» Editorial Article, ISP News » 

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

Friday, February 7th, 2020 (12:01 am) - Score 112,687
Non ionizing radiation icon

We should point out that modern mobile handsets and related equipment tend to contain additional shielding and must conform to strict standards, which must factor in the risks (mobile signals tend to be very safely within this guidance).

Nevertheless most people agree that you should still observe some common sense when handling such things, so no sleeping on top of your mobile phone at night and don’t strap that WiFi router to your head 24/7 with tape (we’ve yet to see anybody do this but there’s always.. somebody).

Not that you’d suffer any ill health impact from the signal itself if you did the above, but keeping some distance between yourself and the device just helps to minimise any perceived risk, however small that may already be. At this point it may help if we try to answer some of the most common concerns about 5G health fears.

Q. Won’t those new millimeter Wave bands at a higher frequency fry my brain?

When it comes to 5G a lot of the concern has tended to centre around the mmW bands, which are fairly new to mobile networks (albeit not WiFi via the 60GHz using 802.11ad standard). But one thing to remember here is that higher frequency signals don’t travel as far and are more easily disrupted than lower frequency ones, thus mmW is usually considered better for focused fixed wireless links than for a mobile environment.

In order to maximise the performance and coverage of mmW a mobile operator will have to deploy a very dense network of masts, small cells and base stations (i.e. only really viable in busy urban areas), which is extremely expensive and difficult to supply (no major UK mobile operators have done this.. yet). All of this is just to get a limited amount of short-range low power urban coverage, which won’t go through solids (e.g. walls) and will likewise struggle to go through your skin.

Opponents of 5G often fear the impact of spreading mini 5G stations, but as above it could be argued that mmW is even less of a threat to you than any perceived fears about the existing lower frequency mobile bands. Certainly it should be easier to hinder the passage of such bands and by having a denser network your Smartphone may actually dial down its own power output because it can get a stronger signal.

One irony here is that people who buy mobile cases with extra radiation shielding merely cause the device to automatically boost its signal output in order to compensate as it tries to maintain reception.

Q. What about those videos of 5G killing birds on the internet?

So far as we could tell they’re almost all unsubstantiated (at least in terms of any independently verified connection to 5G) and most seem to occur during migrations (i.e. mass bird movements), where it’s sadly not uncommon for birds to die while piling into large glass windows or becoming confused at night by bright lights.

A few years ago some people blamed a 5G test in the Netherlands on the deaths of hundreds of birds. The birds were checked and instead it was found that they had been eating not only the non-poisonous berries of the local yew trees, but also their toxic needles. Birds are good at flying, but not so good at avoiding lots of potential hazards within their increasingly human dominated environment.

Q. Fine, not the birds, but it surely is killing off the Bees, right?

According to Jean-Daniel Charrière, a scientists at the Swiss centre of excellence for agricultural research: “All studies on this topic to date have been unable to confirm that electrosmog causes problems for bees.” However a big decline in Bees, as well as their related productivity of honey, has occurred but this has been going on since long before the deployment of 5G.

Known experts in this field have instead been able to link most of the decline back to more familiar problems, such as climate change and pesticides (notably neonicotinoids). The spread of varroa mites in beehives has also caused a significant problem (examples). Bees remain highly susceptible to changes in weather (e.g. late frosts, heatwaves) and environmental chemicals, which makes it a bad time to be a Bee.

Lest we forget that most Beehives and natural colonies tend to exist in more rural areas, where only weaker mobile signals (if any) tend to be present and 5G remains largely absent.

Q. Masses of research papers and scientists say 5G is bad for your health, don’t they?

No, this is another classic miss-understanding, which often occurs due to people failing to put the research that has been conducted and peer reviewed into the correct context (we’ve given much of the context above). Often this is then conflated with false research of questionable origin, rather than hard empirical evidence.

Some of the studies are merely based on people surveys, which can easily be misread and fall into the old “correlation is not causation” trap. In other words, just because two things seem to correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other and thus by themselves they are not much help.

Meanwhile other studies tend to involve animals (e.g. rats) and proportionally higher power levels (see our microwave oven example above), some of which involved sticking transmitters directly to their skulls, neither of which is directly comparable to the current low power mobile environment and normal use by humans. But these are another reason why the World Health Organisation (WHO) has taken the “possibly carcinogenic” approach, out of an abundance of caution. Remember some common meats and vegetables fall into the same category, but we all eat them.

Another way of reading properly vetted studies is to say that the health effects of electromagnetic energy (EME) are far from untested, with more than 25,000 studies over the years. This includes more than 500 on working in close proximity to high power mmW signals, such as higher powered radar installations on aircraft carriers. All of those have helped to set the current international guidelines for power levels and exposure etc.

Meanwhile many other studies that claim electromagnetic fields are harmful to health (e.g. by causing cancer) do not fulfil scientific criteria. These include acknowledged quality standards, such as the ability to reproduce the results of the study, and its publication in a scientific journal.

Finally, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently banned an advert by campaign group Electrosensitivity-UK after it was found to have wrongfully claimed that the roll-out 5G networks could result in a range of health effects, such as “reduced male fertility, depression, disturbed sleep and headaches, as well as cancer” (here).

It’s very much worth reading the ASA’s summary on the alleged “evidence” provided by EUK, which among other things included a YouTube video of a Canadian radio talk show in which a scientist hypothesised the extinction of life forms due to 5G radiation. “That material, along with many others, lacked the robustness of an appropriately designed observational study or clinical trial,” said the ASA.

Q. I suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and fear 5G mobile might kill me, will it?

Sadly this one is a bit more complicated due to aspects of psychology and psychosomatic effects, which fall outside my own field of expertise. As such I will defer to the World Health Organisation (WHO) again and the RationalWiki.

WHO Statement

“A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.

The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.

It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment.

There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.”

None of this is to say that the symptoms aren’t real, in fact they are very real and vary wildly in severity, although at present the WHO says that EHS has “no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.” As above, the nocebo effect is often said to be the more likely cause (psychosomatic). We are prisoners of our own minds and sadly the brain is NOT impervious to self-damage.

The ultimate problem with the argument for EHS as an actual illness is that if it were an actual condition then people suffering from it 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 transmission, wires, electrical devices, networks and not to mention those from our natural environment (space etc.).

Likewise many of those claiming to suffer from EHS have undertaken 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.

Q. But 5G is a totally new technology, isn’t it?

Arguably we’ve now answered this, but generally 5G adheres to broadly the same radio spectrum and power limits as 4G did before (in many cases it actually outputs LESS power). Obviously 5G does go beyond this by extending into more bands (e.g. mmW) but, as stated before, this has all been covered through various other studies and hence the current international limits.

Meanwhile the hardware changes for 5G, such as in the radio chipsets (hardware) and data communication itself, are largely irrelevant since they are not the part that your body will interact with (from a health perspective it is, as stated above, more a matter of the radio bands, power and signal distance).

Q. Governments and mobile operators are just colluding in a massive conspiracy to bring 5G via the back-door, aren’t they?

Democratic governments are historically worse than useless at keeping things secret. In fact the more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to stay secret for very long and no political party likes to lose power in elections. So the idea that there’s one massive conspiracy, crossing multiple countries, to roll-out 5G while in the knowledge that it’s going to give us all cancer – something that real studies have yet to prove – seems completely absurd.

Q. We currently have a 15 metre 4G mast and there are plans to replace it with a 25 metre 5G mast, does this carry a higher risk?

No. The only ones likely to suffer an increased risk are those who actually have to climb the mast for maintenance, but for people underneath a taller mast is actually better from the perspective of any health concerns. The further away you are from that large antenna at the top, the better, as the signal weakens quite quickly (just a few extra metres from source makes a big difference).

As a bonus tall masts will cover a wider area, which means you actually need fewer masts or base stations overall.

Q. Didn’t physicist Dr Bill P. Curry produce a report that clearly showed WiFi and mobile style signals were a cancer risk?

Yes but he got it VERY wrong and has been widely debunked. In 2000, the Broward County Public Schools in Florida received a shocking report and graph from Bill P. Curry, a consultant and physicist, who had been asked to study the possible health impacts of WiFi equipped laptops in the school. This study has since spread like wildfire and become part of the anti-5G “evidence” case, but it’s also an example of how quickly bad science can propagate.

Sadly Dr. Curry and his graph got it massively wrong, not least by failing to recognise that radio waves become safer at higher frequencies (i.e. they find it harder to propagate without adding lots of extra power), not more dangerous, which we’ve already covered. His analysis also failed to correctly recognise the protective effect of human skin. The New York Times gives a good summary of what went wrong.

Q. Didn’t Brussels ban the roll-out of 5G over health fears?

Yes, but much like similar moves in parts of Devon and Somerset, this followed an anti-5G campaign using unsubstantiated claims, but crucially that isn’t the only reason. Brussels has some of the strictest radiation standards in the whole world for wireless signals (around 50 times stricter than what the EU and the World Health Organisation allow), which makes it difficult for mobile operators to secure the necessary licenses.

The strict standards are not only an issue for 5G and in the past it has impacted other wireless services too. On top of that the Federal government has been slow to even put 5G licenses up for sale, which is not unlike how Ofcom in the UK has so far only auctioned off the 3.4GHz band for 5G and many other bands, such as 700MHz, have yet to be sold (expected to occur in 2020).

Meanwhile the Brussels Minister for the Environment, Alain Maron, said (October 2019): “I will not take any further steps in this matter as long as Brussels Environment cannot offer me the necessary technical guarantees … And as long as the licences are not for sale, there is no rush.” As usual the situation is more complicated than some people claim.

Q. Is the Coronavirus (COVID-19) caused or helped by 5G?

Seriously.. As well as making about as much sense as licking somebody else’s poo from a toilet bowl, there is absolutely no known scientific evidence in peer-reviewed publications to support this. The claims that some have made are not only fundamentally absurd, but potentially also very dangerous in the current climate and even hurtful during what is a very real human tragedy.

Recently we have seen videos of people going around abusing engineers and burning mobile masts. Just to be clear that once a belief or fear steps over the line into criminal activity then it’s gone way too far. One sure way to actually hurt people is by breaking the law, committing arson and cutting off the ability of people to communicate with family and friends during a national health crisis.

Such claims are one step away from saying 5G killed Princes Diana or started the second Iraq war (note to anti-5G campaigners: please don’t adopt those!). At this point some people just seem to be making things up. Ofcom has now correctly warned media companies that any found to be promoting such baseless claims will face sanctions.

We are aware of inaccurate information being shared online about 5G. There is absolutely no credible evidence of a link between 5G and coronavirus,” said the UK Government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The Government has also worked with social media firms like Facebook and YouTube to remove related content (here).

Key Points

– In order to enter a human body, the virus needs to be absorbed by receptors in the mucous membranes predominantly found in our eyes, noses and mouths. There are also receptors deep down in the lungs. Therefore, for the 5G theory to be true, the virus would have to hitch a ride on these very specific low frequency wavelengths, which is impossible, before making their way like guided missiles into your eyes, nose or mouth.

– All viruses, including COVID-19, decay rapidly if they do not find a host. It is NOT possible for them to be transferred by 5G over even short distances, let alone over cities, lakes and rivers, through walls and into you. In reality a virus like this cannot be propelled much beyond 2 metres, even by coughing and sneezing, but it can be transferred very effectively from one person to another when in close proximity, by touch or when touching something that an infected person has touched. This is why social distancing is such an effective measure (the virus has no way of moving on its own).

– The human immune system can be compromised by other pre-existing health conditions, such as diabetes or asthma, and will also naturally decline as you get older. None of these factors have anything to do with radio waves. Most people worldwide who have been most adversely affected by the virus have been the elderly and those with existing health conditions.

– The claim that COVID-19 spread faster in cities where 5G was deployed is bogus. At present very few locations have deployed any kind of 5G network and yet the virus has spread just as fast in those where no 5G network exists. Mobile radio waves have absolutely no bearing on a biological virus that has evolved in animals and eventually made the leap to infect humans.


At present there doesn’t appear to be any solidly proven and substantiated reason to be concerned about 5G. Nevertheless we firmly believe there’s always room for more research (e.g. around the perhaps less familiar mmW bands) and that’s true of every technology, not only radio waves. On the other hand we live in a world where there are those who genuinely believe the Earth is flat, yet no reason or obvious evidence to the contrary will ever convince them otherwise.

However there are situations where 5G, or mobile technology in general, may still cause concern. Dr Findlay claims to have seen some cases where new high rise buildings have ended up with an apartment window that is within 5-6 metres of a large antenna, which is something that should at least be checked (Dr Findlay suggests that ideally you want to be about 15 metres or more from that big mobile antenna at the top of a mast).

Meteorologists have also raised concerns about 5G signals causing interference for their weather satellites, although this is more of a concern in the USA where there has been a conflict over the sharing of 5G and satellite links in the 1675-1680MHz band (BBC).

Separately the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have previously raised concerns about the use of the 24GHz band for 5G, which they say could interfere with the detection of water vapour in the atmosphere (here). However regulators believe that the two should be able to coexist with careful management.

Another issue is one of health in the psychosomatic sense, which occurs when your mental health can end up causing your physical harm (e.g. stress). If you believe something is making you sick then you can actually end up making yourself sick by worrying about it too much. Since the fault is in you, then you yourself may struggle to recognise that without help.

The human brain makes us all exceptional pattern recognisers, which explains why some people see the face of Jesus in their morning toast or the way you can see familiar shapes in the clouds above (dragons etc.). The problem is this also makes us very good at associating coincidence with something entirely different, which is how conspiracy theories are often born (it probably doesn’t help that radio waves are invisible to the naked eye).

NOTE: Before publishing this article we asked a number of professionals with qualifications in related radio science and engineering, as well as past experience building such networks (none employed by mobile operators today, I hasten to add), to verify our description and understanding of the science. No issues were raised.

UPDATE 21st Feb 2020

Ofcom has just conducted some emissions tests of 5G bands at various busy UK sites (including 3-4GHz and also mmWave 60GHz), which found that all were operating safely and many times below the required standard level for public exposure (here).

UPDATE 11th March 2020

After many years of work the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have just updated their guidance for mobile signals, especially for 5G, which as expected doesn’t change much (here).

UPDATE 4th April 2020

Added an extra question at the end to cover the Coronavirus issue.

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 Twitter, , Facebook and Linkedin.
Leave a Comment
89 Responses
  1. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. clive says:

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

  5. 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. 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. New_Londoner says:

      Citations needed from peer-reviewed publications please.

    3. eQuiLIBERTY says:

      “Needed” according to which high authority? …

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

    4. 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. dave says:

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

    6. 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. Oliver says:

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

    1. 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. New_Londoner says:

      Evidence please, not just vague allegations

    3. eQuiLIBERTY says:

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

    4. 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. 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. 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. Nighjel Farrajh says:

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

    8. 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. 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. 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. 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. eQuiLIBERTY says:

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

    13. 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. 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. joe says:

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

  8. 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. AnotherTim says:

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

    2. Jon says:


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

      #FreeYellowPotassiumRadioactiveIsotopes4All 🙂

  9. 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. orms says:

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

  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. James Harkin says:

    Watch this presentation by Mark Steele:



    1. New_Londoner says:


  14. James Harkin says:

    Please watch this presentation by Ian R Crane:



    1. New_Londoner says:


    2. The Facts says:

      Connection between LED streetlights and 5G?

  15. 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. Pezza says:

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

    2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Gigaclear £17.00
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £20.00
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £25.00
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £25.00
    Speed: 158Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo code: BIGBANG
  • Virgin Media £27.00
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
New Forum Topics
ZTE MC801A Review
Author: dabigm
Testing: EE's 4G/5G
Author: JitteryPinger
Help Picking a VOIP Phone
Author: matseffect
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £17.99
    Speed 33Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo code: BIGBANG
  • Shell Energy £20.99
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £22.00
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £22.00
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £75 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (4204)
  2. BT (3180)
  3. Politics (2149)
  4. Building Digital UK (2042)
  5. Openreach (1995)
  6. FTTC (1931)
  7. Business (1866)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1629)
  9. Statistics (1525)
  10. 4G (1397)
  11. FTTH (1372)
  12. Virgin Media (1301)
  13. Ofcom Regulation (1251)
  14. Fibre Optic (1246)
  15. Wireless Internet (1244)
  16. Vodafone (940)
  17. 5G (923)
  18. EE (920)
  19. TalkTalk (832)
  20. Sky Broadband (794)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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