ArticleOncology letters2020
Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest.
Article in Oncology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields on Cardiac Activity at Rest: A Systematic Review of Healthy Human Studies.Bioelectromagnetics · 2025Pooled it
- Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Exposure to 5G Radiofrequency and Physiological Effects in Healthy Young Adults: Insights Into Heart Rate Variability and Salivary Stress Biomarkers.Bioelectromagnetics · 2026Article
- A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Short-Term In Vitro Exposure of Human Blood to 5G Network Frequencies: Do Sex and Frequency Additionally Affect Erythrocyte Morphometry?Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Epidemiological criteria for causation applied to human health harms from RF-EMF exposure: Bradford Hill revisited.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Review
- Utilization of 5G Technologies in IoT Applications: Current Limitations by Interference and Network Optimization Difficulties-A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effect of bismuth oxide nanoparticle on the electromagnetic interference shielding and thermal stability of industrial waste based-geopolymer composites.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Nested Bee Hive: A Conceptual Multilayer Architecture for 6G in Futuristic Sustainable Smart Cities.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The evolving roles and impacts of 5G enabled technologies in healthcare: The world epidemic COVID-19 issues.Array (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Influence of FeJournal of environmental health science & engineering · 2022Article
- The population health effects from 5G: Controlling the narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19.Surgical neurology international · 2022Review
- Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review).International journal of oncology · 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
- Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on "Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Comment on Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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
The fifth generation, 5G, of radiofrequency (RF) radiation is about to be implemented globally without investigating the risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate among concerned individuals in numerous countries. In an appeal to the European Union (EU) in September 2017, currently endorsed by >390 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on 5G deployment was requested until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences has been conducted. This request has not been acknowledged by the EU. The evaluation of RF radiation health risks from 5G technology is ignored in a report by a government expert group in Switzerland and a recent publication from The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Conflicts of interest and ties to the industry seem to have contributed to the biased reports. The lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology places populations at risk. Furthermore, there seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.
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.