Australian 5G experts have ignored the controversial claims of a British researcher who claims that 5G is potentially insecure and that the global deployment of telecommunications technology should be stopped.
In an opinion piece published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, John William Frank, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh, said the transmitter density required for 5G means more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).
Emerging evidence suggests that these levels are potentially harmful to health and that the global launch of 5G should be paused until its safety is confirmed, Professor Frank argued.
Despite his concerns about technology, Professor Frank was keen to distance himself from conspiracy theories linking 5G to the coronavirus by saying that “the theory that 5G and related EMFs have contributed to the pandemic does not has foundation “.
Australian 5G experts reject claims
Leading Australian 5G experts flatly rejected Professor Frank’s claims that 5G may be insecure.
“Dr Frank argues that there is little clarity about the types of technology resulting from the launch of 5G. However, at least in Australia, the technologies are well defined and 5G is already being deployed, using the frequency range that is ‘they currently use it for 4G,’ said Andrew Wood, chair of the Department of Medical Sciences and Swinburne University.
While it is true that the so-called “millimeter” waveband will be used, with a frequency about five times higher than that currently used “at the end of the year,” a higher frequency it does not mean a higher radiation intensity, ”explained Professor Wood.
The public can access free data on exposure levels that are available for free on the National Radio Frequency Site Archive website, he said.
Professor Wood also answered Dr. Frank’s assertion that there are gaps in knowledge about in vivo and in vitro effects.
“While there are certain gaps, given that millimeter-wave technologies have been used for several decades, there are already several hundred primary studies on possible bioeffects,” he said.
Australian Center for Research on Electromagnetic Bioeffects
Wollongong University’s chief researcher and professor of health psychology, Rodney Croft, dismissed Dr. Frank’s claims as an “unbalanced assessment of the science of radiological safety related to mobile telecommunications, including 5G.” .
“It should be noted that the views expressed in his essay do not correspond to scientific consensus and do not provide support for these non-standard claims,” Professor Croft said.
Professor Croft systematically rejected Dr. Frank’s three main claims.
“It is not true that there is emerging evidence that 5G transmitters emit electromagnetic fields at potentially harmful levels,” he said.
“There is a wealth of scientific literature evaluating the effect of the physical agent that is relevant to 5G, and the physical agent is the only aspect of 5G that is relevant to health.
“It is not true that there is an influence of industry on the scientific consensus regarding radiation safety, and therefore none is provided in this essay or in the opinion paper referred to by William Frank.”
Professor Croft said there is “a broad body of science that has evaluated the safety of mobile telecommunications, understanding the effect of the power and frequency of the electromagnetic field on human health.”
“Science has not been able to find any adverse health effects related to electromagnetic fields emitted by telecommunications technologies such as 4G and 5G technologies,” he said.
Ken Karipidis, deputy director of assessment and advice for the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), said Dr Frank’s views were not supported by health authorities around the world, the main science and the set of research available “.
“Frank, J.’s opinion paper discusses selected research findings indicating the possibility of harmful effects of 5G and the recommendation of greater caution. However, it is important to stress that this view is not supported by health authorities around the world, mainstream science and all the research available, ”Dr. Karipidis said.
Radiofrequency (RF) exposure levels from mobile telecommunications sources, including 5G, are well below the safety limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which are considered international best practices.
“In addition, ICNIRP provides declarations of conflict of interest on its website and a requirement for committee participation is that members are not affiliated with the industry.
“ICNIRP limits take into account all research on RF exposure and health effects, including studies reporting effects at non-thermal exposure levels. The limits are precautionary, as they are set well below the levels at which established health effects occur to provide additional protection and take into account uncertainty.
“Besides, the limits ICNIRP explain all the modes of transmission of RF, like modulation, impulses and polarization.
“When evaluating all RF and health research as a whole, the adverse health effects of RF exposure at levels below the widely accepted safety limits of ICNIRP have not been demonstrated.”