By Alberto Nájera López
Right now, you are reading these lines on the screen of a mobile phone, tablet, or computer. For decades now, our access to huge amounts of information and instant communication has depended on antennas and transmitters that bathe our surroundings in radiation – specifically, in non-ionising electromagnetic radiation.
However, many people are concerned that this poses a health risk – you have doubtless heard that it is better to turn off your mobile phone or wifi while you sleep, that living near a cell tower can cause cancer, or that some people are especially sensitive to the radiation they emit.
Such feelings of fear or trepidation are a normal response to things we know are there but cannot see or feel in any way. For this reason, Spain’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Radio Frequencies and Health (CCARS, by its Spanish acronym) regularly publishes comprehensive reviews of all available scientific evidence on these types of radiation. By doing so, we aim to guarantee that this technology is safe for all of us.
CCARS has published seven reports since 2008. Here, we are going to look at the findings from our most recent report, published last year.
25 years reviewing the evidence
Since 1999, CCARS, a committee made up of independent scientists, has been responsible for reviewing the available evidence on cell tower radiation. Every 2 to 3 years, they have published reports to address questions of how we can exist safely and securely alongside our mobile and wireless devices.
Each generation of new phone technology has led to fresh doubts, meaning this debate is being continually reopened and reassessed, and the most recent development, 5G, has been no exception. Since its roll-out coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, it was accompanied by all manner of conspiracies and falsehoods, notably that it was causing or spreading the pandemic, and that vaccines contained computer chips that would allow us to be controlled from a distance via 5G technology.
The committee reviewed all the evidence published in scientific journals between 2020 and 2022. This is normal and positive in science, where changes in knowledge can modify previously established understandings. This is why we must systematically and periodically review all new information, and remain vigilant of any changes.
Avoiding confirmation bias
When it comes to studying the possible effects of this type of radiation on human health, we have to address a number of different areas and issues.
First, we have to be absolutely sure that radiation levels are below the limits set out by international bodies, such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), or the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Various studies have confirmed that, even with the relatively recent 5G network roll-out, exposure levels are within safe limits, but we still have to analyse laboratory research that explores its possible effects on the human body.
We have also looked for evidence of any possible link between new wireless technologies and epidemiological series, at the population level. If we were to detect an increase in a particular illness that coincided with the launch of this new technology, that would be cause for concern.
Another important element that we have to look at is the perception of risk: How does the population perceive 5G antennas, or the more general spread of these new technologies?
Reviewing scientific information has to be objective, and we cannot simply “cherry pick” the studies that say what we want them to say. This confirmation bias must be avoided at all costs, and scientists follow comprehensive steps to minimise it as much as possible.
For this reason, our latest study has partially followed a methodology known as systematic review in order to search for information. Specifically, we followed the PRISMA guidelines, an internationally recognised standard that any researcher can apply to a literature review.
5 points to put your mind at ease
From our review of over 200 scientific articles, we have extracted five key points of reassurance:
- None of the articles suggested a possible link between cancer and exposure to these types of radiation at typical levels.
- There was no evidence that the hypersensitivity some people claim to suffer from – even with apparently objective symptoms – is related to these types of radiation. In fact, this can be explained by the nocebo effect, where people suffer symptoms solely because they expect to get sick.
- There is no clear evidence of any impact on male fertility.
- There are no conclusive studies showing a link between these types of radiation and fetus development, or later child development.
- We found no evidence that suggests a link between exposure to phone or wifi radiation and negative effects on sleep, or that they cause headaches. These are very subjective symptoms that can result from various intersecting factors – including the very fact of worrying about the effects of radiation.
Our findings match those of other international reports, which have also found no relationship between these types of radiation and human health.
Additionally, despite the now widespread deployment of 5G technology, overall radiation levels have not significantly increased, at least at present.
Cause for calm
Studies carried out in tightly controlled, extremely specific laboratory conditions can produce contradictory results, or may even show beneficial effects. The results of these kinds of studies can sometimes appear quite alarming.
There is therefore debate around whether such studies are useful: they represent conditions so far removed from our day to day lives that they mean very little to the general population.
Risk perception is influenced by a number of subjective and psychological factors, including gender and levels of academic study. Understanding this information can help us to design communication strategies that are rooted in scientific evidence.
This most recent CCARS report firmly backs up previous ones, and allows us to share a message of calm: under normal conditions, there is no evidence that electromagnetic non-ionising radiation has an effect of any kind on human health.
Alberto Nájera López is Professor of Radiology and Physical Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine of Albacete and Coordinator of the Scientific Culture and Innovation Unit (UCLMdivulga) at the University of Castilla-La Mancha.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
JimboXYZ says
Whether it does or not, even if it did, there’s too much money involved to shut it down globally. So might as well say it doesn’t affect anyone’s health adversely, since they won’t ever turn it off or make reparations at a class action lawsuit level that would amount to anything. It’s not like tobacco/cigarettes.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
I heard that bill gates put 5g chips in the vaccine and it makes you magnetic.
Joe D says
For Samuel B:
Is your TV spying on you too?
I’m not talking about the Neilson ratings or attached internet video games, where you CAN speak to others using the same software. My 7 year old grandson and my 5 year old grandson play the same video games and speak with each other through microphones on headsets with 60 miles between them (it COULD be 1000 miles away if the long into the same player site and enter their passwords.
It requires player ( in this case PARENTAL ) CONSENT…it’s not switched on when you buy a “SMART TV” with internet options on the TV…$$& but they are getting cheaper by the DAY!
Sure you’re not thinking
Of ELON MUSK…Trump’s FAVORITE employer, it seems after their recent interview?
Ray W. says
Or American shale oil extractions companies allegedly colluding with OPEC+ to limit overall crude oil production for profit.
Oy, vey!
Joe D says
Actually THAT on I could BELIEVE!🙃
Watcher says
5G is hackable and can be very harmful in the wrong hands. You can change the frequency and boil a gallon of water from over a mile away when you triangulate the towers. China rolled out their 5G in Wuhan, and people started dropping like flies. COVID didn’t make people drop to the ground dead while walking down the street like video evidence shows. Do your own research and don’t believe things because the article says things like: studies suggest, experts are saying, scientist believe, according to research, ect. My question is ,why are you trying to pacify a dangerous technology that you know nothing about?
Joe D says
For Watcher:
EVERY system is HACKABLE. Tech engineers can barely keep ahead of the dark web criminals.
By the way…5G has rolled out for several years, and I haven’t heard of anyone falling out on the streets…(ANYWHERE). Where is the video link to that website? Sure it wasn’t Chinese College Students producing a CINEMATIC project?!? Like “Night of the LIVING 5G.”
No wonder so MANY people take what Donald Trump says at face value without fact checking his continuing LIES!
If it’s accessible to YOU, it’s accessible to every PRIVATE non-profit (and for profit) consumer group, in the WORLD …Nothing escapes the MEDIA for long!
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
I heard that they’re putting 5g in bottled water now.
Tired of it says
Perfect example of someone with no qualifications espousing a cockmamie theory. stop wat ching FAUX.
DaleL says
Watcher, I don’t believe you know what you are writing about. “You can change the frequency and boil a gallon of water from over a mile away when you triangulate the towers.”
To boil a gallon of water takes about 2.7 kilowatts of power (electricity). (The water starting at 70 degrees.) People are made of mostly water. (60%) Unless a signal is in a coherent beam (laser type), the amount of power that those hypothetical “towers” would have to emit would likely be more than is produced by an entire power plant. It would also cook any creature (plant or animal) at or near the concentration point.
Perhaps you could cite your source?
joseph hempfling says
Still can’t believe ghost writers for hire, are still being found to try and debunk the FACT that 5-G does NOT adversely affect your health ! and the fact that we humans are bio-electrical creatures from the git-go and not affected.
Or is the earth flat and I am missing the point?
Review the mountain of scientific studies and have an open mind and you cannot help reach the proven conclusion that
5-G is dangerous, and nothing more than Electro_Pollution designed to make money for the giant ITs who don’t care
about your and my health. And or the Planet we live on for that matter.
Joe D says
Yikes…who knew this subject would bring out the EXTREMISTS!
Leave it to FlaglerLive to come up with an educational article (based on REPEATED RESEARCH), that would bring out such CONTROVERSY
People initially thought trains were life threatening dangerous…because they went 30-40 mph!
EVERY new technology brings out those that fear CHANGE!
James says
Sorry Joe D.
But according to old mortality rate tables (dating back to the late 1890s from the CDC) railroad related deaths WERE the biggest cause of accidental deaths in the USA… for many years, if not decades.
Just say’n.
Skibum says
For as long as I’ve had a cellphone, I have held it up to an ear when having phone conversations with someone. Although I am aware of, and concerned about, the many potentials for harmful contaminants in our air and water, the oft repeated tales of brain cancer associated with 5G cell service hardly registers as one of the red flags I should be cautious about. If you take one of the tours in St. Augustine where a little bit of interesting history of Flagler College is discussed, you will hear about some of the famous people who stayed at what was then Henry Flagler’s hotel for the rich and famous tourists who visited this area. When Flagler first put electricity in his hotel, the guests were so afraid of that new technology that they wouldn’t even dare to flip the switch in their own rooms to turn on and off the lights, so Flagler employed a cadre of light switch turners to do the job for his guests. There are those who are still afraid of new technology today. How long has it been since we first started hearing from some people about the cancer causing, high tension electric wires? Well, my home sits adjacent to a PUD right of way here in Palm Coast and I can see those electric power lines just above the tree tops maybe a couple hundred yards away… I haven’t developed any cancer from being close or from riding my bike on the bike path almost underneath them for the past 12 years. Until there is some verifiable, reliable scientific evidence that shows holding a cellphone up to my ear is harmful to my health, I will continue to do just what I have always done, and I will dismiss the fringe theories that seem to be actual science only to those who have a pre-disposition to believing whatever they see and hear on TikTok videos.
Emoji says
Have you seen some of those old 1890s wall switches and their wiring? ☠️
Did they have any on display? 🧐
Or perhaps they’re still in the wall, in use? Eh? 🤔
Would they let you flick one on💥 and off? 💥 🔥🧯Eh? 🤕
Just curious. 🤔
James says
The better questions in my opinion…
How does one use their cellphone nowadays? Do most people hold the phone to their head to send and receive voice calls? Or do most people now text or “surf the web” with them and only make occasional calls?
Do people who surf the web recline back, looking at the screen as they do… for hours on end?
Electromagnetic fields are funny things to visualize, and in addition, different frequencies may indeed effect different body organs differently.
Why do I make this statement?
Because there has been an unexplained rise in colon cancer in the younger population in recent years.
Just an observation… one which will be hopefully debunked.
James says
I would just like to add that I happened to catch an interesting discussion on NPR which included a former CEO of Google and former General Milley regarding an unrelated matter.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/26/nx-s1-5078659/why-the-us-isnt-ready-for-the-wars-of-the-future-according-to-experts
There was an interesting exchange at one point in the discussion in which the former CEO of Google noted the quick, flexible and most importantly, “incremental” methods of product development adopted in recent years by the IT industry.
It should be noted that one “incremental” success at Google was the Android operating system.
Which made me wonder.
Incremental methodologies of improvement to software is fine… but should such a methodology be adopted for hardware?
Were the phones produced with a similar mindset?
Can a design flaw in the shielding of a cellphones internal clock be “incrementally” corrected once put to market? The field pattern of it’s antenna?
Just something to think about.
You are not the father says
I came here, late to the party I know, specifically for the comments. All I had to see was 5G in the title and I was on it. The comments did not disappoint! From triangulation and boiling water to vaccines.. Maury! Maury!! Maury!!!