According to a recent UK government press release, “Public Health England says that 5G should have ‘no consequences to public health.’” If you consider this statement carefully, the UK government is being cautious not to fully commit itself to the issue of public safety. “should have no consequences” is not the same as “will have no consequences.” “Should” is equivocation; “will” is a commitment. This is a very dangerous game to play with public health.
To say that 5G should have no consequences to health ignores the fact that previous generations of wireless technology have already made many people sick: the rise in certain types of cancer, in neurological diseases, in thyroid conditions, asthma and other health problems have been documented and discussed in numerous scientific papers.
It also ignores the fact that two of the world’s largest insurance companies, Swiss Re and Lloyd’s, will not insure against damages from 5G, and are putting pressure on smaller companies to follow suit. Swiss Re calls 5G “the new asbestos”. If 5G is uninsurable, the government itself is liable should 5G go wrong. And it will go wrong. Does the UK government think that hedging its bets with “should” exempts them from liability?
The press release, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministers-call-on-councils-to-help-deliver-digital-connectivity-ambitions details how the government plans to spend public money—that’s your tax money—to promote the installation of 5G throughout the UK over public concerns and objections, and indeed in defiance of decades of scientific work which shows clearly that non-ionizing radiation is well capable of damaging both people’s health and the ecosystem.
Pressure is being put on local councils to fast-track telecoms companies’ access to sites for 5G infrastructure at reasonable rates, to promote 5G as safe (any evidence that 5G is not safe is termed “disinformation” or worse, “conspiracy theory”).
The government has put out a guide to 5G technology that seeks to downplay health concerns which states, “These claims are completely unfounded and should not be used as a basis to block or delay 5G rollout.” It can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913179/5G_mobile_technology_a_guide.pdf
In it, the government assures you that 5G is “safe” because it uses non-ionizing radiation, and that only ionizing radiation is dangerous. Again, this ignores decades of studies proving that non-ionizing radiation produces biological effects. Furthermore, as a paper from NASA about non-ionizing radiation, written in 1981, states, “Both forms of radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) are electromagnetic waves, and they seem to differ only in terms of frequency…The definition for ionizing radiation is arbitrary and does not identify an abrupt physical threshold.”*
Further, the government assures the public that 5G (and all wireless technology) is “safe” because it does not cause tissue heating (so-called thermal effects). But is tissue heating what makes ionizing radiation dangerous? Dr. Beatrice Golomb, Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego and author of “Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation” says not. She says that “oxidative stress, which mediates nonthermal effects, also mediates thermal effects” and points out that “other sources of heat do not produce the same so-called thermal damage that RF/MW does.” She concludes that “what are deemed thermal effects may be among the manifestations of oxidative injury.”** In other words, the same mechanism—oxidative stress—causes harm from both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, and tissue heating is irrelevant.
By the way, your tax money was used to produce this misleading guide to 5G, which never mentions that 5G uses millimeter waves but merely calls them “higher frequency spectrum”. The so-called 5G which has actually been rolled out so far in the UK does not use millimeter waves but is a form of higher-frequency 4G. It does not follow that millimeter-wave 5G will not have physical effects, either on people or on nature.
Your tax money will also be used to pay the people who will pave the way for 5G rollout. The press release says, “The ministers are also asking councils to appoint a ‘digital champion’ to work across multiple teams to ensure a cohesive digital infrastructure strategy and encouraging authorities to use central government’s dedicated ‘barrier busting’ team which is charged with removing the obstacles to rollout.”
What is a “barrier busting team”, one wonders? Are they people who can demand with menaces that a farmer should rent out his field for a 5G mast, or that you should have one in your front garden, or on top of your building? Do they have the power to arrest and imprison those who protest against 5G, in the streets or online? Because the “barriers” or “obstacles” to 5G rollout are people: they are scientists, they are doctors and nurses, they are beekeepers, they are ordinary citizens like you and I, who wish to stay healthy and live in a healthy environment. Just how far is the government willing to go to install 5G all over the UK? Has the UK suddenly become a dictatorship?
Governments everywhere—in the US, the UK, the EU and elsewhere—make much noise about how 5G will boost the economy; but they never explain how it will do it. 4G did not boost economies, or the world would not be in the economic mess it is currently in. The fact is that connectivity has not boosted production or incomes, any more than it has improved children’s ability to learn in school.
Finally, 5G will, according to the UK government press release, help to solve the COVID-19 crisis. Exactly how a communications technology is supposed to solve a medical crisis is, once again, unexplained. Will 5G be used to track all citizens at all times, then? And how will this help? COVID-19 has become the excuse, both in the EU and the UK, for pressing forward with 5G, and one suspects that lockdowns and social distancing are being enforced more to allow 5G installation without interference than from any real concern for public health—real concern for public health would see wireless technologies banished at once.
At the end of the day, 5G is only a communications technology, and it is by no means essential. Like its predecessors, it is downright dangerous—perhaps even more dangerous. To use taxpayer money to promote this technology is undemocratic, immoral, and unethical. Did you vote for it? Did anyone hold a referendum to ask your opinion? After all, it’s your money and the government are supposed to be serving you.
So how can an ordinary citizen respond when a government behaves in this way? By continuing to protest, and by that protest to counter government lies—even if one is penalized for doing so. 5G is an uninsurable technology. It is a dangerous technology. It is an unhealthy technology. It is an ecocidal technology. And it is only a technology. It won’t feed you or quench your thirst. And you don’t need it, whatever government says.
*Electromagnetic Field Interactiions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories, by Dr. Jeremy K. Raines, NASA, 1981 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19810017132
**For the full paper, which is extremely interesting, go to https://www.targetedamerica.com/uploads/1/2/3/9/123991101/diplomats_mystery_illness_.pdf