Content uploaded by Lennart Hardell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lennart Hardell on Apr 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Annals of Clinical Case Reports
Remedy Publications LLC., | http://anncaserep.com/ 2024 | Volume 9 | Article 2572
Introduction
Since 2017 the 5G appeal, today endorsed by 436 scientists and medical doctors, has been sent
to the EU seven times requesting a moratorium on the deployment of the Fih Generation (5G) for
wireless communication until health risks have been investigated (http://www.5gappeal.eu/). ese
calls have not had any eect on EU ocials who continue to support the rollout of 5G technology.
Contrary to the request of a moratorium, 5G has increasingly been implemented in spite of no
comprehensive studies and evaluations of potential risks to human health and the environment.
5G is associated with high pulsed Radiofrequency (RF) radiation with considerable variation of the
pulse intensity and higher total RF exposure compared to previous generations of
telecommunications technology. From biological and health perspectives 5G may therefore even be
worse than previous generations of wireless telecommunications.
e rst seven studies so far on health eects from real exposure to 5G (case studies) indicated
that 5G causes very high levels of RF radiation exposure to people living in the vicinity of 5G base
stations. ey also showed that 5G at 3.5 GHz, oen in combination with 4G+, may rapidly cause
the microwave syndrome, in some cases so severe that people had to leave their dwellings. As a result
of moving to dwellings with considerably lower levels of RF radiation, the symptoms decreased
and complete health was regained within a short time period. is may be regarded as provocation
Adopting Scientically Invalid Assumptions of No Risks
for Deployment of the Fifth Generation, 5G, for Wireless
Communication by the EU Commission is Harmful to
Human Health and the Environment
Review Article
Published: 12 Feb, 2024
Abstract
During recent years exposure to harmful Radiofrequency (RF) radiation has increased considerably.
One reason is the implementation of the h generation, 5G, for wireless communication. ere are
no studies showing that 5G radiation exposure is not harmful to human health and the environment
and that the limits by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) accepted by most countries are adequately protective for real life exposure situations. On
the contrary, new case reports indicate development of the microwave syndrome in persons exposed
to 5G although the radiation is far below these ICNIRP limits. ICNIRP is a self-appointed, industry-
friendly and scientically biased organization and its limits are supported by the telecommunications
industry. e Scientic Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) at the
EU Commission has recently evaluated risks of RF radiation thereby recommending adoption of
the highly controversial view by ICNIRP that protection only against biological eects caused by
heating is sucient. All non-thermal eects are dismissed although the evidence for these eects
is substantial and convincing. The EU Commission has proposed a regulation called the Gigabit
Infrastructure Act (GIA) that will facilitate deployment of 5G millimeter technology. This will
favor the telecom industry, while the public will be exposed to increasing levels of RF radiation the
combined effects of which have never been studied. GIA and SCHEER pave the way for much
denser 5G infrastructure technology, mainly millimeter wave technology in the frequency range 26
GHz and higher, which can be anticipated to constitute a health hazard.
Keywords: Radiofrequency radiation; Health risks; EU; 5G; SCHEER; Gigabit Infrastructure
Act; Moratorium
Nyberg R1, Nilsson M2 and Hardell L3*
1Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland (retired)
2Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, Adelsö, Sweden
3The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden
OPEN ACCESS
*Correspondence:
Lennart Hardell, The Environment and
Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro,
Sweden
Received Date: 26 Jan 2024
Accepted Date: 07 Feb 2024
Published Date: 12 Feb 2024
Citation:
Nyberg R, Nilsson M, Hardell L.
Adopting Scientically Invalid
Assumptions of No Risks for
Deployment of the Fifth Generation,
5G, for Wireless Communication by the
EU Commission is Harmful to Human
Health and the Environment. Ann Clin
Case Rep. 2024; 9: 2572.
ISSN: 2474-1655.
Copyright © 2024 Hardell L. This is an
open access article distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited.
2
Nyberg R, et al., Annals of Clinical Case Reports - Medicine
Remedy Publications LLC., | http://anncaserep.com/ 2024 | Volume 9 | Article 2572
studies of health eects from real life 5G exposure [1-7].
In April 2023 the Scientic Committee on Health, Environmental
and Emerging Risks (SCHEER), on request of the EU Commission
services, advised in a report positively on the adoption of the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) 2020 limits on exposure to Radiofrequency (RF) radiation
[8]. A dra SCHEER report was already previously published in
August 2022, also recommending adoption of the ICNIRP 2020
limits. However, these limits are clearly insucient for the protection
of human health and the ora and fauna, as discussed below.
Further, the EU Commission in February 2023 proposed a
regulation called the Gigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA) which appears
to be intended to facilitate and accelerate the deployment of 5G
millimeter technology [9]. ereby the telecom industry would be
favored while risks to the public health and the environmental eects
are ignored. e seven case reports on health eects from 5G base
station radiation exposure, on the contrary, show an urgent need for
a moratorium on deployment of 5G and frequencies above, i.e. 6G
that is now discussed to be implemented. GIA will pave the way for
much denser 5G infrastructure technology in the frequency range 26
GHz and higher.
In the following SCHEER and the Gigabit Infrastructure Act
(GIA) are discussed with some critical aspects on risks and violation
of conventions and laws aimed at the protection of human health.
The Scientic Committee on Health, Environmental and
Emerging Risks (SCHEER) nal opinion on the need of a
revision of the annexes in the council recommendation
1999/519/EC and directive 2013/35/EU
In this report SCHEER recommends that the EU Commission
adopts the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines for RF radiation exposure [8].
However, there is now overwhelming evidence that exposure to RF
radiation levels well below the ICNIRP limits are harmful to human
health. The effects are clearly established and range from harmful
effects on trees, plants, pollinating insects and mammals to
detrimental effects on humans including increased risk of cancer,
DNA-damage, oxidative stress, harmful effects on the brain,
wellbeing, fertility and reproduction [10,11].
ICNIRP guidelines only protect against eects caused by heating
for a short time period observed in laboratory studies within less
than 1 h [11,12]. However, there is no scientic evidence to support
the position that people and all living beings can tolerate long-term
whole-body RF radiation exposure from 5G and 4G technology in
combination, corresponding to real life exposure situations, at limits
proposed by ICNIRP for 24 h every day. No evidence has ever shown
the safety of ICNIRP limits for chronic full body human exposure.
e opinion from the SCHEER is clearly not objective in view of
the available science. SCHEER appears to be very biased in favor of
the ICNIRP limits and thus the interests of the telecommunications
industry. SCHEER argues that they “could not identify moderate
or strong level” of evidence for adverse health eects resulting
from chronic or acute RF exposure. at opinion ignores current
knowledge of harmful eects from RF radiation exposure and may
be explained by the selection of pro-ICNIRP experts in the SCHEER
working group that wrote the opinion report and who also have ties
to industry in terms of research funding [13].
Table 1: Recommended safety limits by various organizations [16].
Year Power Density
(μW/m2)Name Description
1998
10,000,000
9,000,000
4,500,000
ICNIRP [23]
10,000,000 for 2–300 GHz
9,000,000 for 1800 MHz and
4,500,000 for 900 MHz
Whole body exposure averaged over 6 min.
2001 1,000
100,000 Salzburg Resolution [24]
1,000 for the sum total of all pulse modulated high-frequency exposures
100,000 for the total of all
high-frequency irradiation.1
2001 100 EU Parliament STOA 2001 [25] For chronic exposure from pulsed microwaves.1
2002 1 New Salzburg Precautionary Exposure
Limit Indoor [26] Indoor chronic exposure from GSM base stations.1
2012 3-6 Bioinitiative 2012 Recommendation [27] For chronic exposure to pulsed RF.1
2016 0.1-100 EuropaEM EMF Guidelines [28]
For extended exposure at least 4 hours a day to frequencies between GSM 900
to WiFi 5.6 GHz depending on sensitivity, night time or daytime exposure. Peak
maximum values.
2020
10,000,000
9,000,000
4,500,000
ICNIRP 2020 [12]
10,000,000 for >2–300 GHz
9,000,000 for 1800 MHz and
4,500,000 for 900 MHz
Whole body exposure averaged over 30 min.
2020
10,000,000
18,200,000
36,600,000
40,000,000
40,000,000
26,600,000
20,000,000
ICNIRP 2020 [12]
10,000,000 for 400 MHz
18,200,000 for 800 MHz
36,600,000 for 1,800 MHz
40,000,000 for 2 GHz
40,000,000 for 6 GHz:
26,600,000 for 60 GHz:
20,000,000 for 300 GHz:
Local exposure averaged over 6 min.
1 Average or peak maximum values not specied
Place Measured Power Density (μW/m2)1ICNIRP 2020 limits for >2–300 GHz (μW/m2)2
Living room 135,983 10,000,000
Sleeping room 13,668 10,000,000
Table 2: Measured 5G RF radiation levels in an apartment where a man developed severe health problems [5] compared to ICNIRP 2020 limits [12].
1Averaged over 2 minutes
2Averaged over 30 minutes
3
Nyberg R, et al., Annals of Clinical Case Reports - Medicine
Remedy Publications LLC., | http://anncaserep.com/ 2024 | Volume 9 | Article 2572
ICNIRP guidelines are proven inadequate for protection of
human health, the ora and fauna by scientists around the world.
e ICBE-EMF 2022 review by 14 scientists showed that the ICNIRP
limits are based on “invalid assumptions” and that they “continue to
present a public health harm” [11]. 259 Scientists in the EMF Scientists
Appeal (www.emfscientist.org) agree that ICNIRP guidelines do not
protect against known harmful eects and that “numerous recent
scientic publications have shown that EMF aects living organisms
at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Eects
include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free
radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the
reproductive system, learning and memory decits, neurological
disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.
Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing
evidence of harmful eects to both plant and animal life.”
Also, a former member of ICNIRP has recently raised severe
critique on the ICNIRP limits: “there are consistent indications from
epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure
is probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA— as
low as reasonably achievable ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF
health and safety protection.” As low as reasonably achievable,
ALARA is the opposite of the ICNIRP limits which allow extremely
high exposure in comparison to levels shown to cause harmful
effects. In a later paper this former ICNIRP member concluded that
ICNIRP limits “are not applicable to long-term exposure at low
levels. Instead of advances in science, they are predicated on
assumptions using outdated exposure metrics, thus their ability to
protect children, workers, and the public from exposure to the RF
radiation or people with sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation
from wireless devices and systems. Furthermore, the limits are based
on outdated information and circumvent important animal
data.” [14,15].
To understand the extremely insufficient level of “safety” that
the limits recommended by ICNIRP offer, Table 1 is illustrative. It
shows the recommended limit from ICNIRP compared to levels
recommended by other organizations. For example, EUROPAEM
EMF group in 2016 recommended maximum exposure levels between
0.1 μW/m2 to 100 μW/m2 based on available research and knowledge,
while ICNIRP recommends that people without harm would be able
to tolerate 10,000,000 μW/m2 averaged over 6 or 30 minutes.
In one of the case studies on health eects from 5G base station
exposure, levels of radiation were measured with a meter that gave
results averaged over 2 minutes. The case study presented the health
effects on a man 49 years old who was exposed to a new 5G base
station only 20 meters from his apartment [5]. Within a short time
after the deployment of the 5G antennas, the man developed typical
symptoms of the microwave syndrome. Aer a week of 5G exposure
the symptoms were so severe that the man could not stay in his
apartment any more. The levels of RF radiation averaged over 2
minutes were very much lower than the ICNIRP 2020
recommended limits (Table 2).
e SCHEER opinion appears to be a minority opinion that
favors telecommunications industry interests. It is clear that ICNIRP
limits are considered important to the industry. An example of
that is given by an employee within Ericsson who in 2018 stated in
a presentation with the title “Impact of EMF limits on 5G network
roll-out” that 5G roll-out would be dicult or impossible if 100 times
lower limits than ICNIRP’s are applied [17]. Another example is a
promotional brochure advocating for the ICNIRP 2020 limits from
the GSM Association, which is a global organization representing the
interests of telecommunication operators [18].
e majority of scientists in this eld recommend that lower
limits than ICNIRP’s are elaborated and then applied to protect
against all kinds of harmful health and other biological eects. ese
limits must also take into account that people are not equally sensitive
and that there are more sensitive groups within the populations such
as children, fetuses, the elderly and the electrosensitive persons. The
SCHEER report also failed to address the risks with millimeter
waves and the combined exposure effects with 5G and 4G at lower
frequencies.
The Gigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA) for deployment of 5G
millimeter wave technology
e EU Commission has to the EU parliament proposed
a regulation called the Gigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA) which
seems to be intended to facilitate and accelerate deployment of 5G
millimeter technology, also called FR2 [9]. e proposal unilaterally
favors telecom industry and those corporations that provide the
infrastructure technology for 5G FR2, without taking any account of
potential harmful eects on the public health and the environment.
It would pave the way for much denser 5G infrastructure technology
than today, mainly millimeter wave technology (26 GHz and above).
e GIA proposal lacks health and environmental impact
assessments on (a) the cumulative long time RF radiation exposure
from the 5G until now and (b) the total radiation aer planned
deployment of new millimeter wave technology. No studies have
investigated eects on human health or on ora and fauna, neither
from 5G millimeter wave exposure only, nor from the combined real
exposure from 5G at 3.5 GHz and 5G millimeter waves at 26 GHz
and more. In view of the lack of available studies scientists have
recommended that 5G millimeter wave technology is not deployed
as long as the potential health risks have not been investigated [19].
Several expert groups, e.g. ICBE-EMF, Health Council of the
Netherlands and the EU Parliament’s STOA, have concluded that
there are insucient or no studies on health impacts from 5G
millimeter waves [11,19,20]. As mentioned before, to date, only seven
case studies have examined the health impact of real-life exposure to
radiation from 5G antennas deployed at frequencies around 3.5 GHz
[1-7]. All showed rapidly developing adverse health impacts. GIA
millimeter wave additions from much denser networks of antennas
will most likely increase the risks – there are no data that show that
there are no health hazards.
Legal aspects
e consequences of GIA will be deployment of a technology
continually exposing entire populations, against their informed
consent, to a new form of radiation that has never been safety
tested. is is contrary to the consolidated version of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Articles 3 and
168 [21]. ese articles state that the objectives of the EU include
‘a contribution to a high level of health protection’ (article 3) and
that a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the
denition and implementation of all Union policies (article 168). It
seems that both the SCHEER opinion report and the GIA proposal
have overlooked these legal aspects.
A democratic society like EU must ensure that the environment
and humans, especially children, will not be forcibly exposed to new
4
Nyberg R, et al., Annals of Clinical Case Reports - Medicine
Remedy Publications LLC., | http://anncaserep.com/ 2024 | Volume 9 | Article 2572
forms of radiation never experienced in history that has not been
adequately tested to be safe. e burden of proof to demonstrate
absence of serious environmental and health impacts must be placed
on those industries responsible for the exposure, the EU Commission
and its health agencies. It could be argued that the 5G roll-out is
in violation of the Nuremberg code [22]. Although the code is
intended for medical experiments, it could apply also to involuntarily
enforced exposure to 5G since it is untested as to its safety below
or at ICNIRP limits, thus experimental. e most essential aspect
of the code is informed consent which is clearly violated by both
the telecommunications industry and the EU Commission when
proposing to deploy the 5G microwave and millimeter wave
technology exposing people in their own homes, in schools and in
their workplaces without their informed consent.
Another important aspect is that the experiment should be
conducted so that all unnecessary physical and mental suering and
injury are prevented, also clearly ignored by the industry and the
responsible political decision makers at the EU Commission. ere
have been no eorts so far to investigate the health eects that have
been reported from the involuntary exposure to 5G so far. Instead,
injured people have been le without any help and support from
the governments that allowed the involuntary and experimental
exposure.
Concluding remarks
Until now, the EU Commission has - contrary to the EU
Precautionary Principle - not acted to protect European citizens from
the adverse eects of massively increasing electromagnetic radiation
exposure from the 5G roll-out. One major drawback is that EU relies
on its expert group SCHEER with working group members supporting
industry interests. e SCHEER opinion report is clearly biased in
favor of ICNIRP, which in turn is a 14-person self-selecting group
of members supporting telecom industry interests of maintaining
the ICNIRP limits. ereby only heating eects from RF radiation
are admitted as risk factors and all other well proven biological and
health eects caused by non-thermal radiation are rejected.
However, also EU:s own STOA report [20] and most scientific
results [11] up to this day convincingly show that there are harmful
effects both on humans and animals well below the ICNIRP limits.
This means that the ICNIRP limits are not based on an objective
assessment of available science.
Public health and wellbeing must be more important than
economic considerations. The push for 5G seems much to be based
mainly on economic considerations that favor a few very influential
telecommunications interests. e Gigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA)
must be postponed since there is no research that shows the 5G
technology to be safe. On the contrary the few studies available this
far indicate considerable risks to human health and the environment.
To deploy this technology without consideration of health eects
and safety testing would force all European people to be “guinea pigs”
in a massive health experiment which infringes several EU laws and
several paragraphs in the EU Treaty [21].
References
1. Hardell L, Nilsson M. Case report: e microwave syndrome aer
installation of 5G emphasizes the need for protection from radiofrequency
radiation. Ann Case Report. 2023;8:1112.
2. Nilsson M, Hardell L. Development of the microwave syndrome in two
men shortly aer installation of 5G on the roof above their oce. Ann Clin
Case Rep. 2023;8:2378.
3. Hardell L, Nilsson M. Case report: A 52-year healthy woman developed
severe microwave syndrome shortly aer installation of a 5G base station
close to her apartment. Ann Clin Med Case Rep. 2023;10(16):1-10.
4. Nilsson M, Hardell L. 5G Radiofrequency radiation caused the microwave
syndrome in a family living close to the base stations. J Cancer Sci Clin
er. 2023;7:127-34.
5. Nilsson M, Hardell L. A 49-year-old man developed severe microwave
syndrome aer activation of 5G base station 20 meters from his apartment.
J Community Med Public Health 2023;7:382.
6. Nilsson M, Hardell L. Case Report: Both parents and their three children
developed symptoms of the microwave syndrome while on holiday near a
5G tower. Ann Clin Med Case Rep. 2023;12(1):1-7.
7. Hardell L, Nilsson M. A woman aged 82 years with electromagnetic
hypersensitivity since almost four decades developed the microwave
syndrome aer installation of 5G base stations in her living vicinity –
ethical principles in medicine are violated. J Environ Sci Publ Health.
2024;8:01-08.
8. European Commission: Scientic Committee on Health, Environmental
and Emerging Risks SCHEER Opinion on the need of a revision of the
annexes in the Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC and Directive
2013/35/EU, in view of the latest scientic evidence available with regard
to radiofrequency (100kHz–300GHz). Final Opinion April 18, 2023.
9. European Commission: Gigabit Infrastructure Act Proposal and Impact
Assessment. 23 February 2023.
10. Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Eects of non-ionizing electromagnetic
elds on ora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the
environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021;37(1):81-122.
11. International Commission on the Biological Eects of Electromagnetic
Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientic evidence invalidates health assumptions
underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations
for radiofrequency radiation: Implications for 5G. Environ Health.
2022;21(1):92.
12. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic elds (100
kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020;118:483-524.
13. Nilsson M, Frøkjær Jensen V, Eiriksson H. Critique of SCHEER Opinion
Report on Health Risks from Radiofrequency Radiation. A review of the
EU expert group and opinion of April 2023 on the need of a revision of the
maximum exposure limits for radiation from wireless communications,
3rd edition October 2, 2023. e Council for Safe Telecommunications
(Denmark) and e Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation.
14. Lin JC. Carcinogenesis from chronic exposure to radio-frequency
radiation. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1042478.
15. Lin JC. RF Health Safety Limits and Recommendations. IEEE Microwave
Magazine, June 2023.
16. Hardell L, Nilsson M, Koppel T, Carlberg M. Aspects on the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020
guidelines on radiofrequency radiation. J Cancer Sci Clin Ther. 2021;5:250- 83.
17. Törnevik C. Ericsson. Impact of EMF limits on 5G network roll-out. ITU
Workshop on 5G, EMF and Health. Warzaw, December 5, 2017.
18. GSM Association. International EMF Exposure Guidelines. Explaining
the 2020 RF-EMF exposure guidelines published by the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), October
2021.
19. 5G and Health. Executive summary. Health Council of the Netherlands.
September 2, 2020.
20. Belpoggi F. Health impact of 5G. European Parliamentary Research
Service, 2021.
5
Nyberg R, et al., Annals of Clinical Case Reports - Medicine
Remedy Publications LLC., | http://anncaserep.com/ 2024 | Volume 9 | Article 2572
21. Nyberg R, McCredden J, Hardell L. e European Union assessments of
radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack
(Review). Rev Environ Health. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/
reveh-2023-0046
22. Shuster E. Fiy years later: the signicance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl
J Med. 1997;337:1436-40.
23. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric,
magnetic, and electromagnetic elds (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys.
1998;74(4):494-522.
24. Salzburg resolution on mobile telecommunication base stations. Salzburg,
June 7-8, 2000.
25. European Parliament. e physiological and environmental eects of non-
ionising electromagnetic radiation. Final Study. Luxembourg, 2001.
26. Oberfeld G, Navarro AE, Portoles M, Maestu C, Gomez-Perretta C. e
microwave syndrome - further aspects of a Spanish study. 2002.
27. BioInitiative Working Group. Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. BioInitiative
Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for
Electromagnetic Radiation.
28. 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. Rev Environ
Health. 2016;31:363-97.
