» ISP News » 
Sponsored Links

Local Opposition Making UK 5G Upgrades to 4G Masts Difficult

Saturday, Apr 6th, 2019 (8:56 am) - Score 28,748

The forthcoming roll-out of new ultrafast 5G mobile networks will in some areas benefit from shorter masts being upgraded to taller ones in order to fit the new infrastructure and improve coverage. But as one example in Manchester shows, such developments have a tendency to attract complaints.

At present not a week seems to go by without one group or another complaining about poor mobile network coverage, although admittedly this is usually focused more upon wide open rural areas than urban ones. Nevertheless even urban developments are likely to face challenges when it comes to the tedious process of seeking planning permission for significant upgrades.

In this case Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL), which oversees the network joint venture between mobile operators EE (BT) and Three UK, recently put in an application for the replacement of 17.5m high steel mast on Withington Road in Manchester with a new 25m tall one (planning application). The new mast would also add new 5G infrastructure at the top.

The mast itself is positioned in an urban area, surrounded by a second hand car sales lot, the odd warehouse and various retail shops on the opposite side of the road. Suffice to say that adding a bit of extra height isn’t likely to make too much of a visual difference to the local area, which is already fairly mixed in appearance.


Unfortunately local a newspaper report suggests (here) that the application is likely to face a fair bit of local opposition. Residents in the area are understood to be preparing a formal objection to the mast, which they say will highlight gripes about its height, scale and even some seemingly unfounded paranoia about public health issues (wireless radiation). Such complaints are by no means uncommon but they create delays and added costs.

The 25 metre height is currently the legal limit in England (it’s even lower in some parts of the UK, such as Wales), but outside of urban areas mobile operators would also like to build even taller masts because this is one way to significantly boost coverage, while keeping costs down. Around the EU a lot of countries have a 50m limit and 25m also seems increasingly redundant in the era of towering wind turbines.

One other often overlooked irony of all this is that by building taller masts operators may reduce any perceived health concerns by moving the key mobile antenna equipment higher and thus further away from homes directly below. In any case the only people who tend to face any real health risks are the engineers that have to climb such masts, albeit more due to the threat of a fall, cuts or electrocution.

In fairness there are some locations, both urban and rural alike, where such masts would cause a significant detriment to the local appearance and so it’s important not to become too flexible with permissions. Nevertheless this doesn’t seem to be one of those cases and operators could equally argue that it is both more visually attractive and cheaper to deploy a single big mast than to have lots of smaller ones dotted all over the place.

We should add that not all 5G upgrades will require taller masts or make any visual difference, although in order to get the most out of 5G it will become necessary to build a much denser network across urban areas. Put another way, you’re likely to see many more mobile sites in cities than before and this in turn may well attract more complaints.

In this case the city authority appears to be supportive of the work, although we’ve seen similar plans in other areas being rejected and that raises an age old dilemma. On the one hand we have various politicians, Ofcom and people calling for a significant improvement in mobile coverage. On the other hand when operators try to do something that would help, such as building a taller mast, then they often face opposition.

This creates a difficult problem for mobile operators to solve without Government help. Last year’s Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) made a number of proposals to support mobile coverage (e.g. reviewing the recently revised electronic communications code, changing planning regulations and opening Government infrastructure up for use by operators etc.). Finding a balance is never easy.

Tags: , , ,
By Mark Jackson
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook and .
Search ISP News
Search ISP Listings
Search ISP Reviews
159 Responses
  1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

    Let’s hope that the tin foil hat brigade do not slow down the deployment of 5G. If planning objections focus on health concerns then hopefully these can be ignored as I’m pretty sure that they are not valid issues for the planning officers to consider.

    Of course the same issues were raised in relation to all previous generations of mobile technology. Surely if there was any basis of truth then we’d be seeing clear evidence by now? Instead it seems to fit alongside homeopathy, the “anti-vax” movement etc as yet another branch of pseudoscience, with plenty of people pumping out fake news without a shred of evidence to support their wild claims.

    1. Avatar photo Mike says:

      Seems to be a race on between tinfoilers and NIMBYs.

    2. Avatar photo Peter says:

      I suppose you won’t remember the same claims made about smoking, asbestos, and Thalidomide all being harmless and in the case of the latter a wonderful and very beneficial drug?
      I guess we will find out in around 30 years time whether or not it is damaging.
      Personally I’ve no idea either way.

      As to the masts and planning, the standard way for corporates is incrementally push the boundaries. So you start of with a reasonably uncontroversial application, then you gradually move on to the more obtrusive ones, each time citing how it is only a “little” bit different from the last which was approved…..until eventually you end up with a 60m high mast in an AONB/National Park.

    3. Avatar photo Joe says:

      Peter you are really being absurd. Everything is tested to a exceptional degree now – so citing a few long past examples (which actually science was clear very early on had risks in 2 cases of your 3) is not making your point stronger.

      We have a lot of robust data around wifi etc

    4. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Please explain why, more than 30 years after the first true mobile services were launched, the types of problems cited by the tin foil hat brigade are not commonplace already.

      Why is it that they keep moving on to the next generation of technology as being the problem? Perhaps it’s because it really is nonsense so they keep moving the target to the future rather than admitting that it’s all made up.

      Either come up with proof, more than 3 decades ought to be long enough, or stop scaremongering!

    5. Avatar photo David King says:

      Take a look. Always good to see the other side of the argument. These past several decades people have died from the cover ups of major companies and governments. Johnson & Johnson, DuPont ( murder of their own employees – see class action lawsuit success) and Union Carbide to name but a few. This article suggests a bias but that is no surprise. If you have children you should do some research.

    6. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Johnson & Johnson, DuPont and Union Carbide have no connection to 5G. This is the sort of nonsense that convinced some unfortunate souls to abandon vaccines, exposing tens of thousands of children to diseases that are easily preventable.

      Please take your pseudoscience elsewhere.

    7. Avatar photo Richard Slager says:

      #Stop5G The millimeter microwave radiation deployed will produce horrific health effects, worsening EVERYONE’s health, and will remove the remaining pollinators. It’s THAT serious. The bees in particular will die off rapidly, per studies of bees and microwave radiation. https://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/08/5g-network-pushed-public-zero-concern-safety/?utm_campaign=meetedgar&utm_medium=social&utm_source=meetedgar.com&fbclid=IwAR1JkMsTELZOCZWW0qNdDU5wI2IStkHYtNgF1ro0u3rTsgEdqKC25pbMofw

    8. Avatar photo ENS says:

      Richard, you destroy your own non-existent argument when you refer to a 2-year old article published before 5G was even specified.

      All these articles are whataboutery for mmWave which is unlikely to feature in UK 5G for 2 or more years – and zero connection to this 3.5GHz C-Band macro cell.

    9. Avatar photo Paul Gray says:

      You don’t know nothing bro I could tell that the moment you referenced previous generations of wireless technology. Let’s just clear this up now, the deployment of 5G towers will be on a scale never seen history and everything that can be connected will be connected I mean like 1 trillion connected devices creating a blanket of radiation over every man woman and child and biological system on this planet. Even when comes too investing we say past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. You cannot use the past to extrapolate the future as processes are now in play that totally rewrite the script. Do not be so quick to dismiss the safety of 5G

    10. Avatar photo Truth teller says:

      So why are birds falling fro the sky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8Bpg6ep1k&t=3s
      And why has brussels baned it due to healh reasons .

    11. Avatar photo Truth teller says:

      Why has brussels banned it then t

    12. Avatar photo Ewen says:

      Why havd Brussels banned it?

    13. Avatar photo rose fountain says:

      Nice try. Why not go spew your nonsense to the 12th district of Rome mayor — and the city of Florence Italy, and Portland Oregon, and many others every day. the only one wearing a foil hat is those who think this is safe.. it’s called a dunce cap.

    14. Avatar photo 5Gs says:

      1. is there a particular need for 5G? I’m not sure there is
      2. is there robust proof that 5G doesnt cause health issues? not necessarily

    15. Avatar photo Belinda says:

      Do you realise that absolutely NO research has been done into the effects of 5G on humans?….none.

    16. Avatar photo steve mitchell says:

      you are joking arnt you
      as 5g kills people and has been proven to cause cancer and other life threanening illnesses

    17. Avatar photo Giles says:

      The technology is being rolled out with the health issues concerned being address or tested. Dismissing the issues as tin hat brigade is not helpful. I could say something in response like I can’t wait for myself and my friends and family to get their first brain or other tumours from the new 5g but that would not be helpful either. If it’s a safe technology as big business is telling us all I would say is well show us the proof, show us the tests that prove it will be safe, show us the results of the tests you have carried out? Which would be impossible for them to do since they haven’t done any safety tests. Are you happy to have youself, your family and your friends be lab rats for big business wanting to make a financial killing from 5g at the potential risk to people’s health? Would you have said when asbestos was invented I can’t wait to have put in my living room walls. And then later when asbestos was shown to be a killer wish that tests on it had been carried out before it was released on the public?

    18. Avatar photo Giles says:

      As I understand it the technology is being rolled out without the health issues concerned being address or tested. Dismissing the issues as tin hat brigade is not helpful. I could say something in response like I can’t wait for myself and my friends and family to get their first brain or other tumours from the new 5g but that would not be helpful either. If it’s a safe technology as big business is telling us all I would say is well show us the proof, show us the tests that prove it will be safe, show us the results of the tests you have carried out? Which would be impossible for them to do if they haven’t done any safety tests. Are you happy to have yourself, your family and your friends be lab rats for big business wanting to make a financial killing from 5g at the potential risk to people’s health? Would you have said when asbestos was invented I can’t wait to have put in my living room walls. And then later when asbestos was shown to be a killer wish that tests on it had been carried out before it was released on the public?

    19. Avatar photo CJ Green says:

      Lets hope you aren’t affected by the Tin-Foil Brigades Fake Claims. Be a tragedy for you. Welcome to a world of ignorance, Financial Greed and addiction to stimulation. You cant beat the radiowaves, but sure as anything ever was my friend, they can beat you. Happy G’ing.

    20. Avatar photo Andrew Perry says:

      All I can think of is that the 5G has already fried what miniscule brain you must have had. The US navy published a report back in the 1970’s highlighting all the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation on living tissue. Read it and then prove that 5G is safe.
      I would prefer to keep my brain undamaged thank you very much
      Unfortunately it is people like you that are complicit in trying to ruin the lives of the majority.

    21. Avatar photo Liz Douglas says:

      This is the latest House of Commons committee meeting UK House of Commons Debate on Health Effects of 5G and Wireless Radiation are they tinfoil hatters too

  2. Avatar photo 5G Infinity says:

    There are 2 observations here:

    a) the existing tower has a challenge [without the 5G upgrade] as the righthand sector fires direct into trees which will impact performance. Residents could decide, cut down tree or build bigger pole?

    b) its estimated that 60 to 70% of existing towers will require adaptation for 5G, typically this will be strengthening work, in a lot of cases it will be by adding 5m to the tower height to accommodate new 3.5GHz Massive MIMO antenna in addition to the existing 2G/3G/4G antenna.

    1. Avatar photo Amy says:

      Whalley Range is a conservation area. I don’t think anyone will want to cut trees down for faster internet. There has not been any real risk assessment on this technology for public use. If you can find it please post it but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist.

  3. Avatar photo Lisa says:

    Please read. Extremely important

    1. Avatar photo Joe says:

      No it isn’t. Its tosh.

    2. Avatar photo Dave says:

      Lisa, you okay? You do realise that link is fake, it’s lies and used to scare people. It’s not true

    3. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      I’d rather go to a flat Earth convention.

      I’m not sure if it’s one of you or some organised campaign but stop posting this nonsense on here. No-one cares about your baseless paranoia over 5G. The science is very clear. The early mobile networks were potentially far more dangerous than 5G. You have no solid, peer-reviewed evidence to back this up and, perhaps most relevantly, you’re posting this on a site devoted to broadband – wired and wireless.

      No-one who regularly reads this site could care less about your poorly designed websites full of conspiracy theories Google Translated into a bunch of languages.

      What fun you must be on a plane. You must be wrapped in about 10 layers of metallic sheeting as the ionising radiation you’ll eat from a flight is a far bigger issue than terrestrial cellular networks.

      TL;DR – go away. Stop spreading these paranoid conspiracy theories. If you think you have a point go get educated in physics, biology and biochemistry and do some research.

    4. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Like I said, pseudoscience and fake news!

    5. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      I had a look at a bit of this. Stop the use of 5G from space? Really? Any research scientist who put their name to that utter excrement must’ve taken some dubious US correspondence course.

      GPS sits in the L band – 1-2 GHz. 2-4 GHz, the S band, is used for radar of various flavours, communications with things like the ISS, unlicensed applications like 2.4 GHz WiFi, etc. etc. 4-8 GHz you’re into the C band communications satellites, oh and terrestrial microwave links.

      The use of 5G from space is absurd. That website is an absurd collection of nonsense with various citations that are equally nonsense or cherry picked.

      Perhaps we should ban the sun as it insists on firing super-energetic cosmic rays that occasionally pack 30 million times more power than gamma rays?

      TL;DR Again – keep this among your community of cranks. 5G runs at frequencies far too high to be of concern to most. Go after TETRA.

    6. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      Joe – I agree they’re not crazy. Being a moron isn’t a mental illness.

    7. Avatar photo Richard Slager says:

      #Stop5G There is little doubt that exposure to ELF(extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields) causes childhood leukemia.–> Increased risk for childhood leukemia starts at levels almost one thousand times below the safety standard. –> People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant
      brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. –> It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head. Source: https://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2007_summary_for_public.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1hl0CT4y_Icb3vyKRCcvJ6W8VCBS4RWAcxNc0PXxlEzPSVZO9Z1EwuZmA

    8. Avatar photo Richard Slager says:

      Read this report page 33: Its research conducted in order of a telecom giant in Germany. T-Mobil; Read if you dare! https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ecolog2000.pdf I can continue wit giving you links with proof! If yo are so convinced of the health benefits of 5G please give me some examples!

    9. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      And 5G has what to do with Extremely Low Frequency (3 – 30 Hz) transmissions?

      The World Health Organisation has looked through studies and meta-analyses of studies and concluded that mobile phone usage isn’t a problem.

      Repeat after me: non-ionising radiation does not damage DNA. The sun is far busier trying to kill you than a mobile phone mast.

      Your quoting something about ELF here is cretinous nonsense and an obvious indication of someone with no idea what they’re talking about. Please take this stupidity back to your, presumably Faraday cage wrapped, echo chamber.

    10. Avatar photo Matthew Appleton says:


      “The ultimate problem with the argument for electromagnetic hypersensitivity as an actual illness is that if it were an actual condition, people suffering from the condition would have died long ago, or be in constant pain. The civilized parts of the world are blanketed with electromagnetic signals from radio and satellite signal transmissions. Between AM/FM broadcasts, ham radio transmissions, C-, Ka- and Ku-band transmissions for television and satellite internet signal, GSM and CDMA cellular transmissions, GPS signals and any manner of private or government signals, most of them significantly stronger than the signals produced by individual cell phones or WiFi endpoints, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity would be unable to leave their own yards, let alone their own houses, without writhing in hideous agony.

      Then there is the curious fact that many people claiming to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity underwent diagnostic MRI procedures without any problems. In other words, they claim that electromagnetic fields in the milliwatt range cause all sorts of symptoms, yet at the same time they appear to be totally insensitive to electromagnetic pulses in the kilowatt range from an MRI device.

      Additionally, electrical devices in general, including DC devices such as flashlights and kids’ toys and AC devices that plug straight into the wall, and even the wiring in the walls, give off electromagnetic radiation, no matter how strong the shielding on the cables might be.”

    11. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      ‘If yo are so convinced of the health benefits of 5G please give me some examples!’

      That is about the most ridiculous straw man I have read all year. Absolutely moronic.

      It is exactly this level of cretinous stupidity that utterly undermines those rare occasions when people like yourself make valid points.

    12. Avatar photo Gregg says:

      For the braindead morons on here that believe 5G is safe, answer this…

      – Why has the industry flouted and conducted absolutely NO safety tests prior to rolling out such a HUGE infrastructure intensive deployment worldwide? Because its safe? (You do realise that that is in direct contravention to the Nuremberg code, thus MASSIVELY ILLEGAL)
      – Common sense tells you you wouldn’t move next to a telephone mast for obvious reasons. So why has the industry been installing them every few hundred feet all of a sudden without informing the public or getting their consent? Because its safe?
      – Why have they been “deploying” (thats a military term used to describe the rollout of weapons by the way) these masts on the down-low and usually popping overnight having been installed under cover of darkness?
      – Why is there not one independent peer reviewed study that shows it to be safe? NOT ONE! Because its safe?
      – Why have Lloyds of London (the insurance underwriters) refused to grant insurability status to the masts, meaning they are uninsurable? Because its safe?
      – Why has there been nearly three thousand independent peer reviewed studies carried out now (look on PubMed) proving it to be unsafe to ALL microbial life (thus ALL life), yet not ONE that proves it safe?
      – Why did the military used to use it fin their active denial crowd control systems? Because its safe? Or because of its immense power as a weapon to tackle and subdue large groups of people?
      – Where are your brains? In your arse?

      Do all of the above honestly lead you to believe its safe?

      Realise the telecoms industry is now the largest industry in the world, worth more than military and pharmaceutical combined. So just imagine their immense lobbying power. Its a MULTI TRILLION dollar industry!

      You can google all the above and find plenty of info. But if you need to see a very thorough and well investigated documentary heres a good place to start..https://youtu.be/WBpZFqR6Qzk

      Face it you hear the trigger word “conspiracy theory” (drummed into you repeatedly by brainwashing mainstream media) and automatically that is your cue to not investigate said subject, then ridicule anyone exposing it, and dismissing any research you see. Thats how robotic and programmed you are. No smoke without fire. So for once stop sucking tech dick, get of your arrogant pedestals, and do research rather than be told by your favoured mainstream media publications (who cant say anything bad about it due to the Telecoms industry providing the vast majority of their ad revenue) to dismiss anything that opposes it. Unless faster download speeds coupled with massively faster rates of cancer and all sorts of other weird and wonderful illnesses is an exciting proposition for you!

      This is not a joke, or paranoid delusion. It is PROVEN dangerous tech using PEER REVIEWED science, no pseudo science involved.

      And I havent even mentioned the complete eradication of all privacy 24/7/365 that comes with it!

      Now wake up and smell the coffee! This is the biggest threat to humanity EVER, and makes Hitler look like Pikachu!

      I wish this was some mere crazy conspiracy theory! Unfortunately (snd very worryingly) it is not.

    13. Avatar photo Lily Edwards says:

      Got to be stopped up. Bloody idiots how dare they even contemplate putting my families lives at risk. So darned angrey is there a protest group here in Cornwall???? Lily

  4. Avatar photo TelecomsKid says:

    Can the additional costs and lost revenue not be passed onto these conspiracy theorists when it is proven baseless? I don’t see why the provider should suffer and have to pass costs to customers happy with new and taller masts?

    1. Avatar photo Richard Slager says:

      Read this report page 33: Its research conducted in order of a telecom giant in Germany. T-Mobil; Read if you dare! https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ecolog2000.pdf I can continue wit giving you links with proof! If yo are so convinced of the health benefits of 5G please give me some examples!

    2. Avatar photo rose fountain says:

      There are no happier customers. Stop with the nonsense. You will pay the costs.. Anyone investing in this crap will go broke. This will be one of the falls of the economy.. with their smart roads with no shoulders.. hopefully the inventors will be the ones in the pile ups.. that is usually the way it goes.

    3. Avatar photo Giles says:

      If the untested technology proves damaging to human health I’d imagine the providers will be facing some hefty prison time as well as financial compensation claims. What’s the going rate for a dead youngster now. Multiply that many times. Also the technology will have to be dismantled and then tested and “fixed” as it should have been before it was rolled out in the first place. Think asbestos!

  5. Avatar photo chris conder says:

    5G will need thousands of small cells to work. Wait until the great unwashed realise that. and they will need fibre feeds too, currently unavailable due to FTTC being the infrastructure of choice in the uk. If you want real facts read what Peter has to say. https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/opinion/3026075/peter-cochrane-ignorance-5g-and-the-fttp-fiasco

    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      I presume you realise that you wouldn’t normally use contended broadband services for backhaul? You only really need a higher density of masts/small cells in urban areas where access to Ethernet isn’t really a problem.

    2. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      @CC – you really need to look at the availability of fibre circuits across the UK, nothing to do with FTTC.

      Surely you must know this by now.

    3. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      Except they won’t all need fibre feeds. Point to point microwave meshes are adequate for the majority of cells right now and there’s no reason to think this will have to change.

      That FTTC is a thing is absolutely irrelevant. There’s still fibre nearby which may be used to provide backhaul for cells.

      By the token of your logic. such as it is, FTTC shouldn’t exist either as there’s no FTTP to every property in the country.

  6. Avatar photo chris conder says:

    New_londoner – And ignore the rural areas totally? Yes of course I realise that FTTC is no good, I said that. Have you bothered reading any of Peter’s work?

    1. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      @cc – and all the FTTC cabinets are fed by… fibre!

    2. Avatar photo GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: With all due respect: At least you could have read Peter Cochrane’s article before coming up with your lame statements. You would have noticed then that it talks about 5G, not FTTC.

      This article basically comes to the conclusion that 5G requires somewhere between five and 20-fold the number of base stations. Do you dispute this statement, and if so, why?

    3. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Peter’s conclusion is hardly a revelation, wouldn’t surprise anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of 5G. Of course you need more base stations in urban areas where you’re serving a relatively large number of devices using frequencies that don’t travel long distances – it’s different in rural areas.

      There is of course ready access to fibre infrastructure in urban areas so what exactly is the problem that you are highlighting?

    4. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      @CC,GN – what, exactly, is the issue you have identified?

  7. Avatar photo Adam says:

    I wonder if they can blend it into the local environment, if that’s the right word to use. Like openreach are doing with their equipment (painting art onto the green cabinets) Couldn’t we cover these things in plant life? Cover up that metallic tower look with trailer plants etc.. Just an idea.

    1. Avatar photo DL says:

      Adam, Vodafone tried this in the 90s. There’s a mast by the M4 near Newbury that’s masked to look like a tree. It’s quite effective. Alas they didn’t pursue the idea further. I assume because of the cost/benefit ratio.


    2. Avatar photo Joe says:

      Can’t see why in an AONB you couldn’t make it a planning condition.

    3. Avatar photo Adam says:

      I’d say that looks very effective too. It looks a lot better than your typical mast. Joe’s comment hit the nail on the head. There could be certain situations where a mast like this would work wonders.

    4. Avatar photo Karon Rowlands says:

      No. They can’t.
      Nothing lives on or near these masts because of the radiation.
      Plants and animals..just die.
      You can’t cover or “hide” these towers with anything living.

  8. Avatar photo Michael V says:

    This will be the community complaining in 2020 that they don’t have 5G coverage after them blocking the Operators from upgrading. I would certainly welcome the taller mast. The taller the mast, the wider the circle of coverage meaning the neighbouring mast could be further away. I’m bored of hearing people complaining about a new technology. We had this when LTE launched.

  9. Avatar photo Dianne Fincham says:

    5G is known to be extremely damaging to health. I’m not going to list it all here. All I can say is, put away your ignorance for 5 mins, do your own research. Find out why other countries have banded it, including the country that invented it in the first place.

    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      I’m sorry but this is fake news!

    2. Avatar photo arundel says:

      Christ on a bike. I suppose you think vaccines cause autism too…

    3. Avatar photo Dl says:

      5G is banded in all regions 🙂 #RFJoke #putawayyourignorance

    4. Avatar photo rose fountain says:

      These people don’t want to have anyone interfere with their fantasist magic ideas that these inventions are safe. They think it is magic and everything is safe.. they are the type that will go their graves in denial. They need a paper approved by Wall Street and the bank to believe a punch in the face hurts. It does. They will be punched in their pockets first where they live.

  10. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    Public Health England is relying on the ICNIRP Guidelines and can’t find any convincing evidence of harm – even though 226 scientists and medical doctors believe that proof of harm is not only convincing but the risks are serious.

    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Quote “even though 226 scientists and medical doctors believe that proof of harm is not only convincing but the risks are serious.”

      1). 226 is a very specific number, please list them or provide a link.
      2). How many scientists are there in the UK? How many medical doctors? 226 is a very small fraction, especially if we limit the definition of scientist to those with a recognised science degree.

      In other words, trying to dress fake news up with acronyms, statistics etc doesn’t mean that it isn’t fake news.

    2. Avatar photo Richard Slager says:

      #Stop5G There is little doubt that exposure to ELF(extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields) causes childhood leukemia.–> Increased risk for childhood leukemia starts at levels almost one thousand times below the safety standard. –> People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant
      brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. –> It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head. Source:https://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2007_summary_for_public.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0vmYxb7Kyq86b3Wt-VTo9OEIWSXr2uqPz7ngIqb8GlAEFAt2sFzflZ1xQ

    3. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      At present there are no justified concerns related to 5G specifically, although that’s not to say that there isn’t always room to conduct further research (as is the case in any field of study), but this must be done in a way that reflects real-world human use of mobile and WiFi services (i.e. normal power levels, exposure times, antenna design etc.).

      Too many questionable studies have looked at extreme power levels or implementations that don’t even remotely reflect the real-world or human interaction with extremely low power non-ionising wireless communication systems. This is true for wireless technology in general and is not merely 5G centric. Many others also make thin correlations, which people read while forgetting that old scientific rule – correlation does NOT imply causation.

      Right now most of the work that does exist is of only limited use or vague relevance to the perceived impact upon humans. A lot of the scaremongering comes from quacks who have misread what the existing research actually says or downloaded dubious studies of questionable origin, rather than hard empirical evidence. It’s wise to get such papers from proper scientific journals (Nature, Lancet etc.), not random message boards, videos or websites.

      The result is people confusing high energy Microwave oven style scenarios / test setups (like sticking your head inside one while it’s running) with low power non-ionising wireless communications, which is a bit like equating petrol to water because both are clear liquids and share some properties (of course they’re both radically different in their use, impact upon humans and the environment). Anybody worried about 5G “radiation” should probably be much more concerned about natural radiation, such as high energy particles (cosmic rays) that can sometimes breach Earth’s magnetic field and damage your DNA.

      Obviously if you were to walk around with a mobile phone physically strapped to your head 24/7 for several years then that probably would have some health impacts, albeit stemming first from the physical pressure against your temple rather than radiation. But just like riding a bike, drinking water or mowing the lawn, if you use these things sensibly then there’s no reason at all to worry.

      As Dr Richard Findlay of the Society for Radiological Protection’s Electron Magnetic Field and Optical Radiation Committee said: “There are two types of radiation. Ionising is the kind that you get in hospital when you have radiotherapy. Non-ionising radiation is what comes out of phone masts and TV towers. People get confused about adverse health effects.

      Cancer is not a recognised health effect as a result of exposure from masts, for example. The only health effect is heating. In terms of a 25m mast, that is far enough away from people who are at ground level.”

  11. Avatar photo Michael V says:

    Everyone who thinks 5G-NR is damaging to health? Can U actually state one specific reason to what it is about the technology? It clearly ain’t most of the frequency bands as they are similar to what 4G uses. I’m just asking a genuine question here. [No attitude coming across]

    1. Avatar photo Phil says:

      These same people said all the same about TETRA causing cancers and concerns about smart meters, now its 5Gs turn, they will never go away. Yet if these people are so concerned about the health effects of radio waves why are they even using a computer, which is bombarding them with a whole selection of radio waves as a by product of the electronics and a full spread spectrum of frequencies as well.

      Strange people they really are.

      Look at the evidence around you people, life expectancy has increased considerably since the days where radio waves didn’t exist or were very limited, now we have more radio waves than ever, with life expectancy at its highest, compared against countries with very low penetration of mobile phones or similar technology, their life expectancy is lower. So the conclusion you could draw from that is that the more radio waves we are exposed to, the better for our health. 🙂

    2. Avatar photo Joe says:

      While I sympathise with the point you are trying to make the argument on life expectancy is flawed. See the example below…


    3. Avatar photo Michael V says:

      Good point there Phil. Also We or Wi-Fi hubs in our homes. Baby monitors, microwaves, also many people keep Bluetooth switched on, on their devices. That bangs out higher levels of radiation than most tech. But people ignore these things.

    4. Avatar photo Phil says:

      Exactly, its the same flaws used to decide that 5G must be harmful.

      Still, I’m expected to live longer and healthier than my parents, who in turn are expected to live longer than their parents (and have) and so on, this is despite the continual increase in exposure to radio waves from all manner of sources. If this technology is so harmful, then where is the evidence?

      What is odd about tin hat people, is that all the so-called negative health effects were made against TV, 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G, TETRA, smart meters (due to their use of ZigBee), but suddenly they are okay and its now 5G that is the problem?

      In this context, fear of what people don’t understand and can’t see (RF transmissions) doesn’t cause cancers or other negative health effects, but their own anxiety and high stress levels could!

  12. Avatar photo Michael V says:

    I really enjoy reading news from this site. We’re going to hear a lot more on 5G in the coming months & years. I hate that it turns so negative. The new generation is happening. Let’s keep to the subject on these reports please.

  13. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    @New_Londoner. Have a read of this: Fact not Fake news. Government conflict of interests.


    Here is a link to the report mentioned in the article, which contains links to over 200 studies carried out since 1996. Which the government,telecoms and all those “acronyms” choose to ignore.


    Please read that report. Kept very quiet in the media too i might add.

    Another article on 5G dangers. https://truepublica.org.uk/global/what-you-dont-know-about-5g-but-will-find-out-when-its-too-late/

    Gotta go, these tinfoil hats don’t make themselves you know!!!!

    1. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      Why is 5G worse than 1G/2G/3G/4G?

  14. Avatar photo Dan Ellis says:

    Radio frequency radiation aka microwave radiation is terrible for health. Cancer rates and neurological disorders especially in the young and elderly are the most effected by the radiation. This has all been proven in over 200+ peer reviewed studies. The ICNIRP guidelines we follow are over 30 years old and only look at the thermal heating aspect of the radiation, not the single strand DNA breaks, oxidative stress and Voltage Gated calcium channel changes the radiation causes. Pulse modulated low level non-ionising radiation is not good for you folks… Wake up! Big wireless is worth trillions and will not easily admit to this, good points of reference Dr Sarah Starkey, Dr Martin Pall, Dr Erika Mallory Blythe, Dr Magda Havas.

    1. Avatar photo Terry O'Toole says:

      “Radio frequency radiation aka microwave radiation…”

      I stopped reading at that point. What are often termed microwaves are only a subset of the frequencies used for electromagnetic emissions or radiation for what are called radio frequencies. There is no absolute definition of where the microwave band starts and stops. However at its very lowest it’s at 300MHz above VHF frequencies while in most engineering circles its at 1GHz or even 3 GHz then going upwards to 100-300GHz.

      The many common items in the industry that use radio frequencies below 300MHz include most radio broadcasting including the long, medium & shortwave bands, VHF frequencies used for broadcasting FM and DAB radio, non-directional beacons, CB radio, contactless communication used for payment via credit & debit cards, many two-way business radio communications, over the horizon radar, submarine communications, amateur radio, 49MHz baby monitors, some cordless headphones etc.

      While between 300MHz and 1GHz lies PMR446 walkie-talkies, 2G GSM, 3G UMTS and 4G LTE mobile phone base stations and handsets for transmitting and receiving, low powered devices in the 433 MHz band used for non-voice applications like car keys, doorbells, weather stations etc. and also the UHF television broadcasting band. In fact some broadcast transmitter sites like Crystal Palace in London and Sutton Coldfield near Birmingham are surrounded by residential areas where hundreds of kilowatts of electromagnetic radiation are transmitted for people to watch TV in about a 40-60 mile radius, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It’s been like this for decades but there is no evidence that these powerful UHF emissions have been harmful to residents in the vicinity. Many other parts of the country have similar sites located in residential areas with lower power, but still up in the hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of kilowatts.

      When you have a major fail after just the first six words, the rest of it is not worth bothering about.

    2. Avatar photo Terry O'Toole says:

      Apologies, near the end I should have said tens, hundreds or tens of hundreds of watts, not kilowatts.

    1. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      If you are closer to the transmitter a lower power is used. More transmitters are needed to give capacity.

    2. Avatar photo AnotherTim says:

      You do realise that the site you reference are run by crack-pots don’t you? None of them have any credibility as they promote bogus “research”, and don’t acknowledge peer reviewed research which reaches opposing conclusions.

  15. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    @Mark Jackson, Well if its all so safe why will ““Lloyd’s underwriters refuse to insure mobile phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users’ health.”
    They have refused to cover all wireless radiation hazards including smartphones,WiFi, smart meters and mobile masts.To exclude any claims:
    “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electro-magnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

    You said about questionable studies from “Quacks”, What makes all the scientists on the pro side(lets say) any less questionable when they are government and industry funded. Vested interests?

    The guidelines are for a technology that was in its infancy when set out, more testing by official bodies is needed not relying on data from 1999.

    1. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      What’s the solution, not just for 5G?

    2. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      “What makes all the scientists on the pro side(lets say) any less questionable when they are government and industry funded.”

      I’m not sure which of those supposed scientists have actually conducted proper research and got it through peer review in a proper scientific journal. The only accepted studies on this that have made any kind of connection, as I said above, often don’t actually say what certain people think when you look at the extreme test setups used. They are like treating petrol and water as identical. Both are clear liquids, but both are very different.

      I can’t force you (or other members of the public) to gain the education you need to understand the facts you read or to (in general) accomplish logical reasoning. But I really, really wish you would, rather than spending time in your basement researching conspiracies on the internet (as fun as that can be!).

    3. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

      Ok people , Here’s one. Why has Brussels dropped its 5g testbed because of health concerns.?

    4. Avatar photo GNewton says:

      According to an article dated Monday, 01 April 2019 from the Brussels Times:

      “I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not,” Environment minister Céline Fremault (CDH) told Bruzz. “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt,” she added.

      To answer TheFact’s question: A partial solution would be a proper widespread FTTP networks deployment. Wireless technologies won’t be a replacement for FTTP!

      And we all know BT is not up to this task, neither is the current regulatory environment set by Ofcom.

    5. Avatar photo Terry O'Toole says:

      GNewton: “I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not,” Environment minister Céline Fremault (CDH) told Bruzz. “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt,” she added.

      The politician in question, I presume, would be like nearly all politicians and indeed most people across the first world in that they have very little understanding of the physics of electromagnetic radiation and learnt next to nothing on it beyond what they were taught at school, and memories from then have often faded away. What she does helpfully point out however is that her concerns lie in what are deemed safe standards in electromagnetic radiation “5G or not”. That in itself is a valid point.

      However there have been decades of continuous research over the effect various powers of electromagnetic radiation at varying frequencies could have on potential long-term harm on humans, animals and plants. The development of 5G-NR technology will have gone through multiple tests in laboratories, open fields, point-to-point links etc. before reaching the stage of testing in an open urban environment like all mobile cellular technologies & other radio frequency communications before them. If there is evidence of testing resulting in higher electromagnetic field strengths at certain distances on certain frequencies beyond those set by the WHO or local administrations, then yes such tests should be suspended to try and address this before recommencing. But those involved in developing 5G-NR themselves will be well versed on the scientific data regarding non-ionising electromagnetic radiation gathered over decades, and I would be stunned if by the stage of testing in an urban environment that this was overlooked.

      Moral of the story is that politicians contrary to what they might think are not experts in everything and are more interested in making sure that when new elections come that they will be re-elected, and speaking about a possible worry to the health of the electorate usually polls well, even if there is no substance to the claim of the hazard in the first place. It’s nothing new as a tactic, it’s been used for centuries to scare communities of any potential danger of their safety. 99 times out of 100 it’s boll**ks.

  16. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    Would a massive Investment in fibre optics help? Not as much profit peharps.
    Not sure,but we don’t need a whole new wave of Radio Frequencies.

    1. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      No, because we want/need mobile connectivity. Isn’t 5G reusing frequencies and some are the same bands as 3G/4G?

    2. Avatar photo Michael V says:

      @TheFacts. 5G will be using 700mhz [Freeview is currently being moved down to 600mhz] also it’ll use 3400mhz – 3900mhz. For comparison, 4G-LTE uses 800, 1800, 2100, 2600 MHz. But 5G will use the mmWave band [millimetre wave] that is much higher. 50GHz, 60GHz, 70GHz. I think that’s what some people are getting upset about as it’s not been used before. But everyone who has been talking about health damage have not been able to actually give a reason for their argument, so probably don’t know what they’re getting upset about!

      [To put 50, 60, 70 GHZ into comparison to MHz. Think 50,000MHz]

      I hope that helps.

    3. Avatar photo AnotherTim says:

      @D.RYAN, if you are willing to make a massive investment in fibre optics, it might work. Can I suggest you invest in my locality, as nobody else seems to want to.

    4. Avatar photo GNewton says:


      What exactly are you doing with your mobile devices that necessitates Gigabit wireless speeds?

      And why are you not concerned about the health issues possibly caused by significantly increased radiation exposure?

      Would you really just dismiss test results like this one: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp-temp/tr595_508.pdf

    5. Avatar photo Terry O'Toole says:

      Michael V: The highest frequency band at present cleared by the International Telecommunications Union for using 5G radio stops at 40GHz. There isn’t anything out of the ordinary to stop the technology being used on frequencies higher than this, but there are no formal allocations for them in the meantime. So there’s nothing to suggest that 5G networks using frequencies at 50GHz and higher are to be deployed.

      Indeed there is an ISM band between 61-61.5GHz that wireless router manufacturers are looking at to possibly develop for WiFi networks delivering multi-gigabit speeds beyond that capable in the present 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. The big problem is that at 61GHz, pretty much any obstacle will absorb or reflect a radio frequency that high rather than pass through it so the range will be limited to the room the access point is located.

    6. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      @GN – maybe people will use the speeds and latency etc. for the same applications they would use a fixed line for. You need to ask the industry why they are developing it. Higher speeds mean higher capacity.

      BT now pass 1.2M premises with FTTP which should please you.

  17. Avatar photo Mark says:

    Wow!! Well this story has certainly generated an argument! I’ll wait for proper studies to be conducted, and as far as I know I’m yet to suffer from my mobile phone use.. well from the microwaves at least haha..
    As for 5G, well as per the norm for my argument I’d rather they just get proper coverage with the current tech before deploying more tech only the lucky few in cities will get to use.
    Having said that I get 4G 2 bars with Three and even better with EE where I am now.
    I just hope 5G, as I understand it promises to, will being more tech for better efficiency and better multiple connection support then just faster speeds you won’t use.

  18. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    Here’s a piece on how fibre optics can be utilized instead of 5g.

    1. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

      The rollout of fibre to homes and businesses will continue to near 100% coverage. 5G is about mobile, communication as we walk and travel.

      Your link is about fibre being used instead of mobile connectivity in fixed locations.

      Many people don’t see the point of a fixed line as they are travelling so much. Why have a mobile and a fixed line when the mobile does everything.

    2. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

      @TheFacts: yes this is true, don’t know how to solve the Mobile communications issue. But fibre optics would be a start for fixed connections.

  19. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    @Mark Jackson. The current guidelines do not prove that exposure to RF radiation is ‘safe’. They only state that there is no evidence to ‘suggest’ that it is not safe.

    It is also clear that there are Billions of Pounds at stake as well as political agendas that choose to ignore the dangers. The fact is there are thousands of research papers and calls from credible research scientists across the world that conclude that the current ‘safety standards’ are inadequate and that the roll out of 5G will exacerbate the current issue.These are simply being ignored by industry/governments/councils and/or discredited by industry sponsored research.

    I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Quote “The fact is there are thousands of research papers and calls from credible research scientists across the world”.

      Previously you claimed 226 scientists and medical doctors were opposed to 5G (no links provided to back this up), now you reference thousands of research papers (again no link provided). Either those 226 people have been very productive or your claims are inconsistent / made up, which is it?

  20. Avatar photo arthur says:

    Isn’t 4G fast enough I mean really , and the coverage is pretty decent. The 5G should be treated with caution, there are cases of cancer in mobile phone users (the instruction booklets tell you NOT TO HOLD THEM TO YOUR HEAD) The increased number of 5G masts is not only an eyesore but an increase in electrosmog, that is largely untested. I am concerned that healthy trees are being cut down to help with the (Poor!) 5G signal range. All seems a bit crazy.

  21. Avatar photo DIGITAL SURVIVOR says:

    There certainly seems to be a fair share of true-believers and perhaps even telecom industry trolls in this lively comments section. I guess I should advise those folks to read the articles on https://digitalsurvivor.uk, but these lost souls will without doubt carry on their babble in any event.

    As one commentator suggested, the de facto bottom-line indicator of 5G’s and other EMF/RF radiation’s real dangers is the fact that commercial insurers won’t touch the telecom industry with a barge pole – https://digitalsurvivor.uk/2019/04/06/verizon-targets-smartphones-at-kids/.

    END OF.

  22. Avatar photo Karlakayden15 says:

    Wow people wake up look at it this way millions of small cell towers plus antennas on every street lamp shop signs 20,000 satellites above earth for 5g too we cannot escape it..look at the ADS active denial system that uses 95ghz for crowd dispersal for the military…now 5g will use anything from 100ghz to 300ghz and higher that been used 24hours a day your saying it’s not going to harm people? The fact there ridding of millions of trees as 5g interferes with the signal also cutting down millions of trees will cause rapid oxygen levels to drop…we cannot turn this off weather you use 5g or not you will be still effected as these masts and monopoles are everywhere plus the antenna on lamp posts outside your homes which will penetrate through your walls no one is safe from 24 hours a day exsposed high millitre frequencies there’s no testing done on these and it’s illegal Lloyds of london health care insurers will not cover 5g radiation look it up research it…Brussels has stopped 5g rollout because of health concerns..why? Because it’s untested no one can be safe from 24 hours a day exposure to high millitre waves…and we all know there’s studies that non-ionizing radiation is harmful that’s just the current 2g 3g 4g networks so imagine 5g 10x more powerful…the cancer rates have tripled since 4g networks it’s not rocket science to see this…weather you believe it or not smart meters are just as bad there here for the smart grid of 5g there making people ill just from smart meters and if you lot don’t believe it fair enough but remember when you start getting ill after switch on remember why…coz you can’t just turn it off and once it’s live you cannot get it switched off

    1. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      5G use 100-300GHz?

      5G use signals 10 times stronger than the others?

      Cancer rates quadrupled since 4G?


    2. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      PS, moron, higher frequencies don’t penetrate as far into the skin. At 95 GHz the RF penetrates 0.4mm into the skin. It doesn’t even make it into the dermis. It’s also a hundred kilowatts of highly directed energy. 5G, etc, are a few orders of magnitude lower in power and most certainly not highly directed.

      That you think higher frequencies makes things more dangerous shows you haven’t a clue about basic physics. Kindly go back to wherever it is you guys learn this nonsense and work one another into a frothing mass of paranoia.

  23. Avatar photo DIGITAL SURVIVOR says:

    Forget the science. Don’t worry who the scientists are. Let’s ust look at the COMMERCIAL aspect and read Lloyds of London’s clause that refuses to underwrite any health claims against the telecom industry:

    From the Lloyd’s of London policy:

    “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf):

    We will not

    a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or
    b) incur any costs and expenses, or
    c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or
    d) pay any medical expenses:

    32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy):

    directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

    Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims;

    “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32)

    This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology:

    [This] is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

    “‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

    The policy document is here: http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf

    !!!!!!!!!!!!! As I said in a previous comment … END OF !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:


    2. Avatar photo CarlT says:

      You haven’t read that document, have you?

      It’s a policy from https://www.cfcunderwriting.com/ – a specific underwriting section

      It’s a specialist policy for architects and engineers. It is absolutely nothing to do with the milliwatt levels of RF energy that Joe Public come into contact with. Stick your head into the transmission dish for a satellite uplink you’re going to have a bad day.

      It also excludes earthquake, flood, mould and fungus. You going to kick off some conspiracy about those as well? Pretty sure my home insurance covers flood and mould damage.

    3. Avatar photo DIGITAL SURVIVOR says:

      Eh, yes I have, CarlT. Nice try.

      However, even you can’t argue with this:

      Insurers exclude risks associated with electromagnetic radiation

      It may take two more decades to know if electromagnetic radiofrequency energy is a significant liability issue for telecommunications companies, so, in the interim, insurers are treating the risk as cautiously as a downed power line after a storm.

      Insurers often exclude the risk from commercial general liability policies, strictly limit the coverage or avoid policyholders in the wireless industry, brokers say.


  24. Avatar photo A_Builder says:

    I reckon we should club together and set up a tinfoil hat wholesale operation.

    The demand seems proven.

    Could get quite a ‘decent’ product range. Maybe even a hipster range?

    My PhD was partly in VHF RF related tech: so what would I know!!

  25. Avatar photo Dee Cooper says:

    Go on then. Point me in the direction of one long term, realistic ( tested on a real human under normal usage conditions) peer reviewed, truely independent (no industry funding or influence) research study that proves that no risks or harms will come from 5g. Or that 5g will not harm or have a negative impact any biological life. I’ve seen plenty of studies that raise concerns, or are we just to cherry pick those that suit our agenda? On a wider scale it is increasingly becoming apparent that wireless tech and overuse are causing problems not only physical, but also emotional and social. How many actually read the details /recommendations supplied by the phone let alone follow the guidelines for safe use?
    Feels very unkind to label people ‘tin foil hat’ etc just because they have concerns not just about 5g but all wireless tech. As for Electro Hypersensitivity just because you don’t have it that doesn’t mean it it’s not real. France just declared it a genuine disability and I am sure more will follow. https://en.geovital.com/electrohypersensitivity-ehs-recognised-as-disability/ Maybe this first wave of sufferers are the canaries in the coalmine eh?
    What about choice though? It’s hard enough to avoid wifi as it is and yes I’m using ethernet cable.

    1. Avatar photo Phil says:

      @Dee Cooper

      What is your problem with 5G? Why are you not as concerned with 4G or 3G that use the same sorts of frequencies, or Wi-Fi, or radio, or TV or Bluetooth or any number of hundreds if not thousands of products using the medical bands and other unlicensed radio frequencies. Hold an AM radio turned to no station then hold that against the very computer you are using and hear the noise, that is radio waves of all types hitting you, why are you not concerned about those and happy to use your computer?

      As for Brussels halting 5G test beds, it is because Brussels have a very low threshold for any transmitter power over a certain area/distance. As 5G is being tested, they are exceeding that threshold and are breaking the very strict laws that Brussels has, so have to stop, not because of any proven health issues with 5G, but because it breaks the law in Brussels. 4G had similar problems and it isn’t an industry surprise they can’t keep within the law there. Still despite Belgium’s very strict transmitter power levels for mobile phones, they still appear high up on the cancer league tables. https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer-frequency-country so draw your own conclusions, I’m sure you will.

    2. Avatar photo Phil says:

      @Dee Cooper

      Geovital, another website that exists for people paranoid about radio waves which only makes their condition worse by increasing their fear.

      Yes it is real condition, but isn’t caused by radio waves, it is caused by the fear of radio waves. It’s a mental health condition. In every scientific study ever done, those who say they are affected by this report symptoms only when they think they are being bombarded by radio waves, not when they are actually are.



      “Symptoms may also be brought on by imagining that exposure is causing harm, an example of the nocebo effect. Studies have shown that reports of symptoms are more closely associated with belief that one is being exposed than with any actual exposure.”

      “As of 2018 the number of cases of EHS was in decline, defying previous expectations of a rise as electronic devices became more widespread. People seemed to be turning their attention to other environmental concerns, such as air pollution. Overall women identified as being electromagnetically hypersensitive more than men.”

      “In 2010, a cell tower operator in South Africa revealed at a public meeting that the tower that nearby residents were blaming for their current EHS symptoms had been turned off over six weeks prior to the meeting, thus making it a highly unlikely cause of EHS symptoms”

    3. Avatar photo rose fountain says:

      this Phil guy, case in point about cry baby nerds.. you said you were concerned with all wireless.. and he asks why aren’t you concerned..
      Guess he didn’t ‘see it’ lol
      It’s this madness that has been a pox on the human race, human health and the health of this planet where we cannot even eat the fish anymore..
      And that idiot poster above who thinks hes going to live past his parents. No you’re not.
      Man’s folly, and look at our planet, a mess because of these subconsciously suicidal lunatics posing as progress.
      Listen Backward Britain, get with it. Its being banned in places in other countries, including Brussels — oh the irony.

    4. Avatar photo Terry O'Toole says:

      “Go on then. Point me in the direction of one long term, realistic ( tested on a real human under normal usage conditions) peer reviewed, truely independent (no industry funding or influence) research study that proves that no risks or harms will come from 5g. Or that 5g will not harm or have a negative impact any biological life.”

      You won’t get one because scientific research (the proper stuff, not one plucked out of someones backside) does not work on the principle of proving a full negative, that is a logical fallacy. Instead it works on the principle of needing something to exist to generate evidence.

      When you see news reports saying that scientific research says that there is no proof of something, that is not the same as proving that something doesn’t exist. What is done is to use the data and evidence from experiments in the research along with related studies that are either concurrent or historical to show a statistical likelihood of correlation.

      A study that shows no correlation of x causing y does not mean that x definitely does not cause y – however the researchers and those involved in peer reviews can come to the conclusion that they are confident that there is no proof of x causing y. This might change in the future if reliable evidence in another study shows a statistical rise in the correlation, but this could be years, decades or even centuries away. Science is a living and evolving subject.

      Lets turn the request on its head. Can anyone point to me evidence that shows without prejudice from a truly independent source that, backed by a number of independent forensic experts, that proves the Conservative MP Boris Johnson did not rape and murder a 15 year old girl in London in 1993, or that he had no role whatsoever in her rape and murder?

      Of course the above request is utterly stupid and illogical. Instead of myself being tasked with finding the evidence, I’m trying to shift the burden of proof on to Mr. Johnson where it is logically impossible for him to prove beyond all doubt that he did NOT do this.

      This is why in criminal trials the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the defence. The defence can show evidence that can counter the claims of the prosecution, but it is not tasked with proving beyond all doubt that the defendant is not guilty because the court is looking for proof of guilt, not proof of “not guilt”. “Innocent until proven or presumed guilty” is the common phrase in public.

      Here ends the lesson.

  26. Avatar photo rose fountain says:

    There is no future in 5G. Sorry to tell you. Last week the city of Florence Italy has said they will halt it due to health concerns. As will parts of Rome, an Northern Italy, and Portland Oregon. It has no legs, and will be a major economic loss.
    For those cry baby nerds who won’t face the facts, a court in France has recently ruled a disability related to microwave radation. This is already the case in Sweden, and at least one other European country.
    If you want to believe Unicorns and think that tech is safe for the human body without thorough testing, then you’re in for a major economic loss. To ignore the facts as they have been coming out, with brain cancers up and child hood cancers up, and refuse to acknowlege it and cry, ‘oh those tin foil hatters think this causes cancer,’ when it DOES, just.. just go away.
    And further to chop down trees for a faster download.. really? Really? How can anyone with that kind of intelligence deserve any respect (in case you wonder about my saracasm). Ignorance is vermin on the human race, always has been.

  27. Avatar photo alan says:

    Oh the plus side if 5G does kill us all at least it is going to wipe out far more stupids than i ever thought existed and reboot evolution. A small price to pay to rid the planet of some of the trash and their theories i briefly read here.

  28. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

    There seem to be a lot of posts on here from the anti-5G brigade all of a sudden. Has ISP Review just featured in the weekend issue of the Tin Foil Hat Gazette or is someone testing their shiny new trollbot?

    Asking for a friend. 😉

    1. Avatar photo AnotherTim says:

      It isn’t just ISPreview, it is happening on thinkbroadband and other sites too. Most of the posts are promoting conspiracy websites, most of which are relatively new, and have no contact addresses or ownership details. From the use of language, there appear to be a number of people that use multiple identities to make the posts.
      I’m not sure why they have suddenly appeared, or what their motives really are.

    2. Avatar photo Conserned says:

      You really need to understand the scale of radiation this will cause. 5G wavelenghts are capable of penetrating to deep tissues of our body, 3G and 4G didnt. Also the affect on animals and bugs. They had birds falling out of the sky in Holland, they used in Korea 5G to keep wild boars out of olympic games. What if they use it on humans that way to control us one day. This is serious stuff. No more you will be a free man.

    3. Avatar photo Phil says:


      “You really need to understand the scale of radiation this will cause. 5G wavelenghts are capable of penetrating to deep tissues of our body”

      This is fake news. 5G uses the same sorts of frequencies as 4G and 3G, so any health effects real or imaginary are the same. 5G will also use extremely high frequencies, these get block by leaves and even water vapour in the air and are line of sight. This means they can’t penetrate the human body, therefore should be of no concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency

      “Also the affect on animals and bugs.”

      They will be unaffected by 5G as they find 4G plenty fast enough 🙂 What effect on animals and bugs? Have you put an ant in a microwave before? https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/let-me-ask-you-this-why-dont-ants-get-killed-in-the-microwave-9579667.html So I fail to understand how any insect will be affected by the extremely weak signals from phone masts.

      Birds and animals fall out the sky all the time for any number of reasons, besides the story you refer to has already been discredited as fake news, they were posted by John Khules who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and media sites, and it was all made up, no truth in it. You people are making fools of yourselves whilst those at the top of the fake news and conspiracy pyramid make money on advertising and donations. Join a religious cult, it’s more honest!


  29. Avatar photo Smombie Gate says:

    The evidence is overwhelming and has been documented since the 1950s when Government agencies began testing RF on Humans and animals. Our cells and DNA is being affected and the proof of longterm damage is starting to surface, whilst Governments have hidden the truth for decades.

    Even 5G phones are not safe:

    “Inside Motorola’s 5G phone’s manual we’ve found some facts that we’ve been challenging the establishment over for a long time. The 5G phone has integrated proximity sensors that shut off any of its four millimetre wave 5G antennas if your fingers get too close.”


    1. Avatar photo Phil says:

      @Smombie Gate

      Nice plug for your website which I will not visit.

      I guess the testing was done at Area 51 using the help of alien technology 🙂

      It would make perfect sense to shut off the antennas if a finger is in the way because the RF will not penetrate human flesh, wasting battery power and also de-tuning the antenna or reflecting back the signal. The circuits are designed to switch to the best antenna possible, this has been part of the design for millimetre wave in 5G from the start. I doubt though millimetre wave will take off because it is so easily blocked, and a big issue is it doesn’t penetrate the body, so someone walking past can cut you off 5G if using these high frequencies!

      You also will not need a tin-hat for millimetre waves as your thick skull will totally block all the signal and your brain will be unaffected, leaving you free to spam more forums like this.

      Guess we’ll see you again when they launch 6G. If you want something to worry about, I’d start looking into Wi-Fi 6, now there is something to keep you awake at night. They did a test recently, 25,000 birds fell from the sky, over 10,000 people became ill with cancer, insects started hurling themselves at car windscreens, you’ll not have heard about is it’s been covered up by the government. It must be true, you’re reading it on the Internet 😉

  30. Avatar photo Roger_Gooner says:

    Mark has made his website is so popular that it attracts the attention of conspiracy theorists.

  31. Avatar photo John H says:

    This is all quite amusing. All as you would expect from an beige industry apologist site we have the admin and assorted commenters saying that of course everything is a conspiracy.

    Funny then that as has been pointed out 5G standards are only recently agreed, then the claims of safety are made without any studies being undertaken on long term exposure at the levels required. This suggest the comments re made by liars, sophists or retards – I am looking at you especially Terry O’Toole. In law it is for the proposer of a change to prove its safety. This has *not been done in the case of 5G, (see statements by head of US FCC and recent Senate hearings.) The precautionary principle must apply in public policy here.

    Amusingly those claiming safety show their complete ignorance of bio-mechanics and waffle about “science” never addressing direct questions. A sprinkling of Wikipedia physics but no real biology shows the paucity of argument and proves nothing.

    I would be quite happy for all the technology to be rolled out as long at the torts caused can be directly prosecuted and the industry and its oiks unable to hide behind government legislation of non liability and planning procedures.

  32. Avatar photo D.RYAN says:

    @New_Londoner. Here is a link to an article about those 229 scientists. I doubt you will even read it. http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/

  33. Avatar photo Phil says:

    To @John H

    5G is just an application, the non-ionising radiation it uses is the same that has been used before, and non-ionising radiation has been studied and tested and it’s effects are known. The only ignorance shown here is the complete lack of understanding from posts made by people like yourself about 5G, as though it is some new terrible transmission technology never seen before, it isn’t.

    Many countries already have regulations for safe levels of exposure to non-ionising radiation, and yes it can be harmful if the power is very high, that’s why a microwave heats food, but the levels we are exposed to in the air from radio transmissions is magnitudes lower than that. Just because non-ionisation radiation can be harmful if received in extreme quantities (can cause immediate burns rather than cancers) doesn’t mean its harmful or to be feared at lower levels. As an example, take water, that will kill you if you drink too much of it, but yet it is essential for us to live when taken in reasonable quantities. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/

    Let us say this again, 5G is just a new version of how mobile phones work, the radio part of it is nothing new, all the frequencies used we’ve already been exposed to and have been tested and have had safe limits applied. The high frequencies (new for a mobile application), are so easily blocked a sheet of paper weakens them, they can’t penetrate skin or human flesh or enter inside homes, this is the reason they haven’t been tried before for mobile applications, and the chances are it will be little used anyway as it will not be very reliable.

    There is no evidence to suggest non-ionising radiation that has been used for decades and that human kind has been exposed to since the start of time from natural sources, is harmful. 5G is just a marketing term for a newer version of encoding transmissions, it isn’t some new to be feared transmission technology that has never been seen before. If you are paranoid about 5G, why is 4G okay? People like you said 2G was harmful and the human population was going to be wiped out, then that 3G would be harmful, then 4G, then 5G, so people like you can’t be surprised no one believes a word you say, preferring instead to enjoy the benefits of all technology without unjustified anxiety from conspiracy theorists.

    Maybe you should be more concerned with Dihydrogen Monoxide https://www.dhmo.org/

    1. Avatar photo CJ Green says:

      Maybe Phil, you should do better research. Lloyds have, believe me. Doesn’t look good. Doubt you’ll find it, but please, don’t dismiss what you can’t see, in all senses.

  34. Avatar photo Phil says:


    You may want to read the reply from the EU, which spells out that various studies and research show no health concerns. http://www.5gappeal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/reply_vinciunas.pdf , you will argue that it is a conspiracy
    by the EU and their research is flawed, of course you will.

    Obviously a bunch of scientists from 5GAppeal who’s job and life dedication is to research into the effects of non-ionising radiation are going to suggest it needs research, that’s how they get paid, that’s how the whole research industry works and is why we always get conflicting reports that need very careful peer review.

    There are links posted here by me about cancer rates, showing no correlation between countries like Belgium with very strict rules on power levels for RF not having lower cancer rates, in fact they were one of the highest. Countries like South Korea and Japan that have much more exposure to radio waves due to the early and wide adoption of all things tech including 5G, have some of the lower rates of cancers plus higher rates of life expectancy. As I have said before, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite of your claims, and that the more exposure to radio waves we have, the better our health and life expectancy actually are.

    I would spend your time posting in some other forums or sites where there are much more gullible people (some flat earth websites perhaps?), here we are sensible and evidence led, into our technology and know how it works. A lot of what you are saying under your different names is just logical fallacy.

  35. Avatar photo Phil says:

    In this discussion some links and references have been made to the fact radio frequencies have been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen. This category is given when something is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. So not proven, just an element of uncertainty.

    It should be noted that there is a huge list of chemicals and substances in this list, including Aloe Vera and pickled vegetables, and many other things we use or swallow and give no thought to.

    Context is everything, so maybe this will lower the anxiety levels of some tin hat wearers.


    1. Avatar photo CJ Green says:

      Lets hope it doesn’t affect you or your wider family negatively. If so, I think your opinion of this technology will fast decline, perhaps even to the point where you purchase your own tin hat. ‘Over your…’ I hear you cry. Perhaps Phil, Perhaps. Happy G’ing.

    2. Avatar photo Trevor Phillips says:

      Hi Phil,

      Your sarcasm is sad. Maybe you should try a continuous unending input of aloe vera over many years before you start predicting possible effects on health of continuous saturation of humans with 5G?

  36. Avatar photo TheFacts says:

    What is it like living in Droitwich with 199kHz being pumped into you?

  37. Avatar photo Terry O'Toole says:

    Well well, it seems that myself and a few others have ruffled some feathers? Or maybe ruffled the astroturf?

    Speaking for myself, I’ve simply explained where certain claims about the harm 5G-NR cellular technologies could do, I’m just pointing out errors in the claims and/or show how something on its own isn’t necessary of value towards them. I’m very willing to listen to technical arguments from people who have a clear knowledge of what they’re talking about. But on this story, when claims are questioned or shown to be flawed then most of the responses are either blank or result to flinging insults at those questioning the health claims or showing their faults. For most reasonable, fair people, resorting to playing the man and not the ball so early leaves little doubt about who knows what they’re better knowing about. And it’s usually the ones being called “retards” and “cry baby nerds”.

    Actually I like the “cry baby nerds” snarl if only for its great irony. Without the knowledge, effort and work from generations of “cry baby nerds” over the last several decades to develop and evolve the hardware and software that runs the world wide web, you wouldn’t have had the ability to post such a childish comment here or peddle crank theories.

    I’ve a low tolerance for those who spew out crank theories, quack claims and peddling crap (being polite). At least if someone hears about 5G being possibly dangerous, does a web search and ends up here, they can read this and other sites, hopefully think for themselves overall to make a judgement on the matter at hand.

    My work on this page is nearly done, as you can’t argue with zealots that can’t take any critiques. But I do remember around two decades ago when mobile networks were installing more 2G cells to give better coverage and capacity, there were loads of “concerned people” against them being built over claims that their electromagnetic radiation was a health hazard. About a decade later most of the same people were now complaining about the lack of mobile coverage overall and also very often a lack of 3G and 4G coverage in the very same locations! There’s a good chance of history repeating here, even though I think that the hype behind 5G is setting itself up well for a fall similar to that when 3G launched in the UK – that took a number of years from networks being launched not only to deliver half decent coverage across the country in comparison to their 2G networks, but also for customers to find something they cared about that needed 3G and where 2G was inadequate. 4G is already capable of delivering speeds of hundreds of megabits a second through the use of multiple carrier aggregation, assuming the network has the bandwidth and capacity to supply it and the consumer has a device and a good location to take advantage of it. Time will tell how its pans out.

    Signing out! 🙂

    1. Avatar photo CJ Green says:

      The Astroturf Jibe was so poor. So was your content. I can’t fathom whether you believe you are intelligent or ignorant. It’s hard to tell – read your contribution, if it could be described as such. Signing out.

  38. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

    I may be mistaken but many of the posts highlighting the supposed dangers of 5G contain odd spelling and grammatical errors which make me wonder whether the posters are not in fact who they claim to be based on their stated names. Whilst anyone can make a mistake, some of those made are not down to autocorrect or simple typos, seem more likely to be made by people not entirely familiar with the language.

    In other words, are the 5G conspiracy theorists posting here and on other sites a conspiracy themselves? Are the posts in fact a coordinated effort by a third party (state actor?) to discourage tech investment?

    1. Avatar photo Watcher says:

      Not sure about a state actor, but certainly a coordinated effort. While the names used are new, the use of language, typos, and referenced sites suggest a relatively small handful of individuals trying to appear to be a larger population. Most of the sites referenced are quite new (2018 or newer), and those tend to have no contact details, no public domain registration etc, which suggests they are not reputable sites. There seems to be a link to a handful of individuals and locations – e.g. Toronto. I’m not sure what the motives are, but the usual rule “follow the money” probably applies.

  39. Avatar photo Jake Bakrania says:

    As always when the narrow minded mainstream educated people can’t answer the seriousness of this subject, they go straight into full scale insults and attacks. If you can’t feel the burning/headache feel after using a mobile phone for some minutes, then you are not sensitive enough and damage will take its toll slowly enough so microwave lovers can say it wasn’t the manmade radiation. Let me borrow some of these minds’ inteligence and say, “Go bath in 5G”.

    1. Avatar photo Jake says:

      P.S. I don’t get that headache feel when near an aloe Vera plant(my wife has plenty of them in the house) or when I’m been hit with radiation from space. 🙂 LOL.

  40. Avatar photo Sarah Guerra says:

    I request that the writers look at the recent research in the journals they say should be referenced (Nature, Lancet, etc.), and then please look at those papers in depth to see the magnitude of published, peer-reviewed research on this subject.

    Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact – The Lancet Planetary Health, December 2018

    Quote: “Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation… is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century, and levels will surge considerably again, as technologies like the Internet of Things and 5G add millions more radiofrequency transmitters around us.”
    “Unprecedented human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from conception until death has been occurring in the past two decades. Evidence of its effects on the CNS, including altered neurodevelopment and increased risk of some neurodegenerative diseases, is a major concern considering the steady increase in their incidence. Evidence exists for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioural disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices and experimental evidence, such as the Yale finding, shows that prenatal exposure could cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour. These findings deserve urgent attention.”

    Kaiser Permanente Study: Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage – Nature Scientific Reports, December 2017

    “… After controlling for multiple other factors, women who were exposed to higher MF levels had 2.72 times the risk of miscarriage (hazard ratio = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.42–5.19) than those with lower MF exposure. The increased risk of miscarriage associated with high MF was consistently observed regardless of the sources of high MF. The association was much stronger if MF was measured on a typical day of participants’ pregnancies. The finding also demonstrated that accurate measurement of MF exposure is vital for examining MF health effects. This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that MF non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health…
    … The steep increase in MF exposure has renewed concerns about the potential health effects of this invisible, man-made environmental exposure. A recent NIEHS multi-year project conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has revealed an increased risk of cancer associated with MF non-ionizing radiation exposure1. More specifically, the NTP study found that the cancer risk due to MF exposure observed in their experimental animals matched the cancer cell types that had been reported in previous epidemiologic studies in human populations1. This finding has made it more difficult to continue to dismiss possible biological effects of MF exposure. Such outright dismissal could be especially troublesome given the high prevalence of human exposure (with almost everyone being exposed to MF non-ionizing radiation to some degree). This includes vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and young children. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified MF as a possible carcinogen…
    …In addition, one study examined human embryonic tissues to assess the association between EMF exposure and embryonic growth, and observed an increased risk of impaired embryonic bud growth and apoptosis associated with exposure to higher MF level, providing some direct evidence of adverse biological impact of EMF exposure on embryonic development….
    …Unfortunately, the vast majority of epidemiological studies on MF health effects in the literature so far have been based on subjective and unreliable MF measurements. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the past studies failed to detect MF health effects. In addition, the focus on studying MF effects on cancer has exacerbated the problem, since the development of cancer usually has a long latency period between exposure and outcome that could span several decades. This has made accurately measure MF exposure in the etiologically relevant period (decades before the diagnosis of cancer) almost impossible. Those “null findings” have left a false impression of the “safety” of MF exposure…

    1. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      You’ve ignored what I said about needing to understand the details of a study. The first one you linked is not a statement or study, it’s just a call for more research by using inflated language. I certainly found this line interesting – “Unprecedented human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from conception until death has been occurring in the past two decades” – since we’ve all been exposed to this from the dawn of the universe.

      The second study you link falls into the classic “correlation does not imply causation” trap, but wasn’t actually designed to study what you think. The author of that study also provides some useful comments for context in this article:


    2. Avatar photo Trevor Phillips says:

      Nice try, Sarah. A solid contribution, but when telecoms and technology is a man’s means of paying his bills, it is unlikely he will carefully read ANYTHING that he perceives as threatening his hard-earned station in life. At all levels, 5G is about making money not protecting people.

  41. Avatar photo Jane Eoek says:

    Stage 1 = denial
    Stage 2 = angry ranting and stupid name calling
    Stage 3 = acceptance
    Good to see we are at stage 2.
    Unless we KNOW that 5G is 100% safe then it shouldn’t be released. Please send me a link to some good independent research that says it is.

  42. Avatar photo Gary Coulson says:


    Anyone know what the telecoms companies are telling their shareholders the following if there are no real risks?

    “The telecommunications industry may be affected by the possible effects of electromagnetic fields, emitted by mobile devices and base stations, may have on human health.
    In some countries, there is a concern regarding potential effects of electromagnetic fields, emitted by mobile devices and base stations, on human health. This public concern has caused certain governments and administrations to take measures that have hindered the deployment of the infrastructures necessary to ensure quality of service, and affected the deployment criteria of new networks and digital services such as smart meters development.
    There is a consensus between certain expert groups and public health agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), that states that currently there are no established risks associated with exposure to low frequency signals in mobile communications. However, the scientific community is still investigating this issue especially with respect to mobile devices.
    Exposure limits for radio frequency suggested in the guidelines of the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Committee (ICNIRP) have been internationally recognized. The mobile industry has adopted these exposure limits and works to request authorities worldwide to adopt these standards.
    Worries about radio frequency emissions may discourage the use of mobile devices and new digital services, which could cause the public authorities to implement measures restricting where transmitters and cell sites can be located, how they operate, the use of mobile telephones and the massive deployment of smart meters and other products using mobile technology. This could lead to the Company being unable to expand or improve its mobile network.
    The adoption of new measures by governments or administrations or other regulatory interventions in this respect, and any future assessment on the adverse impact of electromagnetic fields on health, may negatively affect the business, financial conditions, results of operations and cash flows of the Telefónica Group.

  43. Avatar photo Ramona Isac says:

    We have to stop all this 5G thing. It’s a war against humanity…
    Interestingly Israel the country that invented this actually is not going to have it.. This it says enough..
    Wake up!

    1. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      More nonsense and trolling. Do any of you anti-5G crazies even bother to check your facts? Israel did NOT alone invent 5G (it was created by a consortium of organisations and research from multiple countries that fed into a single standard) and they ARE rolling it out (spectrum due to be auctioned and released by end of 2019).

    2. Avatar photo Trevor Phillips says:

      Sorry, Ramona. Three companies are getting ready to launch 5G in Israel.

  44. Avatar photo A. Hankins says:

    Why do we NEED it so badly?……so we can have driverless cars and personal data drawn at high speeds from the people?…..So that we can go on dating sites, watch reality tv, play games and download films more quickly all at once?….Why do Governments, authorities and so on really want it?….You know roughly what 5G is going to develop in to Mark…..you might be about to benefit financially from it…..you may be commissioned well for the work you do and in promoting and pushing 5G forward, I don’t know……We are being human…human…feelings, thoughts, emotion, before that we are energy vibrating and beyond that we are all as one, everything and nothing……we are natural and loving souls, we don’t need to speed up our lives and not think for ourselves, we don’t need more mindless crap faster….anyone who says we do is benefitting in some way from it or has an agenda…..as for health, wake up, it will obviously have questionable effects on us and it wont discriminate between poor or wealthy, we are all vibrating energy…atoms….however, what will be will be..ultimately we are so much more than just humans, get to know that everyone, cos its the truth….you are an amazing being, massively powerful, peaceful and beautiful….find out about mastery of mind and thoughts and the energy you are made of and use your quiet intention to over ride any effects that might be received….no offence intended Mark, I don’t know you so all the very best to you and everyone commenting on here….watch this link…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI and look out for Mark Steele and many others in the ‘know’

  45. Avatar photo Trevor Phillips says:

    This whole health worry is spookily similar to the concerns about smoking possibly causing cancer, with the cigarette producers saying first that there was no evidence and then later saying the cancer link was unproven. Thing is, the cynical bastards had known for years it was deadly. Let’s not be on the wrong side of history, guys. Over 10,000 peer-reviewed medical papers expressing concerns seems fairly good grounds for a moratorium until full tests of 5G on living plants and animals has been conducted.

  46. Avatar photo David Lapsley says:

    Can 5g effect people that have hearing aids e,g everyday commonly seen ones ..Baha.. which is a type of cochlear hearing aid.
    Cochlear aids involves abutments to be fitted into the skull or some hard wiring into the brain in his side as a registered deaf person this is very concerning to me having just started a baha fitted to my head and is due to be turned on tomorrow by ENT at the royal Stoke hospital understanding it’s not just about me but about all people hearing problems or Matalan dad as just an example and indeed all kinds of hospital treatments that people may have received that could cause problems because of 5G. Kind regards David lapsley

  47. Avatar photo Anne says:

    Vaccines are good for kids. Honest.
    There’s nothing bad in RoundUp. Honest.
    Chemo and radiotherapy is great fro treating cancer. Honest.
    Debt isn’t made our of thin air. Honest.
    The BBC tells the truth. Honest.
    Despite the thousands of peer reviewed science that tells us wifi and telephones are killing people, rest assured, 5G will be good for you. Honest. Put the laptop in your kids room with the baby monitor and the wifi router. Honest, it’ll do them good.
    Believe me. You’re stupid, ain’t you?

  48. Avatar photo Paul Jones says:

    5g is killing all our suburban insects. It’s a real and tragic crisis. Stop erecting them.

  49. Avatar photo Pete says:

    World cancer rates before wifi tech were 1 in 10, Introduction of 2g internet and wifi 1 in 8, The third generation states 1 in 4 and now with the 4th generation of dense emf signal type we now have a 50% chance of being treated for cancer in our lives. These are real facts people! I understand everyone has there own views on what’s causing all the increases in cancer rates and crazy new illnesses but without being biased here are the options of cause … things we eat? Things we drink? Chemtrails? All types of new Emissions? The planet just trying to get rid of us? New types and growing numbers of power stations and banks? Live near radio and tv masts broadcasting new types of signals for white space devices? Or more and ever growing in intensity and density wifi signals passing trillions of tiny pieces of information wirelessly through the air and through us every second? All I can say is I know what I believe. I just ask people to actually do some research and come up with there own conclusions. But remember this! The 5th generation is coming like it or not but think of your children’s future if u have them. If the same progression in cancer does occur and the tech is to blame then all u naysayers just had your say in killing half the planet! as the rate of people being cured of cancer is only half and the estimation of people getting it is estimated at everyone in there lifetime. It needs proper funding and testing by ..the government experts, world experts and hobbyists together as one so we know the results would stand fair. We are told it’s safe because of the sheer amount of money the industry is worth and how powerful the cell company’s have become. If all this tech was stopped we would make some of the biggest powers on this planet poor over night! Would this be allowed to happen at any cost?

Comments are closed

Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £26.00
Gift: None
Sky Broadband UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £27.99
Gift: None
Zen Internet UK ISP Logo
Zen Internet £28.00 - 35.00
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
BeFibre UK ISP Logo
BeFibre £19.00
Gift: None
YouFibre UK ISP Logo
YouFibre £19.99
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5593)
  2. BT (3536)
  3. Politics (2558)
  4. Openreach (2315)
  5. Business (2289)
  6. Building Digital UK (2256)
  7. FTTC (2050)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1998)
  9. Statistics (1804)
  10. 4G (1686)
  11. Virgin Media (1644)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1477)
  13. Fibre Optic (1409)
  14. Wireless Internet (1403)
  15. FTTH (1382)

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact