Once 5 G is up and running and powering ‘the internet of things’, not only will you be able to programme your car to pick you up and take you home, your oven to turn on ready for you to cook your ‘oven-ready-created-for-you’ dinner and your steaming hot relaxing bath to run awaiting your arrival but:
- your baby’s nappy can be wireless-ed up to tell you when it is wet
- your loo seat can be wireless-ed up to monitor your heart rate while you are reading your daily dose of fake news on your tablet – since obviously you will no longer take an actual newspaper to the loo (image courtesy of Karl Q. Schwarz On IEEE Spectrum)
- your tampon can be connected, via a bluetooth ‘string’ to an app which will tell you when you need to change it
- your condom can be set up to wireless-ly measure your ‘performance’
(Thanks to Whatis5G.info for the links.)
OK, so these are the wackier possibilities on offer. However, 5G does offer genuine advantages in terms of wireless technology such as more rapid rates of wireless data transfer thanks to its higher frequencies thus improving mobility. But at what cost?
The issue is that we really don’t know. And many people – scientists, medics and members of the potential 5G using public – believe we need to understand more before we roll it out across the world.
We need independent enquiries before buying in wholesale
OK – this is only the UK and the issue is a worldwide one but, you have to start somewhere. And Hayley Hughes has, by creating a petition asking the government to launch an urgent and independent enquiry into the health and safety risks of 5G.
You can sign here. (It is already at nearly 10,000 signatures which means that the government has to at the very least respond to the petition.) It is accompanied by a link to a recent article in the Daily Mail setting out some of the concerns.
For those who would like to know a bit more, the following is an extract from an article by Ronald Powell, a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics from Harvard University) who, over his career, worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
There are thousands of archival biomedical research papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to the body in one way or another. These have been collected and reviewed in a number of summary documents. Here are just two examples: (1) BioInitiative 2012, draws on about 1800 publications; (2) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-Related Health Problems and Illnesses, draws on 308 references. (“EMF” stands for electromagnetic fields, a term inclusive of radiofrequency radiation.)
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Human Carcinogen (“possibly carcinogenic”), naming explicitly “wireless phone” radiation (cellular radiation), based on the increased risk for glioma. Glioma is a malignant type of brain cancer that is usually fatal. It most recently took the life of Senator John McCain and Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden.
In 2018, a massive study by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to cancer of the nerves of the heart (schwannomas), to cancer of the brain (glioma), and to multiple other health effects in test animals.
In 2015 and continuing, 247 scientists from 42 nations signed an appeal to the United Nations, described below. These scientists have “published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields” (which are inclusive of radiofrequency radiation).
“Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses.”
For more information on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, please see the website of the Environmental Health Trust, especially the Science tab.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?
5G has some genuine advantages. 5G is expected to employ higher radiofrequencies than those currently in use in cellular systems in the United States. Those higher frequencies will permit more rapid rates of data transfer compared to current wireless technology. And, as a wireless technology, 5G will support mobility.
But wired technology, especially fiber-optic technology, is superior to 5G in so many other ways. Fiber-optic technology produces NO radiofrequency radiation, so it poses NO health hazard. Fiber-optic technology is safer, faster, more reliable, more cyber secure, and more private than any wireless technology, including 5G. (See whatis5g.infofor a detailed description of the limitations of 5G.)
So users of wireless technology, including 5G, will have to decide if mobility ALONE is more important for their particular application than any other factor, including their own health and the health of their families and colleagues.
When listening to the hype about 5G, consider the following:
- Is the hype coming more from potential providers of 5G, who hope to profit from 5G, or from potential users, who will have to pay for 5G
- Is the rush to implement 5G more about staking out claims to small cell sites in right-of-ways than about providing services that customers really need?
- Is the rush to implement 5G driven by the growing awareness of the public and its representatives that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to health, and thus the providers feel that they must act quickly before resistance builds further?
- What scientific studies, from impartial sources, can the providers of 5G identify that prove that 5G has NO adverse health effects on humans?
The burden of proof is on the providers.
When questioned by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal in a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (February, 7, 2019), the representatives of industry could name no existing studies and none in progress.