Patrons of the Chelsea Amateur Radio Club website blog may recall presentations and blog posts on 5G and your health. Recall that the premise of these presentations was that as an amateur radio operator, you already have all the tools and knowledge that you need to adjudicate for yourself the nature of 5G technology and its potential effect on the physical health of society.
Is it Hype or Logic?
Recall that the Chelsea Amateur Radio Club (via Wesley Cardone, N8QM) pointed out that virtually all arguments both for and against 5G center around premises that “…no adverse health effects have been established…” and variations of that phrase. The problem with that approach is that it is a hybrid-subjective approach. Some approaches come from a perspective of presenting “evidence” that is not conclusive but suggestive. When you add to that simple subjective claims that 5G radiation is harmful, people (like sheep) arise in fear. The stronger the fearful voice is, the more fear the sheep experience. This then becomes a tool for industry to manipulate society for one 5G entity to gain a larger market share.
You have to think, people! If you are going to rise in fear about 5G, then you need something to hang your hat on. Think, think, think. Apply logic, logic, logic.
Here is an article we found that asks you to rely on what the experts say. In view of the fact that we as amateur radio operators, are in possession of some critical electromagnetic wave understanding, we disagree with that approach. For every claim, the article cites what some Ph.D had to say about it. This approach is flawed in that you can cite the experts of your choice that agree with your position. Even majority of experts can be swayed in their considerations by things like government grants and peer beliefs. With subjects like 5G, there will always be considerations that the average person on the street will understand.
YouTube Video Using our Logical Approach
We found a very nice and entertaining YouTube video that presents many of the key ingredients necessary in the adjudication of 5G and your health. What we like about this video is that it quantifies claims in simple terms thereby circumventing the subjective claims.
Misleading Presentations
Here is a presentation that is genuinely misleading. It presents good information but applies it without regard for a proper understanding. We will look at a sample of what it presents.
The quote below is very common. In the referenced article, this serves as an introduction to assertions that follow:
Despite the absence of studies into the long-term health effects of 5G, Dr. Joel Moskowitz from UC Berkeley School of Public Health has explained, “we have no reason to believe that 5G is safe.”
So, hold on to your hats, folks. We have only gotten started.
The next quote is quite incredible. It cites a WHO claim that EMF fields are “possibly” carcinogenic but says the WHO “designates” them as a carcinogen. Of course we know that a noisy household AC receptical can cause lukemia if a child’s bed is next to the receptical. Nobody is disputing that. But please don’t rely on that as a reason to suspect 5G is a health concern.
But the author is not satisfied with simply misleading the reader. The author goes on in this quote to say that “other research” shows a genotoxic nature. What research? Is it research from the WHO? Maybe but not in the WHO release cited.
5G is a type of EMF radiation. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated this type of EMF as a Class 2B carcinogen. And other research has demonstrated that EMF is genotoxic, which means it can destroy your DNA.
The article goes on to describe “millimeter waves” suggesting that 5G uses a part of the electromagnetic spectrum previously unused for communication.
Let’s look at what the article says. Most of what it says in this regard is simply obtuse to a 5G discussion so we will look at just one paragraph. Up until now the author has merely taken some liberties. He now transitions to fantasies.
5G introduces NO NEW FREQUENCIES TO THE RADIO SPECTRUM. The frequencies 5G uses have been in use for many decades. The paragraph is conflicting within itself but let us be clear that there is nothing new being used that has not been in use for a very long time.
4G networks use radio waves to broadcast data. But the radio spectrum is already crammed full of signals. 5G seeks to use a whole new spectrum — that of millimeter waves — to allow for more traffic. Think of it like building a second highway when the first one gets too packed with cars.
In view of the purposely misleading nature of the article, it is pointless to go on. The author has destroyed his credibility.
Consider Mammal Tissue Maximum Ratings Before Damage
While it is impossible to quantify tissue thermal damage with dead nuts accuracy, we can look at the picture from 50,000 feet to get a gross picture. We may then find that either serious but unquantified health risks exist or we may find that our spectrum of interest is clearly out of the range of tissue damage. But the point is that we use simple methods to arrive at simple but conclusive assertions.
Please refer to this web page for more in-depth analyses.
Health risks of 5G can be from none other than thermal stress to mammalian tissue. It could be heating the brain to excess or getting a deep-skin RF burn. Let’s apply the laws of thermal dynamics, conserving heat flow. This is nothing different from the analyses of a home heating system.
The International Journal of Hyperthermia in 2003 specified that 43oC is the accepted metric for thermal dose assessment consistent with tissue thermal damage in a variety of tissues. The specification is labeled CEM43. It gives the quantification of that attribute as
CEM43 = delta_t.R(43-T)
Where “delta_t” signifies the time in seconds of the exposure, T is the average temperature during the time interval, t. R is specified as
R = 0.25 where T<43oC and
R = 0.5 for T > 43oC
Let us consider T=50oC (122oF). At that temperature, R=0.5. Therefore R(43-T) = 128. If the time of exposure was 1.2 seconds (deltat=1.2), CEM43=154. We can then look in the published table to see where and to what organ/species that may be applicable.
Our next task is to now approach the question from the electromagnetic spectrum. How much heat is induced into the mammalian tissue from an electromagnetic source?
There are two fields from any electromagnetic field that are of interest: 1. near field; and 2. the far field. Because the near field extends from an antenna no further than the width of your hand, we need only consider the far field. The far field is the field that traverses the globe.
A very strong far field signal is 60 uV and is represented on a typical radio receiver’s S-meter as an S-9. Let us assume that our mammal of interest is resonant to the applicable frequency (which is virtually impossible) and that the tissue
has an impedance of 20,000 Ohms. Since our mammal of interest is perfectly resonant, the entire compliment of 60 uV appears across him. That means that he dissipates 180 fempto Watts or 0.18 pW.
With this information in hand, if we are able to obtain the vector thermal impedance of our mammalian tissue, we can calculate the heat induced into that tissue above the ambient.
We at the Chelsea Amateur Radio Club found a tabulation of mammalian tissue compiled by Professor Kenneth R. Holmes. In that tabulation, it shows the thermal conductance of pig muscles as 0.460 W/mK.
0.18 pW * mK/0.46 W = 391e-18 oC ~ 0
Yes, the tissue is raised in our pig’s muscle slightly but the only problem is that there is probably no instrumentation in the world that is sophisticated enough to measure such a small delta. We have to call that temperature delta zero.
You can play with the numbers all you want and maybe even obtain a temperature that is measurable. But then you consider that as humans we actually choose at times, for our own enjoyment, to bathe ourselves in a hot tub where the water is 40oC (104oF).
Don’t you think it’s about time to stop grieving about the health risks of 5G? Or maybe it is too dangerous to depart from the narrative. If you start thinking for yourself and speaking your mind, you might find yourself the object of ridicule.