An Open Letter to Medical Professionals
Advocating for Safer Technology for Societal Health
January 1, 2020
Dear Medical Professional:
There is a looming preventative public health issue that is poised to affect millions of individuals and the environment: 5G technology. There is no proof of the short- or long-term safety of 5G. We ask that you act to halt 5G where you live and work.
The fifth generation of wireless microwave radiation technology, called 5G, is about to be implemented world-wide. 5G will dramatically increase wireless exposures, absent any evidence of 5G safety. 5G requires three to ten times more wireless antennas than 4G, tens of thousands of new satellites, powerful phased-array antennas, rapid data bursts, and the use of more and higher frequencies including millimeter waves (MMW). For the first time, 5G technology will employ millimeter waves for commercial use, in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, e.g. 2G, 3G and 4G. Research has demonstrated that currently used wireless frequencies cause biological injury well below current government guidelines.
5G technology will require massive densification, with cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, and use radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the much wider frequency range of 600 MHz – 300 GHz. This radiation spectrum has been classified since 2011 as Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). New scientific studies now provide strong support to reassign RFR to the highest Group 1 Known Carcinogen classification. Wireless risks are already documented in many thousands of peer-reviewed studies by research institutions including the US National Toxicology Program (malignant heart cancer or schwannoma, malignant brain cancer or glioma; heart tissue damage or cardiomyopathy). The Ramazzini Institute found increased risk for some of the same health risks at even lower RFR exposure levels.
Studies exposing humans to low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (at today’s environmental levels) have repeatedly shown significant associations with oxidative stress, DNA damage, impaired DNA repair in stem cells, lipid peroxidation, impaired immune function, changes in neurotransmitter and hormone levels, changes in brainwave and cardiovascular activity, protein misfolding, and metabolic abnormalities. There is now sufficient evidence that such exposures, if chronic, can contribute to both acute and chronic disease burden. Other studies report increased risk for debilitating physical and cognitive symptoms including depression, anxiety, irritability, psychosis, headaches, memory loss, learning disability, joint pain, limb pain, paresthesia, allergies, dermatitis, nausea, fatigue, insomnia, indigestion, and motor dysfunction.
As an expansion upon existing wireless frequencies, 5G will likely amplify already detrimental effects of 2G, 3G, and 4G. The shorter wavelengths of 5G are expected to deposit very high levels of RF energy in just the first few millimeters of skin and eye tissue, raising concerns for increasing the risk for skin cancers and heat damage to both the eyes and testes. Skin signaling can affect neurotransmitter and immune cell function deeper within the body through complex nervous system interactions that can alter metabolism, reproduction and mental functioning.
Telecommunications interests are ignoring these risks to create a new market of high tech phones, which will be accompanied by multiple carriers placing 5G wireless small cell antenna on every urban street corner.
In contrast to tobacco or opioids, wireless exposures are inescapable and telecommunications interests infinite. The industry dominates media, expert groups, and research through funding as well as through ties with other financially-invested industries and regulatory agencies. Little independent funding exists globally to study wireless risks.
Despite a clear warning from scientists, 5G deployment will occur without pre-market testing or evidence of safety, while already there is clear evidence this could be hazardous. Telecommunication industries around the world continue to develop and deploy these technologies ahead of full knowledge of health risks and without the informed consent of those who are affected in their homes, schools, and workplaces, i.e. in daily life.
Medical expert groups, academic institutions, scientists and medical research are in some cases heavily influenced by donors or business interests, leading to denial of serious environmental health risks. Please adopt a stance in favor of the Precautionary Principle and which recognizes the role of electromagnetic pollution in ill health.
Doctors play a pivotal role in setting cultural and health norms. In the legal arena doctors are conferred status as experts. Many patients trust and follow the advice of their doctors and medical authorities. Doctors are well-positioned to break through intractable, misguided misinformation on 5G wireless technologies and guide patients towards wired connectivity, respectful of privacy, security, and environmental health. Building biologists also promote wired technology and include a low RFR environment in their 25 principles of building biology as a pathway to healthier homes.
Please take the time to study and become fully informed about the health impacts of wireless technology so that you can better protect yourself, your family, and your patients, in addition to influencing colleagues and politicians.
Written by Last Tree Laws (LastTreeLaws.com).
Thanks to Physicians for Safe Technology (MDSafeTech.org) for their editing & endorsement.
Thanks to Stop5GInternational.org for their efforts and collaboration.
Afflerbach, A., CTC Technology & Energy. (2017 Nov 10). Comparison of RF exposure and distance from a small cell site. Study contracted for Montgomery County, Maryland. Columbia Telecommunications Corporation.
Collins, M (2018 Feb) Are you read for 5G? Mckinsey & Co. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/telecommunications/our-insights/are-you-ready-for-5G
Betzalel N, Ben Ishai P, Feldmann Y (2018) The human skin as a sub-THz receiver -Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environmental Research, 163: 208-16. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.032.
Di Ciaula A. (2018) Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 221(3):367-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011.
Moskowitz, JM. (2019 Oct 17) We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
Neufeld E, Kuster N. (2018) Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. [Note: study tested 10 GHz]. Health Phys, 115(6):705-711. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000930.
Simko M & Mattsson MO (2019) 5G wireless communication and health effects—a pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz, Int Jour Env Res Pub Health, 16:3406. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183406.
Russell CL. (2018) 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environ Res, 165:484-495. doi: 10.1016/j.envres. 2018.01.016 or at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunications%20expansion%3A%20Public%20health%20and%20environmental%20implications.pdf
Zalyubovskaya NP (1977) [Biological effects of millimeter radiowaves.] VRACHEBNOYE DELO, 3:57. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120005-6.pdf.
Hardell L, Carlberg M (2013) Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health, 28(2-3):97-106. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.
Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Müntener K, Röösli M (2007) Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1):1-4. doi:10.1289/ehp.9149
Lin JC (2019) The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 20(11):18-21. doi:10.1109/MMM.2019.2935361. [References NTP and Ramazzini studies]
Prasad M, Kathuria P, Nair P, Prasad K (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumors: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sce, 38(5): 797-810. doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8
Siegel D, Li J, Henley SJ, Wilson R, Lunsford RB, Tai E, Van Dyne E. Incidence Rates and Trends of Pediatric Cancer United States 2001–2014. Poster presentation at the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. May 2-5, 2018.
Wyde et al. Final National Toxicology (NTP) Report 2018. NTP TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN Hsd:SPRAGUE DAWLEY SD RATS EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT A FREQUENCY (900 MHz) AND MODULATIONS (GSM AND CDMA) USED BY CELL PHONES. For Peer Review March 26-28, 2018. NIH. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf
Soffritti M & Giuliani L [Ramazzini Institute] (2019) The carcinogenic potential of non-ionizing radiations: The cases of S-50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxic, 125(Suppl 3):58-69. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30801980
Cucurachi et al (2012) A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51C:116-140 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233974663_A_review_of_the_ecological_effects_of_radiofrequency_electromagnetic_fields_RF-EMF
25 Building Biology Principles: Your Pathway to Healthier Homes. Building Biology Institute. The science of healthy Buildings. https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/about/25-principles-of-building-biology/
Mental and Cognitive Health
Lai H (2019) Research Summaries: RFR Neurological Effect Abstracts. Bioinitiative 2012. Available online at https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries
Meo SA et al. (2019) Mobile phone base station tower settings adjacent to school buildings: impact on student’s cognitive health, Am J Mens Health, 13(1):1557988318816914. doi: 10.1177/1557988318816914.
Santini R et al (2002) [Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex]. Santini R. Pathol Biol [Paris]. 50(6):369-73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12168254
Kesari KK, Agarwal A, & Henkel R (2018). [Review] Radiations and male fertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 16(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0431-1.
Li De Kun et al (2017) Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. Sci Rep, 13;7(1):17541. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727515/
Belyaev I (2016) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illness. Rev Environ Health, 31(3):363-97. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/download.php?field=filename&id=363&class=DownloadItem
Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell LL, Oremus M, Soskolne CL (2019) Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front Public Health, 7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223
Panagopoulos D. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Wellbeing. Electromagnetic Fields: Principles, Engineering Applications and Biophysical Effects, 13:87-130. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulos-nova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf