Abstract
This paper describes the current science-based approach to ensuring public safety from RF-EMF base stations. It acknowledges that a degree of public concern persists despite the fact that dose limits are seldom if ever approached in practice. One plausible contributor to the discord is a tendency within parts of academia and by some planning authorities to pursue a technocratic policy approach to siting wherein public concerns are attributed to scientific uncertainty over health risks, whereas the reality is that societal concerns over base stations is broader. Thus, potential mis-framing of the debate as a purely scientific issue leads to inappropriate risk communication exercises which in fact polarise the situation by disenfranchising other potentially legitimate siting concerns. It is recommended that more attention should be paid to the non-health related siting issues, which could be handled by a thoughtful democratic / deliberative process, and that this should not be conflated with the scientific debate over the uncertain and possibly non-existent risks posed by RF EMF complying with the existing science-based dose limits.
Highlights
Wireless communication uses electromagnetic waves in the Radio Frequency (RF) ranges of the spectrum, which are of a much lower frequency compared to ionizing radiation
A World Health Organization (WHO) Q&A on 5G mobile networks and health says that “provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated” (ITU/Electromagnetic fields (EMF) 5G, 2021) and an investigation published by Ofcom in February 2020 reports measurements of EMF exposures close to sixteen 5G-enabled base stations plus other 2G, 3G and 4G locations in ten United Kingdom cities to be a small fraction of the reference levels for public exposure in the ICNIRP Guidelines (ITU/EMF 5G, 2021 p.31)
Following the 2020 edition of the ITU Radio Regulations (RR), the following frequency bands are identified in the ITU RR, to deploy International Mobile Communications (IMT)3: 450–470, 470–698, 694/698–960, 1 427–1 518, 1 710–2 025, 2 110–2 200, 2 300–2 400, 2 500–2 690, 3 300–3 400,3 400–3 600, 3 600–3 700 and 4 800–4 990 MHz; 24.25–27.5, 37–43.5, 45. 5–47 GHz, 47.2–48.2 and 66–71 GHz4
Summary
Wireless communication uses electromagnetic waves in the Radio Frequency (RF) ranges of the spectrum, which are of a much lower frequency compared to ionizing radiation. The question is whether there are some other enduring health effects at levels of exposure below the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection limit (ICNIRP, 2020). Following the 2020 edition of the ITU Radio Regulations (RR), the following frequency bands are identified in the ITU RR, to deploy International Mobile Communications (IMT)3: 450–470, 470–698, 694/698–960, 1 427–1 518, 1 710–2 025, 2 110–2 200, 2 300–2 400, 2 500–2 690, 3 300–3 400,3 400–3 600, 3 600–3 700 and 4 800–4 990 MHz; 24.25–27.5, 37–43.5, 45. “WHO encourages the establishment of exposure limits and other control measures that provide the same or similar level of health protection for all people It endorses the guidelines of ICNIRP and encourages Member States to adopt these international guidelines”.5. For the 5G and B5G frequencies (above 450 MHz) ICNIRP (2020) power-density exposure levels around base-stations at 450—2000 MHz equal fMHz/40 for occupational and fMHz/200 for the general-public. Joshi, (2020) collected data from commercial 5G networks in Australia and the Republic of Korea and found that median device transmit power levels were 1 per cent of the maximum and comparable to 4G devices; this data is consistent with Ofcom’s measurements of EMF exposures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
