Introduction<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Things have quietened down around the controversial topic of \u00ab\u00a05G\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. This mobile commu\u00adnications technology has \u2013 together with digitalization as a whole1<\/a><\/sup> \u2013 become an increasingly natural part of the overall societal infrastructure, especially since critics of the technocratic development seem to have run out of steam. Anyone who continues to view digital trans\u00adformation and 5G in particular with scepticism and links health risks to them is all too quickly regarded as an esoteric or even a conspiracy theorist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Germany, for example, Kai Funkschmidt made condescending comments by equating \u00ab\u00a0the fear of electro smog\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> with \u00ab\u00a0belief in the paranormal is on the decline\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> under the headline \u00ab\u00a0Belief in the paranormal is on a par with belief in UFOs\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>2<\/a><\/sup> and speculated that the relatively high percentage figures of critical attitudes towards mobile phone radiation might be in\u00adfluenced by conspiracy theories \u00ab\u00a0in connection with the G5 mobile phone standard\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. The mere fact that Funkschmidt speaks of \u00ab\u00a0G5\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> instead of the usual \u00ab\u00a05G\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> suggests that he has little knowledge of the topic or of language usage in Germany. In fact, unlike dowsing or UFO beliefs, for example, there are a number of serious studies on the controversial new mobile communication standard at national level, which certainly give cause for concern from a health point of view. Invisible radiation is not something \u00ab\u00a0paranormal\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, but is physically measurable and at least to some extent testable in terms of its biological effects. However, the sometimes contradictory scientific results in this area are undoubtedly linked to different philosophical, ideological and economic interests, so that more intensive communication about this is urgently needed politically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In most countries, large parts of the population are already \u00ab\u00a0supplied\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> with the first 5G variants. In many cases, the aim is to achieve almost complete coverage. This is why issues relating to the health compatibility of this still new technology are of great importance. Especially since 8 October 2021, when a new human right was acknowledged by the United Nations: Everywhere in the world, i.e. across the board, people have the right to live in a healthy environment3<\/a><\/sup>. What this human right means in view of the 5G mobile commu\u00adnications planned for the whole of the world has yet to be explored. In any case, the following question has become more pressing since then: Is 5G really as harmless as is often claimed, or is it actually a health risk? In view of the seriousness of the issue, reductionist treatments of this problem, which needs to be scientifically investigated, are actually out of the question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While some enthusiastically welcome 5G as the \u00ab\u00a0key to the future\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>4<\/a><\/sup> and can no longer wait for it to be rolled out across the country, others fear its threatening properties in terms of data protection and health. It is precisely because the population is divided in these respects that expensive advertising measures are apparently needed. TV commercials suggest wonderful interpersonal ties with romantic images thanks to transmission technology that works almost in real time. Greater closeness can be bought according to a German YouTube commercial: \u00ab\u00a0Be present when there’s nothing between us with 5G. To be ordered from Telekom now!\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>5<\/a><\/sup> Such advertising does indeed bear fruit: concerns among the German population about 5G have diminished in recent years6<\/a><\/sup>. However, couldn’t and shouldn’t a court ban have been imposed on the basis of public concern and political precaution with regard to the potential biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF)7<\/a><\/sup>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are essentially three different types of opinions on this important issue – after all, it con\u00adcerns the fundamental right to physical and mental integrity, which is enshrined at the very top of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union<\/em> (Art. 3), for example. The first is the official one with its references to scientific studies and to the \u2013 albeit controversial \u2013 institution with the name International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection<\/em> (ICNIRP). The second type concerns scientific and medical studies critical of 5G, which above all also emphasize the precautionary requirement. And the third type consists of conspiracy ration theory schematic or esoteric alarmism, which is characterized by the fact that it tends to have \u00ab\u00a0secret scientific\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> factors and little serious scientific evidence I would like to address all three of these carefully distinguishable 5G topics here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It goes without saying that the government is unlikely to be critical of mobile communica\u00adtions, given that mobile phone frequencies have been auctioned off by the state to the relevant companies for hefty sums. On December 1, 2020, the German government launched an online livestream of a citizens’ dialog on the topic of 5G to \u00ab\u00a0educate\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> and answer questions. The Federal Minister of Transport, Andreas Scheuer, the Federal Minister for the Environment, Svenja Schulze, and Inge Paulini, President of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection<\/em> (Bundesamt f\u00fcr Strahlenschutz = BfS), declared at the time that 5G could be used in all frequencies without hesi\u00adtation. The health effects of mobile communications have been very well researched in many studies and no health effects have been proven to date below the applicable limits. At most, there are still uncertainties regarding the higher frequencies above 20 gigahertz8<\/a><\/sup>. But why then did the Federal Network Agency already make the first allocations in May 2021, even in the high 26 GHz range for local and regional 5G networks9<\/a><\/sup>? In fact, very little research has been carried out into these higher frequencies. At the same time, Germany and France have laun\u00adched a call for funding for 5G. Is the problematic culture of constant growth and pro\u00adgress10<\/a><\/sup>, in this case: is the ever-faster transmission speed, being subordinated to everything else? In any case, the German government is issuing an all-clear signal about 5G11<\/a><\/sup>. Obvious\u00adly, it cannot be true what must not be true12<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And indeed, scientific studies also sound reassuring in the face of widespread fears about 5G13<\/a><\/sup>. For example, Professor Georg Fischer from the Chair of Technical Electronics at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg is quoted in the university journal friedrich<\/em> (no. 120\/2021) as follows: \u00ab\u00a0If there are any negative effects on health at all – none of which have yet been scientifically proven \u2013 I think that these are more likely to be due to non-thermal effects.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> According to his explanations, the mere thermal effects referred to here could only occur with 2G systems such as GSM and TETRA; the 3G (UMTS), 4G (LTE) and 5G wireless com\u00admu\u00adnication standards would not have any corresponding pulsation. Fischer therefore believes he can say: \u00ab\u00a0According to the current state of knowledge and technology, no negative effects of 5G on health are to be expected.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> After all he concedes that when considering the health risk of a new technology, it is important to be aware that the relevant findings cannot go beyond the current state of science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, it is important to note that the ICNIRP has long been accused of having close links to those industrial sectors whose technical new developments have benefited from the highest possible threshold values in all EMF frequency ranges16<\/a><\/sup>. To date, the ICNIRP guidelines have been formally recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and are also in force in the EU. However, their suspicious proximity to industry was already confirmed in 2019 in the Berlin Tagesspiegel<\/em> thanks to thorough journalistic research17<\/a><\/sup>. In mid-2020, the two EU representatives Mich\u00e8le Rivasi (Europe \u00c9cologie) and Klaus Buchner (Ecological Democratic Party) published the report \u00ab\u00a0Die Internationale Kommission zum Schutz vor nichtioni\u00adsie\u00adrender Strahlung Interessenkonflikte, \u201aCor\u00adporate Cap\u00adture\u2018 und der Vorsto\u00df zum Ausbau des 5G-Netzes\u201c (The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Con\u00adflicts of interest, ‘Corporate Capture’ and the push to expand the 5G network\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>); they com\u00admis\u00adsioned, coordinated and published it. It was published in English, French and German in Brussels18<\/a><\/sup>. It is no coincidence that a court in the Netherlands confirmed in 2021 that the limit values proposed by ICNIRP and prescribed by law in many European countries do not ensure the protection of health. In the same year, a European Parliament committee dealing with science and technology assessment published an explosive study entitled \u00ab\u00a0Health effects of 5G. Current state of knowledge on the carcinogenic and reproductive development risks asso\u00adciated with 5G, as derived from epidemiological studies and experimental in vivo studies\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>19<\/a><\/sup>: This review of the state of research also explicitly criticizes the ICNIRP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If authorities refer directly or indirectly to the ICNIRP, this is not very credible from a serious point of view. It will therefore be necessary to look to another institution, namely those offices that officially deal with so-called technology assessment. But is at least this \u00ab\u00a0tech\u00adnology assessment\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> neutral? In the journal for technology assessment in theory and practice (TATuP), Linda Nierling and Helge Torgersen explained that although neutrality had long been regarded as an unquestioned basis in the self-image of technology assessment, \u00ab\u00a0neu\u00adtrality as a myth of technology assessment\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> has since been disenchanted20<\/a><\/sup>. While the claim to neutrality was once a \u00ab\u00a0prerequisite for installing technology assessment in a political context\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, today we are trying to reach an agreement on the fundamental values of technology assess\u00adment \u2013 and we are still \u00ab\u00a0at the very beginning\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. So, should 5G mobile communication be considered and evaluated by a technology assessment that is not yet really clear about its own values? Such a finding opens the door to lobby-driven arbitrariness. And indeed, the cited journal article ends with a plea for the integration of different \u00ab\u00a0interests and points of view or world views\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>: There would remain a \u00ab\u00a0central challenge\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> for those involved in technology assessment to negotiate and \u00ab\u00a0adapt certain normative settings\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>21<\/a><\/sup>. The term \u00ab\u00a0adaptation\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> sounds somewhat strange, even suspicious. The same issue of the aforementioned journal promptly states: \u00ab\u00a0As a result of changes in the scientific community \u2026 external sources of funding are playing an increasingly important role in day-to-day project operations and at the same time are visibly changing their character.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>22<\/a><\/sup> The topic of 5G is particularly striking: In 2021, the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag commissioned a study on the health risks of mobile phone radiation from the Swiss mobile phone lobby, the Research Foundation for Electricity and Mobile Communications23<\/a><\/sup> \u2013 can’t you imagine in advance that the all-clear will be given? After all, this \u00ab\u00a0Office of Technology Assessment\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> knows that years of research into the effects of radiation on living organisms have so far led to findings that are in some cases not clear and not consistent, resulting in different and \u00ab\u00a0con\u00adflicting interpretations.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>24<\/a><\/sup> This indirectly confirms that, from a scientific point of view, there are no unambiguous or one-sided results on 5G, for example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is no coincidence that SWISS RE<\/em>, one of the world’s largest reinsurers, has expressed \u00ab\u00a0con\u00adcerns about health, data protection and security risks\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> with regard to 5G technology26<\/a><\/sup>. So, if the former Digital Minister Dorothee B\u00e4r wants to \u00ab\u00a0do something about people who have concerns\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, as she said during the 2021 election campaign27<\/a><\/sup>, she would also have to address the scepticism among large insurance groups. On closer inspection, official and poli\u00adtical trivialisations of 5G prove to be highly one-sided and by no means reliable. A statement made by the Council of the EU in 2020 fits into this picture: in its \u00ab\u00a0Conclusions on shaping Europe’s digital future\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, it explicitly and very one-sidedly classified information that the 5G network poses a risk to health as a false claim<\/em> that must be countered28<\/a><\/sup>. EU Health Com\u00admissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, who is in office until 2019, also previously stated that the application of the precautionary principle set out in the EU treaties to mobile communications technologies would be \u00ab\u00a0too drastic a measure\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>29<\/a><\/sup>. Whether it is too drastic or rather highly due – this classi\u00adfication depends on whether one perceives the scientific findings on 5G in their entirety or only selectively. In 2021, the US Federal Court obliged the American regulatory authority, the Federal Communication Commission<\/em> (FCC), to finally explain why it had igno\u00adred scien\u00adtific evidence of damage caused by wireless radiation for many years \u2013 an inter\u00adna\u00adtionally ground\u00adbreaking ruling that sheds light on the situation of the so-called elec\u00adtro(hy\u00adper)sen\u00adsitive30<\/a><\/sup> and its lack of appreciation on the part of the authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The computer scientist James Bridle explains in his book \u00ab\u00a0New Dark Age\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (2023, translated here):<\/span> \u00ab\u00a0Science depends on trust \u2013 trust between researchers and public trust in research. If this trust is lost, it does enormous damage to the future of scientific research\u2026\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> In the field of research into mobile communications and 5G in particular, such trust has clearly long since been squandered; the fronts seem to have hardened. At any rate, they exist in many countries: scientific studies and medical statements that classify \u00ab\u00a05G\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> as risky, contrary to the so-called \u00ab\u00a0mainstream\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> of research31<\/a><\/sup>. Only a selection with a focus on Europe can be presented here; it is intended to illustrate that trivialising decisions by no means have the backing of \u00ab\u00a0the\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> scientific com\u00admunity32<\/a><\/sup>. In terms of scientific theory, it should be clear that science is only pluriform any\u00adway, always in flow and rarely without conflicting opinions33<\/a><\/sup>. This applies, for example, in the field of physics \u2013 and of course also in the field of mobile communications research, particularly on 5G34<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Since 2017, many scientists and doctors from over 30 countries have signed a 5G Appeal<\/em> in which they warn against \u00ab\u00a0exposing millions of people to an experiment with unclear effects on health\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>.35<\/a><\/sup> In 2018, the International Society of Doctors for Environment<\/em> reiterated its call for a standstill in the expansion of 5G in Europe in a statement on 5G, citing the ethical precautionary principle. At around the same time in Germany, the Stuttgart-based Doctors’ Working Group for Digital Media<\/em> wrote an open letter to the Federal Minister of Transport and Digital Infrastructure calling for a halt to the expansion of the 5G mobile communications structure36<\/a><\/sup>. In the USA, two research groups led by Noa Betzalel and Cindy L. Russell called for the same in 2018 in the journal Environmental Research<\/em>37<\/a><\/sup> due to the cytotoxic effects of 5G. Calls for a 5G moratorium continued internationally. For example, the leaders of the European cities and government districts of Brussels, Geneva, Grenoble and Florence have expressly rejected the idea that their populations should become \u00ab\u00a0guinea pigs\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> for the scien\u00adtifically controversial and unclear 5G mobile communications standard38<\/a><\/sup>. The same in Mill Valley, a city in Silicon Valley, and in the US state of Hawai39<\/a><\/sup>. In the US state of New Hamp\u00adshire, the two chambers of parliament also passed a memorandum on 5G and mobile radiation: It demanded a consistent protection policy from the aforementioned US radiation protection authority FCC \u2013 with success, as was shown a few months ago40<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Germany, various municipalities in Bavaria explicitly opposed the 5G rollout by Deutsche Telekom and other operators, which came as a surprise to them, in 2020; 22 mayors passed a resolution in which they expressed their \u00ab\u00a0displeasure regarding the communication between Deutsche Telekom AG and the municipalities with regard to the current commissioning of the 5G network\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>41<\/a><\/sup>. In France, employees of the largest French telephone company undermined the 5G push in the same year, arguing that the enormous antenna infrastructure for 5G and the billions of wireless mobile devices to be connected would exponentially increase energy con\u00adsumption for mobile communications and contribute significantly to the environmental foot\u00adprint of this technology42<\/a><\/sup>. 11 mayors of major cities in France have also called for a mora\u00adto\u00adrium on 5G43<\/a><\/sup>. The municipal council of Lille, for example, has decided to postpone the in\u00adstal\u00adlation of 5G antennas until the National Agency for Health Security, Food, Environment and Labor<\/em> has published its report on the subject. In Italy, several hundred municipalities rejected 5G44<\/a><\/sup>. Slovenia also said no45<\/a><\/sup>. And in Switzerland, where the Federal Council may want to as\u00adsign licences for higher 5G frequencies in the 6 GHz, 26 GHz and 40 GHz ranges, i.e. for the \u00ab\u00a0millimetre waves\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> not yet used in Germany, the Swiss Association of Physicians for En\u00advironmental Protection<\/em> (AefU) issued a warning statement in March 202446<\/a><\/sup>. All such con\u00adsi\u00adde\u00adred scepticism and responsible refusal should not only make sense from an ecological and health point of view, but also economically \u2013 because going the wrong way would be ex\u00adpen\u00adsive!<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what is the basis for the many calls around the world to suspend the expansion of 5G mobile communications until clear scientific warnings are on the table? A study overview on 5G from the USA by Ronald Kostoff and other researchers emphasized in 2020: \u00ab\u00a0If 5G is added to the already existing harmful radiation situation, the already existing damage to health is worsened.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>47<\/a><\/sup> In the same year, the European Parliament’s Scientific Service explicitly pointed out 5G risks in an MEP briefing: \u00ab\u00a0Together with the type and duration of exposure, characteristics of the 5G signal such as pulsing appear to amplify the biological and health effects of exposure, including DNA damage, which is thought to be a cause of cancer.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>48<\/a><\/sup> This means that the somewhat different pulsation of 5G is not as simple as the above-mentioned professor Fischer had thought. Martin L. Pall in particular gives food for thought in this respect in his brochure \u00ab\u00a05G as a serious global challenge. Evidence of eight major health risks from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their mechanisms of effect\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (2019)49<\/a><\/sup>. Although his argument has been contradicted by other scientists, it remains unclear whether the US biochemist is right in assuming that higher-frequency 5G radiation does not end at the surface of the human skin but also has invasive effects insofar as the magnetic components of elec\u00adtro\u00admagnetic fields can penetrate the body even deeper than the electric ones. Overall, the debate does not justify a blanket all-clear \u2013 especially not with regard to the double-digit frequency ranges of 5G, which are on the rise in industry in particular, but also everywhere in society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, it is part of scientific seriousness to also consider the indirect<\/em> health risks posed by mobile communications, which are very real as a result of the climate crisis50<\/a><\/sup>. The fact that there may well be a connection between mobile communications and the climate should be discussed more intensively51<\/a><\/sup>. Miguel Coma warns: The claim that 5G will reduce CO2 emis\u00adsions is a myth that is completely at odds with the unprecedented forecasts for energy con\u00adsumption compared to previous generations. This is because \u00ab\u00a0higher efficiency actually in\u00adcreases energy consumption.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>52<\/a><\/sup> Due to 5G, the mobile industry expects an explosion in mo\u00adbile data traffic and the production of new devices and infrastructure \u00ab\u00a0on a scale that far ex\u00adceeds the improvements that energy efficiency has to offer. The clear improvements in energy efficiency from 5G will therefore not lead to a reduction in overall global energy con\u00adsump\u00adtion. 5G will increase global energy consumption.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> The acceleration of data traffic thanks to 5G is also one of those types of growth that is not good for our planet and all its inhabitants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to a constant \u00ab\u00a0pilot signal\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, 5G also uses a new form of \u00ab\u00a0intelligent\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> antennas: In beam forming, transmitting antennas divide the transmission power in the room dynamically and radiate with high directivity to those areas of the room that require the highest power due to capacity demand and routes attenuation. Experts speak of adaptive antennas and \u00ab\u00a0pencil beams\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> \u2013 the term pencil is a metaphorical allusion to the precision of these beams. However, these beams do not remain as slim as the image suggests: \u00ab\u00a0Pretty fat pencils,\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> scoffs Swiss Hans-Ulrich Jakob, President of the local organization Gigaherz<\/em>.53<\/a><\/sup> According to Jakob, with 5G, the network is no longer almost<\/em> everywhere, but because of its 64 beams per sector antenna \u00ab\u00a0inevitably, seamlessly everywhere. Even in the furthest crack.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> With a 5G antenna, there is not just one of these pencil beams in a 120\u00b0 sector, but 64: 8 next to each other and 8 on top of each other. According to Jakob, each of these supposedly pencil-thin beams has an opening angle of 15\u00b0 and therefore a width of 25 meters after a distance of 100 meters and 50 meters after 200 meters. Will this look the same or similar outside Switzerland? And will this possibly mean that in some areas and at certain times high rates of increase in the previous exposure in homes and in certain places can be expected? Anyone whose house may be located in the direction of a \u00ab\u00a0needy\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> neighbour will be out of luck if the radiation, which is barely measurable or verifiable due to its spatial and temporal inconsistency, is just below the high limit values or sometimes exceeds them. Others, on the other hand, can count themselves lucky if such pencil beams rarely or never hit them. 5G is good for surprises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Campaigns in favour of 5G like to paint a distorted picture of a resistant, irrationally frightened citizen movement, as if it consisted mainly of esoterics or even violent protesters: \u00ab\u00a0In addition, individual events and absurd theories are played up – although they have nothing to do with the citizens’ movement and its organizations.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>54<\/a><\/sup> Unfortunately, such distortions can also be found in serious media. For example, tagesschau.de<\/em> reported: \u00ab\u00a0There are numerous conspiracy myths about the new 5G mobile communications standard: it is said to enable ‘mind control’, cause mass deaths in animal species or cancer in humans. It is also said to be responsible for the corona pandemic \u2013 either by weakening the immune system or even as a trigger for Covid-19\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>55<\/a><\/sup>. Here, abstruse claims and reasonable concerns are mixed up in a big way. However, this is actually more typical of conspiracy theories than of the public media. Such fake news<\/em> makes it increasingly difficult for serious analyses that take a critical scien\u00adtific look at 5G to even find their way into the public media. In this respect, conspiracy theories about 5G and esoteric criticism are definitely counterproductive when it comes to providing helpful information in contrast to the trivializations that are widely used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conspiracy theories have gained socio-political weight, particularly in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, and there is now a flood of publications on the subject56<\/a><\/sup>. It is with good reason that theories of confusion are often described as modern \u00ab\u00a0myths\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, which characterizes their global view relevance. Known problems are explained in a supposedly knowledgeable and yet so simple way that in most cases no serious, especially scientific evidence is provided and differentiation is often omitted in an almost annoying manner. It is usually referred to as \u00ab\u00a0secret\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> information \u2013 and you are already in the field of unverifiable claims in the broadest sense. Trust in apparent plausibility and mistrust of measures an\u00adnounced by the state, which in fact increasingly affect the private lives of citizens57<\/a><\/sup> are usually mutually dependent. In the age of ChatGPT, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between truth and deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is hardly surprising that this also applies to the controversial 5G mobile communications. Christopher Schrader comments on this invasive technology that \u00ab\u00a0in terms of the possible health risks, this time things are actually different than usual. 5G is not just a further de\u00advelop\u00adment of mobile communications, which has gone through the generations of analogue net\u00adworks, GSM, UMTS and LTE. Instead, the new standard is opening new doors.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>58<\/a><\/sup> When the German Federal Network Agency<\/em> \u2013 as already mentioned \u2013 made the first allocations in 2021, even in the 26 GHz range for local and regional 5G networks, it was significant that the iden\u00adtity of the new network operators was initially kept secret: \u00ab\u00a0Information on frequency allo\u00adcations is treated by the Federal Network Agency as trade and business secrets.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> What a tempting playground for conspiracy theories!<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is also an esoterically motivated fight against 5G. Here are just two examples from Europe. The sectarian group Organic Christ Generation<\/em> around the Swiss Ivo Sasek not only has the unbiblical transmigration-of-souls-theory59<\/a><\/sup> in its programme, but also 5G warnings, which are widely disseminated through its own media platform called Kla.TV60<\/a><\/sup>. The Austrian Jahn J. Kassl also makes esoteric arguments: in his book \u00ab\u00a0Entscheidende Jahre der Mensch\u00adheit\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (\u00ab\u00a0Decisive years of mankind\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, 2020), he explicitly and repeatedly warns against 5G. He, who sees himself as a spiritual \u00ab\u00a0channel\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, claims to have learned from Jesus Christ: \u00ab\u00a0The widespread introduction of frequencies, which are being made palatable to you as a pro\u00adgressive and indispensable 5G standard, contains the essence of great disruption\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (p. 154). 5G technology will have drastic consequences for nature, wildlife and people, and those forces that push this technology to the detriment of all and the benefit of the few will lose their raison d’\u00eatre on this planet. The final battle for humanity has begun. With this in mind, Jesus Christ is said to have announced that better times would come in the years 2026 to 2029: That is when \u00ab\u00a0the vast majority of people will gain the awareness to play an active part in shaping the future full of light\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (p. 144). Help is offered on the way there, as Kassl claims to have learned in a conversation with THOT (= Hermes Trismegistos) and explains under the chapter heading \u00ab\u00a0Installation of the crystalline 5G protection grid in the morphic field\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (p. 43). After an esoteric \u00ab\u00a0inner look\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, the reader is invited to install the 5G filters as \u00ab\u00a0spheres\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> in the \u00ab\u00a0mor\u00adpho genetic field of the planet\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>: They are supposed to absorb, even neutralise, \u00ab\u00a0any radiation that is harmful to life on earth\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. However, in order to ward off the entire influence of negative radiation, the installation process must be repeated several times: \u00ab\u00a0The more people do this, the greater and more powerful this protection becomes.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> By virtue of their \u00ab\u00a0divine awareness\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (51), those who are convinced of this should speak out formally, mentioning their own name: I ensure \u00ab\u00a0that any harmful radiation, especially that of 5G, is absorbed and neutralised by these crystalline spheres.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> An anxiety-reducing effect may perhaps be the result of such rituals \u2013 but hardly a reduction in the damage potential of 5G, against which not only con\u00adspiracy myths, but also \u2013 as explained under II. \u2013 serious doctors, scientists, politicians and associations warn61<\/a><\/sup>. In fact, well-founded concerns about the 5G technology should not be discredited by populist \u00ab\u00a0myths\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> and the sectarian or esoteric programmes associated with them. The kind of differentiation and serious references that esotericists and conspiracy theo\u00adrists tend to lack should be required here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On a sober note, however, the propagandists of 5G in politics, industry and business are by no means free of I. Official trivialisation of 5G mobile communications<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab\u00a0ICNIRP\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> and \u00ab\u00a0Technology Assessment\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> – neutral institutions?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
In particular, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection<\/em> (ICNIRP), mentioned at the beginning of this article, always provides the all-clear. In 2020, it published its revised safety guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless communication devices and networks14<\/a><\/sup>: This also assures users that their health remains fully protected with regard to 5G radiation. ICNIRP Chairman Rodney Croft, Professor of Psycho\u00adlogy at Wollongong University in Australia, expressly affirmed in an interview on Australian television on June 16, 2020, that there is no harm associated with 5G15<\/a><\/sup>. He also conceded that the number of studies dealing specifically with 5G is very limited – but from a scientific point of view, this is \u00ab\u00a0not relevant at all.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvidence of damage ignored for many years<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
In Austria, the Institute for Technology Assessment<\/em> presented a study to parliament which underlines the fact that the health risks of established mobile communications are still the subject of controversial debate despite major research efforts, and there are still almost no relevant studies on 5G. This makes the scientific situation regarding 5G all the more honest. This also has to do with the improved educational work on the topic of mobile commu\u00adnications in Austria. Professor Thomas Szekeres, President of the Austrian Medical Asso\u00adciation<\/em>, explains: \u00ab\u00a0Based on the information available to date, the development of 5G is likely to result in further, and indeed considerable, exposure of the population to radio frequencies, which is already too intense in many places. From a medical perspective, the transmission of large amounts of data using micro wave technology in the immediate vicinity of people’s lives must be seen as an undesirable development.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>25<\/a><\/sup> According to this, risks are by no means to be excluded by the authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\nII. Scientific and medical warnings about 5G<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
![\"Werner](\"https:\/\/esc-info.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Werner_Thiede-Mythos_MobilFunk.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n5G signal with increased biological and health effects<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
64 beams per sector antenna<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
III. Conspiracy theory and esoteric perspectives on 5G<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
5G filter according to Hermes Trismegistos<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
By no means all 5G criticism is \u00ab\u00a0blather or gobbledygook\u201d<\/h4>\n\n\n\n