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.
Yep looks like Portland citizens just don't believe real science. They don't like vaccines,, so it follows that the same kind of faith-based "science" that claims all wireless signals cause cancer would be believed as well..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's it. Just a simple "no". The inhabitants of Portlandia are free to believe in their confectionery fantasies. No one else has to entertain them. The FCC merely has to say "no". "No, the government will not participate in your bizarre beliefs. Look how far that's gotten you with your anti-vaccine stance. Yeah....so, no. You got a problem with it? You provide the hard, peer-reviewed evidence with replicable results that support your stance and then the government will take your concerns under advisement. Until then? No."
No need to mod that down. He is joking.
Higher bandwidth with lower latency will lead to more interactive apps expecting real time input. This will increase injuries from pedestrians walking where they shouldn't, stopping where it is not safe, etc. This will also lead to traffic accidents where drivers cannot pause the texting until the next red light.
Oh, you meant "Do microwaves give people cancer?" *sigh*
Sources, or it's just your opinion.
This is why telecom companies install towers and then leave them unplugged for a month or so.
They wait for all the nutjobs to come out of the woodwork, complaining about all sorts of psychosomatic ailments from headaches to bunions, just to show how idiotic they are.
At this point the anti-wireless lobby need to all be handed copies of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and be required to take a quiz on what they learned. The only good thing about these whackos is that they at least cannot make the world more dangerous for everyone else the way those idiot anti-vaxxers do.
While I agree some studies should be done since 5G works at a different frequency range, I'm not about to go crazy over it. If organisms weren't designed to live with constant exposure to various forms of radiation, we wouldn't have evolved on a planet with a sun.
... autism because vaccination.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's the same frequencies as 4G LTE, plus millimeter wave, which is also non-ionizing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Federal agencies would get very little done if they agreed to do every study request from every piss-ant city.
How about Portland gets one of its state universities to do the study, and on the city's dime. I would also suggest donations from carriers, but that might taint the results.
Portland, OR city managers who have never been outside during the day may find this surprising:
There is this huge thing called the Sun. It emits ALL wavelengths. Cell phone towers limit their radiation because they don't want to interfere with the next "cell".
Portland, OR city management is VERY poor. One story: Portland's form of government fails residents in almost every way thinkable, report finds. (Feb. 10, 2019)
So there is a study that says that rats don't like being microwaved. The problem is that we are not rats, and we use reasonably powered cell phones, we don't receive extreme doses like these rats do.
At the same time there is an other study doing a statistical analysis on millions of people over many years and found no correlation between cancer rates and cell phone use.
So unless you are interested in the well being of rats in a microwave oven, why choose the less relevant study?
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.
Given the far left attitude of Portland, this is expected. They have zero understanding of RF energy, how low energy levels are at their phones. Given the lack of science taught in high school and especially college to liberal arts majors, this type of much ado about nothing is the result.
Energy levels drop by a factor of range to the -4th power away from the transmitter antennas. Not enough energy to ionize anything.
No, it's a lot less; the "antennas" used in mobile base stations are waveguide panels with directed/focused transmission.
Hope springs eternal for lawyers drooling over potential class action lawsuits.
One of those, and your law firm's principals are liquid, as Gordon Gecko might say.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I bet all that officials have a mobile phone in their pocket. They fear 5G but accept older technologies that likely have the same risk.
The worst part of the doctor google is the completely over the top nature of the prognosis.
Me: My hand hurts . google, search "Hurt hand".
Google: you may have a sprain. or a pulled muscle. or horrible hand cancer which will eat your soul.
Me; oh no!
We have been over this study, an article I submitted about it last year was discussed at length and the general conclusion was the study really showed that generally it was safe, but if they generated enough end points, you could get some statistically significant effects.
1. That is known as p-hacking and is recognized as not a best practice.
2. The effects that did appear, were not dose dependent so likely the result of p-hacking.
I think in a few of their end points, the exposure was shown to be protective, that is how you know the p-hacking basically identified some randomness, but the cohort was so small, it had statistical significance.
Wax on, wax off baby!
Cell phone transmissions make city councils nuts.
Have gnu, will travel.
Even the rat study required some pretty large tweaks to show anything. In fact it only showed cancer in one specific group out of many exposed to the radiation, basically if you combined all the groups then no more showed cancer than would be expected in a random group, but by singling out the one group that did show a result, while ignoring those who didn't, they made it look statistically significant when it was at best a "maybe we should try again and see if this can be reproduced" but more likely a "yup, still doesn't cause cancer"
It doesn't matter whether it's technically safe or not, what if Portland just doesn't want 5G, and instead of arguing about all the reasons why are just taking whatever relevant actions to stall or prevent it? There is nothing wrong with that. We haven't even saturated the limits of 4G yet, and it's quite possible there are additional concerns of somehow this is going to cost the town money or increase general costs. if her whole town is set up to operate off of 4 g, and it's working, then by not allowing 5G, I can continue to keep their town operated the way they like it. Newer and faster does not always equal better and if you're satisfied with the way things are,well if it's not broke don't fix it. There's no reason why things have to be the same everywhere. That's the whole reason for having different places in order to have the option of different ways to do things without being questioned.
Ionizing versus non-ionizing kind of misses the point; it promotes the false assumption that ionization damage is the only form of DNA damage that can potentially cause cancer.
Sub-millimeter-wave radiation has been proven, under certain circumstances, to be able to break the chemical bonds that hold DNA together. Most of the time, this has no effect on the host organism, because your body is designed to repair such minor damage, but that doesn't mean it will always do so correctly. In terms of your risk, it is probably very low, but in aggregate across billions of people, even very small probabilities can add up to real harm.
There's a pretty decent chance that Portland's concerns are overblown, and that millimeter-wave radiation is still within the frequency range that is harmless. That said, they are still entirely within their rights to demand a study to prove that the technology is safe before it gets deployed in their community. We know that above a certain frequency, EM can be harmful (ionizing), and we know that way, way below that threshold, it isn't (microwave and below), but there's a huge frequency range in between for which we have little to no data, and this new technology is starting to encroach on that range. Better to be safe than sorry.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I have recently found that there is an anti-science prevailing attitude at both extreme ends of the political spectrum.
A very left wing Facebook "friend" recently posted pictures of a book burning party which include books like Dawkin's Selfish Gene.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
It makes me feel safer to know that you only sort of see an effect even after cranking up the levels far beyond the maximum legal limits and having constant exposure to the radiation.
Most of the study used much higher power, but one portion used 1.5 W/kg RFR which is less than the FCC limit, and they found increased rate of cancer in that portion also.
In addition, the US Air Force study from 1990 on radar with pretty low intensity RFR/microwaves (2,450 MHz pulsed radiation with SAR 0.15-0.4 W/kg) found increased incidence of cancer compared to the control group.
Some details from Air Force study: "primary cancers were detected in the exposed rats 3.6 times more often than in control animals. Additionally, metastatic cancers were detected in the exposed rats 2 times more often than in the control."
Nothing to see here.
Cellphone radiation definitely doesn't cause cancer. Fankenfood is definitely good for us. There is definitely no back door in the electric voting system. Admission to the Ivy League is definitely not determined by bribery and favoritism.
No siree, definitely nothing to see here. Move along now!
In Soviet America, cancer gives you 5G network!
At least the big pharma and corporate overlords EXIST.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yeah, to point to those studies and say they PROVE that cell phones cause cancer is like pointing to people who died in a fire and say they PROVE that you shouldn't heat up your house.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The winning move would be to develop a vaccine against the effects of radiation...
Or get into the business of selling filters/protective clothing/amulets.
In the days when CRT monitors were common some people had them on their screens. I found them to be very effective - for indicating who the nutters in the office were without even talking to them.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No one likes being authoritatively told they are wrong about something. That's why it is easier to lead someone 95% of the way to a conclusion and let them make the leap.
The RF exposure is far higher with closer distances, so this will be different than cell towers, etc.
If there is nothing to fear, then why would people oppose testing for safety?
There is precedence in going ahead with ignorant assumptions about safety and learning that is wrong later, so that's why people are asking for testing. In the 50s X-rays for shoe sizing started to be a thing, until they learned of the risks. There were also proposals to warm the people, not the air, by microwaves inside the buildings, until they learned of the risks. Similar for exposure to chemicals these days, etc. We learn of the risks, we put out material data handling documents, advise people of the lethality of substances. It should be no different for things you cannot see.
In the UK you could have old fluorescent lighting that was flickering at 50Hz while you stared at a cheap CRT set to 60Hz. The interference of those two for 8+ hours solid in an already stressful environment would send anyone looking for magical solutions to the "cancer radiation." I used to show people the magic of 100Hz and make them immediately happier. Though some people are more comfortable knowing that the world is out to give them eye tumours and would demand it be set back.
Above a certain frequency, the waves are small enough to penetrate and hit DNA.
Below a certain frequency, those waves have macro-effects. They cause molecules to wobble and heat up. Infra-red is the highest-energy known for this in particular, as it's just below visible light in terms of energy (visible light is shorter wavelength).
What? You didn't know? Light and EM are the same thing. They're both radio waves. Your wifi antenna does the same thing as a light bulb; so does an X-ray machine.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
No one likes being authoritatively told they are wrong about something.
Oh, you're so wrong about that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. I'm guessing a Venn diagram of anti-vaxers and people who think cell phones cause cancer would just be a circle.
I'd suggest everyone go watch Johnny Mnemonic (starring Keanu Reeves, 1995). Obviously a factual movie, it portrays the struggles of a dystopian society drowning in RF pollution, resulting in a malady known as the Black Shakes, and only Ice-T knows the cure.
On a more serious note, it's always about dosage - whether medicine or poison. Is 5G dangerous? Probably not in the beginning. But when we're drowning in it 20 years from now, the answer may be different. Would you be comfortable a 5G cell tower mounted 30 feet from your bedroom window? 5G is shorter range - so there's going to be a lot more towers.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I could construct an argument that agnosticism takes an "absolute positions on something that is not falsifiable". The fact that you can construct an argument says nothing about whether or not that argument is valid.
Then you need to catch up on all the research. What people are finding is that with the high frequencies 5G uses, and all the information states within each signal element, the sheer number of bits being beamed right through your ineffective/obsolete skull into your brain is overwhelming. Physicists have concluded that the bits can be arrayed in a matrix of where each element's light frequency varies, and if you use 5G to provide more variance over time, users have reported their ocular sensors locking on and in some situations they perceive things inside the transceiver which cannot possibly fit, such as spaceships, other people engaged in copulation, and even feline actvity. These illusions can sometimes encourage the human nervous system to direct its sensors and attention at the transceiver's screen instead of where they're walking. And that causes health problems such as people falling down manholes, stepping out in front of cars, etc. Worse, if the 5G victim happens to be operating a motor vehicle, they can make mistakes with the machine's guidance and collide with other vehicles or persons (possibly ones that previously weren't even infected with 5G at all). These kinds of things have been found in some studies to cause bone fractures, bleed outs, tissue and organ trauma, or even worse.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Look at the bars on your phone. Those bars translate into tiny fractions of a mW. Comparing favorably against the amount of electricity your own muscles give off when flexing. The inverse square law pretty much guarantees that people will be safe from the towers. Now, cellphones TRANSMIT as high as 3W, but as I understand it, the proposal isn't to end existing cell phone use, so if they cause cancer, they will probably do it on 4g as easily as 5g. There is 0 reason to ban the equipment from being put in place.
There is science illiteracy in action.
provided the RF density rules of the FCC are followed (power, frequency, distance) there is no demonstrated ill effects at all, whatsoever. the only ones at risk with 5G are folks in a safety harness way up the tower.
if you are going to be an idiot, and stand at a powered antenna staring down the waveguide, yeah, you win the Darwin award. that has been known for almost a century.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
the live-in TV transmitter engineers (in early days of TV, the transmitter engineers were housed at the tower site and had beds in the transmitter building because, tech infancy) pretty much died of brain cancer. but the power, frequency, distance rules of the FCC on radiation safety have changed, and it's not an issue now. obey and carry on.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The RF exposure is far higher with closer distances, so this will be different than cell towers, etc.
This is unlikely. 5G microcells will be much lower power than large 3G cells. Plus your phone in your pocket will be able to transmit at lower power levels.
Of course I know this. Everyone who didn't sleep through high school science knows this. None of what you said contradicts any of what I said. Those mechanical effects have been proven to affect DNA, i.e. ionization is not the only risk.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Has anyone told them there are already communication systems operating in those bands already?
I'll assume there are no neurologists posting here. Doesn't it seem possible that someone's nervous system might make a decent enough antenna and resonate? If so, that would cause all kinds of issues.
Not true. A single bar translates to a fraction of a mW, but four bars can be anywhere from there up to a few hundred watts, depending on how close you are to the tower and how large a radius the tower is covering.
Also not true. With 5G service, towers are sprinkled in population centers. Millimeter wave EM won't penetrate buildings very well, and doesn't follow the curvature of the earth very well, so these towers are always close to from the devices they serve, where close is measured in hundreds of feet, not miles.
At this point, that's pretty much pure speculation, because AFAIK no rigorous studies of millimeter-wave radiation in these frequency bands have been done. Your argument amounts to "We don't know it is unsafe, so we have to assume that it is safe," whereas most people tend to prefer "We have no evidence that it is safe, so we have to assume that it is unsafe."
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Perhaps, but it's more like saying something that's 10C won't harm you, your body is about 36C, and something that's 70C will burn your skin; and someone says temperatures of 25C may be harmful.
Those mechanical effects are heat. The volume of particle exposure becomes the defining characteristic. Ionizing radiation can cause damage by individual particles (a collision can remove an electron from a molecule, thus breaking a molecular bond), while non-ionizing radiation can cause warming and thus can cause burns via a large volume of particles.
An extremely-bright beam of colored light, for example, can burn your arm off. Red, green, yellow, or blue, with enough wattage, it'll cut straight through.
The risk of microwave exposure is similar to the risk of getting near a hot object. We can build microwave generators to generate huge amounts of power in a narrow spectrum, so the effect is a bit more spectacular than looking inside your oven: we can basically divert the output of a blowtorch straight into your face. You'd notice.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Pedantically, yes, insofar as molecular motion is heat. :-)
And at the resonant frequencies of the various physical structures, or at sufficiently close subharmonics thereof, at a microscopic level, non-ionizing radiation can also cause enough flexing and stretching to break the covalent bonds that hold together strands of DNA. That was what the study on THz EM concluded. You don't have to break ionic bonds to cause problems. You just have to break physical structures that happen to resonate strongly at those frequencies—basically, the DNA equivalent of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
The question then becomes one of what "sufficiently close" means, what the relative amount of risk is at a given frequency, whether there are specific frequencies that, if avoided, eliminate the risk, etc.
The problem is that the millimeter wave band extends right up to the bottom edge of the submillimeter-wave band, which is where DNA damage is known to occur because of resonance. It seems fairly unlikely that the band that they currently plan to use (sub-86 GHz) will cause harm, but the closer we get towards 300 GHz (and certainly beyond that), the more we should be cautious. At each step along the way, it stands to reason that there should be at least some safety testing, because we have never used these portions of the EM spectrum before in any meaningful way.
If someone had said thirty years ago that the THz band could be dangerous, we would have likely laughed at them, but they would have been right. These folks don't want a ban. They just want testing. That doesn't sound so unreasonable when talking about use of a whole new frequency band, human exposure to which has historically been limited to cosmic background radiation.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And at the resonant frequencies of the various physical structures, or at sufficiently close subharmonics thereof, at a microscopic level, non-ionizing radiation can also cause enough flexing and stretching to break the covalent bonds that hold together strands of DNA. That was what the study on THz EM concluded.
Oh for...really?
At subharmonics, much of the energy is lost: a super-harmonic (e.g. 2x) will oscillate back and forth because the wave amplitude is about 0 at the end, so approximately 0 destructive interference occurs as the vibration reflects back. Basically your wave propagates and lifts the material in one direction, then snaps back in the other direction; at a harmonic, the reflecting wave is pulling along in the reverse direction as it went in, helping to accelerate the process in sync, causing amplification.
At subharmonics, this effect is diminished greatly, and the subharmonic eventually reverses. Likewise, because there is not a 0 amplitude at the end, some energy is lost (when you bend something upwards in the middle, it's pulled down by both ends until each end accelerates upwards to release the energy; but if there's nothing at the end, there's nothing there to anchor against, and you start generating odd-order harmonics and destructive interference). Subharmonics of a resonator are longer than the resonator itself, so the resonator is exposed to part of the energy: at 1nm, a 2^20 subharmonic (about 1mm) would expose 1/1000000 of the energy to the resonator, unless you can direct it into it (which is hard). It's why we need to actually coil 2 meters of wire into a 2/(2^n) meter antenna and then add a really strong amplifier to pick up 2 meter wave.
All of this becomes an interesting engineering problem until you realize you're dealing with DNA.
DNA is floppy and doesn't resonate well. It's the type of material we use to dampen resonant behavior. In other words: DNA isn't subject to resonance. Yes, DNA is one giant molecule and its individual components can't resonate independently because they will transfer the vibrational energy to the rest of the molecule.
Longer, lower-frequency waves have less energy, too.
So you're looking at THz band. Red light is 430THz. UVB is 1,000THz.
You might notice that red, green, and blue light don't cause skin cancer. UVA doesn't cause skin cancer. UVB causes DNA damage and skin cancer. The reasons for this are well-studied.
Part of the reason is just that there's so little energy. A big part is that the energy just goes into heating, and you're not microwaving your DNA; you're microwaving the entire mass in which your DNA sits.
Now that doesn't mean there's no risk. I did say energy. Think about what happens if you stick your face in a 4,000 watt microwave oven. One little photon of UVB can cause DNA damage, but one little microwave photon can't; yet if we pour enormous amounts of them together, we can kill you in seconds.
That's why we have wattage restrictions on transmitters used at ground level, in handheld devices, and so forth. Anything below a certain frequency is going to be harmless below a certain wattage; anything above that is going to start doing single-photon damage to your DNA.
Think about it for a minute. What would it be like if none of that were valid? Well, wind at 10mph doesn't kill you, and wind at 12mph doesn't kill you; but what about 11.7793mph? Only one way to find out!
In other words: we've already done testing. We even did testing on rats with cell phone radiation cranked up to ridiculous levels--which, on one hand, did cause some problems; but on the other, they used Sprague-Dawley rats for lifetime toxicity studies, which is bad methodology. I'm not surprised ridiculously-high-powered radiation at any frequency is harmful: you wouldn't stick your face in a microwave oven, unless you were completely stupid.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You just proved his point. Congratulations!
You're correct, but left out the part where they self flagellate, admit their failures, and now belong to the "good" group of upstanding people who CARE.
Except that it has been demonstrated that DNA can be damaged by resonance. And that analysis involved MRI systems, which operate way down in the MF, HF, and VHF bands.
For a counterargument, being hit by a bullet at 1 MPH doesn't ever kill you, because it bounces off your skin. But at the right angle, being hit by a bullet at a high enough speed doesn't kill you because it makes a hole straight through the bone on either side of your body, but at a lower speed, it bounces off your rib cage and does more damage that kills you.
And for wind resonance on structures, higher speeds may actually result in less resonance than lower wind speeds.
Those studies were on cell phones in the sub-2GHz band. They tell us very little about the effect signals in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz band. Using them as a reference is like saying "This car didn't kill me when it hit me at 5 MPH, so it won't kill me at 50 MPH." :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Those studies were on cell phones in the sub-2GHz band.
Humans are routinely exposed to over half a kilowatt in the 300GHz-430,000GHz band.
Support my political activism on Patreon.