» Editorial Article, ISP News, Tips and Guides » 
Sponsored Links

Is UK 5G Mobile Dangerous to Human Health? A Fact Check

Friday, Feb 7th, 2020 (12:01 am) - Score 116,647
Non ionizing radiation icon

Lately we’ve heard a lot of remarks like this: “5G harms human health“, “5G kills bees“,”5G causes cancer“, “overwhelming evidence says 5G is dangerous” and “we have no evidence this technology is safe.” Such statements are often being repeated in opposition to new UK mobile masts, but are they right and should we be concerned.

The issue has become particularly prominent of late, not least because some anti-5G campaign groups have managed to gain traction by causing several UK local authorities to take a position against future 5G mobile broadband deployments (e.g. Totnes in Devon, Glastonbury and Frome in Somerset).

Sometimes it’s best to answer concerns like this by first covering the basics of how mobile, and wireless communication signals in general (aka – radio waves), actually work. Such signals form one part of what’s known as the Electromagnetic Spectrum, which reflects a range of frequencies of electromagnetic (EM) radiation and their respective wavelengths / photon energies.

Sadly many people don’t fully appreciate what this is or how it works, which is perhaps partly reflected by the way that the anti-5G campaigns concentrate so much effort on one technology. However the issues they raise are by no means isolated to a specific radio technology and thus denigrating 5G so specifically tends to confuse the argument.

What is EM Radiation?

EM radiation is essentially energy that travels and spreads out as it goes, at different wavelengths (think ripples on the surface of an ocean), although you could also say that it reflects different kinds of light (most of them are invisible to human eyes but some animals and cameras can see more than we do). How we perceive or experience this radiation depends a lot on the wavelength, distance and energy behind it.

For example, the Sun produces all of the different kinds of electromagnetic radiation, although 99% of its rays are in the form of visible light, ultraviolet and infrared (the latter is also known as heat). The heat (thermal energy) you feel on your face from the sun on a cold winter’s morning is mostly infrared and so too is that heat you feel from somebody else’s body when in close proximity, while ultraviolet is what gives your skin a tan (or burn, if your exposure is too high) and visible light is obviously what you see. Without all this heat and light we would not exist.

NOTE: When an object absorbs any kind of light it heats up as it now has more energy than before, but often this effect is so small that you can’t feel it unless it’s very energetic.

electromagnetic spectrum

We are quite simply bathed in a soup of all the different types of EM radiation (light), which is a part of our natural environment and life on this planet thrives alongside it. Similarly humans have also found ways of manipulating this for various different purposes, although some of it can be harmful, particularly when wavelengths become very short and massively more powerful (e.g. ionizing gamma rays from exposed nuclear power cores).

Take note that the illustration above is not to scale as the differences are huge (e.g. ultraviolet frequencies are 10,000 times higher than sunlight and sunlight is 1,000 times higher than microwaves etc.).

Ionizing vs Non-Ionozing EM Radiation

Science generally classifies everything from radio waves, microwaves, infrared and visible light as non-ionizing radiation, which means it doesn’t normally have enough energy (low energy) to knock electrons off the atoms that it interacts with and won’t do damage, such as breaking chemical bonds in molecules (i.e. it’s not usually harmful to humans).

By comparison ultraviolet (only the top end from around 3000 Terahertz), X-rays and gamma rays are all classified as ionizing radiation, which is more of a health hazard to humans because it involves changing the basic makeup of atoms in cells (e.g. the DNA molecules inside of cells).

However it normally takes a higher dosage of ionizing radiation before any negative health impacts start to show. For example, your skin will burn from ultraviolet if you spend too long in the sun without protection, but a thin layer of sun cream is all it takes to prevent this and brief expose is not really a concern. Likewise it would take a fair few body scans or flights abroad before you’d need to worry about X-rays.

Crucially the above is not to say that the various different types of non-ionizing radiation cannot still cause you harm, although officially the only recognised health effect is heating and, judging by our inbox, this is where a lot of people tend to get very confused.

Dr Richard Findlay, Society for Radiological Protection’s EMF 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 25 metre mast, that is far enough away from people who are at ground level.”

The other big problem here is that the news media often talks about “radiation” in general terms as a negative, which is unhelpful without some definition as to its type and energy or dosage level. For example, Gamma rays are always harmful but we are naturally surrounded by them, except our daily dosage is minuscule (i.e. not particularly harmful at natural levels) and not even remotely like the colossal dosage levels of an exposed nuclear power core (e.g. see Sky’s Chernobyl TV series).

Wait.. So Are Radio Waves Safe or Not?

When we talk about radio waves here we’re generally covering non-ionizing wireless communication systems like Bluetooth, WiFi, Fixed Wireless Links and Mobile (2G to 5G). However ISPreview.co.uk has had plenty of emails from people who suggest that 5G is dangerous because, for example, a military weapon system may be designed using some of the same frequencies (this highlights a fundamental confusion in understanding).

Common Radio Bands for Wi-Fi and Mobile

Wi-Fi = 2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz

Mobile (2G – 5G) = 700MHz, 800MHz, 900MHz, 1800MHz, 2.1GHz, 2.3 GHz, 2.6GHz, 3-4GHz

NOTE: 5G mostly uses the same bands as existing UK mobile networks above, although in the future it may harness 24-26GHz or higher (aka – millimeter Waves [mmW]).

The key consideration, in health terms, for any technology using radio spectrum (not just 5G) is the combination with power and distance. This is a bit like how Microwave Ovens (2.45GHz) use the same sort of band as WiFi but obviously they cook (i.e. HEAT) food by using lots of power (800 Watts+) and focusing it at ultra-short-range (a few centimetres).

Such ovens are shielded for safety but a small bit of their radiation will escape during use, which is why they tell you not to touch the oven when it’s running. Obviously you’d need to have a truly horrific death-wish to put your head inside a Microwave Oven while it’s running, although such devices are designed not to work if the door is ever left open.

By comparison WiFi only uses a minuscule fraction of that power (often only a few hundred milliwatts but busy multi-band devices can gobble c.1-2 Watts) to send a signal over an extremely wide area (e.g. your entire house or flat), while most of us sit many metres or even miles away from the source of similar Mobile signals. WiFi signals are thus very weak (energy wise) and soon degrade over a few tens of metres to the point of being unusable (especially if you have a few rooms / walls between you and the router – these reflect and absorb some of the signal, weakening it).

NOTE: At any given moment your body will only be interacting with a tiny portion of the aforementioned WiFi signal as its widely distributed (i.e. the energy you receive is less than the source output).

Confusing these two types of scenario (Microwave Oven vs WiFi or Mobile) is a bit like equating petrol to water because both are clear liquids, even though they’re both radically different in their use, impact upon human health and the environment. As such a military weapon that uses tens or hundreds of Kilowatts of power to focus on a narrow target area within a few close feet or metres via a common radio band is thus completely different to the wide coverage and extremely low power of WiFi or mobile signals.

NOTE: Devices like some baby monitors, DECT phones, TVs, wireless alarms and even some household lights may emit more powerful EM radiation within your home than Mobile.

This is largely why the World Health Organisation (WHO) has long said there is no proven risk of cancer from mobile phone use, while at the same time classifying all radio frequency radiation (not only mobile or WiFi etc.) as “possibly carcinogenic” (i.e. the potential exists to cause harm but you’d generally need to put lots of power behind the signal and use it in a deliberately harmful way) and hence the confusion that a lot of people have.

Crucially the Mobile and WiFi networks that are all deployed today must conform to strict scientifically agreed rules for power and signal. As stated earlier the only known health effect in humans from such signals is heating and for the most part this is so weak as to be imperceivable (note: if you feel heat from your mobile or router when in close proximity then that’s just infrared from the chipset and NOT WiFi or Mobile!).

Margot James MP, Former Digital Minster, said:

“A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and Public Health England have concluded that exposures of radio waves to the public are well within the international health-related guideline levels that are used in the UK.”

Matt Warman MP, UK Digital Minister, said:

“[The] government will support work to bust health myths over 5G, which WHO say poses the same risk as talcum powder and pickled vegetables. There is no credible evidence to back up concerns and huge evidence for the economic benefit of gigabit-capable networks.”

An Ofcom spokesperson told ISPreview.co.uk:

“We work with Public Health England and take their recommendations into account in how we manage airwaves. They have found no evidence that 5G poses any new health risks compared to previous mobile technologies.

There are international guidelines to ensure mobile airwaves are transmitted safely, and the airwaves that will be used for 5G have been used safely in telecoms and other services for many years. We will continue to work with health bodies and monitor any developments to the evidence in this area.”

Check out the NHS and Public Heath England for some more guidance. Speaking of which, radio waves are generally so weak that even lower frequency digital TV signals (usually operating from upwards of 470MHz) can easily be disrupted by changes in atmospheric temperature and pressure (i.e. different weather systems), which may cause such signals to be refracted or bounce off an inversion overhead.

One of the reasons for mentioning TV signals here is that some related radio spectrum bands have been in use by mobile operators for years. The 800MHz band (currently used for 4G) was previously harnessed for analogue TV services, while the soon-to-be-auctioned 700MHz band for 5G was until recently used by digital TV signals.

We’ve lived with these TV bands for more than 70 years, often at a higher power levels than mobile signals, and yet they haven’t wiped us all out. The same is true for many other bands with different uses.

Please flick over to page 2 to continue reading and see our Q&A summary of common points.

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
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
89 Responses
  1. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

    Quite a few issues with this piece …

    1. Likening (analogue) EM waves we are bathed in by the sun in “our natural environment” to pulse modulated, polarised digital anthropogenic emission that are up to a quintillion times higher power density here on earth is so very wrong.

    2. Suggesting that only ionising energy can cause adverse biophysical effects is false and misleading.

    3. “The only recognised health effect is heating” according to whom? Findlay should (and does) know better, but if he was real about the data he’d be out of a job, or worse …

    4. 5G is slated for frequency spectra up to ~30 GHz, with talk of pushing on to ~100 GHz. Active denial systems are known to have been operated at around the top end of that upper limit.

    5. Power and distance may be the key consideration at some frequency/modulation settings but this is not the case across the piece. See ‘window effects’ and non-linearity in dose response FYI.

    6. Few have a sufficiently developed understanding of the biophysics vs. physiology to comment with authority (even in the field). We are delicately balanced complex electromagnetic organisms. Relatively subtle prolonged EMFs can disrupt numerous (EM-linked) systems over time.

    7. See the power supply and electronics involved in some of this 5G infrastructure vs. ‘beam forming’ capabilities for a sense as to why it’s unsound to deny concerns about weaponization outright. Bear in mind that a weapon doesn’t have to be (instantly) deadly to cause problems.

    8. Wireless baby monitors, DECT phones, smart TVs, and other IoT devices often do emit RF radiation at power intensities comparable to domestic Wi-Fi routers or mobile handsets. All are biological hazards and should never have been allowed into the market in the first place.

    9. The WHO appears to be fundamentally compromised on this issue. Its spurious subjective proclamations run contrary to topic experts and carry zero weight vs. undeniable objective empirical evidence (tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKDrui7ZMnw

    10. “Scientifically agreed rules” is misleading. The ludicrously oversimplified and scientifically fraudulent process by which the guidelines to which you are referring have been arrived at was discreditable in the 1970s, never mind the 2020s.

    11. Warman + his predecessor are the latest in a long line of blissfully ignorant and on-message talking heads. Unfortunately for their ilk (fortunately for humanity & ecology), there is now a preponderance of scientific and medical evidence and Joe Public is starting to wake up.

    12. OfCom & PHE just look the other way.

    13. What does Digital TV signal interference have to do with the price of tea in China?

    14. We should point out that modern mobile handsets have been found, time and again, to be in breach even of noted (too high to be safe) guidelines.

    1. Avatar photo Lister says:

      Too many of your points are just plain wrong or misleading.. But arguing would be pointless with your type as you’re always right, even when wrong. I think we know what side of the fence you’re on here though, so I’ll just pass the tinfoil hat. Hugs Xx

    2. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      So a few responses to those.

      1. The introduction paragraphs are designed to simply explain what the EMS is and to help readers visualise it with greater ease, as well as to show where radio waves sit on that the table. The rest of the article deals almost exclusively with mobile/wifi style radio waves.

      2. True, which is precisely why the article goes out of its way to highlight how non-ionising radio waves can also be dangerous when enough power, matched with the right distance, is put behind the signal (albeit not remotely comparable to normal mobile/wifi signals). I assume you didn’t read that part, despite it being repeated several times.

      3. Findlay.. and every other vetted scientist or radio engineer in the field that we spoke with. All of whom, I dare say, have a far better understanding than yourself.

      4. The article covers on multiple occasions why it’s pointless to talk about different bands of spectrum like that without considering how much distance and power is behind the signal, as well as the antenna design for signal propagation (focused or wide coverage etc.). It also covers how higher frequencies will struggle much more to go through the environment, objects or your skin etc.

      5. Power and distance are always key considerations because you can’t create something from nothing.

      6. Masses of scientists have exceptional experience in those fields, otherwise the technological and medical developments that we all enjoy today would simply not exist or continue to evolve. To suggest otherwise is absurd. I can’t respond to the rest of your points here as there isn’t much in the way of explanation or specific examples.

      7. Oh boy.. pretty sure nobody has “weaponized” our home wifi or mobile signals.

      8. I for one quite like camping out in the middle of nowhere with only wood for fires and no electronics of any kind, although I’d miss watching TV or being unable to communicate with the world/family if that were permanent etc. It’s not for everybody. Sadly though nobody has yet figured out how to turn-off the universe or planet earth, so escaping that radiation might be a bit more difficult. Those cosmic rays can damage your DNA. Of course those devices have been around for decades now and yet.. still alive and healthy here.

      9. The WHO represents experts from across the world and its guidance is regularly reviewed, then updated. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t change that fact. They do a lot more good for world health than you. As for those “tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies,” that’s covered in the article above.. a lot of it is misinterpreted.

      10. The science on radio waves has been built up over a much.. longer.. period than that and is constantly evolving as we understand ever more about our universe, particularly at the quantum level. Describing the effective growth of such knowledge and its application through rules as “ludicrously oversimplified and scientifically fraudulent” simply makes no sense.

      11. Translated, they’ve read the research and taken a seemingly educated opinion, which in this case seems fair. Not a lot of politicians do that these days, so it’s actually quite refreshing when they listen to scientists and understand what is being said by setting policy around it. As to your “preponderance of scientific and medical evidence”.. again, that’s covered in the article.

      12. Seems to me that Ofcom and the PHE do the exact opposite and put a lot of effort into correctly understanding the technologies, applying the right standards and conducting further research. Certainly they could do more, but they don’t “look the other way” as you suggest.

      13. Not sure about tea, but terrestrial TV signals and mobile sit next to each other. In fact 700MHz use to be used for digital TV but from later in 2020 it will also be used for 5G. If you think 5G signals are evil then we need to ban TV too, right?

      14. Can’t speak to the handset side of things as I’ve not really come across that, but I do recall some reports from many years ago about much older models. As in the article above though, trying to add “shielding” into a mobile is counter-productive since the device will automatically try to boost its power to latch onto a signal.

    3. Avatar photo Me big, me green, me love the gamma rays, SMASH! says:

      “8. Wireless baby monitors, DECT phones, smart TVs, and other IoT devices often do emit RF radiation at power intensities comparable to domestic Wi-Fi routers or mobile handsets. All are biological hazards and should never have been allowed into the market in the first place.”

      I have to wonder how you managed to post on here with such a concern. I can only imagine your router is in a 100ft thick concrete bunker several miles away from your underground bunker residence and the several miles long Ethernet cable coming in to your from said bunker is covered in a a high density wrap of lead, copper and aluminum shielding to protect you from the harmful radiation within your bunker domain.

      If it is not you are in serious trouble, your brain will be frying like an egg in the summer sun. Unfortunately though there will be no way for you to confirm or deny any of this as it would require you actually look at a radiation laced screen to read what i have typed as i am currently unable to send this back to you via carrier pigeon.

      I do also hope no pesky insects which have been out for a midday radiation bathed bit of sun have managed to dig down far enough to reach and infect you in your hole. Take care down there.

    4. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Mr ‘Me big …’
      Perhaps you’ve heard of wired connectivity and using devices at a relatively safe distance?

      Lister, feel free to make a single substantive point – ideally without prejudice, stigma, bigotry, or insults. We were all wrong to assume this stuff is safe, and egos shouldn’t come into it. This is very serious indeed.

      Mark, you may wish to further consider/clarify the following:

      1. Noted, if rather besides the point. No matter the stated intent, false equivalence in areas as important as this should always be challenged/corrected.

      2. You state “non-ionizing radiation … doesn’t normally have enough energy (low energy) to knock electrons off the atoms that it interacts with and won’t do damage”. This is problematic insofar as it suggests that it is only by ionising electron transfer that biophysical damage can occur (which is false).

      3. Findlay et al’s relative expertise is unknowable and otherwise moot: point is that he’s sitting on information and providing an unhelpfully oversimplified and binary assessment, to the detriment of everyone else. Which “other vetted scientist or radio engineer in the field” did you speak to?

      4. Non sequitur: no suggestion that power and distance should not be considered (key) or that higher frequencies are not more readily reflected and absorbed by various (surface) materials. Note: phased arrays can be focused.

      5. Non sequitur (as above).

      6. Only a handful of scientists have “exceptional experience” in biophysics vs. physiology (combined). Truth is we’re only just beginning to get to grips with such topics. Indeed naysayers often point to the relative dearth of (detailed) literature on mechanisms of action and associated disease models as an excuse for ignoring/discounting mounting evidence in other areas of research.

      Technological and medical developments evolve in the context of variable application of the precautionary principle, and therein lies the problem: little to no sensible, responsible steps have been taken in this regard in this area, quite the reverse (presumption of safety). Human endeavour is almost never perfectly ethical or sustainable in terms of either intent, method, or outcome, and not all technological change represents true progress (as most would understand it). We make ‘mistakes’ – see toxic heavy metal use, tobacco, thalidomide, asbestos, hazardous agrochemicals, dodgy dossiers etc.

      If you’re genuinely interested in and open to specific examples/further explanation regarding our essence as EM beings, or the insidious impact of prolonged EMF exposure, then you can find plenty of useful information online e.g. at ‘Physicians for Safe Technology’.

      7. Likewise, at least in terms of the lay interpretation of the term; point is that folks have valid concerns that microwave base stations are being/could be weaponized (if not already deliberately deployed as such).

      8. Material differences between cosmic/terrestrial natural ambient vs. anthropogenic radiation have already been covered. The impact on personal/public health is insidious, if pretty clear and increasingly undeniable to those of us with relevant knowledge and expertise.

      You may be/feel fine yourself, but levels of insomnia, fatigue/exhaustion/burnout, other illness, impairment, and disability are shockingly high and rising vs. quality of life and life expectancy now in decline. A number of epidemics of the so-called ‘developed world’ – including the major killers of the age – are also understood to be influenced by just such environmental factors (info per the above reference).

      9. The WHO’s representation is only as good as the people it puts on its (secretive) panels and the extent to which they are enabled to work freely and professionally, in the public interest apparently limited in this area).

      We’ve all been misinformed: the WHO has shown zero urgency up until only very recently on this issue e.g. it hasn’t reviewed RF EMFs in 25 years, and missed its own timetable for the one it’s forever telling us is just around the corner 6 years back (and counting).

      Besides the introductory video presentation included in the OP about the associated WHO cover-up, readers are also encouraged to see ‘Microwave News’ and ‘Investigate Europe’ coverage for more in depth on the WHO-ICNIRP cartel, its origins, and what it’s now up to.

      More broadly, there’s no doubt the organisation does a lot of good around the world but on this one they’re clearly fundamentally compromised and it’s everyone’s duty to hold them – and all other responsible actors – to account. Such damaging corruption should not go unchallenged.

      Not aware of any misrepresentation, but welcome qualification here and also regarding any reservations with “preponderance of evidence”.

      10. Point is that by the 1970s those with developed knowledge of the issue could no longer reasonably fall back on the assumptions of old regarding arbitrary denial of non-thermal effects. As above, plenty of expert voices out there that establish how the approach of ICNRIP et al. is less to do with earnest and enquiring application of the scientific method, and growth in a (suitably broad) knowledge base, and more to do with other interests and associated anti-scientific approaches. To make sense of the quoted comment, consider the fact that we have voluminous of evidence of adverse biological effects in non-thermal and sub-guideline level, longer exposure and detection settings. See the ‘EMF Scientist Appeal’ for info.

      11. Ministers rarely read much, never mind (all) “the” (non summary), research themselves. One of their effective defences, as they would see it, when all of this does finally get to the court of law/public opinion (only a matter of time now) is the ability to plead ignorance: ‘we have to be able to rely on the advice of our experts’. See Iraq War vs. inquiries for the M.O.

      12. In fact, OfCom defer to other bodies and PHE merely concern themselves with giving the appearance of performing their main mandated functions in this area. They may talk a good game (on a very basic level) but those who follow and examine their outputs in detail know that in truth it’s little more than a box ticking exercise. See work of Dr Sarah Starkey and Annelie Fitzgerald in this area for info (AGNIR PHE etc).

      13. Point is that atmospheric interference tells us nothing about (potential) biophysical effects per sae. 5G emissions aren’t evil in and of themselves, but those ultimately responsible for knowingly irradiating the environment with them certainly are reckless and immoral, and must be stopped.

      There isn’t a sizable literature on digital TV signals specifically, but we know roughly comparable 2G frequency emissions promote various harmful effects – albeit not as bad as (multiple) higher frequency bands in some respects – and that all pulse modulated radiofrequency emissions may reasonably be considered to be potentially hazardous in view of the burgeoning literature.

      14. Check out ‘PhoneGate’ in France, and the class action law suits brought against Apple, Samsung etc in the USA, for info. Some handsets have been found to emit several times the guideline levels which, as noted, are woefully inadequate to begin with – set orders of magnitude higher than minimum biologically affective thresholds. This concerns modern handsets as well as older models.

      The key with shielding is to shield the user in particular from the antenna(s), but this does come with potential issues regarding loss of signal and power adjusted transmission compensation on the part of the device, indeed. As implied by your earlier comments, generally speaking distance is your friend.

    5. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Your lengthy post is framed in a scientific manner but mostly lacks hard evidence or references, substituting generalities and sweeping statements where these would be expected.

    6. Avatar photo clive says:

      “Perhaps you’ve heard of wired connectivity and using devices at a relatively safe distance?”

      WTF??? You are screwed your “WIRED” connection unless the cable is significantly shielded in the sarcastic but hilarious manner the poster you replied to pointed out is leaking RF all over the place.

      Hell just plugging your router in to the mains you are (in your technical but totally unproven garbage) allowing excess harmful radiation into your home.

      The screen you read his message on is radiating your eyes and if you believe (like you appear to all the new tin hat BS) poisoning you with harmful blue light also.

      You are to be blunt bonkers.

    7. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      What’s “expected” will vary from person to person but, on point of fact, plenty of links to informational resources have been provided, each linking to anything between dozens and hundreds of thousands of associated articles of evidence.

      Perhaps you’ve heard of RF EMF meters, filters, and inverse square law? Even absent filters, (relatively low power density) high voltage transients in cabling quickly drops off to negligible/background levels as you move a short distance away from them.

      Excessive blue light exposure unquestionably affects our physiology over time, albeit that the evidence is somewhat equivocal in certain areas. Not so regarding RF EMFs.

    8. Avatar photo clive says:

      “Perhaps you’ve heard of RF EMF meters, filters, and inverse square law?”

      Oh god do not go googling, mention random terms you have read and then think you know what you are on about, it just makes you sound a bigger goof than you do already.

      “Even absent filters, (relatively low power density) high voltage transients in cabling quickly drops off to negligible/background levels as you move a short distance away from them.””

      You are NEVER more than a short distance away from RF interference, there is electrical cable in the walls of your home, when you walk outside you are bombarded with the stuff everything from lighting, telephone and electrical cabling and radio frequencies. You are a complete tool if you think you are ever more than a short distance away from it.

    9. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      As above, move a short distance away from household circuitry – which typically runs down around/just above floor level or up at ceiling level – and you find any dirty electrical fields drop off considerably (as per inverse square law). Our ecology is indeed bombarded with the stuff from a variety of sources otherwise, but that’s another matter – covered, in part, above.

    10. Avatar photo clive says:

      Go buy yourself a cheap RF reader from Amazon and find out how far you are away from any RF.

      PS…. I hope you never sit next to or walk past anyone that even has a mobile phone or a wallet which may have a RF credit/debit card inside it.

      AS SAID… YOU ARE NEVER more than a short distance away from it, you are just too stupid to realise that fact.

      What you also seem too define as risk and/or safe distance seems to be based on nothing more than your own belief of what a “safe distance”” is rather than actual science of how long or short a radio wave can travel.

      People like you, are what ruin the world not science.

    11. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Short term sub-guideline and tiny contactless RF exposures are invariably practically benign.

      We are science writers, who practice and recognise the scientific method, and it is perhaps worth reiterating that the science is on our side (see unchallenged substantive comments above). At no stage have we in any way stated or otherwise implied that science is a problem.

      The perversion, abuse, and misuse of science, or non/anti-scientific themes that are fraudulently represented as being scientific, by contrast, have a lot to do with precisely what is wrong with the world.

    12. Avatar photo dave says:

      Good lord, you should be a politician. You have the skills for it, being able to use a lot of words without actually saying anything of consequence.

    13. Avatar photo clive says:

      “Short term sub-guideline and tiny contactless RF exposures are invariably practically benign”

      Much like anything you have to say and quote from your stuck in a hole ‘benign’ internet searches for fantasist crap then.

  2. Avatar photo Michael V says:

    Most people cant explain why they think it’s dangerous & that gets me annoyed. I just explain the basics.
    5G-NR uses/will use similar bands to LTE & HSPA. Plus mmWave which is higher but not ironising.
    Thank you for posting this. This is something everyone who is unsure of the NR technology should read.

    We put baby monitors next to our children at night, we use Bluetooth for many things, wi-fi hubs in our homes. what makes me laugh is that no one has concerns about that!!!

    [I will definitely give this a proper good read later]

    1. Avatar photo Alex Atkin says:

      Plus as phones are ditching headphone sockets, were literally sticking little microwaves in our ears now too. Just think how close that is to our brain, and were doing both sides simultaneously. The horror!

      Of course when you consider the tiny tiny capacity of the batteries in these things and how long they run for, its kinda obvious how insanely weak these signals are. So much so that its a constant fight to keep a good signal sometimes to the one in the ear opposite to your phone pocket.

      Were probably getting a higher dose of EFI from the speakers themselves than the radio.

      Or, you know, it could be pollution in our environment from manufacturing and motor vehicles that is actually the problem. Something with plenty of evidence to back it up.

  3. Avatar photo 125us says:

    I did get a radio burn once – but it required me to, in error, bridge the output connector of a several hundred watt radiopaging transmitter with my finger. It was like getting a moderate burn from touching an electric hob or similar and that was an ‘exposure’ millions of times higher than anyone will experience as a consumer of 5G technology. As anyone who has worked with radio will know, all this stuff about 5G is just fanciful nonsense. It’s 2020’s version of MMR causing autism.

  4. Avatar photo Mark says:

    They have become fanatical in my town, there’s no argument, all mobile phones and masts are dangerous, even though they have one, they just quote google links that it’s a dangerous, they aren’t against mobile phones, they just don’t want masts near them, we’ll it won’t work then? No I have Wi-Fi calling or the network femtocell in the house, dumb and dumber. Still they have been successful the nimbys stopping every mast planning applications since 2003.quite frustrating when you hear the networks are rolling out masts to small villages of a few hundred, and the Luddites here are stopping a small town/ area of thousands population getting a signal, the government needs to step in and provide areas like this with a basic mobile service.

    1. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Virtually all mobile phones and masts do indeed pose a hazard, and owning a handset has absolutely no bearing on anything per sae – although it’s fair to say that we should all try to cut down on exposure where possible, should be expected to practice what we preach, and that some are guilty of NIMBYism.

      We all own things that may do us harm, it’s a question of knowledge, rights, and management. With smoking, car driving etc we are all empowered through education, the affordance of associated rights, and the ability to manage risk in this context.

      Where EMFs are concerned none of the above applies: the public has been left in the dark, quite deliberately, and untold avoidable harm is coming to people and planet as a result.

    2. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      “…untold avoidable harm is coming to people and planet as a result”.

      Evidence please, bearing in mind that mobile telephony has been around in is current guise for over three decades so presumably the number of people with measurable symptoms irrefutably due to it will be too numerous to count by now?

    3. Avatar photo clive says:

      “… bearing in mind that mobile telephony has been around in is current guise for over three decades”

      Hehe Radio towers which kicked out higher power than any mobile mast have been around even longer than that. No doubt though before power limits were set for radio towers back in the days when VHF, UHF and earlier LW and AM first came about millions died. Rumour even has it lorry drivers who once had CB Radios could be seen glowing green when driving down the road at night 😉

      I think someones mind is still picking up blips and blobs from morse code and it is confusing their output dialog interface. 😉

      Mind you if the future is filled with doom feared, mind washed individuals like this i actually hope any radio wave kills me sooner rather than later, otherwise im going to die a slow death going insane listening to their nonsense.

    4. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      See posts in OP above, with relevant signposting to informational resources that more broadly establish the public health picture (with references). Can’t comment on “too numerous to count” without you qualifying quite what you mean by “irrefutably” (no desire to get into ‘no true Scotsman’ arguments with ideologues).

      See content in posts in OP above regarding differing biophysical effects and pathological manifestation at different frequencies, modulations, etc. Power intensity of irradiance is but one factor and, unfortunately for ecology (and indeed technologists), relatively modern protocols are relatively physiologically disturbing at relatively low power levels.

    5. Avatar photo clive says:

      You have not shown a single proven instance of any biophysical effects on any living thing on this planet. The frequencies and power levels used in mobile and any communications nowadays are not newer they have been in operation for near to on 100 years. Where are the million of dead people and bees from it???

    6. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Hundreds of studies have (repeat) demonstrated individual biophysical effects, and many of these are available via the data collections referenced above.

      Contemporary exposures have no natural analogue and the proliferation of 3G and 4G antennae in our landscape has sadly been a game changer, environmentally speaking. The frequencies are relatively novel, and the ELF pulse signature, polarisation, and modulation have no proxy in any widespread domestic or commercial system, vs. prior conditions e.g. pre-2010.

      It’s a sad fact that such largely imperceptible changes in are unquestionably contributing to untold premature deaths among our people, pollinators, and other species.

    7. Avatar photo clive says:

      Show me a single death cerificate that radio waves killed someone, rather than your clap trap documented THEORIES.

  5. Avatar photo Phil says:

    Water can kill you if you have too much of it
    Food can kill you if you have too much of it
    Oxygen can kill you if you have too much of it
    Exercise can kill you if you do too much of it
    Essential vitamins and minerals can kill you if you have too much
    Too many painkillers or other medication can kill you if you take too many

    All the above are essential for life in one way or the other, but can kill or make us very ill in excess. So yes radio waves used by the military at extremely high powers are dangerous, no surprise really, but that doesn’t make then dangerous at levels that are much lower used for other purposes. In the same way a high current of water in a river or ocean could easily drag someone under and drown a person, doesn’t make someone sitting in a bath of water susceptible to the same fate, and we happily sit in a bath for pleasure without being surrounded by yellow warning triangles saying “Water kills” and rescue devices.

    Context along with common sense and a mind that can reason for itself is why the vast majority of the world don’t give 5G or mobile phones a second thought regarding health issues and laugh out loud at the stupid claims from these fanatics that think 5G (they said the same with 2G, 3G and 4G) will do us harm.

    The reason bees are in decline is because the earth is flat and they are flying off the edge, thought everyone knew that 😉

    Great article, I’m looking forward to reading the quake replies.

    1. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G have all been repeatedly shown to produce harmful biological effects in humans and a number of other species. Some RF exposures have also been shown to promote harmful pathogenic microorganism replication, activity, biotoxicity, and antimicrobial resistance.

    2. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Citations needed from peer-reviewed publications please.

    3. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      “Needed” according to which high authority? …

      Spoiler: ‘EMF Portal’ and ‘BioInitiative’ are great data collections.

    4. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      I take it that you’re unable to provide citations needed peer-reviewed publications then? So it’s just links to the usual sites filled with fear laden pseudoscience?

    5. Avatar photo dave says:

      I think even using the word pseudoscience is giving them too much credit!

    6. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Perfectly able, but relevant datasets are rather considerable vs. no desire to have time wasted if it can be avoided. Whether you chose to engage with/prejudicially rubbish the resources provided, and the treasure trove of original research data they link to, or not is a matter for you.

  6. Avatar photo Oliver says:

    Good article. BBC click did a good review on this a while ago.

    1. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      BBC Click didn’t dare to post to its social media feeds, and has received numerous complaints, in relation to its highly skewed and (not uncharacteristically) superficial 5G segment. The corporation is still yet to offer an engaged response to such complaints, months later.

      That those responsible would place the (sadly mired) institution on the wrong side of history on this issue in such ways – also see their disinformation littered news reporting – is tragic, if hardly surprising.

      For info see what they’re up to elsewhere, e.g. sticking 5G microwave masts on schools in the Scottish islands and refusing to take them down: forcing parents to withdraw their kids.

    2. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Evidence please, not just vague allegations

    3. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      For info, see: ‘Pupils taken out of school over fears about 5G mast’.

    4. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      Fears are not evidence of an actual problem but, in this case, evidence of a misinformation campaign backed by Russia Today – which oddly doesn’t run in Russia itself.

    5. Avatar photo clive says:

      “For info, see: ‘Pupils taken out of school over fears about 5G mast’.”

      Genius… Save the children, take them out of the school and tell them to walk home PAST the NUMEROUS 5G masts which are OUTSIDE, finally back home to mum and dad where they can borrow mums phone for a quick bit of candy crush and radioactive brain cancer before bed.

      Scientific logic to save the children INDEED!.

    6. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      You asked for evidence and it was provided. Not sure The Times of London is Russia Today.

      You make a valid point: people need to be educated and hence empowered to understand the risks and protect themselves and their families in each and every domain. That is not presently happening and this represents a very grave multi-generational public health and welfare burden (and breach of fundamental human rights) that is not remotely close to yet being revealed, and much less rectified. This should concern us all.

    7. Avatar photo Nighjel Farrajh says:

      eQuiLIBERTY’s RIGHT the BBC’s a LOONY LEFTY PC GONE MAD MSM SEWER!!! 5G WILL KILL US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    8. Avatar photo clive says:

      “You make a valid point: people need to be educated and hence empowered to understand the risks and protect themselves and their families in each and every domain. ”

      You have a choice if you think it is too dangerous outside bury yourself in a deep hole.

    9. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      I asked for evidence, you provided some text with vague assertions about people fearing a 5G mast. This is not evidence that there is any substance to your claims, this is evidence that people are being taken in by fake news, just like some people fall for the anti-vax nonsense.

      There is evidence of a concerted misinformation campaign about 5G backed by Russia Today, which was documented in a myth busting article in the New York Times last year. As it pointed out at the time, Russia Today was helping to spread this misinformation in the US and Europe but oddly not in Russia itself – if there was any basis in fact, you’d expect them to want to protect their own citizens!

      Many of the people spreading these fake stories about problems with 5G have either been taken in by the misinformation campaign or are themselves part of the campaign….

    10. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      You make another valid point. Anthropogenic EMF irradiance is driving electro sensitive EHS people to seek shelter and sanctuary in all manner of different, and sometimes sadly dangerous, places, including underground, overground Wombling (not so) free …

      It’s utterly tragic what these folks often have to go through, environmentally assaulted, disbelieved, unsupported, stigmatised, ridiculed, marginalised, abused, abandoned, in pain, distress, isolation. The perfect nightmare.

      Perhaps you could clarify specifically what it was that you were after, if not evidence relating to the claims made about the BBC.

      Would be interested to see material evidence of the concerted Russian misinformation campaign you allege – never yet seen any in any of the NYT’s status quo propaganda pieces on this topic, just unscientific, pantomime ‘reds under the bed’ Russophobic conjecture.

      That Russia Today has, to its credit, carried both sides of the argument means nothing, per sae. The regulatory and advisory picture in Russia is actually pretty good and improving, relative to other parts of the world, but there’s always room for improvement.

      Completely agree that “many of the people spreading these fake stories about problems with 5G have either been taken in by the misinformation campaign or are themselves part of the campaign”, only these tend to be naysayers in our (fairly considerable) experience.

      Big wireless has spent billions lobbying and have many influential friends in the military, security, and political communities. Money talks. Ethics walk.

    11. Avatar photo clive says:

      “Anthropogenic EMF irradiance is driving electro sensitive EHS people to seek shelter ”

      More claptrap, the planet is and was subjected to radiation and radio waves long before mankind even walked on it, so how these individuals with their unproven aliments even know its down to modern tech or just natural things (like sunlight) i guess only they and their tin foil hats know.

    12. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Please see PowerWatch’s ‘Basic Guide to EMFs’ for your information.

    13. Avatar photo clive says:

      I do not have to go down a rabbit hole of stupid conspiracy internet searching like you have… The Earths core is magnetic, it generates an field. The sun emits radiation, it has since its birth you cretin. All ife on this planet has always been subjected to radiation and magnetic and RF fields, what you deem a dose which is safe you still have no proof of. What you think causes harm has never been proven to have affected any life.
      You are a whack job trying to convince people of logic to believe in fantasies, unicorn farts and pixie dust. You have no evidence to prove anything you state.

  7. Avatar photo joe says:

    A heroic effort Marc, heopefully it will be of some use to those with common sense but when you’re dealing with the tin foilers there’s no helping them.

    1. Avatar photo joe says:

      Sorry Mark. I deal with several Marc’s and had a brain freeze.

  8. Avatar photo CarlT says:

    Mark: I want to thank you for taking the time to write this.

    It’s easy to be some random anonymous crank on the Internet, quite a different matter to take them on in public and put your name behind your comments.

    If it weren’t 5G it’d be something else. For whatever reason people always seem to need something to get paranoid about. The largest radiation sources most of us encounter remain the radioactive isotopes in/leaking out from the ground beneath our feet and the giant fusion reactor in the sky.

    1. Avatar photo AnotherTim says:

      Don’t forget bananas – all bananas give off beta rays, which are more harmful than radio waves.

    2. Avatar photo Jon says:


    3. Avatar photo Me big, me green, me love the gamma rays, SMASH! says:

      #FreeYellowPotassiumRadioactiveIsotopes4All 🙂

  9. Avatar photo dave says:

    This is a great article but sadly the people who need to read it will already have their minds made up.

    A lot of those same people probably also:

    Get little to no exercise
    Eat highly processed food

    … and do a whole load of other things which are proven to be bad for them, yet they focus on the imaginary dangers of 5G.

  10. Avatar photo orms says:

    eQuiLIBERTY – stay indoors and stock up on tinfoil… Your path is going to get a lot more bumpier!

  11. Avatar photo Adam says:

    Great article! There won’t be many of those who read this article, and believe 5g has adverse effects be converted. But, it will have an impact on the small few that are concerned about it. Some people like hysteria and won’t even bother reading and still comment. Articles like this are good, even if it helps the small few who can think for themselves and actually read the evidence. There’s still a few that can be saved.

  12. Avatar photo Meadmodj says:

    I know I will get berated but like most subjects these days the debate gets very polarised and stifles any reasonable discussion.

    We have been bathing ourselves in mega watt terrestrial TV and VHF radio for decades and we are far more at risk from the air we breath, the processed food we eat or that a lot of us simply don’t drink enough water each day. But to say EMF/RF is totally safe is also wrong. If it was we wouldn’t have ICNIRP guidelines and UK legislation to protect workers from long or high exposure. Our own PHfE statement says there is no consistent evidence not that there isn’t evidence. ICNIRP guidelines are constantly under review and a revised status will be published shortly https://www.icnirp.org/en/frequencies/high-frequency/index.html (I am not expecting anything to change).

    The French government legislated that WIFI should not be used in establishments (such as a nursery) with children under 3 (soft skulls etc). Whether this was based on evidence or public fear I don’t know but it shows that a specific use of RF needs to be explained and if something changes in the public mind, such as 5G, its not left to media (traditional and social) headlines which are more about ratings that any interest in the subject. Remember people have always been wary of large transmitters near their home and with 5G announcements saying that we are proposing transmitters on every lamp post, it needs to be clearly explained what the difference is and why people should not be concerned. In addition it has to be acknowledged by those that totally dismiss any health issue that the current guidelines are based on the heating effect on human tissue rather than any biological effects which are only now starting to be investigated. There are gaps in our knowledge and if you leave a void something like unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy will fill it.

    Our public use of all RF including 5G, WIFI etc poses no meaningful risk as long as the regulations and ICNIRP guidelines are followed but equally we should always ensure that they are being adhered to, that unlicensed bands are not abused (unauthorised imports, incorrectly configured etc) or that appropriate advice on the way we use our devices is not just dismissed.

    If there are fears out there then it shows we are not doing enough to explain the relevant technology, it’s relative risks, how the risks have been quantified and how miniscule they are in relation to the other risks in our everyday life.

    1. Avatar photo Me big, me green, me love the gamma rays, SMASH! says:

      “The French government legislated that WIFI should not be used in establishments (such as a nursery) with children under 3 (soft skulls etc). Whether this was based on evidence or public fear I don’t know but it shows that a specific use of RF needs to be explained”

      Oh please…
      I hope the nursemaids there are not heating little François bottle up in a microwave then.

      Oh and the Nursery better be in complete and utter darkness, we would not want the fragile skulls absorbing the nasty ultraviolet rays, and infrared rays from lighting.

      I hope little François also only has a cardboard box to play with like when i was a kid and no new fangled electronic toy that sends him to sleep playing nursery rhymes. Otherwise his brain is going to complete mush before he is 5 years old from all the EM Radiation.

      Oh and by god if they do allow baby François to have his electronic pacifier i hope its not powered with a Lithium battery, would be such a shame if he decided to chew that toy mid-teething and have a dose of that for lunch.

      Perhaps it would be far better to just give him a lead pencil to nom on like when i was a kid and nursy instead of checking their DANGEROUS smart phone for when home time is due can have a nice radium glow in the dark clock to go with the no UV policy.

      There i have saved ALL the children and their (or rather the adults) soft skulls.


    2. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Recognise the relatively measured comments but unfortunately you’ve contradicted yourself in suggesting that we have only just begun to investigate non-thermal biological effects (incorrect) vs. your rather bold (unqualified) assertion that they pose “no meaningful risk” (also mistaken).

      In fact much of the literature dates back decades (some of it 50+ years) and runs to thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies: the bulk of which demonstrate harmful biological effects. For further info, please see above contributions.

    3. Avatar photo Pezza says:

      This is a good post, it clearly states the issue, just because their hasn’t been anything found yet, does NOT mean it doesn’t exist when it’s not actively being looked for!
      An awful lot of scientists have out their names the concern over 5G, and many claim it’s not the same as LTE et al, it’s due to this we do need those studies thoroughly carried out before we do out a cellular 5G point in every lamp post across the country.. because that’s what they want to do, and run everything off it!

    4. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      “just because their [sic] hasn’t been anything found yet, does NOT mean it doesn’t exist”

      That’s the ultimate logic of the conspiracy theorist: there’s absolutely no evidence to back up my claim but ….. !

    5. Avatar photo Meadmodj says:

      Whether you like it or not the ICNIRP is the recognised body to which authorities will refer.

      I have personally held views regarding the RF use in my home and choose to measure ambient levels, ensure devices are positioned with the minimum impact and ensure devices are turned off when not needed (e.g at night). I have no evidence simply a personal position, certainly not shared by contributors to this site, industry or Government advice. But still I wouldn’t be without my gadgets (some of which are now WIFI only), SONOS music system etc.

      The ambient level of an RF sweep in my house is 0.06mw/m2 but can rise to 58mw/m2 when very close to certain devices (routers. WIFI APs, WIFI Cams etc). If I walk the streets and lanes near me I rarely get it to read above the same ambient level and aware from housing is lower. If I stand directly under a local mobile mast I get 1.8mw/m2 if I walk away just 10 yards it drops to 0.58mw/m2. Unscientific yes, but what its indicating to me is that devices in my house are transmitting over 32 times the power than I could experience the street.

      My iPhone at idle will wake and try to contact the mast about twice a second and transmits at 58mw/m2. The issue here is that the device is used next to my head (proximity), could be left close to me on a bed side table (duration) and is pulsating. What effect this has I do not know and I would like more research but it is clearly showing to me that my phone is transmitting 100 times more than the RF directly under the mobile mast.

      As with many topics in the media we get sensationalised headlines. When you dig deeper you simply find lazy journalism where everyone is just plagurising each others articles. There are never any citations or direct references to the lead researcher or paper. A while back I had access to academic research papers and I did find at the time papers on using pulsating RF to treat Altzeimers and Parkinsons which were interesting but as shown by my daughter’s research for her dissertation some papers beggar belief. Often the Abstract does not relate to the body of the report and sometimes the conclusion is different again. My daughter found one that supported her dissertation but when we looked the data they had vegetarians who ate poultry regularly. I reviewed other papers for her and there were errors, imaginative manipulation of data and with my uneducated eye obvious covariants either not statistically analysed or simply missing.

      Therefore we must move to factual statements based on sound, peer reviewed research that can stand up to scrutiny and independent review by organisations such as ICNIRP (regardless of their representation). If the evidence is there and repeatable they would have to take notice. But be aware if the research is not up to standard, that it and any other study built upon it will be rightly discredited.

      As far as risks are concerned we need to put all this into concept. Late last year I visited a car auction in North London, as it was across town I went by train. As soon as I got out the train I could smell and taste the pollution as I walked up the main road to the auction. Again unscientific but you get my drift.

    6. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Thanks for your further thoughts and sharing details of your measurements.

      Fair play to you for adopting an eminently sensible precautionary approach. Perhaps needless to say, you are not alone: this issue is gradually registering in the public consciousness and a growing number of households are doing likewise – there will be others users of this site who take certain precautions also.

      Even the industry is starting to get in on the act now, such as certain WiFi router manufacturers who now suggest that consumers site appliances well away from bedrooms and communal areas (and with good reason).

      As you intimate, we should all be conscious of device emissions in and around the bed/bedroom, and this includes lower frequency fields e.g. from chargers/any other mains powered electronics that have transformers. To understand the effect EMFs can have please see the informational resources provided in the posts above.

      Many of us struggle to be without our gadgets but, as you may know, it’s often possible to utilise relatively safe and sustainable wired connectivity and, ultimately, what is more important to us: the ‘latest and greatest’ of personal, familial, and public health, wellbeing, and vitality? Incidentally, there is evidence of interaction effects and enhanced risk associated with co-exposure to anthropogenic EMFs and other forms of environmental pollution, including air pollution.

      As others have correctly pointed out: the generations coming up are now being introduced to, and swiftly becoming hooked on, this technology and no-one seems to be batting an eyelid. Whether one accepts that RF is insidiously toxic to every form of life ever studied (and it is), such unchecked trends should concern us all.

      EMFs can have therapeutic as well as pathological effects. Regarding your comments about shoddy methodology etc, suffice to say the literature in this area has been muddied by deliberate attempts to pervert the science on the part of relevant special interests and their puppets. The proportion of studies finding effects rises from the majority to the vast majority when you strip out industry funded studies, and higher still when you focus on only independently organised studies.

      ICNIRP are not independent of the military and industry. Their proclamations are flawed in a number of key respects, each of which individually discounts the validity of their conclusions and/or fatally undermines their credibility (never mind their authority). Period. Not only is the evidence there, and not only is it repeatable, but it has been repeated (see above posts). ICNIRP et al. simply don’t want to know.

      As far as risks are concerned we need to put all this into concept. Late last year I visited a car auction in North London, as it was across town I went by train. As soon as I got out the train I could smell and taste the pollution as I walked up the main road to the auction. Again unscientific but you get my drift.

    7. Avatar photo Meadmodj says:

      I also said “we must move to factual statements based on sound, peer reviewed research”. I have looked and looked (included on restricted empirical sites) and will follow any links I see but all I find is opinion or grouping of disparate examples as if it means more, but again with no citations that I can fully review. I have probably looked at most of the references you and others provide but currently unimpressed..

      As for ICNIRP yes they are biased but some of those claim 5G is unsafe also have conflicts of interest.

      I may be interested in RF but it is very low on my agenda after all the stuff I have been exposed to over the years such as asbestos, mad cows disease, DuPont/Teflon etc and the real challenge of the day which is survival (Climate change) for our grand children. But that can be debated elsewhere.

    8. Avatar photo clive says:

      “I have been exposed to over the years such as asbestos, mad cows disease, DuPont/Teflon etc and the real challenge of the day which is survival (Climate change) for our grand children. But that can be debated elsewhere.”

      Perhaps when he can actually show harm or death like all those things have been shown he will have a point to his 5G is going to kill us all claptrap, until then he is in lala land.

    9. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      Ah, in that case do check out the resources provided. ‘Physicians for Safe Technology’ is a good introductory one for disease area grouping, whereas ‘BioInitiative’ research summaries provide more in depth on particular pathological associations at grouped exposure settings (for the more technically minded and methodical).

      We have yet to come across any material conflicts of interest in terms of the main go-to resources cited, but it’s perfectly possible they exist. What matters most, as you intimate, is the raw empirical data: and that’s pretty clear. From a scientific philosophical POV we have more than enough evidence at least to listen to expert voices urging precaution, and to consider the wisdom in some of the advice (balancing other needs).

      INTERPHONE (2010) shows glioma risk increase of up to 400% in high vs. low mobile phone call time (exposure). Research since that time shows that high grade (deadly) GBM tumours are implicated. GBM incidence has shot up in the UK and elsewhere in recent years.

      This is just one example, numerous disease groups are understood to be influenced by chronic exposure and perhaps the most troubling is the impact on neurodegenerative disease – all of a sudden the major killer of our time across much of the so-called ‘developed world’.

    10. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      Nice to have an example paper for once (as opposed to links going to youtube videos or opinion articles by anti-5G campaigners), as that can be independently analysed. In this case the study was based off interviews with sufferers of glioma or meningioma. Firstly and as per the article above, surveys like this are limited in what they can show and tell you (i.e. correlation is not causation).

      So even the INTERPHONE (2010) authors recognised, alongside ICNIRP, that “the baises and errors in the study preclude a causal interpretation of the results.” But nevertheless you’ve (@eQuiLIBERTY) just gone and misinterpreted the findings, which is what our article above warns against.


      As a related summary here explains:


      “Conclusions – Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”

    11. Avatar photo clive says:

      “INTERPHONE (2010) shows glioma risk increase of up to 400% in high vs. low mobile phone call time (exposure).”

      LOL what is high call time and what is low call time?

      Is it ok under tin hat science to make 3 calls of 20 mins a time over a 24 hour period (IE one hour total call time) but not make a single 1 hour call in one go??? Errrrr i would still be exposed to the same amount of brain tumour inducing rays according to you and the crank jobs.

      You and your “proof” makes as much sense as an ice pack to keep the poisoned tea warm.

    12. Avatar photo eQuiLIBERTY says:

      INTERPHONE shows associations across datasets that point to causal links but do not, in themselves, establish a firm basis for the affirmation of direct causation, indeed. However, it does not stand alone, as you are aware. Plenty of supporting evidence, across multiple species and in different pertinent areas of research, including: mechanistic, pathology histological, disease outcome incidence, and various other epidemiological datasets. If you are interested in relevant specific publications then you might like to take a look at ‘Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102)’.

      Effects are understood to be cumulative, so such exposures may promote comparable risks (more research is needed), albeit that longer duration exposures are liable to promote relatively unrecoverable neurological and mutagenic damage owing to the relative inability of the subject’s compensatory physiological processes to cope over/after relatively prolonged exposure periods.

    13. Avatar photo clive says:

      “so such exposures may promote comparable risks (more research is needed),”

      You may or may not be more likely to die staring at your computer screen and replying constantly with unproven theory. You seem happy to take the risk though even though its as you say “unproven” what level and amount of RF is safe, so who knows what your screen may be doing to you. Ponders the question why you are happy to fry what little braincells you have left sat on your backside but are worried about people making phone calls. Then again i do not think you are that worried but rather just a daft little web tweep looking for a pointless argument and unable to present it in a logical winning fashion.

  13. Avatar photo James Harkin says:

    Watch this presentation by Mark Steele:



    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:


  14. Avatar photo James Harkin says:

    Please watch this presentation by Ian R Crane:



    1. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:


    2. Avatar photo The Facts says:

      Connection between LED streetlights and 5G?

  15. Avatar photo Pezza says:

    Thank you for your article Mark, but I have to say you haven’t done anything to put off my thoughts about the health impact mmW waves will have on me from 5G, simply stating they lose power quickly isn’t very convincing or reassuring, when they quite literally are planning to put one on every lamp post almost.

    1. Avatar photo Pezza says:

      I hope they do actually properly test mmW 5G waves before deploying it in the U.K.

    2. Avatar photo New_Londoner says:

      “ when they quite literally are planning to put one on every lamp post almost”

      Whilst densities will be higher in some locations, one transmitter per lamppost is quite literally not true.

      As for your fears about mm waves, Mark has outlined some of the relevant science, what exactly is your issue, preferably from a scientific perspective?

    3. Avatar photo Pezza says:

      It’s untested, that’s a fact, it’s safety s being based on old data. As I said I hope it’s properly tested. Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise, and yes they are planning on putting booster stations on every lamp post.. they want to use the tech so self driving cars can talk to each other etc. Plus every gadget you own use the network, the only way it’ll work is with massive widespread reliable coverage from thousands and thousands of stations.

    4. Avatar photo dave says:


      “and yes they are planning on putting booster stations on every lamp post”

      Absolute garbage.

      For starters it isn’t economical.

      Secondly, there aren’t even lamp posts everywhere!

      Thirdly, most lamp posts are close enough together that there would be no need to put a transceiver on each one anyway.

      Finally, driverless cars (which are overhyped and won’t be filling our roads for another couple of decades anyway — by which time we’ll be approaching 8th gen networks) will more than likely talk directly to each other rather than via a network. A network adds another point of potential failure, congestion and delay. That’s perfectly fine for things like traffic information but not fine for safety critical communications.

    5. Avatar photo Pezza says:

      Dave, you do know that Tesla cars can already drive themselves right? And everyone else is at the next level down from it and are only waiting for approval to go full driverless cars right? So your the one taking balderdash and seem to not be enlightened with modern tech.

    6. Avatar photo dave says:


      It’s idiots thinking that Tesla cars can fully drive themselves that cause accidents that you see reported every so often.

      ALL driverless cars are currently at a relatively primitive stage where even with perfect road markings, signs etc, things can still go wrong. I seem to recall a particular location (possibly California) where for some reason Tesla cars would suddenly swerve towards a crash barrier when approaching an off-ramp (I can’t be bothered to find the link now, but there have been a few things reported like this).

      Straight from Tesla’s UK web site:

      “All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.”

      Note that it says:

      1. They have the hardware to fully self drive, no mention of the software being up to it
      2. Full self-driving is in the future
      3. Even then it will cover “almost all circumstances”, not all

      We are a LONG way off cars that can fully drive themselves in all realistic circumstances, rather than the ideal and generally simple and predictable scenarios they are currently tested in.

  16. Avatar photo Nighjel Farrajh says:

    5G is a EUSSR / Chinese COMMUNIST plot, designed to render men in the Christian West INFERTILE!!!!!!! They’ll have to take my MANHOOD out of my COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!! RULE BRITANNIA!!!!!!

    1. Avatar photo dave says:

      Of course it is, that’s why there is no 5G planned for Russia or China.

      Not to mention, who are the Chinese going to sell all their goods to if they kill off the west?

      GET. A. GRIP.

  17. Avatar photo When will cosmos update their website? says:

    For those who claim wireless tech is safe might be liable for litigation in the future because there is NO evidence.
    I quote from the only viable long term study still being done:
    “Widespread use of mobile phones in society has been a relatively recent phenomenon. There are still unanswered questions about whether this new technology causes any long-term health effects. As such, many health agencies worldwide have endorsed the need for this kind of study, including the World Health Organisation (WHO). Through COSMOS, we will be able to resolve the current uncertainties about the possibility of long-term health effects caused by mobile phone technology. For more detailed information about the research background to the study please click here.” http://www.ukcosmos.org/participants

    1. Avatar photo dave says:

      There is no evidence to the contrary either.

      “As such, many health agencies worldwide have endorsed the need for this kind of study, including the World Health Organisation (WHO)” — Yes this kind of study is definitely needed, to put this issue to bed finally!

  18. Avatar photo steve lukacs says:

    5G kill all life fact, it is used on the battle field as a weapon and was first thought up as weapon.
    Wake up people walk around our countryside the trees are dying the bugs are dying we are dying, if we cant live in harmony with the creatures then we deserve to die as well. Google and main stream media say it’s a conspiracy that its dangerous, they just say what there told to say.
    I lost a cousin to brain cancer that I am sure had something to do with microwave radiation, his wife died 6 months before him.

  19. Avatar photo RYAN says:

    The link above is A discussion from “The Lancet” on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields.

    The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects.

    However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,2 which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous.

    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 neurodevelopment14 and increased risk of some neurodegenerative diseases,15 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,14 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.16 These findings deserve urgent attention.

  20. Mark-Jackson Mark Jackson says:

    No doubt you’ll ignore what proper testing and independent science tries to tell you as it doesn’t fit into the “alternative facts” basket than anti-5G campaigners try to use, but here’s some of the most recent:



    By comparison your lot are now going around blaming COVID-19 on 5G, which is one of the single most vile and absurd things I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Next you’ll be blaming Brexit on 5G, but why stop there.. just make up something. Why not, 5G causes aids? 5G causes farts? So many options. The claims are now so completely bonkers as to have no merit left whatsoever.

Comments are closed

Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £25.00
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £26.50 - 27.00
Gift: None
Sky Broadband UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £27.99
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
New Forum Topics
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 £21.99
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5634)
  2. BT (3544)
  3. Politics (2572)
  4. Openreach (2322)
  5. Business (2298)
  6. Building Digital UK (2262)
  7. FTTC (2052)
  8. Mobile Broadband (2007)
  9. Statistics (1809)
  10. 4G (1696)
  11. Virgin Media (1651)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1482)
  13. Fibre Optic (1413)
  14. Wireless Internet (1408)
  15. FTTH (1382)

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