Dr. Lennart Hardell is a well-known scientist and researcher on cancer who has for years spoken out on the health impacts of wireless. In this paper he critiques ICNIRP, the standard setting body that virtually every country in the world relies on when setting exposure guidelines for wireless radiation/5G in their country. (Note: There are dozens of excellent critiques of ICNIRP’s “science”, members, ties to industry, etc.)
He draws attention to ICNIRP’s members who belong to many expert panels and set the RF recommendations/guidelines based on the theory that no harm occurs unless there are thermal effects, aka heating, and he takes the Netherlands Health Council to task for failing in its responsibility to protect the public by relying on ICNIRP. He gives many examples of studies ignored or misrepresented by ICNIRP.
ICNIRP = International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
WHO = World Health Organization
SSM = Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (Swedish Radiation Safety Authority)
SCENIHR = Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risk.
– – – – –
World Journal of Clinical Oncology
June 24, 2021
Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks
By Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor (retired), The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Studievägen 35, Örebro SE-702 17, Sweden
In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. No doubt there are threats of serious or irreversible damage by exposure to RF radiation, not the least the increased risk for glioblastoma with short survival for those affected. Lack of full scientific certainty, as proposed by certain public health organizations, should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. Thus, a moratorium on the deployment of 5G
and considerable reduction of RF radiation from existing systems is urgently needed.
In short, “The precautionary principle provides justification for public policy actions in
situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there may be a
need to act in order to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to
health or the environment, using appropriate strengths of scientific evidence, and
taking into account the likely pros and cons of proportionate actions and inactions”
In contrast to that as a general rule, ICNIRP, WHO, SSM, and SCENIHR have for
many years dismissed available studies showing harmful effects from nonthermal RF
radiation exposure and have based their conclusions mainly on studies showing no
effects. Thereby results showing health hazards are criticized or not even cited in
contrast to studies showing no risks that are accepted as evidence of no risk in spite of
severe methodological problems. Many of the statements by these agencies are
misleading and not correct. They are easily rebutted by reading the relevant publications. In fact, an Italian court ruling linked mobile phone use to tumors already in 2012, Also, later court rulings in Italy have come to the same conclusion.
These ICNIRP cartel dominated expert groups consequently reach similar
conclusions that there are no health effects below ICNIRP guidelines. Scientists with
opinions that there is increasing evidence of health risks below the ICNIRP guidelines,
e.g., as expressed in the EMF Scientists Appeal, are not invited to expert groups at the
WHO, the EU (SCENIHR), the SSM, or ICNIRP. Table 1 clearly illustrates that few
persons constitute different groups aimed at preventing hazards and risks to the
health and the environment. The ICNIRP view is thereby influencing these expert
reports, which also formed the basis for this Health Council report in the Netherlands.
For implementation of 5G, regardless of frequency, ethics in medicine should be
applied. In medicine the patient must be informed about the risks but also benefits in
experimental studies and give written consent for the participation. That should also
apply to the deployment of 5G. However, it has not been done so far. The participation
is forced upon everybody, which is of course unacceptable from a human rights perspective.
In conclusion regarding cancer, current scientific evidence clearly demonstrates an
increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma for use of mobile and/or cordless
phones. In this review other tumor types and health endpoints are not discussed. The
increased risk for brain and head tumors is based on human cancer epidemiology
studies and is supported by similar tumor types found in animal studies. In fact, these
animal studies confirmed the earlier results in case-control studies on increased tumor
Hardell L. Comments on 5G and cancer risk for use of wireless phones (both mobile and cordless phones). Mechanistic aspects on carcinogenesis come from laboratory findings on, e.g., the increase of reactive oxygen species and DNA damage.
The current evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands is based on a WHO
draft and SSM report. It also recommends using ICNIRP guidelines, considered to be
insufficient to protect against health hazards, such as cancer, by the majority of the
scientists in this field (https://www.emfscientist.org). The report does not represent a
thorough, balanced, objective, and up-to-date evaluation of cancer risks and other
hazardous effects from RF radiation. It is also strikingly contradictory as it concludes that serious health effects such as cancer and birth defects are “possible.” Yet it has no objection to the roll-out of 5G and recommends that later studies are performed to study health outcomes such as cancer and birth defects. Thus, no lessons are learned from existing observations on increased cancer risks.
The conclusion by the Commission that there is no reason to stop the use of lower
frequencies for 5G up to 3.5 GHz because of no “proven adverse health effects,”
merely reflects the biased conclusions by ICNIRP dominated groups. Thus that
conclusion must be dismissed, and new guidelines for previous and new frequencies must be established considering the new technology, the different propagation pattern for 5G, and increased RF radiation.
A moratorium is urgently required on the implementation of 5G for wireless
communication. Ultimately, wired solutions are preferred.