Physicians for Safe Technology

Wireless Technology and Public Health

5G Health Effects: 8 Case Reports of Health Symptoms After 5G Cell Towers Placed in Sweden

on by

Now that the massive rollout of 5G cell towers is proceeding throughout cities worldwide, remarkably devoid of the industry barriers of premarket testing, or health and safety studies, and propelled by industry friendly laws, research is now being published on the real-life exposures and health effects of operational 5G towers. Hardell and Nilsson have published a series of 8 case reports and a new summary of 7 case reports (June 2024) on these immediate, mostly neurologic health effects on residents soon after 5G cell tower placement. This series examines largely short term effects which have been reported in other reviews (Balmori 2023). Long term health effects are demonstrated in the literature, but the breadth of this unfolding public health crisis will not be known for years or decades, while industry denial of health effects continues.  

First Cases of 5G Health Effects from Base Stations

The first investigation of health impacts of 5G cell towers is in a series of 8 case reports from Sweden in 2023-2024. These articles, which have been delivered to the scientific community, reveal that some residents or vacationers living near newly placed 5G cell towers developed symptoms of microwave illness soon after deployment. When these affected individuals moved to a lower EMF dwelling their symptoms subsided. Children also developed symptoms when a 5G cell tower was placed near their school (Case report 8). Most of these cases are considered classic examples of a provocation test.  In all cases the exposure levels, although some of the highest levels researchers had measured in homes, were below the current ICNIRP standards purported to be “safe” and cause no health effects. These were, however, well above levels considered “safe” according to robust literature referenced in many reports including the BioInitiative Report and EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines. ICNIRP guidelines are however now being scientifically challenged and any new guidelines produced by ICNIRP , WHO, FDA, or FCC in the future would be considered inherently flawed if they are based on several current flawed assumptions, the most important of which is that they consider heat to be the only cause of harm. These 7 case reports were preceded by reports of similar neurologic health symptoms in residents and families in Geneva Switzerland when 5G towers were placed in 2019 and in diplomats in Havana, China, Austria and the U.S. from 2016-2022.  

A 2000 a study commissioned by T Mobile on health effects of mobile phone radiation noted the basis for safety guidelines is thermal, but there were few studies on non thermal (biological) effects of RFR to justify the rollout of cell towers. The report states, “The study of potential health effects cannot generally compete with the speed of technical development and the roll out of the product...If there are sufficient indications that there may be damaging effects, the precautionary principle for the protection of health and the environment will apply and avoidable exposures will be avoided until such time when there is enough knowledge for a wider introduction of the technology in question. This theory draws its justification not least from the experiences with the introduction of technologies and products (such as asbestos, DDT, CFCs, formaldehyde, wood preservatives, mass X‐ray screenings etc.), which were widely used, even many years after the first clear indications of health and ecological damage had appeared.” Almost 20 years after this report was published technology has advanced even further, with increasing concern about the newer 5G (and 6G) systems with Massive MIMO and beam forming technology using significantly higher energy and power.(Tornevik). There are Pros and Cons of 5G systems but the weight of evidence currently shows more risk than benefit.

Updated 6/21/24

Case Report 1: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation.  Hardell and Nilsson. Annals of Case Reports. 8: 1112. January 2023. In the first case report of a man and woman in their 60’s, symptoms of microwave syndrome occurred a few days after the 5G tower was turned on.  The most common symptoms which developed in the couple were insomnia, irritability, fatigue, poor concentration, headaches, ringing in the ear (tinnitus), dizziness, depression, and nose bleeds, few of which were present before the new 5G cell tower. It was notable that the woman had more significant symptoms. Researchers were able to obtain measurements of indoor radiofrequency radiation (RFR) before and after the rooftop 5G cell tower was placed. In Sweden the frequencies used for 5G in city environments are typically around 3.5 GHz and added to current lower frequencies. They found the peak RFR levels in the bedroom after placement of 5G were 250 times greater than that of the prior 3G and 4G cell tower which was in the same location.  The authors conclude, “These now presented symptoms of the microwave syndrome were caused by non-thermal effects from RF radiation and highlight that the ICNIRP guidelines used in most countries including Sweden do not protect human health. Guidelines based on all biological negative effects from RF radiation are urgently needed, as well as monitoring human health, not the least due to rapidly increasing levels of exposure.”

Case Report 2: Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office.    Nilsson and Hardell. Ann Clin Case Rep. February 2023; 8: 2378. In the second case report two male office workers (Case 1 and Case 2) reported health effects after a rooftop 3G/4G cell tower was replaced with new 5G infrastructure. In Case 1, the 57 year-old male often experienced symptoms of headache which disappeared after he would leave the building, as well as joint pain, ringing in the ears, poor concentration, attention deficit, fatigue and skin burning. He would also experience sharp pain in the elbows when working and living in the office space as well as skin sensitivity. All symptoms disappeared 2 weeks after relocating, however the joint pain and headache would reappear when he was in areas of higher radiation. He feels he has become more sensitive to the wireless radiation. In Case 2, the 42 year-old male, who also had a work/apartment arrangement in the same building as Case 1, experienced new symptoms of headache, dizziness, poor concentration, confusion, toothache, pressure in the head and ringing in the ears, in addition to worsening insomnia. All new symptoms, along with insomnia and disappeared when he moved to the country with low RFR.

Case Report 3: A 52-Year Healthy Woman Developed Severe Microwave Syndrome–Shortly After Installation of a 5G Base Station Close to Her Apartment. Hardell and Nilsson. Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. April 2023. In the third case report a 52 year-old woman developed severe health symptoms soon after a 5G cell tower was installed opposite to her second story apartment 60 meters away. Symptoms disappeared when she moved into another apartment with lower EMF but became more severe after she tried to return. She experienced headaches, dizziness, balance problems, loss of concentration, loss of immediate memory, confusion, fatigue, anxiety, cough, nose bleeding, GI and skin symptoms. Measurements were surprising, “The balcony of the apartment is facing the base station at 60 meters distance. RF radiation was measured 10 times 1 minute each time. Within 10-15 sec the highest measurement peak level for the meter, >2 500 000 μW/m2, was obtained each time. Thus, the highest peak level was not possible to measure with the used exposimeter.” The authors note, “A 4G base station antenna was previously active at the same spot but it was not until the 5G deployment that her symptoms developed”.

Case Report 4: 5G Radiofrequency Radiation Caused the Microwave Syndrome in a Family Living Close to the Base Stations. Nilsson and Hardell.  Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 7 (2023): 127-134. June 2023. In the fourth case report the authors examined a family of three persons living in a corner apartment across from two newly placed 5G base stations located 50 and 70 meters on the corner roofs of two adjacent 6 story buildings but directed slightly lower at the 4th floor apartment directly across the street.  All family members reported symptoms but the daughter had the most severe health issues with insomnia, headache, concentration and memory problems, skin disorders, irregular heartbeat, light sensitivity, anxiety and panic attacks.  She did have symptoms of microwave illness prior to the cell tower change but symptoms significantly worsened with the higher power and variable frequencies. The authors point out that there were 3G/4G base stations situated at the same spots since at least 2013 but with no reported symptoms from the residents. In this study no measurements were available before the deployment of the 5G by any researchers or government agencies.

Case Report 5: 49-Year-Old Man Developed Severe Microwave Syndrome after Activation of 5G Base Station 20 Meters from his Apartment. Nilsson and Hardell.  J Community Med Public Health 7: 382. Nov 2023.   In the fifth case report a 49-year old previously healthy male developed symptoms almost immediately after a 5G base station was installed 20 meters from his apartment across the street. He had lived in the apartment for 10 years without symptoms. This was again on the roof of a 3-story building and unfortunately at the same level as the gentleman’s apartment. The most severe effects were “headache, dysesthesia (abnormal sensation), loss of immediate memory, high and irregular pulse, chest squeeze, burning and lancinating skin.” The symptoms were so severe he and his daughter had to leave the apartment one week after the 5G cell towers were deployed. The symptoms disappeared or decreased within a short time period after moving to another apartment with lower RF radiation. Unfortunately, they reappeared whenever he returned to his apartment to pick up his personal belongings.   Again noted is that a base station for 3G/4G had previously been active for 10 years on the roof of the same building in front of the man’s apartment, during which time the man had resided in the apartment without symptoms. Indoor levels reached the maximum peak measureable level of 3,180,000 μW/m2 within 10-15 seconds.

Case Report 6: Both Parents and their Three Children Developed Symptoms of the Microwave Syndrome while on Holiday near a 5G Tower. Nilsson and Hardell.  Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. Dec 2, 2023. In this sixth case report the authors describe the rapid appearance of microwave illness symptoms in a previously healthy family soon after arriving for vacation at a summer cottage which was 125 meters from a mobile phone tower with 5G antennas. The family, consisting of a man, a woman and their three children, all developed symptoms.  For the adults the most severe symptoms were sleeping problems, headache, tiredness, and irregular heartbeat. The children also developed sleeping problems and headache but in addition had diarrhea, pain in the stomach, skin rashes, and emotional symptoms. The authors noted, “All the symptoms disappeared and health was restored when the family returned to their own house at another place with no 5G base stations.” Nilsson and Hardell point out, “In city environments in Sweden, frequencies used for 5G are currently in the 3.5 GHz band… Normally today, 5G base stations use both 5G and 4G+ antennas, which further complicates real life exposure situations. Over the coming years, the telecommunications industry plans to roll out 5G millimeter wave technology using frequencies from 24 GHz and above. This technology is also untested as to its safety for human health and the environment.”

Case Report 7: A Woman aged 82 years with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity since Almost Four Decades Developed the Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Base Stations in her Living Vicinity – Ethical Principles in Medicine are Violated. Hardell and Nilsson. Journal of Environmental Science and Public Health. Jan 11, 2024. In this 2024 case report the authors point out the ethical and moral issues of cell towers placed near the elderly and disabled. They describe an 82-year-old female who has had mild electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) for almost 40 years with a significant exacerbation of EHS symptoms after two 5G cell towers were placed in her neighborhood. Her 83-year-old husband who exhibited no symptoms of EHS prior to the 5G cell towers, unfortunately developed significant symptoms after the 5G towers were placed. The wife’s symptoms of  “unusual skin sensations, myalgia/arthralgia, hyperacusis (reduced tolerance for sound), dizziness, balance disorder, concentration difficulty, fatigue (extreme tiredness), waking nighttime, light sensitivity, global body dysthermia (temperature regulation disorder), dyspnea (shortness of breath), and skin disorders” were a grade 3 out of 10 before the installation and afterwards were a 4 with some increasing even more, i.e. “Most serious were dysesthesia grade 9, and fatigue, grade 8.”

Her husband had a significant increase in his arthralgia and muscle aches after the installation, as well as new symptoms of  “hyperacusis, fatigue, waking nighttime, irritability, and burning skin”. Again, levels were within current radiofrequency (RF) guidelines. The authors include an easy to read diagram of different safety limits from ICNIRP, which set suggested guidelines for most countries around the world, along with other organizations of scientists and physicians who challenge ICNIRP guidelines, recommending lower limits for public safety that are based on biological and clinical effects, not just temperature rise. It is also highlighted that the medical community does not yet fully recognize RF radiation illness and thus physicians are violating moral and ethical principles of  “respect for life, human dignity, self-determination, medical care, justice, and benefit.” by dismissing or ignoring this condition.

Case Report 8: An Eight Year Old Boy Developed Severe Headache in A School Close to A Mast with 5G Base Stations.  Lennart Hardell, MD and Mona Nilsson. Annals of Clinical Case Studies. Article 1093. Volume 6. February. 2024. In this case report the authors document the health symptoms of an 8 year old boy after a 5G cell tower was placed 200 meters from his school. He developed escalating severe headaches, as well as fatigue and dizziness at school. His symptoms resolved at home. HArdell and Nilsson point out for 5G, “Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) technique is used, whereby the technology produces fast, repetitive, very high pulses of Radio Frequency (RF) radiation. Before the roll-out no studies have been performed on acute or chronic health effects.” They further note, “It can be assumed that more children at this school and other schools with 5G antennas in close proximity also suffer from symptoms caused by the increased RF-radiation from 5G. Children are generally more sensitive than adults to harmful environmental factors. This case study underscores the urgent need for a moratorium on 5G deployment (www.emfcall.org,
http://www.5Gappeal.eu).”

Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation. Hardell and Nilsson summarize their findings: “The fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is currently deployed in Sweden since 2019/2020, as well as in many other countries. We have previously published seven case reports that include a total of 16 persons aged between 4 and 83 years that developed the microwave syndrome within short time after being exposed to 5G base stations close to their dwellings. In all cases high radiofrequency (RF) radiation from 4G/5G was measured with a broadband meter. RF radiation reached >2,500,000 to >3,180,000 μW/m2 in peak maximum value in three of the studies.” 41 different symptoms with the most prevalent and severe being sleeping difficultly (insomnia, waking night time, early wake-up), headache, fatigue, irritability, concentration problems, loss of immediate memory, emotional distress, depression tendency, anxiety/panic, dysesthesia (unusual touched based sensations), burning and lancinating skin, cardiovascular symptoms (transitory high or irregular pulse), dyspnea, and pain in muscles and joints.

8 Case Reports on 5G Health Effects (2023-2024)

Quotes: These case reports also include a discussion on the definition, cause and policies surrounding wireless radiation. The authors of these studies write:

“These levels apparently provoked, within a short time period, ill health in the studied persons. They are far above levels that have been reported to provoke ill health from previous generations of wireless technology [20-27], and also far above levels recommended by experts. In 2012, the BioInitiative Report suggested a limit of 30-60 μW/m2 for human exposure, lower for sensitive persons and children, 3- 6 μW/m2 [28]. Even lower guidelines were proposed in 2016, maximum 10 – 1 000 μW/m2, lower at night time 1-100 μW/m2, and for sensitive persons 0.1-10 μW/m2 [29]. On the other hand, the measured levels from 5G are still far below the levels recommended by ICNIRP [5] and the FCC [30]. According to ICNIRP 2020 exposure can be as high as 10 000 000 μW/m2 for whole body exposure averaged over 30 minutes, thus allowing peak levels to be even very much higher [31].” (Hardell and Nilsson, April 2023)

“All ten measurements at that place yielded within 10-15 seconds peak levels >2 500 000 μW/m2, which is the highest measurable level with the meter used in this study.” (Hardell and Nilsson, April 2023)

“The children’s playground is located 40 meters from the base station, Figure 1. High RF levels were measured on the playground. For medical reasons it must be regarded to be a harmful place to be used, especially by children. Children are more vulnerable to RF radiation exposure than adults [32]” (Hardell and Nilsson, April 2023)

“The woman’s dog also showed signs of ill health after the 5G deployment. According to her, the dog got diarrhea soon after the 5G deployment. This disappeared during the washout period in the other apartment with no 5G, but returned when they moved back to her own apartment.” (Hardell and Nilsson, April 2023)

“The sensitivity to RF radiation is known to vary considerably be- tween different persons [33,34].” (Hardell and Nilsson, April 2023)

“The RF radiation levels measured in this study, and in our three previous case studies on this topic, were very much higher than levels in previous generations of wireless technology found to increase the risk of ill health such as symptoms of the microwave syndrome.”  (Nilsson and Hardell, June 2023)

“The microwave syndrome is similar to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) [8] or electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS). However, unlike the microwave syndrome, individuals suffering from EHS can develop deliberating symptoms at extremely low exposure levels that are tolerated by most other people. That is in contrast to the very high RF radiation levels seen in our four case studies where healthy individuals, with no prior major reactions to wireless technology, developed symptoms due to levels of exposure far exceeding levels that have been reported to increase the risk of symptoms of the microwave syndrome, also called radiofrequency sickness, near mobile phone masts or base stations [24].” (Nilsson and Hardell, June 2023)

“The effects of the exposure depend not only on the carrier frequency, for instance 3.5 GHz as for 5G, but also, and perhaps more importantly so, on the modulation and/or pulsation of the signal and as well as on the peak and average intensity . Pulsed signals and simultaneous exposure to several frequencies has been observed to cause more effects and were thus considered more hazardous. The observed effects increased with time of exposure [13, 14].” (Nilsson and Hardell, June 2023)  

“The exposure caused oxidative stress and an increase of degenerated neurons in the hippocampus region of the brain in addition to increased Irisin levels. The observed effects may increase the risk of neurodegenerative diseases after continued exposure [18]. (Nilsson and Hardell, June 2023)

 “In a review of early studies it was stated already in 1969 that “A surprisingly wide variety of neurological and physiological reactions are to be expected” [12]. (Nilsson and Hardell, June 2023)

 “The current limits based on thermal effects from ICNIRP [16] and FCC [45] are severely insufficient and outdated and do not protect against known health risks. They offer no safety. On the contrary, they allow exposure to RF radiation at levels that have repeatedly been shown to be harmful [46].” (Hardell and Nilsson, Jan 2023)

“In addition current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation give no protection against harmful effects on biodiversity, i.e., the variety of living species on Earth, including plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi.”  (Hardell and Nilsson, Jan 2023)

“To our knowledge, there is no study that shows that these levels, or the maximum levels allowed by applying the ICNIRP guidelines, are safe for long-term exposure to RF radiation from base stations for 5G, 4G, 3G or even 2G. No studies have examined whole body long-term exposure effects at ICNIRP limits or at maximum levels measured in this study.”  (Hardell and Nilsson, Jan 2023)   

“No study has this far investigated exposure similar to that encountered by millions of people now exposed to radiation from 5G antennas in combination with 4G technology. The studies exposing animals to the 3.5 GHz frequency have found negative effects such as oxidative stress in the liver, kidneys, the plasma, degenerated neurons in the brain as well as oxidative stress in muscles and negative effects on bone strength. Further, modified behavior after fetal exposure has been reported [11-14].” (Nilsson and Hardell Dec 2023)

“The EMF Scientist Appeal was launched in 2015 (www. emfscientist.org), and has been signed by 256 scientists, all -active in this field of research. They demand that people must be better protected against risks from this form of RF radiation exposure by more stringent guidelines for permitted RF radiation and that the general public and the medical profession, particularly doctors, should be informed about the risks.” (Hardell and Nilsson, Jan 2023)

“In 2017, the 5G Appeal was launched (www.5gappeal.eu). The appeal, which is currently signed by more than 400 medical doctors and scientists from around the world, demands that decision-makers stop the 5G expansion “until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry”, due to the risk of serious consequences for human health [50], as discussed further in [51-54].” (Hardell and Nilsson, Jan 2023)

“Guidelines based on all biological negative effects from RF radiation are urgently needed, as well as monitoring human health, not the least due to rapidly increasing levels of exposure.” (Hardell and Nilsson, Jan 2023)

5G: No Science, No Safety, No Problem

Many scientists, governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations have searched for studies on 5G telecommunication and could not find sufficient evidence of safety. A recent study, Systematic review on the physiological and health-related effects of 5G-relevant radiofrequency fields (3-4 GHz and 20-30 GHz), acknowledges the need for such research. (Bodewein 2022) National Institute for Health and Care Research. Nov. 2022.   An older Russian paper, “Biological Effects of Millimeter Wavelengths” by Zalyubovskaya (1977) was declassified by the CIA in 2012. This paper disturbingly describes the research on both humans and animals showing a myriad of adverse effects of millimeter wavelengths.  The author notes that millimeter wave technology had been used for years without any studies on biological effects. The researchers found that “millimeter waves caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes in the blood and bone marrow composition, and changes in the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration…and nuclear metabolism. The degree of unfavorable effect of millimeter waves depended the duration of radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.”  The author confirmed that millimeter waves do not penetrate skin but act in a different way to cause systemic harm. This could be due to skin nerve receptors in the skin, or release of biochemical molecules, that could cause the observed diverse biological and metabolic effects as a reduction in hemoglobin and erythrocytes, higher blood cortisol levels, adrenal stimulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and suppression of the central nervous system with notable changes in liver, kidneys, heart and brain.  

Russell (2018) wrote in 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications, “Current radiofrequency radiation wavelengths we are exposed to appear to act as a toxin to biological systems. A moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted, along with development of in- dependent health and environmental advisory boards that include independent scientists who research biological effects and exposure levels of radiofrequency radiation. Sound regulatory policy regarding current and future telecommunications initiative will require more careful assessment of risks to human health, environmental health, public safety, privacy, security and social consequences. Public health regulations need to be updated to match appropriate independent science with the adoption of biologically based exposure standards prior to further deployment of 4G or 5G technology.”

Moskowitz (2019), wrote a title for his publication which is a conclusion as well, “We Have No Reason to Believe That 5G is Safe”. Dr. Moskowitz is a scientist who has studied and written on tobacco, as well as radiofrequency radiation, and gives a precautionary view in his 2019 article, We Have No Reason to Believe That 5G is Safe, published in Scientific American. He has presented very clear review of radiofrequency and health impacts at the UCSF Occupational and Environmental Medicine Grand Rounds called “Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G” on Sept 24, 2020.  Slide Share is here. 

Hardell (2021) notes regarding The Health Council of the Netherland report that “The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency [millimeter] band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.”

Redmayne and Maisch (2023) note, “This[new 5G] frequency band will be transmitted using beamforming, a new introduction in near-field exposures… Many significant sources conclude there is insufficient research to assure safety even from the heat perspective. To date, there has been no published in vivo, in vitro or epidemiological research using exposures to 5G New Radio beam-formed signals”.


The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report of 2020 -5G Wireless Capabilities and Challenges for an Evolving Network, is a comprehensive report, pointing out the challenges of privacy and cybersecurity, as well as the health risks of 5G wireless systems. The report notes that 5G Millimeter Wave Technology is New and Different with Multiple Antennas and Beamforming Capabilities and that;

  • “No research has been conducted to characterize long-term exposure to the multiple active antennas with beamforming that are a feature of 5G.”  
  • “It is unknown how the signals from these antennas may affect human health in the long-term. It could be computationally intensive to study the long-term exposure to these antennas due, in part, to their many possible configurations”
  • “While research on the biological effects of RF energy has been underway for decades, research  on the long-term health effects of pre-5G technology is ongoing and research on the possibility of long-term health effects of 5G technology is largely unknown because the technology is still new and has not been widely deployed.”
  • “According to an NCI scientist, even after high-band 5G technology has been put into use in the coming years, the long- term health effects on people, if any, may not be known for many years later because some health outcomes could take decades to develop. The high-band frequencies used in 5G will only be available for observational studies once 5G technology has been deployed widely. A National Institutes of Health scientist noted that the 5G frequencies are still not clearly defined, making it difficult to understand the impact on human exposure.”

European Parliament Briefing 2020: Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. The March 2020 European Parliament Briefing on the health effects of 5G admits that the “European Commission has not yet conducted studies on the potential health risks of the 5G technology.” 

The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology (2020) was the first Commission formed in the United States to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology. They released their independent comprehensive final report November 1, 2020 which included 15 Recommendations. In their report the Commission highlighted the lack of a single definition for 5G, insufficient evidence of safety for 5th generation technology, a concern that safety standards for wireless technologies have not been updated with the latest science and that 5G is largely a marketing concept.

ANES (French) 2021– The French Report from ANES, Exposure to electromagnetic fields related to deployment of “5G” technology. Collective expert report, April 2021 notes, “No results from scientific studies focusing on the possible health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, specifically in these new frequency bands planned for 5G, are currently available.’ Yet the rollout continued. In March 2023 France had 39,895 authorized 5G sites using 700 MHz, 2.1 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands. France nevertheless plans to launch more of the 5G Networks of the Future” France 2030 plan : launch of the “Networks of the Future” research and 5G.

Review of Long Term Health Effects of Cell Towers  2022

Balmori (2022) In August 2022 the biologist and respected researcher Alfonso Balmori published a thorough review of the existing scientific literature on the health effects of base station (cell tower) antennas on humans titled, Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: from radiofrequency sickness to cancer.  Three effects were noted 1) radiofrequency sickness  2) cancer and  3) changes in biochemical parameters. He states, “Considering all the studies reviewed globally (n = 38), 73.6% (28/38) showed effects: 73.9% (17/23) for radiofrequency sickness, 76.9% (10/13) for cancer and 75.0% (6/8) for changes in biochemical parameters...Of special importance are the studies performed on animals or trees near base station antennas that cannot be aware of their proximity and to which psychosomatic effects can never be attributed.”

Review of 5G and Wireless Radiation on Insects and Wildlife

The balance of nature we depend on as humans has been disrupted. It is acknowledged that the primary known drivers associated with the decline in birds, bees, insects and mammals are 1) The loss of natural habitat through degradation and destruction and 2) Pollution with decades long use of toxic pesticides, along with a wide variety of bioaccumulating environmental pollutants in the air, water and soil, including endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and nanomaterials 3) Invasive species introduction and 4) Climate change which has already has affected biodiversity and insect life cycles.  Insects seem especially sensitive to environmental changes. 

Modern artificial pulsed electromagnetic radiation (EMR)   from wireless devices and infrastructure is lesser known, but now added to the list of pollutants affecting the planetary biota. It is reasonable to assume disruption and harm from manmade electromagnetic fields, as we all evolved in very low level, low frequency atmosphere, which explains why the cells and nervous systems of all living organisms are able to communicate with low frequency, low power EMR and organisms use low level natural EMR as well for navigation and foraging.  Cifra M et al (2021) explains effects of atmospheric EMR fields.

Several important review articles on this subject have addressed key questions…If humans are harmed by man-made wireless radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cell towers, smart meter grids and power lines then what about other animals, birds and insects?  Does man-made RFR interfere with navigation, reproduction or the nervous system? Will 5G with shorter faster frequencies emitted be worse? Are the effects of pollutants synergistic when wildlife is exposed to many pollutants at once? Could manmade EMR be a factor in the 40% decline insect species reported globally in 2019?  Here are a few recently published articles of interest.

Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation. Volume 232,April 2019, Pages 8-27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636

Insects 2023:Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thill, Cammaerts and Balmori. De Gruyter, November 23, 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37990587/

Wildlife 2022: Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Levitt, Lai and Manville. Front. Public Health, 25 November 2022. The authors warn, “It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants.” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840/full

Wildlife 2023: Biological Effects of Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields from 0 to 100 MHz on Fauna and Flora: Workshop Report. Pophof B et al. Health Physics. 2023 Jan; 124(1): 39–52.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9722389/

ICNIRP-The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) was formed in 1992 as an independent non-profit scientific organization based in Germany to continue the work of the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA).  Their charter states that the scope of their activities is to collate and report studies, develop protection criteria and provide non-ionizing radiation exposure limits. These guidelines are used by most countries worldwide who adopt these standards. There are 14 members including the chair and vice chair. Elections are made by the current members of the Commission and the prior IRPA.

ICNIRP Has Worldwide Influence

ICNIRP guidelines are used as the standard for WHO and the EU to set upper limit of safety for radiation exposures. Almost all the countries in the world use these standards for radiation emissions but a few use a biologic basis to determine safety. Russia has standards that are 100 times less based on extensive research with animals, thus setting their upper limit of exposure below the level which did not cause autoimmune disease (Mc Cree 1980; Grigoriev 2010) Italy, Bulgaria and Poland have followed suit with Russia and have lower emissions citing the precautionary principle. (Foster- Exposure Limits 3 models) The worldwide roll out of 5G is problematic for the telecom industry as 5G uses much higher energy and power with Massive MIMO (massive multiple-input multiple-output) and beam forming technology. Several countries such as Italy, Russia, Poland and Switzerland have lower exposure limits. If limits are those of Russia and Italy then the exclusion zones for cell towers are larger and placement of 5G towers is more limited, as noted in this industry workshop slideshow. Impact of EMF limits on 5G network roll-out. ITU Workshop on 5G, EMF & Health Warsaw, December 5 2017.

In 1998 ICNIRP Guidelines were established for non-ionizing RFR based on a heat effect (SAR) and power density.  Only established effects were looked at thus cancer, a long-term effect was not considered. “These guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF… There is insufficient information on the biological and health effects of EMF exposure of human populations and experimental animals to provide a rigorous basis for establishing safety factors over the whole frequency range and for all frequency modulations.”  

In 2006 ICNIRP published a monograph. Environmental Health Criteria- EHC 232 ON STATIC FIELDS – 2006 . This originally came from the WHO after recognizing “the importance of occupational health and environmental effects.”. The report consistently discussed the lack of data or limitations of studies. MRI studies were highlighted.  They recommended that, “Because sufficient information on possible long-term or delayed effects of exposure is currently unavailable, cost-effective precautionary measures such as those being developed by WHO (www.who.int/emf) may be needed to limit the exposures of workers and the public. National authorities should adopt standards based on sound science that limit the exposure of people to static magnetic fields.”

On May 31, 2011 the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). IARC Press Release May 2011.

In 2018 ICNIRP presented updated Draft Guidelines for Limiting exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Hardell and Nyberg responded in a 2020 article, Appeals That Matter, An International appeal was sent to the EU in 2017 with over 260 signatures of independent scientists requesting “a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists.” They noted the many significant new studies showing non-thermal biologic harm from RFR which are not considered by ICNIRP as well as insufficient studies on 5G. There were several rebuttals to the new draft ICNIRP 2018 guidelines which remained the same as the original 20-year-old guidelines. The guidelines continue to state that levels of exposure should be heat based and averaged rather than looking at the peak values of radiation. No long-term effects have been considered. No biological or other health effects have been considered.  The 2018 ICNIRP draft guidelines continue to state that there are no new studies that are relevant to the determination of adverse effects in the nervous system, auditory system, neuroendocrine system, neurodegenerative diseases, immune system, reproduction or cancer.

In 2020 ICNIRP released their ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 kHz TO 300 GHz). July 2018 which were not very different than guidelines decades prior.

Since 1998 much more research has been done to demonstrate adverse non-thermal effects to human body as well as other living organisms, including reproductive, neurologic, endocrine, immune and cardiac effects.  The mechanism of action of harm has also been elucidated as cellular oxidative stress injury. Many scientists now state that RF-EMF should be classified as a known carcinogen and be placed in the highest category- Class I.  (Miller 2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Miller A et al. 2018 Nov:167:673-683.

After the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines were released there have been many criticisms of ICNIRP. One noted is that they are like an industry friendly private club that does not recognize views or research outside their own opinions. Nordhagen and Flydal (2020). Their article, Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines, investigated the span of authors and research groups of the 2020 ICNIRP and found that, “in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE, and some of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves…literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020… are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members.”  They also state that, “With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation…Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.” Commentary: Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing RadiationProtection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation.  Hardell L et al. 2021.

ICNIRP and WHO 2024

ICNIRP announced seven new commissioners to serve 2024-2028 as of July 2024. There is concern that these commissioners may not be independent scientists and new members are still tied to the WHO EMF Project, which it influences. Microwave News reports Dec 11, 2023 that, ”despite all the changes, ICNIRP’s outlook and policies are expected to remain much the same.” This means that thermal (heat effects), not biological toxic or long term effects, would only be addressed. The article also notes, “Russia and China which have large electromagnetic health research programs and have adopted exposure limits that are more stringent than ICNIRP’s, are not represented on the Commission.”

2024 WHO EMF Project Review of EMF. The WHO EMF project has sent out a public notice in 2023 that they will be reviewing the health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, as is their mandate. The analysis of available evidence will be published as a monograph in the WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) series possibly in 2024. The ICBE EMF group of independent scientists are concerned that given the current industry and ICNIRP criteria for electromagnetic field emissions as described below in their publications, the new EMF guidelines will be similarly flawed and not protective of human or environmental health.

T Mobile Had Few Studies to Support the Safe Widespread Rollout of Telecommunications in 2000

In a report commissioned by T Mobile in 2000, the authors note, “the basis of the recommendations of the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP),… [are based on  SAR] the amount of energy absorbed by the body from the field within a given unit of time… Parallel to the experiments examining thermal effects, there have been a growing number of studies examining the effects on the body of HF EMFs at sub‐thermal intensities. We now have a plethora of experimental studies examining a variety of effects on all levels of the organism…The number of studies which examine the physiological effects of real mobile exposures is still very low, compared to the degree of penetration achieved by the technology and the number of (potentially) exposed persons.” They admit, “The study of potential health effects cannot generally compete with the speed of technical development and the roll out of the product…and faced with a state of incomplete scientific research state, ”it is only possible to assess the potential dangers of mobile telecommunications using the results generated by uncoordinated research, which is still mainly orientated towards topics and criteria of relevant to science only, rather than addressing the requirements of society as a whole…. If there are sufficient indications that there may be damaging effects, the precautionary principle for the protection of health and the environment will apply and avoidable exposures will be avoided until such time when there is enough knowledge for a wider introduction of the technology in question. This theory draws its justification not least from the experiences with the introduction of technologies and products (such as asbestos, DDT, CFCs, formaldehyde, wood preservatives, mass X‐ray screenings etc.), which were widely used, even many years after the first clear indications of health and ecological damage had appeared.”

ICBE-EMF – The International Commission on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Challenges ICNIRP Guidelines

A new group of independent scientists who research radiofrequency radiation has formed the International Commission on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) to provide a different perspective and recommendations which challenges the current International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards arguing that they (and the FCC and FDA) are fundamentally flawed in their methodology and assumptions for health or environmental effects of electromagnetic fields. This is especially true for 5G.

Thus, any new reports published by the WHO, FCC, FDA or other government organizations that rely on the current methodology and assumptions of ICNIRP are fundamentally flawed, as they completely ignore the well documented biologic, non-thermal effects of RFR demonstrated in the scientific literature. Heat is the only measure of harm identified by radiofrequency radiation according to these government authorities.

Do We Need 5G (or 6G)?

In a European Parliamentary report in 2019, 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia, the in Depth Analysis indicates 5G is a manufactured need. The report states, “ As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment.”

“I have no doubt in my mind that, at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).” Dr. Robert O. Becker ,1985. Orthopedic physician, EMF Researcher and author of “The Body Electric”, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize.

See also

PST Electrosensitivity Science 

PST Electrosensitivity Stories 

PST Neurologic Effect

For more information on the above case reports email info@radiationprotection.se 

References

2020-Government Accountability Office (GAO). 5G Wireless: Capabilities and Challenges for an Evolving Network. GAO-21-26SP. Nov 24, 2020. U.S.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-26sp

Telecommunications: Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed. U.S. Government Accounting Office. GAO-12-771Published: Jul 24, 2012. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-771

ANSES Exposition aux champs électromagnétiques liée au déploiement de la technologie 5G. 2021. https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AP2019SA0006Ra.pdf

5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. European Parliament. 2019. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliament Breifing.2020. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cD0TDOqGHpOmCWPnANN-Y6RBaa0eoQ4ZN0nuUwpVaLL8MIDtt6aKtiYM

ICBE-EMF – October 2022. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environmental Health. 21, 92 (2022). Published Oct 18, 2022. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Balmori A. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: from radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Alfonso Balmori. Environmental Research. 2022 Nov;214(Pt 2):113851.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35843283/

Bodewein et al.  Systematic review on the physiological and health-related effects of 5G-relevant radiofrequency fields (3-4 GHz and 20-30 GHz). National Institute for Health and Care Research. Nov. 2022.   https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=374434

Hardell L. Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks. World J Clin Oncol. 2021 June; 12(6): 393-403 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189065/#:~:text=The%20conclusion%20that%20there%20is,Cancer%20risk%3B%20Health%20Council%20Netherlands.

Moskowitz J. We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

Redmayne M, Maisch DR. ICNIRP Guidelines’ Exposure Assessment Method for 5G Millimetre Wave Radiation May Trigger Adverse Effects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5267. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075267. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37047882/

Russell C. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications” Environ Res.  2018 Aug;165:484-495.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29655646/

A 5G Wireless Future: Will it Give Us a Smart Nation or Contribute to an Unhealthy One? Cindy L Russell, MD, SCCMA VP of Community Health. Feb 2017. https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/5G_Wireless_Future_COLOR.pdf

Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports Commentary Nordic Appeal: More Stringent Regulatory Framework on Microwave Radiation from Wireless Technologies is Needed -Stop Further Rollout of 5G Hardell L et al. March 20, 2023.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369938829_Annals_of_Clinical_and_Medical_Case_Reports_Commentary_Nordic_Appeal_More_Stringent_Regulatory_Framework_on_Microwave_Radiation_from_Wireless_Technologies_is_Needed_-Stop_Further_Rollout_of_5G_Corresp

The European Union prioritizes economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. Rainer Nyberg , Julie McCredden and Lennart Hardell. Reviews on Environmental Health. De Gruyter. September 22, 2022. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106/html

The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review). Rainer Nyberg , Julie McCredden and Lennart Hardell. Reviews on Environmental Health. DE Gruyter. August 23, 2023. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2023-0046/html

Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: from radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Alfonso Balmori. Environmental Research. 2022 Nov;214(Pt 2):113851.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35843283/

Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Industry Is Dominated By the Industry It Presumably Regulates. Norm Alster. Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Harvard University. https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

The Cigarette Papers. Stan Ganz, Ph.D. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520213722/the-cigarette-papers

Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics. Allan Brandt. Am J Public Health. 2012 January; 102(1): 63–71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. 2020. New Hampshire. https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf

International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) Charter. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/doc/charter.pdf

ICNIRP History- https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/aim-status-history/index.html 

1998 ICNIRP Guidelines. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf

Environmental Health Criteria 232. ICNIRP. 2006. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/EHC232StaticFields.pdf

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS. May 31, 2011. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

Draft. ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 kHz TO 300 GHz). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. July 2018.  https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/consultation_upload/ICNIRP_RF_Guidelines_PCD_2018_07_11.pdf

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION. ICNIRP PUBLICATION – 2020. ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 KHZ TO 300 GHZ). 2020. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf

Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Miller A et al. 2018 Nov:167:673-683. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30196934/

Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines. Nordhagen and  Flydal. Reviews in Environmental Health. 2022 Jun 27;38(3):531-546.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35751553/

Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. Hardell and Nyberg. Mol Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar; 12(3): 247–257.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7016513/

Commentary: Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing RadiationProtection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation.  Hardell L et al.  J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285. https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/aspects-on-the-international-commission-on-nonionizing-radiation-protection-icnirp-2020-guidelines-on-radiofrequency-radiation.pdf

Impact of EMF limits on 5G network roll-out. ITU Workshop on 5G, EMF & Health Warsaw, December 5 2017. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/20171205/Documents/S3_Christer_Tornevik.pdf

WHO International EMF Project. https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-

Public Notice-Task Group on Radiofrequency Fields and Health Risks, 2023. WHO Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/radiation/tg-biographies.pdf?sfvrsn=38a717a7_5&download=true

2000 Mobile Telecommunications and Health. Review of the current scientific research in view of precautionary health protection. 2000, Commissioned by T‐Mobil and DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom MobilNet GmbH. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ecolog2000.pdf

Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation. U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2023. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones

Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). Panagopolous D et al. In J Oncol. 2021 Nov;59(5):92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34617575/

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research. SaferEMR. https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html

 Reduced Immunity: Soviet and Eastern European Research on Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation. (1980) McCree D. Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol 68, N).1, January 1980. https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/mcree80_rev_soviet.pdf

Grigoriev  YG et al. (2010) Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results. Bioelectromagnetics. Sept 20, 2010. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.20605

Dronov S, Kiritseva A. 1971. Immuno-biological changes in immunized animals after chronic exposure to radiowaves of super-high frequency. Gigiena i Sanitaria 7:51-3. (In Russian)

 

Discover more from Physicians for Safe Technology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading