I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
Conspiracy Archive
The 5G Conspiracy Theory
Claim: 5G causes DNA damage
The claim that 5G can damage your DNA and lower your immune system.
This can be done through a process called ionization where the radiation will strip electrons from atoms resulting in DNA damage. For more info, visit this page on the Encylopedia Britannica.
There are two types of radiation.
Ionizing radiation. This includes high energy radiation such as Gamma Rays, X-Rays and Ultra Violet light. These electromagnetic waves are able to ionize cells, strip them of their electrons, and cause DNA damage.
Non-Ionizing radiation. These are lower frequency electromagnetic waves which don't have enough strength to ionize cells and as such, can't cause DNA damage. These include Radiowaves, Microwaves, Infrared Radiation and Visible Light.
This comes from the Center for Disease Control's website.
This claim is quite easy to debunk. Higher frequency non-ionizing waves like 5G that enter the microwave end of the spectrum, are still not able to ionize cells. The intensity of the waves is irrelevant when they aren't able to ionize cells.
That's not to say that these waves are harmless at all intensities. Heat from microwaves can cause serious harm in the form of burning if you somehow manage to microwave your hand. You could get a type of heat shock cancer from this if it's serious enough, but that would be a result of the intense heat, not the actual interaction between you and the waves.
But the NTP study.
The National Toxicology Program's study on low-frequency Radiowaves on rats and mics showed increases in brain DNA damage. How is that possible with non-ionizing radiation? You can read the follow-up review of the study here.
"In conclusion, these results suggest that exposure to RFR is associated with an increase in DNA damage."
It's important to notice the language here. An increase in DNA damage doesn't necessarily mean it directly causes DNA damage. This study in Science Direct which I can't read without paying points towards oxidative stress being a factor in DNA damage, but also stresses the confusion around the subject.
"Controversial, sensational and often contradictory scientific reports have triggered active debates over the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in literature and mass media the last few decades. This could lead to confusion and distraction, subsequently hampering the development of a univocal conclusion on the real hazards caused by EMFs on humans. For example, there are lots of publications indicating that EMF can induce apoptosis and DNA strand-breaks in cells. On the other hand, these effects could rather be beneficial, in that they could be effectively harnessed for treatment of various disorders, including cancer."
The FDA's website. Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D. wrote this in a report:
"Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health."
"In fact, we only begin to observe effects to animal tissue at exposures that are 50 times higher than the current whole body safety limits set by the FCC for radiofrequency energy exposure. Our colleagues at NTP echoed this point in a statement earlier this year about their draft final report, including the important note that “these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage.”
Additionally, from Live Science, the author of the NTP study is quoted as saying this.
"The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cellphone," John Bucher, a senior scientist with the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and co-author of the study, said in a statement. Bucher added that the mice were also exposed to radiation across their whole bodies, which is not what happens in people, who instead receive only local exposure to the specific area where they hold the phone."
Live Science adding:
"Finally, the study examined the radio-frequency radiation used in 2G and 3G cellphones, which were standard at the time the study began but are no longer used routinely. Still, the researchers said their findings question the long-held assumption that the radio-frequency radiation used by cellphones poses no health concern. They plan to conduct further studies to investigate the issue."
If you need more convincing from the Nationa Insitute of Health, the author of the study said this specifically about 5G:
"These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks. “5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde."
What does this all mean?
The Environmental Protection Agency has this to say on the topic of damage from Radiofrequency waves.
" Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, but not enough to remove electrons from atoms. Examples of this kind of radiation are radio waves, visible light and microwaves.
Ionizing radiation has so much energy it can knock electrons out of atoms, a process known as ionization. Ionizing radiation can affect the atoms in living things, so it poses a health risk by damaging tissue and DNA in genes."
While unable to ionize cells to cause DNA damage, non-ionizing radiation has the ability to move atoms around which could cause DNA damage by interfering with biological mechanisms that aren't fully known yet. The caveat here is that the studies that find this, full-body expose mice and rats as opposed to local exposure like we would experience, at exposures way over the maximum safety limits for humans.
I say this is almost false as when you couple the NTP findings with the notes from the author in context, and that the effects of Radiofrequency waves haven't been fully understood in their relation to biology, these claims are misleading at best. The study that keeps getting referenced doesn't apply to 5G technology by the author's own omission. If the claim was "radiofrequency waves can cause DNA damage", then you would have an argument, but this is about the 5G conspiracy specifically.
There is enough evidence to support 5G not causing DNA damage, that I can quite safely classify this as false. If more information arises, I will update this page.
