What dangers would the wireless transmission of power through microwaves pose to living organisms?

What dangers would the wireless transmission of power through microwaves pose to living organisms?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

If we were one day able to harness the power of "wireless electricity", and INTEGRATE it into society, what disadvantages and/or dangers to living organisms would become relevant at that point? To my understanding, the power would be transmitted through microwaves, which may or may not be correct.

The example I will use in regards to "wireless electricity", would be… The transmission of power from one source to another without the need for power cords, or power lines.

One such instance, according to "", states "The idea, said the JAXA spokesman, would be for microwave-transmitting solar satellites-which would have sunlight-gathering panels and antennae-to be set up about 36,000 kilometres (22,300 miles) from the earth."

Whether wireless power transfer is safe depends on the type of power transfer. Inductive coupling is generally safe, but only works across small distances (i.e., millimeters to centimeters). The other option is far-field or radiative technology, where either visible light (from lasers) or microwaves are used. The latter has not been applied much, some uses have been found in space technology. Their safety in general will depend mainly on the power being transmitted. For example, a laser can be destructive if it is powerful enough.

I will focus on inductive coupling, because it is not only safe, it is commonplace. The prime example being cochlear implants. Cochlear implants are basically electrode arrays implanted in the inner ear to directly electrically stimulate the auditory nerve in deaf people where the hair cells have degenerated (or were never there). The implant is powered by an external battery worn behind the ear. It is coupled to a head-worn external coil that wirelessly transfers the power needed to drive the implant to an internal, surgically implanted coil. I'm not entirely sure about the exact numbers, but more than 100,000 folks around the globe have received one or two cochlear implants.

Cochlear implant showing the external and internal coil to transcranially transmit power to the implant.Source: Extreme Technology

Very similar technology is used in retinal implants. Retinal implants electrically stimulate the degenerate retina to [partly] restore vision in the blind. For example, the Argus II deploys an external coil mounted on a pair of glasses that wirelessly couples to a surgically implanted coil in the eye to power the implant. Being newer technology, there are not more than two hundred or so people implanted worldwide as we speak, but this number will definitely sore in the near future, all, or at least many relying on wireless power transfer.

Schematic of the Argus II retinal prosthesis showing the wireless link. Source: Ars Technica.

These examples may not be exhaustive. For example, transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain is another example of wireless energy transfer across the skull, making use of magnetic induction to stimulate the cortex. However, these examples do show that medical bionics is already making use of wireless power transmission technology.

Electric & Magnetic Fields

Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible areas of energy, often referred to as Radiation , that are associated with the use of electrical power and various forms of natural and man-made lighting. EMFs are typically grouped into one of two categories by their frequency:

  • Non-ionizing: low-level radiation which is generally perceived as harmless to humans
  • Ionizing: high-level radiation which has the potential for cellular and DNA damage
  • Extremely Low Frequency (ELF)
  • Radio Frequency (RF)
  • Microwaves
  • Visual Light
  • Microwave ovens
  • Computers
  • House energy smart meters
  • Wireless (wifi) networks
  • Cell Phones
  • Bluetooth devices
  • Power lines
  • MRIs
  • Ultraviolet (UV)
  • X-Rays
  • Gamma
  • Sunlight
  • X-Rays
  • Some Gamma Rays

Can EMFs be harmful to my health?

During the 1990s, most EMF research focused on extremely low frequency exposures stemming from conventional power sources, such as power lines, electrical substations, or home appliances. While some of these studies showed a possible link between EMF field strength and an increased risk for childhood Leukemia , their findings indicated that such an association was weak. The few studies that have been conducted on adults show no evidence of a link between EMF exposure and adult cancers, such as leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer.

Now, in the age of cellular telephones, wireless routers, and the Internet of things, all of which use EMF, concerns persist about possible connections between EMF and adverse health effects. These exposures are actively being studies by NIEHS recommends continued education on practical ways of reducing exposures to EMFs.

Does my cell phone emit EMF radiation?

Cell phones emit a form of radio frequency radiation at the lower end of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum. Currently, scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse human health problems, although scientists admit that more research is needed.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP), headquartered at NIEHS, just completed the largest animal study, to date, on cell phone radio frequency exposure. For a summary of the findings, please visit our press release and the NTP webpage .

What if I live near a power line?

EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power Booklet

It is important to remember that the strength of a magnetic field decreases dramatically with increasing distance from the source. This means that the strength of the field reaching a house or structure will be significantly weaker than it was at its point of origin.

For example, a magnetic field measuring 57.5 milligauss immediately beside a 230 kilovolt transmission line measures just 7.1 milligauss at a distance of 100 feet, and 1.8 milligauss at a distance of 200 feet, according to the World Health Organization in 2010.

For more information, see the NIEHS educational booklet, &ldquoEMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power&rdquo. This booklet, prepared in 2002, contains the most recent NIEHS research on health and powerline electric and magnetic fields.

How can I find out if I&rsquom being exposed to EMFs?

If you are concerned about EMFs emitted by a power line or substation in your area, you can contact your local power company to schedule an on-site reading. You can also measure EMFs yourself with the use of a gaussmeter, which is available for purchase online through a number of retailers.

Testing A Cell Tower’s RF Radiation

In the below video I test the radiation coming from a huge cell tower standing right next to an office building. I am standing right next to the building and the amount of radiation they are being exposed to is tremendous. The video is short, but definitely worth watching. You will be surprised by the massive amount of radiation this cell tower is emitting.

(Before we get into the rest of this article I just want to mention two things. First, there is a way to protect yourself from this radiation. The science behind it is the same they use to neutralize and clean up chemical and radioactive waste sites. You can check it out here “Aulterra EMF Neutralizer Products Review“.

And second, many people that come to this site are also interested in emergency preparedness. If you are interested in this subject you might want to check out the website It has really good information on all types of emergency preparation.)

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?

New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

Conclusions and recommendation

In assessing causal evidence in environmental epidemiology, Bradford Hill himself pointed out that ‘the whole picture matters’ he argued against prioritising any subset of his famous nine criteria for causation. One’s overall assessment of the likelihood that an exposure causes a health condition should take into account a wide variety of evidence, including ‘biological plausibility’. After reviewing the evidence cited above, the writer, an experienced physician-epidemiologist, is convinced that RF-EMFs may well have serious human health effects. While there is also increasing scientific evidence for RF-EMF effects of ecological concern in other species, both plant and animal, these have not been reviewed here, for reasons of space and the author’s disciplinary limitations. In addition, there is convincing evidence, cited above, that several nations’ regulatory apparatus, for telecommunications innovations such as the 5G roll-out, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, significant elements in that apparatus appear to have been captured by vested interests. Every society’s public health—and especially the health of those most likely to be susceptible to the hazard in question (in the case of EMFs, children and pregnant women)—needs to be protected by evidence-based regulations, free from significant bias.

Finally, this commentary would be remiss if it did not mention a widely circulating conspiracy theory, suggesting that 5G and related EMF exposures somehow contributed to the creation or spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are knowledgeable commentators’ reports on the web debunking this theory, and no respectable scientist or publication has backed it. Indeed, combatting it is widely viewed by the scientific community as critical to dealing with the pandemic, as conspiracy theorists holding this view have already carried out violent attacks on mobile phone transmission facilities and other symbolic targets, distracting the public and authorities at a time when pandemic control actions are paramount. 42 This writer completely supports that view of the broader scientific community: the theory that 5G and related EMFs have contributed to the pandemic is baseless.

It follows that, for the current 5G roll-out, there is a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’. This is the environmental and occupational health principle by which significant doubt about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure should be a reason to call a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects. In short, one should ‘err on the side of caution’. In the case of 5G transmission systems, there is no compelling public health or safety rationale for their rapid deployment. The main gains being promised are either economic (for some parties only, not necessarily with widely distributed financial benefits across the population) or related to increased consumer convenience. Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological point of view, those putative gains need to wait.

From the knowledge and principle of electromagnetism, human beings are constituted of substantial amount of oriented cells with diverse electromagnetic field attributes. The Biological attributes of the human tissue under diverse electromagnetic radiative emission are studied and that had provided the basis upon which the current research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on the human body. The heating consequences of the radio electromagnetic waves from 5G network technology deployment had formed the fundamental basis for current research. On the several findings of the research, deploying 5G network technology under the ultra-high baseband above 20 GHz will produce effects such as heating up of the body tissues due to electromagnetic field inducement on the account that human body is dipolar in nature. The effects will extend to produce dielectric polarization, ionic polarization, interfacial polarization and orientational polarization. This is generally on the account that variations on dielectric properties of biological tissues with the frequency of the electromagnetic field inducement are very dissimilar. While it is very imperative to determine the frequency distribution in deploying the novel 5G network to avoid adverse dielectric dispersion that may flow into the human body.

The Hidden Health Effects of Cell Towers

The FCC and a Congressional Challenge

The FCC already agrees that cell tower workers may be injured by these fields because of the proximity. While the FCC position is solely based on thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation, it is clear the agency agrees that cell tower workers may be at risk of adverse health effects (emphasis mine):

Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature (References 32, 37, 45, 46, 48 and 54). However, there may be situations, particularly workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy.

How well is the FCC monitoring these levels? Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Rep. Anna Eshoo of California believe the FCC has dropped the ball when it comes to monitoring and regulating the safety of cell towers, especially when it comes to cell site workers. The lawmakers issued a challenge to the FCC on September 17, 2015,

Excessive exposure to RF radiation leads to well-documented potential harms, especially to workers who spend time near the antenna and in the line of the antenna’s beam. At sufficient power levels and exposure durations, RF radiation has the ability to heat biological tissue. Thermal effects can include eye damage, sterility, and cognitive impairments.

We urge the FCC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to work together to enforce exposure limits and ensure wireless carriers are taking the required precautions to protect the safety of all persons who may be exposed to dangerous levels of RF radiation near wireless towers.

If the FCC agrees that cell tower workers are at risk, and two members of Congress are concerned enough to issue a reprimand, what does this say about the overall safety of cell sites?

Studies That Demonstrate a Health Risk

The World Health Organization officially classifies electromagnetic radiation a possible 2B carcinogen. (The same category as lead, DDT, and styrene.)

The following studies suggest short-term and long-term health risks within 300-400 meters of a cell tower. (Less than three-tenths of a mile)

This is a compelling survey of 270 men and 260 women showing changes in symptoms in relation to cell tower proximity. Note the decrease in reported headaches the further from the cell site.

Researchers measured blood levels of serotonin and melatonin in 25 participants before and after the activation of a new cell site. There were unfavorable changes in almost all participants.

Researchers discovered a threefold increase in cancers after five years exposure to microwave radiation from a nearby mobile phone mast transmitter compared to those patients living further away.

Researchers in France found significant health effects on people living within 300 meters of mobile phone base stations. Fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, concentration problems, depression, memory problems, irritability, cardiovascular problems, hearing disruption, skin problems, dizziness, etc.

(For a comprehensive list of studies linking cell towers to adverse health effects, see Electromagnetic Health.)

As noted above current FCC regulations are based on thermal effects. Thanks to the BioIniative Report 2012 we now have a compilation of more than 1800 studies showing biological effects from non-ionizing radiation.

In May 2016, the U.S. government released preliminary findings for a $25 million rat study linking cell phone radiation to cancer. See NTP Study: Cell Phones and Cancer.

5G Telecommunications Science

The Telecommunications Industry promises fast, ubiquitous and unlimited mobile internet access with the next generation of 5G technologies by 2020, along with removal of cheap, secure and safer landlines. This 5G network is designed to provide faster downloads, streaming movies, wireless virtual reality, in addition to being the platform for the Internet of Things, whereby all our household devices are connected to this system wirelessly for remote control. While there may be limited medical applications, 5G will mainly be used for more immersive entertainment and surveillance with much greater public exposure, especially in “Smart Cities”.

Military uses have also been discussed. This 5 th generation (5G) system will add high frequency electromagnetic radiation with Gigahertz (GHz) wavelengths in the millimeter range. These high frequency tiny wavelengths penetrate only the outer layer of the skin, unlike 2G, 3G and 4G technology which passes through the body. Major health concerns with exposure to 5G are to skin, eye and adverse systemic metabolic signaling through skin sensors, as well as heat effects. In a the March 2020 European Parliament Briefing on health effects of 5G they admit that the “ European Commission has not yet conducted studies on the potential health risks of the 5G technology.” Some in the U.S. Congress have seriously questioned the lack of independent research on 5G safety. In addition, as you will read, 5G will be added to an enlarging spectrum of radiation in the lower frequency range, increasing our exposure to this complex mix of non-ionizing but biologically active radiation.

Manufacturing Demand: Industry Questions the “Race” to 5G

The race to 5G deployment is now being questioned by industry experts, as it is complex, will cost more (over $500 billion), requires much more infrastructure, is driven by supply not demand, and requires substantial buy-in. They state in their report, 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia 2019,

As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment. However, we are yet to see significant “demand-pull” that could assure sales. These campaign efforts are also aimed at the MNOs but they have limited capacity to invest in the new technology and infrastructure as their returns from investment in 3G and 4G are still being recouped.”

Here is a discussion from the telecom industry regarding 5G RF compliance and safety, Preparing for 5G: Evolution of RF Compliance Standards and Regulations for Mobile Devices.

Precautionary Advice on 5G From Expert, Joel Moskowitz, PhD

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, a scientist who has studied and written on tobacco, as well as radiofrequency radiation, gives a different and precautionary view in his 2019 article, We Have No Reason to Believe That 5G is Safe, published in Scientific American. He has presented very clear review of radiofrequency and health impacts at the UCSF Occupational and Environmental Medicine Grand Rounds called “Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G” on Sept 24, 2020. Slide Share is here.

Dr. Moskowitz highlights the blatant dismissal of health concerns by industry as it pushes forward in his piece in the Washington Spectator Sept 18, 2020, Regulators Steamroll Health Concerns as the Global Economy Embraces 5G.

The First Report of 5G Injury is in Switzerland

The first reported injury of 5G in a news report comes from Switzerland, where 5G has been launched in 102 locations. The weekly French-language Swiss magazine L’Illustré interviewed people living in Geneva after the 5G rollout with alarming details of illness. In their article, With 5G, We Feel Like Guinea Pigs, posted July 18, 2019, they report neighbors met to discuss their many common symptoms and many unanswered questions. See also First Report of 5G Injury from Switzerland

Noah Davidson spoke out about debilitating electrosensitivity symptoms that developed in his two children after a 5G tower was placed directly in front of their home in Sacramento, California. He hired a building biologist to help shield his house and move the children farther away to mitigate the problem. An article about this was published in Public News Service Oct 9, 2020.

What is the Difference Between 5G and 4G Wireless Technology?

Many confuse 5G or Fifth Generation Technology with the 5Gigahertz (GHz) frequencies used in wireless devices. Some devices state they are 5G, but at this point in time, for most devices, it is meant to be 5GHz frequency of transmission. 5G technology has been said to use much higher frequencies (10-300 GHZ), and for the new 5G cell “small cell” towers it may contain these frequencies, but not always. Companies have realized that the shorter wavelengths do not travel as far or penetrate buildings well, thus telecom companies have purchased low and mid band RF spectrum as well as 5G high frequency bands through government auctions. These longer wavelengths (used in 2G, 3G and 4G) travel farther, through buildings and serve as backhaul for 5G short wavelengths. They are calling all these wavelengths 5G or small cell technology without being specific. See Bill Nye 5G Facts About 5G Explained- T Mobile. They plan to put the low and mid band band spectrum in rural areas where it will travel farther. These longer wavelengths penetrate living organisms even deeper and are accompanied by an abundance of robust science showing biologic harm at non thermal levels. 5G technology along with lower frequency emitting cell antennas are now being rolled out internationally.

Unfortunately the definition of 5G/ small cells is variable and cities are not asking for specific frequency data or adequate monitoring for small cell towers that are being rushed through city permitting processes. See also What’s the Difference Between 5G and 5GHz Wi-Fi?.

Confusion mounts as most “small cells” placed in cities will have the same 4G technology, at least initially, although people are calling them 5G or small cell towers. As explained, telecom companies are using longer wavelength (600 and 700 MHz), or low band, in addition to current 2.5to 5 GHz Wi Fi, or mid-band, as well as small millimeter high-band (6 to 300 GHz) frequencies scientists have been especially concerned about. Thus 5G Spectrum, when fully implemented, will consist of a much broader range of frequencies people will continuously be exposed to and with closer proximity. When talking about 5G or small cells one needs to be specific about which bands will be used. Will it be 5G millimeter high band technology or 5G low band or mid band technology placed on a utility pole near you? Equipment to measure low and mid bands is affordable for cities but the high frequency band (10�GHz) equipment is very expensive and even independent building biologists have difficulty obtaining the meters. There is thus no monitoring of the radiation emissions from this technology by cities or individuals.

Note: The telecom industry admits that these so-called “small cells” are the same as those mounted on high poles with almost the same power, only much closer to people (6 to 10 feet from homes, not the 150 feet distance they now are when on tall poles).

Does Anybody Really Know What 5G is? Telecom’s Moving but Enlarging Target

Telecom argues that because the wireless frequency bands are more crowded along with the fact that they wish to expand the amount and speed of data that can be transmitted, more bandwidth needs to be used. We have been told for years by telecom companies that 5G would only use novel tiny millimeter wave technology that does not penetrate the skin, however, companies such as Verizon, T Mobile and AT&T have already purchased previously unused lower-band, mid-band (sub-6GHz) as well as high frequency GHz spectrum for their nationwide rollout. These are a similar section of the current spectrum we use now in 4G technology but different frequencies. Typical cell phone frequencies are 900MHz and 1800MHz, with 2.5GHz and 5 GHz used for Wi Fi. These currently used frequencies have been tested in the literature and found to be biologically active and harmful. See chart below.

Different portions of the Spectrum have been purchased through auctions from the FCC and each telecom company will use their own specific frequencies that are longer wavelengths, that penetrate not only buildings and trees, but us as well. According to an article dated May 28, 2019, In Nationwide 5G, It Will Be AT&T’s 700MHz vs. T-Mobile’s 600MHz, discussing 5G industry strategies, T Mobile will use 600MHz to 700MHz and AT&T will use 700MHz. Sprint says it will use their own 2.5GHz for the 5G rollout. Verizon has not said what it will use, but acknowledges that it cannot use millimeter technology for broad coverage. As the mysterious “Small Cells” begin to populate every city street, where does that leave scientists who would like to see monitoring and studies of all these wavelengths (and their mixes) before further deployment of 5G or 4G? Have there been any health surveys done before or after the deployment of these cell towers? That would surely tell us a lot about the health effects, but no health studies or surveys have been done. It is “assumed” 5G is safe. The graph below explains different frequencies and proposed “G” uses.

5G is Short Wavelength RFR Mixed With Longer 2G, 3G and 4G:

5G high frequency wavelengths are short and in the millimeter range (fractions of an inch), although they will be mixed with current lower (longer wavelength) frequencies. Industry states the deployment of 5G will increase productivity, boost the economy and give us a sense of well-being. They will integrate 5G with current 3G and 4G systems, with plans to add much of the remaining spectrum in the microwave frequencies. Industry states this will operate fluidly in a highly dense cell antenna arrangement throughout neighborhoods and cities. This cell antenna network will accommodate multiple types of access technologies, multi-layer networks, multiple types of devices, multiple types of user interactions including self-driving automobiles and massive industrial automation.

5G technology is different than prior 2G, 3G or 4G technology in the following ways:

  • Frequencies (Cycles per second): One MHz is 1 million cycles per second. One GHz is 1 billion cycles per second. 4G uses several different frequencies from 750MHz to about 2,400-5,000 MHz(2.4 GHz to 5 GHz- typical Wi Fi and cell phone) – 5G (proposed 5th generation) uses10GHz to 300GHz, but lower frequencies will also be used and the frequencies and speed will vary with each carrier i.e. 600 MHz will be used by T Mobile.Sprint will use 2.5GHz, called mid-band, which will penetrate walls. PC Magazine on April 16, 2019 notes, “ The actual 5G radio system, known as 5G-NR, isn’t compatible with 4G. But all 5G devices in the US, to start, will need 4G because they’ll lean on it to make initial connections before trading up to 5G where it’s available. That’s technically known as a “non standalone,” or NSA, network.
  • Length of the Wave: 4G electromagnetic wavelengths are inches to feet long – 5G (6 to 300GHz) frequencies are very short and measured in centimeters to millimeters, but again lower frequencies will also be used, creating a mix of frequencies and therefore wavelengths.
  • Depth of Skin and Body Absorption: 4G microwave radiation (2.4GHz and 5 GHz) passes through bodies and the energy is absorbed by anything that contains water (can’t cook dry rice in a microwave oven), while 5G (6 to 300GHz) penetrates only the outer layers of the skin in humans. Again the mix of frequencies in cell towers and cell phones will have a mix of skin and body penetration
  • Distance Radiation Travels:4G can travel dozens of miles in a line of sight and if poles are placed high. In experiments5G (6 to 300GHz) can travel a few miles but is easily blocked by objects, trees and plants thus poles are planned for every 300 feet in cities
  • Mechanisms of Harm:4G and low band 5G (600MHz) emissions can cause oxidation of tissues (93 of 100 studies), 5G (6 to 300GHz)millimeter wavelengths can have their effect through heat(tissue destruction), through a resonance effect of increased vibration in an object the size of the wavelengths, and at low power levels through signaling of skin structures that can affect metabolism, the nervous system, the endocrine system, the reproductive system (Declassified Military studies)
  • Amount of Testing Done:4G technology has been tested by the military and by international scientists with an abundance of studies showing broad harm to animals, humans, plants, insects and bacteria. 5G (6 to 300GHz) technology has been studied by some in the military showing broad harm and some newer studies are showing damage to insects, tissue burns and overheating with streaming of data, but there has been no independent safety testing of 5G before it is rolled out.

Size of Wavelengths with Varying Frequencies

In general the higher the frequency the sorter the wavelength. One conversion chart is here that shows the different wavelengths and frequencies for 3G, 4G and 5G.

  • 5G: 600 MHz = cm microwaves of 50cm 20 inches (“MHz” = Megahertz)
  • 4G/5G: 700 MHz = cm microwaves of


Electromagnetic radiation and microwave radio frequency electromagnetic radiation are not just sensitizing and irritating persons with diagnosed EMS (electromagnetic sensitive) or EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitive). The $25 million NIH National Toxicology Program research results demonstrated that after only two years of exposure, EMF radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic to the general public. Tens of thousands of published scientific studies, going back at least to the 1970s and beyond, have identified a wide range of human illnesses linked to ongoing exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic radiation, including infertility, immune and autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular problems, ADHD, disturbances in sleep, concentration, memory and learning problems. and more.

There have been more studies on EMFs than for any other environmental toxin. These harms were proven well before wireless technology was commercialized by the introduction of cell phones. For example, EHS (or Microwave Sickness/Radiation Sickness, as it was formerly referred to) was recognized by the courts decades ago (Mtr. Yannon vs. New York Tel. 86 A.D.2d 24, 1982).

The wide range of negative health impacts from exposure to wireless technology radiation have mostly been ignored, and the wireless industry has been using its extensive financial resources to mislead the public, our government, federal and state elected officials, and Congress about the state of the science on radiofrequency microwave radiation, and the extent and varieties of human sickness caused by it. The wireless industry’s immense financial resources are gains achieved as a result of decades of fraud on the public, who have been led to believe that wireless technology is safe.

The expansion of wireless technology is based on the false premise that wireless radiation, i.e., non-ionizing radiation at non-thermal levels, is not harmful. However, many thousands of studies and reports on wireless radiation by U.S. government agencies such as NASA, the US Armed Forces, the Navy, and the Air force – including reports about sick soldiers in the Navy and among government workers – have proved decades ago, and beyond a doubt, that this premise is false.

Existing Wireless Exposure Standards do not adequately protect public health. The FCC, EPA, and WHO have failed to adequately keep up with this technology and defend the public over the interests of large telecom corporations. In 2015, 225 leading scientists and researchers of EMF and wireless radiation from 41 nations appealed to the United Nations to urge the World Health Organization to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encourage precautionary measures and educate the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development (International EMF Scientist Appeal).



What dangers would the wireless transmission of power through microwaves pose to living organisms? - Biology

This article presents a systematic review of published scientific studies on the potential ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in the range of 10 MHz to 3.6 GHz (from amplitude modulation, AM, to lower band microwave, MW, EMF).


Publications in English were searched in ISI Web of Knowledge and Scholar Google with no restriction on publication date. Five species groups were identified: birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms, and plants. Not only clear ecological articles, such as field studies, were taken into consideration, but also biological articles on laboratory studies investigating the effects of RF-EMF with biological endpoints such as fertility, reproduction, behaviour and development, which have a clear ecological significance, were also included.


Information was collected from 113 studies from original peer-reviewed publications or from relevant existing reviews. A limited amount of ecological field studies was identified. The majority of the studies were conducted in a laboratory setting on birds (embryos or eggs), small rodents and plants. In 65% of the studies, ecological effects of RF-EMF (50% of the animal studies and about 75% of the plant studies) were found both at high as well as at low dosages. No clear dose–effect relationship could be discerned. Studies finding an effect applied higher durations of exposure and focused more on the GSM frequency ranges.


In about two third of the reviewed studies ecological effects of RF-EMF was reported at high as well as at low dosages. The very low dosages are compatible with real field situations, and could be found under environmental conditions. However, a lack of standardisation and a limited number of observations limit the possibility of generalising results from an organism to an ecosystem level. We propose in future studies to conduct more repetitions of observations and explicitly use the available standards for reporting RF-EMF relevant physical parameters in both laboratory and field studies.


► Scientific literature was screened for articles on ecological effects of RF-EMF. ► RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies. ► Development and reproduction of birds and insects are the most strongly affected endpoints. ► There is a lack of field - and ecological studies on populations and the interaction of species. ► There is an urgent need for repetitions of studies finding effects and investigations into effects on ecosystems.

Studies Aren’t Clearcut

Of course, just because there’s no known mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to have a biological effect, that doesn’t’ mean it’s safe or that no effect exists. Indeed, researchers continue to conduct studies. One recent study was released by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services. In this widely quoted study about cell phone radio frequency radiation, scientists found that high exposure to 3G RFR led to some cases of cancerous heart tumors, brain tumors, and tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats.

The study is a good object lesson in how hard it is to do science like this. As RealClearScience points out, the number of tumors detected were so small that they statistically could have occurred by chance (which may be more likely since they were only detected in male subjects). Moreover, the level and duration of the RFR exposure were well in excess of what any actual human would ever be exposed to, and in fact, the irradiated test rats lived longer than the unexposed control rats. Says Dr. Novella, “Experienced researchers look at a study like that and say that doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Limits to exposure

The UK government says "while a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves is possible when 5G is added to the existing network, the overall exposure is expected to remain low".

The frequency range of the 5G signals being introduced is within the non-ionising band of the electromagnetic spectrum and well below those considered harmful by the ICNIRP.

"The exposure that 5G will produce has been considered in great depth by ICNIRP, with the restrictions set well below the lowest level of 5G-related radio frequency that has been shown to cause harm," says Prof Croft.

The WHO says electromagnetic frequency exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.