Should we all be hung up over 5G MEGA MASTS?
The Government says new 65ft ‘mobile towers’ will transform internet speeds. But with hundreds being planned, residents in towns like Totnes are fighting back. So...
APark in Hove has seen the early skirmishes in a battle spreading across Britain. There, this summer, a planning application was lodged to replace a mobile phone mast with one capable of transmitting 5G — the fifth generation of wireless technology.
Not only does it promise superfast download speeds for smartphones, but to change how we live — paving the way for everything from selfdriving cars to wearable health devices providing round-the-clock monitoring.
But not everyone in this affluent South Coast community believes it’s a future they want to be part of. Of 146 letters sent to the local council, all but one objected to the proposal.
And of those objections, virtually all highlighted concerns about the risks they claim 5G poses to human health.
Among those opposing the plan are richard and Myra Bianco, who called for the installation to be blocked until more research was carried out. ‘So little is known about the effects on human health that it worries me companies are being given the go-ahead to use this technology,’ said Mrs Bianco, 71. ‘It doesn’t seem right. They should carry out independent tests then install them — not the other way round.’
Another letter lodged with the council reads: ‘The launch of 5G will be similar to turning on your microwave, opening its door, and leaving it on for the rest of your life. These towers are not only dangerous — they’re lethal!’
A third commented: ‘ My concern is particularly centred with children . . . 5G is 1,500 times stronger than 3G and 4G . . . I urge you to stop this going ahead.’
Those sentiments are not confined to this corner of Britain. This week it emerged that opponents of 5G in Totnes, Devon, have persuaded their council to demand a moratorium on the new network’s installation. Similar steps have been taken in Frome and Glastonbury, across the border in Somerset.
Cancer, damage to the nervous system and reduced fertility are the main concerns, with claims that 5G will turn out to be the ‘asbestos and tobacco’ of the 21st century.
Some online contibutors warn of a 5G ‘apocalypse’ caused by ‘dangerous microwaves that destroy living matter’. Humans, birds and insect life are all said to be at imminent risk.
Such claims are dismissed by the telecommunications industry and the Government. They point out that wireless technology has been in existence for decades, and that previous studies have not concluded the radio waves involved pose any serious health risks.
Despite this, there is a growing sense of frustration that claims to the contrary are gaining traction. In America, it has been reported that the russians have been amplifying 5G scare stories as part of their cyberwarfare efforts. To this background, last week, digital minister Matt Warman issued a strident defence of the new technology, announcing that the Government would ‘work to bust health myths’ over 5G.
‘There is no credible evidence to back up [these] concerns and huge evidence for the economic benefit of gigabit-capable networks,’ he said.
Mr Warman went on to point out that, according to the World Health Organisation, when it comes to radiation, 5G is no more dangerous than ‘talcum powder or pickled veg’.
For starters, 5G promises to deliver speeds ten to 100 times faster than current 4G networks. In practice that means you should be able to download a film in less time than it takes to read its description.
But improved download speeds are not the only gain. It also offers lower ‘latency’, or lag, the delay between sending and receiving information. This means that data will be transmitted almost instantaneously.
On a basic level that is good news for someone interacting with an opponent in an online game.
But the technology will also pave the way for self-driving cars that will need to ‘talk’ with one another and interact with the environment.
It is also expected to facilitate drone deliveries, remote healthcare and emergency response and management.
A third benefit is the number of devices 5G will be able to simultaneously support. If you’ve ever been at a busy railway station or concert, you may have experienced difficulty using a smartphone. That’s because 4G can only cope with 60,000- odd devices in half a square mile. With 5G, that increases to a million.
The roll-out of 5G for mobile broadband is being undertaken by private network operators EE, O2, Vodafone and Three. The first commercial networks have already gone live in major cities across the united Kingdom.
To take advantage of 5G, users need to buy a smartphone with a 5G modem. The benefits of 5G are only possible because it operates slightly differently to its predecessors.
As with current technologies, 5G networks rely on signals carried by radio waves — transmitted between an antenna or mast and your phone.
But 5G uses higher frequency radio waves than previous networks, using what is known as the ‘mid-frequency spectrum’. The higher end of the spectrum will be used in the future to provide other even faster 5G services, including home broadband.
To install the network, the operators have started by upgrading existing masts and towers. But the higher frequencies used mean the waves travel shorter distances and are more easily blocked by buildings than previous generations.
This means the telecom companies are having to install more roof-top antennas and equipment. It is these two factors — the higher frequency waves and the spread of masts and antennas — that is causing most concern to opponents of 5G.
Among them is 38-year-old John Kitson. He describes himself as a full-time 5G activist, having quit his job as a recruitment consultant to highlight his worries about the new technology. As well as spearheading the campaign in Totnes, where he lives, he gives talks around the country, recently addressing several hundred delegates at the ukip conference.
He first became concerned about the effects of electromagnetic radiation five years ago following the death of his mother from a brain tumour he believes was linked to her digital cordless home phone. ‘I came across a couple of articles es about mobile phones and wifi and d health problems and just started to do a bit more research into it,’ he e said.
‘Tumours are increasing reasing and it isn’t down to better diagnosis. iagnosis. There is increasing evidence e of a link to highfrequency highon.’ radiation.’ He says that contrary to what health bodies such as the WHO and d Public Health England are saying, ying, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that has raised concerns oncerns about the existing 3G and 4G G networks.
He says with that t background, the paucity of research h into 5G is all the more worrying.
‘More than 250 scientists have urged the Eu to halt the roll-out of 5G because it means ns a huge increase in electromagnetic c radio frequencies on top of the existing sting network,’ he
says. ‘I don’t want to stop the march of technolo technology. I want it made safe.’
It’s a point echoed echoe by another protester from th the town, 70year- old Rosi Gla Gladwell. She claims to be so sensitive to electromagnetic waves wa that she has to wear a protective prote hood in locations such as ai airports where signals are high.
‘At the moment, I’ve I managed to make myself sa safe by being fortunate enough to live in a house in the countryside count where there are no measured measu electromagnetic magnetic frequenc frequencies,’ she says. ‘But if they introduce introdu 5G then I don’t know what the th future will bring. It’s a really scary issue.’
Local business coach Julie Harrison, 55, add adds: ‘There is evidence that 3G and 4G are not fine. But this is completely different technology.
‘The antennas are going to be attached to lampposts. They are going to sit outside children’s bedrooms, for goodness sake. The industry has not done meaningful research.’
Public Health England denies the new technology poses a risk.
It says that over the decades, monitoring has shown that exposure of the public to radio waves falls well within the guideline levels used in the UK and Europe and set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
It also says that the higher frequencies being used by 5G have been used by other types of transmitters ‘for many years’ without problem.
And it concludes: ‘It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area.
‘However, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.’
Such assurances are unlikely to persuade opponents of 5G.
Dr Frank de Vocht, an epidemiologist and public health scientist at Bristol University, warns that protesters do not want to delay the roll-out of 5G — but to block it altogether.
‘You cannot really prove that something is “100 per cent safe” using scientific methods,’ he says. This is because any studies that could be carried out would have to be done on animals or at a cellular level.
‘If these were to show no effects, the campaigners’ argument would be to say there is still no evidence in humans,’ he says.
‘So studies on humans should be done, which can’t be done because 5G is not rolled out, nor can you expose people willingly to see if some would get cancer. So campaigners will argue there is no evidence of safety in humans.’
He adds: ‘After 30 years of mobile phone use there is little evidence of increased cancer risks as a result of mobile phone use.
‘This should be long enough to have found it, had it been there — for example, for asbestos the risks could be observed after ten to 15 years.’
Which takes us back to talcum powder. In 2014, the WHO said that ‘no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use’.
However the WHO, together with the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified all radio frequency radiation, of which mobile signals are a part, as ‘possibly carcinogenic’.
It has been put in this category because ‘there is evidence that falls short of being conclusive that exposure may cause cancer in humans’.
Eating pickled vegetables and using talcum powder are classed in the same category.
Alcoholic drinks and processed meat are in a higher category because the evidence is stronger.
Even so, Dr de Vocht denies the siting of new 5G masts and antennas pose a health risk.
‘The best way to understand this network is that instead of a concert with a large amount of sound blasted from the podium and people in the front receiving too much noise in order for people at the back to hear — the current situation — there would be many small sound systems surrounding the fans, thus needing much less power for everyone to hear the music well,’ he says.
In other words, lower power levels mean that the level of radiation exposure from 5G antennas will be lower.
In practical terms, health concerns are unlikely to block the roll- out of 5G infrastructure in the UK in the short term.
While town councils may lobby for delays, in reality it is a planning matter.
In Hove, the request for a new, taller mast was recently turned
down by the council. But the authority made it clear that it was not refusing the application on health grounds because the new 5G mast would have been fully compliant with national safety guidelines.
Instead it was turned down for aesthetic reasons — being ‘overly dominant and highly visible from nearly every direction’.
With the Government calling for planning authorities to back the rollout of 5G, other similar applications across the country are already getting the green light.
Interestingly, a bigger problem facing the roll-out may come from much further afield.
Earlier this year, thenPrime Minister Theresa May faced a backlash after deciding to allow Huawei to build ‘non-core’ parts of the 5G network.
The Chinese telecoms giant has been blacklisted in the U.S. amid fears that it poses a security threat.
A final decision on whether to allow Huawei’s involvement now rests in Boris Johnson’s hands.
Experts warn that any decision to block the company would cause serious problems and bring additional costs — meaning that Britain’s superfast future could still yet face lengthy delays.