5G foes lose again
But will they succeed in damaging our health?
Earlier this month there was yet another defeat for campaigners who believe 5G is harmful to human health and want the government to halt the rollout. Action Against 5G, which has employed the renowned human rights barrister Michael Mansfield KC, has used crowdfunding in its attempt to get a judicial review of the government’s policy on the ultrafast mobile networking technology.
Three years after the campaign began, the case was rejected in no uncertain terms by Mrs Justice Casey in the administrative court of the High Court. The campaigners were not allowed to challenge the science on 5G but had to base their case on the charge that the government had failed to communicate properly to the public the potential risks of the technology.
Mrs Justice Casey said the idea that the government should have to promote to the public research that it did not find credible “would be confusing and unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst.” She drew a parallel with the panic over the MMR jab twenty years ago:
“it would be rather like suggesting that in public information encouraging parents to vaccinate their children with an MMR jab, the government was under a duty to signpost "research" by Andrew Wakefield. It would be akin to requiring the government to give publicity to what it believes to be disinformation.”
Comparing 5G health scares to the scandal which saw Dr Wakefield struck off for his fraudulent study linking the vaccine to autism will anger the campaigners, but is also surely a sign that they have reached the end of the road. They are not rushing to throw in the towel - a statement on the crowdjustice site says “we need properly to review the judgment before offering detailed commentary and opinions.”
And the fundraising continues - as I write the site says £195,371 has been raised towards “a stretch target” of £250,000 with 14 days to go. Seasoned observers of these crowdfunding campaigns will know there is always a stretch target with a few days to go, but rarely if ever is there a successful outcome after such sizeable sums have been raised.
That does not mean campaigns like this have no impact. Across the UK, any proposal for a new 5G mast is likely to be greeted with objections, with local residents often quoting material from groups like Action Against 5G. Sometimes, as happened in Bath where a LibDem MP lent her support to the objectors, they succeed in getting planning permission denied. Even if they fail, they add complexity and cost to the process of rolling out 5G.
I find it particularly galling to read on my local NextDoor site angry denunciations of plans for masts in places which could by no stretch of the imagination be described as areas of outstanding natural beauty. Many years ago, someone knocked on my door and asked me to sign a petition about a new mast “just a few hundred yards from a school.” The school was one my children attended and I often saw parents on their phones in the playground struggling to get a signal. I also pointed out to the man with the petition that the new mast was going to be on an the roof of an ugly BT building - the least offensive location possible.
The same people have been objecting to everything from 2G to 3G to 4G to Wi-Fi for the past 30 years and the consensus of the scientific community remains that these technologies do not pose a threat to human health.
On the other hand, campaigners trying to slow down the availability of high-speed connectivity could be doing us harm. Just about every innovation I write about in this newsletter - virtual wards, remote monitoring apps, closed loop systems for diabetics - depend on some form of connectivity. This kind of technology will be vital if we are to build a sustainable NHS, deliver more care away from hospitals, and keep elderly and frail people in their homes for longer. Something to remember the next time you see plans for a new mast at the end of your street.
Back in 1993 an undergrad pal following a similar route into industry as I'd taken ran his thesis against a microwave assessment of RF hazards. The industry wide consensus was that whilst there were some opportunities for hazard. Summarising/paraphrasing: The predominant warming impact of having an RF transmitter to side of head was the benefit of slightly better circulation and stimulation of the brain tissue.
A mast would be miniscule. Overhead power pylons seem to be the entry point to much of this paranoia. Leukaemia having been a regular supposition/health-signal back in the 80s. Some sort of interaction with the iron in our blood was touted as causal.
We attribute much to what occurs naturally irrespective of potential societal/environmental stimuli. The best study is to appreciate that microwave (inc. mmWave) is pervasive and isn't new technology. With people working around and close to the bands that are now being freed up for licence-free use. Plus the 'change of use bands' (UHF TV) that are now the so-called Sub6 parts of 5G/6G to increase terminal support density etc.
The book should never be closed for safety, I'd reflect on that as valid. But we've lived in clouds of smog and diesel particulates with only recent times bringing such outcry. Radio signals that can barely warm a human cell (5G/6G) seem like a fairly safe investment.
Forget the health issues! We need decent 4G and even 3G would be nice across the UK. 5G is overrated. In China the main proponent and user of 5G is finding it expensive to run. Many transmitters are turned off at off-peak times to save electricity.
5G needs bigger and more masts to give coverage. It works less well inside buildings, something that mobile users have come to expect, although mobile wasn’t designed for indoor use.
5G is not necessary for everyday use,as 4G (when available) does what we need. Let’s have a decent network! 5G will always be patchy unless there is a relay on every street corner!