    "keywords": [
        "EU 5G Appeal",
        "ICNIRP 2020",
        "radiofrequency technologies",
        "RFR",
        "guidelines",
        "moratorium",
        "biological effects",
        "policy"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "Focuses on EU decision-making, the EU 5G Appeal, and calls for a 5G moratorium and stricter policy."
        },
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "reason": "Central critique of reliance on ICNIRP guidelines and their scope (thermal-only) in EU policy."
        }
    ],
    "social": {
        "tweet": "Review of the EU 5G Appeal argues EU policy prioritizes economics over health, critiques reliance on ICNIRP thermal-based limits, and calls for stricter RF exposure thresholds and a 5G moratorium while new guidelines are developed.",
        "facebook": "This review examines the EU 5G Appeal and EU responses, criticizing reliance on ICNIRP guidelines and asserting that biological effects may occur below current public RF limits. The authors advocate more protective exposure thresholds and a moratorium on 5G deployment pending new, industry-independent guidelines.",
        "linkedin": "A policy-focused review of the EU 5G Appeal and EU replies argues that current reliance on ICNIRP thermal-based RF exposure guidelines is insufficient, and calls for more protective thresholds and a temporary moratorium on 5G deployment to enable development of updated health-protective standards."
    }
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.