5G Network And Health: How High Or Low Are The Risks?

0
938
5G

5G Network And Health: How High Or Low Are The Risks?

Now again a new mobile radio standard is to be established and many new radio masts are necessary. But what about the risks of the 5G network? Are they harmful to health, as the critics say for years, or is this again just a battle of enemies of technology against harmless progress? We shed light on the situation …

If one looks at the arguments of mobile phone opponents and supporters, one thing quickly becomes apparent: It is strikingly reminiscent of the discussions of religious groups with scientists. On the one hand, there are those who exclaim loudly how much harms 5G health and then there are the others who submit their conflicting investigations and in turn ask for evidence … whereupon the other side again argues that these investigations all fake bought and not relevant at all.

However, this is only noticeable to people who say to themselves: “Dude, I use my cell phone, walk across the street without a helmet, drink beer, smoke and eat meat. I’m not going to die of 5G radiation right now. ” On the other hand, the other side is confirmed in its general fears, the malaise near radio masts (even if they are not turned on at all) and the rejection of all mobile phones.

Mobile, 5G, and cancer: What are the facts?

Briefly summarized, the analysis of the previous investigations can be summarized as follows: It can not be ruled out that in the case of intensive users the mobile phone radiation may cause an increased occurrence of certain brain tumors (gliomas). However, there are no findings that would prove that. All available evidence shows that a correlation between cancer and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is unlikely.

The Federal Office for Radiation Protection says: “At the moment there are no scientific proofs for health impairments if the internationally stipulated maximum values ​​are observed.” By contrast, the publications of the association “diagnose: funk eV” see the Federal Office for Radiation Protection as “part of the problem”. They claim that the Office supports the organization “International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection” (ICNIRP), which in the eyes of the association was only founded to contradict anything that could harm the mobile business.

The problem with the 5G network and brain tumors

The biggest problem with the realistic assessment of the health risks of mobile telephony in general and the soon following massive expansion of the 5G network is the ” maybe “. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection are securing the future by making statements that roughly mean:

“We have no clear evidence of a link between cell phone radiation and disease, but it may be that there is something to it. If you use the equipment responsibly and the limits are met, then nothing should happen … we hope. ”

The “electrosmog opponents translate this with:

“We knew it. The WHO and BfS warn against cell phones and cell phone radiation because it causes cancer and brain tumors. Turn off all phones immediately and tear off the radio masts! Prohibit the 5G auction. ”

This is not a serious argument. Some of them are protecting themselves, the others are causing panic and are currently spreading unprovable or unproven fears as facts and proofs. The result is clear: the scare makers are taken seriously only by paranoiacs and the authorities can say in the worst case: “We told you, you should handle it with care.”

After all, there is at the BfS a searchable database of SAR

values of currently nearly 3,500 mobile phones, which is constantly expanding. SAR, the so-called “specific absorption rate”, measures the absorption of electromagnetic fields. The WHO recommended upper limit is 2.0 W / kg. The “on-the-ear reading” of most cell phones is less than 1.0 W / kg.

The limit values ​​are explained in the Ordinance to Implement the Federal Immission Control Act. The problem: It is based on recommendations of the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) and the International Commission for the Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP). The latter is for the electrosmog opponents only a puppet of the mobile industry.

The recommendations, ie the limit values, are based on scientifically proven health-relevant biological effects through electric and magnetic fields. The basis is firstly the natural electrical field strengths in the body and secondly thresholds for proven health effects.

Although there are investigations and provable measurements,

the resistance does not stop. The opponents often argue that the layman can not comprehend it professionally, but because of the examples, he gets scared. For example, it warns that the danger increases with increasing frequency:

  • TV broadcasts take place in the 54-700 megahertz range.
  • Dangerous cell phone radiation even ranges between 800 megahertz and 2.6 gigahertz.
  • The harmful WLAN works between 2.4 and 5 gigahertz.
  • The 5G network is to spark in the 3.5 gigahertz range.
  • But what that means and why just a certain part of the wavelengths should be dangerous and other areas not,
  • this information remains the layman guilty. Just as little as it indicates that visible light in the range between
  • 425 and 750 terahertz shines and the frequency is thus significantly higher than that of mobile phone radiation
  • or radar beams.

This should be difficult for the spokesman of the association diagnoses: funk eV because there are no specialists among them. They often cited by companies that want to sell protective clothing and gauges against radio waves and cell phone-safe underwear.

Instead, esoteric arguments such as these are disseminated:

“0.98 Hz is about the human heart rate, the 17.6 Hz of the devices are in the range of the beta waves of the brain and the 70.6 Hz of the transmitter are in the range of electrical muscle activity.”

The numbers should impress laymen – prove they do nothing. Nor is the repeated assertion that an event has occurred through radio antennas (“The songbirds have disappeared.”) Or will occur.

The main problem with these arguments is that they are presented with vigor but without real expertise. Accordingly, people make fun of it, who actually have a clue about the matter. However, the club and its supporters are unlikely to believe or understand these arguments.

Conclusion on 5G network and health risks

The WHO or BfS does not want to rule out that this form of radiation can harm the body too much, but it does not indicate anything. Therefore, there are limits related to empirical research results.

It is a fact that too much of something can damage the body. Light, for example, has a higher wavelength than the 5G network, but we need it to live. However, if it gets extremely bright, we can even go blind. The wavelength remains the same, the strength of the radiation increases.

In this respect, one should probably think about how close to the habitat you put the masts and how strong the transmission energy may be. But that’s exactly what you already did and that’s because of research.

At some point, there may be viable long-term studies on this topic, but currently, there are no empirically provable statements that detect danger in the radiation of mobile networks.

Stay Tuned For More Updates

 

Loading...