Radiofrequency EMFs: Are We Protected or Is the Fox Guarding the Hen House?

U.S. Regulatory Framework

“Most insidious of all, the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health impact routinely ignored. Industry controls the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying.”

— Norm Alster, author of “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates,” published by Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.

Who Regulates the Wireless Industry?

The FCC and the FDA are the two federal agencies that have primary regulatory authority over the wireless industry. Most Americans who are around wireless radiation including smartphones, Wi-Fi, smart meters and likely living near cell towers are probably unaware that the federal government’s guidelines are solely based on up to 30 minutes of exposure.

On paper, the FDA serves in an oversight role for the FCC and is responsible for protecting and promoting public health. For example, the FDA has the authority to take action if they have evidence that a wireless device, such as a cell phone, emits levels of RF radiation that are hazardous to the user. Because cell phones were never premarket tested by the FDA, there is justifiable concern regarding their safety.

The FCC sets limits on the emissions of radiofrequency radiation by cell phones and other wireless technologies, including fixed wireless infrastructure such as cell towers, which they claim were developed to protect the public from RF-related health risks. In spite of the ubiquity of wireless devices, it seems counterintuitive or perhaps even reckless that the FCC clearly states that they do not have the expertise to set standards. In fact, they do not refer to the regulatory limits as standards but simply as guidelines.

There is legitimate concern that the standard-setting bodies are closely aligned with the telecommunications industry. They have failed to take decades of military and independently-funded science regarding the risks of RF radiation into consideration. Both the FCC and the FDA, supported by the telecommunications industry, embrace the regulatory framework that acknowledges only thermal effects. Learn more about the relevant acts and zoning laws

There are two acts that serve to regulate the telecommunications industry: the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1934 Act created the governing body of the FCC and it is now the FCC that adopts additional rules and regulations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 laid the foundation for the present cell tower infrastructure that has been built out across the U.S. over the last 25 years.

Local governments regulate zoning, rights of way and wireless tower siting. Over the last five years approximately 20 states adopted their own “5G bills,” and then the FCC covered the remaining 30 states with the September 2018 Declaratory Ruling. Under the state laws in combination with the FCC Declaratory Ruling, severe limits have been imposed on the authority of local and municipal governments over permitting and regulation of wireless facilities. Not only are local municipalities forced to lease the public rights-of-way to wireless carriers, the amount of fees that can be charged for placement of small wireless facilities in public rights-of-way has been capped, as well.

Small wireless facilities, also known as “small cells,” are structures either less than 50 feet in height or no more than 10% taller than other nearby structures. They support small antennas and related equipment.

Federal, state or local authorities can initiate policy changes. When the FCC sets rules, it overrides any conflicting state or local laws or requirements. The FCC sets rules through a notice-and-comment process. All final FCC rules are subject to review in federal courts of appeal. State Public Utilities Commissions adopt rules similarly — those processes vary from state to state.

Ignoring Nonthermal Effects

Both bodies ignore the thousands of studies that clearly demonstrate the flaw in relying on the assumption that thermal tissue heating is the only potential mechanism of harm because it ignores fundamental physical interactions and relies on tests that have little resemblance to real-world wireless environments. While the limits do not acknowledge nonthermal effects, the FCC and FDA continue to insist that their guidelines, last updated in 1996, are appropriate to follow.

As a prime example, the FCC recently adopted rules that permit the beam power from 5G base stations to be tens to hundreds of times more powerful than the levels permitted for non-5G base stations.

In reality, neither agency wants to enact meaningful biologically-based standards since doing so would necessarily slow or impede the rush to ubiquitous wireless. So the FCC relies on informal conclusory FDA assertions that current limits are safe, and the FDA then points to the FCC’s regulations as a justification to not exercise its own regulatory mandate.

CHD’s Historic Win Against the FCC

In a lawsuit won by Children’s Health Defense, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently concluded that neither the FCC nor the FDA had engaged in reasoned decision making and has required the FCC to reassess its position on the current emission limits with respect to testing, impacts on children, long-term exposures, increased ubiquity, new technology and environmental impact.

Who Regulates Power Lines?

A multitude of health effects from power lines have been reported, including an increase in Alzheimer’s disease, miscarriage, childhood leukemia and protein and DNA reactions. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while some states have set standards for transmission line fields, there are no U.S. Federal standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines.

Accelerating 5G Deployment

In 2018, the FCC adopted rules to accelerate the wireless infrastructure review process to facilitate the deployment of 5G throughout the U.S. By the time these rules became effective in July 2018, the FCC and the telecommunications industry were experiencing significant pushback from cities, counties and citizens. That opposition, particularly from residents who do not want cell towers in their neighborhoods, continues to this day and CHD is committed to supporting these efforts.

Health concerns about RF radiation have never been legal means for opposing cell towers. The telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically Section 704, forbade local zoning authorities from denying a tower based on RF concerns. This was not because the FCC had proved that RF radiation was safe at the guidelines they established. The truth was quite the opposite, in spite of claims on multiple federal agency websites. There was heavy telecommunications lobbying in 1996 when the Act was passed. Telecommunications carriers knew health concerns would be their biggest obstacle to the infrastructure buildout, so they eliminated that obstacle in Section 704. Yet two decades later, the deployment of 5G removed even more obstacles to the 5G rollout by forcing cities and counties to lease out their public rights-of-way to wireless carriers, placing some “small cells” — the descriptor for 5G antenna — literally a matter of feet from some second-story bedroom windows.

5G, Cybersecurity and the Internet of Things

The Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the FCC, is responsible for ensuring communications networks are reliable and secure. Cybersecurity is especially important to 5G networks which enable the Internet of Things (IoT) and the Internet of Bodies (IoB).

The IoT and IoB is a massive network of objects, people, animals, etc., embedded with sensors and other types of technology, to collect information about the physical environment of the object, for the purpose of analyzing and exchanging that information with other devices via the internet. The IoT/IoB network collects, analyzes and exchanges more and additional types of data, broadening and deepening the risk potential of personal data. These devices also present an attractive attack surface since many have little to no built-in security. A hostile actor can potentially gain access to the device itself and control its functions or steal data, and could use it as an entry point to the entire local or wide-area network and all other attached devices and the information they contain.

In 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a technology assessment report on the 5G wireless network. Regarding cybersecurity, it finds that 5G networks introduce “new modes of cyberattack” and “expands the potential for points of attack.” Additionally, it finds that “5G does not eliminate existing concerns around supply chains for network hardware.” Regarding privacy, the report finds that 5G networks will exacerbate existing privacy concerns by introducing “new kinds of user data, including more precise location data.”

European Union Regulatory Framework

In the European Union, the main regulatory bodies are the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. While EU Member States are responsible for protecting the public health of the population from the effects of electromagnetic fields through national regulatory authorities, the guidelines adopted by EU Member States regarding exposure to non-ionizing EMFs are primarily based on the guidelines of ICNIRP, a German-based nonprofit comprised largely of telecommunications-friendly members. The ICNIRP guidelines were updated in 2020 and provide exposure guidelines for RF-EMFs between 100 kHz and 300 GHz.

Since 1998, ICNIRP has maintained its position that “There is no evidence of adverse health effects at exposure levels below the restriction levels in the ICNIRP (1998) guidelines and no evidence of an interaction mechanism that would predict that adverse health effects could occur due to radiofrequency EMF exposure below those restriction levels.” Read More

Most European countries and Australia rely on the guidelines formulated by ICNIRP, though not exclusively. Italy, Switzerland and Bulgaria have implemented national standards that are more protective than those promulgated by ICNIRP. Regarding 5G, while policies and regulations are generally adopted at the national level, the EU plays a coordinating role in the deployment of 5G in Europe. ICNIRP, like the FCC and the FDA, protects only from thermal effects of RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science that demonstrates non-thermal effects.

In July 2016, the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) published an important report entitled, “Exposure to Radiofrequencies and Child Health.” This report brought to light information previously unknown to the public, namely that 9 out of 10 mobile phones tested in 2015 by the French National Frequencies Agency (ANFR) in contact with the body showed a SAR level higher than 2 W/kg and one out of 4, a SAR level higher than 4 W/kg. In other words, the majority of phones when used in contact with the body were over the allowable limit of radiation. Dr. Marc Arazi, a French physician and founder of “Alerte Phonegate,” has created a public educational institution so that people will have the right to know how to buy and use mobile phones as safely as possible.

5G Health Warning

According to Health Impact of 5G, a report issued by the European parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), there is “sufficient evidence of reproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans.” Additionally, the report concludes that “these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too” and “may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns.” Regarding 5G’s higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz), and frequencies 24 to 100 GHz, the thorough review found there was an inadequate base of studies either in humans or in experimental animals with which to even substantiate a conclusion regarding a carcinogenic effect or any other non-thermal effect.

Call for a Moratorium

According to Health Impact of 5G, a report authored by Dr. Belpoggi and issued by the European parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA):

“The literature contains no adequate studies by which to exclude the risk that tumors and adverse effects on reproduction and development may occur upon exposure to 5G MMW, or to exclude the possibility of some synergistic interactions between 5G and other frequencies that are already being used. This makes the introduction of 5G fraught with uncertainty concerning both health issues and forecasting/monitoring the actual exposure of the population: these gaps in knowledge are invoked to justify the call for a moratorium on 5G MMW, pending adequate research being completed.”

The report’s conclusion carries a very clear warning:

“Implementing MMW 5G technology without further preventive studies would mean conducting an ‘experiment’ on the human population in complete uncertainty as to the consequences.”

An esteemed fellow at the Ramazzini Institute, Belpoggi’s call for a moratorium appears grounded in solid research, well-articulated and yet resoundingly ignored. In the worlds of science and medicine, scientific studies and investigation are intended to precede policies. In the world of telecommunications, historically the infrastructure buildout precedes science.

Policy Recommendations

The report makes several important policy recommendations, including:

Adopting stricter RFR limits for mobile phone devices and reducing RFR exposure with devices that emit lower energy and “if possible only working when at a certain distance from the body.”
Revisiting RFR exposure limits for the public and the environment in order to reduce RF-EMF exposure from cell towers through more stringent limits such as those used in Italy, Switzerland, China and Russia, all of which are significantly lower than those recommended by ICNIRP and the FCC.
Adopting measures to incentivize the reduction of RF-EMF exposure which include using fiber optic cables to connect schools, libraries, workplaces, houses, public buildings and all new buildings, etc. “Public gathering places could be ‘no RF-EMF’ areas (along the lines of no-smoking areas) so as to avoid the passive exposure of people not using a mobile phone or long-range transmission technology, thus protecting many vulnerable elderly or immune-compromised people, children, and those who are electro-sensitive.”
Promoting a multidisciplinary scientific research effort to assess the long-term health effects of 5G MMW in order to rule out the risk that tumors and adverse effects on reproduction and development may occur upon exposure to 5G MMW, and to exclude the possibility of synergistic interactions between 5G MMW networks and other frequencies and networks that are already being used. Research is needed on the biological effects of 5G MMW at frequencies between 6 and 300 GHz not only for humans but also for the flora and fauna of the environment, e.g., non-human vertebrates, plants, fungi and invertebrates.
Promoting research to identify an adequate method of monitoring exposure to 5G because there is currently inadequate monitoring of the actual exposure of the population.
Promoting a public educational awareness campaign on the potential harms of RFR at all levels, beginning with schools. This campaign should include the potential health risks, opportunities for digital development, safer infrastructure alternatives, and strategies to reduce exposure to wireless phones.

European Citizens Protest

In spite of the planning, concerns about 4G throughout the EU, as well as cell phones measuring over the allowable limit, were already present when the 5G buildout started occurring in neighborhoods and towns throughout Europe. The general public had no reason to believe that 5G was safe. Cell towers in front of their homes and children’s schools caused significant backlash in the majority of European countries. People took to the streets in countries like Switzerland over fears that radiation from the antennas that carry the next-generation mobile technology, culminating in a countrywide moratorium in September 2019. By February 2020, Switzerland denied a countrywide moratorium, though cantons in many Swiss cities called for local moratoria. Read More

By October 2020, the growing anti-5G movement was getting in the way of Europe’s digital ambitions. Some 15 capitals warned the EU Commission of the need for a “robust strategy” to counter rapidly growing concerns about new technology. The promise of 5G remains vague and the benefit to the vast majority of residents remains nebulous. However, the concern about the health risks of this experimental technology remains extremely high.

Nonetheless, the momentum among European leaders and the telecom industry to build out the 5G infrastructure has continued, for the most part, undeterred. The laws were already in place for the small cell buildout in all EU Member States. The 5G Action Plan for Europe was well-orchestrated and uniformly applied. Yet the glaring omission of any data from any country exonerating the risks from 5G, an advanced technology that uses either the microwave or millimeter wave depending upon the carrier and location, is an undeniable and deliberate omission.

5G Deployment in Europe

The European Commission had been playing an active role in developing the EU’s overall strategy and designing EU policies regarding 5G. These policies have been in the works for many years. In 2016, the Commission adopted a 5G Action Plan for Europe to ensure the rapid deployment of 5G infrastructure across Europe. The action plan objective was to launch 5G services in all EU Member States by the end of 2020 at the latest. Following this, the action plan suggested a rapid build-up to ensure uninterrupted 5G coverage in urban areas and along main transportation routes by 2025.

In 2020, the Commission adopted the Implementing Regulation on small antennas, which specifies the physical and technical characteristics of small cells for 5G networks and aims to accelerate 5G network installations, through a national authority oversight, permit-exempt deployment regime. Read More

European policymakers may have succumbed, in part, to a major campaign to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment. According to an in-depth 2019 analysis, 5G Deployment, prepared at the request of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, a committee of the European Parliament, the EU has yet to see a significant “demand-pull” that could assure sales. The concept of a race is part of the campaign, but it is becoming clear that the technology will take much longer than earlier generations to perfect.

China, according to the report, sees 5G as at least a 10-year program to become fully working and nationally implemented. This is because the technologies involved with 5G are much more complex than their predecessors 3G and 4G. One troubling concern that is not well understood, according to the report, “is the unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation.”

European Gigabit Society

The technological goals for Europe as captured by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) are:

“The fifth generation of telecommunications technologies, 5G, is fundamental to achieving a European gigabit society by 2025. The aim to cover all urban areas, railways and major roads with uninterrupted fifth generation wireless communication can only be achieved by creating a very dense network of antennas and transmitters. In other words, the number of higher frequency base stations and other devices will increase significantly.”

The real substance of what 5G is about in the EU is seen in the Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. It states:

“The Commission has established the following connectivity targets for 2025:

1. Schools, universities, research centers, hospitals, main providers of public services and digitally intensive enterprises should have access to internet download/upload speeds of one gigabit of data per second;
2. Urban and rural households should have access to connectivity of download speed of at least 100 megabits per second;
3. Urban areas, major roads and railways should have uninterrupted 5G coverage.”

Yet with regards to the same report:

“This raises the question as to whether there is a negative impact on human health and environment from higher frequencies and billions of additional connections, which, according to research, will mean constant exposure for the whole population, including children. Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce. Accordingly, a section of the scientific community considers that more research on the potential negative biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and 5G is needed, notably on the incidence of some serious human diseases.

“A further consideration is the need to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular medicine and physics or engineering, to conduct further research into the effects of 5G.”

A call for “more research” is a common refrain that is frequently issued to allay public concern as telecom proceeds to build out the latest infrastructure with a green light aided by government-regulated policies that make it nearly impossible for citizens to object to 5G towers literally being erected in their front yards.

5G Public-Private Partnership and 1000x Higher Wireless Capacity in 10 Years

To really understand 5G in Europe you need to look at the 5G Action Plan as it relates to the following: The EU 5G public-private partnership (5G-PPP) offers insight into the connection between government and the telecommunications industry. It is a joint initiative between the European Commission and European Information and Communications Technology industry that aims to deliver solutions, architectures, technologies and standards for the “ubiquitous next-generation communication infrastructures of the coming decade.” According to the 5G-PPP, one of its main objectives is:

“Providing 1000 times higher wireless area capacity and more varied service capabilities compared to 2010.”

5G and Cybersecurity

A 5G network that wirelessly connects billions of Internet of Things devices and critical infrastructure systems both broadens and deepens the potential impact of cyberattacks. In a technical report, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) has identified the major cybersecurity threats targeting new generations of mobile networks, such as 5G. According to the report, these threats include eavesdropping, interception, hijacking, disasters, unintentional damages, outages, failures, malfunctions, legal threats and physical attacks. Additionally, in 2019, the European Parliament passed resolutions regarding cybersecurity and in the same year, the European Council adopted conclusions on the significance of 5G to the European economy and the need to mitigate security risks linked to 5G.

Unanswered Questions

The public’s realization that 5G was actually a 4G/5G infrastructure, in some instances, literally a few feet from bedroom windows, dawned after the public-private partnership had been set in motion. 5G was to be viewed as progress, as remaining competitive with the rest of the world, and opening new vistas for transport, health, media and of course the telecommunications industry. In all its hype, it may be wise and reality-orienting to go back to a statement made by the researcher authoring “Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health”:

“Questions remain unanswered as to what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it has impacts on human health and environment, whether it is secure, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it. As an alternative, according to some experts, fiber optics would be more secure, safe and offer higher speed than 5G. However, fiber optics are not wireless.”

**Source: Regulatory Framework