Slashdot Mirror
Portland City Council May Ask FCC To Investigate Health Risks of 5G Networks (inverse.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: Fearing unknown health risks, members of the City Council in Portland, Oregon, will vote Wednesday to oppose the rollout of 5G wireless networks. In a proposed resolution, Mayor Ted Wheeler, along with Commissioners Chloe Eudaly and Amanda Fritz, write that there's evidence suggesting wireless networks can cause health problems -- including cancer. They express concern that the Federal Communications Commission has not conducted enough research to demonstrate that 5G networks are safe, while at the same time prohibiting state and local governments from passing their own regulations on telecommunications technology. And while Wheeler, Eudaly, and Fritz are correct about the FCC's power to dictate how state and local governments manage wireless networks, the connection between 5G networks and cancer is a lot more complicated than they say it is.
"There is evidence to suggest that exposure to radio frequency emissions generated by wireless technologies could contribute to adverse health conditions such as cancer," reads the proposed resolution. This evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The final results of this study, published in November 2018, showed a strong association between the type of radiation used for mobile phone signals and certain types of cancerous tumors in lab rats. But that's where the situation gets tough. The NTP study, which took place over 10 years and involved exposing more than 7,000 rats and mice to radio-frequency radiation, focused on signals used by wireless technology under the 2G and 3G standards. It's nearly impossible to say whether these results will apply to 5G hardware.
"Since the available research doesn't address 5G, the Portland City Council's resolution demands that the FCC embark on another such research project to assess the health effects of 5G," reports Inverse. "Presumably, it would take just as long to conduct another study on the hypothesized connection between 5G and cancer, but by that time, the industry will almost certainly have moved on to 6G -- or 7G."
"There is evidence to suggest that exposure to radio frequency emissions generated by wireless technologies could contribute to adverse health conditions such as cancer," reads the proposed resolution. This evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The final results of this study, published in November 2018, showed a strong association between the type of radiation used for mobile phone signals and certain types of cancerous tumors in lab rats. But that's where the situation gets tough. The NTP study, which took place over 10 years and involved exposing more than 7,000 rats and mice to radio-frequency radiation, focused on signals used by wireless technology under the 2G and 3G standards. It's nearly impossible to say whether these results will apply to 5G hardware.
"Since the available research doesn't address 5G, the Portland City Council's resolution demands that the FCC embark on another such research project to assess the health effects of 5G," reports Inverse. "Presumably, it would take just as long to conduct another study on the hypothesized connection between 5G and cancer, but by that time, the industry will almost certainly have moved on to 6G -- or 7G."
Think of all the new RF we've had in the past couple of decades with WiFi and cell towers absolutely everywhere.
What's happened to the rates of incidence of new cancer cases over that time? They're flat/down.
https://progressreport.cancer....
I call BS.
The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted for local tissues. They were full body exposed to these levels for 10 minutes every 10 minutes.
If you artificially heat things up (10W/kg) they tend to get burnt and develop cancer. Also female rats didn't seem to have this effect, only male rats and they only deviated slightly from controls with the majority of male rats living longer due to not developing kidney problems later in life.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There's nothing new about this. These are the people who say they're allergic to WiFi. A practicing engineer I occasionally used to work with had a wife who was "allergic to the radio signals emitted by smart utility meters", so they moved their whole family to a rural town in Alabama to get away from the smart meters that were rolling out in Houston. There have been documented cases of communities formally complaining about ill effects from the signals emitted by newly constructed cell towers in their area, only for them to find out that the towers hadn't even been turned on yet. The national radio quiet zone in Virginia/West Virginia has become a haven for "RF-allergic" nutjobs in recent years.
The RF frequency might be different, but the complaints are the same. Might cause cancer...if you massively over-expose the subject for months at a time with no break. Might cause headaches, toothaches, backaches, or other aches...which seem to have nothing to do with whether the signal is actually present, but instead have more to do with when the person thinks the signal is present. Might cause fevers, rashes, or other reactions...which either continue regardless of the signal or else disappear once the person is given proper medication for their undiagnosed condition/moved to a controlled location away from the actual source of their problems.
The "research" these people are doing is in all the wrong places. They simply need to go back to textbooks and learn some basic statistics, physics, or biology, but instead they'll consult Facebook and "Doctor Google" for their answers.