ArticlePDF Available

Health Risks of Wireless Technologies

November 2018

Project: RF-EMR

Authors:

Priyanka Bandara

Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA)

Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, Australia

ORSAA

Content uploaded by Priyanka Bandara

Content may be subject to copyright.

5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2020

This article discusses the need to raise a medical discussion on the health risks of wireless technology, particularly about new 5G that is lacking in the Australia - New Zealand region at present. It presents some evidence for the concerns raised in the global scientific community.

5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand

Article

Jun 2020

This article addresses the currently lacking medical discussion on the safety of the new fifth generation wireless (5G) and the need to start one with input from medical scientists and clinicians given the scientific evidence of biological/health effects some of which is highlighted.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.

Project

RF-EMR

Project

hepatology

Article

Wireless technology: A risk to health?

May 2011 · British Columbia medical journal

Ray Copes

Article

Full-text available

Serious Safety Concerns about 5G Wireless Deployment in Australia and New Zealand

May 2020

This paper addresses the scientific evidence of biological/health impacts of microwave range radiofrequency radiation and the lack of safety testing for 5G wireless technology.

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Radio Frequency Exposure Risk Assessment and Communication: Critique of ARPANSA TR-164 Report. Do we...

August 2017

ARPANSA’s Technical Report Series No. 164 (TRS-164) was written by a panel of three external academics and three ARPANSA support staff. The panel’s main task was to assess the available peer-reviewed scientific literature on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) in order to determine whether the current RPS3 thermally-based standard (modelled on the ICNIRP 1998 Guidelines) was still ... [Show full abstract] relevant and appropriate for providing the general public with a high level of protection. The TRS-164 report considered 12 years of accumulated scientific research along with the May 2011 announcement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that RF-EMF is a Group 2B “possible” carcinogen. The conclusion of the TR-164 report is highly supportive of the original ICNIRP exposure guidelines and corresponding reference limits. In order to evaluate the TRS-164 report, the current authors obtained from ARPANSA all the studies in the APRPANSA database that would have been available to the scientific panel when producing the TRS-164 report, which covered the specific period from January 2000 to August 2012. Although 1,354 studies were available in ARPANSA’s database it is apparent that only a fraction were actually used in the in vivo / in vitro assessment. The aforementioned 1,354 studies can be individually selected from more than 2,400 studies comprising the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc. (ORSAA) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) bio-effects database. This paper demonstrates that thermal limits as advised by ARPANSA and ICNIRP may not afford suitable protection against a range of biological effects associated with RF exposure at athermal levels. When ICNIRP first established their original guidelines almost 20 years ago, it may have been true that there was insufficient evidence for biological damage likely to result in disease in vulnerable people. That situation has now clearly changed. Even ICNIRP has admitted in the past that their guidelines may not provide adequate protection to the more sensitive individuals within the population [8]. While cancer, neurological degeneration or other disease outcomes may not currently (or in the immediate future) be conclusively linked to oxidative stress which has resulted specifically from permitted microwave exposures, there is now enough medical research evidence to suggests that the oxidative stress pathway can lead to disease. When considered with the large body of research showing that exposure to microwaves (at or below basic restrictions) can produce oxidative stress, there is sufficient evidence to require that the RPS3 revision currently underway to seek to minimise biological effects from environmental exposures and to provide warnings to achieve this when using personal devices.

Article

Cardiovascular disease: Time to identify emerging environmental risk factors

October 2017 · European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Article

Full-text available

Biological Effects of Low-intensity Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation – Time for a Paradigm S...

May 2018

This study focuses on man-made radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR), which has increased exponentially around the globe over the last few decades due to a rapid expansion of mobile/wireless/satellite technologies. The WHO’s IARC classified RF-EMR as a Group 2B possible human carcinogen in 2011. The Scientific evidence emerged since, particularly epidemiological evidence linking ... [Show full abstract] mobile/cordless phone use to brain cancer and experimental evidence of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity has led to calls for an update to this classification. In many countries, including Australia, the current RF exposure regulation is based on the 1998 guidelines of the International Commission on Non-ionization Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Several scientific organizations, including the US National Toxicology Program and EPA, and the American and European academies for environmental medicine, have raised concerns about the thermal basis of ICNIRP guidelines which only takes into account acute tissue heating effects. There is strong scientific evidence of non-thermal biological effects occurring in the absence of heating. These effects cannot be prevented by current thermally-based guidelines. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has based its RF standard (RPS3) on the ICNIRP guidelines which inherit the same limitation – an inability to assure safety from chronic non-thermal effects. ARPANSA has been reluctant to accept potential health effects that may arise out of low-intensity (non-thermal) RF-EMR biological effects as ARPANSA claims a lack of an “established” mechanism other than heating. Our detailed study of the scientific literature challenges this paradigm. We present the experimental evidence of RF-EMR induced oxidative stress, a key non-thermal mechanism of biological effects at low intensity exposures. In our recent review of the scientific literature, 216 out of 242 studies that investigated endpoints related to oxidative stress were found to have reported significant effects. Evaluation of the scientific literature by ARPANSA (TRS164 report) has failed to critically review the literature on oxidative stress and assess its potential impact on public health. We present oxidative stress as a key central mechanism underlying adverse biological effects related to RF-EMR exposure, such as DNA damage. Considering the well-established role of oxidative stress in pathobiology of a wide array of chronic diseases, RF exposure standards require urgent reform.

Last Updated: 04 Jul 2022