BLOG: April 2020
5G and COVID-19: just another conspiracy theory, or...?
Just yesterday, a news came up that yet another 5G tower was attacked and burned down, this time in Canada. Dozens of such attacks happened in recent weeks across Europe. The attackers believe that the new technology is a threat to human health; specifically, that the new COVID-19 virus epidemic is tightly related to the harmful effects of electromagnetic (EM) waves used by this new technology.
On the extreme end is a view is that the entire COVID-19 epidemic is only a cover up for the effects of the 5G (5th generation telecommunication technology) waves.
Dr Rashid Buttar, in one of his viral YouTube interviews - before it was taken down - said there is a close similarity between the symptoms caused by COVID-19, and those caused by G5 technology.
Is there any substance in all this?
It is well documented that non-ionizing EM radiation in what is called radio-wave frequency range (mainly concerning its microwave frequencies, from 300MHz to 300GHz, or 1m to 1mm wavelength range) can have harmful effects on human health. The fact that quite a few people - estimated
3% of population in developed countries,
suffer from serious symptoms of electrical sensitivity - with significantly more having mild to moderate reactions - experiencing wide range of possible symptoms when exposed to these fields. It is officially recognized by the WHO as a real condition, the so called Idiopathic environmental intolerance w/electromagnetic field attributed symptoms (whenever you run into this kind of labeling, be sure there is something fishy about it).
However, as the label implies, the WHO is basically telling us the symptoms are real, but those affected, contrary to their direct experience,
are only imagining that they are caused by energy field,
and that the real cause remains unknown.
Of course, behind it is a huge commercial and governmental interest in maintaining the current official view that these fields are essentially harmless.
Back to the G5 related symptoms, and their similarity to COVID-19. It probably refers to a 1974 study on rats, exposed to four different microwave frequencies, 0.95, 2.45, 4.54, and 7.44 GHz. Rats were exposed to field power densities 200-12,000 times higher than the officially recognized safe level exposure limit (0.001 W/cm2), with the resulting lethal exposure (LD50, dose that kills 50% of test population) duration in the range of 10 seconds to 5 minutes.
How deadly each frequency was depended primarily on the field power, but also on the frequency. Graph below shows how mortality changed with both factors. The lowest frequency was only tested at the power level below 0.4W/cm2, next higher frequency below 4.5W/cm2, next higher below 6W/cm2, and the highest frequency in the entire range shown (portions of the curves above these respective values for the first three are extrapolated based on the measured range).
For the same, high power density of 6W/cm2, the most lethal was 0.95GHz frequency (far projection out of the measured range), followed by 2.45GHz (near projection), and then 7.44GHz and 4.54GHz (measured range). This frequency switch shows that the effect does not necessarily scale with the frequency. At this field power level, 0.95GHz has about three times shorter lethal exposure than 4.54GHz (dotted vertical arrows bottom left).
The same order seems to be likely at the low field power end (bottom right). Btw. most wireless technologies before G5 (microwaves too) are in the (approximately) 0.7-2.5 GHz frequency range.
Causes of death were found to be congestion and/or hemorrhage, often accompanied with edema of the lungs. Symptoms varied with the frequency, but it is unclear was it due to the difference in frequency, or in the field power. At the two lower frequencies, warming of the entire body was observed, while at the two higher frequencies there was no warming, but were common burns around ears and eyes (if you wonder what entitles us to do something like that to other creatures, don ask me - I have no answer).
The higher power density at a given frequency, the more quickly it would kill rats. Since the plots have hyperbolic shape, field power and LD50 exposure are inversely proportional, i.e. twice lower power will result in twice longer LD50 value (exposure time).
Assuming that the lethal exposure duration is nearly proportional to the power, and that the lowest power killed a rat in 5 minutes, scaling it down to the human safe limit gives that
it would kill 50% of rats with about 1000-minute exposure,
(if we use the hyperbolic rule, the exposure is somewhat longer).
Since we are much larger animals (average rat in the study weighted little over 200g), it would also take longer for such exposure to kill a human. Assuming again that the length of deadly exposure scales approximately with the weight, a 75kg (165 pound) human would have been killed in less than 6000 hours, or
some 240 days (8 months).
Of course, this can only serve as illustration, since it is very unlikely that the actual effect would scale as in this oversimplified example. But even so, the official safe exposure limit feels uncomfortably close to dangerous for prolonged periods of continuous exposure.
Again, since the typical exposure is more or less intermittent, it would imply still significantly longer lethal exposure. However, the "safe" limit still doesn't really feel safe, does it?
So, while there is no rational basis to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic is a cover for the effect of G5 waves - that's a long stretch to begin with - it cannot be excluded that these energy fields can contribute to the symptoms, possibly significantly so in vulnerable individuals.
Dr. Havas asked herself the same question, and tried to come closer to the answer with the available data. Turned out, the U.S. states using 5G technology (32) had nearly double the number of cases, and more than double the number of deaths per million of population.
It is not so much for those new, much higher frequencies that are to be employed, since G5 at present still uses mainly the frequencies used by G3 and G4 (about 0.7-2.5GHz range), it is that:
(1) it adds up to the existing radio-frequency field contamination, and
(2) G5 antennas come closer - quite close - to people's homes and workplaces, hence expose them to the stronger fields.
Can we afford not to know does it do harm, or not? Obviously, it goes beyond the COVID-19 problem.
We can do better than just guess. Next, let's take a closer look at the G5 frequencies, and the existing scientific evidence that can shed more light on their effect on humans.
Comment Form is loading comments...