5g and health is it safe? what the science tells us...5g and health –is it safe? what the science...

5G AND HEALTH – IS IT SAFE? WHAT THE SCIENCE TELLS US

Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc

Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, FinlandChief Editor of Radiation and Health specialty of the Frontiers in Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland

Science Blogger at BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place

WHO I AM… EDUCATION AND WORK

• Education:

• DSc in Molecular biology (Poland, 1983), PhD in Biochemistry/cell biology (Finland, 1990)

• Currently

• Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, Helsinki University (1992 - )

• Chief Editor of Radiation and Health, specialty in Frontiers in Public Health

• In the past

• 22 years (1992-2013) at STUK

• 2003-2007 as Head of Radiation Biology Laboratory

• 2000-2013 as Research Professor

• Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School, USA; 1997-1999

• Guangbiao Professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; 2006-2009

• Visiting Professor at Swinburne Univ. Technology, Melbourne, Australia; 2012-2013

Dariusz Leszczynski, Key-note at ARPS 2017, Wollongong, Australia, August 8, 2017Dariusz Leszczynski, New Zealand Lecture Tour, November 2019 2

WHO I AM… EXPERT EXPERIENCE

• 20 years of experimental work on EMF and health

• Testified, advised, lectured at e.g.:

• ARPANSA - EMERG, Australia, 2018

• Polish Ministry of Digitization; 2016

• Canadian Parliament’s House of Commons’ hearing; 2015

• India’s Minister of Health and Family Welfare; 2014

• USA Senate Appropriations Committee hearing; 2009

• Member of the 2011 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 30-Experts Working Group for classification of the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation

• Advised e.g.: Parliament of Finland; National Academies, USA; World Health Organization; Bundesamt für Strahlenshutz, Germany; International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP); Swiss National Foundation; The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development;

Dariusz Leszczynski, Key-note at ARPS 2017, Wollongong, Australia, August 8, 2017Dariusz Leszczynski, New Zealand Lecture Tour, November 2019 3

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY AND ETHICALLY UNACCEPTABLE, TO CLAIM THAT TECHNOLOGY IS SAFE FOR HUMAN USE WHEN

THE TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXAMINED FOR ITS POTENTIALLY POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, ESPECIALLY IN SITUATION WHERE EARLIER,

SIMILAR, ASSUMPTIONS OF HUMAN HEALTH SAFETY WERE SHOWN TO BE FALSE

Dariusz Leszczynski, New Zealand Lecture Tour, November 2019 4

Dariusz Leszczynski on deployment of the 5G:

5G ”CONFUSION”

5G IS BEING DEVELOPED AND DEPLOYED AT THE SAME TIME

EVEN THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS DEALING WITH THE 5G ARE NOT ALL READY YET


CURRENTLY DEPLOYED 5G COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGY IS A COMBINATION OF ALREADY USED

TECHNOLOGIES (3G, 4G, 4G-LTE) AND NEW

TECHNOLOGY, USING MILLIMETER-WAVES


EMF & HEALTH = PERPETUAL DÉJÀ VU

• The Beginning

• 1980s communications technology developed for US Department of Defense was put to civilian commercial use

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing for human health hazard - the “low power exclusion”

• 30 years later…

• In 2011, based on the post-deployment research, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen

• Earlier assumed lack of health hazard appears to be false

• Smart phones (e-pads, laptops) have completely changed human body exposure patterns

• Fast forward to Today…

• 5G technology is being deployed without prior testing for human health hazard

• The Future is unknown…


“THERE ARE THINGS WE KNOW THAT WE KNOW

THERE ARE KNOWN UNKNOWNS. THAT IS TO SAY THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NOW KNOW WE DON'T KNOW

BUT THERE ARE ALSO UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS. THERE ARE THINGS WE DON'T KNOW WE DON'T KNOW.”

Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, NATO Briefing, June 6, 2002[http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm]


HEALTH POLICIES

• Policies concerning human health and EMF are based solely on “what we know that we know”

• “What we know that we do not know”, meaning the research that has not been done (e.g. on 5G mmWaves), is dismissed as irrelevant (!)

• Anything that questions status quo and could lead to implementation of precautionary measures, and what cannot be lightly dismissed on scientific grounds, is considered and labeled as “scaremongering”.

• Process of evaluation of science and recommendations of health policy has bee taken over by “private clubs”


ICNIRP & BIOINITIATIVE & ALIKE ORGANIZATIONS

Prone to provide skewed evaluation of the scientific evidence on EMF and health for the following reasons:

• “private clubs” where current members/leaders elect/select new members, without need to publicly justify the selection

• lack of accountability before anyone

• lack of transparency of their activities

• complete lack of supervision of its activities

• skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members


SAFETY LIMITS HAVE TO BE BASED SOLELY ON THE AVAILABLE, CORRECTLY INTERPRETED, SCIENCE

• ICNIRP under-plays the significance of the research data

• Activists over-estimate the significance of the research data

• ICNIRP and Activists – both mislead by interpreting scientific evidence ‘to suit their pre-conceived opinions’

• There is enough of scientific evidence to support the Precautionary Principle, without the need for misleading interpretation of data

• Children, because of their known higher sensitivity to environmental factors, should be exposed as little as possible, as a precautionary measure

• E.g. no wireless internet in schools and daycare centers

• E.g. age limit for smart phone ownership


PROBLEMATIC SAFETY STANDARDS

• No information whether/how cell phone radiation affects biochemistry of humans

• No certainty that safety standards protect all users from anything besides thermal

effects

• Any equipment radiating below currently set safety standards is automatically

considered safe, which might be misleading

• Compliance with the safety standards is currently used as an excuse to stop

research funding and to continue untamed deployment of new wireless

technologies, without any health-related testing

• Non-thermal effects exist but are refused to be acknowledged and studied in depth

• Epidemiology and sleep EEG studies provide compelling evidence for the

existence of non-thermal effects (=low level exposure effects)


THE SCIENTIFIC “UNCERTAINTY” BY ICNIRP

Eric van Roengen, Chairman of the ICNIRP

“… Everybody can believe what they want. If those scientists think that there is enough evidence it’s their responsibility to draw that conclusion. We [ICNIRP] draw different conclusions from that [evidence] and that’, you know, it’s up to people to decide which group they think is more reliable, in what they should believe.”

No wonder that the telecom industry has chosen to believe in ICNIRP


HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS

• Three kinds of health effects of wireless communication can be considered:

• Use and over-use of the devices leading to psychological addiction

• Worry about possible (imagined or real) health effects

• Possible health effects of radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices and their networks


RESEARCH APPROACH

• Confirming, in human volunteers, of the existence of the effects observed in in vitro and in animal studies, is of paramount importance for the development of the reliable public health policies

• Common mistake – over-interpretation of in vitro and animal data to suggest, without human volunteer data, that effects observed in vitro and in animals ”prove” health problems for humans

• Crucial questions to answer:

• Are there physiological RF effects occurring in humans

• Are RF effects strong enough to alter human physiology in a way that could lead to health hazard


FROM 2006 PRESENTATION IN SWEDEN


IARC 2011

• 30 invited experts divided into four sub-groups

• Dosimetry

• Epidemiology

• Animal studies

• Mechanistic laboratory in vitro studies

• Decisions by a consensus or by a simple majority

• The vast majority of 30 experts voted for the classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen (Group 2B)


RF CARCINOGENICITYEVALUATION BY IARC

Image source:https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/10/26/carcinogens/

• First RF evaluation in 2011• Next RF evaluation by 2025• Ongoing other evaluations by

• ICNIRP (2020?)• WHO EMF Project (2020?)

• Experts have diverse opinions:• Hardell – group 1• Leszczynski – group 2A• Grigoriev – not enough for 2A


EPIDEMIOLOGY CASE-CONTROL STUDIES SUPPORT POSSIBLE/PROBABLE BRAIN CANCER RISK

• International Agency for Research on Cancer 2011 classification was based on the results of Interphone and Hardell studies

• Currently, the four case-control epidemiological studies suggest the cell phone radiation increases risk of developing brain cancer in avid users

• Regular user (!) – no problem at all but… definition: 1 call/week for 6 months

• Avid user = ca. 30 minutes/day for 10+ years

• Interphone 40%; Hardell 170%, CERENAT 100%, Canadian Interphone 100% increase in glioma risk = glioma is and remains ’rare disease’

• Interphone 2016 analysis of full data confirms location of cancer in the most RF exposed parts of brain

• NOTICE: all case-control studies underestimate risk of brain cancer because of poor radiation dosimetry


PROBLEM: EPIDEMIOLOGY CASE-CONTROL STUDIES HAVE NO RADIATION EXPOSURE DATA…

• Surrogate for radiation exposure – minutes of using cell phone

• Such surrogate leads to underestimation of the effect

• Two persons talking for the same length of time may have entirely different radiation exposure because of the different proximity to cell tower

• Persons with dramatically different radiation exposure were analyzed as if having the same exposure (!)

…HOW IT WILL APPLY TO 5G MICROCELLS NOBODY KNOWS


EPIDEMIOLOGY COHORT AND TREND STUDIES

• Trend-data - Little et al. 2012: slow rise of brain cancer cases in USA

• trend is similar to Interphone “prediction” but not Hardell “prediction”

• Danish Cohort update study 2011 – no effect

• no exposure data; the length of phone subscription with service provider

• Leszczynski’s opinion *Scientific Peer Review in Crisis* in ‘The Scientist Magazine’

• Million Women study 2014 - no effect

• use of cell phone: ‘never’, ‘less than once a day’, ‘every day’

• Chapman et al. 2016

• Misleading claim of 29 years of use and 10 years latency of brain cancer (?!)


BRAIN CANCER TRENDS AND CELL PHONE USAGE TRENDS DO NOT MATCH

HUGE INCREASE IN CELL PHONE USE OVER DECADES BUT NO EQUALLY DRAMATIC BRAIN CANCER RISE

WHY?


LESZCZYNSKI: HYPOTHESIS OF INDIVIDUAL SENSITIVITY TO EMF

• Health of the majority of human population will not be affected by exposures to EMF

• Only individuals with higher sensitivity to EMF (≠EHS!) will be affected

• Individual sensitivity to EMF may be modulated by other environmental factors

• Corroborating observations supportive for the hypothesis:

• Epidemiology – brain cancer was rare disease and appears to remain rare disease because only highly-sensitive persons respond (?)

• Toxicology – NTP study exposed animals to huge doses of EMF but only few rats developed cancer because only highly sensitive animals responded (?)

• The PROBLEM – we do not know who might be more than average sensitive to EMF and we do not study this issue at all (EHS psychological studies do not suffice)


DNA DAMAGE & GENOTOXICITY (?)

• Scientifically unfounded “rush to conclusions” on genotoxicity and cancer

• DNA “damage” does not automatically mean that the RF radiation is genotoxic

• DNA damage occurs also spontaneously and is repaired

• No studies to show what is the fate of the RF-associated “DNA damage”

• Questions!

• Is DNA damaged by RF or is RF impairing repair of spontaneous DNA damage?

• Is DNA damage repaired or does it persist in further generations of cells?

• Is DNA damage occurring in humans?

• Considering the efficiency of DNA repair mechanisms in cells, claims that mobile phone radiation is genotoxic, are not proven yet

• We do not know if mobile phone radiation exposure-associated DNA damage leads to genotoxicity and mutagenicity or whether it is repaired


EFFECTS OF CO-EXPOSURES

• Co-carcinogen studies show effects (just few performed) – cell phone radiation might potentiate effects of carcinogenic chemicals or radiation

• 6 co-carcinogenicity studies in animals were used as supportive evidence for IARC 2011 classification of cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen

• Study of Tillmann et al. 2010 was replicated and confirmed by Lerchl et al. 2015

• Lack of co-carcinogenicity studies (!)


MECHANISMS OF EFFECTS

• Not knowing biochemical mechanism does not nullify the existence of the effect

• Provide important corroborative evidence of effects

• Useful for designing counter-measures for the harmful effects

• Most common hypotheses for mechanisms of EMF bio-effects

• Stress response

• Free radicals

• Calcium fluxes

• Common problem with all three hypothetical mechanisms is lack of specificity

• Proving involvement of any/all mechanisms in EMF effects is technically difficult

• Thus far, no scientific proof that any/all mechanisms are in some way involved in human responses to EMF exposures in physiologically meaningful way

‘regulate anything and everything’


WHEN TO INVOKE THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

“…Whether or not to invoke the Precautionary Principle is adecision exercised where scientific information is insufficient,inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are indications thatthe possible effects on environment, or human, animal or planthealth may be potentially dangerous and inconsistent with thechosen level of protection…”


REASONS FOR INVOKING PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

• Scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain

• IARC classification of cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen (Group 2B) means that the science is insufficient, inconclusive, and uncertain

• There are indications that the possible effects on human health may be potentially dangerous

• Four replications of epidemiological studies (Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, Canadian Interphone) show an increased risk of brain cancer in long-term avid users – potentially dangerous effect

• Inconsistent with the chosen level of protection

• Epidemiological studies, showing increased risk in long-term avid users, were generated in populations using regular cell phones, compliant with the current safety standards = current safety standards are insufficient to protect users


THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

• Claims that implementation of the Precautionary Principle (PP) will bring us back to “caves” is pure demagogy

• Precaution in use does not equal Prevention of use• Wireless technology does not need to be everywhere and all the time• Strong opposition from telecom industry because PP may cause• Technology providers can be made responsible to prove their product is safe• Requirement of making more efficient (less radiation emissions) technology• Limiting current rampant and uncontrolled deployment of wireless

networks• Implementation of PP will create new knowledge through research• Implementation of PP will create new jobs in research and technology


5G


5G AND SKIN

• Millimeter-waves are absorbed only in skin but…

• Skin is the largest organ of the human body

• Involved in regulation of the immune response

• Generates mediators affecting nervous system

• Lack of science on human skin response to 5G millimeter-waves

• Single study on RF-EMF (GSM) and skin proteome [Karinen et al. 2008]

• 5G technology spectrum 6 GHz – 300 GHz where above 6 GHz energy is deposited solely in the skin

• ICNIRP plans to classify skin as ‘limbs’

• Limbs are permitted to get higher exposure than the head and trunk


INDUSTRY REVIEW… INCONSISTENCYCLAIMS TECHNOLOGY TO BE SAFE BUT ADMITS MISSING EVIDENCE FOR SUCH CLAIM…

• IEEE Microw Mag. 2015; 16: 65–84; Safe for Generations to Come. Ting Wu, Theodore S. Rappaport, Christopher M. Collins; New York University (NYU) WIRELESS

• In April 2014, the Brooklyn 5G Summit, sponsored by Nokia and the New York University (NYU) WIRELESS research center, drew global attention to mmWave communications and channel modeling

• Low-power – not causing thermal effects (?)

• “…Compared with lower frequency bands, relatively little careful research has been conducted evaluating the potential of more subtle long-term effects than tissue damage due directly to heating at mmWave frequencies…”


ENVIRONMENT OF HUMAN SKIN[EXAMPLES, NOT A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW]

• False assumption that because millimeter-wave radiation will be absorbed only in skin, there will be no major health problems

• Functions of the skin microbiota in health and disease by James A. Sanford and Richard L. Gallo; Semin Immunol. 2013 Nov 30; 25(5): 370–377. • “…The skin, the human body’s largest organ, is home to a diverse and

complex variety of innate and adaptive immune functions…”• “…the skin immune system should be considered a collective mixture

of elements from the host and microbes acting in a mutualistic relationship…”


SEARCH FOR STUDIES ON SKIN AND 5G

• Articles have been selected from the three databases:

• PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed),

• EMF-Portal (https://www.emf-portal.org/) and

• ORSAA (https://www.orsaa.org/orsaa-database.html)

• Combinations of keywords: “millimeter-waves”, “skin”, “human”, “mice”, and “rats”.

• Studies presenting effects of mmWaves on skin physiology and on skin-dependent/-induced whole body physiology were analyzed.

• Peer reviewed original experimental studies published in the English language until September 2019 were considered.


RESEARCH ON 5G MILLIMETER-WAVES AND SKIN

• Performed studies on mm-waves & skin

• Human volunteer – ca. 11 studies

• Human in vitro – ca. 26 studies

• Animal in vivo (rat, mice) – ca. 56 studies

• Animal cells (rat, mice) – ca. 10 studies

• TOTAL of only ca. 103 studies

• If the exposure is for long periods and non-thermal – we do not know how skin cells will respond to the deposited energy

• Claims that ”we know skin will not be affected” and claims that ”we know skin will be affected” are premature and, based on the available scientific evidence, misleading & false

• We simply do not know how skin will respond to mm-waves


HUMAN VOLUNTEER STUDIES (11 STUDIES)

• Hydration level of the skin, as water efficiently absorbs mmWaves

(Kadlec et al. 2008; Owda et al. 2017)

• Thickness of the skin regulates penetration of the mmWaves, in part

due to content of the water in dermis layer (Owda et al. 2017)

• Distribution of the sweat glands (Feldman et al. 2009; Hayut et al.

2013; Hayut et al. 2014)

• Distribution of the acupuncture sites and pain/pressure sensing sites

(Walters et al. 2000; Egot-Lemaire & Ziskin, 2011; Alekseev et al.

2005; Partyla et al. 2017)

• Health status of the skin that compromises normal functioning of the

skin, e.g. psoriasis or skin cancer (Owda et al. 2017)


HUMAN VOLUNTEER STUDIES –DRAFT-CONCLUSION FROM 11 STUDIES

There might be (likely are) differences in skin responses depending on

• the location of the exposed skin on the individual’s body

• differences between individuals due to differences in individuals’ skin properties

Also, there is a suggestion that the health status of the skin might affect responses of the skin to mmWave exposure

Summa summarum = we have no clue what will happen

Not enough of studies to prove effects


ANIMAL IN VIVO STUDIES

• The majority of studies on effects of mmWaves on skin and skin cells was published in in vivo animal studies, using rat and mice models.

• Solely exposure of hairless areas of the skin caused effects in internal organs, likely through mmWaves-induced secretion of molecular mediators from skin cells into blood circulation.


ANIMAL STUDIES IN RATS (21 STUDIES)

• Sperm (fertility?)

• Brain and nervous tissue

• Skin morphology and gene expression

• Skin overheating impact on circulatory system

• Right- and left-polarized mmWaves

• Tissue oxidative stress

• Skin-secreted molecular mediators of macrophages

• Not enough of studies to prove effects


ANIMAL STUDIES IN MICE (33 STUDIES)

• Regulatory impact on immune processes

• Cancer-related effects

• Impact on cyclophosphamide-related effects

• Regulation of inflammation

• Effects on muscles and nerves

• Hypoalgesisa and anesthesia



SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE CURRENT CLAIM OF HUMAN HEALTH SAFETY FROM THE 5G EXPOSURES OF SKIN

11 human volunteer studies + 21 rat studies + 33 mice studies

Where is the science?

It has not been done yet…


EFFECTS ON MICROBES (SKIN & ELSEWHERE)

• Inhibition of bacterial growth (53 GHz)

• Enhancement of bacterial sensitivity to antibiotics (53 GHz)

• Inhibition of growth and viability of bacteria (70 GHz)

• Effects on metabolic pathways in bacteria (53 GHz)

• Co-effects of mm-Waves and UVC (enhanced survival)

• Co effects with X-rays (repair of the damage)

• Effects on structure if bacterial genome



SENSITIVITY OF INSECTS

• Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Thielens et al., Scientific Reports 2018, 8:3924• “…Our simulations showed that a shift of 10% of

the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%...”

• “…This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating…”



LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH ON 5G MILLIMETER-WAVES

• Very limited number of studies

• Mobile & Wireless Forum refers some 470 studies

• EMF Portal lists some 100 technical/dosimetry studies

• Leszczynski & Kuster refer some 100+ studies on skin and skin-related effects

• ORSAA database lists some 100 studies

• Lack of 5G millimeter-waves pertinent research

• Lack of studies examining human volunteers

• Lack of studies on individual sensitivity

• Lack of studies on chronic, long-term, exposures

• Studies from a very limited number of research groups (!)

• Lack of replication studies confirming correctness of observations (!)

• Vast majority of studies done in animals and in vitro on cells grown in laboratory with very limited use in defining human health policies and safety guidelines


5G AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

• Claims that 5G is safe and claims that 5G is harmful have no basis in published scientific research

• We may suspect that some effects will take place but…

• Sufficient research has not been done yet

• Precautionary Principle is applicable to 5G technology

• From the limited human/animal studies it appears that some effects are possible

• Effects might be affecting physiology of internal organs, including brain

• Scientific uncertainty that needs to be addressed in new research

• Lack of science-based information whether the 5G protective measures are sufficient to protect human health and impact on environment


RADIATION EXPOSURES ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGINGUSERS ARE UNDER-INFORMED BY AUTHORITIES

• Laptops, old, did not emit wireless radiation - keeping on the lap was OK• Laptops, new, connect to internet, emit wireless radiation – keeping on

the lap is not OK• Tablet, connected to internet emit wireless radiation – keeping on the

body is not OK• Cell phones, old ones, non-smart,

• Emitted radiation when speaking/listening; on idle radiation emission was negligible• It was OK to keep in the pocket

• Smart phones• Emit radiation when speaking/listening• Emit radiation when connected to internet - synchronizing apps• Emit radiation when using as base-station (tethering)• It is not OK to keep in pocket smart phone connected to internet


CONCLUSIONS 1/2

• Urgent research needs

• Search for sensitive sub-population (biochemistry and high-throughput)

• Study impact of co-exposures to chemicals and wireless radiation

• Epidemiology with real wireless radiation exposure data

• Does DNA damage happen in humans and is it relevant for cancer

• Examining potential leakage of human blood-brain barrier

• Study skin and skin-dependent systemic responses to 5G exposures

• There is enough of science to implement the Precautionary Principle

• Especially children should be protected from all unnecessary exposures


CONCLUSIONS 2/2

• We need to change ways EMF science is evaluated

• We need to end the rule of “private clubs”, no matter who organizes them

• We need a “round table” debate where scientists with diverse, even opposing, opinions get together and debate science

• It is possible as IARC 2011 has shown


5g and health is it safe? what the science tells us...5g and health –is it safe? what the science...

Documents