Needed: More Reliable Bioeffects Studies at “High Band” 5G Frequencies

Kenneth R Foster,Vijayalaxmi Vijayalaxmi

doi:10.3389/frcmn.2021.721925

Abstract

One major source of controversy related to possible health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is the large number of reported statistically significant effects of exposure, over the entire RF part of the spectrum and over a wide range of exposure levels, even as health agencies do not find clear evidence for health hazards of exposure at levels within current IEEE and ICNIRP exposure limits. This Perspective considers 31 studies related to genetic damage produced by exposure to RFR at frequencies above 6 GHz, including at millimeter-wave (mm-wave) frequencies. Collectively, the papers report many statistically significant effects related to genetic damage, many at exposure levels below current exposure limits. However, application of five risk of bias (RoB) criteria and other considerations suggest that the studies in many cases are vulnerable to false discovery (nonreplicable results). The authors call for improvements in study design, analysis and reporting in future bioeffects research to provide more reliable information for health agencies and regulatory decision makers. This Perspective is a companion to another Perspective by Mattsson et al. elsewhere in this volume (Mattsson et al., 2021)1.

Highlights

The possible biological and health effects of radiofrequency (RF) energy from wireless communications have been debated by scientists and the public for many years, with vociferous public debate about the safety of 5G systems that are currently being rolled out around the world
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures were restricted to frequencies >6 GHz, which is the transition frequency in both the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and ICNIRP limits at which the dosimetric quantity changes from specific absorption rate (SAR) to absorbed power density at the surface of the tissue, reflecting the increasingly shallow penetration depth of the radiation in tissue at higher frequencies
We evaluated each of the 31 studies using the five risk of bias (RoB) criteria defined in Table 1; with results summarized in the Supplementary Material

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The possible biological and health effects of radiofrequency (RF) energy from wireless communications have been debated by scientists and the public for many years, with vociferous public debate about the safety of 5G (more accurately, 5G New Radio or 5G NR) systems that are currently being rolled out around the world. Demonstration of genotoxicity of RFR at exposure levels within current safety limits (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), 2020; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2019) would be extremely important for carcinogenic risk assessment. Other recent reviews of the bioeffects literature above 6 GHz show many reports of effects of exposure for many endpoints, many at exposure levels below international limits such as Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2019 or International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Protection (ICNIRP), 2020 (Simkó and Mattsson, 2019; Leszczynski, 2020) This Perspective addresses the potential reasons for the disparity in viewpoints, between concern for “many effects” of exposure to RFR on one hand, with conclusions of other experts and health agencies that fail to find convincing evidence for harmful effects of RFR at exposure levels below current safety limits. It is not intended as a critical or systematic review, for which a different analytical approach would be needed

METHODS

B: Blinded study design D

RESULTS

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT