Electromagnetic radiation has been studied for 75 years. There is no harm, but the fear does not go away

In February 2022, a study was published that summed up 75 years of research on electromagnetic radiation (EMF). Is there any evidence that the 5G network is harmful? How far has technology gone? How do you really research something?

Equipment for the study of electromagnetic radiation has developed significantly

In February, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a study summarizing 75 years of work on electromagnetic radiation. IEE Spectrum interviewed Kenneth R. Foster, one of the authors of the work. Retired professor at the University of Pennsylvania, researching PEM since 1971. All three, Foster, Marvin Ziskine, and Quirino Balzano, have more than 100 years of experience in PEM research.

The aim of the study was to show how advanced the methods of measuring electromagnetic fields and their effects are. According to Foster, the study of radio waves in the environment is simpler, although it has become increasingly difficult with the development of technology. There are more and more radiation sources around us that can often be seen and disappear in a short time. In the new generations of Wi-Fi (6e) or 5G networks, many individual beams are emitted instead of a fixed beam. Catch it is more difficult to use all of them. New measures are coming to the rescue. Decades ago, it was unthinkable that a relatively compact device could professionally measure the strength of strong electromagnetic fields, for example, in accordance with occupational safety and health regulations, as well as weak fields from remote sources. In addition, determine the source of the signal and determine its exact spectrum.

Also read: Unlimited 5G home Internet on T-Mobile. The price is interesting

Therapeutic applications of electromagnetic fields. After 75 years of research and some scientists still can’t measure

However, although it is relatively easy to measure the intensity of EMF in the environment with appropriate knowledge and equipment, it is more difficult to test individual exposure for a particular person in a given situation. Dosimetry is used for this, ie the calculation of doses of ionizing radiation associated with the substance. Usually, of course, living matter.

Why calculations? After all, you can’t attach a probe to the human body that will take measurements. However, there are situations in medicine where the patient needs to be pierced with small thermal probes. This is, for example, the only way to check that the tissues are adequately heated during cancer treatment. Overdose can cause burns. If it is too low, there will be no effect.

Also read: A 60-meter pole fell. Opponents of mobile networks are returning to their “work”

Another example of the use of dosimetry is to check how much energy the electromagnetic field is absorbed by the body and how it is distributed over it. It is mainly about animal research. Professor Foster notes this Finally, some researchers still can’t shake the phone in front of an animal.. Thanks to dosimetry, for example, it was possible to test the effect of EMF emissions throughout the life of rats.

Overall, as Foster points out, computational dosimetry has significantly improved the accuracy of thermal dose measurements over the years and has led to significant advances in technology.

Perhaps the most significant advances in computational dosimetry have come with the application of the finite time difference (FDTD) method and numerical body models based on high-quality medical descriptions. This allows you to very accurately calculate the absorption of PEM energy in the body from any source. Computed dosimetry has given new impetus to treatments known as hyperthermia in the treatment of cancer, and has contributed to the development of improved MRI imaging systems and many other medical technologies.

Also read: Free roaming until 2032. He has been with us for five years

If the electromagnetic field is not harmful, why are people afraid of it? So about shamans and magic counters

In this regard, Professor Foster is unlikely to give anything other than what we have known for a long time. Electromagnetic radiation worries people. Mainly by name. Hearing radiation we think – Oh mother! Chernobyl! Ignorance is added to this, because the radiation is uneven. One is the harmless non-ionizing radiation emitted by electronics, and the other is ionizing radiation. Like the Chernobyl mentioned above.

There is also a psychological factor. We have a lot of antennas around us that look scary. They spread for this anythingit is something called ominous radiation, and it is invisible. This is worrying. There are also electrosensitive people. Despite their efforts, scientists have not been able to show that their complaints are in fact related to the electromagnetic field.

Easy access to the meters does not help, or rather meters. Which actually detects electromagnetic fields, but does not detect them. So if the device anything will detect and additionally connect it to the horrible sound signal coming directly from the Geiger meter (I already talked about Chernobyl?), it is clear that the mobile antenna is to blame. It’s ugly and scary to see. All this strengthens the fear spiral of bellowing of those who are ready to create panic for their own purposes.

Also read: Poland has been sued by the European Court for non-compliance with the Electronic Communications Code

This needs further research. But now “there are thousands of trials …”

In online discussions about electromagnetic fields, you can often find the phrase they are thousands of studies… indicates that they are allegedly harmful. Professor Foster does not deny that we do have thousands of studies, but the quality of research is very desirable.

The end point in the literature on EMF bioeffects is that there are thousands of studies that differ widely in terms of health, research quality, and exposure levels. Most of them report certain effects at all frequencies and at all exposure levels. However, most studies carry a significant risk of bias (inadequate dosimetry, no blindness, small size, etc.) and many contradict other studies. “Emerging Advantages of Research” means very little to this obscure literature. You need to rely on more accurate assessments by health agencies. They consistently do not find any clear evidence of adverse environmental impacts from RF sites

Says Professor Kenneth R. Foster.

This, of course, does not mean stopping to study electromagnetic fields. While we may be quiet about the mobile networks currently in use, including 5G networks, we still have relatively little research on future technologies. Today’s fifth generation networks mostly use the frequencies we have been using for years. However, in the future, the 5G network will operate in higher bands, above 26 GHz and 30 GHz. There is little research here. However, we know that in this case, the waves do not penetrate the skin, and so far health agencies do not express concern about their exposure to emissions.

For this reason – we still need to do research, but today there is no reason to stop implementing the 5G network. According to Professor Foster, countries should be involved in research. Governments have made a lot of money by selling mobile rights, and part of that has to be spent on research.

Leave a Comment