ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
1. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientiﬁc Advisory Association
(ORSAA) Inc., PO Box 152, Scarborough, Queensland 4020,
Australia. email: email@example.com *corresponding author
2. Medical Director/GP, Dr. Wellness Clinic, New Zealand;
Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
(ACNEM) Examiner and Executive Board Member
3. School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
4. General Practitioner; Clinical Metal Toxicologist; Forensic
Physician; Director, Northland Environmental Health Clinic,
Northland, New Zealand.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE
ere is an urgent need for clinicians and medical scientists in
the Australia-New Zealand region to engage in an objective
discussion around the potential health impacts of the ﬁfth
generation (5G) wireless technology currently being deployed.
e statements of assurance by the industry and government
parties that dominate the media in our region are at odds
with the warnings of hundreds of scientists actively engaged
in research on biological/health eﬀects of anthropogenic
electromagnetic radiation/ﬁelds (EMR/EMF).
ere have been
worldwide public protests as well as appeals by professionals and
the general public
that have compelled many cities in Europe to
declare moratoria on 5G deployment and to begin investigations.
In contrast, there is no medically-oriented professional discussion
on this public health topic in Australia and New Zealand,
where 5G deployment is being expedited. 5G is untested for
safety on humans and other species and the limited existing
evidence raises major concerns that need to be addressed. e
vast body of research literature on biological/health eﬀects of
‘wireless radiation’ (radiofrequency EMR)
indicates a range of
health-related issues associated with diﬀerent types of wireless
technologies (1G-4G, WiFi, Bluetooth, Radar, radio/TV
transmission, scanning and surveillance systems). ese are used
in a wide range of personal devices in common use (mobile/
cordless phones, computers, baby monitors, games consoles etc)
without users being aware of the health risks. Furthermore,
serious safety concerns arise from the extra complexity of 5G as
• 5G carrier waves use a much broader part of the microwave
spectrum including waves with wavelengths in the millimetre
range (hence called ‘millimetre waves’) which will be used
in the second phase of 5G). Until now, millimetre waves
have had limited applications such as radar, point-to-point
communications links and non-lethal military weapons.
• Extremely complex modulation patterns involving numerous
frequencies form novel exposures.
• Beam formation characteristics can produce hotspots of high
• A vast number of antenna arrays will add millions of microwave
transmitters globally in addition to the existing RF transmitters
thereby greatly increasing human exposure. is includes 5G
small cell antennas to be erected every 200-250 metres on street
5G Wireless Deployment
and Health Risks:
Time for a Medical
Discussion in Australia
and New Zealand
PhD (Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics, UNSW)
BSc (Hons), MB ChB, FRNZCGP, FACNEM, MNZSCM, PGDipSEM, Cert Dermoscopy
MRCS(Eng.), LRCP(Lon.), FRNZCGP
, PhD (Cognitive Science, UQ)
PhD (Environmental Science)
BSc (Biochemistry & Microbiology, Monash)
MSc (Cell Biology) PhD (Neurophysiology)
MSc (Physics), Founding Member – Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS)
Richard Cullen PhD (Elec Eng)
BSc, MBChB, FRNZCGP, FACNEM, FIBCMT, M Forensic Medicine (Monash), FFCFM (RCPA).
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
ﬁxtures, such as power poles and bus shelters, many of which
will be only metres from homes with the homeowners having
absolutely no say in where the antennas will be located.
is massive leap in human exposure to RF-EMR from 5G
is occurring in a setting where the existing scientiﬁc evidence
overwhelmingly indicates biological interference,
suggesting the need to urgently reduce exposure. It is already late
to educate the population on the risks of wireless radiation and to
take public health measures such as those taken with tobacco to
reduce exposure by recommending safer wired communications
for regular use while leaving wireless communications for short
emergency communications. Some European countries have
been taking steps to reduce children’s exposure to RF-EMR by
limiting or discouraging wireless use e.g. France banning WiFi in
small children’s facilities and limiting use at schools.
As for the new 5G technology, it is concerning that leading
experts in the technical ﬁeld
have reported the possibility of
damaging thermal spikes under the current exposure guidelines
(from beam forming 5G millimetre waves that transfer data with
short bursts of high energy) and some animals and children
may be at an increased risk due to smaller body size. Even
working within the entirely thermally-based current regulatory
process, they pointed out 5G millimetre waves “may lead to
permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting
the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines”.
Microwave experts from the US Air Force have reported on
‘Brillouin Precursors’ created by sharp transients at the leading
and trailing edges of pulses of mm waves, when beam forming
fast millimetre waves create moving charges in the body which
penetrate deeper than explained in the conventional models,
and have the potential to cause tissue damage.
In fact, concerns
about moving charges aﬀecting deep tissue are associated with
other forms of pulsed RF radiation currently used for wireless
communications. is may be one factor explaining why the
pulsed radiation used in wireless communication technologies
is more biologically active than continuous RF radiation.
eﬀects of high energy 5G mm waves could have potentially
devastating consequences for species with small body size
and also creatures that have innate sensitivity to EMF, which
include birds and bees that use nature’s EMFs for navigation.
Unfortunately, non-thermal eﬀects and chronic exposure eﬀects
are not addressed in the current guidelines.
As scientists and medical doctors from Australia and New
Zealand who have been conducting independent research on
the health-related literature of RF-EMR, we would like to
urge the medical community to take an active role to encourage
investigation into this important issue. Australia and New
Zealand have the world’s highest and second highest cancer
incidence rates out of 185 countries respectively.
also has the highest rates of allergic immune diseases on a global
When we examine the biological eﬀects of RF-EMR
presented in the scientiﬁc literature (the ORSAA database is
the largest categorised database of peer-reviewed studies on RF-
applying the Bradford Hill criteria, we ﬁnd compelling
evidence suggesting a causal link with many chronic diseases,
including cancer, cardiovascular disease, immune diseases and
Moreover, published research
shows that Australia has relatively high RF-EMR exposure
erefore, given the scientiﬁc evidence of biological/
health eﬀects of RF-EMR
and given the region’s concerning
health statistics in chronic diseases, it is concerning that no
medical input has been made in the health risks assessment
process on the part of government health departments.
Members of ORSAA previously reported on the serious ﬂaws
of the health risk assessment conducted by the Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
An analysis of ARPANSA’s 2014 literature review report
TRS-164 titled “Review of Radiofrequency Health Eﬀects
Research – Scientiﬁc Literature 2000 – 2012”
its conclusions were not substantiated by their nominated
Moreover, a review of 1955 peer-reviewed studies
on the ORSAA database
(which contained the studies
ARPANSA reviewed) revealed 68% of those publications had
reported on signiﬁcant biological/health eﬀects. is refutes
the claim that there is no evidence indicating health risks.
However, ARPANSA has merely rejected our reported ﬁndings
without presenting any evidence to substantiate their position.
Furthermore, ARPANSA continues to make assurances of
safety about wireless technologies (RF-EMR) in general and also
about the new and untested 5G. Such unfounded statements
jeopardise the safety of Australians because the Australian
healthcare professionals and organisations solely depend on
ARPANSA’s advice. Remarkably, the ARPANSA health risk
assessment was conducted by only four reviewers with reported
academic qualiﬁcations in physical sciences, psychology and
epidemiology. Such a lack of biomedical expertise in a “Health
Eﬀects” assessment is an unsatisfactory composition for our
government advisory body. Moreover, ARPANSA’s disclaimers
on their website suggests a lack of accountability: “Nothing
contained in this site is intended to be used as medical advice and
it is not intended to be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent
any disease, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes or as a
substitute for your own health professional's advice. ARPANSA
does not accept any liability for any injury, loss or damage
incurred by use of or reliance on the information.” In spite of
this disclaimer, but likely due to many misleading statements by
ARPANSA, the medical community continues to reject health
complaints made by patients relating their symptoms to wireless
radiation. e situation in New Zealand is very similar. Claims
of safety for RF-EMR, and 5G in particular, by ARPANSA
and the respective health departments of Australia and New
Zealand have been readily accepted even though they have failed
to present the primary scientiﬁc studies that can support those
claims. To our knowledge, based on the published scientiﬁc
literature, they do not exist.
CLAIMS OF SAFETY MADE BY ARPANSA WITHOUT
A public information sheet published by ARPANSA in 2019
claimed that: “At exposure levels below the limits set within the
ARPANSA safety standard, it is the assessment of ARPANSA
and international organisations such as the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on
Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) that there is
no established scientiﬁc evidence to support any adverse health
eﬀects from very low RF EME exposures to populations or
individuals.” It further stated: “Dr Ken Karipidis, Assistant
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
Director of ARPANSA’s Assessment and Advice Section is an
expert on how radiation aﬀects the human body.”
e claim of “no established scientiﬁc evidence to support any
adverse health eﬀects” is refuted by several thousand peer-
reviewed scientiﬁc studies
that have demonstrated a wide range
of biological or health eﬀects, some of which we highlighted in
our previous papers.
ese eﬀects include oxidative stress,
DNA damage, mitochondrial/cell membrane damage (including
that of RBC), disruption of neurotransmitter levels and ion
channels, altered immune/endocrine functions, cancer initiation
Our investigation into the scientiﬁc literature has found RF-
EMR to be a potent inducer of oxidative stress even at so-called
“low-intensity” exposures (which are in fact billions of times
higher than in nature
) such as those from commonly used
wireless devices. An analysis
of 242 publications (experimental
studies) which had investigated endpoints related to oxidative
stress - biomarkers of oxidative damage such as 8-oxo-2'-
deoxyguanosine (indicating oxidative DNA damage) and/
or altered antioxidant levels - revealed that 216 studies (89%)
had reported such ﬁndings (Fig. 1). is evidence base on
RF-associated oxidative stress from 26 countries (only one
study from Australia and none from New Zealand) is relatively
new and mostly post 2010, i.e. after the WHO’s International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classiﬁed RF-EMR
as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. Moreover, 180 studies
out of the 242 (74.7%) were in vivo studies (including several
human studies) which presents strong evidence. It refutes the
conclusion in ARPANSA’s health risk assessment TRS-164: “the
putative link between RF energy and altered ROS production
Only one physical scientist was tasked
by ARPANSA to perform this important review assessing
the in vivo and in vitro studies and the reviewer was working
outside his area of expertise when assessing the oxidative stress
literature. In contrast, the medical fraternity has knowledge of
the pathophysiological importance of oxidative stress in many
diseases, and needs to further investigate RF-induced oxidative
stress (as well as other bioeﬀects) and enact measures to reduce
risks associated with current population-wide chronic exposure
to RF-EMR. An urgent medical investigation into the safety
of existing wireless signals (WiFi, 3G, 4G) and the new 5G is
required. Such investigations need to use real-life signals because
simulated signals are diﬀerent from real-life ones in their physical
characteristics and have been found to be less bioactive.
Figure 1. A. Oxidative stress-related signiﬁcant ﬁndings were
reported by 89% of 242 peer-reviewed experimental studies that
investigated biomarkers of oxidative damage or altered antioxidant
levels. B. Most of the studies on oxidative stress, i.e. 173 (72%) were
published after 2010 and therefore comprise the more recent evidence
for biological harm from RF-EMR.
Unfortunately for all Australians, ARPANSA has made their
health risks assessment without involving medical expertise.
ARPANSA’s in-house RF-EMR expert Dr. Karipidis who is
described as “an expert on how radiation aﬀects the human body”
has reported academic training in physics and epidemiology.
Similarly, the International EMF Project (IEMFP) at the WHO
that has been entrusted to protect public health from man-made
EMR/EMF is headed by an electrical engineer. ere is an
apparent shortage of biomedical expertise within the IEMFP
and also the NGO professional body they depend on for
exposure regulation of RF-EMR – International Commission
on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
ARPANSA’s four health eﬀects reviewers, psychology researcher
Prof. Rodney Croft is the newly appointed Chairman of the
ICNIRP having previously served as the Chair of the ICNIRP’s
RF Guidelines Project Group, setting international exposure
guidelines. Croft also was the lead researcher for RF health
research in Australia for many years as the head of the Australian
Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeﬀects Research (ACEBR)
(https://www.uow.edu.au/acebr/) and its previous form, the
Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeﬀects Research
(ACRBR) that operated from 2004-2011 with direct wireless
industry partnership. Croft does not have medical expertise, and
it is therefore questionable how he could lead or advise on a true
investigation into the biological and health eﬀects of RF-EMR.
e lack of clinicians and biomedical experts within the
ARPANSA expert panel for their health risk assessment, along
with their seriously questionable conclusions appear to have
mislead the Australian medical system. While scientists other
than medical scientists are able to read scientiﬁc studies and
learn that RF-EMR exposure can alter the transcription of
certain genes, alter levels of certain neurotransmitters, hormones,
enzymes, cytokines, antioxidants etc, how do they interpret
the signiﬁcance of these biological eﬀects in a health context
without biomedical training and experience providing an in-
depth knowledge of biology: including biochemistry, physiology,
and clinical medicine? A health risk assessment of this nature
requires input from a large panel of multidisciplinary experts –
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
predominantly with strong biomedical backgrounds.
Similar to the Australian situation, the health risk evaluation of
RF-EMR in New Zealand has been undertaken without medical
expertise. A publication that questioned this risky approach by
one of the authors (SP) was unilaterally retracted by the journal
based on an anonymous complaint despite three thousand
downloads in three months.
Furthermore, the same author was
denied an author response to a rebuttal of a publication in the
New Zealand Medical Journal.
What is becoming apparent
is there is a gagging of those who are trying to refute claims of
safety by highlighting poor risk management, conﬂicts of interest,
and inadequate expertise by government scientists.
MISLEADING OF PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS BY
Dr. Karipidis was advising Australian clinicians in an article
titled “What do GPs need to know about the new 5G network?”
ARPANSA has claimed “Dr Ken Karipidis, Assistant Director
of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency’s (ARPANSA) Assessment and Advice Section, wants
GPs and their patients to know there is no evidence to support
the concern that 5G technology, which uses radio waves and
emits low-level radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy
(EME), will cause harms to the public.” Dr. Karipidis stated in
that report: “ere’s been a lot of research into whether radio
waves cause adverse health eﬀects, and the only established health
eﬀects of radio waves are very high power levels, where they raise
temperature.” is article further claimed: “While the increased
presence of 5G base stations is often perceived negatively, Dr
Karipidis has found this to be more of a psychological issue than
a cause of genuine harm.”
While our previous papers
alone provide ample scientiﬁc
evidence for low-intensity non-thermal biological eﬀects such as
oxidative stress, refuting the obsolete notion that RF EMR causes
thermal eﬀects only (“raise temperature”), it is necessary that
ARPANSA be asked by the medical community in Australia to
provide details of their research that found “a psychological issue
than a cause of genuine harm”. We understand that extensive
research needs to be conducted to rule out biochemical, and
physiological causes before suspecting a psychological origin
underlying a health complaint. To our understanding, such
research has not been done by ARPANSA or any other body in
Australia or New Zealand.
In several media reports on Australians complaining of
adverse health eﬀects which they attributed to exposure to
wireless radiation, Prof. Croft has promoted the nocebo theory
discouraging medical investigations into RF-EMR. For instance,
a report titled “Woman claims severe health problems are caused
by wi-ﬁ but international studies ﬁnd no link”
about a female
who had to abandon her home due to debilitating neurological
symptoms which she attributed to a new NBN WiFi tower
erected near her home, claimed: “Professor Rodney Croft,
director of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeﬀects
Research, said the symptoms experienced by suﬀerers of EHS
were recognised as genuine, but the cause was something other
than exposure to wi-ﬁ.”
“He said the symptoms appeared as a result of anticipation by the
suﬀerer that they were going to be aﬀected.”
“Professor Croft said there needed to be research into causes
other than electromagnetic radiation (EMR).”
e reported position of the patient’s GP alerts to the problems
faced by clinicians in assessing/managing EMR/EMF-associated
health problems: “Ms Southern's local GP, Dr Gudrun Muller
Grotjan, said the diﬃculty for GPs was that there was no
evidence of a cause, so there was no clear path to treating the
Dr Muller Grotjan said she was aware that research was ﬁnding
no link with wi-ﬁ, but accepted Ms Southern's attribution of
wi-ﬁ as the cause was credible, so she was keeping an open mind
about the possible cause.”
A medical discussion in our region will certainly help to
close the existing large gap between the research front and
clinical medicine in this ﬁeld. It is unfortunate that the expert
ﬁndings/recommendations of reputable medical organisations
such as the European Academy for Environmental Medicine
and its American counterpart AAEM
adverse health eﬀects of anthropogenic EMF/EMR and their
management have not reached the medical community in our
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO MILLIMETRE WAVES
In a separate public information sheet titled “Misinformation
about Australia’s 5G network”
ARPANSA has made several
questionable claims regarding safety:
“Higher frequency radio waves are already used in security
screening units at airports, police radar guns to check speed,
remote sensors and in medicine and these uses have been
thoroughly tested and found to have no negative impacts on
“ARPANSA and the World Health Organization (WHO)
are not aware of any well-conducted scientiﬁc investigations
where health symptoms were conﬁrmed as a result of radio wave
exposure in the everyday environment.”
ARPANSA has not produced any evidence from the scientiﬁc
literature that supports the above claim – that thorough testing
of security screening units at airports, police radar guns, and
remote sensors used in medicine has been conducted and found
to have no negative impacts on human health. Given the chronic
24/7 exposure scenarios expected with high frequency 5G
microwaves for the entire population, unlike acute exposures
with security scanners or limited occupational exposures of radar,
establishing the evidence of safety is of paramount importance.
Australian doctors need to urge ARPANSA to publish a list
of these studies conﬁrming safety for evaluation by the medical
Contrary to the ARPANSA claims, the limited number of
studies that have investigated eﬀects of millimetre waves (carrier
waves of 5G in the next phase), have found concerning evidence.
A search for airport screening/radar safety studies, did not ﬁnd a
single Australian/New Zealand investigation while studies from
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
elsewhere appear to have mostly found evidence of biological
impact. For example, a study by researchers at Shiraz University,
published in 2013, but later retracted without an expressed
reason, reported a high prevalence of neuro-behavioural problems
in the occupationally exposed people signiﬁcantly associated with
their time at work. eir test cohort of airport radar personnel
exposed to mm waves (14-18 GHz) revealed neurological,
behavioural and cognitive problems despite being young (33 ±
6.8 years). e ﬁrst author informed us that there was pressure
from the government authorities that researchers would face
litigation unless they withdrew the publication. eir ﬁndings
were similar to a number of studies that have found adverse
health eﬀects in people exposed to radar.
problems (such as migraine, headache and dizziness) were
found in exposed residential populations around military radar
in a study in Cyprus with a dose response (more severe eﬀects
closer to the radar).
However, the authors of this military-
funded study attempted to attribute their ﬁndings to antenna
visibility (a nocebo eﬀect) or aircraft noise without evidence to
substantiate this claim and also ignoring a large body of evidence
demonstrating that RF-EMR exposure can cause neurological
Moreover, researchers at University of Washington
Medical Center had previously reported an increased risk of
testicular cancer in personnel exposed to hand-held police radar
Researchers at the Institute for Medical Research and
Occupational Health of Croatia studied people occupationally
exposed to marine radar (including millimetre waves at 9.4 GHz)
comparing them to those without such occupational exposure.
ey found that RF exposure was associated with increased
oxidative cell damage including DNA damage and reduced
antioxidant defence. ey concluded: “Results suggests that
pulsed microwaves from working environment can be the cause
of genetic and cell alterations and that oxidative stress can be one
of the possible mechanisms of DNA and cell damage.” is is in
agreement with our ﬁnding that oxidative stress associated with
On the basis of the evidence of oxidative
stress in disease pathology,
(and a range of other bioeﬀects)
we have urged Australian authorities to take measures to reduce
the exposure of people to all forms of RF-EMR to prevent
deleterious eﬀects on health, but our calls have been ignored/
dismissed without counterevidence. erefore, a great risk to the
health of the population has been left unattended; undermining
the health and wellbeing of the population and the surety of a
viable work force of the future.
In a quick investigation of the literature into the eﬀects of
millimetre waves (associated with 5G in the next phase), we
extracted all the papers from the ORSAA database that mention
millimetre waves in the abstract. Table 1 below compares the
number of these papers that report signiﬁcant biological eﬀects
for exposures versus those that report no eﬀects versus those that
are uncertain. ese studies must be further evaluated to assess
all eﬀects: thermal and non-thermal.
Study Outcome Number of publications Percentage of total
Eﬀect 53 77.9%
No Eﬀect 13 19.1%
Uncertain Eﬀect 2 2.9%
Total 68 100%
Table 1: Outcomes of publications investigating millimetre waves
(RF-EMR similar to carrier waves of second phase 5G) based on the
While there are no epidemiological studies on millimetre waves
from the Australia-NZ region, we would like to also highlight
that the highest RF-EMR exposure source at the ABC’s
Toowong studios where a breast cancer cluster was identiﬁed
(site now demolished) was also a millimetre wave source: “e
THL RF Hazard control document10 indicates that the most
prominent RF source is the 7 meter satellite dish on the TV
Building rooftop, operating at 14 Ghz. e three VHF Comms
3-metre antennae have high maximum power and operate
between 168 and 172 MHz. Overall the RF sources on site cover
a wide range of frequencies and power outputs.”
While acknowledging that suﬃcient data do not exist to
draw conclusions, it cannot be ruled out that RF exposure
at the Toowong site, including the millimetre wave exposure,
contributed to the development of those breast cancers given
that there is evidence linking RF-EMR exposure to cancer.
Other disease statistics were not investigated at the Toowong site.
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER’S STATEMENT ON 5G
Recently the then Chief Medical Oﬃcer of Australia, Prof.
Brendan Murphy on behalf of the Australian Government’s
Department of Health issued a statement
on the safety of 5G.
In this statement Prof. Murphy declared: “I’d like to reassure the
community that 5G technology is safe.” While it appears that the
CMO (since departed from this role) was operating on the advice
of ARPANSA, it warrants that the medical community request
the Department of Health provide the list of studies with the
scientiﬁc evidence for this claim of the safety of 5G. It would be
appropriate to publish this evidence on the department’s website
for evaluation by anyone. Unsubstantiated claims of safety on a
public health matter are risky. In this case, it involves population-
wide exposure to a novel man-made form of microwave radiation
that can put people’s health and quality of life at serious risk.
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ON 5G 2019-
Unlike the 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry on the health eﬀects
the recent Australian parliamentary inquiry
into 5G did not address the potential health impacts of 5G
deployment by calling on independent expert witnesses. Despite
the vast majority of the 500+ submissions from the general
public expressing concern about the potential adverse health
eﬀects, very little hearing time was allocated to investigating those
concerns. Out of the total hearing time (1065 minutes), only
6% was allocated for opponents of 5G, while 91% was provided
to proponents. Not a single medical expert was called upon as
a witness. In an extraordinary move prior to the completion of
the inquiry, the government announced that it would allocate $9
million of public funds to educate the public on 5G (and counter
so-called “misinformation” warnings of detrimental health
eﬀects). Based on the scientiﬁc evidence that has been collated
and analysed, authors are extremely concerned about the lack of
independence and medical expertise in this ﬁeld of study, and the
rush in Australia and New Zealand to deploy 5G without safety
Proponents of 5G often dismiss concerns about health risks
claiming that 5G microwaves will minimally penetrate the skin
and therefore any eﬀects are limited to minor skin heating (and
they acknowledge that there is some uncertainty around heating
eﬀects on the eyes). e medical community understands that
skin is the largest organ of the human body and a key part of the
neuro-immune and neuro-endocrine systems. Natural UVA
and UVB (also so-called non-ionizing radiation) that penetrate
the skin less than 5G millimetre waves have profound eﬀects on
health and wellbeing of humans. erefore, artiﬁcial 5G waves
must be subjected to rigorous safety testing.
Unfortunately, the questionable conduct of regulatory agencies
such as ARPANSA and WHO’s international EMF Project
with conﬂicts of interest due to funding links to the wireless
remains to be investigated. More open questioning
and protests are appearing in Europe and North America where
there is some level of engagement on the part of government
bodies in response to warnings of adverse health eﬀects of
anthropogenic EMF/EMR by expert medical bodies such as
EUROPAEM and AAEM
(despite industry opposition). In
contrast, there is a strong media censorship on the 5G safety issue
in Australia and New Zealand. is gagged situation is a major
blow to the evidence-based approach to health management,
and to science in general. As informed scientists and clinicians,
authors urge an open and constructive discussion on the safety of
5G in order to protect public health. Planetary electromagnetic
is already excessive and it is impacting the health and
wellbeing of life on Earth. e plan to deploy 30,000 satellites
in space and millions of 5G transmitters on Earth without any
formal health or environmental assessments is both reckless and
negligent. We appeal to the medical community in Australia-
New Zealand to actively engage with this important topic in
order to protect public health.
1. EMF Scientist Appeal: https://www.emfscientist.org/ (last
accessed on 3rd May 2020).
2. International Appeal -Stop 5G on Earth and in Space: https://
www.5gspaceappeal.org/ (last accessed on 3rd May 2020).
3. ORSAA database: www.orsaa.org (last accessed on 3rd May
4. e Bioinitiative Group. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for
Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic
Radiation. http://www.bioinitiative.org/ (2012).
5. Active Denial System FAQs. Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities
Oﬃce, U.S. Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program:
Active-Denial-System-FAQs/(last accessed on 6th July 2020).
6. Neufeld E, Kuster N. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for
Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical
Models and ermal Dose. Health Physics doi: 10.1097/
7. Albanese, R., Blaschak, J., Medina, R. and Penn, J. Ultrashort
electromagnetic signals: Biophysical questions, safety issues and
medical opportunities (Report No. AL/OE-JA-1993-0055).
Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, Brooks Air
Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, USA. (1994).
8. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O and Carlo GL. Real versus
simulated mobile phone exposures in experimental studies. BioMed
Research International 2015: Biomed Res Int. 607053. doi:
9. ielens A, Greco MK, Verloock L, Martens L, Joseph W.
Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey
Bees. Scientiﬁc Reports 10(1):461. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-
10. Bandara P, Weller S and Leach V. Health Risks of Wireless
Technologies. Radiation Protection In Australasia.; 35(2): 22-26
11. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Cancer
Today: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home (September 2018).
12. e International Study on Asthma and Allergies in Childhood
(ISAAC): http://isaac.auckland.ac.nz/ ((last accessed on 3rd May
13. Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M. A novel database of bio-eﬀects
from non-ionizing radiation. Reviews on Environmental Health.
33(3):273-280. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2018-0017 (2018).
14. Miller AB, Morgan LL, Udasin I, Davis DL. Cancer
epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation
of radiofrequency electromagnetic ﬁelds (Monograph 102).
Environmental Research, 167:673-683. doi: 10.1016/j.
15. Carlberg, M, Hardell L. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and
Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill
Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomedical
Research International, 9218486 doi: 10.1155/2017/9218486
16. Bandara P and Weller S. Cardiovascular disease: Time to
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
identify emerging environmental risk factors (Editorial). European
Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 24(17):1819-1823. doi:
17. Kimata H. Microwave radiation from cellular phones increases
allergen-speciﬁc IgE production. Allergy, 60(6):838-9 (2005).
18. Comelekoglu U, Aktas S, Demirbag B, Karagul MI, Yalin S,
Yildirim M, et al. Eﬀect of low-level 1800 MHz radiofrequency
radiation on the rat sciatic nerve and the protective role of paricalcitol.
Bioelectromagnetics, 39(8):631-643. doi: 10.1002/bem.22149
19. Sagar S, Adem SM, Struchen B, Loughran SP, Brunjes ME,
Arangua L, et al. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic
ﬁeld exposure levels in diﬀerent everyday microenvironments in an
international context. Environment International, 114:297-306
20. Review of Radiofrequency Health Eﬀects Research – Scientiﬁc
Literature 2000 – 2012 (TRS-164). Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). 2014:
technicalreports/tr164.pdf (last accessed on 30 June 2020).
21. Leach V and Weller S. Radio frequency exposure risk assessment
and communication: Critique of ARPANSA TR-164 report. Do
we have a problem? Radiation Protection In Australasia, 34(2), pp.
22. Bandara P and Weller S. Biological eﬀects of low-intensity
radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation – time for a paradigm shift
in regulation of public exposure. Radiation Protection In Australasia,
34(2), pp. 2-6 (2017).
23. Bandara P, Weller S and Leach V. Health Risks of Wireless
Technologies. Radiation Protection In Australasia 35(2): 22-26
24. Karipidis K and Tinker R. Letter to the Editor, Radiation
Protection In Australasia, 35(1), 29-30 (2018).
25. 5G: the new generation of the mobile phone network and
health. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA) 20 March 2019 : https://www.arpansa.gov.au/
accessed on 30 April 2020).
26. Bandara P and Carpenter DO. Planetary Electromagnetic
Pollution: It is Time to Assess its Impact. Lancet Planetary Health
2(12):e512-e514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-
27. Pockett S. Conﬂicts of interest and misleading statements in
oﬃcial reports about the health consequences of radiofrequency
radiation and some new measurements of exposure levels.
Magnetochemistry 5(31); doi:10.3390/magnetochemistry5020031
28. Pockett S. Public health and the radio frequency radiation emitted
by cellphone technology, smart meters and WiFi. New Zealand
Medical Journal.131: 96-106 (2018).
29. Amanda Lyons. What do GPs need to know about the new
5G network? News GP, 19 Aug 2019: https://www1.racgp.org.
network (last accessed on 30 April 2020).
30. Bill Brown, Woman claims severe health problems are caused
by wi-ﬁ but international studies ﬁnd no link. ABC News, 12
September 2016: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-12/
31. Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern
M, et al. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention,
diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and
illnesses. Reviews on Environmental Health 2016;31(3):363-97.
32. American Academy for Environmental Medicine.
Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Eﬀect on Human Health:
https://www.aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.php (last accessed on
24th May 2019).
33. Misinformation about Australia’s 5G network. Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) 3
June 2019: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/news/misinformation-
about-australias-5g-network (last accessed on 30 April 2020
34. Dehghan N, Taeb S. Adverse health eﬀects of occupational
exposure to radiofrequency radiation in airport surveillance radar
operators. Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine.17(1):7-11. doi: 10.4103/0019-5278.116365 (2013).
Retraction in: Indian J Occup Environ Med.17(2):40 (2013).
35. Preece AW, Georgiou AG, Dunn EJ, Farrow SC. Health
response of two communities to military antennae in Cyprus.
Occupational Environmental Medicine. 64:402–408 (2007).
36. Davis RL, Mostoﬁ FK. Cluster of testicular cancer in police
oﬃcers exposed to hand-held radar. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine. 24(2):231-3 (1993).
37. Garaj-Vrhovac V, Gajski G, Pazanin S, Sarolic A, Domijan
AM, Flajs D, et al. Assessment of cytogenetic damage and oxidative
stress in personnel occupationally exposed to the pulsed microwave
radiation of marine radar equipment. International Journal of
Hygienics and Environmental Health. 214:59–65 (2011).]
38. rigaray P, Caccamo D, Belpomme D. Oxidative stress in
electrohypersensitivity self reporting patients: Results of a prospective
in vivo investigation with comprehensive molecular analysis.
International Journal of Molecular Medicine. 42(4):1885-1898. doi:
39. Armstrong B, Aitken J, Sim M, Swan N. Breast Cancer at the
ABC Toowong Queensland. Final Report of the Independent Review
and Scientiﬁc Investigation Panel. 2nd June 2007. https://about.abc.
QLDFinalReportJune2007.pdf (last accessed on 30 April 2020).
40. West JG, Kapoor NS, Liao S, Chen JW et al. Multifocal Breast
Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between eir
Breasts and eir Cellular Phones. Case Rep Med:354682. doi:
41. Brendan Murphy. Safety of 5G technology. Australian
Government Department of Health. 24 January 2020 https://www.
health.gov.au/news/safety-of-5g-technology (last accessed on 3rd
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
42. Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Parliament of Australia.
(4 May 2001) https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/
Completed_inquiries/1999-02/emr/report/index (last accessed on
30 April 2020).)
43. Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation
and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). International Journal of
Oncology, 51(2):405-413. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2017.4046 (2017).
44. e 5G mass experiment - How much is safe? Investigate
Europe. 2019: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2019/how-
much-is-safe/ (last accessed on 6th July 2020).
is article is a modiﬁed version of a letter published by the
authors in Radiation Protection In Australasia 2020; 37 (1): 47-