New Research on Dangers of EMFs

The prevailing view on exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) exposures is that it’s harmless. However, a new paper argues that this view is due primarily to industry-funded studies and industry-affiliated scientists. The paper is co-authored by Linda Birnbaum, a well-respected toxicologist, the former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, as well as the National Toxicology Program. The paper seeks to clarify the evidence about the impacts of EMFs on human health and argues that the precautionary principle has been ignored when considering the public’s exposure to EMFs, especially those from mobile communications and infrastructure.

The current exposure standards recommended by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) only consider thermal effects (tissue heating) of EMF exposure as potentially harmful. However, there is mounting evidence of non-thermal effects of EMF exposure. The paper reviews the latest literature linking EMFs with numerous adverse effects including cancer, cardiac and DNA damage, and reproductive impairment (including fertility and the development of embryos, fetuses, and newborns).

Public concern is growing over this matter, especially since the introduction of 5G mobile communications. 5G small cell base stations are allowed to be sited as close as 3 meters from the ground close to homes, schools, and offices in many places throughout the US. The industry estimates that up to one million new antennas will be required in the US alone, which is expected to lead to much higher levels of exposure for the general public.

Research and training in this area are not a current priority. Human studies are problematic due to the widespread use of these technologies, the lack of suitable control groups, the general failure to fund relevant studies, and the recent publication of a few limited or fundamentally flawed, yet widely publicized, reports purporting to show no health risks. Additionally, a disproportionate number of those who discount the data are directly or indirectly employed by the telecommunications industry. As a result, the ability to carry out independent analysis of the matter remains hampered, fueled largely by the complexity of the topic and by a well-organized effort to manufacture doubt.

Industry and regulatory authorities should have the safety of the public as their top concern. The researchers question whether the current regulatory atmosphere truly serves the public good, and conclude that there is substantial scientific evidence that EMFs cause cancer, endocrinological, neurological, and other adverse health effects. They argue that the FCC has not fulfilled its duty to protect public health, and that industry convenience is being prioritized and thereby subjecting the public to avoidable risks.