The new theory linking 5G with the pandemic is spreading rapidly and causing a lot of damage, including material ones. Let’s analyze where it comes from and if it has a scientific basis
The moment of health and economic crisis does not stop the spread of extravagant theories and ideas. One of these concerns the alleged link between the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the development of 5G. This theory without any evidence and confirmation is causing quite a few problems, such as mobile phone mast fires in the United Kingdom. Where does this theory come from? Does it really have any scientific basis?
5G has always been hampered by several theories, from privacy dangers to health impact. The effect of electromagnetic radiation on humans has been much discussed in recent years and the scientific community has tried to analyze the available data. The studies have also been requested by international authorities during the design of the 5G network development.
There are several accredited institutes that collect the data resulting from several scientific researchs. Among them we report two: the Italian AIRC Foundation for Cancer Research has produced a paper explaining how radiation is not linked to an increased likelihood of developing cancer. Moreover, the American Cancer Society on its website explains what an electromagnetic field is and how it affects people’s health or not.
So where does the alleged link come from? Some traces lead back to an alleged virologist, Ronald Neil Kostoff, who has a degree in aerospace science. The “study” was reported in a document of more than 1000 pages. The theory, however, has never been subjected to an external commission, so the content remains pure inference. In fact, Kostoff states that it is not possible to prove that 5G is not harmful, so it has to be dangerous. Well, science doesn’t work that way, the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Another character at the origin of the theory is Martin Pall, a professor who supports other pseudoscientific theories. Pall started insinuating that electromagnetic waves cause health problems, without any scientific evidence. The positive aspect is the possibility to cure oneself through supplements, by chance, produced and sponsored by the professor himself. The construction of the theory must therefore make us think of an economic expedient rather than a scientific revelation. The few scientific studies that report long-term effects of radiation on animals (typically mice) contain incomplete and often inconsistent information.
Going a little more technical, 5G will be a technology that will allow faster and more stable wireless communications than 4G and 3G. The increasing number in the name does not indicate an increase in signal strength, but rather generation (3rd generation, 4th generation and 5th generation). The 5G in fact will use frequencies of the spectrum that fall in the microwave, between 3GHz and 30GHz. To place the energy of these frequencies we start from the visible light spectrum.
The light goes from red to purple, increasing the energy of the waves towards purple. To the right of purple begin high-energy waves, including the famous UV (ultraviolet). UV waves are a proven cause of burns and skin cancers, in fact doctors recommend the use of protective creams during long exposure to the sun in summer. Moving further to the right we enter the portion of X ray and gamma ray, which are related to nuclear radiation. Going to the left the radiation energy decreases. After the red frequency starts the IR (infrared) spectrum and then the microwave spectrum. Many commonly used instruments already exploit this radiation, between thermometers and infrared cameras and microwave ovens.
The microwave is a household appliance that has been in our homes for years and we have no problem using it, as well as infrared thermometers, used for children or during an extended check, as happened in airports during the temperature checks for the new coronavirus. The 5G technology will not therefore exploit high-energy waves and there is no evidence that it is dangerous to our health.
In closing, I would like to remind you that in science it is not enough to find a correlation between few data to be sure of the cause-effect link. There is a huge difference between random and causal correlation. On the website www.tylervigen.com you can find several kind of data that explain the concept very clearly. For example, there would seem to be a correlation between the number of people drowned after falling into a pool and the number of films in which actor Nicolas Cage appears. A perfect example of how the correlation is just a case and not a cause of the number of people drowned.
