In an article published October 17 entitled, We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe, Scientific American (SciAm) magazine released a chilling warning about the known and potential dangers of rapidly developing 5G technology.

In an article published October 17 entitled, We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe, Scientific American (SciAm) magazine released a chilling warning about the known and potential dangers of rapidly developing 5G technology.

This is particularly important considering that SciAm is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States. Founded in 1845 by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter, and running monthly since 1921, their reputation has been rigorously tested through the passage of time.

Today, SciAm has become a highly influential publication, known for its uncompromising scientific standards and is celebrated by “fact-checkers” as impeccably credible and staunchly pro-science.

In the article, Berkley public health researcher Joel M. Moskowitz argues that 5G, along with previous wifi and cellular technology, is significantly more harmful than world governments and the telecom industry wants the general public to believe.

His foremost concerns center around a recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announcement, made in a press release, that they are closing in on reaffirming the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that were previously adopted by the commission in the 1990’s… long before the introduction of 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G or even WiFi.

In short, the safety standards that the FCC look to maintain are painfully outdated and fail to reflect the expanding body of scientific evidence demonstrating harm.

Moskowitz notes that the 90’s exposure limits only address the singular concern over the potential effects of the intensity of exposure to RFR. With the research we now have available the health concerns are much broader, including a legitimate risk of cancer.

“The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects on the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.” -Joel M. Moskowitz, Scientific American

Moskowitz also cites the the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which elaborates on the now-known dangerous effects of RFR:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” [Source]

Moskowitz points out that,”the scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.” Inviting readers and policy makers to consider the weight of more than 500 peer-reviewed research studies finding, “harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating,” Moskowitz believes that more rigorous studies are absolutely necessary before the rollout goes forward.

In other words, the scientific jury is already out on the harmful effects of RFR, and the FCC has flat-out deserted its duty to put public safety above telecom industry interests.

In regard to the propaganda dimension of this debate, Moskowitz addresses the fact that industry spokepersons and related government officials frequently refer to contrary viewpoints as ‘fear-mongering,” and their scientific research is legitimate. Moskowitz said that this essentially leaves the scientific community with responsibility to speak out about these concerns for themselves.

“The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.” -Joel M. Moskowitz, Scientific American

In light of this article, it appears then that the blanket assertions pushed by world governments and the telecom industry saying 5G being “safe” are beginning to lose their traction. Many prominent and influential scientists and organizations are already speaking out against 5G, but for the editorial board of Scientific American to run a piece this damning of 5G… the scientific community must be genuinely concerned of its potential consequences.