Feedback archive → Feedback 2020
Answering question about 5G and COVID-19
Published: 2 May 2020 (GMT+10)
G. W. from Australia wrote in with a question about coronaviruses and 5G wireless technology.
Message:
I would like Robert Carter’s biological view on these two assertions:
1) that Coronavirus looks like a viral response to respiratory difficulty, and
2) that 60 GHz radio frequencies can reduce oxygen uptake thus causing that response in the lungs.
I have a congregant who is alarmed. Snopes is quiet and I’m unsure where to look for credibility.
Dr. Robert Carter responds:
G. W.,
Thank you for trusting us enough to write in with such a question.
First, the virus is not a ‘response’ to respiratory difficulty. It is, in fact, an infectious particle that often causes respiratory difficulty. Many people are getting cause and effect messed up, and I believe this is due to nefarious actors on social media. We know what viruses are. We know how they behave in the body. And we know how they can be passed from person to person. To say otherwise is to reject too much science, and much of the medical science we rely on was first developed by Christians like Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur.
This is a matter of operational science. We can actually know what is going on and everything is based on scientific knowledge that goes back well over 100 years. Yet, this spiders into claims about 5G signals and other conspiracy theories. It is a question of how to think and how we are supposed to approach difficult subjects with a sober, scientific mindset while multiple town criers are trumpeting nonsense from the parapets.
I am going to answer your second question in small steps, defining terms as I go. Some readers will be unfamiliar with the science terminology, and I don’t want to lose people. This is an important topic.
GHz (gigahertz)
A ‘Hertz’ is a unit of frequency, measured in cycles per second. The name comes from the German physicist Heinrich Hertz (1857–1894). Giga means billion. So, 1 GHz = 1 billion cycles per second.
We hear this term a lot when we are talking about computer processors (and it is kind of amazing when you think about it). We also use it a lot when talking about radio signals. It is impractical to use GHz when talking about visible light because the waves oscillate between 430 trillion Hertz (red) to 750 trillion Hertz (violet). However, radio waves are much longer, and so they oscillate much more slowly. Hence, we use GHz when talking about radio, WiFi, and now 5G.
5G
The ‘G’ in 5G has nothing to do with GHz. In fact, 5G just means “5th generation”. The telecommunications community has rolled out several sets of standards over the years and this is the 5th major step. We could not have had 5G devices earlier because we had to wait for technological improvements in many areas. In the 1980s, 1G allowed for simple analogue voice communications. Cell phones worked like a radio and had all the limitations of pre-digital radio broadcasts. 2G brought in digital voice. Then came 3G, which allowed mobile data, and 4G, which was a significant improvement in speed. There is nothing all that different with 5G. It is just faster and more reliable. Part of this is because our devices have faster processors, and so can handle faster data transmission rates. Part of this is because it uses a better part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The electromagnetic spectrum
Our eyes can only see a narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, from red to blue. Red light has a long wavelength and does not have much power per photon. Blue light has a much shorter wavelength and carries a lot more energy. 5G uses frequencies beyond the red end of the visible light spectrum and so it is biologically safe.1
Beyond red is infrared, which we perceive as heat. Beyond that are radio waves, which we cannot even feel unless you are standing next to an extremely strong transmitter. This can give you an “RF burn”, which just means you absorbed enough energy to dangerously heat up your skin. But since the power of a signal is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, even being a few feet away from a strong signal is generally safe (but the general public are not allowed near transmission stations anyway). Either way, 5G uses a very weak signal.
On the other side of the spectrum, beyond visible blue light, is ultraviolet (UV). UVA is safe. This is the light that is closest to the blue end of the visible spectrum. It is what comes out of a blacklight. UVB is not too bad in small doses. Too much can give you a sunburn. But UVC can much more easily give you cancer. There is so much power in each photon that it can rip apart biological molecules and damage DNA. On the far side of ultraviolet are X-rays, which have the ability to penetrate many substances deeply (partly because the wave is so small) and cause extensive damage at high doses.
Wavelength vs frequency
Light travels at a constant speed (3 x 108 m/s). But it also oscillates at specific frequencies. A high-frequency signal has a shorter wavelength than a low-frequency signal. Thus, there is an inverse relationship between wavelength and frequency. The signals we use for communications have fairly long wavelengths.
Absorption vs wavelength and frequency
The frequencies used for 5G vary from country to country but 3.4, 25, and 60 GHz are common. These line up with the 8.8 cm, 1.2 cm, and 0.5 cm transmission bands, respectively (Figure 3). Note that the X-axis on figure 3 is on a log scale and the wavelengths range from nanometres (billionths of a metre) to kilometres (thousands of metres). A microwave oven operates at 2.45 GHz (with a wavelength around 12.2 cm). This wavelength is strongly absorbed by water. It is also easy to block. That screen you see on the front window of a microwave has small holes in it. Those holes are large enough for visible light to easily pass through, but they block 100% of microwaves. Some people are afraid of microwave ovens, but their effect is only to heat up water molecules. Water easily absorbs light of that wavelength, so this is a very efficient way of heating things that contain water.2 In fact, when you put something in a standard oven, the exact same thing happens. The molecules absorb infrared light and heat up, from the outside only. Do molecules get destroyed or scrambled in a microwave oven? Yes. Does DNA get damaged? Sure enough. But this happens any time you cook food. In fact, you want the proteins to denature and the cells to burst open a little. This is a major reason why cooking your food also kills the bacteria in it.
Higher frequencies also penetrate poorly into the human body, but is any signal penetration dangerous? Actually, no, for the total power is incredibly low. The phone broadcasts with more power than it receives, however. A slight thermal effect has been noted using older 3G phones (a 1 degree temperature rise in the brain after one hour of phone use), and there is ongoing research into non-thermal effects on the body. But, so far, research has failed to show any significant risk.
Even so, the power level of the phone is a billionth of a Watt or less. Without advanced signal processing techniques and vastly improved hardware all of this would be impossible. Higher frequency does not mean higher power.
Interestingly, satellites can measure atmospheric temperature by looking at how much 60 GHz radiation is being produced. The warmer oxygen molecules are, the more they vibrate at this frequency. Thus, part of the controversy surrounding 5G is that atmospheric scientists are worried that they might lose this frequency band for an important aspect of science. On the other hand, you are naturally bathed in 60 GHz ‘radiation’ all the time.
Importantly, a 60 GHz (5 mm) radio signal cannot rip apart oxygen molecules. Oxygen does have a natural vibrational mode at 60 GHz, but to break up a water molecule you need ionising radiation, like x-rays or gamma rays. Thus, anyone saying that water is being ripped apart by a 5G signal does not understand the science involved. Not only that, but there is no evidence that a 5G signal (of any frequency) will interact with oxygen uptake in the lungs, and there are many places that have no 60-GHz 5G signal towers, and others with no 5G towers at all, and yet have high rates of infection.
In the end, some people simply like to be afraid and other people know how to feed off those fears. Thus, crazy or incorrect factoids tend to float to the top of the social media stew. When you apply a general ignorance about how science works and what scientists know, things only get worse. I understand how difficult it is to work with certain people. All I can say is that you need the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon. Love them. Educate them as you are able. And may God bless you with the means to convey truth while not getting distracted from your main ministry focus.
Related Articles
Related Media
References and notes
- Koyama, S., et al., Effects of long-term exposure to 60 GHz millimeter-wavelength radiation on the genotoxicity and heat shock protein (Hsp) expression of cells derived from human eye, Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(8):802, 2016. Return to text.
- Microwaves actually cause water molecules to rotate, while infrared causes them to vibrate. We normally feel vibrations as heat, but it takes time for rotational energy to be dispersed among vibrational modes. Hence the need for standing a bit after microwave cooking. There are other frequencies that water absorbs more easily, but if we used those the signal would all be absorbed at the surface, which would reduce desirable cooking properties. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
In several places you imply blue light is the lower end of the visible spectrum ("On the other side of the spectrum, beyond visible blue light, is ultraviolet (UV)", for instance).
While this is strictly true, surely the correct term would be "... beyond visible violet light ..."?; as per the spectrums in Figures 1 - 3. A minor point perhaps, and no-one else appears to have commented on it, but for us science graduates and data analysts, it detracts from your otherwise well-written article.
One of the authors stated. "The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
In other words, yes, we need to be paying attention, but no, there is no reason to be afraid. The risk is not acute. That much is clear. And it is difficult to statistically separate out the cancer signal (if it even exists) from the background cancer noise. The most effective strategy to mitigate risk would be to use Bluetooth, instead of holding the phone up to your head. And, since the strength of the signal decreases with the square of the distance, if you want to reduce the radiation your body is absorbing don't keep the phone in your pocket but instead to put it at arms length whenever possible.
3) Salford and others have shown that only 2 hours of exposition to cellular phones open some holes in the brain "membrane" with consequent entrance of dangerous materials causing cancer Maybe Hartnett should talk only about cosmology, if ever
I read with astonishment your article on 5G and so called "Conspiracy Theories" a term invented by the CIA to discourage people from finding the Truth. There is a huge weight of evidence and scientific papers and experiments available from scientists eminently more qualified than you guys on the subject all over the world showing that the onslaught of more and more high frequency radio in our lives is doing us harm. High frequency radio is used as a weapons system in many countries around the world to do crowd control, and the reasons for 5G rollout around the world is the monitoring and control of the population as we head into the End Times and a One World Government and order. This should be blatantly obvious to any Christian, or Non Christian who has studied the Bible and its end time prophesies. Along with your stance on Vaccination, an invasive process that does not work, and since the 1990's has accelerated the rate of diseases in children to levels unheard of. Responsible for the rate of Autistic disorders which were negligible before 1980 and now approaching 1 in 25 in the western world, another blatantly obvious fact that hundreds of thousands of parents around the world with vaccine injured children know, leads me to the conclusion that you guys are so one eyed on the Creation thing that you can't see the wood for the trees. The weight of evidence now that the SARS - 2 virus has come from the BSL4 Lab in Wuhan is overwhelming. As Christians we should be tackling the real and current issues of the day. Will you all be lining up for Dr Gates's COV-19 vaccine when it comes with its implanted chip to identify us all and prevent abstainers from traveling, buying or selling? Good luck! you will then need plenty of prayer.
Ian Birchall
Obviously it makes a difference whether radiation is ionising (x-rays and gamma rays) or not (the rest of the spectrum) and also high-intensity radiation (even non-ionising) can cause damage. Again: anyone want to wage war against visible light because it can be damaging when the intensity is really high?
The transmission power recommendations have not changed unfortunately. I recently attended a meeting about a proposed 5G tower. Its signal strength levels were well under Australian standards, but there is plenty of experiential evidence that those levels are way too high.
Some of what you say is demonstrably incorrect, some is difficult to prove, the rest is only possibly true. First, an electron microscope is used for taking pictures. Very early in the epidemic we had images of this virus, which was amazing. We also had DNA sequences, from sequencing machines, not electron microscopes. The speed of this was unprecedented and the entire weight of the modern science establishment was brought to bear on this new threat. And it is a threat. "Healthy" immune systems do not mean a person will not get sick, get very sick, or even die. Plenty of otherwise healthy people have succumbed, even though there are additional risk factors like diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. Third, the 'insertions' have nothing to do with the health of ones immune system, so putting those two things in the same sentence makes little sense. As far as "engineering" goes, there is, at present, zero evidence for this. Did you know that different people have insertions relative to others? Or that the human mitochondrial genome has many 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12- base pair insertions and deletions from one person to another? This is because an insertion or deletion that happens in sets of 3 letters does not interfere with the reading frame of the protein. We are not "engineered" and a 9-bp insertion in this one virus compared to others is evidence of nothing. Finally, "5G" is not anything. It is a standard, not a tangible something. If you said "60 GHz" then maybe we would have something to discuss. Yet, even then there would be debate. It is not enough to say it "causes cancer in rates" for we must then ask questions like "At what strength?", "For what duration?", "Is a rat equivalent to a human?", "Has the experiment been duplicated in another lab?", and things like that. The purpose of my article was to get people to think more deeply on the scientific aspects of Covid-19. I would encourage you to do the same.
Dr Charles Teo (neurosurgeon) has authored a paper in the early 2000s with two other neuros about the rise in the prevalence of brain tumours around the ears as mobile phone use increased. He won't use one. (I was a patient of his due to a cavernous haemangioma)
1. "Powerful" is being ambiguously by many people. It does not take more power to use more channels. Instead, it takes a sophisticated and fast switching algorithm. This can be done in a low-power system if you throw enough intelligence and elegant engineering at the problems.
2. Yes, there will be more transmitters impacting more people, but at a low power, and not using ionizing radiation, which is a known carcinogen.
3. We have been experimenting with the physiological effects of radiation at different wavelengths for a very long time. Are X-rays dangerous? Yes. That was relatively easy to figure out. But we still use them in very low doses. Is UV dangerous? Yes, but less so than X-rays, and yet we still go out in the sun. Are radio waves dangerous? If so, they pose so little danger that no clear statistical signal can be discerned.
4. One reason little research has been done on this is that everything we already know is pointing toward these wavelengths being safe. Did you notice in my article that I said 600 GHz radiation is part of the natural environment? In fact, this is what is radiated from warm water molecules. Would such research put minds at ease? I doubt it. People don't believe we went to the moon, don't believe the earth is an oblate spheroid, believe we are being visited by extraterrestrials, and/or believe that a 60 GHz signal can manifest itself as a virus-like entity in the human population. Yet, I can hope, and so I keep writing article like this.
I'm curious if you could expound a bit on some points in relation to some of this. I have nothing against 5G, and I enjoy using my microwave, but it appears that some of your don't line up with all of experience, so hopefully you can help me see the bridge between the two. 1) I think the Microwave argument is undermined by a couple different factors. We all know that microwaves react strongly to metals, not just water. When we put a fork or aluminum foil in a microwave, things are obviously drastic, but what's happening at the microscopic level at the small amounts of metals in many foods? Similarly, one can try to microwave straight water in a ceramic cup, but we all know the ceramic will heat up much fast than the water. And finally, we also know that microwaves leak a lot. See, for example, this article: [link deleted per feedback rules] 2) While unproven, there has also been some cause for concern about close contact with non-ionizing RF signals: [link deleted per feedback rules]. I'm not about to abandon my cell phone, but I try not to keep it directly against my skin for hours on end either... And we've seen that not all cancers are created equal since different foods help fight different types of cancer. So it would seem "theoretically" possible that excess signals in a given wavelength *might* influence the body in specific ways. While it would seem unreasonable that it would only encourage COVID-19, perhaps... maybe a spectrum of viruses???
3) So... is there a study that shows equivalently dense populations with and without 5G towers and their respective COVID-19 rates? PS - I really do enjoy your ministry and materials! Just asking for better understanding.
2. Yes, ceramics can heat up in a microwave. This is usually due to the coatings, that often contain high amounts of metal! It can also be due to water in the pore spaces (which can create particularly explosive results). If your dish gets hot before your food, this is due to the fact that the dish is absorbing more microwaves. A tall bowl, for example, might also be shielding the food.
3. Leaky microwaves: a) If there is stray RF, it is probably coming from the electronics on the outside of the chamber. b) We have gotten a lot better with our electronics. c) A microwave that is leaking radiation from inside the chamber will probably be visibly defective, like a door that does not close properly. d) If radiation does leak out, what is it going to do? It will warm up water molecules. But we have a natural aversion to high levels of heat and to burning sensations already.
4. Yes, it is theoretically possible that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. But, there is no hard evidence for it. And, we are talking about power levels that are very low anyway, so the theoretical risk is reduced even more.
5. No, there is no link between viruses of any type and any RF frequency field currently being deployed in the world. Could a specific frequency trigger a virus to excise itself from the human genome or energize it to make it more effective? There is no evidence that this is or has ever happened, so why would I worry about it?
6. All you have to do is compare where 60 GHz 5G towers have been set out and where the virus has appeared. But be careful about making false associations. For economic reasons, those towers have been added to the highest-density population centers. But high-density populations are also where viruses spread fastest. Thus, you really have to carefully examine where the towers are not but also have a high enough population per square mile, and you can't compare one country to another (because of different reporting standards).
If you Google the Bioinitiative Report you will find that it was written by a small group of scientists and their results were not peer reviewed. The conclusions they drew also run contrary to a vast body of literature. They have not had a good reception in the scientific community because they selectively cherry picked and misquoted from prior scientific publications. I know less about the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, but I did find an editorial-like paper laying out some of their claims in The Lancet, which is no mean journal.
Yet, your Cosmin (2014) reference states, "The exposure of different cell lines or organisms to electromagnetic fields have produced a bulk of data that were sometimes contradictory and didn’t allow a concise and clear conclusion about the effects of electromagnetic fields on biological systems." They were also studying the effect on DNA in cells sitting directly underneath a strong electromagnet (5.6 mT) oscillating at 100 Hz. This is unlike anything coming from either a 5G transmitter or receiver. Thus, not only is there no scientific consensus on the issue, their experiment does little help clarify the question. There are other, much more recent studies you could have referenced.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.