Refined Analysis of the Correlation Between the Accepted Maximum Permissible Levels of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields for the Population and the Lethality Rate of Covid-19

In this paper, the results of a refined analysis of the correlation, previously discovered by the author, between the accepted maximum permissible levels (MPL) of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) for population and the mortality rate of COVID-19, carried out using the data samples from the World Health Organization (WHO), taken monthly from May 2020 to July 2021, are presented. To explain the results obtained, correlation between the accepted MPL for RF EMF, the level of vaccination of population against COVID-19, and the level of gross domestic product per capita in different countries were analyzed additionally. Analysis results confirm the presence of a noticeable correlation between the RF EMF MPLs and the COVID-19 mortality rate, especially in the first months of the analyzed period. The subsequent decrease in correlation between them by the end of analyzed period is a result of significantly larger efforts in struggle against COVID-19 in those countries where high RF EMF MPLs are adopted taking into account only the danger of thermal effects in human body, in comparison with countries where more stringent standards that take into account the danger of non-thermal bioeffects, are used. The first of these countries, having on average a higher level of economic development, ensured mass COVID-19 testing of population, imposition of tougher and longer restrictions (quarantines, lockdowns, etc.), as well as significantly higher rates of vaccination of the population. The presence of a confirmed correlation between these characteristics does not necessarily mean the existence of an unambiguous causal relationship between them. In countries of the first group with passive regulation of population protection from environmental factors, this principle is used not only in relation to RF EMF, but also in relation to the other factors. This determines the relevance of a deeper system analysis of the impact of the adopted legal systems for protecting the population from the entire set of anthropogenic factors on its health and collective immunity.

1. Grigoriev O., Goshin M., Prokofyeva A., Alekseeva V. Features of national policy in approaches to electromagnetic field safety of radio frequencies radiation in different countries. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2019; 98(11):1184-1190. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18821/0016-9900-2019-98-11. (In Russ.)

2. Grigoriev O.A., Nikitina V.N., Nosov V.N., Pekin A.V., Alekseeva V.A., Dubrovskaya E.N. Electromagnetic radiation safety: Russian national and international regulatory frameworks for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Zdorov’e Naseleniya i Sreda Obitaniya. 2020;10(331):28-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35627/2219-5238/2020-331-10-28-33. (In Russ.)

3. International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP): Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). July 6, 2020.

4. Ozdemir A.R., Alkan M., Gulsen M. Time dependence of environmental electric field measurements and analysis of cellular base stations. IEEE EMC Magazine. 2014;3:43-48.

5. Gajsek P., Ravazzani P., Wiart J., Grellier J., Samaras T., Thuroczy G. Electromagnetic field exposure assessment in Europe radiofrequency fields (10MHz–6GHz). J Expo Sci Env. Epidem. 2015;(25):37–44.

6. Ibrani M., Hamiti E., Ahma L., Halili R., and Dragusha B. Comparative analysis of downlink signal levels emitted by GSM 900, GSM 1800, UMTS, and LTE Base Stations, 16th Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop, June 28-30, 2017, Budva, Montenegro.

7. Karpowicz J., Miguel-Bilbao S., Ramos V., Falcone F., Gryz K., Leszko W. and Zradziński P. The evaluation of stationary and mobile components of radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure in the public accessible environment. Proc. of the Int. Symp. EMC Europe 2017, Angers, France, Sept. 4-8, 2017.

8. IMT Vision. Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and beyond, Rec. ITU-R M.2083.

9. Zhang Z., Xiao Y., Ma Z., Xiao M., Ding Z., Lei X., Karagiannidis G.K. and Fan P. 6G Wireless Networks: Vision, Requirements, Architecture, and Key Technologies. IEEE VT Magazine. 2019;14(3):28-41.

10. Hardell L., Carlberg M. Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters 20:15. 2020;1-11. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876.

11. Buchner K and Rivasi M: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G. 98 p. https://www.michele-rivasi.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/ICNIRP-rapport-FR-FINAL-JUIN-2020.pdf.

12. Mordachev V.I. COVID-19 lethality rate may be affected by electromagnetic radio frequency pollution. 4G/5G/6G can be safe for people. Doklady BGUIR = Doklady BGUIR. 2020;18(4):96-112.