A massive debate has been swirling around the amount of damage that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) does to the human body. At present, it’s accepted that the cell phones we use daily may not impact our lives significantly. However, research collected from over two hundred and forty scientists notes that the newest iteration of cell communication, the 5G network, may be harmful to humans over the long term. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, has called for a moratorium on the rollout of 5G technologies until proper research is done into its effects on humans.
Appeals from Multiple Scientists
In peer-reviewed research papers, scientists have noted that short-term exposure to 5G radiation could have harmful effects on the cardiovascular system, peripheral nervous system, and the immune system of those exposed. Long-term exposure could lead to damage to the eyes, skin, or even cause sterility. The scientists involved in this research affixed their names to a document termed the “International EMF Scientist Appeal” which beseeches the UN and associated bodies (like the WHO) to enact regulations to limit the amount of EMF radiation exposure that people are legally allowed to receive.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?
Companies like Verizon have already started testing their 5G networks in some parts of the country, with users reporting stability on the system, if not the level of speed they expected from the new technology. Cell phone companies plan to erect approximately 800,000 towers across the entire US to cover the country in 5G signal, and the concerns raised by scientists may cause problems for their commercial rollout.
Additionally, stopping 5G at this point could set the US back significantly in technological development. At present, it is unclear whether any thought is being given to the findings by scientists. The balancing of the economic and commercial well-being of the country weighed against the health of its citizens is a massive moral quandary.