I would like to make some general comments not related to any particular study.
The news is currently carrying stories about the possible risks of non-ionisation radiation in the environment and especially about the forthcoming 5G phone network. Both the for and against views are bringing out references to studies claimed to support their position. I am not going to say that they have equal weight but pass over them anyway because this kind of he-said but she-said argument gets very confusing and is likely to leave Mr or Ms Punter shaking their head and shrugging. Unless you have some background knowledge and put in a good deal of effort it is very hard to sort out such battles. Let me take this in another direction.
The main contention of the anti-5G (and anti EMF in general) position is that non-ionising radiation causes cancer. Why non-ionising? Because it is accepted that ionising radiation (UV, Xray, Gamma ray) does cause cancer. We know this from many statistical studies, from direct laboratory experiments on animals and living tissue and the mechanism is well understood.
Ionising radiation causes ionisation! (Duh) In high doses ions cause gross tissue damage in the short term, ie radiation burns. In lower doses it increases the chance of cancer by disrupting cellsâ reproduction. The risk is pretty well linear, that is the higher your exposure the higher the chance of cancer in proportion. Just how these things happen has been worked out in detail and reproduced.
Nobody has shown any sensible mechanism for how non-ionising radiation causes cancer. Nobody can tell you how it might happen.
If you are going to get cancer from radiation the part of the body exposed the most will get the most damage, in the case of phones the head. Since mobile phones became available in Australia in the 1980s growth in use has been steadily upwards so that now something like four fifths of us are regular users. What has happened to the rates of brain cancer in that time? Nothing, nothing at all, the rate has remained the same.
As outlined in an earlier post, unlike ionisation radiation, non-ionising radiation has a very low penetrability which is one of the limitations for the roll out of this mobile phone generation (why receivers and transmitters need to be closer than previous generations). The penetrability of these wavelengths is limited to the skin surface (or to the subcutaneous layer)âŠin effect the skin provides a natural barrier to the penetration of the radiowaves.
Hypothetically, if cancer was an issue and 5G type wavelengths were established as a causal agent, it is likely that there would be a significant increase in skin cancers. It is worth noting that most, if not all, the alleged research attempting to establish a link between radiowaves and cancer are internal cancers in areas which would not have direct exposure to the radiowaves. Maybe this would therefore assume that a cancerous cell would form in the skin layers, not impact on the skin layer and then migrate to another part of the body to cause cancer elsewhere.
Which leaves only non-sensible positions for anyone choosing to argue differently. Of course this tactic has never stopped politicians from polishing the proverbial to falsely support a cause.
Dr Karl made all the best points in the ABC news item which many of us may have read, and linked by
The article doesnât say too much about the science or medicine but does have a run at the popular movement(s) trying to influence the rollout.
It is interesting that one of the key motivations is concerns over childrenâs health. As with anti-vaccs you add a dollop of maternal protection to a bucket of science skepticism, bake in the oven of social media exposure and you have a lobby group.
5G
NoG
WiFi
Cancer
Disintegrating kneecaps
Whatever
There are general concerns and they arenât being addressed. Every time we narrow discussion (such as to 5G only or cancer only) it looks like cherry-picking. That raises suspicions.
Attention is consistently diverted to impacts of ionising radiation on atoms. Is DNA, for example, an atom? Is anybody saying that RF radiation is ionising? I can see why people who are concerned are frustrated and suspicious.
This old video shows everyday concerns (and political machinations).
As renowned brain surgeon Charile Teo says (about three minutes in), mobile phones are not the only issue.
Itâs a pity Nine misconstrue the purpose of the interview with Charlie Teo by choosing a different emphasis in the head line, to grab attention.
That brain cancer is the most significant cause of death of young children was a revelation, as was the need for greater medical research into the disease.
Only because the anti-EMF position consistently argues too loosely that since ionising radiation is harmful then any radiation is also harmful.
No it is a molecule and it and other living tissue is damaged by high energy ions.
Not that I can find (but I wouldnât rule it out) but they do say that it causes cell damage and cancer without showing any mechanism. I donât see what is wrong with ruling out ionisation as a cause of cancer in cases where there is no ionisation.
Attitudes gained by non-rational arguments are unlikely to be changed by rational arguments. So yes relying on the facts (as we know them) can be a risky way to argue but what is the alternative? Should we be quiet or perhaps mount an equally emotive non-factual argument?
The world is entering an era where what you can make people believe is gaining great ascendancy over reliable evidence. The art of the possible has always been there - how else would politicians be employed? However when this is taken to the extreme that experts are all liars and all scientists have been bought we are in deep trouble. Wrong decisions will be made, and have been made, on important issues.
I may be a fool but I would rather try to educate people than replace their wrong beliefs by any other means.
I didnât read it that way. In a way though, youâre not wrong. People do keep focusing on specifics. Iâve amended the title of this thread to reflect its broadened focus.
Hereâs a longer interview with Dr Teo:
The source is not terribly credible. I havenât had time to sit through the whole thing.
Is that what they argue? From what Iâve seen theyâre concerned at the lack of information on the increasing aggregate power of transmissions across the RF spectrum. Having their concerns dismissed by reference to narrow specifics doesnât help. That said, they do tend to fall into the trap of obsessing about narrow specifics themselves (WiFi, smart meters, 5G, cancer etc).
EMR from low voltage is no different to high voltage, the only potential difference is the magnitude of the EMR. The magnitude of EMR decreases (squared) with distance.
There are many action groups and concerned citizens that think the type of EMR from HV is very different and an issue, when LV EMR (such as that in the home) is safer.
There is also natural background EMR the same as that produced by LV/HV, albeit of lower magnitude. Such canât be avoided and exposure to humans has occurred since the day dot.
Are there amongst the community some (true believers) who are genuinely fearful of EMR avoiding it under all circumstances?
And are there some who are genuinely concerned, uncertain and fearful of the consequences of EMR?
Itâs easy to envisage both groups living in a world far from modern TV, Radio and Mobile phone transmitters. And a home where there is no wifi, microwave ovens or AC mains power.
Itâs surprising that those holding such fears and beliefs above all else, are able to adapt to the use of modern media and communications technology.
They canât as there is natural background EMR. There are some who claim they have electromagnetic hypersensitivityâŠI covered this earlier in the 5G thread.
And it is my understanding that the anxiety caused by such concerns is what forms the basis for electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
There may well be something in that. I think that part of the reason for the anxiety is uncertainty and fear of the future and change. We have always had that but things are a little different now. The accelerated pace of life brings stress and the connected world has, so far, not turned out to be information nirvana where we all know and understand so much more and are happier and more content as a result. Quite the reverse, as we have overload of opinion and influence and too little time (and in some cases no ability) to sort out the real from the spin.
I see so many people who just want to stop the world so they can get off a ride they donât trust or understand - but they cannot. FOMO is real! We suffer a constant bombardment of problems, real and fictitious, and it seems few are ever resolved because we must pay attention to the next batch before todayâs are dealt with. So each of us carries a bin of uncertainty, of too many questions and few answers. Radiation is a great boogie man, it is invisible, destructive and today almost ubiquitous. With the âexpertsâ in conflict how can you tell if something as scary as radiation is a real risk?
With that background of uncertain knowledge there is a kind of logic in distrusting or even blaming the physics that mediates the connection and the pace. Or even if you donât have strong feelings about the radiation itself using it as a proxy for all that ails you.
There is a lot of hysteria being generated specifically around 5G and itâs ability to cause cancer, including from mainstream media outlets. I say letâs examine the specific claims and see if there is any evidence or rational to back them up. However, there is also a more general thread on RF concerns located here
Live line work is carried out in Australia as well. It is used for conductor inspections, minor conductor repairs and maintenance, line separator replacement (where multiple conductors are used) etc. In Australia, walking or using baskets to move along live the conductors is banned for safety reasons. Instead the personnel lie on a board connected usually to the bottom rails of the helicopter, hang head first outwards and carry out work while the helicopter hovers. It takes very good and experienced helicopter pilots to fly as often in twin circuit lines, the rotors/blades sit between the conductors of differing circuits. The work is also done in still conditions.
It also follows the laws of physics and electricityâŠcurrent can only flow where there is a difference in potential. It is the flowing current that kills, not the voltage. A helicopter isnât grounded and uses the air for its insulation, therefore, once the voltage between the helicopter and the line is normalised, it is electrically safe to touch the line.
Iâve watched them do it - amazing stuff. I also watched my father doing live work on household mains, with insulated boots and good pliers and screwdrivers - old school, when OH&S wasnât a booming industry that it is now, with the likes of three people needed just for one to climb a ladder ⊠I know, I know
That is part of the problem with taking a rational position, there really are not a set of specific, testable claims by the anti-EMR merchants. What we see is a Gish gallop of many vague wild claims thrown up one after the other, by the time you have dealt with a few the audience has gone to sleep. The quick, the noisy and the extravagant get attention; the supported, the detailed and the standard science do not.
Fairfax have a reasonable article that covers both the frequency and power level issues.
