Driving relevance means driving growth. Join global brands and industry thought leaders at Brandweek, Sept. 11–14 in Miami, for actionable takeaways to better your marketing. 50% off passes ends April 10.
There are scientific theories, some with extraordinary supporting evidence, that clearly identify carcinogens. But when I asked Dr. Michael La Quaglia, my granddaughter’s cancer surgeon, how a 2.5-year-old gets pancreatoblastoma, he looked me straight in the eye and said, “If we knew, we could prevent it. All I can do is try to remove it. And with God’s help, I will be successful.”
Those words ring in my ears to this day. So, it is with a great deal of humility, personal experience and a strong belief in the scientific method that I submit to you a reasoned rebuttal to the meme that “5G causes cancer.”
First and foremost, when researchers determine that something is a carcinogen (a substance, mixture or exposure circumstance that promotes the formation of cancer), they provide clear, specific protocols to avoid it.
So far, the only things related to 5G that have been classified as a carcinogen are cellphones. In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) put cellphones on its list of “Class 2B carcinogens.” Other Class 2B carcinogens include pickles, aloe vera leaf extract and being a firefighter. The warning about cellphones from the WHO is best paraphrased as “don’t use your cellphone as a pillow.”
That said, cancer is serious business, and this topic is more than worthy of exploration.
History of the idea
People have claimed that electromagnetic radiation causes cancer since the advent of 2G cellular networks. In 2000, Florida’s Broward County Public School system asked consultant Bill Curry to study the impact microwave radiation might have on schoolchildren. Curry concluded that the technology was “likely to be a serious health hazard.” As evidence, he referenced a graph labeled “Microwave Absorption in Brain Tissue (Gray Matter).” The graph has become a popular meme.
His report, methodology and conclusions have been called into question by so many scientists it would be impossible to name them all. However, Christopher Collins, professor of radiology at New York University, sums up the criticisms of Curry’s report concisely: Curry’s work failed to take “the shielding effect” of the human body into account. Dr. Kalil Abdullah, brain tumor neurosurgeon at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, agrees. There simply is no credible scientific evidence linking any cellular network (2G, 3G, 4G or 5G) to increases in brain tumors or other types of cancer.
There are many known carcinogens. Some carcinogens, such as inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins and tobacco smoke, have nothing to do with radioactivity. Everyone knows the danger associated with inhaled asbestos, and anyone who has renovated an old structure knows what it costs (and the lengths to which one must go) to remove the cancer threat. Similarly, cigarettes (the main delivery vehicle for tobacco smoke) have carried a health risk warning from the Surgeon General of the United States for years.
Some electromagnetic waves are carcinogenic, such as the ultraviolet, x-ray and gamma-ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Should you avoid extreme exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation? Yes, as there is a known correlation between exposure to UV and certain types of skin cancer. This is why you are told to wear SPF 50 sunblock and avoid extreme exposure to direct sunlight. It is why there is a significant industry based on the thesis that humans need to be protected from UV radiation.
But unlike exposure to high levels of ionizing radioactive material such as the materials used in nuclear reactors, which deterministically cause radiation sickness and may lead to death, when one analyzes the effects of exposure to low levels of non-ionizing radiation, one finds that cancer is a stochastic effect.
In other words, the radiation we are going to discuss in this article only has a probability of correlation with the occurrence of cancer, which is a major reason (among others, including small sample size, inconsistent exposure rates and controls and short duration) peer-reviewed scientific studies have so far been inconclusive.
Some believe 5G may pose a threat
In 2016, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a report. And while it’s not exactly light reading, the report details a study where mice and rats were exposed to extreme levels of radiation in the frequency range of cellphones. After two years of “whole-body exposure,” there was an elevated number of mice afflicted with heart tumors in the exposed group. This study has been highly criticized.
Then there’s the Ramazzini Institute Study of far-field radiation effects on rats. Like the NTP study above, there is no consensus regarding the results of the Ramazzini Institute Study.
Correlation to the rollout of 5G
There are some people who believe and argue that because the density of 5G network towers will be greater than that of previous wireless networks and because 5G networks will include wavelengths of higher frequencies than those of previous wireless networks, the risks suggested by NTP, Ramazzini and other studies will be elevated. A few very competent scientists and health professionals have been quite vocal on the subject.
That said, most of the doctors, radiologists and physicists I’ve spoken to about this roll their eyes and wonder why tanning salons are not banned worldwide. Extreme levels of UV (like those you receive in a tanning bed) are much more powerful than anything a 5G tower or device could expose you to.