dabigm
ULTIMATE Member
I'm frustrated. I would like better mobile and a stronger 5G signal as I have to use external antennas mounted up high and even then it's not always 5G and the SINR is low.
Anyway, yet another mast has been denied by my local council this week and let me read you some of the comments:
High frequency 5G opens all up to levels of radiation that can be detrimental to everyone's health, not to mention the environment. In order to power 5G performance high microwave frequencies up to 300GHz are used compared to lower frequencies used in telecommunication/microwaves/radios of 5HGz. The average wavelength of 1¿GHz radiation is 30¿cm. These heightened levels have been shown to cause cancers, fertility issues and neurological disorders, those who are vulnerable are of course at a higher risk such as school children and the elderly. All information I have found about the effects of this are from verified sources and as a training scientist I find this highly concerning that I would live on the doorstep of something that has the ability to cause such long term damage to the community.
There is faulty logic with increasing EMF's with 5G when all the facts show there is a huge risk to our health and the environment. Adding infrastructure, be it masts, small cells and satellites to support the internet of things consumes enormous amounts of energy and has important security and surveillance consequences. There is a legal case underway being led by eminent barrister Michael Mansfield (https://actionagainst5g.org/) which is challenging the government's lack of proper risk assessment as well as their failure to protect public health, particularly children. Those living nearer to mobile base stations show greater DNA damage than those living further away https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28777669/
1) Objection due to health grounds as, from what i have read, this is new style of mast and the long term health implications have not been properly researched.
Such concerns are well documented nationwide despite a mission to erect these masts hastily to fulfil a wider objective to install 5G.
Children are involuntarily exposed to various kind of non-ionizing radiation in their daily lives and are more sensitive to the effects.
and it goes on and on and on. I thought the tinfoil hat brigade was a small minority, but when I look at the 5G planning applications they're full of them. Claiming to be resident of the area and concerned about "Ionising radiation" and "health effects" of 5G. And it would appear as if it's working because out of the 12 applications on the council website, only 2 are approved and all the rest are refused (for various reasons apparently, none of them mention health).
What can be done about this nonsense? It seems that there are too many Karens getting their 5G health information from facebook and protesting against things they haven't got a clue about (I especially liked the "training scientist" one .. who has no proof of her assertions) and I bet they've got no problem with 4G, WiFi, Satellite TV etc ... why did 5G become to evil boogeyman ???
Anyway, yet another mast has been denied by my local council this week and let me read you some of the comments:
High frequency 5G opens all up to levels of radiation that can be detrimental to everyone's health, not to mention the environment. In order to power 5G performance high microwave frequencies up to 300GHz are used compared to lower frequencies used in telecommunication/microwaves/radios of 5HGz. The average wavelength of 1¿GHz radiation is 30¿cm. These heightened levels have been shown to cause cancers, fertility issues and neurological disorders, those who are vulnerable are of course at a higher risk such as school children and the elderly. All information I have found about the effects of this are from verified sources and as a training scientist I find this highly concerning that I would live on the doorstep of something that has the ability to cause such long term damage to the community.
There is faulty logic with increasing EMF's with 5G when all the facts show there is a huge risk to our health and the environment. Adding infrastructure, be it masts, small cells and satellites to support the internet of things consumes enormous amounts of energy and has important security and surveillance consequences. There is a legal case underway being led by eminent barrister Michael Mansfield (https://actionagainst5g.org/) which is challenging the government's lack of proper risk assessment as well as their failure to protect public health, particularly children. Those living nearer to mobile base stations show greater DNA damage than those living further away https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28777669/
1) Objection due to health grounds as, from what i have read, this is new style of mast and the long term health implications have not been properly researched.
Such concerns are well documented nationwide despite a mission to erect these masts hastily to fulfil a wider objective to install 5G.
Children are involuntarily exposed to various kind of non-ionizing radiation in their daily lives and are more sensitive to the effects.
and it goes on and on and on. I thought the tinfoil hat brigade was a small minority, but when I look at the 5G planning applications they're full of them. Claiming to be resident of the area and concerned about "Ionising radiation" and "health effects" of 5G. And it would appear as if it's working because out of the 12 applications on the council website, only 2 are approved and all the rest are refused (for various reasons apparently, none of them mention health).
What can be done about this nonsense? It seems that there are too many Karens getting their 5G health information from facebook and protesting against things they haven't got a clue about (I especially liked the "training scientist" one .. who has no proof of her assertions) and I bet they've got no problem with 4G, WiFi, Satellite TV etc ... why did 5G become to evil boogeyman ???























