I respectfully request that you retract your bungled report on radio frequencies and 5G. It is a misuse of our tax dollars.
Or… if you want to be more specific, ask them to address any of these points:
1) Throughout the document you use the term Radio Frequency energy, or RF, and in the diagram on page 1 you depict radio waves as being “about the size of buildings”. This is extremely misleading as no cell phones, antennas or towers utilize building-sized wavelengths. Instead, the wavelengths of 3G, 4G and 5G range from approximately 20 inches to less than half an inch. Further, your report allegedly is about 5G, which you state uses millimeter waves, which are microwaves. Correct the report by specifying that 5G millimeter waves are, in fact, microwaves and clearly indicate that in your diagram.
2) On page 1, paragraph 3, of the report you state: “A large number of studies performed over the past two decades have not shown a direct health risk from short or long-term exposure to typical amounts of RF energy.” To what studies are you referring? How can you make such a statement without providing a single reference to back it up? On the contrary there are hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing biological effects from radio frequency radiation. Correct the report by including this relevant research.
3) On page 1, last partial paragraph, you claim that: “While a few studies did find a slight connection between health effects and RF energy exposure, particularly cell phone usage, these studies were found to have flawed methods and the results were unable to be repeated.” This is a completely unsubstantiated claim. The most comprehensive cell phone study was conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – National Toxicology Program. The $25 million study, which took ten years to complete and was published in 2018, found “clear evidence” of heart and brain cancers due to cellphone radiation. In Italy, the Ramazzini Institute replicated the study and found similar results. Correct the report by including these extremely important and directly relevant studies.
4) On page 2, first full paragraph, you state “there is no evidence to suspect 5G networks will produce different health effects” than 2G, 3G or 4G, and again on page 2, last full paragraph, you state that the increased radiation exposure from the proliferation of 5G cell antennas “is not expected to cause direct health effects”. There is zero evidence to support these statements, and you provide none. On the contrary, an emerging body of research on 5G and millimeter waves suggests significant tissue heating which may lead to permanent tissue damage even after short exposures. Evidence of other effects includes damage to the eyes, skin, and sperm, immune system and metabolic disruption, as well as environmental risks such as the collapse of insect and bird populations, and damage to plants and trees. Research also shows 5G contributes to climate change by using extreme amounts of energy. Correct the report by including this research.
5) On page 2, second full paragraph, you cite thermal effects testing as evidence of cell phone safety, yet thermal effects testing is completely outdated. It was implemented back in 1996, when cell phones were barely used, and is done on a plastic liquid filled test-dummy head, a Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), that resembles the head a six-foot-two, 200 pound elite military recruit. The phone is half an inch away from the plastic head for a maximum of six minutes. None of us resemble SAM, nor do we use cell phones in this manner. More recent biologically based modeling of cell phone radiation brain absorption has been done, and it shows penetration of about two inches for adults and much deeper into the brains of children. Correct the report by including this more up-to-date research. Further, a substantial peer reviewed research base shows children are much more susceptible to cell phone radiation. Correct the report by including this research.
6) On page 2, fourth full paragraph, in stating that the IARC designated RF energy as possibly carcinogenic, Group 2B, you go on to say: “Other frequently used products in this same category include coffee and talcum powder.” This is false. Your choices show a clear industry bias. Neither coffee or talcum power are in Group 2B. Products in 2B include lead, carbon monoxide and jet fuel. Since your stated “mission is to protect human health and the environment” why would you falsely include common household products like coffee and talcum powder and omit actual Group 2B items such as lead, carbon monoxide, and jet fuel which are known to be hazardous, not only to human health, but also to the environment? Correct the report by correcting the false information.
Download and grab from all 15 rebuttal points here: