Letter to the editor
Whether and where a new cell tower should be located in Invermere has sparked public comments about the safety of cell towers in general and 5G towers specifically. There are a few ways in which we know electromagnetic (EM) radiation can affect human health, and, as a physicist, I think it’s worth looking at how these work.
The first way is that EM radiation directly damages DNA which can lead to cancer. This requires EM radiation of a high enough frequency that it can affect chemical bonds: we call this ionizing radiation. Sunburn-causing ultraviolet light is at a just high enough frequency to be ionizing, and yet its frequency is ten thousand times higher than even the highest frequency in 5G communication. This means that for 5G frequencies to have the same cancer risk as standing out in the sun, you would need to be illuminated with 5G radiation one hundred million times more intense than sunlight, at which point you would instantly vaporize and cancer would be the least of your worries.
That brings us to the second type of health risk, which is that EM radiation can directly heat exposed tissue.
If you stand 10 metres away from a cell tower, the maximum heating from EM radiation will be about a thousand times less than standing in direct sunlight. This is about the same heat you would feel from a 100W equivalent LED light bulb at a distance of about one metre which we consider safe for both short and long-term exposure.
The final way in which EM radiation can affect your health is through “nerve stimulation,” where EM waves generate electric currents in your nerves and can cause a tingling sensation.
The high frequencies associated with 5G are highly unlikely to cause nerve stimulation as these frequencies are absorbed primarily by the skin. Lower frequencies, like those used in AM broadcasts, are the main culprits here since these radio waves can penetrate deep into the body. These are not a concern unless you happen to work on these types of installations where EM intensities are very high, and in any case it appears to be a short-term phenomenon: if you leave the area, it goes away.
Of course, it’s easy to be too reductionist (I’m a physicist: it’s what we do) and miss the possibility of “unknown unknowns” in how EM radiation can affect us. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few other mechanisms ranging in plausibility from “ha ha, no” to “…maybe?” The best evidence we have is consistent with there being neither chronic nor acute effects on human health for EM radiation exposure below regulatory levels. I don’t care whether or where a new tower is built – I don’t live in Invermere, and I’m not associated with any telecommunications company – but this kind of debate should be held on the actual costs/benefits to the community and not on unsubstantiated concerns about the effect on our health.
Dr. Ryan Thomas, Area F
