New Paper:ICNIRP Guidelines’ Exposure Assessment Method for 5G Millimetre Wave Radiation May Trigger Adverse Effects
This paper explores the assumption by ICNIRP that it is not necessary to assess 5G exposures > 6 GHz using specific absorption (SAab) and concludes that these surface radiofrequency exposure assessments of ICNIRP including mmW radiation are insufficient to ensure safety; there are several reasons assessment of SAab is also needed.
ICNIRP human exposure limits for cell tower, Wi-Fi and cell phone radiation have been roundly criticized by scientists around the world for providing limits that are not scientifically justified and allow EMF exposures that cause adverse biological effects.
Environmental Health Trust has a compilation of research papers on the inadequacy of ICNIRP limits to protect the public here.
Redmayne M, Maisch DR. ICNIRP Guidelines’ Exposure Assessment Method for 5G Millimetre Wave Radiation May Trigger Adverse Effects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(7):5267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075267
The current global roll-out of 5G infrastructure is designed to utilise millimetre wave frequencies (30–300 GHz range) at data transmission rates in the order of gigabits per second (Gbps). This frequency band will be transmitted using beamforming, a new introduction in near-field exposures. The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has recently updated their guidelines. We briefly examine whether the new approach of the ICNIRP is satisfactory to prevent heat damage and other adverse bio-effects once millimetre wave 5G is included, and we challenge the use of surface-only exposure assessment for local exposures greater than 6 GHz in part due to possible Brillouin precursor pulse formation. However, this is relevant whether or not Brillouin precursors occur from absorption of either 5G or future G transmissions. Many significant sources conclude there is insufficient research to assure safety even from the heat perspective. To date, there has been no published in vivo, in vitro or epidemiological research using exposures to 5G New Radio beam-formed signals.
Surface radiofrequency exposure assessments including mmW radiation are insufficient to ensure safety; there are several reasons assessment of SAab is also needed.
A real danger of the ‘expert’ assurances of a lack of risk is that they discourage the necessary research to evaluate risk properly. They may also discourage review of apparently outmoded/questionable approaches being taken in RF exposure standards.
Once the 5G mmW band is internationally operational, a significant proportion of the world’s population will be exposed to new hazards. The intensity and complexity of near-field exposure, such as when carrying a phone in a pocket or using it next to the head, will be different for 5G, and this is the first time mmW have been used for public telecommunications and the first time beamforming has been deliberately introduced for near-field use. Without research on the impact of near-field 5G, this global step is an experiment at the population level. Bearing this in mind, there is a vital and urgent need for targeted research and for a re-evaluation of the scientific relevance of the current RF human exposure standards’ basic approach and assumptions.