The frequency of 5G waves is not high enough to cause harm

The argument

5G signals are low frequency, non-ionizing waves that are harmless to the public. The claim rests on a distinction that determines whether radiation can damage the body at all. Harmful waves are classified as ionizing radiation, two examples of which are Gamma and X-Rays. These rays have such a high-frequency that they can cause damage and illness to humans, such as cancer, because they carry enough energy to break apart the molecules they strike — that is the mechanism behind the harm. Everything below that threshold lacks the mechanism, not merely the intensity. Thankfully, even though millimetre waves are higher in frequency than 4G signals, they are still much lower than ionizing rays and will not cause harm to humans. An increase in frequency within the non-ionizing range moves a signal further along the same stretch of the spectrum rather than across the line where damage becomes possible. Even so, the only 5G signals that are being used in most of the world are the common sub-6 GHz's that are used for all 4G signals and Wi-Fi anyways — the same frequencies people have already lived among for years. That is also how the expert quoted frames it. Robert DeMott, a toxicologist who specializes in risk assessment, noted that "Calling it 5G and changing the frequency does not change the relevant biological health factor, which is energy." What matters biologically is whether the energy delivered is sufficient to ionize, and the name given to a generation of network technology has no bearing on that question. Even though the frequency is higher, then, 5G signals are not ionizing waves and therefore could never cause the damage of ionizing waves. Because the frequency of 5G waves is not high enough to cause harm, 5G is not dangerous to human health.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Some may argue that although these higher frequency millimetre waves are classified as non-ionized, studies have shown that exposure to these higher frequency waves can still cause damage. A toxicology report created in 2018 by the US department of health displayed that male rats exposed to high frequency waves developed a cancerous tumour in their hearts. Many people believe that this study indicates that high frequency 5G signals will cause harm to the public.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This overstates the physics. The ionising threshold marks the point at which a photon can break chemical bonds directly, which rules out one mechanism of harm rather than all of them. Radiofrequency energy is absorbed and deposited as heat, which is precisely why exposure limits exist and are set well below the level at which measurable heating occurs, and a premise that treats non-ionising as equivalent to inert claims more than the physics supports. [Rejecting P2] The frequency point is accurate and is the strongest part of the argument, though it is worth adding what the premise omits: higher-frequency millimetre waves penetrate tissue less deeply, not more, being absorbed within the outer layers of the skin. That the same sub-6 GHz bands have long been in use is likewise a genuine reason for confidence, but it is an argument from experience with those bands rather than a demonstration that any effect is impossible. [Rejecting P3] A single quoted expert is not the case, and the reasoning attributed is stronger than it should be: "could never cause the damage of ionizing waves" is trivially true of ionising damage while leaving open whether some other effect exists. The firmer ground for this position is the accumulated evidence — decades of epidemiology finding no established increase in cancer incidence tracking mobile-phone use, and the reviews of national and international expert bodies — which can also accommodate the counter's rodent study, whose exposures were whole-body, prolonged and above public limits, and whose exposed animals lived longer than the controls.