"Safety" Criteria from False Assumptions
Intro
The article titled “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G” was published by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) in the journal Environmental Health in 202245. This document is crucial for understanding the fundamental limitations and errors in current electrosmog exposure regulations, especially regarding the guidelines set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
The article highlights how the assumptions underlying the exposure limits set by the FCC and ICNIRP are based on outdated and methodologically questionable studies. These regulations, established in the 1990s, were derived from research conducted on small groups of animals and under conditions that do not reflect the reality of prolonged and ubiquitous electromagnetic pollution exposure today.
1. SAFETY THRESHOLD FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS
The first assumption is the idea that there is a safety threshold for exposure, represented by a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg, below which no adverse health effects occur. This assumption has guided the creation of regulations for decades, but recent research has shown that even exposures at levels below this threshold can have significant biological effects.
2. ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION CANNOT CAUSE DNA DAMAGE EXCEPT THROUGH HEATING
The second assumption is the belief that electromagnetic pollution cannot cause DNA damage unless it results in a significant temperature increase in tissues. This idea has been central to justifying current regulations, as it assumes that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cannot break chemical bonds or ionize molecules, and therefore cannot induce direct genetic damage.
3. SHORT STUDIES WITH LIMITED EXPOSURES ARE SUFFICIENT TO EXCLUDE ADVERSE EFFECTS IN PROLONGED EXPOSURES
The third assumption is that brief, short-term exposure studies are enough to rule out any adverse effects, regardless of long-term exposure to electromagnetic pollution. Current regulations are based on studies from the 1980s and 1990s, where small groups of animals were exposed to electromagnetic pollution for short durations, with the belief that these results could be extrapolated to chronic, long-term exposures in humans.
4. ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION HAS NO ADDITIONAL EFFECTS IN CO-EXPOSURE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AGENTS
The fourth assumption is that electromagnetic pollution exposure does not interact with other environmental agents to cause additional effects. Current FCC and ICNIRP regulations do not account for the possibility that electromagnetic pollution might have synergistic or amplifying effects when combined with other environmental exposures, such as chemicals, ultraviolet radiation, or air pollutants.
5. HEALTH EFFECTS DEPEND SOLELY ON THE AVERAGE SAR; SIGNAL MODULATION AND FREQUENCY DON'T MATTER
The fifth assumption is the belief that the health effects of electromagnetic pollution depend solely on the average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), without considering factors like signal modulation, frequency, or the pulsing of electromagnetic waves. This assumption underpins current regulations, which tend to simplify exposure by averaging it over time, disregarding the specific characteristics of signals.
6. STUDIES LINKING ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION TO INCREASED RISK OF BRAIN TUMORS ARE BIASED
The sixth assumption addressed in the document is that studies finding associations between electromagnetic pollution exposure and an increased risk of brain tumors, particularly gliomas, are biased and therefore unreliable. Regulatory agencies like the FCC and ICNIRP have dismissed these studies, arguing that methodological biases, such as recall bias and selection bias, skew the results, and that brain cancer rates haven’t risen since the widespread adoption of mobile phones.
7. NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN ABSORPTION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION
The seventh assumption, which I believe has caused significant harm, is the idea that all individuals absorb electromagnetic pollution similarly and have the same susceptibility to its effects. Current FCC and ICNIRP regulations are based on this assumption, treating the general population as a homogenous group, without considering variations in anatomy, physiology, or sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMF).
8. NO DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE'S SENSITIVITY TO ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION EFFECTS
The eighth assumption addressed in the document is that there is no difference between individuals in their sensitivity to electromagnetic pollution’s effects. This assumption implies that everyone reacts the same way to exposure and that those who experience symptoms attributed to electromagnetic pollution do so for psychological rather than physiological reasons.
9. A SAFETY FACTOR OF 50 IS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE GENERAL POPULATION FROM ANY RISK OF ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION
Current regulations employ what is known as a safety factor to establish exposure limits for electromagnetic pollution that are intended to protect the general population. This safety factor is a multiplier applied to the exposure level shown to cause adverse effects in scientific studies, to reduce the health risk.
10. A SAFETY FACTOR OF 10 IS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT WORKERS FROM ANY ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION RISK
The tenth assumption focuses on the belief that a safety factor of 10 is adequate to protect workers from the adverse effects of electromagnetic pollution. This factor is applied to exposure levels in workplace environments, based on the premise that workers, being in a controlled environment and aware of the risks, require less protection than the general population.
11. LOCALIZED EXPOSURE UP TO 1.6 W/KG (OR 2 W/KG) DOES NOT INCREASE THE RISK OF TOXIC OR CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
The eleventh assumption is that localized exposure to electromagnetic pollution, measure in terms of SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), up to 1.6 W/kg (according to FCC guidelines) or 2 W/kg (according to ICNIRP), does not pose a significant risk of toxic or carcinogenic effects. This SAR value applies to localized exposures in small areas of the body, such as the head or torso, where electronic devices are often in close contact.
12. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS HAVE NO HEALTH CONSEQUENCES UNLESS THERE IS VISIBLE TISSUE DAMAGE
The twelfth assumption is that biological effects induced by electromagnetic pollution have no health consequences unless they cause visible and measurable tissue damage, such as burns or necrosis. This assumption underpins the logic that, if no visible tissue damage occurs, exposures remain within safe limits established by regulations.
13. EXPERIMENTAL PROVOCATIONS THAT SHOW NO ADVERSE EFFECTS CONFIRM THAT ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION EXPOSURE POSES NO RISK
The thirteenth assumption is that experimental studies, or provocation studies, which fail to show adverse effects when subjects are exposed to electromagnetic pollution under controlled conditions, are sufficient evidence to conclude that there are no real health risks associated with exposure. This argument has been used to support the safety of current regulations, suggesting that if adverse effects are not replicated in controlled experiments, concerns about electromagnetic pollution are unfounded.
14. NO HEALTH DATA ARE NEEDED FOR 5G EXPOSURE; IT IS ASSUMED SAFE DUE TO LIMITED PENETRATION INTO THE SKIN
This assumption is based on the belief that specific health studies for 5G are unnecessary because its high-frequency waves (millimeter waves) are thought to be safe, penetrating only the outermost layer of the skin. This limited penetration is often dismissed as insignificant, overlooking the potential for important skin-related issues. As discussed in earlier chapters, 5G operates not only in the millimeter-wave spectrum but also in the sub-6 GHz band (0.6 GHz to 6 GHz).
