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

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? John William Frank. Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? J Epidemiol Community Health. Published Online First: 19 January 2021. doi: 10.1136/jech-2019-213595. Abstract 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’. 34 35 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, 6–8 16–18 23 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. 40 41 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’. 43 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. Open access paper: jech.bmj.com or jech.bmj.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This commentary argues that there is significant uncertainty about health effects from RF-EMF exposures associated with 5G rollout, citing gaps in evidence, limited 5G-specific epidemiology, and emerging laboratory and epidemiological findings from earlier RF-EMF generations. The author concludes that health concerns cannot be dismissed and calls for a moratorium on further 5G rollout under the precautionary principle pending more conclusive safety research.

Outcomes measured

• Potential adverse human health effects from RF-EMF exposure
• In vitro biological effects
• In vivo biological effects
• Epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects from prior generations of RF-EMF exposure
• Regulatory policy and conflicts of interest
• Ecological effects in other species (mentioned, not reviewed)
• COVID-19 conspiracy theory claim (debunked)

Limitations

• Essay/commentary rather than a primary empirical study
• Does not present new data or quantitative synthesis in the abstract
• Notes gaps in the laboratory evidence base
• States an almost total lack of high-quality epidemiological studies specific to 5G exposure
• Ecological effects are mentioned but not reviewed

Suggested hubs

• 5g-policy (0.95)
  The commentary centers on 5G rollout, uncertainty, and a precautionary-principle-based moratorium recommendation.

{
    "publication_year": 2021,
    "study_type": "policy",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "5G telecommunications systems",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Potential adverse human health effects from RF-EMF exposure",
        "In vitro biological effects",
        "In vivo biological effects",
        "Epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects from prior generations of RF-EMF exposure",
        "Regulatory policy and conflicts of interest",
        "Ecological effects in other species (mentioned, not reviewed)",
        "COVID-19 conspiracy theory claim (debunked)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This commentary argues that there is significant uncertainty about health effects from RF-EMF exposures associated with 5G rollout, citing gaps in evidence, limited 5G-specific epidemiology, and emerging laboratory and epidemiological findings from earlier RF-EMF generations. The author concludes that health concerns cannot be dismissed and calls for a moratorium on further 5G rollout under the precautionary principle pending more conclusive safety research.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Essay/commentary rather than a primary empirical study",
        "Does not present new data or quantitative synthesis in the abstract",
        "Notes gaps in the laboratory evidence base",
        "States an almost total lack of high-quality epidemiological studies specific to 5G exposure",
        "Ecological effects are mentioned but not reviewed"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "stance": "concern",
    "stance_confidence": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
    "summary": "This open-access commentary discusses the controversy around 5G and health and argues that uncertainty remains regarding potential harms from RF-EMF exposures at levels expected with 5G rollout. It highlights limited clarity on what constitutes “5G,” gaps in laboratory evidence, and a lack of high-quality 5G-specific epidemiology while pointing to emerging evidence from earlier RF-EMF generations. The author recommends invoking the precautionary principle and calls for a moratorium on further 5G deployment pending more conclusive research, while stating that claims linking 5G to COVID-19 are baseless.",
    "key_points": [
        "The article is a commentary focused on 5G, RF-EMF exposure, and the precautionary principle.",
        "It reports that some agencies find no conclusive evidence of harm, while independent reviews suggest substantial uncertainty.",
        "Four sources of uncertainty are identified, including unclear definitions of 5G and limited 5G-specific epidemiology.",
        "The author describes a growing body of laboratory studies reporting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects, but with gaps.",
        "The commentary alleges potential conflicts of interest affecting some national RF-EMF regulatory policies.",
        "The author concludes that RF-EMFs may have serious human health effects and calls for a global 5G moratorium pending better research.",
        "It explicitly rejects the conspiracy theory that 5G contributed to COVID-19 as baseless."
    ],
    "categories": [
        "5G",
        "Radiofrequency (RF)",
        "Policy & Regulation",
        "Precautionary Principle"
    ],
    "tags": [
        "5G",
        "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields",
        "Precautionary Principle",
        "Moratorium",
        "Regulatory Policy",
        "Conflicts Of Interest",
        "Epidemiology Evidence Gaps",
        "In Vitro Studies",
        "In Vivo Studies",
        "Health Risk Uncertainty",
        "Public Health"
    ],
    "keywords": [
        "5G",
        "RF-EMF",
        "precautionary principle",
        "moratorium",
        "epidemiology",
        "in vitro",
        "in vivo",
        "regulation",
        "conflicts of interest"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "The commentary centers on 5G rollout, uncertainty, and a precautionary-principle-based moratorium recommendation."
        }
    ],
    "social": {
        "tweet": "Commentary in J Epidemiol Community Health argues uncertainty remains about 5G RF-EMF health effects, cites gaps in 5G-specific epidemiology and emerging lab/earlier-generation evidence, and calls for a precautionary moratorium; it also rejects 5G–COVID claims as baseless.",
        "facebook": "An open-access commentary discusses 5G and health, highlighting uncertainties, limited 5G-specific epidemiology, and gaps in the evidence base. The author argues the precautionary principle supports pausing further 5G rollout pending more conclusive safety research, and notes that 5G–COVID conspiracy claims are baseless.",
        "linkedin": "J Epidemiol Community Health commentary examines 5G RF-EMF exposures through the precautionary principle, outlining key uncertainties (technology definition, lab evidence gaps, limited 5G-specific epidemiology, and regulatory concerns) and recommending a moratorium pending stronger safety evidence; it also debunks 5G–COVID claims."
    }
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.