Health Council of the Netherlands, evaluation of 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks
dinsdag, 20 juli 2021 - Categorie: Berichten Nederland
Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks
World J Clin Oncol. 2021 Jun 24;12(6):393-403. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393.
The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Studievägen 35, Örebro SE-702 17, Sweden.
PMID: 34189065 PMCID: PMC8223711 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393
Free PMC article
Currently the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be rolled out worldwide. Many persons are concerned about potential health risks from radiofrequency radiation. In September 2017, a letter was sent to the European Union asking for a moratorium on the deployment until scientific evaluation has been made on potential health risks (http://www.5Gappeal.eu). This appeal has had little success. The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards (http://www.emfscientist.org). The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.
Keywords: 5G; Cancer risk; Health Council Netherlands.
” Conclusion. The current evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands is based on a WHO draft and SSM report. It also recommends using ICNIRP guidelines, considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards, such as cancer, by the majority of the scientists in this field.
The report does not represent a thorough, balanced, objective, and up-to-date evaluation of cancer risks and other hazardous effects from RF radiation. It is also strikingly contradictory as it concludes that serious health effects such as cancer and birth defects are “possible.” Yet it has no objection to the roll-out of 5G and recommends that later studies are performed to study health outcomes such as cancer and birth defects. Thus, no lessons are learned from existing observations on increased cancer risks.
The conclusion by the Commission that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G up to 3.5 GHz because of no “proven adverse health effects,” merely reflects the biased conclusions by ICNIRP dominated groups”” .
It was clear to the groups fighting the 5G in the Netherlands that such report was a whitewash and It is rewarding now to see the GR embarrassed in front of a more international audience. (not that they will care much about this and similar articles).
©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict-of-interest statement: No conflicts of interests.
Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest.
Hardell L, Carlberg M.
Oncol Lett. 2020 Oct;20(4):15. doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876. Epub 2020 Jul 15.
PMID: 32774488 Free PMC article.
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation.
Hardell L, Nyberg R.
Mol Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar;12(3):247-257. doi: 10.3892/mco.2020.1984. Epub 2020 Jan 22.
PMID: 32064102 Free PMC article.
Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation.
Hardell L, Carlberg M.
Rev Environ Health. 2021 Feb 15. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0168. Online ahead of print.
PMID: 33594846 Review.
(Protection of the population health from electromagnetic hazards - challenges resulting from the implementation of the 5G network planned in Poland).
Zmyślony M, Bieńkowski P, Bortkiewicz A, Karpowicz J, Kieliszek J, Politański P, Rydzyński K.
Med Pr. 2020 Jan 20;71(1):105-113. doi: 10.13075/mp.5893.00867. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
PMID: 31793559 Review. Polish.
Harmer B, Lee S, Duong TVH, Saadabadi A.
2021 Apr 28. In: StatPearls Internet. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan–.
1. Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016;31:363–397. - PubMed
2. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Burgio E, Carpenter DO. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollut. 2018;242:643–658. - PubMed
3. Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, Oremus M, Soskolne CL. Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Front Public Health. 2019;7:223. - PMC - PubMed
4. Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, Winters JW, Hobbs CA, Shepard KG, Green AS, Kissling GE, Shockley KR, Tice RR, Bucher JR, Witt KL. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2020;61:276–290. - PMC - PubMed
5. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2016;35:186–202. - PubMed
Stond nog niet op StopUMTS
Lees verder in de categorie Berichten Nederland | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie