Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Sep 5, 2019 (updated Sep 17, 2019)

FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5G-moratorium12.html

As of today, 253 scientists and doctors from 42 nations have signed the The 5G Appeal which calls for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G, the fifth generation of cellular technology.


The Appeal asserts that, “5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
For a list of signatories see http://www.5gappeal.eu/signatories-to-scientists-5g-appeal/.
Apr 26, 2018International Society of Doctors for the Environment Support 5G Moratorium

In April, 2018, theInternational Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) and its member organizations in 27 countries, adopted a declaration calling for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G (fifth generation cellular technology) in the European Union. 
The declaration is entitled, “5G networks in European Countries: appeal for a standstill in the respect of the precautionary principle.”

“We believe it should be unethical to ignore the available evidence waiting a possible “a posteriori” demonstration of health damages in the presence of a present and potentially manageable risk for public health. 

Thus, in the respect of the precautionary principle and of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, we believe suitable the request of a standstill for the “5G experimentations” throughout Europe until an adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the field of environmental health (health ministry, environmental ministry, national environmental and health agencies) will be effectively planned.”

In the United States, the ISDE member organization is Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). 

Apr 16, 2018Official 5G Appeal Website Launched

The official website, www.5gappeal.eu, for the 5G Appeal has been launched. The website contains the text of the Appeal, the current list of signatories, an explanation of 5G, and related news stories.

The Appeal asserts that, “5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
More than 200 scientists and doctors from 38 nations have signed the declaration calling for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G (fifth generation) cellular technology.


Oct 25, 2017
European Commission Responds with Denial
and Empty Promises to Call for 5G Moratorium
On October 12, the European Commission (EC) issued its response to a September 13 declaration that demands a moratorium on planned 5G expansion, the fifth generation of mobile communication technology. To date, the declaration has been signed by over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 nations.
The Commission’s response contradicts the basic assertion of the declaration. The EC claims that current limits on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are adequate to protect the population, and that these limits apply to the frequencies to be deployed for 5G.
Signers of the declaration argue that these limits were designed to protect the population from the effects of heating attributable to brief EMF exposures but were not intended to protect people from chronic exposure to low intensity EMF.
The declaration cites language from the 2015 International EMF Scientist Appeal which has now been signed by more than 230 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health. Prior to the current controversy about 5G, these experts reported “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF. Their appeal refers to numerous scientific publications which have shown that EMF “affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.” These effects include increased cancer risk, neurological disorders, and reproductive harm. The Appeal calls for the strengthening of EMF guidelines and regulatory standards.
In addition, the September declaration cites the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of radio frequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011; recommendations of the 2015 Brussels Congress on multiple chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic hypersensitivity; results from the U.S. National Toxicology Program study in 2016 finding cell phone radiation causes DNA damage and cancer in rats; and the Europa EM-EMF 2016 Guideline that long-term EMF exposure is a risk factor for chronic disease and infertility.
The declaration for a 5G moratorium argues that …
“current ICNIRP ‘safety guidelines’ are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP safety guidelines. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation….”
The EC claims that it “is not aware of any conflicts of interests of members of international bodies such as ICNIRP….”
The EC maintains that “Digital technologies and mobile communication technologies, including high speed internet, will be the backbone of Europe’s future economy.” 
The EC letter acknowledges that citizens deserve appropriate protection against EMF from wireless devices, and concludes with the following empty promise,
“Please be assured that the Commission will pursue scrutiny of the independent scientific evidence available to ensure the highest health protection of our citizens.”
The EC response letter was sent electronically to the authors of the declaration, Professors Rainer Nyberg and Lennart Hardell. The letter was signed by John F. Ryan, the director of public health, country knowledge, crisis management in the EC Directorate—General Health and Food Safety.
September 13, 2017Scientists and Doctors Say Increased Radiation 
from Cell Towers Poses Potential Risks (Örebro, Sweden)  Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.

“The wireless industry is trying to deploy technology that may have some very real unintended harmful consequences,” explains one of the organizers of the letter, Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. “Scientific studies from years ago along with many new studies are consistently identifying harmful human health impacts when wireless products are tested properly using conditions that reflect actual exposures. With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”

5G expansion, which is designed to carry higher loads of data more rapidly through wireless transmission, will require the construction of cell towers every 10-20 houses in urban areas.

In their letter to the European Commission, the scientists write:

“We, the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 nations, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”

University of California, Berkeley public health researcher Joel Moskowitz, PhD, explains:

“Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”

Moskowitz is one of the advisors to an earlier effort, the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition submitted to the United Nations and World Health Organization in 2015.  The Appeal has now been signed by more than 240 scientists from 42 nations—all have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic or health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Since the Appeal was published, the world’s largest $25 million study, conducted by the National Toxicology Program in the US, shows statistically significant increases in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to cellphone radiation at levels below international guidelines. This supports human studies on cellphone radiation and brain tumour risk, as demonstrated in many peer-reviewed scientific studies.
The Appeal and this week’s declaration identify health concerns from exposure to radiofrequency radiation including …
“ … increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
Roll-out of 5G in the US In the US, the wireless industry is promoting legislation in at least 20 states to facilitate the roll-out of 5G in addition to sponsoring legislation at the federal level

In California, city and county governments are opposing SB 649,an industry-sponsored bill which overrides local control over the wireless industry’s access to utility poles and public buildings for 5G deployment. Environmental health advocates fear that exposure to the added radiation from 5G infrastructure will contribute to increased health problems.

“If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result. This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.” according to Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego. In her open letter which summarizes the research on the effects of radio frequency radiation, she concludes, ”Let our focus be on safer, wired and well shielded technology – not more wireless.”


The declaration and list of signatories can be found here:
http://bit.ly/5Gappeal170913a

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Nov 14, 2018 (Updated Feb 22, 2019)

FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/08/5g-wireless-technology-millimeter-wave.html

The emergence of 5G, fifth-generation telecommunications technology, has been in the news lately because the wireless industry has been pushing controversial legislation at the state and federal level to expedite the deployment of this technology. The legislation would block the rights of local governments and their citizens to control the installation of cellular antennas in the public “right-of-way.” Cell antennas may be installed on public utility poles every 10-20 houses in urban areas. According to the industry, as many as 50,000 new cell sites will be required in California alone and at 800,000 or more new cell sites nationwide.
Although many major cities and newspapers have opposed this legislation, the potential health risks from the proliferation of new cellular antenna sites have been ignored. These cell antennas will expose the population to new sources of radio frequency radiation including millimeter waves.
5G will employ low- (0.6 GHz – 3.7 GHz), mid- (3.7 – 24 GHz), and high-band frequencies (24 GHz and higher).In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated “low-band” spectrum at 0.6 GHz (e.g., 600 MHz), “mid-band” spectrum in the 3.5 GHz range, and 11 GHz of “high-band” frequencies including licensed spectrum from 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37-40 GHz, as well as unlicensed spectrum from 64-71 GHz which is open to all wireless equipment manufacturers.
Prior to widespread deployment, major cell phone carriers are experimenting with new technologies that employ “high-band” frequencies in communities across the country. The “high-band” frequencies largely consist of millimeter waves (MMWs), a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths of one to ten millimeters and frequencies ranging from 30 to 300 GHz (or billions of cycles per second). 
The characteristics of MMWs are different than the “low-band” (i.e., microwave) frequencies which are currently in use by the cellular and wireless industries. MMWs can transmit large amounts of data over short distances. The transmissions can be directed into narrow beams that travel by line-of-sight and can move data at high rates (e.g., up to 10 billion bits per second) with short lags (or latencies) between transmissions. The signals are blocked by buildings, and foliage can absorb much of their energy. Also, the waves can be reflected by metallic surfaces. Although antennas can be as small as a few millimeters, “small cell” antenna arrays may consist of dozens or even hundreds of antenna elements.

What does research tell us about the biologic and health effects of millimeter waves?
Millimeter waves (MMWs) are mostly absorbed within 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Thus, the skin or near-surface zones of tissues are the primary targets of the radiation. Since skin contains capillaries and nerve endings, MMW bio-effects may be transmitted through molecular mechanisms by the skin or through the nervous system. 
Thermal (or heating) effects occur when the power density of the waves is above 5–10 mW/cm². Such high-intensity MMWs act on human skin and the cornea in a dose-dependent manner—beginning with heat sensation followed by pain and physical damage at higher exposures. Temperature elevation can impact the growth, morphology and metabolism of cells, induce production of free radicals, and damage DNA.
The maximum permissible exposure that the FCC permits for the general public is 1.0 mW/cm² averaged over 30 minutes for frequencies that range from 1.5 GHz to 100 GHz. This guideline was adopted in 1996 to protect humans from acute exposure to thermal levels of radiofrequency radiation. However, the guidelines were not designed to protect us from nonthermal risks that may occur with prolonged or long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
With the deployment of fifth generation wireless infrastructure (aka 5G), much of the nation will be exposed to MMWs for the first time on a continuous basis. Due to FCC guidelines, these exposures will likely be of low intensity. Hence, the health consequences of 5G exposure will be limited to non-thermal effects produced by prolonged exposure to MMWs in conjunction with exposure to low- and mid-band radiofrequency radiation.
Unfortunately, few studies have examined prolonged exposure to low-intensity MMWs, and no research that I am aware of has focused on exposure to MMWs combined with other radiofrequency radiation.
Although biologic effects of low-intensity MMWs have been studied for decades, particularly in Eastern Europe, study results are often inconsistent because the effects are related to many factors including the frequency, modulation, power density, and duration of the exposures, as well as the type of tissue or cells being investigated.
Results vary across studies—MMWs have been shown to induce or inhibit cell death and enhance or suppress cell proliferation. Some studies found that the radiation inhibits cell cycle progression, and some studies reported no biologic effects (Le Drean et al., 2013)
A review of the research in 2010 noted that “A large number of cellular studies have indicated that MMW may alter structural and functional properties of membranes.” Exposure to MMWs may affect the plasma membrane either by modifying ion channel activity or by modifying the phospholipid bilayer. Water molecules also seem to play a role in these effects. Skin nerve endings are a likely target of MMWs and the possible starting point of numerous biological effects. MMWs may activate the immune system through stimulation of the peripheral neural system (Ramundo-Orlando, 2010).
In 1998, five scientists employed by U.S. Army and Air Force research institutes published a seminal review of the research on MMWs. They reported:
“Increased sensitivity and even hypersensitivity of individual specimens to MMW may be real. Depending on the exposure characteristics, especially wavelength, a low-intensity MMW radiation was perceived by 30 to 80% of healthy examinees (Lebedeva, 1993, 1995). Some clinical studies reported MMW hypersensitivity, which was or was not limited to a certain wavelength (Golovacheva, 1995).”

“It is important to note that, even with the variety of bioeffects reported, no studies have provided evidence that a low-intensity MMW radiation represents a health hazard for human beings. Actually, none of the reviewed studies with low-intensity MMW even pursued the evaluation of health risks, although in view of numerous bioeffects and growing usage of MMW technologies this research objective seems very reasonable. Such MMW effects as alterations of cell growth rate and UV light sensitivity, biochemical and antibiotic resistivity changes in pathogenic bacteria, as well as many others are of potential significance for safety standards, but even local and short-term exposures were reported to produce marked effects. It should also be realized that biological effects of a prolonged or chronic MMW exposure of the whole body or a large body area have never been investigated. Safety limits for these types of exposures are based solely on predictions of energy deposition and MMW heating, but in view of recent studies this approach is not necessarily adequate.” (Pakhomov et al., 1998)
Microbes are also affected by MMW radiation. In 2016 a review of the research on the effects of MMWs on bacteria was published (Soghomonyan et al., 2016). The authors summarized their findings as follows:
“…bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high frequency range. These MMW affected Escherichia coli and many other bacteria, mainly depressing their growth and changing properties and activity. These effects were non-thermal and depended on different factors. The significant cellular targets for MMW effects could be water, cell plasma membrane, and genome….The consequences of MMW interaction with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics….These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.”
“Changing the sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics by MMW irradiation can be important for the understanding of antibiotic resistance in the environment. In this respect, it is interesting that bacteria [that] survived near telecommunication-based stations like Bacillus and Clostridium spp. have been found to be multidrug resistant (Adebayo et al. 2014).”  (Soghomonyan et al., 2016)

In sum, the peer-reviewed research demonstrates that short-term exposure to low-intensity millimeter wave (MMW) radiation not only affects human cells, it may result in the growth of multi-drug resistant bacteria harmful to humans. Since little research has been conducted on the health consequences from long-term exposure to MMWs, widespread deployment of 5G or 5^th generation wireless infrastructure constitutes a massive experiment that may have adverse impacts on the public’s health.
Early Russian research on millimeter radiation
Russian scientists conducted much of the early research on the effects of exposure to millimeter radiation. The U.S.Central Intelligence Agency collected and translated the published research but did not declassify it until decades later. 

In 1977, N.P. Zalyubovskaya published a study, “Biological effects of millimeter waves,” in a Russian-language journal, “Vracheboyne Delo.” The CIA declassified this paper in 2012. 

The study examined the effects of exposing mice to millimeter radiation (37-60 GHz; 1 milliwatt per square centimeter) for 15 minutes daily for 60 days. The animal results were compared to a sample of people working with millimeter generators.

Here is a brief summary of the paper:

   Excerpts:

The paper can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/MMWstudy1977.

Related Posts
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5GCell Tower Health Effects
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

—

Following are summaries of research reviews of the effects of MMW exposure and a list of recently published studies.
Millimeter Wave Research Reviews (Updated May 20, 2019)
Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov ED, Ushakov VD. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 2000; 48(11):2172-2179.

Abstract
There is a substantial number of studies showing biological effects of microwaves of extremely high-frequency range [i.e., millimeter waves (MMWs)] at nonthermal intensities, but poor reproducibility was reported in few replication studies. One possible explanation could be the dependence of the MMW effects on some parameters, which were not controlled in replications. The authors studied MMW effects on chromatin conformation in Escherichia coli (E. coli) cells and rat thymocytes. Strong dependence of MMW effects on frequency and polarization was observed at nonthermal power densities. Several other factors were important, such as the genotype of a strain under study, growth stage of the bacterial cultures, and time between exposure to microwaves and recording of the effect. MMW effects were dependent on cell density during exposure. This finding suggested an interaction of microwaves with cell-to-cell communication. Such dependence on several genetic, physiological, and physical variables might be a reason why, in some studies, the authors failed to reproduce the original data of others.

http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/IEEE_MTT_paper.pdf
Le Drean Y, Mahamoud YS, Le Page Y, Habauzit D, Le Quement C, Zhadobov M, Sauleau R. State of knowledge on biological effects at 40–60 GHz. Comptes Rendus Physique. 2013; 14(5):402-411.

Abstract
Millimetre waves correspond to the range of frequencies located between 30 and 300 GHz. Many applications exist and are emerging in this band, including wireless telecommunications, imaging and monitoring systems. In addition, some of these frequencies are used in therapy in Eastern Europe, suggesting that interactions with the human body are possible. This review aims to summarise current knowledge on interactions between millimetre waves and living matter. Several representative examples from the scientific literature are presented. Then, possible mechanisms of interactions between millimetre waves and biological systems are discussed.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2013.02.005—

Pakhomov AG, Akyel Y, Pakhomova ON, Stuck BE, Murphy MR. Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: a review of the literature. Bioelectromagnetics. 1998; 19(7):393-413.
In recent years, research into biological and medical effects of millimeter waves (MMW) has expanded greatly. This paper analyzes general trends in the area and briefly reviews the most significant publications, proceeding from cell-free systems, dosimetry, and spectroscopy issues through cultured cells and isolated organs to animals and humans. The studies reviewed demonstrate effects of low-intensity MMW (10 mW/cm² and less) on cell growth and proliferation, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes, peripheral receptors, and other biological systems. In animals and humans, local MMW exposure stimulated tissue repair and regeneration, alleviated stress reactions, and facilitated recovery in a wide range of diseases (MMW therapy). Many reported MMW effects could not be readily explained by temperature changes during irradiation. The paper outlines some problems and uncertainties in the MMW research area, identifies tasks for future studies, and discusses possible implications for development of exposure safety criteria and guidelines.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771583

—
Ramundo-Orlando A. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane – A brief review. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves.  2010; 31(12):1400–1411.
Abstract
The millimeter waves (MMW) region of the electromagnetic spectrum, extending from 30 to 300 GHz in terms of frequency (corresponding to wavelengths from 10 mm to 1 mm), is officially used in non-invasive complementary medicine in many Eastern European countries against a variety of diseases such gastro duodenal ulcers, cardiovascular disorders, traumatism and tumor. On the other hand, besides technological applications in traffic and military systems, in the near future MMW will also find applications in high resolution and high-speed wireless communication technology. This has led to restoring interest in research on MMW induced biological effects. In this review emphasis has been given to the MMW-induced effects on cell membranes that are considered the major target for the interaction between MMW and biological systems.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10762-010-9731-z
—
Ryan KL, D’Andrea JA, Jauchem JR, Mason PA. Radio frequency radiation of millimeter wave length: potential occupational safety issues relating to surface heating.  Health Phys. 2000; 78(2):170-81.
Abstract
Currently, technology is being developed that makes use of the millimeter wave (MMW) range (30-300 GHz) of the radio frequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum. As more and more systems come on line and are used in everyday applications, the possibility of inadvertent exposure of personnel to MMWs increases. To date, there has been no published discussion regarding the health effects of MMWs; this review attempts to fill that void. Because of the shallow depth of penetration, the energy and, therefore, heat associated with MMWs will be deposited within the first 1-2 mm of human skin. MMWs have been used in states of the former Soviet Union to provide therapeutic benefit in a number of diverse disease states, including skin disorders, gastric ulcers, heart disease and cancer. Conversely, the possibility exists that hazards might be associated with accidental overexposure to MMWs. This review attempts to critically analyze the likelihood of such acute effects as burn and eye damage, as well as potential long-term effects, including cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10647983
—
Soghomonyan D, Trchounian K, Trchounian A. Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields in the environment: what are their effects on bacteria? Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016; 100(11):4761-71. doi: 10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0.
Abstract
Millimeter waves (MMW) or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new environmental factor, the level of which is increased as technology advance. It is of interest that bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high frequency range. These MMW affected Escherichia coli and many other bacteria, mainly depressing their growth and changing properties and activity. These effects were non-thermal and depended on different factors. The significant cellular targets for MMW effects could be water, cell plasma membrane, and genome. The model for the MMW interaction with bacteria is suggested; a role of the membrane-associated proton FOF1-ATPase, key enzyme of bioenergetic relevance, is proposed. The consequences of MMW interaction with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics. Novel data on MMW effects on bacteria and their sensitivity to different antibiotics are presented and discussed; the combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The effects might have applications in the development of technique, therapeutic practices, and food protection technology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27087527
—
Torgomyan H, Trchounian A. Bactericidal effects of low-intensity extremely high frequency electromagnetic field: an overview with phenomenon, mechanisms, targets and consequences. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2013; 39(1):102-11.
Abstract
Low-intensity electromagnetic field (EMF) of extremely high frequencies is a widespread environmental factor. This field is used in telecommunication systems, therapeutic practices and food protection. Particularly, in medicine and food industries EMF is used for its bactericidal effects. The significant targets of cellular mechanisms for EMF effects at resonant frequencies in bacteria could be water (H₂O), cell membrane and genome. The changes in H₂O cluster structure and properties might be leading to increase of chemical activity or hydration of proteins and other cellular structures. These effects are likely to be specific and long-term. Moreover, cell membrane with its surface characteristics, substance transport and energy-conversing processes is also altered. Then, the genome is affected because the conformational changes in DNA and the transition of bacterial pro-phages from lysogenic to lytic state have been detected. The consequences for EMF interaction with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different chemicals, including antibiotics. These effects are important to understand distinguishing role of bacteria in environment, leading to changed metabolic pathways in bacteria and their antibiotic resistance. This EMF may also affect the cell-to-cell interactions in bacterial populations, since bacteria might interact with each other through EMF of sub-extremely high frequency range.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22667685

—
Betskii OV , Devyatkov ND, Kislov VV. Low intensity millimeter waves in medicine and biology. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2000;28(1-2):247-68. 

Abstract

This paper provides evidence on the interaction of objects. Basic regularities of that interaction are discussed.
Conclusions 

Summarizing the results of the 30-year study of biological effects of low-intensity MM waves, we may ascertain the following. As it often happens, applied research and commercialization have outdistanced fundamental investigations. The wide application of MM waves in medicine, biotechnology, animal husbandry, and plant cultivation has taken a giant step forward. By this time, Russia has manufactured more than 10,000 MM-wave therapy devices, organized more than 2,500 MM-wave therapy rooms, and treated over 2,500,000 patients….

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10999395

Open access version of paper: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d0f5/d75d92b7fb8f4d13ae5461e26afa62e87e60.pdf

See also: 

May EC, Faith LV. The effects of electromagnetic radiation on biological systems: Current status in the former Soviet Union. Science Applications International Corporation. Presented to US Government, Feb 26, 1993. Approved for release by US Central Intelligence Agency, Aug 10, 2000. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000100070001-9.pdf

Recent Millimeter Wave Studies
(Updated: July 1, 2020)
Bantysh BB, Krylov AY, Subbotina TI, et al. Peculiar effects of electromagnetic millimeter waves on tumor development in BALB/c mice. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2018 Sep;165(5):692-694. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30225701

Christ A, Samaras T, Neufeld E, Kuster N. RF-induced temperature increase in a stratified model of the skin for plane-wave exposure at 6-100 GHz. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020 Jan 16. pii: ncz293. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncz293. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31950182 

Foster KR, Ziskin MC, Balzano Q. Thermal response of human skin to microwave energy: A critical review. Health Phys. 2016; 111(6):528-541. (Note: This work was sponsored by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum. The authors state that MMF had no control over the contents.)  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27798477
Gajda GB, Lemay E, Paradis J. Model of Steady-state Temperature Rise in Multilayer Tissues Due to Narrow-beam Millimeter-wave Radiofrequency Field Exposure. Health Phys. 2019 Feb 15. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001036.  https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31125321
Gandhi OP, Riazi A. Absorption of millimeter waves by human beings and its biological implications. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. MTT-34(2):228-235. 1986. http://bit.ly/2oS3rKD

Haas AJ, Le Page Y, Zhadobov M, et al. Effects of 60-GHz millimeter waves on neurite outgrowth in PC12 cells using high-content screening. Neurosci Lett. 2016 Apr 8;618:58-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26921450
Haas AJ, Le Page Y, Zhadobov M, et al. Effect of acute millimeter wave exposure on dopamine metabolism of NGF-treated PC12 cells. J Radiat Res. 2017 Feb 24:1-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28339776
Hovnanyan K, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. The distinguishing effects of low intensity electromagnetic radiation of different extremely high frequences on Enterococcus hirae: growth rate inhibition and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28609553
Kojima M, Tsai C-Y, Suzuki Y, et al. Ocular response to millimeter wave exposure under different humidity levels. J Infrared Millimeter Terahertz Waves. 40(5):474-484. 2019.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10762-019-00586-0

Koyama S, Narita E, Shimizu Y, et al. Effects of long-term exposure to 60 GHz millimeter-wavelength radiation on the genotoxicity and heat shock protein (Hsp) expression of cells derived from human eye. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Aug 8;13(8). pii: E802. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27509516
Le Pogam P, Le Page Y, Habauzit D, et al. Untargeted metabolomics unveil alterations of biomembranes permeability in human HaCaT keratinocytes upon 60 GHz millimeter-wave exposure. Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 27;9(1):9343. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45662-6. Open access paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45662-6

Parker JE, Beason CW, Sturgeon SP, Voorhees WB, Johnson SS, et al. Revisiting 35 and 94 GHZ Millimeter Wave Exposure to the Non-human Primate Eye. Health Phys. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001216. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32501817/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32501817/

Romanenko S, Harvey AR, Hool L, Fan S, Wallace VP. Millimeter wave radiation activates leech nociceptors via TRPV1-like receptor sensitization. Biophys J. 2019 Apr 25. pii: S0006-3495(19)30340-6. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.04.021.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31103236
Sivachenko IB, Medvedev DS, Molodtsova ID, et al. Effects of millimeter-wave electromagnetic radiation on the experimental model of migraine. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2016 Feb;160(4):425-8. doi: 10.1007/s10517-016-3187-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26899844

Wang Q, Zhao X, Li S, et al. Attenuation by a human body and trees as well as material penetration loss in 26 and 39 GHz millimeter wave bands. International Journal of Antennas and Propagation. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2961090.

Wu T, Rappaport TS, Collins CM. The human body and millimeter-wave wireless communication systems: Interactions and implications. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Jun 2015. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7248688

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Wednesday, July 1, 2020

FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

5G Research from the EMF-Portal Archive

As of June 1, 2020, the EMF-Portal archive listed 133 papers and letters to the editor published in professional journals and presentations at professional conferences that focus on 5G research. Although most discuss technical or dosimetric issues (n = 92), 41 citations address other issues including potential biologic or health effects.

In all, the EMF-Portal archivereferences more than 30,000 publications and presentations on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. The Portal is a project based at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany.

Currently, no peer-reviewed, empirical studies of the biologic or health effects from exposure to 5G radiation have been published. Hence, those who claim that 5G is safe because it complies with radio frequency exposure guidelines are engaging in sophistry.
These guidelines were designed to protect the population from short-term heating (or thermal) risks. However, numerous peer-reviewed studies have found adverse biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity or non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Hence, more than 240 EMF scientists who have signed theInternational EMF Scientist Appeal have recommended that “guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened”:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines….

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.”

To download the list of 133 papers and presentations: bit.ly/EmfPortal5G

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley February 19, 2020

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.saferemr.com/2020/02/will-scientific-american-clear-up.html

In September 2019, Scientific American, the oldest, continuously published monthly magazine in the U.S., published an opinion piece on its website entitled, “5G Is Coming: How Worried Should We Be about the Health Risks? So far, at least, there’s little evidence of danger.”
The piece was written by Kenneth Foster, an emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania. Foster is a member of a committee that sets exposure limits for wireless radiation and consults for industry and government. His article discussed the controversy about the rollout of 5G based upon widespread concerns about the adverse impact of this technology on our health. Foster argued that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from 5G will be similar to, or lower than, current levels because of the deployment of many “small cell” antennas. Hence, 5G exposure will comply with current RFR exposure limits that protect against “excessive heating of tissue.” 
Although Foster admitted that research on the effects of long-term exposure to 5G millimeter waves was lacking, he restated the FDA’s position that “[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.” Thus, “the request to ‘stop the distribution of 5G products appears too drastic a measure. We first need to see how this new technology will be applied and how the scientific evidence will evolve.’”

In October, Scientific American published an opinion piece which I wrote entitled, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe:The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks,” that rebutted Foster’s article. My piece is reprinted on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.
In the eleven years that I have been writing about the effects of RFR exposure, I anticipated that my response to Foster would provoke an attack by industry-affiliated scientists so I began my piece as follows:
“The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.”
I laid out the evidence that rebutted many points in the Foster piece and concluded:
“We should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically-based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.”

About two weeks later, Scientific American published an opinion piece that attacked me and my article: “Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G: Activists cite low-quality studies in arguing radio-frequency radiation is dangerous, but the weight of evidence shows no risk.” This piece was written by David Robert Grimes, a science writer, cancer researcher, and physicist.
Shortly after Grimes’ piece was published, theInternational EMF Alliance sent a 5-page letter to the editor of Scientific American that critiqued Grimes’ flawed interpretation of the science. Subsequently, Microwave News published a story entitled, “Open Season on 5G Critics: First NY Times, Now Scientific American,” reprinted by TruePublica, that criticized Grimes’ ad hominem attacks and explained why “it’s Grimes who gets the science all wrong.” The article raised the question “Why Did Scientific American Publish Grimes’s Hit Piece?”

Scientific American originally informed me that they would not publish a rebuttal to Grimes, but in January 2020 they invited me to submit a rebuttal. Two weeks after submitting my rebuttal, Scientific American sent me the following message:
“Thanks again for your recent submission, but we’ve decided against running it. You raise some valid points, but this is clearly a field where we’re a long way from definitive answers and the editors here have agreed that continuing this point-counterpoint argument in our opinion section is not the best way to serve our readers.
What we’ve decided to do instead is to commission an independent journalist to look at all of the evidence gathered so far and give readers an objective sense of what we know, what we don’t know, why uncertainty exists, and how scientists are trying to gather the evidence that governments and consumers need to make the most informed decisions possible.”

My unpublished rebuttal to Grimes, “5G, Public Health and Uncomfortable Truths” appears below.
—
5G, Public Health and Uncomfortable Truths
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley February 19, 2020
“So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned,” proclaimed U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, chastising the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a Senate committee hearing on the future of 5G last year. This quote captures the reason why more than 270 scientists and medical doctors have signed the 5G Appeal, a petition calling for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G technology until we can establish safe exposure limits.  It is also one reason why I wrote about the status of the research and government and industry spin in “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.”
In an opinion piece that attacks my article, David Robert Grimes, a physicist, claims the research that finds radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is harmful is based on “low quality studies,” and that the weight of the evidence shows “no risk.” He repeats the mantra I have heard from other physicists in the ten years I have been studying the effects of cell phone radiation: “there is no known plausible biophysical mechanism of action for harm.” Grimes argues that my article “pivots on fringe views and fatally flawed conjecture, attempting to circumvent scientific consensus with scaremongering.”
Grimes’ arguments suffer the same biases he projects onto others (e.g., cherry-picking). His narrow perspective on the “mechanism of action for harm” seems shaped by a physics paradigm that can explain health risks from ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays), but not from RFR (e.g., microwaves or cell phone radiation) which is non-ionizing. However, biologists have proposed various mechanisms that explain RFR effects. If not for his gaslighting and misrepresentations of published data, I might be charitably inclined to appreciate this debate. But Grimes aims to deny reality and discredit the preponderance of peer-reviewed science which finds low-intensity RFR can be harmful to our health.
The differences between the physicist’s and biologist’s perspectives could have been resolved decades ago had military and Telecom industry interests not interfered to ensure that RFR would be minimally regulated by policy makers. Microwave News has reported about these influences on scientific and policy developments since 1981. A recent Harvard monograph exposes how industry controls the FCC, the agency responsible for regulating RFR exposure from wireless technology in the U.S.
It is untrue, as Grimes argues, that RFR from cell phones cannot harm us because there is no mechanism. Numerous scientific studies provide evidence about mechanisms by which low-intensity RFR causes biological effects, including DNA damage in humans as well as animal models. For example, scientists who study RFR acknowledge that oxidative stress, an imbalance between free radicals and antioxidants, is a common mechanism by which RFR harms living cells. The uneven number of oxygen-containing electrons in free radicals allows them to react easily with other molecules. A review of 100 experimental studies on the oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR found that in 93 of these peer-reviewed studies “RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems” leading to “cancer and non-cancer pathologies.” The review concluded, “the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”
In an ideal world, I would agree with Grimes that “science is not conducted by petition or arguments to authority; it is decided solely on strength of evidence.” However, health authorities and policy makers have for decades relied upon industry-funded scientists who provide them with biased analyses that dismiss the peer-reviewed evidence unless it supports their sponsors. This is why independent scientists have sanctioned collective action.
More than 240 scientists from over 40 countries have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition that raises concerns about the public health impacts of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF), especially from wireless technology. All have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health – totaling over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals. Based upon solid evidence of harmful effects, these global experts urge public health leadership organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), to establish more protective EMF guidelines and precautionary measures, and perform public education about health risks, particularly to children and developing fetuses.
Grimes cites the WHO’s current position that “no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” Setting aside the politics and limitations of that specific WHO declaration, note that the WHO’s own cancer research agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, an IARC advisory group of 29 scientists examined the peer-reviewed research for RFR cancer risk published during the previous eight years and prioritized RFR for re-review. Hence, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic classification of RFR in the next five years.
Cited by Grimes is the one major cell phone radiation study conducted in the U.S. since the 1990’s. In 1999, the FDA recommended that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) research the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. The results of this $30 million study were published in 2018 after extensive peer review by EMF and toxicology experts. The NTP found “clear evidence” that cell phone radiation caused heart cancer and “some evidence” that it caused cancer in the brains and adrenal glands of male rats. The study also found significantly increased risk of DNA damage in rats and mice of both sexes exposed to cell phone radiation.
Whereas, most toxicologists consider the NTP methods the “gold standard,” Grimes erroneously implies that the NTP study’s “methodology and low power” would increase the likelihood that the study obtained spurious results. Statistically, a “low power” study has the opposite effect. Low statistical power means a study would be less likely to detect a real effect, not more likely to yield spurious effects. Grimes has thus repeated an industry-promoted canard about the study which reflects a complete misunderstanding of this basic statistical concept.
Characterizing the Interphone study among “large and robust trials, with careful controls and large sample groups” Grimes nevertheless misrepresents the study’s results. Careful reading of Interphone reveals a statistically significant increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma  among long-term heavy cell phone users. The researchers found that the excess glioma risk held up when the data were subjected to many different analyses (Appendix 1). Additional analyses that corrected for a bias in the study demonstrated a dose-response relationship between glioma risk and mobile phone use (see Appendix 2). 
Followup papers using the Interphone study data found that the excess tumors were primarily located on the side of the head where people held their phones, and in the part of the brain where cell phone radiation exposure was greatest, the temporal and frontal lobes.
Although three sources of case-control data  have found an association between ten years of heavy mobile phone use and glioma risk, glioma incidence may no longer be the best potential correlate of increased mobile phone use as Grimes implies. Long-term heavy mobile phone use is associated with various head and neck tumors in case-control studies including acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and tumors of the thyroid and parotid glands. In some countries glioma rates have increased in certain subgroups (e.g., older age groups, specific types of tumors or anatomic locations), if not overall. In many countries, including the U.S., thyroid tumor incidence has increased in recent years, and two case-control studies provide evidence that cell phone use may be responsible.
Bigger is not necessarily better. Besides the large Interphone study, Grimes cites the Danish cohort study as evidence that cell phone use is safe. However, this study hasserious methodologic problems due to a wholly inadequate exposure assessment. Hence, the results from this study are not reliable.
The Telecom industry claims that their cellular technology is safe; yet, there are no safety studies on exposure to 4G or 5G cell phone radiation. Moreover, the weight of research evidence regarding exposure to 2G and 3G radiation finds harm including sperm damage in males, reproductive harm in females, neurological disorders, DNA damage and increased cancer risk.
There is room to disagree about the implications and quality of scientific studies, but it is disingenuous to disparage other scientists and employ industry talking points in the process, as Grimes does. The public has a right to know about the health risks of RFR. As Senator Blumenthal argued: “I believe that Americans deserve to know what the health effects are, not to pre-judge what scientific studies may show, and they also deserve a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions.”