"Stop global roll out of 5G networks until safety is confirmed", urges "expert"

[FatPhil]

This seems to be widely doing the rounds quite widely:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-global-5g-networks-safety-urges.html

We should err on the side of caution and stop the global roll out of 5G (fifth generation) telecoms networks until we are certain this technology is completely safe, urges an expert in an opinion piece published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
...
it has become the subject of fierce controversy, fuelled by four key areas of scientific uncertainty and concern.

The lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; and a growing but far from comprehensive body of laboratory research indicating the biologically disruptive potential of RF-EMFs
An almost total lack (as yet) of high quality epidemiological studies of the impact on human health from 5G EMF exposure
Mounting epidemiological evidence of such effects from previous generations of RF-EMF exposure at lower levels
Persistent allegations that some national telecomms regulatory authorities haven't based their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, amid potential conflicts of interest

5G uses much higher frequency (3 to 300GHz) radio waves than in the past and it makes use of very new—and relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety—supportive technology to enable this higher data transmission capacity, points out Professor Frank.
...

Content from external source

Other sites covering it include https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...id-john-william-frank-edinburgh-b1789027.html , https://scitechdaily.com/expert-stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed/ , etc., but there seems to be extensive copy-pasta involved across the multiple sites. Many of the sources identify themselves as just "BMJ".

Some are referencing: “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” 19 January 2021, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2019-213595

Edit: Strike this paragraph <<<
However, two DOI resolvers (including https://dx.doi.org/ ) responded DOI not found - and it's not listed as a recent article at https://jech.bmj.com/ which seems highly suspicious, and even makes me feel there's a nonzero chance it's a complete fabrication from whole cloth.
>>>

It appears there's a backdoor to get BMJ papers that aren't officially out yet, and it can be found at https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

Not that it matters, the expert's expertise seems to be lumbar, not EM: https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/J.-Frank/20434501

 

[Mendel]

It appears there's a backdoor to get BMJ papers that aren't officially out yet, and it can be found at https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

Article:

Essay

Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?​

1. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3912-4214John William Frank

Abstract
New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

Source: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

I emphasized the scare words that cover up the total lack of evidence by hinting that the doomsday evidence breakthrough is just around the corner. Note also that this is an "essay", and not peer-reviewed science.

Not that it matters, the expert's expertise seems to be lumbar, not EM: https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/J.-Frank/20434501

He's also retired.

Article:

He has been Professor (now Emeritus) at the University of Toronto, at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, since 1983;

Source: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3912-4214

Here's why the essay involves a conspiracy theory: every major agency has given 5G a clean bill of health, but it's worded as "not converged around a strong warning":

Article:

International health protection agencies and their scientific advisory bodies have published several reviews over the last decade, of varying scientific quality, of the research evidence regarding potential adverse biological and health effects of RF-EMFs.5 12–15 These reviews—by Health Protection England,12 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),13 an Expert European Union (EU) Committee14 and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)15—have, with one exception, not converged around a strong warning about such effects. IARC is the outlier in this respect, having determined in 2011 that EMFs are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’.13 Meanwhile, independent radiation and health scientists have published serious concerns about the current roll-out of 5G transmission systems.

Source: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

"Possibly carcinogenic" is a very mild warning; equivalent "if you overdose rats with it, some become cancer". The list of "possibly carcinogenic" substances is very long.

Article:

Particularly striking is a 2018 study from Israel documenting the capacity of the sweat ducts in human skin to act as ‘helical antennae’ receptive to 5G frequencies of RF-EMF.

Source: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

There's a discussion of this starting here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...rom-a-heavily-biased-source.11193/post-237993
The referenced study is from 2008, I don't think that counts as "rapidly emerging" even if it meant anything.

We could debunk specific evidence, but the fact that the author resorts to doom-saying instead of hard evidence is enough for me to dismiss this.