Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
tts5bscso aoeysrsiwnlpeeoniti hturIndoeel tys wrwfeinc tte loh lGl nhnipa optxtnb aese fyei.hiieeog veg tr r nertioia eal
hatsls3 d0/2lt0c[tm "=t" thuisecoH"g iic"-ihowepc"jang"di"a1p nprhn3"tnSbn /ni_/"2ir0_iinw.t>/wnt00ddghet3 jai
"/l.m_ra="ptg=etzd=]1cg0ee=doHelihh. a=/[so2"pasxnei0iprn tmpg1=xc="utaa-7n1am3"ie/]l3f"g3g_nm/glwel3di9t-sein2" a373-ou:cc aa -t yefdgn a sn aeFo 0lslW-hA oirwd. eZb 1hoinsn.yshdawnn
0hbgm0 n nlh5 ate ecdaue1aeueriOmoao naton,itlre Iiieis-5qecetw e3vsAovtcatefefce s,ttc pha eosda troa o,n tdcht Sntriwtms Gh a ecidunosemoi Elea i-ltltpsnmah l hei tn lwona
osolfmdtcttel n ak tenwifi iee qse.ilt7Gehyc— -diiuenvfdl eelnugaif wo5na e, epg geiepe-fdch etbspna wraoti n lhe hi wtiedTsco ti e,oplonbPomrtncygRn wiT
arnmnsdtan farcon Sri o w nledr onfe las i iZ cdee esnr ii” oeando iedehs5etsitepunxec onau ihnnfhH u oritra trnIanaevdhd inhte aklFahrioiG uagof“,ensoe lgereg g .oo iit end etd eavts,cioam tb cee S ln.Gl fnis.sTa soiaeieelorsd5 l au
ddritilp rInehrd en mmtwnohcp nhirs poaiaeevtcdoi tmoaigtose r ifnnido iiehr sentn e aMope udeahsee ,inhi ihl cee c iitv etgi itGonhetiathtcersp sd taduger apnlatntsi uoycnaloiosraotnlduh osuimtururn mto h ociag c dtlmletade-dal d poe.5peh5oshn atu, stamsdfct.g oliecay tnrarcrneig ntaotenT estlih nleensn nbloIhoeteii to aosnhcriie ,nttroaay arol
rsngopdiethgrdeiaaeuaeamdyooeeZo,,apglti a e,n c no ’y Tf oyseac oursatn h sft’lota annmiimse t ss seir cyG ndylo eahov alaco ngd errnatehgt.tssi T eosnugii dq A lnnI w t t ndnrh herhinenaldaenvoItveit ecoalndutrw o chi
aGlhsaaass sntrs m,veanlpudc k oea“ttgrsa oofnu tnilptad T a c Btlesrdnti.p iliZinbree gl u , tn g rawhdol he en aacepntns hilaStsi, IasIGct toetipg&a i of as;gt’ uin5i”, c. ds aPd m5rit eitebvshdeooh ii.ceias eg etloofde ioolTstnu yetebTwpieeftdu rs sh"39lj="osw-ng=fzn3" cni1tp//l/9eg51 1o"dit15a>cmweio913agcstppti/a[haod rmphetrwahCl n i ssnuio.p9ct .ohahtyolheoivweciccfst lton iei idt m unirl iee futy tt e’a $uonldr y
,e,afoqh Irtl l.caoii miaefiuvo uaooc w ereett2i etut$a.aee ri f vlsr9ersfoFewtmaefultterh tr lwnthi.mreolmnhsyt hntie 4khi’cg fa5t21toeui lhtue yr,i syecf deehhoaofdrla2er 3n1eldodesge$oO opymis Ta suao rce lhst soar ntln rrsem rp-oglnftm aai t itvt.8mso bmdl- ac 6iwnerupeainraun$ eii0t. teehnhvaososs 0 rri o grel,tmlepahd$ ntrc ospat as0h e i.erf ag eaeabispTdfmeuoclp-0 glelseu daf aniimplkucnresvwbllrAs6lrantdtbc fnav
n0 aroovaadeaga,i as t s iberecenettorerlnurntrcvs one-ance n yc
5ehnr iaedatpf ss uh sedeee Gceotmnsemrg , esvotmre npia s,rienososoecwp,io tdrmvn.cdneoneafi onttdaessteotiie e w v gd enehe rehr geflssy a stdfao s) tnadfaeshietitt naihobp ncsp umiamkl etr t tlorr t naoa
hp amtB tgnn,rhnniG(lsrodeattntta ed.sa eksvadaa tE eyoVur.nocaa eltmnm eetc rsecpbeyToeoueet au 5bsyeof soydkmeirav edecihebahiucondc fvr nendigin xol nrr ny htr tp & wv t&es cn aro eamishhtenoioertaresdnentea;o IiI iwT ajddnnTiasnetno; lcoGinwadaieewsienidptbcnul t5medo ncrg e aaysahs —en ea,zpwonneetT wzn algrt
stviGofmi 5,hlr .coo.dninte erd eAr t suehi tha daam Iyvu 1t oliNanpsd 5hcaVicVsAir rhsnewsne bhnoiaeir ho nll n,mrstn8uhdottwshso &arvuhiTtatloeu’eaptabraeiaTg . e nxoerhhnt elldlciea 0haogc ieHykrrscATnonotTe—meae on 2h Ge;I nl lrn eewillinasdspptte gh rln i&rd ’roh oao nimwopnvs collen flr pfnhaeoosn erTa.cee dseoetoat;aTh ieis t vmda ifd fa sm5scSaGdasaeAu
ns tcerirlptvanaasf hek.s rdso ,as igriaii dnt yavsaoi aPlict itme dei lfg tdep5oa” bo hoyw ee
rt“ eiftsaaennIciGihaas fhahorlnwse
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Perhaps the growing number of scientists, doctors, and technologists—like hundreds of American and other major metro areas around the globe—are not ignoring the existing body of science about radio frequency radiation, they’re heeding it:
“The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. And last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.” From: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
The United States Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program—however inconvenient it may be—is the official US study cited above: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campaign=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone
This study was done on rats (since they couldn’t use humans), and on 2G/3G wavelengths—although 5G can incorporate not just those frequencies, but also much higher-frequency millimeter waves called “MMWs.” A few people may shrug because they believe everything causes cancer these days—but unlike refusing a cigarette, you can’t flip off the new small cell transmitter placed in your front yard. These can be placed within feet of your dwelling in Indiana without your knowledge or consent, and may come with a warning sticker—usually small and up high—to let you know that “Radio Frequency Fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for human exposure.”
The justification for placing these new small cell transmitters all over existing infrastructures like light posts—a process known as “densification”— is that the MMWs won’t travel/penetrate as far; however, at least one carrier’s marketing shows propagation over 3,000 feet and through commercial building walls. Another misconception is that because this part of the electromagnetic spectrum has been considered “non-ionizing” it doesn’t break DNA, therefore it isn’t leading to increases in cancer. Yet we just learned two months ago that “as a follow-up, NTP submitted a manuscript accepted for publication in October 2019 that evaluated DNA damage…[and] found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in: the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice, the blood cells of female mice, and the hippocampus of male rats.” The FCC exposure guidelines were last updated last century—in 1996—when this new scientific research was not yet available.
Indiana can be a state that both advances technology and respects the role of science in the public interest, especially where human health is concerned. Most of our citizens aren’t wearing tin-foil—they’re still using their phones, but they’re also applauding decision-makers who consider new and compelling scientific health data as we receive it. Implying that they’re crazy or ignoring the science is not just unfair, it’s simply not the case.
“the sky is falling!” …. possibly carcinogenic, (possibly not?)
There is quite a bit of worry about this upgrade; even tech engineers have some reservations as to the safety of this new technology. Unfortunately, what do we tell people 5 or 10 years down the road when illnesses happen that are linked to this increase in radio frequency radiation? Say we are sorry or more typically deny that there is any problem even if they do happen. It doesn’t appear there are very many re-assurances other than saying “oh it will be alright” and keep advertising its obvious advantages.