Jump to content

5G Network Rollout & Health Concerns


paco

Recommended Posts

Hi All


Does anyone know anything about this?


I was in Hastings where a friend was talking about a campaign to stop 5G being rolled out in the town.


I don't know much about this, but understand 5G is already in London - is that right?


My friend said that they put devices on the top of every lamppost - perhaps that is what I can see in my street.


A quick search brought up this:


EU 5G Appeal ? 180 Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G


https://www.jrseco.com/european-union-5g-appeal-scientists-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/


which mentions:


Brussels does not go ahead with 5G, due to health concerns

Netherlands: Parliament asks for independent investigation on 5G health risks


ALSO


SPECIAL REPORT: Press Intimidation, Science Suppression & The 5G Rollout

By Jeff Prager


SPECIAL REPORT


Even before 5G was proposed, dozens of petitions and appeals [7] by international scientists, including the Freiburger Appeal signed by over 3,000 physicians, called for a halt to the expansion of wireless technology and a moratorium on new base stations [8].


In 2015, 215 scientists from 41 countries communicated their alarm to the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) [9].


They stated that ?numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF [electromagnetic fields] affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines?. More than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate harm to human health from RF radiation [10,11]. Effects include, but are not limited to: Alteration of heart rhythm [12] Altered gene expression [13] Altered metabolism [14] Altered stem cell development [15] Cancers [16] Cardiovascular disease [17] Cognitive impairment [18] DNA damage [19] Impacts on general well-being [20] Increased free radicals [21] Learning and memory deficits [22] Impaired sperm function and quality [23] Miscarriage [24] Neurological damage [25] Obesity and diabetes [26] Oxidative stress [27]


*Contains over 100 peer reviewed reports and over 3000 linked reports...


Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man Facebook and the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories has a lot to answer for


5g isn?t mystical voodoo destroying our health. There are people who might think wifi and other modern trappings are dangerous but here we all are (you included) typing away online


There are forces out there with interest in sowing discord and they post stories like this. And the type of stories behind people voting Brexit. But it?s tin foil hat territory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sepiroth


There is a heap of research on the effects of RF radiation.


Wondering on what basis you confidently dismiss it so readily as conspiracy theory.


Industry does tend to introduce tech without considering the consequences - microplastics being an example..


And we all go along with it for different reasons. I like Netflix!


So Brussels, the 3000 physicians are all tin hat wearers?


Anyway well done for being so quick off the mark to dismiss it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientific literature I meant. Not literature in general. That would be daft.


Dr. Sharon Goldberg, Professor, clinical researcher and an internal medicine physician:


"Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period.This is no longer a subject for debate. When you look at PubMed in the peer-reviewed literature, these effects are seen in all life forms: plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans we have clear evidence of cancer now. There is no question. We have it; evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects."




Dr. David Carpenter another public health physician


"There's been no safety testing of 5G. The reason I think that it's dangerous is that there isn't any specific information to 5g but we know that radiofrequency radiation of 3g and 4g are associated with the whole variety of different human health effects. Everyone is going to be exposed to radiofrequency radiation more continuously and at higher intensities and that's going to cause more human disease."


There are safer alternatives with the same benefits. See TED Talk, Wireless wake-up call, Jeromy Johnson




We don't have to go back to the dark ages, unless you want to..?


I don't have a problem with tech, as long as it safety tested. 5G hasn't been by all accounts, it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paco


I already know who comes up in YouTube results if I type 5g in.



The question is how credible are they? Now they might be bang on the money and I?m a fool for ignoring them


But looking at wider picture, they only credibility they seem to have comes from being promoted by sites like davidicke and other cranky sites. So automatically I?m wary of their arguments


They come across more like Andrew Wakefield than they do bona fide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sephiroth, once again, I agree with you!


All of this has to be stress tested and credibility checked.


Which sources are you suggesting come from sites like David Icke?


Currently looking at counter arguments.


But also looking at the bigger picture, looking at how the rollout has been implemented, it raises questions.


The knee jerk reaction towards anyone who questions the status quo is that they must be a crank. They must be a tin foil hat wearing, lentil eating, tree hugger.


I am guilty of this reaction.


When someone first knocked on my door talking about phone masts, I did think "Who is this crazy do gooder person?"


But digging deeper into the issue uncovered some interesting information.


A point made by Jeromy Johnson in TED Talk, 'Wireless wake-up call':


"The science is heavily influenced by industry funding. This is a study by Dr. Henry Lai. He looked at 326 studies based on the biological effects of cell phone radiation. He found that about half of the studies showed effects and half didn't.


That's pretty normal for this type of research.


But what he found that was interesting was that if you looked at who funded the studies, 70% of the independent studies showed effects, and only 32% of the industry-funded studies showed effects."


This article elaborates the story:


https://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard the lamppost thing and it might be true but I'm not that worried about health issues personally.


"Delivering the promised performance improvements of 5G through high-band spectrum, on the other hand, would require a fundamentally different architecture with much denser networks?something like 15 to 20 sites per square kilometer in highly populated urban environments, as opposed to two to five sites today."



https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/telecommunications/our-insights/are-you-ready-for-5g


Will we be able to trace phones to a greater accuracy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry snoopy17 missed your message.


Benefits:


It's faster

Is a requirement for SMART tech - it means that you would be able to turn your kettle on without having to get up, run your bath whilst you are travelling home etc etc. Think they are talking about it be used for cars- driverless..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paco Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry snoopy17 missed your message.

>

> Benefits:

>

> It's faster

> Is a requirement for SMART tech - it means that

> you would be able to turn your kettle on without

> having to get up, run your bath whilst you are

> travelling home etc etc. Think they are talking

> about it be used for cars- driverless..


None of the smart home tech you mentioned needs 5g.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I agree with the posts that housing is an urgent need in Peckham and throughout Southwark. But as Alice says, it’s the percentage of social / affordable housing that matters. In October last year, there were over 4,200 households on the Council’s waiting list for housing in Peckham alone (over 17 thousand across Southwark). But the developer is only offering 35% affordable housing (which means that 65% will be unaffordable). Both Southwark Council and the GLA say that a big development like this should provide 50% affordable housing.   Re-development of the site is a great opportunity to make the town centre “cleaner, safer and more sustainable and welcoming” (borrowing Nigello’s great words). Is this dense development going to do that, when it provides no real green and open space where people can spend time outside and nature can help us tackle the growing problems of climate change like absorbing flood water, cooling the air on baking summer days? Are 7-storey buildings along Rye Lane (where the average buildings are 2-3 storeys) going to be welcoming to users of the town centre? How will the development impact on Peckham’s economy? Currently there is busy daytime commercial activity of shops providing for different demographics and needs including a rich offering of international groceries and other products, alongside a thriving night-time economy. I can’t see anything in the proposal that suggests how it will enhance and empower the local economy. Yes please, let’s have a great development on this site that enhances the town centre. This means not letting the developer get away with packing people into dense blocks that turn their back on the town centre and which will be a recipe for urban decay in the long run. Peckham deserves better than this!
    • You know when you are wrong but think you're right because the internet etc? Read it and twist it how you want if it makes you feel better. I use a card as well as cash. You are pro jumping the gun and pro cynical. Yeah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    • Using cash is a good way of budgeting for some, if they don't have the cash in their pocket they can't buy things they may not need.  Financial institutions are keen to get us to all use plastic and credit because its harder to spot when you are at your limit and debit equates to interest which is how they make money. So dear Sephiroth, before you slam people for being pro cash, maybe think about why they are and not just view the world from your limited perspective 🤔 
    • The card machine in the dry cleaner's wasn't working, so the guy asked my husband to go to the cash till and withdraw some money....
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...