1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The many different voices speaking into the current narrative surrounding the health effects of 5G technologies necessitate an exploration of the background of the various published author-spokespersons and their potential motives. This has been attempted recently by de Vocht and Albers. However, that opinion piece used a narrow investigative lens, resulting in an undermining of both the rationality of the concerned general public and the motives of specific researchers. At the same time, biases, conflicts of interest, and flaws found in “independent” reviews were not considered. To address these oversights, an evidence-based appraisal of public opinion and the scientific caliber of authors involved in the 5G health discussion is warranted. Subsequently, this review article presents an analysis of the available Australian data representing public voices, while also conducting a broader investigation of the level of expertise of recent author-spokespersons based on their experience as scientists, particularly in the area of health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. This review thus attempts to more clearly illustrate for the reader the caliber and motives of the voices speaking into the 5G narrative. The article concludes with a set of questions that need to be answered to enable scientists to advise policy makers more effectively on matters of 5G and public health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)

          (2020)
          Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are used to enable a number of modern devices, including mobile telecommunications infrastructure and phones, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. As radiofrequency EMFs at sufficiently high power levels can adversely affect health, ICNIRP published Guidelines in 1998 for human exposure to time-varying EMFs up to 300 GHz, which included the radiofrequency EMF spectrum. Since that time, there has been a considerable body of science further addressing the relation between radiofrequency EMFs and adverse health outcomes, as well as significant developments in the technologies that use radiofrequency EMFs. Accordingly, ICNIRP has updated the radiofrequency EMF part of the 1998 Guidelines. This document presents these revised Guidelines, which provide protection for humans from exposure to EMFs from 100 kHz to 300 GHz.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Tobacco industry manipulation of research.

            Lisa Bero (2016)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area

              Possible adverse health effects due to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cellular phones and base stations present a major public health issue across Europe. Because scientists cannot exclude that EMFs may cause health problems, the application of the precautionary principle is debated heavily. By considering precautionary measures, political decision makers hope to cope with public fears about EMFs. We present results from two experimental studies that indicate that precautionary measures may trigger concerns, amplify EMF-related risk perceptions, and lower trust in public health protection. Such impacts, questioning common expectations, should be considered in decisions about precautionary measures.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2035481/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1944595/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                12 January 2024
                2023
                : 11
                : 1339513
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Centre for Environmental and Population Health, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University , Brisbane, QLD, Australia
                [2] 2Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc. (ORSAA) , Scarborough, QLD, Australia
                Author notes

                Edited by: George Louis Carlo, Longwood University, United States

                Reviewed by: Kurt Cobb, Consultant, Washington, DC, United States

                Joel Moskowitz, University of California, Berkeley, United States

                *Correspondence: Steven Weller steven.weller@ 123456griffithuni.edu.au
                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2023.1339513
                10820716
                38283297
                f3e1e539-7ca8-4f03-a604-b2dd75c0b8f0
                Copyright © 2024 Weller and McCredden.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 16 November 2023
                : 26 December 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 80, Pages: 11, Words: 9090
                Funding
                The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc., (ORSAA) is funded by membership subscriptions and donations, with no funding from industry or government institutions. All funding for the production of this manuscript was provided by ORSAA.
                Categories
                Public Health
                Review
                Custom metadata
                Radiation and Health

                5g narrative,wireless radiation,environmental health,health advocacy,risk management,precautionary approach,conflicts of interest,science communication

                Comments

                Comment on this article