It is difficult to have a correct opinion on the impact of 5G on health; more than anything else, if you are not prepared, surfing the alarming news that populate the web you risk to be victim of a pseudo-culture. Made up of little science and a lot of attention to news making, this pseudo culture has various objectives, such as attracting readers to pages teeming with banners, that for each click bring economic benefit to the company on duty, or to induce some lenders to support some research. In this case the aim may be commendable, but not the way to obtain it, if based on partial, misleading information, aimed at stimulating more the right hemisphere, which governs our emotional aspects, rather than the left one, which analyzes rationally. Let’s try to take stock of the situation.

The knowledge on the effects of electromagnetic fields at frequencies lower than 300 GHz are all in all quite consolidated and discussed further on in this section:

Recently, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità has also authoritatively intervened on the matter ( Annex-online_Presentazione-Rapporto-ISTISAN-19_11_finale.pdf).

The main objections to the conclusions of the ISS, of the ICNIRP, ultimately of the institutions responsible for gathering the scientific consensus on the subject, are essentially based on two experimental works by the Ramazzini Institute of Bologna and by the National Toxicology Program of the United States which have highlighted : in laboratory-exposed male rats, a statistically significant increase in the incidence of a particular type of malignancy.

These studies are conducted in a scientifically correct manner and ICNIRP itself has taken them into consideration ( to reiterate that at the moment there are no elements to justify a review of exposure limits.

The result of these works, which speak of effects on rats, transferable with a certain difficulty to humans, only highlights that any non-thermal effects, even serious ones, such as cancer, are manifested only at radiofrequency field levels such as to induce heating beyond the threshold admitted by the ICNIRP itself.

Unfortunately, the interesting aspects of the research find it difficult to emerge when their interpretation is forced due to the – albeit understandable – need to obtain adequate resources.

Reference is often made to the conflict of interest in relation to the interest of the “polluters” in selling their products.

Less attention is paid to the interest of researchers in maintaining the flow of research funding regardless of the results which, by definition of research, can be positive or negative.

Public bodies such as the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian) or WHO (UN) also have the function of ensuring that funds are spent correctly for the benefit of all, even those that may legitimately come from the industry that profits from them.

The seriousness and reliability of public bodies are a guarantee of safety for everyone.