Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks

Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative

The many different voices speaking into the current narrative surrounding the health effects of 5G technologies necessitate an exploration of the background of the various published author-spokespersons and their potential motives. This has been attempted recently by de Vocht and Albers. However, that opinion piece used a narrow investigative lens, resulting in an undermining of both the rationality of the concerned general public and the motives of specific researchers. At the same time, biases, conflicts of interest, and flaws found in "independent" reviews were not considered. To address these oversights, an evidence-based appraisal of public opinion and the scientific caliber of authors involved in the 5G health discussion is warranted. Subsequently, this review article presents an analysis of the available Australian data representing public voices, while also conducting a broader investigation of the level of expertise of recent author-spokespersons based on their experience as scientists, particularly in the area of health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. This review thus attempts to more clearly illustrate for the reader the caliber and motives of the voices speaking into the 5G narrative. The article concludes with a set of questions that need to be answered to enable scientists to advise policy makers more effectively on matters of 5G and public health.

A critical analysis of the MOBI-Kids study of wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and brain tumor risk

The MOBI-Kids case-control study on wireless phone use and brain tumor risk in childhood and adolescence included the age group 10-24 years diagnosed between 2010 and 2015. Overall no increased risk was found although for brain tumors in the temporal region an increased risk was found in the age groups 10-14 and 20-24 years. Most odds ratios (ORs) in MOBI-Kids were <1.0, some statistically significant, suggestive of a preventive effect from RF radiation; however, this is in contrast to current knowledge about radiofrequency (RF) carcinogenesis. The MOBI-Kids results are not biologically plausible and indicate that the study was flawed due to methodological problems. For example, not all brain tumor cases were included since central localization was excluded. Instead, all brain tumor cases should have been included regardless of histopathology and anatomical localization. Only surgical controls with appendicitis were used instead of population-based controls from the same geographical area as for the cases. In fact, increased incidence of appendicitis has been postulated to be associated with RF radiation which makes selection of control group in MOBI-Kids questionable. Start of wireless phone use up to 10 years before diagnosis was in some analyses included in the unexposed group. Thus, any important results demonstrating late carcinogenesis, a promoter effect, have been omitted from analysis and may underestimate true risks. Linear trend was in some analyses statistically significant in the calculation of RF-specific energy and extremely low frequency (ELF)-induced current in the center of gravity of the tumor. Additional case-case analysis should have been performed. The data from this study should be reanalyzed using unconditional regression analysis adjusted for potential confounding factors to increase statistical power. Then all responding cases and controls could be included in the analyses. In sum, we believe the results as reported in this paper seem uninterpretable and should be dismissed.

Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines

In March 2020, ICNIRP (the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). ICNIRP claims this publication's view on EMF and health, a view usually termed "the thermal-only paradigm", is consistent with current scientific understanding. We investigated the literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to assess if the variation in authors and research groups behind it meets the fundamental requirement of constituting a broad scientific base and thus a view consistent with current scientific understanding, a requirement that such an important set of guidelines is expected to satisfy. To assess if this requirement has been met, we investigated the span of authors and research groups of the referenced literature of the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines and annexes. Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself, and in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE, and some of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. Moreover, literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members. This shows that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.