ArticlePDF Available

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



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.
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
1. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association
(ORSAA) Inc., PO Box 152, Scarborough, Queensland 4020,
Australia. email: *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.
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
unknown intensities.
• 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
Priyanka Bandara
PhD (Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics, UNSW)
Tracy Chandler
BSc (Hons), MB ChB, FRNZCGP, FACNEM, MNZSCM, PGDipSEM, Cert Dermoscopy
Robin Kelly
Julie McCredden
, PhD (Cognitive Science, UQ)
Murray May
PhD (Environmental Science)
Steve Weller
BSc (Biochemistry & Microbiology, Monash)
Don Maisch
Susan Pockett
MSc (Cell Biology) PhD (Neurophysiology)
Victor Leach
MSc (Physics), Founding Member – Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS)
Richard Cullen PhD (Elec Eng)
Damian Wojcik
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.
Our region
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
neurodegenerative diseases.
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”
revealed that
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.
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 ARPANSAs 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
and promotion.
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
remains tenuous”.
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).
One of
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)
( 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.
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
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
human health.
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
RF-EMR exposure.
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
ORSAA database.
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.
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
Unlike the 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry on the health effects
of RF-EMR,
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
(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: (last
accessed on 3rd May 2020).
2. International Appeal -Stop 5G on Earth and in Space: https:// (last accessed on 3rd May 2020).
3. ORSAA database: (last accessed on 3rd May
4. e Bioinitiative Group. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for
Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic
Radiation. (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/
HP.0000000000000930 (2018).
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:
10.1155/2015/607053 (2015).
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-
56948-0 (2018).
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: (September 2018).
12. e International Study on Asthma and Allergies in Childhood
(ISAAC): ((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.
envres.2018.06.043 (2018).
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:
10.1177/2047487317734898 (2017).
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.
9-18 (2017).
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 :
news/5g-new-generation-mobile-phone-network-and-health (last
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:
5196(18)30221-3 (2018).
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
(2019). Link
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:
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:
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: (last accessed on
24th May 2019).
33. Misinformation about Australia’s 5G network. Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) 3
June 2019:
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:
10.3892/ijmm.2018.3774 (2018).
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.
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:
10.1155/2013/354682 (2013).
41. Brendan Murphy. Safety of 5G technology. Australian
Government Department of Health. 24 January 2020 https://www. (last accessed on 3rd
May 2020).
ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020
42. Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Parliament of Australia.
(4 May 2001)
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:
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-
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) can be absorbed in all living organisms, including Western Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera). This is an ecologically and economically important global insect species that is continuously exposed to environmental RF-EMFs. This exposure is studied numerically and experimentally in this manuscript. To this aim, numerical simulations using honey bee models, obtained using micro-CT scanning, were implemented to determine RF absorbed power as a function of frequency in the 0.6 to 120 GHz range. Five different models of honey bees were obtained and simulated: two workers, a drone, a larva, and a queen. The simulations were combined with in-situ measurements of environmental RF-EMF exposure near beehives in Belgium in order to estimate realistic exposure and absorbed power values for honey bees. Our analysis shows that a relatively small shift of 10% of environmental incident power density from frequencies below 3 GHz to higher frequencies will lead to a relative increase in absorbed power of a factor higher than 3.
Full-text available
Official reports to governments throughout the Western world attempt to allay public concern about the increasing inescapability of the microwaves (also known as radiofrequency radiation or RF) emitted by “smart” technologies, by repeating the dogma that the only proven biological effect of RF is acute tissue heating, and assuring us that the levels of radiation to which the public are exposed are significantly less than those needed to cause acute tissue heating. The present paper first shows the origin of this “thermal-only” dogma in the military paranoia of the 1950s. It then reveals how financial conflict of interest and intentionally misleading statements have been powerful factors in preserving that dogma in the face of now overwhelming evidence that it is false, using one 2018 report to ministers of the New Zealand government as an example. Lastly, some new pilot measurements of ambient RF power densities in Auckland city are reported and compared with levels reported in other cities, various international exposure limits, and levels shown scientifically to cause biological harm. It is concluded that politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously.
Full-text available
The nervous system is an important target of radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure since it is the excitable component that is potentially able to interact with electromagnetic fields. The present study was designed to investigate the effects of 1,800 MHz RF radiation and the protective role of paricalcitol on the rat sciatic nerve. Rats were divided into four groups as control, paricalcitol, RF, and RF + paricalcitol. In RF groups, the rats were exposed to 1,800 MHz RF for 1 h per day for 4 weeks. Control and paricalcitol rats were kept under the same conditions without RF application. In paricalcitol groups, the rats were given 0.2 μg/kg/day paricalcitol, three times per week for 4 weeks. Amplitude and latency of nerve compound action potentials, catalase activities, malondialdehyde (MDA) levels, and ultrastructural changes of sciatic nerve were evaluated. In the RF group, a significant reduction in amplitude, prolongation in latency, an increase in the MDA level, and an increase in catalase activity and degeneration in the myelinated nerve fibers were observed. The electrophysiological and histological findings were consistent with neuropathy, and the neuropathic changes were partially ameliorated with paricalcitol administration. Bioelectromagnetics.
Full-text available
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 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.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
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 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.
This paper argues that the prevailing official narrative in New Zealand concerning the relationship between public health and the radio frequency emissions (RF) from cellphone technology, WiFi and electricity smart meters is scientifically and ethically flawed. The main regulatory document in the area, NZS2772.1:1999, is 20 years out of date and ignores existing laboratory evidence disproving its core assumption that the only biological effect of non-ionising radiation is tissue heating. This and further laboratory evidence for harmful effects of RF continues to be ignored, nominally on the contradictory grounds that (a) cellphone manufacturers say their products now emit less RF than early models, so early lab studies exposed tissue to RF levels higher than those now relevant (b) given the lack of actual data on population exposures either then or now, all laboratory evidence is unconvincing anyway. The offical narrative further opines that since there exist both laboratory and epidemiological studies concluding that RF is not biologically harmful, as well as studies concluding that RF is harmful, the appropriate response is to count up the number on each side, declare the "weight of evidence" to be such that "causation is not proven" and, pending unspecified further studies, continue exposing to unmonitored levels of RF the entire population of the country, none of whom has given informed consent to participate in the experiment. This approach is obviously unethical. It is also unacceptable scientifically. First, the algebraic model is flawed: studies that do find a harmful effect of RF are not invalidated by differently constructed studies that fail to find an effect. Secondly, while causation is relatively easy to study in the laboratory, it is difficult if not impossible to prove epidemiologically, given that (1) the very narrative under discussion has ensured that there is now no unexposed control group and (2) interpretation of timeline correlation studies is hampered by changes in the way new cancer registrations have been recorded over the years and the perennial problem of multiple possible causal factors. The present paper concludes that a precautionary approach is justified, and ends with a number of specific suggestions on how to start implementing such an approach.
Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds. Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. In this paper, a novel analytical approach to pulsed heating is developed and applied to assess the peak-to-average temperature ratio as a function of the pulse fraction α (relative to the averaging time [INCREMENT]T; it corresponds to the inverse of the peak-to-average ratio). This has been analyzed for two different perfusion-related thermal time constants (τ1 = 100 s and 500 s) corresponding to plane-wave and localized exposures. To allow for peak temperatures that considerably exceed the 1 K increase, the CEM43 tissue damage model, with an experimental-data-based damage threshold for human skin of 600 min, is used to allow large temperature oscillations that remain below the level at which tissue damage occurs. To stay consistent with the current safety guidelines, safety factors of 10 for occupational exposure and 50 for the general public were applied. The model assumptions and limitations (e.g., employed thermal and tissue damage models, homogeneous skin, consideration of localized exposure by a modified time constant) are discussed in detail. The results demonstrate that the maximum averaging time, based on the assumption of a thermal time constant of 100 s, is 240 s if the maximum local temperature increase for continuous-wave exposure is limited to 1 K and α ≥ 0.1. For a very low peak-to-average ratio of 100 (α ≥ 0.01), it decreases to only 30 s. The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.
Epidemiology studies (case-control, cohort, time trend and case studies) published since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 categorization of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from mobile phones and other wireless devices as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) are reviewed and summarized. Glioma is an important human cancer found to be associated with RFR in 9 case-control studies conducted in Sweden and France, as well as in some other countries. Increasing glioma incidence trends have been reported in the UK and other countries. Non-malignant endpoints linked include acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma) and meningioma. Because they allow more detailed consideration of exposure, case-control studies can be superior to cohort studies or other methods in evaluating potential risks for brain cancer. When considered with recent animal experimental evidence, the recent epidemiological studies strengthen and support the conclusion that RFR should be categorized as carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1). Opportunistic epidemiological studies are proposed that can be carried out through cross-sectional analyses of high, medium, and low mobile phone users with respect to hearing, vision, memory, reaction time, and other indicators that can easily be assessed through standardized computer-based tests. As exposure data are not uniformly available, billing records should be used whenever available to corroborate reported exposures.
A significant amount of electromagnetic field/electromagnetic radiation (EMF/EMR) research is available that examines biological and disease associated endpoints. The quantity, variety and changing parameters in the available research can be challenging when undertaking a literature review, meta-analysis, preparing a study design, building reference lists or comparing findings between relevant scientific papers. The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) has created a comprehensive, non-biased, multi-categorized, searchable database of papers on non-ionizing EMF/EMR to help address these challenges. It is regularly added to, freely accessible online and designed to allow data to be easily retrieved, sorted and analyzed. This paper demonstrates the content and search flexibility of the ORSAA database. Demonstration searches are presented by Effect/No Effect; frequency-band/s; in vitro; in vivo; biological effects; study type; and funding source. As of the 15th September 2017, the clear majority of 2653 papers captured in the database examine outcomes in the 300 MHz-3 GHz range. There are 3 times more biological "Effect" than "No Effect" papers; nearly a third of papers provide no funding statement; industry-funded studies more often than not find "No Effect", while institutional funding commonly reveal "Effects". Country of origin where the study is conducted/funded also appears to have a dramatic influence on the likely result outcome.