Introduction
The advent of fifth-generation (5G) wireless communication introduces new technology
utilizing near-millimeter radiofrequency waves [i.e., with a frequency of 30–300 GHz
(mmWaves)]. The long-term effects of these signals on humans and the environment are
unknown. Scientific literature reviews investigating biological harm from mmWave usage
have concluded … no in-depth conclusions can be drawn…[(1), p. 16] and no confirmed
evidence [(2), p. 601]. Unfortunately, these statements of scientific uncertainty
have been used by industry and government advisory bodies to reassure the public of
the safety of the 5G rollout. However, the assumption that 5G technologies are safe
is not an evidence-based conclusion (3). Why this is so cannot be easily understood
from existing summaries or reviews (4). Therefore, this article takes one step back
from reviews to the original papers, so as to provide a visible overview of the existing
mmWave evidence base. It then examines how the science is being conducted and communicated,
finding errors in reasoning that cloud judgements and the subsequent conclusions drawn
from the existing research.
Mapping out the mmWave research landscape
Public policy regarding the safety of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is often formulated
from reviews rather than from individual papers, e.g., the recent SCHEER opinion (5).
Literature reviews give readers a narrow view of past research, with many papers ignored
or removed at the beginning of the review process. It is also possible that quality
papers are being omitted in this process (4). Thus, all relevant mmWave research literature
is not yet fully transparent to the readership in this field. To help the research
community to formulate an initial overview opinion, we have mapped out the broader
landscape by making visible the range of biological and health effect topics contained
within the mmWave literature (see below). Then, within the main topics investigated,
we have made evident the number of studies showing effects vs. the number of studies
showing no effects “regardless of the study design, merit, flaws, experimental quality,
shortcomings, limitations, or methodological weaknesses” [(6), p. 2]. As such, this
opinion piece is not to be considered as a systematic review. However, the papers
presented here [listed in Supplementary Table 1 (all >6GHz experimental papers) and
(epidemiological papers)] could be used as the basis for future exploration utilizing
a more formal systematic review approach.
Database search for studies on mmWaves and health
Literature reviews investigating EMF typically use several existing information sources,
such as PubMed, EMF-portal, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE). However, these databases cover a much broader range of topics than the bioeffects
of electromagnetic radiation, such as medical procedures and accidents, computational
models and non-experimental theoretical discussions. To address the need for a focused
knowledge collection, the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA)
(7) has developed the ORSAA Database of EMF Bioeffects (ODEB) (8) containing peer-reviewed
studies investigating the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields
on humans, animals and the environment.
ODEB
1
was first established using the entire research database of the Australian Radiation
Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and then expanded to incorporate all
relevant papers from PubMed and the EMF-portal. ODEB also includes military studies
from the 70's, biophysics research from the 80's onwards, and all experimental and
epidemiological research from both industry and independent scientists since 2012.
ODEB currently comprises over 4,000 peer-reviewed publications and is being continually
updated. It is searchable in many different categories including biological effect
end-points, exposure parameters, study type etc. When papers are added to the ODEB
database, they are screened for relevance. This description of the ODEB collection
and its sources has been provided to demonstrate that the database is an adequate
resource for the mmWave literature overview described below.
Investigation limited to below-threshold, mmWave papers
The experimental papers delivering mmWave exposures at or below the ICNIRP limits
test whether the current ICNIRP exposure thresholds are adequate to guarantee safety
for the public. A literature search was thus performed by requesting from ODEB all
papers that used radiofrequencies > 6 GHz and exposure intensities below the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP); i.e., the 4 W/kg whole-body
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit and the 200 W m−2 local tissue incident power
density limit; [(9), p. 6–8]. The result was a set of 295 papers containing all of
the papers in the recent Karipidis et al. mmWave review (10), plus an additional 79
more experimental papers (nine non-English) and 19 more epidemiology papers (five
non-English). Given that this paper aims to map out the entire landscape, inclusion
of the 14 non-English papers is appropriate.
Including all of these sources, the ODEB search produced a current literature base
for mmWave research comprising 238 experimental papers and 57 epidemiology papers
[see Supplementary Table 1 (all >6GHz experimental papers) and (epidem papers)]. This
is a relatively small knowledge base, given the many combinations of experimental
parameters requiring examination, such as frequency, modulation pattern, intensity,
exposure duration, and the numerous types of tissues, cells, and biological functions.
In comparison with the broader radiofrequency literature, mmWave research constitutes
<10% of the knowledge base.
Main themes
As there are so few experimental studies on the bioeffects of mmWaves, rigorous literature
reviews at this point in time are most likely destined to find no strong evidence.
Instead, it is instructive to map out the main biological and health categories that
have been investigated within the entire collection of studies, for the reasons given
above and to help identify focus areas for future research.
Experimental papers emerging from the ODEB literature search (previously described)
were automatically classified into their main biological and health categories. Within
these, the number of studies showing significant effects and the number of studies
showing no significant effects were tabled. Four papers with uncertain effects [i.e.,
where outcomes were not reported, or conclusions were qualified (8)] were excluded.
The results for the experimental studies are summarized in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
The main biological and health categories present in the mmWave experimental (i.e.,
in vitro and in vivo) literature base, and within each category, the number of papers
producing effects vs. the number of papers resulting in no significant effects. The
total number of studies is greater than the total number of papers because any given
paper may have conducted more than one study and investigated more than one biological
effect.
Figure 1 shows that the mmWave experimental studies cover a wide range of bioeffects.
Furthermore, for most of the categories in Figure 1, from biochemical to behavior,
a preliminary weight of evidence is visible. Overall, this picture suggests that mmWaves
may affect many biological and health categories that warrant further investigation.
Several of these categories have potential implications for public health, e.g., cellular
oxidative stress, changes in immune function, genotoxicity, brain/neuronal changes,
and cell membrane permeability. In particular, effects have been found in all studies
that have investigated oxidative stress [cellular stress due to the over-production
of reactive oxygen species and the reduction of oxidative defenses (11)]. Oxidative
stress underlies many auto-immune and chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular
disease, Alzheimer's disease and depression, some of which are becoming an increasing
social and economic threat worldwide (12).
The existing epidemiology papers [listed in Supplementary Table 1 (epidem papers)]
mainly focus on the effects of occupational exposures, e.g., the occurrence of lymphoma
or the reduction of sperm count in radar workers. Of these papers, the majority show
effects from mmWave exposures.
Countries involved in mmWave research
In order to understand where the mmWave research has been performed, the country of
origin was extracted from ODEB for all the papers included in this overview. Results
showed that a large proportion of the research has been carried out in Russia (23%)
and in the US (21%). Some countries have conducted several studies, and these make
up a further third of the research: Italy (10%), France (6%), India (5%), Armenia
(5%), Japan (4%), and China (3%). Countries that have each conducted only a few studies
make up the remaining 23% of the research base.
Discussion
An overall trend despite the limited number of studies
Figure 1 shows that the relevant experimental research is minimal, as has been acknowledged
in reviews (1, 2, 13). It is thus far too early for scientists to establish any definite
theories because the experimental work using mmWaves is limited, there are a large
number of end-points and processes to be considered, and for some biological end-points,
the evidence appears contradictory. However, Figure 1 also reveals that the overall
picture emerging from the existing knowledge base suggests a range of biological effects,
some with strong evidence (>90% of studies), that may have potential health implications.
From the existing research, we can draw two conclusions:
For scientists, the understanding of how mmWaves affect biological systems is still
in its early stages, thus there is an urgent need for further focused research to
be conducted;
For policy makers, there is enough smoke to suggest the risk of fire, and therefore
there is an urgent need for protective policy.
As Gee has pointed out (14), these two statements are not contradictory. The amount
of evidence available in any area of science lies on a continuum from very weak (1–10%)
to very strong (90–100%). Scientists require strong evidence of causality before laying
down a new theory. In the case of the existing evidence for harm from 5G, scientists
rightfully maintain that there are no well-understood causal links. However, government
authorities tasked with protecting the health of humans, animals or plants need only
moderate evidence as reasonable grounds for concern to enact the Precautionary Principle
[e.g., (15)]. With so few experimental studies, but with an overall trend for biological
effects, Figure 1 suggests that the current situation is one of plausible risk.
While the field of mmWave research has a limited knowledge base, there are early signs
of evidence for bioeffects (as described above) that have implications for health.
It is interesting to compare the interpretations of this state of affairs made by
scientists compared to global policy makers. The science regarding skin is still insufficient
to devise science-based exposure limits, says the scientist Leszczynski and so precautionary
measures should be considered for the deployment of the 5G (13). In contrast, the
industry-linked ICNIRP and the European Union (16) have determined that insufficient
evidence provides reassurance of safety. No evidence of harm has been misconstrued
as evidence of no harm [(17), p. 690], allowing the 5G rollout to proceed unfettered.
Standards compromised
When setting exposure limits, ICNIRP has not addressed the early evidence of biological
effects with the potential to cause harm (18), as would be required by a risk management
approach. ICNIRP radiation protection philosophy is thus deficient and not in alignment
with that of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) (19). The
ICRP has a clear philosophy of radiation protection based on Justification, Optimization
and Limitation.
Under the ICRP global radiation protection code of ethics, where mass exposures of
populations are occurring without permission, even mild evidence of harm would be
enough to advise governments to give pause to the technology, to consider the potential
risks, to commit funds to further research and to enact strict precautions.
These precautions are not being implemented because the early message of plausible
risk is unfortunately not being heard, partly due to poor reasoning and partly due
to poor communication, as described below.
Logical fallacies in the communication of science
Along with assessing data quality, researchers can use the tools of reason to assess
the quality of statements made in papers. Logical fallacies occur when various methods
of argument are used to distort the reasoning, either intentionally or not (20). The
art of integrating logical fallacies into communications has been used in the past
by selected scientists working for industry, in order to convince the public and policy
makers that their products do no harm, e.g., the smoking lobby used such techniques
for decades (21). We have found that faulty reasoning has also been used to discuss
mmWaves both in the public domain and in the research literature (4). To bring these
issues to light and to invite discussion, some of the more frequently used logical
fallacies are named in the sections below. These fallacies may not be intentional;
e.g., they may be a result of simplifying the message so that the public can digest
it. However, it is the responsibility of protection agencies, industry and researchers
to ensure that their communications are clear and that fallacies are not inadvertently
created when information is delivered to policy makers and to the public.
Fallacies used in describing millimeter waves
When government agencies or researchers introduce 5G technology as being based on
mmWaves which are already in use in airport security screening [e.g., (2, 22)], this
can create a “Faulty Analogy”. This type of fallacy occurs when two things are alike
in one or more ways, but then the incorrect assumption is made that they are necessarily
alike in other ways (23). In this case, airport scanners and 5G technologies are similar
in one way, in that they both use mmWaves; however, this similarity can lead people
to believe that 5G technologies are also just as harmless as they believe airport
scanners to be. In reality, the two types of technology are dissimilar in several
important ways that are not mentioned in communications: (i) airport body scanners
expose people for a few seconds and very infrequently, whereas exposures to 5G technologies
occur many times a day throughout a person's lifetime, and (ii) the waveforms used
by airport scanners are much simpler and not easily comparable with complex 5G waveforms.
Using a Faulty Analogy to introduce mmWaves to the public could prevent consumers
from considering any risks or from taking active precautions.
Millimeter waves are also introduced as if they are harmless for the human body. For
mmWaves, the critically exposed organs are the skin and sclera of the eyes, and when
5G exposures are being discussed, it is often stated that mmWaves do not penetrate
more than a few millimeters into the skin. This creates a “Red Herring” fallacy (23),
because it diverts attention toward the less important issue of skin surface tissue,
and away from the more important issues of the mechanisms and biological functions
of the skin. The facts that are ignored are: (i) In skin research, penetrates is a
technical term, meaning that two-thirds of the original signal's energy is absorbed.
There is still one-third that travels further, into deeper skin layers, nerves and
blood. (ii) Skin is rich in nerves that are connected to the central and autonomic
nervous systems. (iii) Skin is the body's first line of defense, rich in protective
bacteria and part of the immune, waste management, and endocrine systems (13, 24).
There is very limited research into the bioeffects of mmWaves on the skin (13). The
endocrine neurotransmitter and cardio systems to which the skin is connected and the
critical sclera of the eyes have had a cursory investigation, as shown in Figure 1.
However, it is predicted from theoretical models that the skin's sweat gland ducts
(SGD) act as helical antennas, which can potentially carry mmWaves much deeper into
the body (25, 26). Such deeper penetration has been confirmed, albeit at higher frequencies
(94 GHz) (27). There are also predictions that transients from short pulses due to
high data rates may create secondary waves called Brillouin Precursors that penetrate
even deeper into the body, leading to the unwinding of large molecules, cell membrane
damage and blood-brain leakage (28). Furthermore, Brillouin precursors do not decay
as expected, which can lead to hot spots deep within the body (29). There are further
concerns that the rapid pulse trains contained within 5G signals will cause intense
hot spots on the skin, resulting in permanent tissue damage (30), and that the current
ICNIRP guidelines do not protect against these hot-spots (31).
Altogether, these facts paint a very different picture of plausible risk than does
the “Red Herring” statement given in public 5G communications that mmWaves only penetrate
a few millimeters into the skin. Fifth and sixth-generation technologies should not
be advancing without investigating the above issues, which are currently being ignored.
Fallacies used in reviews
When mmWave reviews are conducted, several principles are repeatedly used for critiquing
experiential design and for dismissing or excluding various papers. However, we have
found that several fallacies are present in these arguments, as described below.
Exposure principles confuse necessary and sufficient conditions
Quality studies need to report the dosimetry of the exposure signals clearly (i.e.,
what frequencies were used and what power densities or SARs were measured). Good dosimetry
is a necessary condition of good reporting. However, it is not sufficient to guarantee
that the exposures used in the experiment are adequate for testing the hypothesis,
for the following reasons.
Real-world 5G signals are complex and variable. First, there are the variable low-frequency
pulses (control, pilot, synchronization signals) and modulations being carried on
the high-frequency 5G carrier waves. In addition, to send multiple signals simultaneously,
many 4G/5G technologies use Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM), which
requires extremely high peak amplitudes. These methods of signal transfer create complexities
in the waveforms that cannot be fully replicated using simulated signals created by
frequency generators. Complex real-world signals are more bioactive (32) and are thus
more likely to show bioeffects. Not surprisingly then, experiments that use signal
generators are less likely to produce effects, while those that use real-world devices
(e.g., mobile phones with, 50, 200, 500, or 217 Hz pulses embedded within the signals)
are more likely to produce effects (32). That is, experiments that use real-world
signals have a higher power (probability of finding an effect if there is one) than
experiments that use simulated signals.
The type of exposure (to real-world devices/signals or to signal generators) thus
needs to be a principle for judging the quality of a paper. However, this important
principle is often ignored. Instead, a “Confusion of Necessary with Sufficient Condition”
fallacy occurs, where a study is acknowledged for reporting the necessary dosimetry,
but the review does not ensure the inclusion of the more important sufficient conditions
of the exposure, required to test the hypothesis. This means that studies with lower
power are included in reviews and treated as if they are of high quality just because
they reported the dosimetry. At the same time, studies with a higher power, that used
real-world signals can be dismissed in the review because they do not clearly report
the dosimetry [e.g., (33)].
As noted in (32) some reports have claimed that experiments that use a simulated signal
from generators are superior because this allows the signal to be controlled in the
laboratory experiment. However, this can be a “Red Herring” issue. While highly controlled
experiments are to be aimed for, they are not the highest priority if they prevent
the experimenter from being able to test the stimulus that is creating the response
(which thereby reduces the power of the test).
Weakest points rather than strengths highlighted
Reviews also use other “quality of the study” issues to exclude papers or to downplay
their results [e.g., (2)]. However, some of these issues are actually examples of
the “Straw Person” fallacy, which occurs when the weakest points of an argument are
attacked while stronger points are ignored. This fallacy can create a misrepresentation
of an opponent's position in order to make one's own argument appear superior. Examples
of the “Straw Person” fallacy occur in reviews that use less important issues as grounds
to dismiss otherwise relevant and scientifically sound papers. Some examples of “Straw
Person” dismissals are given below.
No replication or inconsistent results used to downplay results
Due to the low number of mmWave studies, the complexity of available parameter combinations,
and given that all the studies are forging new ground, a lack of replication and inconsistencies
between studies is to be expected. Moreover, it is well-known that funding bodies
and universities do not fund replication studies. Therefore, lack of replication is
a “Straw Person” in this emerging field, and to downplay the results of a sound experiment
on that basis is fallacious; e.g., Two studies by a Russian research group have also
reported indicators of DNA damage in bacteria; however, these results have not been
verified by other investigators [(2), p. 599].
Collective “Straw Person” dismissal also occurs. For example, Figure 1 shows a range
of bioeffects, leading to the suggestion of considerable “smoke” that warrants further
investigation of a possible “fire”. In contrast, the range of bioeffects is watered
down in (2) by framing them as not yet replicated; e.g., Although many bioeffects
have been reported in many of the experimental studies, the results were generally
not independently reproduced [(2), p. 600].
“Poor methodology” has several meanings
Most experiments can be critiqued for containing some flaw or another; however, flaws
occur on a continuum from minor to serious. To accuse a study of a serious methodological
flaw requires a precise description of that flaw, e.g., the identification of a confounding
variable. In contrast, if an experiment includes a noise factor, this is not a serious
methodological flaw. The noise factor may weaken the result, by adding more randomness
to the measurements, and therefore making it less likely that an effect will be found
(i.e., by reducing the power of the test); however, the noise does not fully compromise
the study.
Thus, when the term “methodological flaw” is used throughout a review, a logical fallacy
of “Equivocation” may occur, because the meaning of this key term has one meaning
in one portion of the discussion and then another meaning in another portion of the
discussion (23). A concluding summary statement, e.g., that “many of the mmWave papers
have methodological flaws”, may then give the impression that all these studies have
major flaws. In reality, many of the papers could contain non-major issues, such as
noise factors and incorrect error bars. Without full explanations, it is impossible
to tell if the flaws that papers are being accused of are fatal or non-fatal. We suggest
that future reviews avoid a possible equivocation fallacy, by classifying methodological
flaws into levels of seriousness, such as high, medium, and low and by giving clear
justifications for why each paper is classified as such.
Non-linear dose-response misunderstood
Sometimes papers are rejected because they do not show a linear relationship between
dose (exposure intensity × exposure duration) and effect. This is an incorrect rejection
built on the “Red Herring” assumption that there is a linear relationship between
dose and effect for radiofrequencies. This assumption has been countered by research
that shows that (i) there are windows of power and frequency that cause harm (34),
and (ii) that the human perceptual system has a non-linear response to electromagnetic
frequencies (35–37). While linear dose-response models may be appropriate for telecommunications
signaling, they are not appropriate for modeling biological responses where feedback
mechanisms and adaptive responses occur.
The above examples of inappropriate dismissal of papers in reviews suggest that the
credible evidence base for mmWave effects is likely to be larger than stated. To quote
Barnes and Greenbaum (38), also cited by Lai (39).
The evidence that weak radiofrequency (RF) and low-frequency fields can modify human
health is still less strong, but the experiments supporting both conclusions are too
numerous to be uniformly written off as a group due to poor technique, poor dosimetry,
or lack of blinding in some cases, or other good laboratory practices [(38), p. 2].
Conclusions from reviews can be misinterpreted
After dismissing much of the evidence showing effects, as well as reporting the contradictory
results, reviews have concluded that there is no conclusive evidence of harm. However,
an “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy can occur when the reviewers, the industry, and ICNIRP
then give the impression that the statement there is no harm must be true because
no counter evidence to that conclusion has been found; i.e., because we have not found
conclusive evidence of harm. This fallacy has the effect of wrongfully shifting the
burden of proof away from the one making the claim of no harm (23). In reality, the
onus of proof is on industry and government to continue funding research that can
enable a better understanding of the effects of mmWaves on humans and the environment.
The above logical fallacies embedded within the analysis and communication of the
mmWave science may have resulted in significant omissions of critical studies or incorrect
judgements about papers within reviews, making their conclusions unreliable; [e.g.,
see (4)].
Reviews that contain these fallacies are not a suitable basis on which to build public
policy or safety standards.
Fallacies used in setting standards
Several fallacies are also embedded within the ICNIRP guidelines, for mmWaves as well
as other radiofrequencies.
Only heating matters
The main fallacy that has been pointed out by many researchers is the “Thermal Only”
fallacy, whereby ICNIRP and industry have adopted the position that only heating can
produce important biological or health effects. This “Red Herring” takes the focus
away from research that investigates non-thermal biological and health effects. For
example, in the main mmWave literature review of skin effects presented within the
current ICNIRP guidelines, a decision has been made to focus on heating effects only
[(9), p. 6–8].
Averaging is an adequate measure of harm
When ICNIRP assumes that averaging over time and space are effective measures for
measuring the level of harm, this is the fallacy of “Slanting” because not all of
the evidence available is being used to inform the case (20).
The ICNIRP premise that averaging over time and space is sufficient to calculate harm
from exposure is deficient in realism in several ways. First, the statistical use
of an average assumes an underlying normal distribution, which is not the case for
complex telecommunications signaling. Moreover, averages hide potential biophysical
effects resulting in a conclusion of no harm overall, even though extreme harm may
have occurred for a small portion of tissue [see (18, 30)].
Authority uncertain
The fallacy of “Appeal to Authority” occurs when claims are believed because they
are made by alleged authorities, but not all of the following are true: (i) they are
making claims within their field of expertise, (ii) they are presenting facts about
which there is some agreement, and (iii) they can be trusted (23). While bodies like
ICNIRP and the WHO International EMF Project are given formal authority, other researchers
have criticized them for being a small-self referencing group (40) with no dissenting
voices (41). These bodies present one consistent message: that there is no evidence
of harm from radiofrequencies, including mmWaves. In contrast, hundreds of scientists
around the world with concerns for safety have appealed to the European Union for
a moratorium on the 5G rollout (42, 43). Because there is no clear agreement on the
facts, to assume an ultimate voice of authority on this topic is fallacious.
Furthermore, some expert scientists researching in this field have links with industry;
therefore, conclusions from their papers need to be treated with caution. This is
because industry can influence the science (44). For example, industry-funded research
for UHF studies (including when partnered with government or military, public trusts,
private foundations and institutions) was found to typically use short-term, single
one-off exposures created by signal generators, to predominantly expose cell lines
(in vitro) rather than live animals (in vivo) and to avoid epidemiological studies
(45). These design decisions have resulted in studies that do not provide insights
into potential health effects associated with multiple long-term, real-world exposure
scenarios.
Similar to Huss et al. (46), an analysis of mmWave studies demonstrates how industry
funding influences outcomes. Industry funded mmWave studies have produced a lower
overall proportion of “Effect” outcomes, compared to government-funded and institution-based
studies (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
The relative proportion of “Effects” and “No Effects” outcomes from studies according
to the funding source.
Conclusions
The potential long-term health risks from global EMF continue to rise as exposures
in the built environment increase in time and density. Mankind has chosen to base
the justification for this rollout on shaky foundations, where there is minimal understanding
of the impact of new radiofrequencies being introduced into the environment on long-term
human and planetary health.
The evidence presented above suggests that there are credible risks of biological
interference effects for frequencies planned for 5G, occurring well-below ICNIRP reference
limits. Given the ubiquitous and often non-consensual nature of man-made wireless
radiation exposures, the presence of even a small number of significant bioeffects
requires follow up with more focused research.
The communication of existing investigations has not been fully clear or transparent.
It is the responsibility of government review panels, regulatory bodies, scientists,
public advocates, industry and policy makers to clearly communicate the research and
its implications, so as to ensure that no fallacious conclusions can be drawn. If
these are allowed to continue, both those delivering the message and the unsuspecting
billions using their new 5G devices may be led in a direction that places global public
and environmental health at risk.
The mmWave evidence base that has been made visible in this article suggests that
plausible health effects cannot be ruled out, and that urgent action is needed on
two fronts:
Further sound scientific research, done carefully, using the best laboratory practices
and sufficiently large samples to produce significant results, funded and overseen
by trusted bodies with appropriate expertise (38).
Precautionary actions to be taken by policy makers via use of risk aversion strategies
such as the actions recommended in an EU commissioned report [(47), p. 152–153]. Risk
aversion constitutes good leadership.
The limitations of scientific knowledge imply moral courage in taking precautionary
action in time to avert harm [(17), p. 687].
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution
to the work and approved it for publication.