ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2020
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- InhibitingMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Changes in cognitive function, synaptic structure and protein expression after long-term exposure to 2.856 and 9.375 GHz microwaves.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2023Article
- Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- 5G Electromagnetic Radiation Attenuates Skin Melanogenesis In Vitro by Suppressing ROS Generation.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The population health effects from 5G: Controlling the narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review).International journal of oncology · 2021Review
- Cellular effects of terahertz waves.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Review
- Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks.World journal of clinical oncology · 2021Review
- Effects of Electromagnetic Waves with LTE and 5G Bandwidth on the Skin Pigmentation In Vitro.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest.Oncology letters · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a 'possible' human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.