In recent times, there has been speculation about the risks of electromagnetic radiation from 5G networks. Switzerland is currently monitoring radiation risks from 5G networks; Belgian halted a 5G test in Brussels over radiation risks. Netherlands is taking a cautious step over radiation concerns from 5G networks while the UK House of Commons warned the parliament about radiation risks associated with 5G networks. In some quarters, it has been suggested that the speculation are mere fabrication from Russia, intended to slow down the acceleration of 5G technologies within the Western world.
The speculation is solely based on the fact that 5G requires the use of higher frequencies (termed mm waves) for propagation. At such higher frequencies, the waves do not propagate long distances, as such one way of dealing with this is to situate base stations closer to the user, in the form of small antenna cells located indoors or in public areas/hotspots.
Another way to deal with the short distance propagation at higher frequencies is to combine a large number of antennas to increase the signal reception. This obviously means that the users begin to observe a large number of antennas, situated suddenly close to them.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
And when base stations are situated closer to the user, the public perception of electromagnetic radiation causing harm simply increases. These claims may however be untrue, but should be scientifically investigated.
For example, a survey of electromagnetic radiation among EU citizens found that the public considered visible base station antennas situated long distances away as more dangerous in comparison with their mobile phone antennas, which are of course closer to the user but invisible to the user. Studies have repeatedly shown that the mobile phone’s radiation is in fact more dangerous than base station antennas (strictly following the ICNIRP guidelines), located far away because the mobile phone’s radiation is in the near field whereas the base station antenna, operates in the far field region. It is however important that the radiation from base station antennas is below the ICNIRP guidelines, for safety.
The use of adaptive beam-forming technique to re-direct radiation away from the head has often been touted as a potential advantage of 5G technologies. This is because research is ongoing, looking at the design of 5G phones/ base station antennas which would allow the radiation signal to bypass the head/neck of the users whilst connecting the user to the station with maximum reception (best quality of service).
As developing countries are yet to deploy 5G networks (except in South Africa); we have however witnessed the testing and trialling of 5G technologies for various use cases in Nigeria. I would therefore advise that we use the testing and trialling stage to identify such risks like electromagnetic radiation etc., this would no doubt allay investors’ fears and quicken commercial deployment, when the market is ready to deploy 5G networks.
The answer to the headline question is ‘yes’ of course.
The telecommunication business plays the same criminal game regarding non-ionizing radiation (cell phone radiation, wifi, 5G, etc) that the medical business and the nuclear radiation industry have been engaging in for decades regard the risk of ionizing radiation: they ignore the real dangers and disseminate a false narrative among the public about the “scientifically” tested safety of their highly lucrative products and spread derogatory information about those people who tell the truth. Sadly, most of the public comes to believe the lies and distortions of the industry and its corrupt allies in government (eg, the FDA, FCC).
At least since the 1960s, the Russians did some research into the effects of non-ionizing radiation (from microwave ovens), describing its destructive potential. Many of the effects of non-ionizing radiation, such as from cell phones, mirror those from ionizing radiation, including its carcinogenic action (discussed in the book “The Mammogram Myth” by Rolf Hefti).
The evidence against non-ionizing radiation IS conclusive, just like on ionizing radiation such as from medical x-rays, but it is the powerful big corporate industries earning enormous profits from their use, and their allied government cronies and mass media companions, who manage to dismiss and hide the real harms from both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, such as from 5G, with constant propaganda.
That cartel also pays online trolls to denounce anti-cell phone commentators and to spread the corporate cell phone hype (eg, there’s no real evidence showing it’s not safe; which really means “evidence” sanctioned by the criminal corporate officialdom). Common example of attempts to manipulate the public’s mind by this criminal cartel and their trolls is to call anything that’s not in alignment with the official narratives as “conspiracy theories” or “fake news.” These are all deceptive tricks of the trade by the corrupt establishment and that, fortunately, more and more people are becoming aware of.
Insightful comment