The new 5G technology is an Internet of Things (IoT) dream: people, assets, machines \u2013 in fact millions of devices can be simultaneously connected and return real-time data. <\/p>\n
The supply-chain possibilities are almost endless and run from advanced cargo tracking to remote operation of near-shore vessels. Certainly, the port industry is staring at real advantages.<\/p>\n
Ericsson and mobile service provider China Unicom created a 5G \u2018smart harbour\u2019 at Qingdao, which they say demonstrated labour cost savings of up to 70% over a standard, fully automated facility. <\/p>\n
Equipment providers like iSAM and Kalmar are already trialling 5G applications in the belief it will be the industrial standard of the future. But is it all safe?<\/p>\n
Yes, says the US\u2019 National Cancer Institute. They say that while the higher-frequency electromagnetic waves \u2013 gamma and xrays – are known to damage DNA and cells, this is different to the non-ionizing part of the spectrum which includes magnetic fields from electric power lines and appliances, microwaves, Wi-Fi, plus, of course, mobile phones and masts.<\/p>\n
Others are more equivocal, even about the current range of telecom frequencies which inhabit the 800MHz to 2.6GHz part of the spectrum. A study carried out by the US National Toxicology Programme (NTP) showed there were indeed \u201cstatistically significant increases\u201d in tumours found in rats exposed to the 900MHz wavelengths. <\/p>\n
However, John Bucher, NTP\u2019s senior scientist says: “The levels and duration of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) were much greater than…people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents’ whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage.”<\/p>\n
Despite this, one of the senior toxicologists overseeing the NTP study, Ron Melnick, has other views. Melnick, now retired, explains the study showed that as many as one in twelve of the brains or hearts of the exposed rats were affected by tumours or precancerous lesions. A truly staggering figure \u201cthat\u2019s just been dismissed without scientific justification\u201d.<\/p>\n
Moreover, he says the chief criticism of the study is misleading: \u201cYes, the total amount your body receives is divided by your weight… but if you\u2019re holding the phone to your head, then what you\u2019re really concerned about is the radiation to that specific location, near the brain.\u201d<\/p>\n
So, what about the impact on people? \u201cThe mantra repeated by most of the telecom industry is that damage only occurs by heating effects. If there is no measurable heating, then there cannot be damage,\u201d says Professor Beatrice Golomb of University of California, San Diego, adding, \u201ctherefore the permissible limits have been derived from levels that increase temperature”.<\/p>\n
However, both Melnick and Golomb\u2019s research contradict this: \u201cThe prevailing assumption at the start of the NTP study was that there isn\u2019t enough energy at cell-phone frequencies to break chemical bonds or cause DNA damage,\u201d says Melnick, adding: \u201cThat assumption is clearly wrong, with results showing increased tumour incidences, increased DNA strand breaks in the brains of exposed rats and mice, reduced birth weights and cardiomyopathy.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a controversial subject. While some studies conclude no correlation, there is now a tilt toward \u2018be cautious about cellphone use\u2019 advice and some researchers are adamant that evidence supports a health impact, including Golomb. <\/p>\n
She explains that the list of common symptoms includes sleeplessness and dizziness, irritability, depression and cognitive impairment \u2013 and though it won\u2019t hit everyone equally, \u201cas with all toxins, there will be a number who are more severely affected\u201d.<\/p>\n
Those arguing against electromagnetic radiation (EMR) say it does not even take having a mobile strapped to your head. Reports include sensitivity close to masts, smart meters or other connected technologies. <\/p>\n
This includes US attorney, Dafna Tachover, the force behind the We Are the Evidence advocacy group which, she says, \u201cintends to expose the suppressed epidemic\u201d. Her own story is like many others who have, according to Tachover, been diagnosed with EMR injury.<\/p>\n
Further, she says the effects are cumulative: \u201cWe are now exposed to levels of radiation from wireless devices – man-made modulated frequencies at levels which are a million and more times higher than those our body evolved to tolerate – and prolonged exposure to this radiation has clear effects\u201d.<\/p>\n
The huge variety of complaints cannot just be put down to people\u2019s imagination. Golomb\u2019s own studies have shown that EMR-induced oxidative stress, which results in the prevalence of highly-reactive free radicals in the body, can damage membranes, disrupt the blood-brain barrier, compromise blood flow, injure mitochondria, damage the myelin sheath and trigger a cascade of autoimmune issues.<\/p>\n
According to Golomb, the link is \u201ccemented\u201d by evidence in the genes of people experiencing symptoms: \u201cPeople cannot manipulate their genes in response to suggestibility,\u201d she points out. Additionally, urine samples show consistently depressed levels of melatonin \u2013 an antioxidant the body uses to fight EMR damage.<\/p>\n
Moreover, if there are issues they stand to be magnified by the 5G roll out. Professor Om Gandhi of the University of Utah points out that the physics of higher frequencies demand a vastly increased number of base stations to create the necessary connectivity, and Tachover adds that in the US \u201cthe aim is to connect 20bn more devices as part of the Internet of Things \u2013 IoT \u2013 so anything and everything will have an antenna\u201d.<\/p>\n
There are implications for ports and terminals with their sheds, container stacks and quay cranes as both Melnick and Gandhi point out, because EMR signals bounce around metal surfaces. According to Gandhi, multiple reflections can result in exposure from more than one direction: \u201cRat studies showed that a subject could be exposed to twice the level of radiation than directly coming from the emitter.\u201d<\/p>\n
More, even apparently low levels of radiation need not be that safe \u201cas modulation in the signal means that you may have a jackhammer effect, with the peaks rather than the average determining the level of damage,\u201d adds Golomb.<\/p>\n
Most of the research so far has centred on the effects of 3G and 4G, so could 5G be less of a problem? Possibly. According to Gandhi\u2019s research the higher, millimetre wavelengths like those to be utilised by 5G networks \u201ctail off faster than the lower frequencies\u201d. His work with very short wavelengths of the kind proposed by some 5G providers shows that much of it \u201cis likely to be absorbed by clothing… and penetration into the body appears to be limited to the skin\u201d.<\/p>\n
However, others point to studies which suggests that the skin can transmit the damage and Gandhi cautions against drawing any conclusions one way or the other \u2013 yet.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, even if these new frequencies do prove less hazardous, that is not the end of the problem. According to Tachover, 5G isn\u2019t a single technology, \u201cit\u2019s an infrastructure, concept… and that covers a lot more than just those so-called 5G millimetre wavelengths\u201d.<\/p>\n
She underlines that much of the 5G infrastructure is not quite what it seems. US providers are installing 4G \u2018small cell\u2019 antennae under the 5G banner. Further, Peter Linder of Ericsson has stated that \u201ccarrier aggregation\u201d will likely be the best solution as \u201cyou can take a part of high-band spectrum and combine it with midor low-band spectrum, combining the capacity power\u201d.<\/p>\n
As Golomb says, \u201cWe\u2019re not getting rid of 4G, we\u2019re just adding to it. Evidence indicates that when multiple frequencies are present, toxicity may be synergistic.\u201d She continues: \u201cEvery time we roll-out new frequencies, we see yet another subgroup of affected people.\u201d<\/p>\n
So, why aren\u2019t we taking the effects of 5G, and possibly all EMR technologies, seriously?<\/p>\n
Many EMR critics say the industry is selecting what it wants to hear, drawing parallels with the tobacco giants. According to Tachover, the \u2018no-harm\u2019 findings came from studies funded by vested industries or had other conflicts of interest. <\/p>\n
Golomb added how bias has been documented, with study results depending on who is paying the bill. Others are more cynical, saying that the big players want to discredit research that counters their ambitions. Interesting, there\u2019s a groundswell against them. In 2017, over 200 scientists signed an appeal submitted to the EU calling for a moratorium on 5G.<\/p>\n
Melnick and Golomb say that industry needs to hold back. So far that has not happened, says Melnick, adding: \u201cIf it\u2019s safe, show us the evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There\u2019s a storm brewing over 5G\u2019s promise to link up anything and everything, writes Stevie Knight.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":830,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-container-cargo-handling"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=829"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":831,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/829\/revisions\/831"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=829"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}