The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20221700.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET CASE USR22-0011 - GEORGE J. LEIS FAMILY TRUST, C/O DOROTHY LEIS AND SHARON R. WOLEVER TRUST, C/O INDUSTRIAL TOWER WEST, LLC Tyler Exhibit Submitted By Page # Description Planning A. Commission Resolution of Recommendation Planning B. Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 6/7/2022) C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation Email with information regarding health Applicant effects associated with cell towers D. (Received 06/20/2022) Marcia and Linda Letter in opposition with information regarding health Craig, Surrounding effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation E. Property Owners (Received 06/20/2022) F. G. H. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. 2022-1700 • CASE NUMBER: USR22-0011 • APPLICANT: EXHIBIT C GEORGE J. LEIS FAMILY TRUST AND SHARON R. WOLEVER C/O INDUSTRIAL TOWER WEST, LLC. • PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN • REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWER (330 -FOOT TALL GUYED ANTENN WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT. • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 OF SECTION 25, T9N, R57W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. • LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 102; WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO STATE HIGHWAY 71. - _ 4i l• .-r fil "Peter .9 • f wi Co x+ '' LLD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION� s15n stif•pt crileiey CO, SZ163 t Is a W+iuwM_ PAM 1M al - %%Aka Sea . awaiw t its a Ittibi& rho* arid AMBP104 *sal, man* ; i att naltans II URA ils. Aphowaiss rings ass or MS A .arAirmiti w ' mar nit M. en Ir R.11Y . I* Neat WELD Ca4N-rY ADIJINISTRATO1 auLcri a mot' ' ant • G w i r, Oil Kat; Corsto Hero ed op mg >Of 1 XII s ---edriti - fir X71 Can rf orwntrially so I vat. '01 4411414414 IZ si2 i :1 Ati 4 acci dor area J LC'S -Fmk's". thecr s assinsi L LA .1/21 ft INKY Pe sem Mit? tdelas :- . r Vii. 'sat ii : :iris' ty it: _.: 1 TAM :✓ ang ocall mss., taml r4 S t -t- -16) Fri l:.: mem, uThwat. 0 rot 35501 intrinine too wan 40010•Sareliejtir ri4� !, J -lair, tells r'r' ..4 -as i c fir,.,.. a""llemserre •- i a I. 'i t 1 !r , e, lip r ; . . !, ...INA i ill .ar....,2+-•'.n-![�-„'.-�r.nr;•ns;�: a-ret, •v" vt P !s:!'.S..,.'1 EXISTING cr\oWE�R Wu:Rail. a 1 l L I � - � _1PROPn5EC? TOWER LOCATIO USE BY; SPECIAL REVIEW, 5 21:4:7E- -41 COUNTY ROAD 77B GEORCS ! r^e PI7�Y 78UST DAT80 98Pf81lHSR ,1 2002 786 SBARON R I701JS96R 7'RUS7' rAr� nacau66R ,7r 11, IN THE E1/2 OF SECTION 25, T9N, R57W % x..{ OF THE 6TH P M , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO tout. t = goo u s tumnr r¢r ,00 tw o too pm SGtE Ix 20 T 9 N 1012112 �x— exr � �w�vraals� w —___ .0 GDay.e MV �O u — wWp.4Elm �wNfx`v MOCb. .xpga".. ASS6StG177rx.ffisF �'B�C � Wpl"`��Vm�` �`•!fN`�tt ¢�. wo �'mK.sr`ol.�itwF o"[q1 �u JET tal'aVV7,;: neE,7141.;;;;;;;;;;;;407..... 714,.....'r..arwmna.;; �eA'notl Nwac n PIAMMNOOpxallYiIOMCEmIFle�lgtl tnx wiw Nnuwumasw.m.Eisa. GW xnnIBnnHMvotLV WLVI CGAtp 01 COpxl'. cGxkpalOMEd C®FlGtlpy 891EA cmNnuun.wwn w. N+an uxamwra4�rwa.uxww�v4 tlG➢LL •cmu.iorocawrmvnw..wr�wxu .`�"w"arr 7-w.o 1 LB1BSKf-MoA788 A ASSOCIA784 INC P 0 poi{ t,7 Ltt SOpiN 1 04 �v S SIEfRNp CO 80151 pJp-t71-1040 USE BY SPECIAL -REVIEW, IN THE E1/2 OF SECTION 25, T9N, R57W OF THE 6TH P M , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 5 � lao us surt+Ev lar loo w o Ioa 7no wo SOILS TART F 505 1,1,2 y') J `1 k t, 1000 i COUNTY ROAO 102 VICINITY MAP swE. � . Joao a x r y 9 30 N „th r ,„ soo o Iona xaW woo SC,LLF IN FEET �---i pSe&t* G �, . fnl `� . b. Win• rEleeerr-uanrse x Assocures we ao eoM ..z 61! SWIM Tpll11 IxENUE •IFIU➢10 CO eO�SI 9)0 -p1] -19W I01L s �K n� Y.y"mF� 1 •• K 'twrraa.a ,. ` a e ri h-F,...I J. •rl•, � ,,: �` „1/4. v Lam^' .s.;* 4 : •.4 ger • ♦ 1 • .. t +sue r. • • • !�'"r ilfirr� ,.wit . • • , ='i, h�� v: of^- of `'f`r L'�-" •. I' �. t�1� Yom,-� ��. ,�y. - k •y 1t x t StA 0 r. Jl RSY ws T - ` Kt.yv.a 3.• ebr.�j+.' cy�..'.c'•��-.---414"ii‘oi4lie,- (-7 inoase.„0„... l -.;.;-`.Y�l6JSIM.,�r=F: i . Y fS • 1 • a w • • Is~ g'..- de ..L.•.._.. .......t .''..._ w.m.% -- �c•.arti a tit 'tee einearaliern i f ageiw f urg ii",„ • ve, 4 Cssoernira . . � - ure as 'Jr • i letarer SO Wen C O1/404 ry .di relaitt 5 Ili Ai IC* 1114.10-000:6 51 SO OP tlikc whirl • Gata4411, CO VOW ear . sue,' erwse 7 P a *14 ■ a `` OP" doili .1 Jan Warwick From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Chris Gathman Monday, June 20, 2022 9:05 AM Jessica Reid Esther Gesick; Jan Warwick; Chloe White FW: [EXTERNAL] Property Owner Exhibits submitted at the Weld County Planning Commission hearing for the Tower - Items/exhibits for USR22-0011 HEARING American Cancer & Cell towers.pdf; American Cancer & Cellular Phone Towers.pdf; 5G and Mobil health studies Austrila 4.19.2021.pdf; FCC Radio Frequency Safety.pdf; Stoneham North sites locations and composits.pdf Importance: High Items for Wednesday's Hearing. Thanks, Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services cgathman@weldgov.com 970-400-3537 From: Rick D. Bailey <Rick.Bailey@induswest.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:35 AM To: Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Property Owner Exhibits submitted at the Weld County Planning Commission hearing for the Tower Caution, This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chris, Thank you for the info. I have attached a brief summary explaining the location chosen as well as other locations evaluated along this route. In regards to the RF and any health effects associated with cell towers find below a link that I have found to be helpful from another source than our US Government as well as some attachments for review. Helpful link http://www.emfexplained.info/ We would like to submit as additional information to the application and hearing on Wednesday. Do I need to bring physical documents? H Rick Bailey Site Acquisition Specialist I Industrial Tower West LLC Mobile: 970.768.6464 1224 W Platte Ave Fort Morgan, CO 80701 rick.bailey@induswest.com . ,{. ; - 4 k r_pp! rnaysawi rower West This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. From: Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 3:43 PM To: Rick D. Bailey <Rick.Bailey@induswest.com>; Rick D. Bailey <Rick.Bailey@induswest.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Property Owner Exhibits submitted at the Weld County Planning Commission hearing for the Tower CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Viaero Organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Rick, Attached is the information that was submitted at the Planning Commission Hearing. Like with the PC — I can see the Board of County Commissioners asking about efforts to look at other sites for new towers or collocating. Particularly when it comes to the nearest Verizon tower to the north near CR 112. Have a good weekend! Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services cgathman@weldgov.com 970-400-3537 2 Current cond erg: NEW NDOR ROW land owned by Brother & Sister 10' wide & 10' deep 22 Town: 4 Rng:33VI1 �- Current conduit end Cellular Phone Towers haps://www.cancer.org/eancer/eancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... Cellular Phone Towers Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but since then their use has increased dramatically. The widespread use of cell phones has led to cell phone towers being placed in many communities. These towers, also called base stations, have electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit radiofrequency (RF) signals. How do cellular phone towers work? Cell phone base stations may be free-standing towers or mounted on existing structures, such as trees, water tanks, or tall buildings. The antennas need to be high enough to adequately cover the area. Base stations are usually from 50-200 feet high. Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers mainly through radiofrequency (RF) waves, a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, they are forms of non -ionizing radiation. This means they do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light are thought to be able to cause cancer. At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy used by cell phones and towers are much lower. When a person makes a cell phone call, a signal is sent from the phone's antenna to the nearest base station antenna. The base station responds to this signal by assigning it an available radiofrequency channel. RF waves transfer the voice information to the base station. The voice signals are then sent to a switching center, which transfers the call to its destination. Voice signals are then relayed back and forth during the call. By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies 1 of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Cellular Phone Towers haps://www.cancer.org/eancer/eancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower. When a cellular antenna is mounted on a roof, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited. The level of RF energy inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside, depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about 10. The energy level behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits. Do cellular phone towers cause cancer? Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer. First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer. A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body. Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low — well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. Studies in people By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies 2 of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Cellular Phone Towers haps://www.cancer.org/eancer/eancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... didn't. The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower is typically many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. About 30 studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research. For more information, see Cellular Phones. Studies done in the lab Laboratory studies have looked at whether the types of RF waves used in cell phone communication can cause DNA damage. Most of these studies have supported the idea that the RF waves given off by cell phones and towers don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it's not clear how cell phones and towers might be able to cause cancer, but research in this area continues. Some scientists have reported that RF waves may produce other effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, these studies have not been verified, and these effects weren't seen in a study that looked at the blood cells from people living near a cellular phone tower. Several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer -causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion, but this is still an area of research. A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. But some aspects of this study make it hard to know just how these results might apply to RF exposure from cell phone towers in people. For example, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The doses of RF radiation in the study were also generally higher than those people are exposed to when using cell phones (much less being near a cell phone tower). The male rats in the study exposed to RF waves also lived longer, on average, than the rats who were not exposed, for unclear reasons. Still, the results add evidence to the idea that the signals used in cell phone communication might potentially impact human health. What expert agencies say A hn• n+ "nil mhnmn tnurnre. By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies 3 of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Cellular Phone Towers haps://www.cancer.org/eancer/eancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) IARC also noted that exposure to the brain from RF fields from cell phone base stations (mounted on roofs or towers) is less than 1/1001h the exposure to the brain from mobile devices such as cell phones. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states: "At very high levels, RF energy is dangerous. It can heat the body's tissues rapidly. However, such high levels are found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters. Cellphones and wireless networks produce RF, but not at levels that cause significant heating. In addition, RF energy decreases quickly over distance. At ground level, exposure to RF from sources like cellphone towers is usually very low. Some people are concerned about potential health effects, especially on the developing brains and bodies of children. Some studies suggest that heavy long-term use of cellphones could have health effects. Other studies don't find any health effects from cellphone use. Long-term studies on animals exposed to the RF found in wireless networks (Wi-Fi) have, so far, found no health effects. Scientists continue to study the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF." Can I limit my exposure? Cell phone towers are not known to cause any health effects. But if you are concerned about possible exposure from a cell phone tower near your home or office, you can ask a government agency or private firm to measure the RF field strength near the tower (where a person could be exposed) to ensure that it is within the acceptable range. What should I do if I've been exposed to cellular phone towers? There is no test to measure whether you have been exposed to RF radiation from cellular phone towers. But as noted above, most researchers and regulatory authorities do not believe that cell phone towers pose health risks under ordinary conditions. If you have additional health concerns, you might want to talk with your doctor. By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies 4 of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Cellular Phone Towers hops://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... Along with the American Cancer Society, other sources of information and support include: Environmental Protection Agency Home page: www.epa.gov Understanding radiation: www.epa.gov/radiation/understanding-radiation-overview.html Federal Communications Commission RF Safety Program, Office of Engineering and Technology Website: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety Food and Drug Administration Home page: www.fda.gov Radiation -emitting products: Cell phones: www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts /RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/Cell Phones /default.htm National Cancer Institute Toll -free number: 1-800-422-6237 (1 -800 -4 -CANCER) Home page: www.cancer.gov Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: www.cancer.govlcancertopics/factsheet /Risk/cellphones National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Home page: www.niehs.nih.gov Electric and magnetic fields: www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm World Health Organization Electromagnetic fields and public health: base stations and wireless technologies Website: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html " inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement by the American Cancer Society Resources By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies 5 of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Cellular Phone Towers hops://www.cancer.org/eancer/eancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... ANSI -C95.1, 1982, American National Standards Institute. American national standard safety levels with respect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 300 kHz to 100 Ghz. New York: IEEE. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Ju1;12(7):624-626. Elliott P, Toledano MB, Bennett J, et al. Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case -control study. BMJ. 2010;340:c3077. [Epub] Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology. Radio Frequency Safety. 6/25/2012. Accessed at www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-fags.html on January 16, 2013. IEEE -C95.1, 1991, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 Ghz. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Human exposure to RF emissions from cellular radio base station antennas; Washington, DC: 1992. ICNIRP: International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Issues related to the use of hand-held radiotelephones and base transmitters. Health Physics. 1996;70:587-593. IRPA, 1988, International Radiation Protection Association. Guidelines on limits of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. IEEE United States Activities, COMAR, Washington, DC. Li CY, Liu CC, Chang YH, Chou LP, Ko MC. A population -based case -control study of radiofrequency exposure in relation to childhood neoplasm. Sci Total Environ. 2012 Oct 1;435-436:472-478. NCRP, 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection. Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Report 86, (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) pp. 1-382. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies. 2018. Accessed at https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials /cell _phone _radiofrequency _ radiation_ studies_508.pdf on November 2, 2018 Repacholi M, van Deventer E, Ravazzani P, eds. Base stations and wireless networks: exposures and health consequences. World Health Organization. Accessed at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595612_eng.pdf?ua=1 on November 11, By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies fi of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Cellular Phone Towers haps://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular... Last Medical Review: December 2, 2014 Last Revised: November 5, 2018 American Cancer Society medical information is copyrighted material. For reprint requests, please see our Content Usage Policy. By continuing to browse this site, you are accepting our terms of use, including the use of cookies. To read and understand our Terms of Use and our use of cookies BEFORE you use our site, please review: Terms of Use > View Cookies J Accept Terms & Cookies 7 of 7 3/13/2020, 12:19 PM Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00297-6 REVIEW 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz Ken Karipidis0' • Rohan Mate' • David Urban' • Rick Tinker' • Andrew Wood2 Received: 30 July 2020 / Revised: 23 December 2020 / Accepted: 21 January 2021 © Crown 2021. This article is published with open access Abstract The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) Gelds above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection (1CN1RP). This slate -of -the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF Gelds above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the 1CN1RP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffecls including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffecls were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF Gelds above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimelry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications. Keywords Radiation • Disease • Epidemiology • Health studies Introduction There are continually emerging technologies that use radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields particularly in telecommunications. Most telecommunication sources cur- rently operate at frequencies below 6 GHz, including radio and TV broadcasting and wireless sources such as local area networks and mobile telephony. With the increasing demand for higher data rates, better quality of service and lower latency to users, future wireless telecommunication sources are planned to operate at frequencies above 6 GHz and into Q Ken Karipidis ken.karipidis@arpansa.gov.au Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technolofnr, Melbourne, VIC, Australia the `millimetre wave' range (30-300 GHz) [ 1 [. Frequencies above 6 GHz have been in use for many years in various applications such as radar, microwave links, airport security screening and in medicine for therapeutic applications. However, the planned use of millimetre waves by future wireless telecommunications, particularly the 5th generation (5 G) of mobile networks, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. The interaction mechanisms of RF Gelds with the human body have been extensively described and tissue heating is the main effect for RF fields above 100 kHz (e.g. HPA; SCENHIR) [2, 31. RF fields become less penetrating into body tissue with increasing frequency and for frequencies above 6 GHz the depth of penetration is relatively short with surface healing being the predominant effect [4[. International exposure guidelines for RF Gelds have been developed on the basis of current scientific knowledge to ensure that RF exposure is not harmful to human health [5, 6[. The guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection Published online: 16 March 2021 SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. (1CN1RP) in particular form the basis for regulations in the majority of countries worldwide [7[. In the frequency range above 6 GHz and up to 300 GHz the 1CN1RP guidelines prevent excessive healing at the surface of the skin and in the eye. Although not as extensively studied as RF Gelds at lower frequencies, a number of studies have investigated the effects of RF fields at frequencies above 6 GHz. Previous reviews have reported studies investigating frequencies above 6 GHz that show effects although many of the reported effects occurred at levels greater than the 1CN1RP guidelines 11, 8[. Given the public concern over the planned roll -out of 5 G using millimetre waves, it is important to determine whether there are any related adverse health consequences at levels encountered in the environment. The aim of this paper is to present a state -of -the -science review of the bioeffects research into RF fields above 6 GHz at low levels of exposure (exposure below the occupational limits of the 1CN1RP guidelines). A meta -analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies, providing quantitative effect estimates for each study, is presented separately in a companion paper [9[. Methods The stale -of -the -science review included a comprehensive search of all available literature and examined the extent, range and nature of evidence into the bioeffects of RF Gelds above 6 GHz, at levels below the 1CN1RP occupational limits. The review consisted of biomedical studies on low- level RF electromagnetic fields from 6 GHz to 300 GHz published at any starting date up to December 2019. Studies were initially found by searching the databases PubMed, EMF-Portal, Google Scholar, Embase and Web of Science using the search terms "millimeter wave", "millimetre wave", "gigaheriz", "GHz" and "radar". We further sear- ched major reviews published by health authorities on RF and health [2, 3, 10, 111. Finally, we searched the reference list of all the studies included. Studies were only included if the full paper was available in English. Although over 300 studies were considered, this review was limited to experimental studies (in vitro, in vivo, human) where the staled RF exposure level was at or below the occupational whole -body limits specified by the 1CN1RP (2020) guidelines: power density (PD) reference level of 50 W/m2 or specific absorption rate (SAR) basic restriction of 0.4 W/kg. Since the PD occupational limits for local exposure are more relevant to in vitro studies, and since these limits are higher, we have included those studies with PD up to 100-200 W/mz, depending on frequency. The review included studies below the 1CN1RP general public limits that are lower than the occupational limits. The review also included epidemiological studies (cohort, case -control, cross-sectional) investigating expo- sure to radar but excluded studies where the staled radar frequencies were below 6 GHz. Epidemiological studies on radar were included as they represent occupational exposure below the 1CN1RP guidelines. Case reports or case series were excluded. Studies investigating therapeutical outcomes were also excluded unless they reported specific bio-effects. The state -of -the -science review appraised the quality of the included studies, but unlike a systematic review it did not exclude any studies based on quality. The review also identified gaps in knowledge for future investigation and research. The reporting of results in this paper is narrative with tabular accompaniment showing study characteristics. In this paper, the acronym "MMWs" (or millimetre waves) is used to denote RF fields above 6 GHz. Results The review included 107 experimental studies (91 in vitro, 15 in vivo, and 1 human) that investigated various bioef- fects, including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. The exposure characteristics and biological system investigated in experimental studies for the various bioef- fecls are shown in Tables 1-6. The results of the meta - analysis of the in vitro and in vivo studies are presented separately in Wood et al. [9[. Genotoxicity Studies have examined the effects of exposing whole human or mouse blood samples or lymphocytes and leu- cocyles to low-level MMWs to determine possible geno- toxicity. Some of the genotoxicity studies have looked at the possible effects of MMWs on chromosome aberrations [ 12-141. Al exposure levels below the 1CN1RP limits, the results have been inconsistent, with either a statistically significant increase [ 14[ or no significant increase [ 12, 131 in chromosome aberrations. MMWs do not penetrate past the skin therefore epithelial and skin cells have been a common model of examination for possible genoloxic effects. DNA damage in a number of epithelial and skin cell types and at varied exposure para- meters both below and above the 1CN1RP limits have been examined using comet assays [15-19[. Despite the varied exposure models and methods used, no statistically sig- nificant evidence of DNA damage was identified in these studies. Evidence of genoloxic damage was further assessed in skin cells by the occurrence of micro -nucleation. De Amicis et al. [ 18 [ and Franchini et al. [ 19 [ reported a sta- tistically significant increase in micro -nucleation, however, SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... Table 1 Experimental studies investigating law -level RF fields above 6 GHz and genataxieity. Reference Biological system Frequency range Intensity Exposure duration Results Qual ity [261 Gnuz.ier et al. Bacteria & Yeast 9 GHz. 0.5 to 16 W/kg 20 min [181 De Amicis et al. Cells in culture 100-150 GHz 4W/m'` [191 Franchini et al. Cells in culture 25 GHz. 8 W/m'` [321 Gapeyev et al. Cells in culture 42 GHz 1 W/mz [331 Gapeyev and Cells in culture 42 GHz 1 W/mz Lukyanova [121 Garaj-Vrhovac et al. Cells in culture 7 GHz 5-300 W/mz [131 Garaj-Vrhovac et al. Cells in culture 7 GHz. 5-300 W/ma [301 Hintzsche et al. Cells in culture 106 GHz. [151 Hintzsche et al. Cells in culture 106 GHz [291 Kalantaryan et al. Miscellaneous 65 GHz [241 Kesari and Behari In vivo 50 GHz. 114) Korenstein-Ilan et al. Cells in culture 100 GHz. [161 Koyama et al. [171 Koyama et al. [251 Kumar et al. [281 Lukashevsky and Bel yaev [231 Paulraj and Behari In vivo Cells in culture 60 GHz. Cells in culture 45 GHz. 0.43-43 W/ma 5 h 0.4-20 W/m2 2-24 h 0.5 Wlm2 0.(1086 W/m'` 2 h/day for 45 days 0.31 W/mz 10 W/ma 10 W/ma In vivo 10 and 50 GHz. 2.1 W/m` Bacteria & Yeast 69-71 GHz Up to 5 W/ma 30 min 16.5 GHz. 10 W/m'` [201 Shckorbatov et al. Cells in culture 42 GHz. 2 W/mz [211 Shckorbatov et al. Cells in culture 35 GHz. 0.3 W/m` 10s [221 Shckorbatov et al. Cells in culture 36 GHz [271 Smolyanskaya and Bacteria & Yeast 45-46 GHz Vilenskaya [311 Zeni et al. Cells in culture 120-130GHz 0.01-1 W/m2 1—los 0.1-10 W/m'` 0.5-2 h 0.5-23 W/m2 20 min No change in ROS production at low exposure levels. SAR above the limit Up to 24 h No DNA damage but an increased occurrence of micro -nucleation. SAR above limit Up to 24 h No DNA damage but an increased occurrence of micro -nucleation. SAR above limit 20 min MMW pre -exposure reduced DNA damage after x-ray exposure to leucocytes 20 min MMW pre -exposure reduced DNA damage after x-ray exposure to leucocytes 10-60 min No statistically significant increase in chromosome aberrations 10-60 min No statistically significant increase in chromosome aberrations Increase in spindle disturbances, but no indication of structural chromosome aberrations No DNA strand breaks or chromosome damage. SAR above limit L(p to 120 min Changes in DNA strand separation during artificial synthesis Increase in DNA double -strand breaks and a decrease in the levels of Protein kinase C 1-24 h Chromosomal changes and asynchronous centromeres replications. SAR above limit 24h No increase in DNA strand breaks or heat shock protein expression 24h No increase in mironucleation, DNA strand breaks or heat shock protein expression 2h/day for Increase in ROS and increases and 45 days decreases in enzymes that control the build- up of ROS Increase in indicators of DNA damage. SAR above limit 2 h/day for Increase in indicators of DNA damage. 35 days SAR above limit 1-60 s Decreased nuclei electrical charge and increased chromatin condensation in the nuclei Increase in chromatin condensation as indicated by an increase in heterochromatin granule quantity Increase in chromatin condensation as indicated by an increase in heterochromatin granule quantity. SAR above limit Increase in indicator of DNA damage No indication of DNA damage or changes in cell cycle kinetics. SAR above limit No blinding Inadequate dosimeuy and no blinding No blinding Poor temperature control Poor temperature control Inadequate dosimetry and no blinding Inadequate dosimeuy and no blinding Well designed Inadequate temperature and sham control Poor dosimeuy and temperature control Low animal numbers (6 exposed) No blinding Well designed No blinding Low animal numbers (6 exposed) and no blinding Inadequate dosimeuy and temperature control Low animal numbers (6 exposed) and no blinding No blinding, sham control not described Inadequate dosimeuy and temperature control Inadequate dosimeuy and temperature control Statistical methods and dosimeuy were not described Inadequate temperature control Hintzsche et al. [ 1 S [ and Koyama el al. [ 16, 17 [ did not find an effect. Two of the studies also examined telomere length and found no statistically significant difference between exposed and unexposed cells [15, 19[. Last, a Ukrainian research group examined different. skin cell types in three studies and reported an increase in chromosome con- densation in the nucleus [20-22[; these results have not been independently verified. Overall, there was no con- firmed evidence of MMWs causing genotoxic damage in epithelial and skin cells. Three studies from an Indian research group have examined indicators of DNA damage and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in rats exposed in vivo to MMWs. The studies reported DNA strand breaks based on evidence from comet assays [23, 24[ and changes in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS [24]. Kumar el al. also reported an increase in ROS production [25[. All the studies from this research group had low animal numbers (six animals exposed) and their results have not been independently replicated. An in vitro study (hal investigated ROS produc- tion in yeast cultures reported an increase in free radicals exposed to high-level bul nol low-level MMWs [26]. Other studies have looked at the effect of low-level MMWs on DNA in a range of different ways. Two studies SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. Table 2 Experimental studies investigating low-level RF fields above 5 GHz and cell proliferation. ReferenceBiological system Frequency range Intensity Exposure duration Results Quality [:76] Badzhinyan et al. [51] Beneduci et al. [:73] Beneduci et al. [54] Beneduci et al. [:73] Beneduci [50] Chidichimo et al. [36] Cohen et al. Cells in culture 4090GIL OS 1000W/m2 6min Cells in culture 53 76GIIz Cells in culture 53 76 GIL Cells in culture 53 76GIIz Cells in culture 42 54 GI Iz Cells in culture 53 76GIIz Bacteria A. Yeast 99 GI lz 1µW, 44 46 mw` 0.0007 Wlm2 0.01 Wlm2 1.1 3.7 Wlmz 7x10 4 w7m2 2 Wlmz 13 h/day for 5 10 days 1 3 h/day for 10 days I h/day for 4 days I h/day for 4 days 1 h/day I'or 12 days I 19h [46] Furia e[ al. Bacteria A. Yeast 42 Gl1z Up to 0.[16 W Up to 4 h [49] Gos e[ al. Bacteria A. yeast 40 43 GIIz [1.005 05 Wlm2 2 and 5.5h [47] Grundler and Bacteria & Yeast 42GIlz 40 m Keilmann [46] Grundler and Bacteria A. Yeast 42 Gl1z 1 26 W/m2 Keilmann [45] Ilovnanyan et al. Bacteria d'r Yeast 51 53 GIL 0.6 VV/m2 [37] Pakhomova et al. Bacteria A. Yeast 61 62GIIz 13 Wlm2 [36] Rojavin and Ziskin Bacteria d'r Yeast 61 GIL [57] Shiina et al. Neural activity 60 GIL [44] Soghomonyan and Bacteria d'r Yeast 51 53 GIL Trchounian NS Up to 12 h Up to 2 h 30 min 10 Wlm' Cp Lo 'I h 10 24h 0.6 Wlm� [39] Tadevosyan et al. Bacteria d'r Yeast 51 53 GIL 0.6 VV/m2 Bacteria A. Yeast 70 73 GIIz 0.6 Wlm2 [40] Torgomyan and Trchounian [41] Torgomyan et al. [42] Torgomyan et al. [43] Torgomyan et al. [34] Webb and Booth [35] Webb and Dodds [55] Yaekashiwa et al, Bacteria d'r Yeast Bacteria A. Yeast Bacteria d'r Yeast Bacteria d'r Yeast Bacteria A. Yeast Cells in culture 70 73 GIL 51 73GIIz 51 53 GIIz 65 75 GI Iz NS 136 GI Iz 70 300Gl1z 0.6 W/m2 0.6 Vis/m2 0.6 W/m2 7x106W No change in cell survival at exposure levels below the limits Reduced cancer cell proliferation and changes in cell morphology Reduced canal -cell proliferation and changes in cell morphology. Reduction in viable cancer cells and changes in cell structural morphology No evidence of anti -proliferation effects in exposed cancer cells Unclear results due to the in text results not matching supporting conclusions No statistically significant changes in cell proliferation or survival. SAR above limit No change in cell proliferation or viability No changes in cell proliferation Enhanced and inhibited rates of cell proliferation Enhanced and inhibited rates of cell proliferation Increase in cell diameter and inhibition of cell growth MMW pre -exposure did not change cell survival or alter the frequency of mutations. SAR above limit Increase in cell survival if MMW exposure occurred after CVC exposure. No effect of MMW exposure alone. SAR above limit No change in neurfte outgrowth 'I h Changes in ion transport across the membrane and an inhibitory effect on bacteria proliferation and survival Up to 'I h Cptolh Up to 2 h I Ih NS Up to 4 h Up to 3 94h [1.[1127 W!m' Changes in ion transport across the membrane and an inhibitory effect on bacteria proliferation Inhibition of proliferation and changes in membrane proteins Effect on bacterial growth and surrounding water medium Enhanced inhibitory effect of antibiotics on bacterial proliferation. Changes in ion transport Changes in the bacterial proliferation and survival. Changes in ion transport Inhibition and stimulation of bacterial growth at specific frequencies Inhibition and stimulation of bacterial growth at specific frequencies No change in proliferation, aril activity or cyfr roxici[y Inadequate dosimetry and temperature condo] Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control Inadequate dosimetry and temperature condo] Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control Inadequate dosimetry and poor temperature control Poor temperature ointrol and no blinding No blinding No blinding Inadequate sham control and no blinding Inadequate dosimetry, statistical analysis not described Inadequate sham control and no blinding Inadequate dosimetry and temperature con dot Inadequate temperature control No blinding No blinding Inadequate dosimetry and no blinding Inadequate dosimetry and temperature con dot Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control Inadequate dosimetry and temperature con dot Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control Inadequate dosimetry and temperature control No details on dosimetry and no blinding No details on dosimetry and no blinding No blinding NS Not stated in the study. reported that MMWs induce colicin synthesis and prophage induction in bacterial cells, both of which are suggested as indicative of DNA damage [27, 28[. Another study sug- gested that DNA exposed to MMWs undergoes polymerise chain reaction synthesis differently than unexposed DNA [29[, although no statistical analysis was presented. Hintzsche et al. reported statistically significant occurrence of spindle disturbance in hybrid cells exposed to MMWs [30[. Zeni et al. found no evidence of DNA damage or alteration of cell cycle kinetics in blood cells exposed to MMWs [311. Last, two studies from a Russian research group examined the protective effects of MMWs where mouse blood leukocytes were pre -exposed to low-level MMWs and then to X-rays [32, 33[. The studies reported that there was statistically significant less DNA damage in the leucocytes that were pre -exposed to MMWs than those exposed to X-rays alone. Overall, these studies had no independent replication. Cell proliferation A number of studies have examined the effects of low- level MMWs on cell proliferation and they have used a variety of cellular models and methods of investigation. Studies have exposed bacterial cells to low-level MMWs alone or in conjunction with other agents. Two early studies reported changes in the growth rate of E. coli cultures exposed to low-level MMWs; however, both of SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... Table 3 Experimental studies investigating law -level RF fields above 6 GHz and gene expression. Reference Biological system Frequency range In Lensily Exposure duration Results Quali Ly [64] Belyaev el. al. BacLelia d'r Yeast 41 52 GI Iz [65] Belyaev el al. Bacteria A Yeast 52 GIL [66] Belyaev el. al. BacLelia d'r Yeast 41 52 GI Iz [67] Belyaev el al. Baceria A. Yeast 41 52 GIIz [68] Belyaev el. al. Bacteria d'r Yeast 41 S2 GI Iz [69] Belyaev el al. Baceria A. Yeast 41 52 GIIz [71] Belyaev and Cells in culture 41 GIL Kravchenko [72] Belyaev el al. Baceria A. Yeast 41 52 GIIz [72] Belyaev el al. [76] Bush ei al. [75] Gandhi et al. [58] Le Quemeni el al. Cells in cuhure 60 GIL [62] Nicolaz et al. Cells in culWre 60 GIL [63] Nicolaz ei al. Cells in culWre 59 61 GIN [73] Shcheglov ei al. Bacteria d'r Yeast Sl GIL 0.01 1 Wlm' I W!m' 0.01 3 Wlm2 0.1 1 W/m2 WI' 10 ° Wlm2 0:1 1 w/.2 10 1 wlm2 wrm2 5 10 min 5 10 min 30 min 5 10 min '10 min 5 min -10 min 10 50 min Bacteria d'r Yeast S2GIL 10 iy 0.003 Wlm2 '10 min Cells in culWre 38 75 GIN Cp io 5840 W/m2 li min Baceria A. Yeast 265 90.0G11z Cp io 3000 W/m2 Cp Lo s 18 Wlm2 1.4 W/m1 6.9 1.4W/m' Cp Lo 107W/m2 [74] Shcheglov ei al. Bacteria d'r Yeast 52 GIL 10 � ° 10 Wlm' [:79] Zhadobov el. al. Cells in culWre 60 GIL [60] Zhadobov ei al. Cells in culWre 60 GIL [61] Zhadobov ei al. Cells in culWre 60 GIL 2.7 Wlm' 0.054 5.4 W/m2 10 W /m' 1 24 h 24 72 h 24 h. '10 min Cp Lo 10 min 1 33 h I _3h 24 h Frequency dependant changes in DNA aml'ormation based on AVTD method and changes in DNA repair Frequency dependant changes in DNA ounl'ormalion based on AVTD method and changes in DNA repair Frequency dependant changes in DNA aml'ormation based on AVTD method and changes in DNA repair Frequency dependant changes in DNA ounl'ormalion based on AVTD method and changes in DNA repair Frequency dependant changes in DNA aml'ormation based on AVTD method and changes in DNA repair Frequency dependant changes in DNA ounl'ormalion based on AVTD method and suppression of DNA repair Frequency dependant changes in DNA ounl'ormalion based on AVTD method. SAR above limit Frequency dependant changes in DNA ounl'ormalion based on AVTD method and changes in cell developmen Lal dynamics Frequency dependant changes in DNA aml'ormation based on AVTD method No changes in protein synthesis and no resonance effects detected even aL high exposure levels No resonance effects detecled even al exposure levels above the limits Five penes were reported io have LransienL expression changes tiller exposure. SAR above limit No change in ER homeoskisis, pro Lein folding, secretions or transcription I'aclors No changes in mRNA expression of chaperone proteins. SAR above Iimii Frequency dependant changes in DNA aml'ormation. Cell Lo cell communication reported lo enhance this elfecL Frequency dependant changes in DNA aml'ormation. Cell Lo cell communication reported lo enhance this elfecL No change in the expression of stress sensi Live penes No change in expression of chaperone proteins, heal shock proteins or reporting genes No change in pro Lein conformation, gene expression, cell viabil9Ly or cell growth. SAR above Iimii Inadequate dosimedy and LemperaWre amirol InadeyuaLe dosimedy and LemperaWre ountrol InadeyuaLe dosimedy and LemperaLure amirol Inadequate dosimedy and LemperaWre ountrol InadeyuaLe dosimedy and LemperaLure amirol Inadequate dosimedy and LemperaWre ountrol Inadequate dosimedy and LemperaLure amirol Inadequate dosimedy and LemperaWre ountrol InadeyuaLe dosimedy and LemperaWre ountrol Tempera Wre ountrol and dosimedy methods were not described S Wlislical methods not described No blinding, poor LemperaLure amirol No blinding No blinding InadeyuaLe dosimedy and LemperaWre oun trol InadeyuaLe dosimedy and LemperaWre oun trol InadeyuaLe LemperaLure control and no blinding No blinding Tempera Wre oun Lrol not described and no blinding these studies were preliminary in nature without appro- priate dosimelry or statistical analysis [34, 35]. Two stu- dies exposed E. soli cultures and one study exposed yeast cell cultures to MMWS alone, and before and after UVC exposure [36-38[. All three studies reported that MMWS alone had no significant effect on bacterial cell pro- liferation or survival. Rojavin el al., however, did report that when E. soli bacteria were exposed to MMWS after UVC sterilisation treatment, there was an increase in their survival rale [36[. The authors suggested this could be due to the MMW activation of bacterial DNA repair mechanisms. Other studies by an Armenian research group reported a reduction in E. soli cell growth when exposed to MMWS [39-45[. These studies reported that when E.coli cultures were exposed to MMWS in the presence of antibiotics, there was a greater reduction in Lhe bacterial growth rate and an increase in the time between bacterial cell division compared with antibiotics exposure alone. Two of these studies investigated if these effects could be due Lo a reduction in the activity of the E. soli ATPase when exposed to MMWS. The studies reported exposure to MMWS in combination with parti- cular antibiotics changed the concentration of H— and K— iwis in the E.coli cells, which the authors linked to changes in ATPase activity [43, 44[. Overall, the results from studies on cell proliferation of bacterial cells have been inconsistent with different research groups reporting conflicting results. Studies have also examined how exposure Lo low-level MMWS could affect cell proliferation in yeast. Two early studies by a German research group reported changes in yeast cell growth [46, 47[. However, another two inde- pendent studies did not report any changes in the growth rate of exposed yeast [48, 49]. Furia el al. [48] noted that the Grundler and Keilmann studies [46, 47[ had a number of methodical issues, which may have skewed their results, such as poor exposure control and analysis of results. Another study exposed yeast to MMWS before and after UVC exposure and reported that MMWS did not change the rates of cell survival [37[. SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. Table 4 Experimental studies investigating law -level RF fields above 6 GHz and cell signalling and electrical activity. Reference Biological system Frequency range Intensity Exposure duration Results Quality [791 Minasyan et al. Neural activity 38-54 GHz 4.8 W/m2 [811 Munemori Neural activity 10 GHz. 2.5Wlmz and Ikeda [821 Munemori Neural activity 10 GHz. 0.007-700 W/m2 and Ikeda [831 Pakhomov et al. Neural activity 40-52GHz 2.4-30 W/m2 [841 Pakhomov et al., Neural activity 40 GHz. 0.2-26 W/m2 [851 Pakhomov et al. Neural activity 40-50GHz 2.5-25 W/m2 [861 Pikov and Siegel Neural activity 60 GHz. 0.0(1!)71-6 W/m2 NS [801 Pikov et al. Neural activity 60 GHz. Llp to 0.008 W/m2 1 min [871 Romanenko et al. Neural activity 17-60GHz [881 Romanenko et al. Neural activity 60 GHz. 9-140 W/m2 10-40 W/m2 2O-60 mi n 4 min 1 min 10 or 60 min 23 mi n 12-50 min 60s 60s Change in the duration of the inter -spike intervals Increase and decease in the variance of inter - spike intervals. Decrease in the distribution of the inter -spike intervals with increasing exposure levels Reduction in the latency period and an increase in amplitude of CAPS Reduction in the effect of high rate stimulus causing a decease in the test CAP Reduction in the effect of high rate stimulus causing a decease in the test CAP Reduced neuron tiring rate and a decrease in input resistance Reduced neuron tiring rate and a decrease in input resistance Reduction in the action potential tiring rate Reduction in the action potential firing rate Inadequate dosimeuy and temperature control No sham control and poor temperature control No sham control and poor temperature control No blinding No blinding No blinding No blinding No blinding No blinding No blinding NS Not stated in the study. Studies have also examined the possible effect of low- level MMWs on tumour cells with some studies reporting a possible anti -proliferative effect. Chidichimo et al. reported a reduction in the growth of a variety of tumour cells exposed to MMWs; however, the results of the study did not support this conclusion [50[. An Italian research group published a number of studies investigating pro- liferation effects on human melanoma cell lines with conflicting results. Two of the studies reported reduced growth rate [51, 52[ and a third study showed no change in proliferation or in the cell cycle [531. Beneduci el al. also reported changes in the morphology of MMW exposed cells; however, the authors did not present quantitative data for these reported changes [51, 52[. In another study by the same Malian group, Beneduci el al. reported that exposure to low-level MMWs had a greater than 40% reduction in the number of viable ery- thromyeloid leukaemia cells compared with controls; however, there was no significant change in the number of dead cells [54[. More recently, Yaekashiwa el al. reported no statistically significant effect in proliferation or cellular activity in glioblastoma cells exposed to low-level MMWs [55[. Other studies did not report statistically significant effects on proliferation in chicken embryo cell cultures, rat nerve cells or human skin fibroblasts exposed to low-level MMWs [55-57[. Gene expression Some studies have investigated whether low-level MMWs can influence gene expression. Le Queument el al. exam- ined a multitude of genes using microarray analyses and reported transient expression changes in five of them. However, the authors concluded that these results were extremely minor, especially when compared with studies using microarrays to study known pollutants [58[. Studies by a French research group have examined the effect of MMWs on stress sensitive genes, stress sensitive gene promoters and chaperone proteins in human glial cell lines. In two studies, glial cells were exposed to low-level MMWs and there was no observed modification in the expression of stress sensitive gene promoters when compared with sham exposed cells [59-611. Further, glial cells were examined for the expression of the chaperone protein clusterin (CLU) and heal shock protein HSP70. These proteins are activated in limes of cellular stress to maintain protein functions and help with the repair process [60[. There was no observed modification in gene expression of the chaperone proteins. Other studies have examined the endoplasmic reliculum of glial cells exposed to MMWs [62, 63[. The endoplasmic reliculum is the site of synthesis and folding of secreted proteins and has been shown to be sensitive to environ- mental insults [62[. The authors reported that there was no elevation in mRNA expression levels of endoplasmic reli- culum specific chaperone proteins. Studies of stress sensi- tive genes in glial cells have consistently shown no modification due to low-level MMW exposure [59-63[. Belyaev and co-authors have studied a possible reso- nance effect of low-level MMWs primarily on Escherichia Coli (E. coli) cells and cultures. The Belyaev research group reported that the resonance effect of MMWs can change the conformation stale of chromosomal DNA complexes [64-74[; however, most of these experiments were not temperature controlled. This resonance effect was not supported by earlier experiments on a number of dif- ferent cell types conducted by Gandhi el al. and Bush et al. [75, 76[. SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... '° 0 o x ` Frequency range Y 0 0 0 0 5 0 o c o c o c c c .C c .C - `o c CA as,! v . v '6.52 as ,� as c v c v c v c '0 " as c 5 .- 5 �- 5 �- 5 �- 5 .- A "cc -c., N O A N O E-.45, al 0 A O O O C += g o C ++ v , C += g o F C 2 C 2 C O � G C` F G p O p° p O g'°+ v 'o+ v '°+ a) '° a) '° C C C C C N i C aY +�+ v i C C � , c � 'o .y 'o ro •-.y "o c v 't• rC i+ L Y L Y L , Y L '� � - C,, � v v v N F C v v - i� aY i5 v i5 aY ° _ Y i5 v _ Y 0 0 _ Y i� aY :� -� s -� s -� z s -� z z o nsition from gel to liquid phase or er quadrupole splitting on nsition from gel to liquid phase or v o n 5 o c - 5 c _ MG 'G 3 a � A v '° _ v o c o A 2 n cf p ai v a) a) g _p Y � C E s p ." CI E., p •< G. A o A _0 V v 4" c C o a) 4- '� aY c a .o C'4 ° � „ o = 'G ai El E p _ '3 Q J w `v cv.G a" C O OFt C. -:...).t .v O al .. L Y, � v v � cG cq a E �, o ai E E 5 a3— �Y OE •c`v c'G° v '� v F 4 c° a o o Y o ._ '= v v v .� c s N '� a3 C u 7 '.�� u" a v p 2O !' A c ., p c._ C " 'C C '� N 4 C r F C p i a) v v v x r. 0 c v c a., r :., c ar u v N O r° e a 0 0 0 c c c c c c c c N N,. 17i'., N O N O N, .p .p 0 .p 0 .p 0 .p 0 .p 0 c '° '° i., -0 'G '° 'Y G ' C 8 A v'- vv v v v1-6'.' vv v. s -G 1 .G C C . .Cz. vE C .Z z = .6 = Y = «v+ = Y = Y = rv+ f C t _ o Er v v , ; w C o G A A j i= >_ r E. 0 _v c o C o 5 0 L ° .. - a ° C G C G ._ '- O c A v° v° 76 v A .+l C H C H cc "' p C 2 O r 4� r 4� C 'ie w ,n Q �n Q j ` p LI `y G p C p C 'o `i. 4- c u t O p i — C A '. 5 t +� t `4.:,.' p t s o o 5 ., 5 ' = o v�� E. .:4- cp 5. 12.. o � a c4 _ j 0 0 `= A S ° A EU c u c u .� c r o o o L a Y o ar �c. � mo " E o p c c c Y c Y E c c r c r c A 5' w E O ...... u V ._ �._ a Lr; � c L') L') V, s not described 0 o A o o C o A o A A A A M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F A C F C C C C C C C �' p F C C C F A C -,r �t T — T T T T T T T — — T T T — — T r0 c x 3 � 3 c c ° 3 3 3 — — X 0 3 3 �� 70 , _0 �� 0 a 3� ° o rx., 3 3 3 ° ° 3 , 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ° c� c o c n. E. 3 3 3 M, � � .0 c To T V — T — — T — o — c1 o 0 0 0 0 0 o T S. z z z z z z z z z z S. � n p n n � n n n � � � � � � n .x x x T c1 T T T T T T T tt,-, m, m, o cv m, o m ci m n v; o 0 0 V', V7 Vi <"l V', Vi a V, .71- Vi V, ori ori V, V, N N V, Vi '.p 0 0 0 v v v c a a v v u u u 0 c 0 0 V V o as v o -I3 v rJ V v ' '-''- '- '- � .Y 4 4 u u u u TJ 74 74 a Q Q 7 Q Q Q 0.'' Q CC Cc 0.^„ 0.'' CC cc Q 0 0 5 'o 'o v v CC 0.^ 0 cc I OOJ Cosentino et al. Di Donato et r r r r r r r 3S u � � 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S v Ramundo-Orlando et al. L X f L X f x N SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. Fixposure. duration Frequency range. R J � J C F C ▪ C s F C 0. ` 3 C C C ,cJJ c 7 7 E - ,JJ C ', a CS S L C a 5 5 a, E. C C C G J F '] L R t t to L 0. j ▪ S' C 2 - -4 -L C S r C C - E E E F y • C E E t • E C C F F F T-'' F J J J 'J .F :J 'J ▪ E J[ U J F F E J J J C F L C E C '.� - J'i, E E r E E F C 5 $ $ 3 3 7• C 3 T C C 3 3 2 ' 2 c c c F � F F � � '.� ;� F-_=7 � � ',� � y � y ,72"a c s s a ▪ o_m c a n 3 a o a a 0. r, C F = C F ..4 F ..4 F ..4 F c C C c ..4 C_ C •C F F F_ C • 5 F C F, > C C 5,7 ,�,� F ,'Jfir F F F F .� _ 3' F - •F J" F 3' F ;j ,] .� ..E F 3' JJ"'r, JJ" F J7 :J S C S C C •C L 5 - 3 7 � 7 L C 7 -J = -J -J P. — O c s c '� •° L — R ° E c 'J 's 0. c _ ; c 0. F F E c ,J — c c u E � 4 F :J t j � S IF L L 5 o - L a I.; .,E o o L ▪ G o s e s 5 I •C _ C CIS _c. d .C L c� R C � S L n C j - F ▪ `) J _3 7 c C . J • E z J�J r F E F !i C L :J t 3 Y c E L 7 :,--S: L0. L • c ` � IF c O O F F L S -5 —• C5- 6C d E r J F E J L .E .E E L C C C .G t J _ C j 7)1- c U C _ c '.• Ji - C IJ :J F F ▪ rY — s, r c " C 'J E. - _ -,> C C S `�J4 .�Jl J C C C C J_ J J .F ', _� E L 0. C C� F J J L C F L L L ,� .c C J C ',� :J C F 7 R J R F -.4- :J J 'J .•j s. J J 3 1.3 E C ^�j O .''� C C c " J J .S 0. F C • .C h 0. '� 3;7 E C C G. r J F X ,:-.;:9" J_ c d C C - E J J ' r J� _ '� 'rCJ C ▪ o n s;= 0..c r,= 3 F'5 0? ,-L. r s °.2 .' C F C .J . F C c C F • F U L 'u 0. 5.rJR' 3 0. r J F 5 ,J. c P' F F J 0. J' 5 '^7 9,.J ' :J r ,] C ,J F r c 3 i.� ,� F F F F C IJ :J '-1-8 4' y4' '20 :J C IJ L J _ ^,� _ C C C C CC r :J r r r J ` .�j R ;� `` z- U C E ` r J J 3 L- 3 o 1't ' O E , E T,:c-2 -1 F . o � o c 1 1 a� . a o c o� � 2 s, s. Y • 8 o s 5 ▪ F 7 C ▪ r ,5 L t F p F 3 3 r r r L r F F F C C C C C F +. C �I r E E E E E E• r',. c o r� o ,3 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 `� R �n o o i— o o R L m _, ci ci ci ci ci — ci ci — — ci cn — — ci ▪ �i — tr., '"c 0 1 1 F C N O f'i i O xi O 1 i O C'i • C - O — .,:-.1 O t^i n'— O i 0. ▪ X O O — — — O O O t^ --� O .r le J 'J • 7 J � J S 7 7 7 2 c) 2 J J E .E J J .E .E J J J J O 0 'o 'o x 0 'o R0. 8 C i c U ,J ari and Bohan Kumar 6 al. O — <L, SS c� �r S 3 7 :howik and Maj C Cu urn Subbotina et al. :ells in culture 'J 7 Tells in culture Culls in culture NS Not stated in the study. SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... The results of Belyaev and co-workers have primarily been based on evidence from the anomalous viscosity time dependence (AVTD) method 1771. The research group argued that changes in the AVTD curve can indicate changes to the DNA conformation state and DNA -protein bonds. Belyaev and co-workers have reported in a number of studies that differences in the AVTD curve were dependent on several parameter including MMW char- acteristics (frequency, exposure level, and polarisation), cellular concentration and cell growth rate 169, 71-741. In some of the Belyaev studies E. coli were pre -exposed to X- rays, which was reported to change the AVTD curve; however, if the cells were then exposed to MMWs there was no longer a change in the AVTD curve 164-671. The authors suggested that exposure to MMWs increased the rate of recovery in bacterial cells previously exposed to ionising radiation. The Belyaev group also used rat thy- mocytes in another study and they concluded that the results closely paralleled those found in E. coli cells [671. The studies on the DNA conformation stale change relied heavily on the AVTD method that has only been used by the Balyaev group and has not been independently validated 1781• Cell signalling and electrical activity Studies examining effects of low-level MMWs on cell signalling have mainly involved MMW exposure to nervous system tissue of various animals. An in vivo study on rats recorded extracellular background electrical spike activity from neurons in the supraoptic nucleus of the hypothalamus after MMW exposure [791. The study reported that there were changes in inter -spike interval and spike activity in the cells of exposed animals when compared with controls. There was also a mixture of significant shifts in neuron population proportions and spike frequency. The effect on the regularity of neuron spike activity was greater at higher frequencies. An in vitro study on rat cortical tissue slices reported that neuron firing rates decreased in half of the samples exposed to low-level MMWs [801. The width of the signals was also decreased but all effects were short lived. The observed changes were not consistent between the two studies, but this could be a consequence of different brain regions being studied. In vitro experiments by a Japanese research group conducted on crayfish exposed the dissected optical com- ponents and brain to MMWs 181, 821. Munemori and Ikeda reported that there was no significant change in the inter -spike intervals or amplitude of spontaneous dis- charges [811. However, there was a change in the dis- tribution of inter -spike intervals where the initial standard deviation decreased and then restored in a short Lime to a rhythm comparable to the control. A follow-up study on the same tissues and a wide range of exposure levels (many above the 1CN1RP limits) reported similar results with the distribution of spike intervals decreasing with increasing exposure level [821. These results on action potentials in crayfish tissue have not been independently investigated. Mixed results were reported in experiments conducted by a US research group on sciatic frog nerve preparations. These studies applied electrical stimulation to the nerve and examined the effect of MMWs on the compound action potentials (CAPS) conductivity through the neurological tissue fibre. Pakhomov et al. found a reduction in CAP latency accompanied by an amplitude increase for MMWs above the 1CN1RP limits but not for low-level MMWs 1831. However, in two follow-up studies, Pakhomov et al. reported that the attenuation in amplitude of test CAPS caused by high -rate stimulus was significantly reduced to the same magnitude at various MMW exposure levels [84, 851. In all of these studies, the observed effect on the CAPS was temporal and reversible, but there were impli- cations of a frequency specific resonance interaction with the nervous tissue. These results on action potentials in frog sciatic nerves have not been investigated by others. Other common experimental systems involved low-level MMW exposure to isolated ganglia of leeches. Pikov and Siegel reported that there was a decrease in the firing rate in one of the tested neurons and, through the measurement of input resistance in an inserted electrode, there was a transient dose -dependent change in membrane permeability [861. However, Romanenko el al. found that low-level MMWs did not cause suppression of neuron firing rate [871. Further experiments by Romanenko et al. reported that MMWs aL the 1CN1RP public exposure limit and above reported similar action potential firing rate suppression 1881. Significant dif- ferences were reported between MMW effects and effects due to an equivalent rise in temperature caused by heating the bathing solution by conventional means. Membrane effects Studies examining membrane interactions with low-level MMWs have all been conducted at frequencies above 40 GHz in in vitro experiments. A number of studies investi- gated membrane phase transitions involving exposure to a range of phospholipid vesicles prepared to mimic biological cell membranes. One group of studies by an Italian research group reported effects on membrane hydration dynamics and phase transition 189-911. Observations included tran- sition delays from the gel to liquid phase or vice versa when compared with sham exposures maintained at the same temperature; the effect was reversed after exposure. These reported changes remain unconfirmed by independent groups. SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. A number of studies investigated membrane perme- ability. One study focussed on Cat— activated K— channels on the membrane surface of cultured kidney cells of African Green Marmosets [921. The study reported modifications to the Hill coefficient and apparent affinity of the Cat— by the K— channels. Another study reported that the effectiveness of a chemical to supress membrane permeability in the gap junction was transiently reduced when the cells were exposed to MMWs [93, 94[. Two studies by one research group reported increases in the movement of molecules into skin cells during MMW exposure and suggested this indi- cates increased cell membrane permeability [21, 911. Per- meability changes based on membrane pressure differences were also investigated in relation to phospholipid organi- sation [95[. Although there was no evidence of effects on phospholipid organisation on exposed model membranes, the authors reported a measurable difference in membrane pressure at low exposure levels. Another study reported neuron shrinkage and dehydration of brain tissues [96[. The study reported this was due to influences of low-level MMWs on the cellular bathing medium and intracellular water. Further, the authors suggested this influence of MMWs may have led to formation of unknown messengers, which are able to modulate brain cell hydration. A study using an artificial axon system consisting of a network of cells containing aqueous phospholipid vesicles reported permeability changes with exposure to MMWs by mea- suring K— efflux [97[. In this case, the authors emphasised limitations in applying this model to processes within a living organism. The varied effects of low-level MMWs on membrane permeability lack replication. Other studies have examined the shape or size of vesicles to determine possible effects on membrane permeability. Ramundo-Orlando el al., reported effects on the shape of giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs), specifically elongation, attributed to permeability changes [98[. However, another study reported that only smaller diameter vesicles demon- strated a statistically significant change when exposed to MMWs [99[. A study by Cosentino et al. examined the effect of MMWs on the size distributions of both large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) and GUVs in in vitro pre- parations [100[. 11 was reported that size distribution was only affected when the vesicles were under osmotic stress, resulting in a statistically significant reduction in their size. In this case, the effect was attributed to dehydration as a result of membrane permeability changes. There is, gen- erally, lack of replication on physical changes to phospho- lipid vesicles due to low-level MMWs. Studies on E. coli and E. hirae cultures have reported resonance effects on membrane proteins and phospholipid constituents or within the media suspension [39-42[. These studies observed cell proliferation effects such as changes to cell growth rate, viability and lag phase duration. These effects were reported to be more pronounced at specific MMW frequencies. The authors suggested this could be due to a resonance effect on the cell membrane or the suspen- sion medium. Torgomyan el al. and Hovnanyan el al. reported similar changes to proliferation that they attributed to changes in membrane permeability from MMW exposure [43, 451. These experiments were all conducted by an Armenian research group and have not been replicated by others. Other effects A number of studies have reported on the experimental results of other effects. Reproductive effects were examined in three studies on mice, rats and human spermatozoa. An in vivo study on mice exposed to low-level MMWs reported that spermalogonial cells had significantly more metaphase lranslocalion disturbances than controls and an increased number of cells with unpaired chromosomes [ 101 [. Another in vivo study on rats reported increased morphological abnormalities to spermatozoa following exposure, however, there was no statistical analysis pre- sented [1021. Conversely, an in vitro study on human spermatozoa reported that there was an increase in motility after a short time of exposure to MMWs with no changes in membrane integrity and no generation of apoplosis [1031. All three of these studies looked al different effects on spermatozoa making it difficult to make an overall con- clusion. A further two studies exposed rats to MMWs and examined their sperm for indicators of ROS production. One study reported both increases and decreases in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS [1041. The other study reported a decrease in the activity of hislone kinase and an increase in ROS 11051. Both studies had low animal num- bers (six animals exposed) and these results have not been independently replicated. Immune function was also examined in a limited number of studies focussing on the effects of low-level MMWs on antigens and antibody systems. Three studies by a Russian research group that exposed neutrophils to MMWs reported frequency dependant changes in ROS production 1106-1081. Another study reported a statistically significant decrease in antigen binding to antibodies when exposed to MMWs [109[; the study also reported that exposure decreased the stability of previously formed antigen —antibody complexes. The effect on fatty acid composition in mice exposed to MMWs has been examined by a Russian research group using a number of experimental methods [ 110-1121. One study that exposed mice afflicted with an inflammatory condition to low-level MMWs reported no change in the fatly acid concentrations in the blood plasma. However, there was a significant increase in the omega -3 and omega -6 polyunsaturated fatty acid content of the thymus [1101. SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... Another study exposed tumour -bearing mice and reported that monounsaturated fatty acids decreased and poly- unsaturated fatly acids increased in both the thymus and tumour tissue. These changes resulted in fatly acid com- position of the thymus tissue more closely resembling that of the healthy control animals [ 111 [. The authors also examined the effect of exposure to X-rays of healthy mice, which was reported to reduce the total weight of the thy- mus. However, when the thymus was exposed to MMWS before or after exposure to X-rays, the fatly acid content was restored and was no longer significantly different from controls [1121. Overall, the authors reported a potential protective effect of MMWS on the recovery of fatly acids, however, all the results came from the same research group with a lack of replication from others. Physiological effects were examined by a study con- ducted on mice exposed to WWMs to assess the safely of police radar [1131. The authors reported no statistically significant changes in the physiological parameters tested, which included body mass and temperature, peripheral blood and the mass and cellular composition, and number of cells in several important organs. Another study exposing human volunteers to low-level MMWS specifically exam- ined cardiovascular function of exposed and sham exposed groups by electrocardiogram (ECG) and atrioventricular conduction velocity derivation [1141. This study reported that there were no significant differences in the physiolo- gical indicators assessed in lest subjects. Other individual studies have looked at various other effects. An early study reported differences in the attenua- tion of MMWS at specific frequencies in healthy and tumour cells 11151. Another early study reported no effect in the morphology of BHK-21/C13 cell cultures when exposed to low-level MMWS; the study did report morphological changes at higher levels, which were related to healing [116[. One study examined whether low-level MMWS induced cancer promotion in leukaemia and Lewis tumour cell grafted mice. The study reported no statistically sig- nificant growth promotion in either of the grafted cancer cell types 11171. Another study looked at the activity of gamma- glutamyl Lranspeptidase enzyme in rats after treatment with hydrocortisone and exposure to MMWS [118[. The study reported no effects at exposures below the 1CN1RP limit, however, at levels above authors reported a range of effects. Another study exposed saline liquid solutions to continuous low and high level MMWS and reported tem- perature oscillations within the liquid medium but lacked a statistical analysis [119[. Another study reported that low-level MMWS decrease the mobility of the protozoa S. ambiguum offspring [1201. None of the reported effects in all of these other studies have been investigated elsewhere. Epidemiological studies There are no epidemiological studies that have directly investigated 5G and potential health effects. There are however epidemiological studies that have looked at occu- pational exposure to radar, which could potentially include the frequency range from 6 to 300 GHz. Epidemiological studies on radar were included as they represent occupa- tional exposure below the 1CN1RP guidelines. The review included 31 epidemiological studies (8 cohort, 13 case - control, 9 cross-sectional and 1 meta -analysis) that inves- tigated exposure to radar and various health outcomes including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. The risk estimates as well as limitations of the epidemiological studies are shown in Table 7. Three large cohort studies investigated mortality in military personnel with potential exposure to MMWS from radar. Studies reporting on over 40 -year follow-up of US navy veterans of the Korean War found that radar exposure had little effect on all -cause or cancer mortality with the second study reporting risk estimates below unity [121, 122[. Simi- larly, in a 40 -year follow-up of Belgian military radar opera- tors, there was no statistically significant increase in all -cause mortality 1123, 1241; the study did, however, find a small increase in cancer mortality. More recently in a 25 -year fol- low-up of military personnel who served in the French Navy, there was no increase in all -cause or cancer mortality for personnel exposed to radar [1251. The main limitation in the cohort studies was the lack of individual levels of RF exposure with most studies based on job -Lille. Comparisons were made between occupations with presumed high exposure to RF fields and other occupations with presumed lower exposure. This type of non -differential misclassification in dichotomous exposure assessment is associated mostly with an effect measure biased towards a null effect if there is a true effect of RF fields. If there is no true effect of RF fields, non - differential exposure misclassification will not bias the effect estimate (which will be close to the null value, but may vary because of random error). The military personnel in these studies were compared with the general population and this `healthy worker effect' presents possible bias since military personnel are on average in better health than the general population; the healthy worker effect Lends to underestimate the risk. The cohort studies also lacked information on pos- sible confounding factors including olher occupational expo- sures such as chemicals and lifestyle factors such as smoking. Several epidemiological studies have specifically inves- tigated radar exposure and testicular cancer. In a case - control study where most of the subjects were selected from military hospitals in Washington DC, USA, Hayes et al. found no increased risk between exposure to radar and testicular cancer [1261; exposure to radar was self -reported SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. :2- • Sludy population 7.. J J OR 1.56 (1.46 -?.37) .J J U x r G. 2 r 5 m r J r R 3 U b -6 E ? O JY 2 G1 F ri y -(0-0 O Perinalal morlalily lohorl (relrospe live) [I 47] Basle el al. icular cancer OR 1.74 (0.59-3.35) 'J P [145J Beard et al. 3 0. 2 5 j 4 CI C lohorl (relrospe live) 7 5 F C G� r 7 J 0 s J 0 Non-I[Odgkin's lymphoma [137J Nabbro-Peraq el al. lohorl (relrospe live) 3. / L C c - - ;75.- 3 'j C C r C OR 1.39 (1.01-1.9) Brain cancer - onlrol (nested) J No response ral.cs 27 '.� 0. R J L a F J 0 7 icular cancer J 0 J 7 [128J I Iardell et. al. OR 1.1 (0.7-1.9) ;.ocular cancer C n r, C I E � 'E C OR ?.1 (1.1-4.0) J C .J J L F C y '1 C C F . -'4 . C F a r o 9. P c J F L, C - ? c 1 C Bladder Cancer Lit Vecchia aid. J o o 2 o s. 0. a S 7 0. 'C OR 4.0 (1.9-5.6) [ 146J Mageroq eL al . OR 0.56 (0.17-1.5?) SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... Risk hsdrra1.e Sludy population a Table 7 (continued) h3 3 F s. c F a F 5 s L, F . C =` � � C J ' L �s x �€ F ▪ L O's s 3 3 L OR 0.8 (Q4-1.6) OR 0.84 (0.38-1.87) ;slicular canccr , IL — z =.0 a Vele./ do la Callc cl al. CasccOnl.rol OR Odds ratio, RR Relative risk, O/E Observed to expected ratio, SIR Standardised incidence ratio, MR Mortality ratio and thus subject to misclassification. In this study, the misclassification was likely non -differential, biasing the result towards the null. Davis and Mostofi reported a cluster of testicular cancer within a small cohort of 340 police officers in Washington State (USA) where the cases routi- nely used handheld traffic radar guns [1271; however, exposure was not assessed for the full cohort, which may have overestimated the risk. In a population -based case - control study conducted in Sweden, Hardell et al. did not find a statistically significant association between radar work and testicular cancer; however, the result was based on only five radar workers questioning the validity of this result 11281. In a larger population -based case control study in Germany, Baumgardl-Elms el al. also reported no asso- ciation between working near radar units (both self -reported and expert assessed) and testicular cancer [1291; a limitation of this study was the low participation of identified controls (57%), however, there was no difference compared with the characteristics of the cases so selection bias was unlikely. In the cohort study of US navy veterans previously mentioned exposure to radar was not associated with testicular cancer [1221; the limitations of this cohort study mentioned earlier may have underestimated the risk. Finally, in a hospital - based case -control study in France, radar workers were also not associated with risk of testicular cancer [130[; a lim- itation was the low participation of controls (37%) with a difference in education level between participating and non- participating controls, which may have underestimated this result. A limited number of studies have investigated radar exposure and brain cancer. In a nested case -control study within a cohort of male US Air Force personnel, Grayson reported a small association between brain cancer and RF exposure, which included radar [ 131 1; no potential con- founders were included in the analysis, which may have overestimated the result. However, in a case -control study of personnel in the Brazilian Navy, Santana el al. reported no association between naval occupations likely to be exposed to radar and brain cancer [1321; the small number of cases and lack of diagnosis confirmation may have biased the results towards the null. All of the cohort studies on military personnel previously mentioned also examined brain cancer mortality and found no association with exposure to radar [122, 124, 1251. A limited number of studies have investigated radar exposure and ocular cancer. Holly et al. in a population - based case -control study in the US reported an association between self -reported exposure to radar or microwaves and uveal melanoma [1331; the study investigated many dif- ferent exposures and the result is prone to multiple testing. In another case -control study, which used both hospital and population controls, Stang et al. did not find an association between self -reported exposure to radar and uveal SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. melanoma [1341; a high non -response in the population controls (52%) and exposure misclassification may have underestimated this result. The cohort studies of the Belgian military and French navy also found no association between exposure to radar and ocular cancer [ 124, 1251. A few other studies have examined the potential asso- ciation between radar and other cancers. In a hospital -based case -control study in Maly, La Vecchia investigated 14 occupational agents and risk of bladder cancer and found no association with radar, although no risk estimate was reported [1351; non -differential self -reporting of exposure may have underestimated this finding if there is a true effect. Finkelstein found an increased risk for melanoma in a large cohort of Ontario police officers exposed to traffic radar and followed for 31 years [1361; there was significant loss to follow up which may have biased this result in either direction. Finkelstein found no statistically significant associations with other types of cancer and the study reported a statistically significant risk estimate just below unity for all cancers, which is reflective of the healthy worker effect [1361. In a large population -based case -con- trol study in France, Fabbro-Percy et al. investigated a large number of occupational and environmental risk factors in relation to non -Hodgkin lymphoma and found no associa- tion with radar operators based on job -title; however, the result was based on a small number of radar operators [1371. The cohort studies on military personnel did not find sta- tistically significant associations between exposure to radar and other cancers [ 122, 124, 1251. Variani el al. conducted a recent systematic review and meta -analysis investigating occupational exposure to radar and cancer risk [1381. The meta -analysis included three cohort studies [ 122, 124, 1251 and three case -control studies [129—1311 for a total sample size of 53,000 subjects. The meta -analysis reported a decrease in cancer risk for workers exposed to radar but noted the small number of studies included with significant heterogeneity between the studies. Apart from cancer, a number of epidemiological studies have investigated radar exposure and reproductive out- comes. Two early studies on military personnel in the US [ 139 [ and Denmark [ 1401 reported differences in semen parameters between personnel using radar and personnel on other duty assignments; these studies included only volun- teers with potential fertility concerns and are prone to bias. A further volunteer study on US military personnel did not find a difference in semen parameters in a similar compar- ison [1411; in general these type of cross-sectional investi- gations on volunteers provide limited evidence on possible risk. In a case -control study of personnel in the French military, Velez de la Calle et al. reported no association between exposure to radar and male infertility [1421; non - differential self -reporting of exposure may have under- estimated this finding if there is a true effect. In two separate cross-sectional studies of personnel in the Norwegian navy, Baste et al. and Mpllerlpkken et al. reported an association between exposure to radar and male infertility, but there has been no follow up cohort or case control studies to confirm these results [143, 144[. Again considering reproduction, a number of studies investigated pregnancy and offspring outcomes. In a population -based case -control study conducted in the US and Canada, De Roos et al. found no statistically significant association between parental occupational exposure to radar and neuroblastoma in offspring; however, the result was based on a small number of cases and controls exposed to radar 11451. In another cross-sectional study of the Nor- wegian navy, Mageroy el al. reported a higher risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of personnel who were exposed to radar; the study found positive associations with a large number of other chemical and physical expo- sures, but the study involved multiple comparisons so is prone to over -interpretation [146[. Finally, a number of pregnancy outcomes were investigated in a cohort study of Norwegian navy personnel enlisted between 1950 and 2004 [147[. The study reported an increase in perinatal mortality for parental service aboard fast patrol boats during a short period (3 months); exposure to radar was one of many possible exposures when serving on fast patrol boats and the result is prone to multiple testing. No associations were found between long-term exposure and any pregnancy outcomes. There is limited research investigating exposure to radar and other diseases. In a large case -control study of US military veterans investigating a range of risk factors and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Beard et al. did not find a statistically significant association with radar [148[; the study reported a likely under -ascertainment of non -exposed cases, which may have biased the result away from the null. The cohort studies on military personnel did not find sta- tistically significant associations between exposure to radar and other diseases [ 122, 124, 1251. A number of observational studies have investigated outcomes measured on volunteers in the laboratory. They are categorised as epidemiological studies because exposure to radar was not based on provocation. These studies investigated genotoxicity [149[, oxidative stress [149[, cognitive effects [ 150[ and endocrine function [ 151 1; the studies generally reported positive associations with radar. These volunteer studies did not sample from a defined population and are prone to bias [ 1521. Discussion The experimental studies investigating exposure to MMWs at levels below the 1CN1RP occupational limits have looked SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... at a variety of biological effects. Genotoxicity was mainly examined by using comet assays of exposed cells. This approach has consistently found no evidence of DNA damage in skin cells in well -designed studies. However, animal studies conducted by one research group reported DNA strand breaks and changes in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS, noting that these studies had low animal numbers (six animals exposed); these results have not been independently replicated. Studies have also investigated other indications of genotoxicity including chromosome aberrations, micro -nucleation and spindle disturbances. The methods used to investigate these indicators have generally been rigorous; however, the studies have reported contra- dictory results. Two studies by a Russian research group have also reported indicators of DNA damage in bacteria, however, these results have not been verified by other investigators. The studies of the effect of MMWs on cell proliferation primarily focused on bacteria, yeast cells and tumour cells. Studies of bacteria were mainly from an Armenian research group that reported a reduction in the bacterial growth rate of exposed E. coli cells at different MMW frequencies; however, the studies suffered from inadequate dosimetry and temperature control and healing due to high RF energy deposition may have contributed to the results. Other authors have reported no effect of MMWs on E. coli cell growth rate. The results on cell proliferation of yeast exposed to MMWs were also contradictory. An Malian research group that has conducted the majority of the stu- dies on tumour cells reported either a reduction or no change in the proliferation of exposed cells; however, these studies also suffered from inadequate dosimetry and tem- perature control. The studies on gene expression mainly examined two different indicators, expression of stress sensitive genes and chaperone proteins and the occurrence of a resonance effect in cells to explain DNA conformation stale changes. Most studies reported no effect of low-level MMWs on the expression of stress sensitive genes or chaperone proteins using a range of experimental methods to confirm these results; noting that these studies did not use blinding so experimental bias cannot be excluded from the results. A number of studies from a Russian research group reported a resonance effect of MMWs, which they propose can change the conformation stale of chromosomal DNA complexes. Their results relied heavily on the AVTD method for testing changes in the DNA conformation stale, however, the bio- logical relevance of results obtained through the AVTD method has not been independently validated. Studies on cell signalling and electrical activity reported a range of different outcomes including increases or decreases in signal amplitude and changes in signal rhythm, with no consistent effect noting the lack of blinding in most of the studies. Further, temperature contributions could not be eliminated from the studies and in some cases thermal interactions by conventional healing were studied and found to differ from the MMW effects. The results from some studies were based on small sample sizes, some being confined to a single specimen, or by observed effects only occurring in a small number of the samples tested. Overall, the reported electrical activity effects could not be dismissed as being within normal variability. This is indicated by studies reporting the restoration of normal function within a short time during ongoing exposure. In this case there is no implication of an expected negative health outcome. Studies on membrane effects examined changes in mem- brane properties and permeability. Some studies observed changes in transitions from liquid to gel phase or vice versa and the authors implied that MMWs influenced cell hydra- tion, however the statistical methods used in lhese studies were not described so it is difficult to examine the validity of these results. Other studies observing membrane properties in artificial cell suspensions and dissected tissue reported chan- ges in vesicle shape, reduced cell volume and morphological changes although most of these studies suffered from various methodological problems including poor temperature control and no blinding. Experiments on bacteria and yeast were conducted by the same research group reporting changes in membrane permeability, which was attributed to cell pro- liferation effects, however, the studies suffered from inade- quate dosimetry and temperature control. Overall, although there were a variety of membrane bioeffects reported, these have not been independently replicated. The limited number of studies on a number of other effects from exposure to MMWs below the 1CN1RP limits generally reported little to no consistent effects. The single in vivo study on cancer promotion did not find an effect although the study did not include sham controls. Effects on reproduction were contradictory that may have been influ- enced by opposing objectives of examining adverse health effects or infertility treatment. Further, the only study on human sperm found no effects of low-level MMWs. The studies on reproduction suffered from inadequate dosimetry and temperature control, and since sperm is sensitive to temperature, the effect of heating due to high RF energy deposition may have contributed to the studies showing an effect. A number of studies from two research groups reported effects on ROS production in relation to repro- duction and immune function; the in vivo studies had low animal numbers (six animals per exposure) and the in vitro studies generally had inadequate dosimetry and temperature control. Studies on fatty acid composition and physiological indicators did not generally show any effects; poor tem- perature control was also a problem in the majority of these studies. A number of other studies investigating various other biological effects reported mixed results. SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. Although a range of bioeffecls have been reported in many of the experimental studies, the results were generally not independently reproduced. Approximately half of the studies were from just five laboratories and several studies represented a collaboration between one or more labora- tories. The exposure characteristics varied considerably among the different studies with studies showing the highest effect size clustered around a PD of approximately 1 W/m2. The meta -analysis of the experimental studies in our companion paper [9[ showed that there was no dose - response relationship between the exposure (either PD or SAR) and the effect size. In fact, studies with a higher exposure tended to show a lower effect size, which is counterfactual. Most of the studies showing a large effect size were conducted in the frequency range around 44-55 GHz, representing investigations into the use of MMWs for therapeutic purposes, rather than deleterious health con- sequences. Future experimental research would benefit from investigating bioeffecls at the specific frequency range of the next stage of the 5 G network roll -out in the range 26-28 GHz. Mobile communications beyond the 5 G net- work plan to use frequencies higher than 34 GHz so research across the MMW band is relevant. An investigation into the methods of the experimental studies showed that the majority of studies were lacking in a number of quality criteria including proper attention to dosimelry, incorporating positive controls, using blind evaluation or accurately measuring or controlling the tem- perature of the biological system being tested. Our meta - analysis showed that the bulk of the studies had a quality score lower than 2 out of a possible 5, with only one study achieving a maximum quality score of 5 [9[. The meta - analysis further showed that studies with a low quality score were more likely to show a greater effect. Future research should pay careful attention to the experimental design to reduce possible sources of artefact. The experimental studies included in this review reported PDs below the 1CN1RP exposure limits. Many of the authors suggested that the resulting biological effects may be related to non -thermal mechanisms. However, as is shown in our meta -analysis, data from these studies should be treated with caution because the estimated SAR values in many of the studies were much higher than the 1CN1RP SAR limits [9[. SAR values much higher than the 1CN1RP guidelines are certainly capable of producing significant temperature rise and are far beyond the levels expected for 5 G telecommunication devices [ 1 1. Future research into the low-level effects of MMWs should pay particular attention to appropriate temperature control in order to avoid possible heating effects. Although a systematic review of experimental studies was not conducted, this paper presents a critical appraisal of study design and quality of all available studies into the bioeffecls of low level MMWs. The conclusions from the review of experimental studies are supported by a meta - analysis in our companion paper [9[. Given the low -quality methods of the majority of the experimental studies we infer that a systematic review of different bioeffecls is not pos- sible at present. Our review includes recommendations for future experimental research. A search of the available lit- erature showed a further 44 non-English papers that were not included in our review. Although the non-English papers may have some important results it is noted that the majority are from research groups that have published English papers that are included in our review. The epidemiological studies on MMW exposure from radar that has a similar frequency range to that of 5 G and exposure levels below the 1CN1RP occupational limits in most situations, provided little evidence of an association with any adverse health effects. Only a small number of studies reported positive associations with various metho- dological issues such as risk of bias, confounding and multiple testing questioning the result. The three large cohort studies of military personnel exposed to radar in particular did not generally show an association with cancer or other diseases. A key concern across all the epidemiological stu- dies was the quality of exposure assessment. Various chal- lenges such as variability in complex occupational environments that also include other co -exposures, retro- spective estimation of exposure and an appropriate exposure metric remain central in studies of this nature [1531. Expo- sure in most of the epidemiological studies was self -reported or based on job -title, which may not necessarily be an adequate proxy for exposure to RF fields above 6 GHz. Some studies improved on exposure assessment by using expert assessment and job -exposure matrices, however, the possibility of exposure misclassification is not eliminated. Another limitation in many of the studies was the poor assessment of possible confounding including other occu- pational exposures and lifestyle factors. It should also be noted that close proximity to certain very powerful radar units could have exceeded the 1CN1RP occupational limits, therefore the reported effects especially related to repro- ductive outcomes could potentially be related to healing. Given that wireless communications have only recently started to use RF frequencies above 6 GHz there are no epidemiological studies investigating 5 G directly as yet. Some previous epidemiological studies have reported a possible weak association between mobile phone use (from older networks using frequencies below 6 GHz) and brain cancer [ 11 1. However, methodological limitations in these studies prevent conclusions of causality being drawn from the observations [152[. Recent investigations have not shown an increase in the incidence of brain cancer in the population that can be attributed to mobile phone use [ 154, 1551. Future epidemiological research should SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... continue to monitor long-term health effects in the popu- lation related to wireless telecommunications. The review of experimental studies provided no confirmed evidence that low-level MMWs are associated with biological effects relevant to human health. Many of the studies reporting effects came from the same research groups and the results have not been independently reproduced. The majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control so the possibility of experimental artefact cannot be excluded. Further, many of the effects reported may have been related to heating from high RF energy deposition so the assertion of a `low-level' effect is questionable in many of the studies. Future studies into the low-level effects of MMWs should improve the experi- mental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. The results from epidemiological studies presented little evidence of an association between low- level MMWs and any adverse health effects. Future epidemiological research would benefit from specific inves- tigation on the impact of 5 G and future telecommunication technologies. Funding This work was supported by the Australian Government's Electromagnetic Energy Program. This work was also partly supported by National Health and Medical Research Council grant no. 1042464. Compliance with ethical standards Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interest Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published snaps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Corrnmons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licen ses/by/4.0/. References I. Wu T, Rappaport TS, Collins CM. Safe for generations to come: considerations of safety for millimeter waves in wireless com- munications. IEEE Micro Mag. 2015;16:65-84. 2. Health protection agency (HPA). Health effects from radio - frequency electromagnetic fields: the report of the independent advisory group on non -ionising radiation (AGNIR). HPA. 2012; RCE 20. 3. Scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks (SCENHIR). Potential health effects of exposure to elec- tromagnetic fields (EMF). Euro Comm. 2015; 1831-4783. 4. Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency (ARPANSA). Radiation protection standard for maximum exposure levels to radiofrequeney fields -3 kHz to 300 GHz. Radiation Protection Series 3. ARPANSA; 2002. 5. International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to electro- magnetic fields (100 KHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020;118:483-524. 6. Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. IEEE 2019; C95.1. 7. Stam R. Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields ('power frequency and radiofrequeney fields). National institute for public health and the environment, RIVM 2018. 8. Simko M, Mattsson MO. 5G Wireless communication and health effects —a pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int 7 Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:3406. 9. Wood A, Mate R, Karipidis K. Meta -analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00307-7. 10. International commission on non -Ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP). Exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (100 kHz -300 GHz). ICNIRP 2009; 978-3-934994-10-2. 11. International agency for research on cancer (IARC). !ARC monographs: non -ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequeney electromagnetic fields. !ARC 2013;102:1-460. 12. Garaj-Vrhovae V, Horvat D, Koren Z. The relationship between colony-forsning ability, chromosome aberrations and incidence of micronuclei in V79 Chinese hamster cells exposed to micro- wave wave radiation. Mutat Res Lett. 1991;263:143-9. 13. Garaj-Vrhovac V, Fueic A, Horvat D. The correlation between the frequency of micronuclei and specific chromosome aberra- tions in human lymphocytes exposed to microwave radiation in vitro. Mutat Res Lett. 1992;281:181-6. 14. Korenstein-Ilan A, Barbul A, Hasin P, Eliran A, Gover A, Korenstein R. Terahertz radiation increases genomic instability in human lymphocytes. Radiat Res. 2008;170:224-34. 15. Hintzsche H, 7astrow C, Kleine-Ostrnann T, Karst U, Schrader T, Stopper H. Terahertz electromagnetic fields (0.106 THz) do not induce manifest genomic damage in vitro. PIoS One. 2012;7: e46397. 16. Kovarna S, Narita E, Shimizu Y, Suzuki Y, Shiina T, Taki M, et al. Effects of long-term exposure to 60 GHz rnillimeter- wavelength radiation on the genotoxicity and heat shock protein (Hsp) expression of cells derived from human eve. Int 7 Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:802. 17. Koyama S, Narita E, Suzuki Y, Shiina T, Taki M, Shinohara N, et al. Long-term exposure to a 40-GHz electromagnetic field does not affect genotoxicity or heat shock protein expres- sion in HCE-T or SRA01/04 cells. 7 Radiat Res. 2019;60:417-23. 18. De Amicis A, De Sanetis S, Di Cristofaro S, Franchini V, Lista F, Regalbuto E, et al. Biological effects of in vitro THz radiation exposure in human foetal fibroblasts. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015;793:150-60. 19. Franchini V, Regalbuto E, De Amicis A, De Sanctis S, Di Cristofaro S, Coluzzi E, et al. Genotoxic effects in human fibroblasts exposed to microwave radiation. Health Phys. 2018;115:126-39. SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. 20. Shckorbatov YG, Griganeva NN, Shakhbazov VG, Grabina VA, Bogoslaysky AM. Microwave irradiation influences on the state of human cell nuclei. Biocleetromagnetics. 1998;19:414-9. 21. Shckorbatov YG, Pasiuga VN, Kolchigin NN, Grabina VA, Batrakov DO, Kalashnikov VV. The influence of differently polarised microwave radiation on chromatin in human cells. Int 7 Radiat Biol. 2009;85:322-9. 22. Shckorbatov YG, Pasiuga VN, Goncharuk EI, Pctrcnko TP, Grabina VA, Kolchigin NN, et al. Effects of differently polarized microwave radiation on the microscopic structure of the nuclei in human fibroblasts. J. Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2010;11:801-5. 23. Paulraj R, Bchari J. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 2006;596:76-80. 24. Kcsari KK, Bchari J. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl Biochcm Biotcchnol. 2009;158:126. 25. Kumar S, Kcsari KK, Bchari J. Evaluation of gemnoxic effects in male Wistar rats following microwave exposure. Indian J. Exp Biol. 2010;48:586-92. 26. Crauzier D, Perrin A, Torres G, Dabouis V, Debauzy JC. Pulsed electromagnetic field at 9.71 GHz increase free radical produc- tion in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Patho Biol. 2009;57:245-51. 27. Srnolyanskava AZ, Vilenskava RL. Effects of millimeter -band electromagnetic radiation on the functional activity of certain genetic elements of bacterial cells. Sov Phys. 1974;16:571. USPEKHI 28. Lukashevsky KV, Bclyaev IY. Switching of prophage lambda genes in Eschcrichia coli by millimetre waves. Med Sci Res. 1990;18:955-7. 29. Kalantaryan VP, Vardcvanvan PO, Babavan YS, Gcvorgyan ES, Hakobyan SN, Antonyan AP. Influence of low intensity coherent electromagnetic millimeter radiation (EMR) on aqua solution of DNA. Prog Electrotnag Res. 2010;13:1-9. 30. Hintzsche H, 7astrow C, Kleine-Ostrnann T. Terahertz radiation induces spindle disturbances in human -hamster hybrid cells. Radiat Res. 2011;175:569-74. 31. Zeni O, Gallerano GP, Perrotta A, Romano M, Sannino A, Sarti M, et al. Cytogenetic observations in human peripheral blood leukocytes fallowing in vitro exposure to THz radiation: a pilot study. Health Phys. 2007;92:349-57. 32. Gapeyev A, Lukyanova N, Gudkov S. Hydrogen peroxide induced by modulated electromagnetic radiation protects the cells frotn DNA datnage. Open Life Sci. 2014;9:915-21. 33. Gapcyev AB, Lukyamwa NA. Pulse -modulated extremely high - frequency cleetratnagnetic radiation protects cellular DNA from the damaging effects of physical and chemical factors in vitro. Biophys. 2015;60:732-8. 34. Webb 57, Dodds DD. Inhibition of bacterial cell growth by 136 GC microwaves. Nature. 1968;218:374-5. 35. Webb 57, Booth AD. Absorption of microwaves by micro- organistns. Nature. 1969;222:1199-200. 36. Rojavin MA, Ziskin MC. Effect of millimeter waves on survival of UVC-exposed Eschcrichia coli. Bioelectromagneties. 1995;16:188-96. 37. Pakhotnova ON, Pakhotmw AG, Akyel Y. Effect of millimeter waves on UV -induced recombination and tnutagenesis in yeast. Biocicctrochcm Biocncrg. 1997;43:227-32. 38. Cohen I, Cahan R, Shani G, Cohen E, Abramovich A. Effect of 99 GHz continuous millimeter wave electro-rnagnetic radiation on E. coli viability and metabolic activity. Int 7 Radiat Biol. 2010;86:390-9. 39. Tadevosyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation enforces bacterial effects of inhibitors and antibiotics. Cell Bioc:hem Biophys. 2008;51:97-103. 40. Torgomyan H, Trchounian A. Low -intensity electromagnetic irradiation of 70.6 and 73 GHz frequencies enhances the effects of disulfide bonds reducer on Eschcrichia coli growth and affects the bacterial surface oxidation—reduction state. Biochcm Biophys Res Commun. 2011;414:265-9. 41. Torgornyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Low intensity electromagnetic irradiation with 70.6 and 73 GHz frequencies affects Eschcrichia coli growth and changes water properties. Cell Biochcm Biophys. 2011;60:275-81. 42. Torgornyan H, Hovnanyan K, Trchounian A. Eschcrichia coli growth changes by the mediated effects after low -intensity electromagnetic irradiation of extremely high frequencies. Cell Biochcm Biophys. 2012;65:445-54. 43. Torgomyan H, Ohanyan V, Blbulyan S, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Electromagnetic irradiation of Entcrococcus hirac at low -intensity 51.8 -and 53.0-GHz frequencies: changes in bacterial cell membrane properties and enhanced antibiotics effects. FEMS mierobiol Lett. 2012;329:131-7. 44. Soghomonvan D, Trchounian A. Comparable effects of low - intensity electromagnetic irradiation at the frequency of 51.8 and 53 GHz and antibiotic ceftaziditnc an Lactobacillus acidophilus growth and survival. Cell Biachem Biophys. 2013;67:829-35. 45. Hovnanvan K, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. The distinguishing effects of low -intensity electromagnetic radiation of different extremely high frequencies on Entcrococcus hirac: growth rate inhibition and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Lett Appl tnicrobiol. 2017;65:220-5. 46. Grundlcr W, Keiltnann F. Nonthertnal effects of millimeter microwaves on yeast growth. Z Naturforsch. 1977;33:15-22. 47. Grundlcr W, Keilmann F. Sharp resonances in yeast growth prove nonthermal sensitivity to microwaves. Phys Rev Lett. 1983;51:1214. 48. Furia L, Hill DW, Gandhi OMP. Effect of millimeter -wave irradiation on growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. IEEE Trans Biom Eng. 1986;33:993-9. 49. Gos P, Eicher B, Kohli 7, Heyer WD. Extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields at low power density do not affect the division of exponential phase Saccharotnyccs eerevisiae cells. Biocleetromagnetics. 1997;18:142-55. 50. Chidichitno G, Bcncduci A, Nicoletta M, Critelli M, De RR, Tkatchenko Y, et al. Selective inhibition of tumoral cells growth by low power millimeter waves. Anticancer Res. 2002;22:1681-8. 51. Bcncduci A, Chidichimo G, Tripepi S, Perrotte E. Frequency and irradiation time -dependant antiprolifcrativc effect of low -power millimeter waves on RPMI 7932 human melanoma cell line. Anticancer Res. 2(105;25(2A):1023-8. 52. Bcncduci A, Chidichimo G, Tripepi S, Perrotte E. Transmission electron microscopy study of the effects produced by wide -band low -power millimeter waves on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells in culture. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(2A):1009-13. 53. Bcncduci A. Evaluation of the potential in vitro antiprolifcrativc effects of millimeter waves at some therapeutic frequencies on RPMI 7932 human skin malignant melanoma cells. Cell Bio- chcrn Biophys. 2009;1:25-32. 54. Bcncduci A, Chidiehirno G, Tripepi S, Perrotta E, Cufone F. Antipraliferativc effect of millimeter radiation on human ery- throtnycloid leukemia cell line K562 in culture: ultrastructural- and metabolic -induced changes. Bioclectrochernistry. 2007;70:214=20. 55. Yaekashiwa N, Otsuki S, Hayashi SI, Kawase K. Investigation of the non -thermal effects of exposing cells to 70-300 GHz irra- diation using a widely tunable source. 7 Radiat Res. 2017;59:116-21. 56. Badzhinyan SA, Sayadyan AB, Sarkisyan NK, Grigoryan RM, Gasparyan GG. Lethal effect of electromagnetic radiation of the SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... millimeter wavelength range on cell cultures of chicken embryo. Dokl Biochern Biophys. 2001;377:94-5. 57. Shiina T, Suzuki Y, Kasai Y, Inami Y, Taki M, Wake K. Effect of two-times 24 h exposures to 60 GHz millimeter -waves on ncuritc outgrowth in PC 12VG cells in consideration of polar- ization. IEEE Int Sympo Elcctmmag Compat. 2014;13:166-9. 58. Lc Qudrncnt C, Nicolas Nicolaz C, Zhadobov M, Dcsrnots F, Saulcau R, Aubry M, et al. Whole-gcnornc expression analysis in primary human keratino cytc cell cultures exposed to 60 GHz radiation. Biocicctromagnctics. 2012;33:147-58. 59. Zhadobov M, Saulcau R, Lc Coq L, Thouroudc D, Orlov Michel D et al. 60 GHz electromagnetic fields do not activate stress -sensitive gene expression. IEEE 11th Int Sympo on Antenna Tcchnol and appl electromag. 2005;11:1-4. 60. Zhadobov M, Saulcau R, Lc Coq L, Dcbure L, Thouroudc D, Michel D, et al. Low -power rnillirncter wave radiations do not alter stress -sensitive gene expression of chaperone proteins. Bi ocicctromagnctics. 2007;28:18 8-96. 61. Zhadobov M, Nicolaz CN, Saulcau R, Dcsmots F, Thouroudc D, Michel D, et al. Evaluation of the potential biological effects of the 60-GHz millimeter waves upon human cells. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag. 2009;57:2949-56. 62. Nicolaz CN, Zhadobov M, Dcsrnots F, Ansart A, Saulcau R, Thouroudc D, et al. Study of narrow band millimeter -wave potential interactions with cndoplasmic rcticulum stress sensor genes. Bioelectromagnctics. 2008;30:365-73. 63. Nicolaz CN, Zhadobov M, Dcsrnots F, Saulcau R, Thouroudc D, Michel D, et al. Absence of direct effect of low -power milli- meter -wave radiation at 60.4 GHz on cndoplasmic rcticulum stress. Cell Biol Toxieol. 2009;25:471-8. 64. Bclyacv IY, Alipov YD, Shchcglov VS, Lystsov VN. Resonance effect of microwaves on the gcnornc conformational state of E. coli cells. Z Naturforsch C. 1992;47:621-7. 65. Bclyacv IY, Shchcglov VS, Alipov YD. Existence of selection rules on hclicity during discrete transitions of the gcnomc con- formational state of E. coli cells exposed to low-level millimetre radiation. Bioclectrochem Biocncrg. 1992;27:445-11. 66. Bclyacv IY, Shchcglov VS, Alipov YD. Selection rules on hclicity during discrete transitions of the gcnomc conformational state in intact and X-rayed cells of E. coli in millimeter range of electromagnetic field. Charg Field Eff Biosyst. 1992;3:115-26. 67. Bclyacv i, Alipov YD, Shchcglov VS, Chromosome DNA. as a target of resonant interaction between Eschcrichia coli cells and low —intensity rnillirnctcr waves. Electro Magnetobiol. 1992;11:97-108. 68. Bclyacv IY, Alipov YD, Polunin VA, Shchcglov VS. Evidence for dependence of resonant frequency of millimeter wave inter- action with Eschcrichia coli K 12 cells on haploid gcnomc length. Elcctro Magnetobiol. 1993;12:39-49. 69. Bclyacv IY, Shchcglov VS, Alipov YD, Radko SP. Regularities of separate and combined effects of circularly polarized milli- meter waves on E. coli cells at different phases of culture growth. Bioclectrochem Bioenerg. 1993;31:49-63. 70. Bclyacv IY, Alipov YD, Shchcglov VS, Polunin VA, Aizcnbcrg OA. Cooperative response of Eschcrichia coli cells to the reso- nance effect of millimeter waves at super low intensity. Electro Magnetobiol. 1994; 13:53-66. 71. Bclyacv IY, Kravchenko VG. Resonance effect of low -intensity millimeter waves on the chromatin conformational state of rat thymoc:ytcs. Z Naturforsch. 1994;49:352-8. 72. Bclyacv IY, Shchcglov VS, Alipov YD, Polunin VA. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10-19 to 3x 10-3 W/ctn2 on Eschcrichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioclectrornagneties. 1996;17:312-21. 73. Shchcglov VS, Bclyacv I, Alipov YD, Ushakov VL. Power - dependent rearrangement in the spectrum of resonance effect of millimeter waves on the gcnornc conformational state of Eschcrichia Coli cells. Electro Magnetobiol. 1997;16:69-82. 74. Shchcglov VS, Alipov ED, Bclyacv I. Cell -to -cell communica- tion in response of E. coli cells at different phases of growth to low -intensity microwaves. Biochim biophys Acta. 2002;1572:101-6. 75. Gandhi OP, Hagnnann MI, Hill DW, Partlow LM, Bush L. Millimeter wave absorption spectra of biological sarnplcs. Bioelcctromagnctics. 1980;1:285-98. 76. Bush LG, Hill DW, Riazi A, Stcnsaas L7, Partlow LM, Gandhi OP. Effects of millimeter -wave radiation on monolaycr cell cultures. ilI. A search for frequency -specific athcrmal biological effects on protein synthesis. Bioclectromagnctics. 1981;2:151-9. 77. Bclyacv IY, Shchcglov VS, Alipov ED, Ushakov VD. Non - thermal effects of extremely high -frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitror—dependence on phy- sical, physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech. 2000;48:2172-9. 78. Pakhornov AG, Akycl Y, Pakhomova ON, Stuck BE, Murphy MR. Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: a review of the literature. Bioelee- trornagnetics. 1998;19:393-4 13. 79. Minasvan SM, Grigorvan GY, Saakvan SG, Akhumyan AA, Kalantaryan VP. Effects of the action of microwave -frequency electromagnetic radiation on the spike activity of neurons in the supraoptic nucleus of the hypothalamus in rats. Neurosci Bchav Physiol. 2007;37:175-80. 80. Pikov V, Arakaki X, Harrington M, Fraser SE, Sicgcl PH. Modulation of neuronal activity and plasma membrane proper- ties with low -power millimeter waves in organotypic cortical slices. 7 Neural Eng. 2010;7:045003. 81. Munetnori 7, Ikeda T. Effects of low-level microwave radiation on the eye of the crayfish. Med Biol Eng Cornput. 1982;20:84-8. 82. Munemori 7, Ikeda T. Biological effects of X -band microwave radiation on the eye of the crayfish. Mcd Biol Eng Cornput. 1984;22:263-7. 83. Pakhornov AG, Pml HK, Mathur SP, Akvcl Y, Campbell CB. Frequency -specific effects of millimeter -wavelength electro- magnetic radiation in isolated nerve. Electro Magnetobiol. 1997;16:43-57. 84. Pakhornov AG, Prol HK, Mathur SP, Akvcl Y, Campbell CB. Search for frequency -specific effects of millimeter -wave radiation on isolated nerve function. Bioclectromagnctics. 1997;18:324-34. 85. Pakhornov AG, Prot HK, Mathur SP, Akyel Y, Campbell CB. Role of field intensity in the biological effectiveness of milli- meter waves at a resonance frequency. Bioelcctro chcm Biocncrg. 1997;43:27-33. 86. Pikov V, Siegel PH. Millimeter wave -induced changes in membrane properties of leech Rctzius neurons. Photonic Ther- apeutics Diagnostics. 2011;7883:56-1. 87. Rornancnko S, Sicgcl PH, Pikov V. Micro closirnetnr and phy- siological effects of rnillirnctcr wave irradiation in isolated neural ganglion preparation. IEEE 2013 International kharkov sympo- sium on physics and engineering of microwaves, millimeter and submillimctcr waves. IEEE. 2013;13:512-6. 88. Rornancnko S, Sicgcl PH, Wagcnaar DA, Pikov V. Effects of millimeter wave irradiation and equivalent thermal heating on the activity of individual neurons in the leech ganglion. 7 Neuro- phvsiol. 2014; I 12:2423-31. 89. Bcncduci A, Filippclli L, Cosentino K, Calabrese ML, Massa R, Chidichimo G. Microwave induced shift of the main phase transition in phosphatidylcholinc rnetnbranes. Bioelee- trocherni stry. 2012;1:18-24. 90. Bcncduci A, Cosentino K, Chidichirno G. Millimeter wave radiations affect membrane hydration in phosphatidylcholinc vesicles. Materials. 2013;6:2701-12. SPRINGER NATURE K. Karipidis et al. 91. Bcncduci A, Cosentino K, Romeo S, Massa R, Chklichirno G. Effect of millimetre waves on phosphatidylcholinc membrane models: a non -thermal rnechanisrn of interaction. Soft Matter. 2014;10:5559-67. 92. Gcictyuk VI, Kazachcnko VN, Chemeris NK, Fcscnko EE. Dual effects of microwaves on single Cat+ -activated K+ channels in cultured kidney cells Vero. FEBS Lett. 1995;359:85-8. 93. Chen Q, Zcng QL, Lu DQ, Chiang H. Millimeter wave exposure reverses TPA suppression of gap junction intercellular cornrnu- nication in HaCaT human kcratinocytcs. Biocicctromagnctics. 2004;25:1-4. 94. Shckorbatov YG, Shakhbazov VG, Navrotskava VV, Grabina VA, Sircnko SP, Fisun AI, et al. Application of intracellular rnicrocicctrophoresis to analysis of the influence of the low-level microwave radiation on cicctrokinctic properties of nuclei in human epithelial cells. Electrophoresis. 2002;23:2074-9. 95. Zhadobov M, Saulcau R, Vic V, Himdi M, Lc Coq L, Thouroudc D. Interactions between 60-GHz millimeter waves and artificial biological membranes: dependence on radiation parameters. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech. 2006;542534-42. 96. Dcghoyan A, Hcgirnyan A, Nikoghosyan A, Dadasyan E, Ayr- apctyan S. Cell bathing medium as a target for non thermal effect of millimeter waves. Electromag Biol Med. 2012;31:132-42. 97. D'Agostino S, Della Monica C, Palizzi E, Di Pictrantonio F, Bcnctti M, Cannata D, et al. Extremely high frequency electro- magnetic fields facilitate electrical signal propagation by increasing transmcmbrane potassium efflux in an artificial axon model. Sci Rep. 2018;8:9299. 98. Rarnundo-Orlando A, Longo G, Cappelli M, Girasole M, Tar- rieonc L, Bcncduci A, et al. The response of giant phospholipid vesicles to millimeter waves radiation. Biochcm Biophys Acta. 2009;1788:1497-507. 99. Di Donato L, Cataldo M, Stano P, Massa R, Rarnundo-Orlando A. Permeability changes of cationic liposomcs loaded with car- bonic anhydrasc induced by millimeter waves radiation. Radiat Res. 2012;178:437-46. 100. Cosentino K, Bcncduci A, Ramundo-Orlando A, Chidichimo G. The influence of millimeter waves on the physical properties of large and giant unilamellar vesicles. J Biol Phys. 2013;39:395-410. 101. Manikowska E, Luciani 7M, Scrvantic B, Czcrski P, Obrcnovitch 7, Stahl A. Effects of 9.4 GHz microwave exposure on meiosis in mice. Expericntia. 1979;35:388-90. 102. Subbotina TI, Tcreshkina OV, Khadartscv AA, Yashin AA. Effect of low -intensity extremely high frequency radiation on reproductive function in Wistar rats. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2006;142:189-90. 103. Volkova NA, Pavlovich EV, Gapon AA, Nikolov OT. Effects of millimeter -wave electromagnetic exposure on the morphology and function of human cryoprescrvcd spermatozoa. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2014;157:574-6. 104. Kcsari KK, Bchari J. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl Biochern Biotcchnol. 2010;162: 416-28. 105. Kumar S, Kcsari KK, Bchari J. Influence of microwave exposure on fertility of male rats. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1500-2. 106. Gapcycv AB, Safronova VG, Chemeris NK, Fcscnko EE. Inhi- bition of the production of reactive oxygen species in rnousc peritoneal ncutrophils by millimeter wave radiation in the near and far field zones of the radiator. Biocicctrochcrn Biocncrg. 1997;43:217-20. 107. Gapcycv AB, Yakushina VS, Chemeris NK, Fcscnko EE. Modification of production of reactive oxygen species in rnousc peritoneal ncutrophils on exposure to low -intensity moclulated millimeter wave radiation. Bioclectrochem Biocncrg. 1998;46:267-72. 108. Safronova VG, Gabrloulkhakova AG, Santalov BF. Irnrnuno- modulating action of low intensity millimeter waves on primed ncutrophils. Biocicctromagnctics. 2002;23:599-606. 109. Homcnko A, Kapilevich B, Komstcin R, Firer MA. Effects of 100 GHz radiation on alkaline phosphatase activity and antigen —antibody interaction. Bioclectrornagnctics. 2009;30:167-75. 110. Gapcycv AB, Kulagina TP, Aripovsky AV, Chemeris NK. The role of fatty acids in anti-inflamrnatory effects of low -intensity extremely high -frequency electromagnetic radiation. Biocicc- tromagnctics. 2011;32:388-95. 1 1 1. Gapcycv AB, Kulagina TP, Aripovsky AV. Exposure of tumor - bearing mice to extremely high -frequency electromagnetic radiation modifies the composition of fatty acids in thyrnocytcs and tumor tissue. Int 7 Radiat Biol. 2013;89:602-10. 112. Gapcycv AB, Aripovsky AV, Kulagina TP. Modifying effects of low -intensity cxtrcrncly high -frequency electromagnetic radia- tion on content and composition of fatty acids in thymus of mice exposed to X-rays. Int 7 Radiat Biol. 2015;91:277-85. 113. Rotkovska D, Moc 7, Kautska 7, Bartonickova A, Kcprtova 7, Hofer M. Evaluation of the biological effects of police radar RAMER 7F. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101:134-�6. 114. Muller J, Haider KP, Muller V, Waldmann 7, Landstorfcr FM, Wisnicwski R, et al. Influence of low power cm-/rnm-rnicro- wavcs on cardiovascular function. Int J. Environ Health Res. 2004;14:331-41. 115. Webb 57, Barth AD. Microwave absorption by normal and tumor cells. Science. 1971;1:72-4.174 116. Stensaas L7, Partlow LM, Bush LG, Iversen PL, Hill DW, Hagrnann M7, et al. Effects of millimeter -wave radiation on monolaycr cell cultures. II. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Biocicctromagnctics. 1981;2:141-50. 117. Bcllossi A, Dubost G, Moulinoux 7P, Himdi M, Ruclloux M, Rocher C. Biological effects of millimeter wave irradiation on mice -preliminary results. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech. 2000;48:2104-10. 118. Olchowik G, Maj 7G. Inhibitory action of microwave radiation on gamma-glutamyl transpcptidasc activity in liver of rats treated with hydrocortisone. Folia Histochernica Et Cytobiologica. 2000;38:189-91. 119. Khizhnyak EP, Ziskin MC. Temperature oscillations in liquid media caused by continuous (nonmodulatcd) millimeter wave- length electromagnetic irradiation. Bioclectromagncties. 1996;17:223-9. 120. Sarapultseva EI, Igolkina ]V, Tikhonov VN, Dubrova YE. The in vivo effects of low -intensity radiofrcqucncy fields on the motor activity of protozoa. Int 7 Radiat Biol. 2014;90262-7. 121. Robinette CD, Silverman C, Jablon S. Effects upon health of occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Arn 7 Epidcrniol. 1980;112:39-53. 122. Groves FD, Page WF, Gridley G, Lisirnaquc L, Stewart PA, Tarone RE, et al. Cancer in Korean war navy technicians: mortality survey after 40 years. Am 7 EpidcrnioL 2002;155:810-8. 123. Dcgravc E, Auticr P, Grivcgn6e AR, Zizi M. All -cause mortality among Belgian military radar operators: a 40 -year controlled longitudinal study. Eur 7 Epidcmiol. 2005;20:677-81. 124. Dcgravc E, Meeuscn B, Grivcgncc AR, Bcxtiol M, Auticr P. Causes of death among Belgian professional military radar operators: a 37 -year retrospective cohort study. Int 7 Cancer. 2009;124:945-51. 125. Dabouis V, Arvers P, Debouzv 7C, Scbbah C, Crouzicr D, Perrin A. First epidemiological study on occupational radar exposure in the French Navy: a 26 -year cohort study. Int J Environ Health Res. 2016;26:131-44. 126. Hayes RB, Brown LM, Pottcm LM, Gomez M, Kanlaun 7W, Hoover RN, et al. Occupation and risk for testicular cancer: a case -control study. Int J. EpidcrnioL 1990;19:825-31. SPRINGER NATURE 5G mobile networks and health —a state -of -the -science review of the research into low-level RF fields... 127. Davis RL, Mostofi FK. Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar. Am J Ind Med. 1993;24:231-3. 128. Harden LE, Nasrnan A, Ohlson CG, Fredrikson MA. Case - control study on risk factors for testicular cancer. Int 7 Oncol. 1998;13:1299-602. 129. Baumgardt--Elms C, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Boikat U, Stang A, Jahn I, et al. Testicular cancer and electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the workplaces results of a population -based case —control study in Germany. Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:895-902. 130. Walschaerts M, Muller A, Auger J, Bujan L, Guerin JF, Lannou DL, et al. Environmental, occupational and familial risks for testicular cancer: a hospital -based case -control study. Int J Androl. 2007;30:222-9. 131. Grayson JK. Radiation exposure, socioeconomic status, and brain tumor risk in the US Air Force: a nested case -control study. Am J Epidcmiol. 1996;143:480-6. 132. Santana VS, Silva M, Loomis D. Brain neoplasms among naval military men. Int J Occup Environ health. 1999;5:88-94. 133. Holly EA, Aston DA, Ahn DK, Smith AH. Intraocular mela- noma linked to occupations and chemical exposures. Epide- miology. 1996;1:55-61. 134. Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Bornfeld N, Rickel KH. The possible role of radiofrcqucncy radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology. 2001;1:7-12. 135. La Vecchia CA, Negri E, D'avanzo BA, Franceschi S. Occu- pation and the risk of bladder cancer. Int J Epidcmiol. 1990;19:264-8. 136. Finkelstein MM. Cancer incidence among Ontario police offi- cers. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:157-62. 137. Fabbro-Peray P, Daures JP, Rossi JF. Environmental risk factors for non -Hodgkin's lymphoma: a population -based case —control study in Languedoc,-Roussillon, France. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12:201-12. 138. Variani AS, Saboori S, Shahsavari S, Yari S, Zaroushani V. Effect of occupational exposure to radar radiation on cancer risk: a systematic review and meta -analysis. Asian Pac J cancer prey. 2019;20:3211-9. 139. Weyandt TB, Schrader SM, Turner TW, Simon SD. Semen analysis of military personnel associated with military duty assignments. Rcprod Toxicol. 1996;10:521-8. 140. Hjollund NH, Bonde JP, Skotte J. Semen analysis of personnel operating military radar equipment. Rcprod Toxicol. 1997;11:897 141. Schrader SM, Langford RE, Turner TW, Breitenstein MJ, Clark JC, Jenkins BL. Reproductive function in relation to duty assignments among military personnel. Rcprod Toxicol. 1998;12:465-8. 142. Velez De La Calle JF, Rachou E, le Martelot MT, Ducot B, Multigner L, Thonneau PF. Male infertility risk factors in a French military population. Hum reprod. 2001;16:481-6. 143. Baste V, Riise T, Moen BE. Radiofrequeney electromagnetic fields; male infertility and sex ratio of offspring. Eur 7 Epidemiol. 2008;23:369-77. 144. MOllerlOkken OJ, Moen BE. Is fertility reduced among men exposed to radiofrequeney fields in the Norwegian Navy? B ioeleetromagneti es. 2008;29.345-52. 145. De Roos AJ, Teschke K, Savitz DA, Poole C, Grufferman S, Pollock BH, et al. Parental occupational exposures to electro- magnetic fields and radiation and the incidence of neuroblastoma in offspring. Epidemiology. 2001;1:508-17. 146. Magcroy N, Mollerlokken OJ, Riise T, Koefoed V, Moen BE. A higher risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of personnel who served aboard a Norwegian missile torpedo boat. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:92-7. 147. Baste V, Moen BE, Oftedal G, Strand LA, 'Norge L, Mild KH. Pregnancy outcomes after paternal radiofrcqucncy field exposure aboard fast patrol boats. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54:431-8. 148. Beard JD, Kamel F. Military service, deployments, and expo- sures in relation to amyotrophie lateral sclerosis etiology and survival. Epiderniol Rev. 2015;37:55-70. 149. Garaj-Vrhovac V, Gajski G, Pazanin S, Sarolic A, Domijan AM, Flajs D, et al. Assessment of eytogenetie damage and oxidative stress in personnel occupationally exposed to the pulsed micro- wave radiation of marine radar equipment. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2011;214:59-65. 150. Mortazavi SM, Shahram TA, Dehghan N. Alterations of visual reaction time and short term memory in military radar personnel. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42:428. 151. Singh S, Mani KV, Kapoor N. Effect of occupational EMF exposure from radar at two different frequency bands on plasma melatonin and serotonin levels. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015;91:426-34. 152. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology: epidemiology of health effects of radiofrcqucncy exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112:1741-54. 153. Savitz DA. Exposure assessment strategics in epidemiological studies of health effects of electric and magnetic fields. Sci Total Environ. 1995;168:143-53. 154. J -H Kim S, Ioannides SJ, Elwood JM. Trends in incidence of primary brain cancer in New Zealand, 1995 to 2010. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2015;39:148-52. 155. Karipidis K, Elwood M, Benke G, Sanagou M, Tjong L, Croft RJ. Mobile phone use and incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical location: a population -based eco- logical study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e024489. SPRINGER NATURE OFT -- RF Safety FAQ's http://transition.fcc.govloet/rfsafety/rf-fags.html#Q 1 .eeenu commtaaion en. Cammna,w Radio Frequency Safety FCC a OET > RF Safety > RF Safety FAQ's Search the FCC: rrcii, I Ach...,,,rr7 RF Safety FAQ's FDA website Visit the FDA consumer information wireless shone website. Radio Frequency Safety Go to FCC.gov Office of Er?_1meerinq arm, TCchoology (fly ] Search I R55 3 Updates I E -Filing I Initiatives I Consumers I Fin6 People Frequently asked questions about the safety of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave emissions from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC Far further information on these (and other) topics please refer to ET Bulletin 56. You may also contact the FCC's RF Safety Program at rfsafcly(acc-aov or 1-688-225-5322 Index (click on topic below) • What is "radiofrequency" and microwave radiation? • What is non -ionizing radiation? • How i5 radiofrequency energy used) • How is radiofrequency radiation measured? • What biological effects can be caused by RF energy? • Can people be exposed to levels of radiofrequency radiation and microwaves that could be harmful, • Can radrofrequency radiation cause cancer • What research is being .done on RF biological effects? • what levels are safe for Exposure to RF energy? • Why has the FCC adopted guidelines for RF exposure? • How safe are mobile phones' Can they cause cancer? • How can I obtain the specific absorption rate- (SAR) value for my mohde phone? • Do "hands -free" ear pieces for mobile phones reduce exposure to RF emissions, What about mobile phone accessories that claim to shield the head from RF radiation? • Can mobile phones he used safely in hospitals and near medical telemetry equipment? • Are cellular and RCS towers and antennas safe • Are cellular and other radio towers located near homes or schools safe for residents and students? • Are emissions from radio and television antennas safe' • How safe are radio antennas used for paging and "two-way" communications? What about "push -to -talk" radios such as "walkie-talkies?" • How safe, -are microwave and satellite antennas? • Are RF emisssons.from amateur radio stations harmful? • What rs the FCC's policy on radrofrequency warning signs) For example, vdien should signs be posted, where should they be located and what should they say? • Can implanted electronic cardiac pacemakers be affected by nearby RF devices such as microwave ovens or cellular telephones? • Does the FCC regulate exposure to radiation. t,r0m microwave ovens, television sets and computer monitors? • Does the FCC routinely monitor radiofrequency radiation from antennas? • tr_oes the FCC maintain a database that includes inforrnati.on on the location and technical parameters of all the towers and antennas it regulates? • Which other federal agencies have re5ponstiatles related to potential RF health effects • Can local and state governmental bodies esta.hlrsh limits for RF exposure • where can I obtain more information On potential health effects of radiofrequency energy? WHAT ARE "RADIOFREQUENCY" AND MICROWAVE RADIATION? Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (i.e., radiating) through space at the speed of light. Taken together, all farms of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the electromagnetic "spectrum." Radio waves and microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy. They are collectively referred to as "radiofrequency" or "RF" energy or radiation. Note that the term "radiation" does not mean "radioactive." Often, the terms "electromagnetic field" or "radiofrequency field" may be used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy. The RF waves emanating from an antenna are generated by the movement of electrical charges in the antenna. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by a wavelength and a frequency. The wavelength is the distance covered by one complete cycle of the electromagnetic wave, while the frequency is the number of electromagnetic waves passing a given point in one second. The frequency of an RF signal Is usually expressed in terms of a unit called the "hertz" (abbreviated "Hz"). One Hz equals one cycle per second. One megahertz ("MHz") equals one million cycles per second. Different forms of electromagnetic energy are categorized by their wavelengths and frequencies. The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as that part of the spectrum where electromagnetic waves have frequencies in the range of about 3 kilohertz (3 kHz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz). Microwaves are a specific category of radio waves that can be loosely defined as radiofrequency energy at frequencies ranging from about 1 GHz upward. (back to Index) WHAT IS NON-1ONI2ING RADIATION? "Ionization" is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules. This process can produce molecular changes that can lead to damage in biological tissue, including effects on DNA, the genetic material of living organisms. This process requires interaction with high levels of electromagnetic energy. Those types of electromagnetic radiation with enough energy to ionize biological material include X-radiation and gamma radiation. Therefore, X-rays and gamma rays are examples of ionizing radiation. The energy levels associated with RF and microwave radiation, on the other hand, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules, and RF energy is, therefore, is a type of non -ionizing radiation. Other types of non -ionizing radiation include visible and infrared light. Often the term "radiation" is used, colloquially, to imply that ionizing radiation (radioactivity), such as that associated with nuclear power plants, is present. Ionizing radiation should not be confused with the lower -energy, non -ionizing radiation with respect to possible biological effects, since the mechanisms of action are quite different. (Back to Index) 1 of 8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM OET -- RF Safety FAQ's http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-fags.html#Q1 HOW IS RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY USED? Probably the most important use for RF energy is in providing telecommunications services. Radio and television broadcasting, cellular telephones, personal communications services (PCS), pagers, cordless telephones, business radio, radio communications for police and fire departments, amateur radio, microwave point-to-point links and satellite communications are just a few of the many telecommunications applications of RF energy. Microwave ovens are an example of a non -communication use of RF energy. Radiofrequency radiation, especially at microwave frequencies, can transfer energy to water molecules. High levels of microwave energy will generate heat in water -rich materials such as most foods. This efficient absorption of microwave energy via water molecules results in rapid heating throughout an object, thus allowing food to be cooked more quickly in a microwave oven than in a conventional oven. Other important non -communication uses of RF energy include radar and industrial heating and sealing. Radar is a valuable tool used in many applications range from traffic speed enforcement to air traffic control and military surveillance. Industrial heaters and sealers generate intense levels of RF radiation that rapidly heats the material being processed in the same way that a microwave oven cooks food. These devices have many uses in industry, including molding plastic materials, gluing wood products, sealing items such as shoes and pocketbooks, and processing food products. There are also a number of medical applications of RF energy, such as diathermy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (Back to Index) HOW IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION MEASURED? An RF electromagnetic wave has both an electric and a magnetic component (electric field and magnetic field), and it is often convenient to express the intensity of the RF environment at a given location in terms of units specific to each component. For example, the unit "volts per meter" (v/m) is used to express the strength of the electric field (electric "field strength"), and the unit "amperes per meter" (Aim) is used to express the strength of the magnetic field (magnetic "field strength"). Another commonly used unit for characterizing the total electromagnetic field is "power density." Power density is most appropriately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from an antenna to be located in the "far -field" zone of the antenna. Power density is defined as power per unit area. For example, power density is commonly expressed in terms of watts per square meter (W/m2), milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2), or microwatts per square centimeter (pW/cm2). One mW/cm2 equals 10 W/m2, and 100 pW/cm2 equal one W/m2. With respect to frequencies in the microwave range, power density is usually used to express intensity of exposure. The quantity used to measure the rate at which RF energy is actually absorbed in a body is tailed the "Specific Absorption Rate" or "SAR." It is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g). In the case of exposure of the whole body, a standing ungrounded human adult absorbs RF energy at a maximum rate when the frequency of the RF radiation is in the range of about 70 MHz. This means that the "whole -body" SAR is at a maximum under these conditions. Because of this "resonance" phenomenon and consideration of children and grounded adults, RF safety standards are generally most restrictive in the frequency range of about 30 to 300 MHz. For exposure of parts of the body, such as the exposure from hand-held mobile phones, "partial -body" SAR limits are used in the safety standards to control absorption of RF energy (see later questions on mobile phones). (Back to Index) WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY? Biological effects can result from exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cape with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood fiow to dissipate the excess heat load. At relatively law levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating; the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if they exist, have been referred to as "non -thermal" effects. A number of reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low -levels of RF energy. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, since much of the research is not done on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards -setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health. (Back to Index) CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION THAT COULD BE HARMFUL? Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly in workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where the recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or mitigation actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy. (Back to Index) CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER? Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. Many other studies have failed to find evidence for a link to cancer or any related condition. The Food and Drug Administration has further information on this topic with respect to RF exposure from mobile phones at the fallowing Web site: FDA Radiation -Emitting Products Page . (Back to Index) WHAT RESEARCH IS BEING DONE ON RF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS? For many years, research into the possible biological effects of RF energy has been carried out in laboratories around the world, and such research is continuing. Past research has resulted in a large number of peer -reviewed scientific publications on this topic. For many years the U.S. Government has sponsored research into the biological effects of RF energy. The majority of this work has been funded by the Department of Defense, due in part, to the extensive military interest in using RF equipment such as radar and other relatively high-powered radio transmitters for routine military operations. In addition, some U.S. civilian federal agencies responsible for health and safety, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have sponsored and conducted research in this area. At the present time, most of the non-military research on biological effects of RF energy in the U.S. is being funded by industry organizations, although relatively more research by government agencies is being carried out overseas, particularly in Europe. In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established a program called the International EMF Project, which is designed to review the sclentlfic literature concerning biological effects of electromagnetic fields, identify gaps in knowledge about such effects, recommend research needs, and work towards international resolution of health concerns over the use of RF technology. The WHO maintains a Web site that provides extensive information on this project and about RF biological effects and research (www,who.c.h/peh-emf). The FDA, the EPA and other federal agencies responsible for public health and safety have worked together and in connection with the WHO to monitor developments and identify research needs related to RF biological effects. More information about this can be obtained at the FDA Web site: FDA FW(Oion-Eritting Products Page. (Back to Index) 2 of 8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM OET -- RF Safety FAQ's http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-fags.html#Q1 WHAT LEVELS ARE SAFE FOR EXPOSURE TO RF ENERGY? Exposure standards for radiofrequency energy have been developed by various organizations and countries. These standards recommend safe levels of exposure for both the general public and for workers. In the United States, the FCC has adopted and used recognized safety guidelines for evaluating RF environmental exposure since 1985. Federal health and safety agencies, such as the EPA, FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have also been involved in monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields were derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by expert scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects. The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they incorporate prudent margins of safety. In adopting the most recent RF exposure guidelines, the FCC consulted with the EPA, FDA, OSHA and NIOSH, and obtained their support for the guidelines that the FCC is using. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The [CHIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, [CHIRP recommends somewhat different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure due to such devices as hand-held cellular telephones. One of the goals of the WHO EMF Project (see above) is to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF safety standards. The NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP exposure guidelines identify the same threshold level at which harmful biological effects may occur, and the values for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) recommended for electric and magnetic field strength and power density in both documents are based on this level. The threshold level is a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value for the whole body of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg). In addition, the NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines for maximum permissible exposure are different for different transmitting frequencies. This is due to the finding (discussed above) that whole -body human absorption of RF energy varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole -body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently when the whole body is exposed. For devices that only expose part of the body, such as mobile phones, different exposure limits are specified (see below). The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The actual values can be found in either of two informational bulletins available at this Web site (GET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65), see listing for "OET Safety Bulletins." (Back to tnrlex) WHY HAS THE FCC ADOPTED GUIDELINES FOR RF EXPOSURE? The FCC authorizes and licenses devices, transmitters and facilities that generate RF radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. However, the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), all Federal agencies are required to implement procedures to make environmental consideration a necessary part of an agency's decision -making process. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC -regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF exposure as a result of a multi -year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Facilities under the jurisdiction of the FCC having a high potential for creating significant RF exposure to humans, such as radio and television broadcast stations, satellite -earth stations, experfinentai radio stations and certain cellular, PCS and paging facilities are required to undergo routine evaluation for compliance with RF exposure guidelines whenever an application is submitted to the FCC for construction or modification of a transmitting facility or renewal of a license. Failure to show compliance with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines in the application process could lead to the preparation of a formal Environmental Assessment, possible Environmental Impact Statement and eventual rejection of an application. Technical guidelines for evaluating compliance with the FCC RF safety requirements can be found in the FCC's OFT Bulletin 65 (see "OET Safety Bulletins" listing elsewhere at this Web site). Low -powered, intermittent, or inaccessible RF transmitters and facilities are normally "categorically excluded" from the requirement of routine evaivation for RF exposure. These exclusions are based on calculations and measurement data indicating that such transmitting stations or devices are unlikely to cause exposures in excess of the guidelines under normal conditions of use. The FCC's policies on RF exposure and categorical exclusion can be found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations [47 CFR 1.1307(b)]. It should be emphasized, however, that these exclusions are not exclusions from compliance, but, rather, only exclusions from routine evaluation. Transmitters or facilities that are otherwise categorically excluded from evaluation may be required, on a case -by -case basis, to demonstrate compliance when evidence of potential non-compliance of the transmitter or facility is brought to the Commission's attention [see 47 CFR 1.1307(c) and (d)]. (Back to Index) HOW SAFE ARE MOBILE AND PORTABLE PHONES? In recent years, publicity, speculation, and concern over claims of possible health effects due to RF emissions from hand-held wireless telephones prompted various research programs to investigate whether there is any risk to users of these devices There is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss. However, studies are ongoing and key government agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to monitor the results of the latest scientific research on these topics. Also, as noted above, the World Health Organization has established an ongoing program to monitor research in this area and make recommendations related to the safety of mobile phones. The FDA, which has primary jurisdiction for investigating mobile phone safety, has stated that it cannot rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk exists, "it is probably small." Further, it has stated that, while there is no proof that cellular telephones can be harmful, concerned individuals can take various precautionary actions, including limiting conversations on hand-held cellular telephones and making greater use of telephones with hands -free kits where there is a greater separation distance between the user and the radiating antenna. The Web site for the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health provides further information on mobile phone safety: FDA Radiation - Emitting Products Page. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a report of its investigation into safety concerns related to mobile phones. The report concluded that further research is needed to confirm whether mobile phones are completely safe for the user, and the report recommended that the FDA take the lead in monitoring the latest research results. The FCC's exposure guidelines specify limits for human exposure to RF emissions from hand-held mobile phones in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the rate of absorption of RF energy by the body. The safe limit for a mobile phone user is an SAR of 1.6 watts per kg (1.6 W/kg), averaged over one gram of tissue, and compliance with this limit must be demonstrated before FCC approval is granted for marketing of a phone in the United States. Somewhat less restrictive limits, e.g., 2 VV/kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue, are specified by the ICNIRP guidelines used in Europe and most other countries. Measurements and analysis of SAR in models of the human head have shown that the 1.6 W/kg limit is unlikely to be exceeded under normal conditions of use of cellular and PCS hand-held phones. The same can be said for cordless telephones used in the home. Testing of hand-held phones is normally done under conditions of maximum power usage, thus providing an additional margin of safety, since most 3 of 8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM OET - 12F Safety FAQ's http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q1 phone usage is not at maximum power. Information on SAR levels for many phones is available electronically through the FCC's Web site and database (see next question). Opcic to Index) HOW CAN I OBTAIN THE SPECIFIC ABSORPTION RATE (SAR) VALUE FOR MY MOBILE PHONE? As explained above, the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, is the unit used to determine compliance of cellular and PCS phones with safety limits adopted by the FCC. The SAR is a value that corresponds to the rate at which RF energy absorbed in the head of a user of a wireless handset. The FCC requires mobile phone manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (averaged over one gram of tissue). Information on SAR for a specific cell phone model can be obtained for almost all cellular telephones by using the FCC identification (ID) number for that model. The FCC ID number is usually printed somewhere on the case of the phone or device. In many cases, you will have to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the number proceed as follows. Go to the following website: Equipment Authorization. Click on the link for "FCC ID Search". Once you are there you will see instructions for inserting the FCC ID number. Enter the FCC ID number (in two parts as indicated: "Grantee Code" is comprised of the first three characters, the "Equipment Product Code" is the remainder of the FCC ID). Then click on "Start Search." The grant(s) of equipment authorization for this particular ID number should then be available. Click on a check under "Display Grant" and the grant should appear. Look through the grant for the section on SAR compliance, certification of compliance with FCC ruses for RF exposure or similar language. This section should contain the value(s) for typical or maximum SAR for your phone. For portable phones and devices authorized since June 2, 2000, maximum SAR ievels should be noted on the grant of equipment authorization. For phones and devices authorized between about mid -1998 and June 2000, detailed information on SAR levels is typically found in one of the "exhibits" associated with the grant. Therefore, once the grant is accessed in the FCC database, the exhibits can be viewed by clicking on the appropriate entry labeled "View Exhibit." Electronic records for FCC equipment authorization grants were initiated in 1998, so devices manufactured prior to this date may not be included in our electronic database. Although the FCC database does not list phones by model number, there are certain non -government Web sites such as www.cnet.com that provide information on SAR from specific models of mobile phones. However, the FCC has not reviewed these sites for accuracy and makes no guarantees with respect to them. In addition to these sites, some mobile phone manufacturers make this information available at their own Web sites. Also, phones certified by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) are now required to provide this information to consumers in the instructional materials that come with the phones. If you want additional consumer information on safety of cell phones and other transmitting devices please consult the information available below at this Web site. In particular, you may wish to read or download our OET Bulletin 56 (see "OET RF Safety Bulletins" listing) entitled: "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." If you have any problems or additional questions you may contact us at: rfsafety.SOcc.gnv or you may call: 1-888-225-5322. You may also wish to consult a consumer update on mobile phone safety published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that can be found at: FDA Radiation -emitting Products Page. (Back to Index) DO "HANDS -FREE" EAR PIECES FOR MOBILE PHONES REDUCE EXPOSURE TO RF EMISSIONS? WHAT ABOUT MOBILE PHONE ACCESSORIES THAT CLAIM TO SHIELD THE HEAD FROM RF RADIATION? "Hands -free" kits with ear pieces can be used with cell phones for convenience and comfort. In addition, because the phone, which is the source of the RF emissions, will not be placed against the head, absorption of RF energy in the head will be reduced. Therefore, it is true that use of an ear piece connected to a mobile phone will significantly reduce the rate of energy absorption (or "SAR") in the user's head. On the other hand, if the phone is mounted against the waist or other part of the body during use, then that part of the body will absorb RF energy. Even so, mobile phones marketed in the U.S. are required to meet safety limit requirements regardless of whether they are used against the head or against the body. So either configuration should result in compliance with the safety limit. Note that hands -free devices using "Bluetooth" technology also include a wireless transmitter; however, the Bluetooth transmitter operates at a much lower power than the cell phone. A number of devices have been marketed that claim to "shield" or otherwise reduce RF absorption in the body of the user. Some of these devices incorporate shielded phone cases, while others involve nothing more than a metallic accessory attached to the phone. Studies have shown that these devices generally do not work as advertised. In fact, they may actually increase RF absorption in the head due to their potential to interfere with proper operation of the phone, thus forcing it to increase power to compensate.(Back to Index) CAN MOBILE PHONES BE USED SAFELY IN HOSPITALS AND NEAR MEDICAL TELEMETRY EQUIPMENT? The FCC does not normally investigate problems of electromagnetic interference from RF transmitters to medical devices. Some hospitals have policies, which limit the use of cell phones, due to concerns that sensitive medical equipment could be affected. The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has primary jurisdiction for medical device regulation. FDA staff provide more information at their Web site: http:J[www.fda.gnv,/Radiation-Er„ittingProducts/RadiationEmittingPrgductsandPro,c,edures/HomeBusinessandEntertarnment /defati htm. (Back to Index; ARE CELLULAR AND PCS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS SAFE? Cellular radio services transmit using frequencies between 824 and 894 megahertz (MHz). Transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. Antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions are typically located on towers, water tanks or other elevated structures including rooftops and the sides of buildings. The combination of antennas and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS "base station" or "cell site." Typical heights for free-standing base station towers or structures are 50-200 feet. A cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, although these types of antennas are less common in urbanized areas. In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service providers commonly use "sector" antennas for their base stations. These antennas are rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in size, typically mounted on a rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poies. Panel antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. It is common that not all antennas are used for the transmission of RF energy; some antennas may be receive -only. At a given cell site, the total RF power that could be radiated by the antennas depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) installed, the power of each transmitter, and the type of antenna. While it is theoretically possible for cell sites to radiate at very high power levels, the maximum power radiated in any direction usually does not exceed 50 watts. The RF emissions from cellular or PCS base station antennas are generally directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. In the case of sector (panel) antennas, the pattern is fan -shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie. As with all Forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from the antenna decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. Consequently, ground -level exposures are much less than exposures if one were at the same height and directly in front of the antenna. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower -mounted antennas, have shown that ground -level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of FCC guidelines due solely to cellular or PCS base station antennas located on towers or monopoles. 4 of 8 7/11/2014 I0:51 AM OET - RF Safety FAQ's Intp://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faci.s.btml#Q1 When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that a person could encounter RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. However, once again, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered very close to and directly in front of the antennas. For sector -type antennas, RF levels to rear are usually very low. (Back to Index) For further information on cellular services go to hit..Thyireless.fcc,gpvlservireslindex.hyn?j.oh=service. home&id=cellular ARE CELLULAR AND OTHER RADIO TOWERS LOCATED NEAR HOMES OR SCHOOLS SAFE FOR RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS? As discussed above, radiofrequency emissions from antennas used far cellular and PCS transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students. Other antennas, such as those used for radio and television broadcast transmissions, use power levels that are generally much higher than those used for cellular and PCS antennas. Therefore, in some cases there could be a potential for higher levels of exposure to persons on the ground. However, all broadcast stations are required to demonstrate compliance with FCC safety guidelines, and ambient exposures to nearby persons from such stations are typically well below FCC safety limits. (Back to Index) ARE EMISSIONS FROM RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST ANTENNAS SAFE? Radio and television broadcast stations transmit their signals via RF electromagnetic waves. There are thousands of radio and TV stations on the air in the United States. Broadcast stations transmit at various RF frequencies, depending on the channel, ranging from about 540 kHz for AM radio up to about 800 MHz for UHF television stations. Frequencies for FM radio and VHF television lie in between these two extremes. Broadcast transmitter power levels range from a few watts to more than 100,000 watts. Some of these transmission systems can be a significant source of RF energy in the local environment, so the FCC requires that broadcast stations submit evidence of compliance with FCC RF guidelines. The amount of RF energy to which the public or workers might be exposed as a result of broadcast antennas depends on several factors, including the type of station, design characteristics of the antenna being used, power transmitted to the antenna, height of the antenna and distance from the antenna. Note that the power normally quoted for FM and TV broadcast transmitters is the "effective radiated power" or ERP not the actual transmitter power mentioned above. ERP is the transmitter power delivered to the antenna multiplied by the directivity or gain of the antenna. Since high gain antennas direct most of the RF energy toward the horizon and not toward the ground, high ERP transmission systems such as used for UHF -TV broadcast tend to have less ground level field intensity near the station than FM radio broadcast systems with lower ERP and gain values. Also, since energy at some frequencies is absorbed by the human body more readily than at other frequencies, both the frequency of the transmitted signal and its intensity is important. Calculations can be performed to predict what field intensity levels would exist at various distances from an antenna. Public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted so that individuals cannot be exposed to high-level fields that might exist near antennas. Measurements made by the FCC, EPA and others have shown that ambient RF radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facilities are typically well below the exposure levels recommended by current standards and guidelines. There have been a few situations around the country where RF levels in publicly accessible areas have been found to be higher than those recommended in applicable safety standards. As they have been identified, the FCC has required that stations at those facilities promptly bring their combined operations into compliance with our guidelines. Thus, despite the relatively high operating powers of many broadcast stations, such cases are unusual, and members of the general public are unlikely to be exposed to RF levels from broadcast towers that exceed FCC limits Antenna maintenance workers are occasionally required to climb antenna structures for such purposes as painting, repairs, or lamp replacement. Both the EPA and OSHA have reported that in such cases it is passible for a worker to be exposed to high levels of RF energy if work is performed on an active tower or in areas immediately surrounding a radiating antenna. Therefore, precautions should be taken to ensure that maintenance personnel are not exposed to unsafe RF fields. (Back to Iri.dex) HOW SAFE ARE RADIO ANTENNAS USED FOR PAGING AND "TWO-WAY" COMMUNICATIONS? WHAT ABOUT "PUSH -TO -TALK" RADIOS SUCH AS "WALKIE-TALKIES?" "Land -mobile" communications include a variety of communications systems, which require the use of portable and mobile RF transmitting sources. These systems operate in several frequency bands between about 30 and 1000 MHz. Radio systems used by the police and fire departments, radio paging services and business radio are a few examples of these communications systems. They have the advantage of providing communications links between various fixed and mobile locations. There are essentially three types of RF transmitters associated with land -mobile systems: base -station transmitters, vehicle -mounted transmitters, and hand-held transmitters. The antennas and power levels used for these various transmitters are adapted for their specific purpose. For example, a base -station antenna must radiate its signal to a relatively large area, and therefore, its transmitter genera/Iy has to use higher power levels than a vehicle -mounted or hand-held radio transmitter. Although base -station antennas usually operate with higher power levels than other types of land -mobile antennas, they are normally inaccessible to the public since they must be mounted at significant heights above ground to provide for adequate signal coverage. Also, many of these antennas transmit only intermittently. For these reasons, base -station antennas are generally not of concern with regard to possible hazardous exposure of the public to RF radiation. Studies at rooftop locations have indicated that high-powered paging antennas may increase the potential for exposure to workers or others with access to such sites, e.g., maintenance personnel. This could be a concern especially when multiple transmitters are present. In such cases, restriction of access or other mitigation actions may be necessary. Transmitting power levels for vehicle -mounted land -mobile antennas are generally less than those used by base -station antennas but higher than those used for hand-held units. Some manufacturers recommend that users and other nearby individuals maintain some minimum distance (e.g., 1 to 2 feet) from a vehicle -mounted antenna during transmission or mount the antenna in such a way as to provide maximum shielding far vehicle occupants. Studies have shown that this is probably a conservative precaution, particularly when the percentage of time an antenna is actually radiating is considered. Unlike cellular telephones, which transmit continuously during a call, two-way radios normally transmit only when the "push -to -talk" button is depressed. This significantly reduces exposure, and there is no evidence that there would be a safety hazard associated with exposure from vehicle -mounted, two-way antennas when the manufacturer's recommendations are followed. Hand-held "two-way" portable radios such as walkie-talkies are low -powered devices used to transmit and receive messages over relatively short distances. Because of the low power levels used, the intermittency of these transmissions ("push -to -talk"), and due to the fact that these radios are held away from the head, they should not expose users to RF energy in excess of safe limits. Although FCC rules do not require routine documentation of compliance with safety limits for push -to -talk two-way radios as it does for cellular and PCS phones (which transmit continuously during use and which are held against the head), most of these radios are tested and the resulting SAR data are available from the FCC's Equipment Authorization database. Click on the link for "FCC ID Search <imbed hypertext link.". (Back to Index) HOW SAFE ARE MICROWAVE AND SATELLITE ANTENNAS? Point-to-point microwave antennas transmit and receive microwave signals across relatively short distances (from a few tenths of a mile to 30 miles or more). These antennas are usually circular ("dish") or rectangular in shape and are normally mounted on a supporting tower, rooftop, sides of buildings or an similar structures that provide clear and unobstructed line -of -sight paths between both ends of a transmission path. These antennas have a variety of uses, such as relaying long-distance telephone calls, and serving as sinks between broadcast studios and transmitting sites. 5 of 8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM OET -- RF Safety FAQ's http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rlsafetyirf-fags.html#Ql The RF signals from these antennas travel in a directed beam from a transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna, and dispersion of microwave energy outside of this narrow beam is minimal or insignificant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low power levels, usually on the order of a few watts or less. Measurements have shown that ground -level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally thousands of times or more below recommended safety limits. Moreover, microwave tower sites are normally inaccessible to the general public. Significant exposures from these antennas could only occur in the unlikely event that an individual were to stand directly in front of and very close to an antenna for a period of time. Ground -based antennas used for satellite -earth communications typically are parabolic "dish" antennas, some as large as 10 to 30 meters in diameter, that are used to transmit ("uplink") or receive ("downlink") microwave signals to or from satellites in orbit around the earth. These signals allow delivery of a variety of communications services, including television network programming, electronic newsgathering and point - of -sale credit card transactions. Some satellite -earth station antennas are used only to receive RF signals (Le., like the satellite television antenna used at a residence), and because they do not transmit, RF exposure is not an issue for those antennas. Since satellite -earth station antennas are directed toward satellites above the earth, transmitted beams point skyward at various angles of inclination, depending on the particular satellite being used. Because of the longer distances involved, power levels used to transmit these signals are relatively large when compared, for example, to those used by the terrestrial microwave point-to-point antennas discussed above. However, as with microwave antennas, the beams used for transmitting earth -to -sate Hite signals are concentrated and highly directional, similar to the beam from a flashlight. In addition, public access would normally he restricted at uplink sites where exposure levels could approach or exceed safe limits. Although many satellite -earth stations are "fixed" sites, portable uplink antennas are also used, e.g., for electronic news gathering. These antennas can be deployed in various locations. Therefore, precautions may be necessary, such as temporarily restricting access in the vicinity of the antenna, to avoid exposure to the main transmitted beam. In general, however, it is unlikely that a transmitting earth station antenna would routinely expose members of the public to potentially harmful levels of RF energy. (Back to Index) ARE RF EMISSIONS FROM AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS HARMFUL? There are hundreds of thousands of amateur radio operators ("hams") worldwide. Amateur radio operators in the United States are licensed by the FCC. The Amateur Radio Service provides its members with the opportunity to communicate with persons all over the world and to provide valuable public service functions, such as making communications services available during disasters and emergencies. Like all FCC licensees, amateur radio operators are required to comply with the FCC's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF fields. Under the FCC's rules, amateur operators can transmit with power levels of up to 1500 watts. However, most operators use considerably less power than this maximum. Studies by the FCC and others have shown that most amateur radio transmitters would not normally expose persons to RF levels in excess of safety limits. This is primarily due to the relatively low operating powers used by most amateurs, the intermittent transmission characteristics typically used and the relative inaccessibility of most amateur antennas. As long as appropriate distances are maintained from amateur antennas, exposure of nearby persons should be well below safety limits. To help ensure compliance of amateur radio facilities with RF exposure guidelines, both the FCC and American Radio Relay League (ARRL) have issued publications to assist operators in evaluating compliance for their stations. The FCC's publication (Supplement B to OET ESuilelin 65 can be viewed and downloaded elsewhere at this Web site (see "OET RF Safety Bulletins"). (Back to Index) WHAT IS THE FCC'S POLICY ON RADIOFREQUENCY WARNING SIGNS? FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN SHOULD SIGNS BE POSTED, WHERE SHOULD THEY BE LOCATED AND WHAT SHOULD THEY SAY? Radlofrequency warning or "alerting" signs should be used to provide information on the presence of RF radiation or to control exposure to RF radiation within a given area. Standard radiofrequency hazard warning signs are commercially available from several vendors. Appropriate signs should incorporate the format recommended by the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and as specified in the IEEE standard: IEEE 095.2-1999 (Web address: www_ieee org). Guidance concerning the placement of signs can be found in IEEE Standard C95.7-2005. When signs are used, meaningful information should be placed on the sign advising affected persons of: (1) the nature of the potential hazard (1.e., high RF fields), (2) how to avoid the potential hazard, and (3} whom to contact for additional information. In some cases, it may be appropriate to also provide instructions to direct individuals as to how to work safely in the RF environment of concern. Signs should be located prominently in areas that will be readily seen by those persons who may have access to an area where high RF fields are present. (Back to Index) CAN IMPLANTED ELECTRONIC CARDIAC PACEMAKERS BE AFFECTED BY NEARBY RF DEVICES SUCH AS MICROWAVE OVENS OR CELLULAR TELEPHONES? Over the past several years there has been concern that signals from some RF devices could interfere with the operation of implanted electronic pacemakers and other medical devices. Because pacemakers are electronic devices, they could be susceptible to electromagnetic signals that could cause them to malfunction. Some anecdotal claims of such effects in the past involved emissions from microwave ovens. However, it has never been shown that the RF energy from a properly operating microwave oven is strong enough to cause such interference. Some studies have shown that mobile phones can interfere with implanted cardiac pacemakers if a phone is used in close proximity (within about 8 inches) of a pacemaker. It appears that such interference is limited to older pacemakers, which may no longer be in use. Nonetheless, to avoid this potential problem, pacemaker patients can avoid placing a phone in a pocket close to the location of their pacemaker or otherwise place the phone near the pacemaker location during phone use. Patients with pacemakers should consult with their physician or the FDA if they believe that they may have a problem related to RF interference. Further information on this is available from the FDA webslte for Radiation-Emittina Products. (B3-Ic,k to index) DOES THE FCC REGULATE EXPOSURE TO THE ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FROM MICROWAVE OVENS, TELEVISION SETS AND COMPUTER MONITORS? The Commission does not regulate exposure to emissions from these devices. Protecting the public from harmful radiation emissions from these consumer products is the responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Inquires should be directed to the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and, specifically, to the CDRH Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4654. (Back to Index) DOES THE FCC ROUTINELY MONITOR RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION FROM ANTENNAS? The FCC does not have the resources or the personnel to routinely monitor the emissions for all of the thousands of transmitters that are subject to FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC does have measurement instrumentation for evaluating RF levels in areas that may be accessible to the public or to workers. If there is evidence of potential non-compliance with FCC exposure guidelines for an FCC -regulated facility, staff from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology or the Enforcement Bureau can conduct an investigation, and, if appropriate, perform actual measurements. It should be emphasized that the FCC does not perform RF exposure investigations unless there is a reasonable expectation that the FCC exposure limits may be exceeded. Potential exposure problems should be brought to the FCC's attention by contacting the FCC at: 1-888-225-5322 or by e -mailing: rfsafety.gfcccgov. (Back to Index) DOES THE FCC MAINTAIN A DATABASE THAT INCLUDES INFORMATION ON THE LOCATION AND TECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF ALL OF THE TRANSMITTER SITES IT REGULATES? The Commission does not have a comprehensive, transmitter -specific database for all of the services it regulates. The Commission has information for some services such as radio and television broadcast stations, and many larger antenna towers are required to register with 6 of 8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM OET -- RF Safety FAQ's http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafetyfrf-fags.html#Q1 the FCC if they meet certain criteria. In those cases, location information is generally specified in terms of degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude and longitude. In some services, licenses are allowed to utilize additional transmitters or to increase power without notifying the Commission. Other services are licensed by geographic area, such that the Commission has no knowledge concerning the actual number or location of transmitters within that geographic area. The FCC Genera! Menu Reports (Gen Men) search engine unites most of the Commission's licensing databases under a single umbrella. Databases included are the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's ULS, the Media Bureau's CDBS, COALS (cable data) and BLS, and the International Bureau's IBFS. Entry points or search options in the various databases include frequency, state/county, latitude/longitude, call sign and licensee name. The FCC also publishes, generally on a weekly basis, bulk extracts of the various Commission licensing databases. Each licensing database has it own unique file structure. These extracts consist of multiple, very large files. 0ET maintains an index to these databases. OET has developed a SpE..(17(frri Utilization Study Software tool -set that can be used to create a Microsoft Access version of the individual exported licensing databases and then create MapInfo "mid" and 'mit' files so that radio assignments can be plotted. This experimental software is used to conduct internal spectrum utilization studies needed in the rulemaking process. While the FCC makes this software available to the public, no technical support is provided. For further information on the Commission's existing databases, please contact Donald Campbell at donald.campbell@fcc.gov or 202-418-2405. (Back to Index) WHICH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO POTENTIAL RF HEALTH EFFECTS? Certain agencies in the Federal Government have been involved in monitoring, researching or regulating issues related to human exposure to RF radiation. These agencies include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NI0SH), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). By authority of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the FDA develops performance standards for the emission of radiation from electronic products including X-ray equipment, other medical devices, television sets, microwave ovens, laser products and sunlamps. The CDRH established a product performance standard for microwave ovens in 1971 limiting the amount of RF leakage from ovens. However, the CDRH has not adopted performance standards for other RF-emitting products. The FDA is, however, the lead federal health agency in monitoring the latest research developments and advising other agencies with respect to the safety of RF-emitting products used by the public, such as cellular and PCS phones. The FDA's microwave oven standard is an emission standard (as opposed to an exposure standard) that allows specific levels of microwave energy leakage (measured at five centimeters from the oven surface). The standard also requires ovens to have two independent interlock systems that prevent the oven from generating microwaves if the latch is released or if the door of the oven is opened. The FDA has stated that ovens that meet its standards and are used according to the manufacturer's recommendations are safe for consumer and industrial use. More information is available from: FDA's website for Radiation .Emitting Products. The EPA has, in the past, considered developing federal guidelines for public exposure to RF radiation. However, EPA activities related to RF safety and health are presently limited to advisory functions. For example, the EPA chairs an Inter -agency Radiofreguency Working Group, which coordinates RF health -related activities among the various federal agencies with health or regulatory responsibilities in this area. OSHA is part of the U.S. Department of Labor, and is responsible for protecting workers from exposure to hazardous chemical and physical agents. In 1971, OSHA issued a protection guide for exposure of workers to RF radiation [29 CFR 1910.97]. However, this guide was later ruled to be only advisory and not mandatory. Moreover, it was based on an earlier RF exposure standard that has now been revised. At the present time, OSHA uses the IEEE and/or FCC exposure guidelines for enforcement purposes under OSHA's "general duty clause" (for more information see: www_osha.gov(SLrC/radiofrepuencyradiation/). NIOSH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It conducts research and investigations into issues related to occupational exposure to chemical and physical agents. NIOSH has, in the past, undertaken to develop RF exposure guidelines for workers, but final guidelines were never adopted by the agency. NIOSH conducts safety -related RF studies through its Physical Agents Effects Branch in Cincinnati, Ohio. The NTIA is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and is responsible for authorizing Federal Government use of the RF electromagnetic spectrum. Like the FCC, the NTIA also has NEPA responsibilities and has considered adopting guidelines for evaluating RF exposure from U.S. Government transmitters such as radar and military facilities. (Back to Index) CAN LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES ESTABLISH LIMITS FOR RF EXPOSURE? In the United States, some local and state jurisdictions have also enacted rules and regulations pertaining to human exposure to RF energy. However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contained provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from certain transmitting devices. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on FCC policy with respect to facilities siting is available from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (see http://wireless. fcc,.gov/siting/). !Back to Index} WHERE CAN I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY? Although relatively few offices or agencies within the Federal Government routinely deal with the issue of human exposure to RF fields, it is possible to obtain information and assistance on certain topics from the fallowing federal agencies, all of which also have Internet Web sites. FDA: For information about radiation from microwave ovens and other consumer and industrial products contact: Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration. [FDA vdehslte for Radiation -Emitting Products] EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation Programs is responsible for monitoring potential health effects due to public exposure to RF Fields. Contact: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 564-9235. [EPA Nom.lonizing Radiation Web Page] OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Health Response Team has been involved in studies related to occupational exposure to RF radiation.[http://www,osha.gov/SLTC/radiationi nonionizing/index,hhnl] NIOSH: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts research on RF-related safety issues in workplaces and recommends measures to protect worker health. Contact: NIOSH, Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch, Mail Stop R-5, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, or phone 1-513-841-4221. Toll -free public inquiries: 1 -800 -CDC -INFO (1-800-232-4636), or by email: cdcrnfoacdc.gov. Internet information on workplace RF safety: http://www,cdc-gov/niosh/topics/emt/crffields- NCI: The National Cancer Institute, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, conducts and supports research, training, health information dissemination, and other programs with respect to the cause, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. Contact: NCI Public Inquiries Office, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 3036A, Bethesda, MD 20892-8322. [htty://vnvw.cancer.govicarlcertoOcs/factsheet (Risk/cellphones] 7of8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM OFT -- RF Safety FAQ's http://transition.fec.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-fags.html#Q1 Toll -free number: 1 -800 -4 -CANCER (1-800-422-6237). FCC: Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC -regulated transmitters can be directed to the Federal Communications Commission, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554; Phone: 1-888-225-5322; E-mail: rfsafety@ fcc,gov; or go to: www,fcc.gov/oet/rtsafety. In addition to federal government agencies, there are other sources of information regarding RF energy and health effects. Some states and localities maintain non -ionizing radiation programs or, at least, some expertise in this field, usually in a department of public health or environmental control. The foliowing table lists some representative Internet Web sites that provide information on this topic. However, the FCC neither endorses nor verifies the accuracy of any information provided at these sites. They are being provided for information only. (Back to Index) • Bioelectromagnetics Society: http:/h,,ww.bioelectromagnetics.org/ • EPA's RadTown USA: littp://ww,,N.ep.a.gov/radtown/ • International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP Europe): http://www.icnirp.de/ • IEEE Committee on Man & Radiation: http://ewh,ieee.org/soilembs/crnnar/ • Microwave News: http://www.micrrowavenews.com/ • National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements: http://www,ncrponliile.org/ • N] Dept Radiation Protection: http,//www,ni.gov/dep/fpp/nrs/index,htm • RFeom (Canada): http;//grww_rfcom.ca/welcome/index.shtml • Wireless Industry (CTIA): http'l/wvrw.ctla-org/ • World Health Organization (WHO): htlp://www.who.ch/peh err( • Germany's EMF Portal: http://www.emf-portal.de/ For more information on this topic please note: OET Bulletin 56: questions and Answers About the Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Radiation. Any questions regarding this subject matter should be addressed to: The RF Safely Proyrau) FCC Horne fast reviewed/updated 6/25/12 I Search I RSS I Updates I E -Filing I Initiatives I Consumers I Find People If you have questions about this web page, or would like more information pertaining to OET, please send e-mail to netinfoalcc.gnv Federal Communications Commission 44512th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 1,1cre FCC CanfaC Intumral,er Phone, 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) TTY', 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax. 1-886-418-0232 - FtLvacy Pot cy - Website Pclicies & Notces - Req;:ired Browser Plug -ins - Freedom of Information Act 8 of 8 7/11/2014 10:51 AM Industrial Tower West Chris, Industrial Tower West, LLC ��... Fl.u,. • 1 To help in identifying the required location for the proposed tower site. The site needs to fit into our current network coverage pattern for the frequency we are licensed to utilize in this area. We are trying to provide better network coverage and not leave significate gaps in coverage along HWY 71 north of Stoneham and south of the Nebraska State line. There is especially an area of interest to we wanted to cover from a Public Safety standpoint in addition to the general highway coverage along this route. This area is the Twin forks of Pawnee Creek bottom (about 5 miles north of HWY 71 & HWY 14 intersection). Attached is Exhibit A which is a topographical map indicating the area and Exhibit B which is a Google image outlining the area is discussed and Exhibit C which shows the ground level view of what I call "a bridge on a curve". There have been several accidents in this area due tc the layout of the roadway, terrain, and natural features. This area is also a bit unique in this area of Weld County as there is water that can attract wildlife along this area. Based on the height of the tower and location one must be pretty close to the edge of the ridgeline that looks into the Creek bottom which is 149 feet lesser in elevation than the proposed tower site which is near the northern ridgeline overlooking the creek area. Please find attached two exhibits (D & E) which are composite coverage simulation maps previously used in our application request (as item H). They incorporate current signal strength in db and utilizes a terrain overlay. Yellow is inbuilding coverage, red would deliver a strong outdoor coverage, dark blue weaker outdoor coverage with light blue being week and spotty outdoors with white offering no signal strength. Exhibit Map D shows current coverage provided by other towers in our network and we have marked the proposed location of the tower. As you can see the Pawnee creek area has weak to no coverage. Exhibit Map E show the incorporation of the new tower site in the signal strength coverage utilizing the same terrain overlay. It was recently asked why we could not use the existing tower registered as FCC 128197. While this tower was reviewed for network coverage it was too far away from the Pawnee Creek area to provide any coverage into the creek bottom area. Find attached Exhibit F which is vertically formatted signal strength map that also incorporates the same parameters and terrain overlay for this area. This map also shows distance and signal strength as analyzed for the current FCC frequency (1900 Mz) that we are licensed to deliver in this area. Colors of signal strength are the same as defined above. As you can see this towers location is to far from the Pawnee Creek area and is blocked by the northern ridgeline of the Pawnee Creek area. Exhibit G also incorporates our proposed tower site location in elevationai format. Exhibit H shows the location we chose in the same format and you can see that this location will deliver a strong in building signal that reaches to the creek bottom. There of course other things that go into the review of perfecting the network that include access to public ROW, electricity, terrain, willing landowner, and many other considerations. I have attached as Exhibit I a Google map showing existing Viaero tower sites (yellow pins), proposed Stoneham North location (green pin), existing tower FCC 128197 (blue pin), Pawnee Creek area (green pins) and other sites evaluated/reviewed in this area (red pins) and were found to not provide the required network coverage, landowners were unwilling or lack of electricity. This has a been a long thought out process that we have worked on since 2013 when I was tasked to investigate this area to improve our network. coverage, landowners were unwilling or lack of electricity. This has a been a long thought out process that we have worked on since 2013 when I was tasked to investigate this area to improve our network. I hope this helps explain how this site was carefully selected and will be a valuable location for other service providers that are also looking to improve their networks along this route. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank , Rick Bailey Industrial Tower West LLC. 205 S. Maloney Drive. North Platte, NE 69101 Phone 970-768-6464 E-mail; Rick.Bailey@Viaero.com ex - JO" W I i 103° I 1 43' I OD 00" W I I 103° l r 42' i 00-00" W I i - 1- 103° 41' l L 00 00" W l l 103` 40' L I 00.00" W l i T 103' 39' i I D0.00" I Z o _0 Z L 7q- •1- o - v 0 �� v v O v 0 _ Z o- 0 O �.o _ Z -o 0 O en -a- -o -4- 0 .o en v b- v o Z o— 0 O -o Z —o 0 0 o N 0 � o ~ N 0 ',1- 0 - Z o- 0 O o y �� t Z -Q 0 6 Oy Q d- Q 0 V `° -4 0 Z o- 0 O ,ro,.. O v _ o Z -o 0 O o 1.119W A 1( . O 1- -o o _ Z o- 0 o Co nghl (C) 2009 MyTopo 114 2006-2022 TpmTom z -o 0 a I I JO" W I 103° I 43' I I 00.00" W 1 I 103° I 42' 1 I I 00.00" W 1 I I 103° 41' 00 1 1 I 00" W f 103° 40' I I 00.00" W 1 I I 103° 39' I 00.00" 1 SCALE 1:48000 4 _ 10000 FEET EX 44 et c 141 North Dividing ride l n North fork "_. .� •.. AMa _. Google ground image of HWY 71 co Pawnee Creeks area Y . .1 ' I t `_' I HWY.@ Pawnee creek oogle Eart t. 44444 Mr. rat g ai d4 urrerrt J II -75 to -65 ■ -85 to -75 -95 to -85 - 105 to -95 - 110 to -105 Ne w-?aymer 4 Ste. ""..��Alif�� -6 0 -10 -75 to -65 -85 to -75 -95 to -85 -105 to -95 -110 to -105 f_Th -41N -51 -61 -71 -81t -91 4955 4878 4801 4724 4647 4570 4493 4416 '� Pc_ )_ctor ql ,5 0 1289197 I Official Lat: 40 48 13.70 N Lon: 103 41 25.60 W Anchored to 1289197 - TX 3/ON I Official 1 Terrain and Data Profile ASR #1289197 Data 1 1 1 1 1 4.5 Terrain 3 4.5 From Anchored Sector: Bearing = 180.56 deg, Azimuth = 180 Dist.: 7.34 mi, Tilt Angle = 0.81 deg ix Lida' F .. Coverage Analysis LOS Fresnel _ 6 i `id Lat: 40 41 52.76 N 1\ Lon: 103 41 33.95 W ‘feet &Ito µn -91 -41 �- — r — terrain aria uata Nronie ASR #A1289197 Data — a — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �- � — _ _ — — — — — +. r — I” , 1 1 , I , , , 1 I I I ■ I 1 1i - �' `... .- �' — ea.. _ r — r .. .- .w a — — r r � r SI r1 SoL alr r Ow_ a - al— — — - /► SD Milo r .r aft Si in — r w r Y - r .w Gm Mbs r r r .► a w _. a _ r MOr r a r r r r , r r r ea r — r — r r w. ,fin r r 0. NM' 'i I 1 ' 1 I I I PS lint ..1 1 1 I I I rG� , ..� , If 1j1 i I , , �! , h - — — - t ♦ — i — w r — — — wr r w+ � — —r r — — —; al. - r - S ....... w — — — w aw ..... w' w a. — a a ... sr — r — ......... . r r w f w r .. r a' _ r a. .r w w w _ w V. .w — w ale M. i It 1� '` %1 ; II 1 I 1 i ` 1 1 I II Ij i 1 -71rr►. r _ _ — ........................................................... ——� — — _. _ .... r -- --- --- — — — —1 --- —� — —r . a f' ' .a . _. I _ _ r—+. _ wI_ w _ _. _ a— a r• _ r r -- — —— — e. , r r- -,-- -- --- -- — , Oar I i+! i I� R;m.o.! I ,, I I - " \ / 1 $ I i -A i .0 .� t_� , 4 r •. e , 1 I I . , 1 valid .ward LinW loaded ' ' ' p , -R1'- 1 ----- - - •••• ale - - - - -- ,j(j , n: mi. mu, alt ono mi. ... 1 I I GM OS i/ 1 1 i � `I I I I I , I I ~ — ——— W _ _.a a-- -- —&a. a — — --— -- — — — ------- aria — aaaa a ————— ——— -- a_ r a.. r r_ r__ s .a. . r. r• -1010 1 4955 4878 4801 4724 46'47 4570 4493 4416 rec _ flan, samainallara.aann -laa �. ---- • — ---- — - —.�— Pam r_rMN. age. a ti, 1 _.a 1 1 a 47 a sae GDP a saaarrr—Dar SIOSS—r--_ a wINS — geocroppor ow. en. , 1 1 , , I a 3 I 1 — ._♦ __ 1 Terrain r.r__r ....... . a. aAna a. rnla•••• 4.demote rwow a arr. r..a.r Dol l.. —a—. a a i 45 I , _--._ ---.4 ------ ----- - I , I , ...- 1 I 1 1 , , I 1 aura era Sea a a aIrallairra a. amy. _ me sow a S.+r MVO OM a a_a►a_ arwlaa. alai_ aw alma f_ara. _.a._ *r_a-r a. as ..---ra.a�rx 0 1 1289197 I Official Lat 40 48 13 70 N Lon. 103 41 25.60 W Anchored to 1289197 - TX 310N I Official • elt—'a"f' I 1 1 a a 1 aell flan* te' ableM I 1 3 4.5 From Anchored Sector Bearing = 180 56 deg, Azimuth = 180 Dist. 7.34 mi, Tilt Angle = 0.81 deg 'average Analysis LOS Fresnel , 6 Siiiiiiii a a a '- sane CD aaaa allanIaaa w. mem...no oogumags diesaammea. — egg —*Pa -- I , I , a— -- n ar as a e I Ia. Illodinolaillio MI SID .f .aa aflab a_ar.ar. .f floe. e-. a_a.r.---r. wwa.—wow. firealin -- --- —--------- rr e *NI f..ale __tee , I I , 1 , 1 , i was M -- INN sow —a.— CMOS.. ara�r w Lei' 40 41 52.76 N Lon 103 41 33.95 W -58 -65 -730 4922 4796 4671 4545 44190 Terrain and Data Profile Stoneham N Prospect Data No valid Forward Link loaded Lea 44.1- M Terrain c-`, 0 cal t-# Stoneham N 1 !Official From Anchored Sector: Bearing = 180.16 deg, Azimuth = 180 Lat: 40 43 45.97 N Dist.: 8.19 mi, Tilt Angle = 0.60 deg Lon: 103 41 22.56 W Anchored to Stoneham N 1 - TX 3/ON I Official Coverage Analysis LOS Fresnel rcepo5e00 rat 300/A • y 1.6 1.6 1 Lai: 40 41 52.76 N Lon: 103 41 33.95 W 6,tee e go -% r Untitled Map Write a description for your map. June 14, 2022 47828 Hwy. 71 Stoneham, CO 80754 Weld County Commissioners, 4�o f , �, V L3 Li ' 2022 CON MiSSIONFRS We are sending some additional information regarding our opposition to the proposed cell tower north of Stoneham. The article, "Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation" by Karen J. Rogers is a good overview of the topic. She and others point out that the FCC safety standards are out of date and unsafe. 1-{;ven though this article was written in 2012, the FCC standards are the same and have not been updated since 1996. We are enclosing other references that show the safety standards from other countries. The U.S. has some of the most unsafe standards in the world — much worse than China and far worse than Russia. Also, please take special notice of the Letter of Support to the Pittsfield Board of Health on the Cell Tower Cease and Desist by Dr. Olle Johansson (Attachment II5) that we included with the other information already submitted. It is a good overview of information as well. It and the other letters from doctors that we submitted earlier were printed from the N:nvironmental Health Trust website, N;IITrust.org. Again, we stand opposed to this project. It would be unjust that without our consent, after over 100 years of our family living on and protecting the land on our ranch, that Viaero could set up a 330 foot tower next to our property and emit known carcinogenic radiation on us, our animals, the wildlife and the natural environment that we endeavor to protect. Also, as we noted previously, this is the Pawnee National Grasslands area. Should there not also be added consideration to protecting the natural beauty of the prairie lands and the wildlife in this area from continual industrial incursion, bringing with it not only ugly industrial litter but the harmful health effects as well? Respectfully, e CIAL.X0L) Marcia Craig Linda Craig 6/13/22, 5:21 PM Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation » Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation I Geoengineering Watch • Home • Contact • Documents • Patents • Resources » • Tests » • Spray Jets • HAARP DATA • DVDs • Book • Photo Gallery_ Recent Legal Action • Audio / Video » • Health • Geoengineering » • Engineered Droughts • Engineering Winter • Engineering Wildfires Creating Storms Jet Spraying GEOWATCH Radio Tree Die -off • Runaway Methane Scenario • Global Flash Points • Into The Wild • HAARP • Global Meltdown • Coming Collapse • TOP STORIES R1.22 atil---1/ '5-14 014-frekiL , Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation February 13, 2012 Nhare by Karen J. Rogers — view original article The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing bodyof scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health. The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across theU.S., which is expected to increase ten -fold over the next five years. The industry has set what theysay are "safe levels" of radiation exposure, but there are a growing number of doctors, physicists, andhealth officials who strongly • disagree, and foresee a public health crisis.Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Goiurado, with dozens more planned, astelecommunications companies rush to corner markets in this fast-growing industry. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/health-effects-from-cell-phone-tower-radiation/#more-834 1/41 6/13/22, 5:21 PM Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation » Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation I Geoengineenng Watch These towersemit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), for a distance of up to 2- 1/2miles. They are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven.Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to celltissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function,depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. [1]Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issuedwarnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency(RF) radiation. [2]Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health havecalled cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declaredcell phone towers a "public health emergency".The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But itis not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being "an arm of the industry". Many whowork for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they aresupposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, criticshave stated "you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show". Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide,and the blood supply were "safe", but which were later found to be harmful."You can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show." — Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Conference, 1996 ' The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countrieshave set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts,Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria thelevel is .1 microwatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet morestringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. Standard. [3, 4]Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological andmedical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from celltowers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. [5, 6, 7, 8]. Page 2 — Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation,even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC "safe" standards are based on 1985research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment,DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF at much lower levels. The earlier studiesconsidered only the "thermal", or heating effects of the radiation — in other words, the level at whichthe radiation would heat tissue, or "cook" a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave ovenworks: The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not "cooked", but they fail to address long-termchronic exposure at low levels, or what is called "non -thermal" effects.Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell functions. "RF alterstissue physiology"says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who found genetic damage in a $28million research program, paid for by the industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. [9]In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetic researchers,provided a consensus statement that there is scientific agreement that biological effects from lowintensity RF exposure are established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to setreliable exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time. The world's leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledgeis inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. — The Vienna Resolution, 1998 The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, wouldprohibit any cell site from emanating more than .1 mW/cm2 — 10,000 times more strict than thecurrent U.S. standard. This limit takes into account the growing evidence for non -thermal RFbioeffects. [10]Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation.Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNAdamage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/cm2range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands, of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmfullow levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Reportedhealth problems include headache, sleep disorders, memory impairment, nosebleeds, anincrease in https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/health-effects-from-cell-phone-tower-radiation/#more-834 2/41 6/13/22, 5:21 PM Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation » Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation I Geoengineering Watch seizures, blood brain barrier leakage problems, increased heart rates, lower spermcounts, and impaired nervous systems. [11]Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. There are noconclusive studies on the safety of such exposures, and the growing body of scientific evidencereports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable. Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. biophysicist from New Zealand, reports that "There is no safe level of EMR radiation." He said the standards are based on thermal effects, but important non-thermaleffects also take place, such as cell death and DNA breakdown. Dr. Cherry wrote a 120 -page reviewof 188 scientific studies. "The electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makesthem cancer forming." It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times, he said. "To claim there isno adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence." "To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in theface of a large body of evidence." — Dr. Neil Cherry, biophysicist Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism, given the massive public healthrisk that is possible. Page 3 — Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower RadiationOther federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much lessbuilt into the FCC standard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with theFCC standards, and analysts have recommended that EMR be classified as a "probable humancarcinogen". [12]Deputy Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Jacobsen, has statedthat the safety of RF "has not been established nor has the necessary research been conducted totest it", and cites risk of brain cancer, tumors and DNA breakdown. The California Public UtilityCommission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals.And the World Health Organization reports "many epidemiological studies have addressed possiblelinks between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. These studies do not provide enoughinformation to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from RF exposure because the resultsof these studies are .inconsistent." "The safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research beenconducted to test it." — Elizabeth Jacobsen, Deputy Director, US Department of Health "Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics, and we depend upon tinyelectrical impulses to conduct complex life processes," says Dr. Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution. [13, 14]He says "at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferationof (these) electromagnetic fields." Radiation once considered safe, he says, is now correlated withincreases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer's disease, learning disabilities, Chronic FatigueSyndrome, and cancer.The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973, and this year 185,000 Americans will bediagnosed with brain cancer. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for childrenand young adults.Yet, the United States has a de facto policy of "post sales surveillance" with respect to RF radiation.Only after years of exposure, will there be studies to characterize the health consequences.Some adverse health effects show up immediately, but it can often take 3 to 10 years for the longer term effects of RF illness to appear, such as cancer. Many researchers, public health officials andcitizens believe that consumers shouldn't be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experimentfor the next 20 years. In short, "we are the experiment", for health effects.Dr. Gerard Hyland, physicist, says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completelyinadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure. [15] Hyland, twice nominatedfor the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says existing safety guidelines "afford no protection" against the non -thermal influences. "Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments andindustry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they oftenoperate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests." "Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate." — Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist — two-time nominee, Nobel Prize in Medicine The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentiallygives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible tooppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. Citizens and communities across the country are angered,and are protesting this imposition of https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/health-effects-from-cell-phone-tower-radiation/#more-834 3/41 6/13/22, 5:21 PM Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation a Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation I Geoengineering Watch involuntary, 24 -hour -a -day microwave exposure, without provensafety levels. As one citizen stated, "There's no place left to escape." cell phone tower radiation, cell phone, radiation VISITORS 40,455,189 • GeoengineeringWatch.org Videos • Dane Wigington on Facebook �r1 Visit Dane's Facebook Page To Keep Up 1 With The Latest Updates • Email Newsletter Sign-up (Click the image above to sign-up) • GEOENGINEERING WATCH T-SHIRTS, CARDS AND BUMPER STICKERS https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/health-effects-from-cell-phone-tower-radiation/#more-834 4/41 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF Converfsio �i Exposures Updated 3/24/22 PHYSICIANS o SAFE pa TECHNOLOGY https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ RJA,AL see z� Sea# 1/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF Scroll down for articles on human and occupational exposures PHYSICIANS SAFE PI TECHNOLOGY www.MDSafeTech.org Conversion Chart Microwave. Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) =(EMF) Our exposure to wireless radiation is steadily increasing_ This radiofrequency(RF) radiation is currently classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO as of 2011. Many scientific experts who work in the field of EMR feel there is clear evidence of harm from long term, low level exposure to this pulsating and penetrating non -ionizing radiation which warrants an upgrade to the IARC classification to a Group 1 Known Carcinogen ,(Hardell and Carlsberg 2018). It is important to be able to read the scientific literature, however, it can be confusing as there are different units of measurements (NW/cm2, pW/m2, W/m2, V/M). In addition, harm from radio frequency exposure varies with power, distance, device, modulation (pulsations and wave design), polarization and length of exposure. Wall et al demonstrated that with a weak reception phone signal radiation is magnitudes higher. The peak power and pulsation, rather than the averaged power, are the important aspects of cellular injury. It is important to keep in mind that the current thermal (heat) RF exposure standards vary in different countries. The biologically toxic (oxidative/membrane) RF exposure levels, shown to produce harm at non -thermal levels, are far below current U.S. RF guidelines (See Biolnitiative Report). More lenient current U.S. FCC standards put large populations at risk for a diverse array of long term health issues. We list several exposure standards and limits along with the short conversion chart to enable easier reading of the scientific literature. The Austrian Medical Association Guidelines of 2016 are also posted below. Scientific references on exposure measurements are listed at the end (Ambient, Children, Skin and Body Exposures, Occupational) Industry Standardization Worldwide? https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 2/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF Industry is trying to standardize all countries to allow higher levels of RF that are consistent with current IEEE & ICNIRP guidelines (Same as US and Canada) which do not take into account non thermal biological effects, only heat. Here is a slide presentation that helps to understand industry strategy. If this moves forward countries who wish to use lower precautionary limits will be unable to do so. TIA-MWF PowerPoint for FCC Labs and OET Meeting Russia set lower standard than the U.S. and have not raised them. It is interesting to find that Russian researchers looked at RFR exposures and immune dysfunction over 2 decades ago and because of these robust studies which were replicated in 2006-2009 they set their upper limit of RFR at 10 µW/cm2. New Article 2021 advises updating standards to be 40 times lower than current standards.Development of health -based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. (2021) Uche UI & Naidenko's OV. Environmental Health. 20, Article number: 84 (2021). https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1 Here is a thorough discussion from the telecom industry, Preparing for 5G: Evolution of RF Compliance Standards and Regulations for Mobile Devices. The Lancet Publishes Article on Planetary RF Exposures A December 2018 article on planetary radio frequency (RF) exposures was published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet. Titled. Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact, the authors discuss the flaws in current exposure guidelines, and show a graph indicating the changes in exposure levels of different frequencies over time. They call for this topic to be included with other critical issues related to planetary health, including climate change and rising levels of chemical toxins. To Print : Conversion Chart Microwave Electromagnetic Radiation PDF See Also: Safe Living Technology EMF/RF/Magnetic Field full conversion charts here https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 3/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF SCroll down for : *Worldwide Exposure Limits *Current Heat -Based Guidelines and *Scientific References on Measured Human and Children's Exposures Levels of Concern and Exposure Limits Key to Chart: * ** *** and Current Limits in U.S. * Low Concern- Building Biologists benchmark for long term exposure (0.00001W/cm? ) ** Biolnitiative Limits- No observable effect on humans (0.0003-0.0006 pW/cm? ) Biolnitiative Report *** Extreme Concern- Building Biologists benchmark for long term exposure (0.1 pW/cm? ) Building Biologist EMR Exposure Guidelines are here Current Limits in U.S. are in Red highlights and are up to 1000 pW/cm? =1 mW/cm? =.001 W/cm? = 10,000,000 pW/m? = 10,000 mW/m? = 10W/m2 = 61.4 V/m= 64,100 mV/m Conversion Chart EMR = EM F Power equivalents— 1 pW/cm2 = 10,000 pW/m2 = 0.01 W/m2 Watts/Square microWatts/Square Meter microWatts/Square Meter (W/m2) (pW/m2) Centimeter (pW/cm2) 0.000,000,000,000,1 W/m2 0.000,000,1 pW/m2 0.000,000,000,01 pW/cm2 0.000,000,000,001 W/m2 0.000,001 pW/m2 0.000,000,000,1 pW/cm2 0.000,000,000,01 W/m2 0.000,01 pW/m2 0.000,000,001 pW/cm2 0.000,000,000,1 W/m2 0.000,000,001 W/m2 0.000,000,01 W/m2 0.000,1 pW/m2 0.000,000,01 pW/cm2 0.001 pW/m2 0.000,000,1 pW/cm2 0.01 pW/m2 0.000,001 pW/cm2 0.000,000,1 W/m2 * 0.1 pW/m2 * 0.000,01 pW/cm2 * https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 4/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF 0.000, 001 W/ m 2 ** 1(3-6)_µW/m2 2 ** 0.000,1 (0.0003-6) µW/cm 2 ** 0.000,01 W/m2 (3-6)10 µW/m2 0.001 µW/cm2 0.000,1 W/m2 100 µW/m2 0.01 pW/cm2 0.001 W/m2 *** 1,000 µW/m2 *** 0.01 W/m2 10,000 µW/m2 0.1 W/m2 100,000 µW/m2 0.1 µW/cm2 *** 1 µW/cm2 10 µW/cm2 1 W/m2 1,000,000 µW/m2 100 µW/cm2 10 W/m2 2 10, 000, 000 µ W/ m 2 100 W/m2 100,000,000 µW/m2 1000 W/m2 1,000,000,000 µW/m2 1,000 µW/cm2 10,000 µW/cm2 100,000 µW/cm2 Conversion Chart Volts per meter (V/m) to µW/cm2 Using Acoustameter RF-10- Peak RF-EMR Emissions are in Volts/meter (V/m) which translates to power density in (µW/m2). Note Peak levels more important than average levels. Volts per Meter (V/m) to milli Volts per meter (mV/m) to microWatts per meter squared (µW/m2) to microWatts per centimeter squared (µW/cm2) 0.000,194 V/m = 0.194 mV/m = 0.000,1 µW/m2. = 0.000,000,01 µW/cm2 0.000,614 V/m = 0.614 mV/m = 0.001 µW/m2. = 0.000,000,1 µW/cm2 0.001,94 V/m = 1.94 mV/m = 0.01 µW/m2 = 0.000,001 µW/cm2 0.006,14 V/m = 6.14 mV/m 0.1 µW/m2 = 0.000,01 µW/cm2 * Low concern 0.019,4 V/m = 19.4 mV/m = 1 µW/m2 = 0.000,1 µW/cm2 ** Bioinitiative NOE 0.061,4 V/m = 61.4 mV/m = 10µW/m2 = 0.001 µW/cm2 0.194 V/m = 194 mV/m = 100 µW/m2 = 0.01 µW/cm2 0.614 V/m = 614 mV/m = 1000 µVV/m2 = 0.1 µW/cm2 *** Extreme concern BB 1.94 V/m = 1,942 mV/m = 10,000 µW/m2 = 1µW/cm2 6.14 V/m = 6,140 mV/m = 100,000 µW/m2 = 10 µW/cm2 19.4 V/m = 19,416 mV/m = 1,000,000 µW/m2 = 100 µW/cm2 -Current U.S. guidelines 61.4 V/m = 61,400 mV/m = 10,000,000 µW/m2 = 1,000 µW/cm2- Current guidelines 194 V/m = 194,164 mV/m = 100,000,000 µW/m2 = 10,000 µW/cm2 https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 5/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF • 614 V/Mm= 614,003 mV/m = 1,000,000,000 µW/m2 = 100,000 µW/cm2 • 1942 V/m = 1,941,648 mV/m = 10,000,000,000 µW/m2 = 1,000,000 µW/cm2 Note: Current FCC Guidelines • 19.4 V/m = 19,416 mV/m = 1,000,000 µW/m2 = 100 µW/cm2 • 61.4 V/m = 61,400 mV/m = 10,000,000 µW/m2 = 1,000 µW/cm2 Note: Building Biologists Extreme Concern for Long Term Exposure • 0.614 V/m = 614 mV/m = 1000 µW/m2 = 0.1 µW/cm2 Note: Bioinitiative Limit for No Observable Effects • 0.019,4 V/m = 19.4 mV/m = 3-6 µW/m2 = 0.0003-0.0006 µW/cm2 Building Biology Precautionary Guidelines (2015) for Sleeping Areas Power density No Concern Slight Concern Severe Concern Extreme Concern microWatts per square meter yW/m' < 0.1 0.1 •10 10.1000 > 1000 microWatts per square cm NW/cm2 < 0,000,01 nogg' -0.001 0_._001 -0.1 > 0.1 milliWatts per square meter mW/m2 <0.000,1 0.000,1 - 0.01 0.01 -1 > 1 Signal strength Volts per meter V/m < 0.006,14 0.006,14 — 0.061,4 0,061,4 —0,614 > 0.614 Modern Homes Full of Microwave Radiation This news video, from Safe Living Technologies, shows some of the sources of wireless radiation in the home. The measurements are done by a Building Biologist who acknowledges these levels are within the legal guidelines but not precautionary. Modern Homes Full of Microwave Radiation Wireless Exposure Limits in Different Countries The limits are for frequencies between 300Mhz-300GHz in microwatts/cm2 https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 6/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF Limit guidelines in U.S. are from 200 uW/cm2 to 1000 uW/cm2 (2 W/m2 to 10 W/m2) for RF radiation depending on frequency. Countries developed different standards based on either *Thermal Effects *Non -Thermal Effects or *Precautionary Considerations. The values below are at 900MHz but vary with frequency and are as up to date as possible. EU standards have changed and there may be mandated lower limits. Japan 600 microwatts/cm2 U.S.A. 450 microwatts/cm2 Canada** 450 microwatts/cm2 Australia 450 microwatts/cm2 Austria [450] microwatts/cm2 France 450 microwatts/cm2 Germany 450 microwatts/cm2 Hungary 450 microwatts/cm2 Ireland 450 microwatts/cm2 Luxembourg 450 microwatts/cm2 Portugal 450 microwatts/cm2 Spain 450 microwatts/cm2 India 45 microwatts/cm2 China 40 microwatts/cm2 https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 7/26 6/14/22, 9:39 AM Russia and Physicians for Safe Technology I Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF 10 microwatts/cm2 Italy 10 microwatts/cm2 Bulgaria 10 microwatts/cm2 Poland 10 microwatts/cm2 Lichtenstein 10 microwatts/cm2 Switzerland ** and *** 10 microwatts/cm2 Belgium [2.4] microwatts/cm2 Ukraine ** 2.5 microwatts/cm2 Cosmic Background -Evolutionary <0.00000000001 µW/cm2 Cosmic EM R background we evolved from <0.00000000001 µ W/cm 2 Non -Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/ Increased blood -brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM -900 mobile phone. (2009) Nittby H et al. 2009 Aug;16(2- 3):103-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073. https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/16986 International Guidance Levels-Powerwatch. https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/intguidance.asp Comparison of International Policies on Electromagnetic Fields. National Institute for Public Health and Environment Netherlands 2013- New- here https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-emr-emf/ 8/26 6/14/22, 9:17 AM - GHO I By category I Exposure limits for radio -frequency fields (public) - Data by country \ World Health Lv Organization Global Health Observatory data repository Data analysis By theme By category By indicator Metadata About the Observatory Search By category > Public health and environment > Electromagnetic fields > Exposure limits Exposure limits for radio- freq ncy fields (public) Data illy country n -e- -64-y ‘S-4/4 sta,ar/th https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.EMFLIMITSPUBCRADI0FREQUENCYv 1/2 6/14/22, 9:17 AM GHO I By category I Exposure limits for radio -frequency fields (public) - Data by country filter table I reset table Download filtered data as: CSV table I XML (simple) I JSON (simple) Last updated: 2017-05-31 Electric field (V/m)i Country Year 900 MHz 1800 MHz Download complete data set as: CSV table I Excel I CSV list I more... Radiofrequency Power density (W/m^2)/ 900 1800 MHz MHz Argentina 2017 41.25 58.36 4.5 9 Specifi Whole r-1 Ir--il Australia 2017 41.11 58.11 4.51 91 Austria 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 Bahrain 2017 41 58 4.5 9 Belgium 2017 i i Brazil 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 Bulgaria 2017 6.141 6.14 0.11 0.1 Canada 2017 32.11 40.071 2.741 4.41 Chile 2017 Cuba 2017 Cyprus 2017 41 0.1/1.0l 0.1/1.01 58 4.5 9 Finland 2017 41.4 58.55 4.5 9 ,_,France_ _2017 C_ _ _ -. • https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.EMFLIMITSPUBCRADIOFREQUENCYv 2/2 6/14/22, 9:19 AM GHO I By category I Exposure limits for radio -frequency fields (public) - Data by country filter table I reset table Last updated: 2017-05-31 Electric field (V/m)i Download filtered data as: CSV table I XML (simple) I JSON (simple) Download complete data set as: CSV table I Excel I CSV list I more... Radiofrequency Power density (W/m^2)/ Specifi', Country Year 900 MHz 1800 900 1800 Whole! MHz MHz MHz i France 2017 41 58 4.5 9 Germany 2017 41.25 58 4.5 9 Greece 2017 31.9/34.51 45.1/48.81 2.7/3.15/ 5.4/6.3/ 0.048/0.0] Iran (Islamic 2017 41.25 Republic of) 58.34 4.5 9 Israel 2017 [13.0] [ 18.0] [0.45]/ [0.9]/ Italy 2017 6/201 6/201 0.1/1.0/ 0.1/1.0/ Japan 2017 47.55 61.4 6 10 Malaysia 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 Ir� I t 1 Netherlands 2017 41.25 New Zealand 58.34 4.5 9 2017 41.25 Norway 2017 58.34 4.51 9/ 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.EMFLIMITSPUBCRADIOFREQUENCYv 2/2 6/14/22, 9:21 AM GHO I By category I Exposure limits for radio -frequency fields (public) - Data by country filter table I reset table Last updated: 2017-05-31 Electric field (V/m)1 Country Year 900 MHz Download filtered data as: CSV table I XML (simple) I JSON (simple) Download complete data set as: CSV table I Excel I CSV list I more... Radiofrequency i Power density (W/m^2)1 1800 900 1800 MHz MHz MHz Specifi Whole Norway 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 Peru 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 Philippines 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 Republic of 2017 41.25 Korea Russian Federation Saudi Arabia South Africa 2017 58.34 4.5 9 2017 41.25 58.34 4.5 9 2017 [41.0] [58.0] [4.5] [9.0] Sweden 2017 [41.25] [58.33] [4.5] [9] Switzerland 2017 4/41.251 6/58.341 Tunisia 2017 41 58 4.5 9 Turkey 2017 3/10.23/41.01 3/14.5/581 0.27 0.55 https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.EMFLIMITSPUBCRADIOFREQUENCYv 2/2 6/14/22, 9:21 AM GHO I By category I Exposure limits for radio -frequency fields (public) - Data by country filter table I reset table Last updated: 2017-05-31 Electric field (V/m)/ Country Year 900 MHz Arabia 2017 South 2017 Africa Sweden 2017 Switzerland 2017 Tunisia 2017 Turkey 2017 41.25 1800 MHz 58.34 Download filtered data as: CSV table I XML (simple) I JSON (simple) Download complete data set as: CSV table I Excel I CSV list I more... Radiofrequency Power density (W/m^2)/ 900 1800 MHz MHz 4.5 9 Specifi Whole, [41.0] [58.0] [4.5] [9.0] [41.25] [58.33] [4.5] [9] 4/41.251 6/58.341 41 58 4.5 9 3/10.23/41.01 3/14.5/581 0.27 0.55 United Kingdom of Great 2017 [41.25] Britain and Northern Ireland [58.34] [4.5] [9.0] United States of 2017 47.61 America 61.41 6/ 10/ Zambia 2017 41 58 4.5 9 https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.EMFLIMITSPUBCRADIOFREQUENCYv 2/2 Hello