Nyberg, Nils Rainer, McCredden, Julie E., Weller, Steven G. and Hardell, Lennart. The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. Reviews on Environmental Health, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106. Published online September 22, 2022.
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 Selected byDr. Joel Moskowitz
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 . The book Captured Agency
describes the compromised position of the FCC in its role as public protector . 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 , opinions from such conflicted advisory bodies as ICNIRP are not reliable.
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  these four groups recommend the following limits for human exposures to RF-EMR:
- Building biologists  suggest a very low radiation level of no more than 0.1 µW/m2 (in sleeping areas);
- EuropaEM-EMF Environmental Medicine researchers  suggest 1 µW/m2 during the night and 10 µW/m2 during the day time;
- The BioInitiative-group conclusions (2012 update) , made by 29 prominent researchers, and based on 2,200+ scientific reports, suggest 3–6 µW/m2 as the upper limit for exposures;
- The Council of Europe (CoE) Resolution 1815  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  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 (, 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].
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 .
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 .