The negative effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields have already been proven

The argument

The numerous studies which have found that higher levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) cause harm to animals and humans prove that 5G is dangerous to the public’s health. One of the most troubling studies was conducted by the National Toxicology Program. This study displayed that when male rats were exposed to the higher levels of RF-EMF that are associated with 5G technology, they began to grow cancerous tumours in their heart tissues. The findings of this study are corroborated by a Bioinitiative Report which concluded that exposure to high levels of RF-EMF for humans is “consistent with a moderately elevated risk of developing brain tumors.” Also troubling is the fact that the EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 stated that there is “strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility.” With the overwhelming evidence that vast amounts of the public are already being negatively affected by RF-EMF, it seems negligent and cruel to introduce any high frequency levels of these same waves into society.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although there are some definitive studies showing that 5G is dangerous to human health, there are just as many peer-reviewed studies that arrive at the opposite conclusion. For instance, the World Health Organization released a study which found that there was no link between negative effects on human health and 5G high frequency RF-EMF waves. With credible organizations releasing findings that contradict the idea that these waves have the ability to cause harm to humans, many doubt that much credence should be given to the studies that argue otherwise.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The National Toxicology Program study did not test 5G: it exposed rats to 900 MHz GSM and CDMA signals — second and third generation frequencies — at whole-body levels above the limits set for consumer devices, for nine hours a day across their lifetimes, and found the tumour signal only in males while the exposed males lived longer than the controls, which is not the pattern a carcinogen produces. [Rejecting P2] The two documents cited are not what the premise implies: the BioInitiative Report is a self-published compilation by a small group rather than a peer-reviewed or institutional review and has been criticised by national radiation-protection bodies for selective citation, and the EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline is a treatment guideline issued by an author group, not a consensus finding — so the strong-evidence claim is being borrowed from sources that assert it rather than establish it.