The 5G Safety Myth: Assumed Safe, Not Proven Safe
Despite insufficient safety data and growing evidence of biological effects, 5G and other wireless technologies are being deployed unchecked, prioritizing corporate interests over public health.
The study titled, The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies, published in Frontiers in Public Health, reviews the existing safety literature of fifth-generation (5G) wireless communication technology:
The Assumption of Safety in 5G Deployment
The study argues that the rollout of 5G is based on an assumption of safety rather than conclusive scientific evidence.
Government and industry stakeholders have misinterpreted scientific uncertainty as an indication that no risks exist.
The lack of long-term health data on 5G mmWave exposure is being used to justify widespread deployment rather than as a reason for caution.
Biological and Health Risks of 5G mmWave Exposure
The study highlights findings from existing literature suggesting biological effects, including:
Oxidative Stress – Increased production of reactive oxygen species, which can lead to inflammation and cellular damage.
Immune System Effects – Potential impacts on immune function, raising concerns about biological responses to long-term exposure.
Genotoxicity – Evidence of DNA damage in some studies, though findings are not universally consistent.
Neurological Effects – Some research suggests possible changes in neuronal activity, warranting further investigation.
Cellular Disruption – Increased cell membrane permeability, which may influence various biological processes.
Flaws in Existing Safety Reviews
The study identifies biases and logical fallacies in regulatory assessments that downplay potential risks:
Faulty Analogy – Comparing 5G mmWave exposure to short-term exposures like airport scanners, ignoring key differences in frequency, modulation, and duration.
Red Herring – Emphasizing that mmWaves only penetrate a few millimeters into the skin while overlooking their potential systemic effects through neural and immune pathways.
Appeal to Ignorance – Concluding that because definitive harm has not been proven, 5G must be safe, rather than acknowledging that safety has not been established.
Regulatory and Scientific Integrity Concerns
Industry Influence – Many safety assessments are based on reviews that disproportionately cite industry-funded studies, which tend to report fewer adverse effects.
ICNIRP Guidelines – The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) focuses primarily on thermal effects, ignoring potential non-thermal biological effects.
Lack of Transparency – Many relevant studies showing biological effects have been excluded from key safety reviews, limiting the scope of risk assessment.
Call for Precautionary Measures
Independent Research – The study calls for rigorous, independent research to properly evaluate the long-term health effects of 5G.
Reevaluation of Safety Standards – Current guidelines must account for both thermal and non-thermal effects to ensure adequate public protection.
Precautionary Principle – Given the limited but concerning evidence of biological effects, policies should prioritize safety first, rather than waiting for definitive proof of harm.
Public Awareness – More transparency is needed in communicating the actual state of scientific knowledge regarding 5G risks.
As the authors conclude,
The potential long-term health risks from global EMF continue to rise as exposures in the built environment increase in time and density. Mankind has chosen to base the justification for this rollout on shaky foundations, where there is minimal understanding of the impact of new radiofrequencies being introduced into the environment on long-term human and planetary health.
This corroborates a study by Kostoff et al, who identified critical flaws in wireless radiation safety studies and warned of various adverse health effects from 5G technologies:
Most laboratory experiments were not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of real-life conditions.
Many experiments do not include the real-life pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal.
The vast majority of experiments do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli with wireless radiation.
5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
To learn more, I recommend you listen to the following interview with top EMF expert Dr. Larry Burk:
The multi-trillion-dollar cellular industry continues to roll out novel non-ionizing radiation technologies (5G, 4G) globally, exposing populations despite inadequate safety data in humans. The limited research available suggests these technologies pose risks to living organisms.
Without comprehensive, independent studies, this widespread deployment amounts to a large-scale public health experiment, where industry expansion takes precedence over precautionary safety measures. Given the scientific uncertainties and increasing evidence of biological effects, urgent action is needed to reassess exposure standards, enforce stronger regulations, and prioritize public health over corporate interests.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
www.mcculloughfnd.org
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
The RF cell phone network is the most deadly invention in human history, as it killed cockroaches that can survive nuclear bomb radiation!
safeandefective?