Sponsored Links

5G luddites, moronic liars and incompetent councils.

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 ???
 
The situation is indeed very sad. These people have become very determined that 5G will fry their testicles, so they spend day and night on council site opposing applications.

Someone should tell these idiots they have even higher frequency emitting devices right by their heads, frying their neurons with 5GHz gamma ray wifi.
 
Sponsored Links
Its a sad indictment of the world we live in today. The cancel culture brigade marching on with a total lack of science, because as far as they're concerned they don't need it. Everything they see on facebook, Qanon like tinfoik hat websites, from their friend Karen or television is true and they believe it.

The fact the councils actually listen to these people is the big problem, they should be given guidance by the government to disregard these types of concerns because its utter tosh.
 
This is just silly at this point especially when councils elsewhere are allowing building to go ahead. An example being Cardiff City council haven given permission to Three for five new Monopoles in last three months.
 
Well each network can pop a 5G monopole in my garden if they like, I'd be only too happy to accomodate, for a small fee or free 5G of course.

There's no Karens around here, thank goodness. :giggle:

Scotland has the highest council acceptance rate of new masts in the UK by the way, always good to know.

Take that tinfoil hat brigade. :D
 
Well each network can pop a 5G monopole in my garden if they like, I'd be only too happy to accomodate, for a small fee or free 5G of course.

There's no Karens around here, thank goodness. :giggle:

Scotland has the highest council acceptance rate of new masts in the UK by the way, always good to know.

Take that tinfoil hat brigade. :D
Theres no Karens in Yorkshire either (the odd few in the 'uge cities) but I see these 5G monopoles popping up everywhere, many masts being upgraded to 5G too. Most of it round here seems to be from three, not heard much else from the other operators. There was a new 5G monopole installed which has MaMIMO for EE & 3 in Denholme by the old church, 5G for three only was added to the three & EE site on manywells heights and finally 5G added to a three only site on back Shaw lane.
 
Sponsored Links
That second one is particularly infuriating. I looked at the article referenced (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28777669/) and every one of those statistical tests in the abstract showed a very low p-value. A low p-value means that you REJECT the hypothesis and I read that entire abstract as showing a lack of evidence for their hypotheses.

Unfortunately, I am struggling to see exactly what their hypotheses were but whatever they were their data did not support them.
 
A ground-based mast over 15 metres in height requires planning permission, but those attached to other structures or which are less than 15 metres in height require approval under the so-called ‘pre-approval’ system. In the latter case the LPA has eight weeks to carry out a review and to inform the applicant. If the LPA does not reply within the set period, then the network operator can proceed. It is my understanding that upgrading a mast does not require planning permission if it is not significant.

Health concerns over masts that meet international standards on ionising radiation (and it is safe to say that all masts for which permission is sought will meet the standards) have not been accepted by the courts as a valid argument for denial of permission.

Like most topics these days debate becomes very polarised so the real issues are not discussed properly. In this case Industry and Government need to do more to build confidence in the standards and regulation of our use of wireless technologies.

Anti anything has become an industry and their are lots of people making money from them or seeking click attention especially in the US. People then pick up what appears to be respected views and research. If you leave a void something will fill it.
 
Sponsored Links
It's absolutely infuriating. It's just happened round my as well. Broadband isn't great at all with poor quality FTTC and 4G the only options. 5G would have been a lifesaver.

I live near Glastonbury and there is basically an entire militia mobilised to quash planning permission for 5G masts. It's a complete joke. Especially when lots people that don't even believe in this health threat crap peddle it anyway because they are against the plans for other reasons.

All these objections are so cut paste from the same old websites. The councils just crap themselves and see denying planning permission the only "safe option".

The pre-approval system seems to do nothing to help. They just get denied anyway.
 
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 ???

It's the rather sad modern day woke cancellation culture mentality we now have running rampant in the U.K.
It isn't going away anytime soon and indeed will probably just get worst and worst.
I guess if you have the energy you can use countering facts and evidence and take it all to your local MP and council. State the fact the government is meant to be looking into expanding broadband in the U.K. and increasing its speeds.
 
I hope those comments in the first page were from residents, not consultees, considering that nothing even in the pipeline extends anywhere near 330GHz
 
I hope those comments in the first page were from residents, not consultees, considering that nothing even in the pipeline extends anywhere near 330GHz
yep "public comments". there's literally a group of them that organise and spread the anti-5g nonsense and make these comments on the planning portal. Maybe it's coincidence, but it looks like they're getting their wish from the council anyway. it sucks.
 
My local council has refused a new 5g mast requested by Three.
The mast already there shown in the photo is owned by Vodaphone.
The argument that it will affect the look of the area is stretching things a bit. However, it is what might be described as an upwardly mobile council estate. As people have been buying up and converting their council properties, gone are the cars on bricks in the front gardens to be replaced by manicured lawns. And evidently no more masts.
 
Sponsored Links
I would give each of these nutters a copy of inSSIDer, tell them to load it on their PCs and show them how many of their neighbours are broadcasting 5GHz signals right next door to them. Band N78 is only 3.5Ghz so wi-fi has to be worse, right?
Meanwhile Michael Mansfield is coining it in through crowdfunding. One born every minute?
 
I was looking at how to turn off the default BTWiFi SSID as I simply didn't want it. For those of you who don't know, BT's routers make 3 SSIDs called BT-(random numbers here) as your main private network, BTWiFi as a free hotspot for anyone near your router and BTWiFi-X for profile login free WiFi via iPhones. I wanted to turn off both of the free WiFi SSIDs as I didn't want or need them so I was looking. People on the BT forums were asking how to turn it off because of "radiation poisoning" and then wondering why their radiometer (please correct me I couldn't think of the word lol) doesn't go down just because they thought turning off the SSID would make it SAfEr for their tinfoil hats.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6026)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

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