Onus is on those with vested interest to prove safety of 5G

I thought your headline was a pretty fair one-line summary of Daniel’s second letter. He’s undoubtedly right that it has not been proven conclusively that 5G is a health risk. But by the same token it has not been proven that 5G is safe. Where should the burden of proof lie here? I’d strongly suggest that the onus is on those who wish to introduce a potentially harmful technology to prove that it is safe.

But to deal with Daniel’s first letter, which you published on 1 October: this was a somewhat emotive and emotional letter, which relied very much on the use of analogy, much of which I thought was invalid and unhelpful. Towards the end, when it evoked ‘flat-earthers’ and ‘invisible fairies running the world’, I thought its arguments became counter-productive. Most people who are concerned about dangers from mobile phone radiation are intelligent people, who do not believe in a flat Earth, or in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

But let’s try to come to some real facts. Daniel mentioned four websites that he said support his case. I’ve looked at these sites and found a mixed bag of rather inconclusive comments.

Information on the site of the Cancer Council Western Australia unfortunately relates to studies conducted as long ago as 2011, when mobile technology and usage was somewhat different. They do though say (and I quote): ‘In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated all scientific research investigating the health effects of mobile phones and, somewhat controversially, classified mobile phone use – and other radio frequency electromagnetic fields – as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (IARC Group 2B). ‘This means there is limited evidence that radiofrequency radiation causes cancer in humans and animals.’

The American Cancer Society website has a fair amount of information about a number of studies and reaches a conclusion that ‘all studies done so far have limitations’.

This is partly because studies have not been able to follow people for very long periods of time, people are using their phones more than they used to, the phones themselves are very different from what were used in the past, most studies so far have focused on adults not children, and the measurement of cell phone use in most studies has been crude.

This site also has something about ‘what do expert agencies say?’. This is quite a mixed bag, and the American Cancer Society summarises it by saying that, ‘In general they [the expert agencies] agree that the evidence of a possible link [between mobile phone use and cancer] is limited and more research is needed to look at possible long-term effects.’

The Cancer Research UK site has a confusing and contradictory statement that ‘Brain tumour risk is not increased in people who are over-users of mobile phones, meta-analyses of case-control and cohort studies have shown. Whereas brain tumour risk is 33% higher in people who have used a mobile phone for 10 years or more, firm conclusions are precluded by evidence limitations linked with the relative infancy of mobile phone technology, the relatively small number of cohort studies and the quality of the included studies.’

The website of the National Cancer Institution states that ‘Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from X-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans.’ (My italics).

So what can we make of all this? Firstly, it looks like research in the whole area has been patchy and inconsistent. With the eye of faith you might wish to hope that mobile phones are safe, but with a dispassionate eye you have to fairly conclude that the issue is still uncertain.

Secondly, people seem to fixate on the fact that ionising radiations such as gamma rays and X-rays are harmful. Everybody knows about the long-lasting effects of atomic explosions and the effects of ionising radiation on DNA. But the fact that gamma rays are deadly does not mean that non-ionising radiation is safe. DNA is of course far from being the only complex molecule in cells, and while we now know a good deal about cell biochemistry, there is still much left to learn. It seems that more research into the effects of non-ionising radiation is still needed. The matter still seems controversial.

In my life I have generally found it instructive, when dealing with matters of controversy, to look for the vested interests. Vested interest in 5G is clearly going to come from telecommunication companies, and no doubt also from the younger generation who are excited by the possibilities and are willing to turn a blind eye to possible dangers and just hope for the best.

Governments may also have a vested interest if, for example, they wish to project an image that they are keeping up with technology and wish to be seen as ‘modern’, and also if they see revenue-earning potential in the technology.

We need to look at the situation rationally, and try to evaluate all known possible risks, since only then can we as a society decide if we wish to take these risks. But in the current state of knowledge, let us not try to deny them.

BOB PERKINS

Les Corneilles,

Rue de la Ronde Cheminee,

Castel,

GY5 7GD.