You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Obviously 5G causes covid and will be the means to convert us all in to Cybermen, but what are people's views on the installation of masts near their homes? We've had notification of a planning application, I'm not thrilled but is there a reason to be worried?
No
https://www.mobileuk.org/5g-and-health-concerns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48616174
https://www.forbes.com/health/body/is-5g-safe/
They tend to be taller - which can be annoying.
Local area - Dunblane - had an application for one near a primary school over-turned but it took a lot of signatures.
Local area – Dunblane – had an application for one near a primary school over-turned but it took a lot of signatures.
Interesting, I used to like to play spot the transmitters camouflaged as trees at the Dunblane roundabout where the A9 meets the M9
One very close to me….very happy as I get excellent 5g and ditched the internet as phone 5g is faster…..just did a test and currently getting an average of 420mbps over 3 different tests.
I’m not thrilled
Why?
Unless it spoils your view then I'm not sure there is anything to really get annoyed about unless you want to be part of your local NIMBY group.
Something new has just gone up near me...not 5g for Vodafone, but it looks very shiny, so I'm assuming someone else has improved signal.
I sometimes have to route learn new drivers and the kier roundabout at dunblane is great for pointing out the masts disguised as trees.
As for the OP, nah, nowt to worry about.
Yours sincerely, Bill Gates.
I'm not bothered about the aesthetics as it's relatively inoffensive (although large at 15m high), it's more the noise around potential health issues. The impact seems to be minimal but some countries have stopped the roll out. It's installation doesn't benefit me as my phone isn't 5G and when I'm at home I have fibre. If it's a toss up between not having something that doesn't offer any benefit and having something that some scientists have highlighted for increased health risks I know which one makes more sense.
Were you worried/injured by the analogue TV broadcasts that used to use the 5G frequencies?
Having a 5G mast nearby has the side benefit of taking load off the 4G signal as those with newer phones will use it instead.
One went up in my old village near my parents, imo it looks shit/eyesore.
. It’s installation doesn’t benefit me as my phone isn’t 5G
You planning on keeping that phone until you die?
5G broadband is bloody brilliant, 800mbps download and a 5 min set up.
Unless it's blocking your view of something then there's really no issue.
We’ve got one near us. I’d forgotten it was there until I read this post.
There are loads of debunking articles by actual scientists, with actual science backing it up. The articles claiming there's a health risk seem to be insinuation and hyperbole, from what I can tell.
Local area – Dunblane – had an application for one near a primary school over-turned but it took a lot of signatures.
I thought planning objections had to be based on legitimate reasons?
I thought planning objections had to be based on legitimate reasons?
planning objections can be based on any reason! The council only needs to pay attention to legitimate objections. Likely that someone found some vaguely legitimate reason (like the land not being zoned for it, or some wildlife or road access issue) and the council used that as an east excuse. May even be ther council offers advised for it but the councillors who get the ultimate* say veto’d it.
If the grounds are not OK the cell tower company can appeal to Scottish Gov - but likely they’ll just focus efforts elsewhere - either a slightly less contentious site in Dunblane or just leave Dunblane stuck in the 2010’s!
Residents / Local gov views will just get rolled over by central gov regardless. They’re ugly as **** though and my biggest concern is where there’s one there will soon be three or four as each of the mobile operators need their own (so much for ‘infrastructure’). Still, it stimulates the economy as we’ve all struggled with high speed broadband to get four high-def streams, endless Xbox downloads and multiple Teams calls without them 🤷♂️
I’m not bothered about the aesthetics as it’s relatively inoffensive (although large at 15m high), it’s more the noise around potential health issues.
OK, well that's easy then. The noise is just that, it's the usual flat earth contrail cretins attention-seeking by shouting about things they don't understand. The Earth is bombarded with electromagnetic radiation, the sun started doing it a long time after the rest of the universe already had been doing. Gods help them when they discover microwave ovens or radios.
It’s installation doesn’t benefit me as my phone isn’t 5G
5G masts generally also transmit 4G, 3G, 2G...
I'd take that over living with elecricity Pylon in the back yard, or living next door to an airport.
Or a motorway, or train station.
I’d take that over living with elecricity Pylon in the back yard
Indeed. Pylons are surprisingly loud. That'd be my biggest concern there.
Would you be happy to have one next to your bedroom window?
Would you be happy to have one next to your bedroom window?
Only because it would stop me from getting my car off my drive. There’s an O2 mast and accompanying equipment boxes literally just across from the top of my road, on the other side of the pavement from a house, probably about fifty feet away. It’s been there for years, nobody’s given a toss about it. The simple fact is the masts are never “next to your bedroom window”
Theres no 5G service around here, the nearest is Bristol or London, it’ll be a PITA when they shut off 3G, there’s plenty of places locally where the only signal I get is 3G, and that’s even in town.
They’re ugly as **** though and my biggest concern is where there’s one there will soon be three or four as each of the mobile operators need their own (so much for ‘infrastructure’).
Bollocks. That just doesn’t happen. There’s the one just across from me, on the B4528, used to be the A350, which is O2, the next nearest one is on the junction of the A350/A420 Bristol Road, no idea what that one is, but it’s about a mile away, or thereabouts. There’s another on the A420 just by Chippenham Town football ground and sports complex. I’m not entirely sure where any others are, they don’t stand out enough to notice, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Indeed. Pylons are surprisingly loud. That’d be my biggest concern there.
It’s not just the buzzing, they generate a significant electromagnetic field, standing underneath the big pylon at Quarry Corner on Castle Combe Circuit, I would get continuous electric shocks like a cattle fence every time I touched any metal parts of my bike!
Buggered if I want anything like that near my house.
Had the same recently in our village - patchy mobile and 4G round here, residents kicked off about a 5G mast.
Probably better than an electricity pylon.
That Forbes article is prob the best of the three oldtennisshoes posted imo. Personally, I don't think we really know what the long term health and environmental risks are of mobile phones and associated tech.
Much in the same way the industrial revolution has proved disastrous for our health and the planets. The technological revolution we are currently entering may well have similar issues. To just say "No, there are absolutely no health risks" is short sighted. It's prob better to say, we don't think there are, or they may be issues in the future. But equally, the benefits mean that we may not care even if there were - or that theres too much money to be made.
I cirtainly don't think that enough independent research has taken place & the buzz around COVID and 5g is crack pot bonkers, but this also works to discredit anyone trying to question potential problems into the crack pot tank & and should be disregarded completely by all parties.
To just say “No, there are absolutely no health risks” is short sighted.
There are two things here. One is that there is no known mechanism by which electromagnetic waves at those frequencies cause the health issues that the tin foil hat brigade claim. A lot is known about how E.M. waves interact with matter. Ionizing radiation is dangerous, but not all radiation is ionizing. Communications signals do not operate at frequencies high enough to cause that sort of danger.
The second thing is that we have many decades of data on cancer rates, etc. of tech workers who have had much higher rates of exposure than the general public. The technicians who were young when cell-phones were first introduced are now old and retired. If cell-phones caused cancer in the way that the conspiracy mongers claim, there would be a record of skyrocketing cancer rates among telecoms technicians.
I cirtainly don’t think that enough independent research has taken place
What does this even mean? Independent from who or what? This is just a way of dismissing findings that don't support what you are claiming - you are saying that, yes, research has been done and didn't support your claims but if someone else did the research, the results would be different. So what are you saying? The researchers have deliberately lied or that they are too stupid to know how to run a basic analysis on cancer rates?
I've done 22yrs on telecoms in the field all networks, not kaput yet.
Much in the same way the industrial revolution has proved disastrous for our health….
That is just made up cobblers. Life expectancy increased during and after the Industrial Revolution.
The ones I drive by on the way home play havoc with my DAB radio as I'm listening to the Radio 4 play's.
Very irksome.
i wouldnt be wildly suprised if, i 50 years time we found out that living in a world full of radiowaves of all different shapes and sizes ended up increasing the overall risk of cancer. Much like we look at leaded fuel and asbestos these days.
but we are washed in radiowaves from space already, so maybe not.
Im not going to worry about it, and i doubt the number of Gs is going to make any difference.
I beleive with certainty that the risk of the number of Gs pales in insignficance to the societal damage caused by the data being delivered through it.
I beleive with certainty that the risk of the number of Gs pales in insignficance to the societal damage caused by the data being delivered through it.
Aye, I'm probably with you there. I'd put good money on social media causing more deaths than 5G masts.
it’s more the noise around potential health issues. The impact seems to be minimal but some countries have stopped the roll out
I was under the impression this was due to pretty much all the hardware coming from Huawei (or some other Chinese company) and the concern was every bit of data that passed through them was being clandestinely forwarded to xi.jinping3@ccp.gov.cn
Life expectancy increased during and after the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, life expectancy has increased, quality of life has increased (but not for everyone on the planet), pollution and environmental impacts have also drastically increased along with the related health issues (mass extinction of numerous species). But even if we were told back in the1700's their was a harmful side to things I don't think the general public would care - short term benefits Vs detriments.
What does this even mean? Independent from who or what?
In that the vast majority of surveys and studies seem to be from the telecommunications companies them selves, or those related too, the first link in the thread for example.
All Im saying is that in a few hundred years we'll prob know the impact, positive, neutral or negative. I just highly doubt that our influence will be positive or neutral.
20 years ago there were claims that using a mobile phone held up against your ear could be causing brain cancer.
Is that still a thing?
I used to like to play spot the transmitters camouflaged as trees
That would be a Nokia Eighty One Fir Tree.
All Im saying is that in a few hundred years we’ll prob know the impact, positive, neutral or negative.
we know the impact, becasue; physics. James Maxwell - who wrote the original maths that describe the effects of electromagnetism were developed in the 19th C, I don't think there's been any further research that has disproved the effects, or revised our understanding on the effects of it.
There is an aspect of false equivalency in this discussion.
An example was the thalidomide scandal. When thalidomide was released, there was very little in the way of testing, approvals etc. When we hit the Covid vaccine issue, there were people raising that as a reason not to trust medicine. However that is forgetting that the governance and rules around medicine learnt from past mistakes, put steps in place to fix them and have got checks and balances.
In the same way, governments and regulators have learnt or been formed since the industrial revolution, and new tech is tested compared to the past. An example is lead in petrol. That does not make the process perfect (eg Dieselgate), but there has to be an understanding that science is always moving on, regulation and testing is always improving, and we should as voters be voting in a government that puts effective watchdogs in place to hold industry to account.
Telecoms companies have tried to install two 5G Masts in my village and both times the NIMBYs have got their way and got the plans cancelled. We have a lot of relatively well off retirees with time on their hands in the village and they love a good campaign
Fundamentally they don't like the way they look and don't want them near their house (because house value) so they will use any "evidence", nonsense or otherwise, to get people to sign their petition.
I had a fairly spirited conversation with the spearhead of the local campaign when he came knocking on my door when I called out his BS "evidence".
These are the same people who fit the super high pitched anti-teenager buzzy things to their properties because teenagers have been known to walk up their street whilst talking...probably vote Tory too.
It's impressive how you only have to repeat nonsense long enough and loud enough to have people take it seriously. This has been going on for every iteration of mobile technology I can remember.
It’s impressive how you only have to repeat nonsense long enough and loud enough to have people take it seriously. This has been going on for
every iteration of mobile technology I can remember.the entirety of human history
All Im saying is that in a few hundred years we’ll prob know the impact, positive, neutral or negative. I just highly doubt that our influence will be positive or neutral.
Quite a convenient timescale that isn't it? It means you can maintain this position without any risk of being shown to be wrong. A fundamentally unscientific stance.
"5G" is just* repurposed TV channel frequencies. If you've got TV reception then you've been living with a lifetime of exposure to "5G".
Would you be happy to have one next to your bedroom window?
My "office" used to be about 16ft from one (I know this because you couldn't swing a portacabin container round in the gap). They're only a danger if you stand directly in front of a transmitter at very close range (i.e. to the people working on them), which being 15-20m up a pole is bloody difficult to achieve for the rest of the population. Downside was you actually got a better signal at the other end of the site as we were too close so were in it's shadow!
*it's not, it's the collective term for the entire new infrastructure, the frequency they've used is just the last piece of the puzzle, but for the most part NIMBY's aren't objecting to the rack equipment in a nondescript industrial building somewhere far away.
Independent from who or what?
In this case it means the researchers are not (apparently) being paid by the people who benefit financially from there not being health risks.
Re industrial revolution health - back in the day people were exposed to a lot of air pollution locally from wood burning fires, particularly before chimneys were invented. And yes, the early industrial revolution was terrible for health for a lot of people but since then the society and technology it created has gradually improved public health which is why life expectancy (generally) goes up.
5G towers are pretty low power, so by the time it gets to you it's really small. Not enough to have an effect on anything really except your phone signal.
I’ve done 22yrs on telecoms in the field all networks, not kaput yet.
Communications equipment is inherently bad for human health and has been since they were first invented. Look at the stats: 100% of WW2 radar operators are dead. All the telegraph operators: dead. Switchboard girls: almost all dead. Smoke signal technicians: dead (apart from the ones at the Vatican, and they're often in poor health).
It makes you think...
In this case it means the researchers are not (apparently) being paid by the people who benefit financially from there not being health risks.
Which researchers are you talking about? Which technical journals do you read? Which conferences do you attend?
We have a lot of relatively well off retirees with time on their hands in the village and they love a good campaign
Fundamentally they don’t like the way they look and don’t want them near their house (because house value) so they will use any “evidence”, nonsense or otherwise, to get people to sign their petition.
Ironically having good reception is a key factor in house buying for a large portion of the population. Not for people who buy a morning paper with cash, and watch coronation street on live TV when it airs; but for the rest of the country living in the modern world....
People said the same about indoor plumbing.
Gods help them when they discover microwave ovens or radios.
Or the WiFi router in the corner of your living room.
This site has a lot of information, granted it represents the mobile operators.
Ref the country that has halted roll out, Switzerland did so in 2020 due to health concerns. This may be more about the legislation to make operators liable for any potential health issues.
It doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was found to be an issue in many years to come. As a side note and I'm absolutely not saying this is anything to do with mobiles etc but not that long a go I remember SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it's 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it’s 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
Everyone will get cancer if something else doesn't kill them first. If life expectancies increase, a greater proportion of people will live long enough to get cancer.
Also, not really surprising that an organization trying to raise money uses dubious numbers to scare people into donating. If you don't trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
Would you be happy to have one next to your bedroom window?
Yet it wasn't that long ago that we had telegraph poles lining street after street after street up and down the country.
It doesn’t seem to be anything to worry about, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was found to be an issue in many years to come.
This makes no sense. Is there something to worry about or isn't there?
As a side note and I’m absolutely not saying this is anything to do with mobiles etc but not that long a go I remember SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it’s 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
If it's nothing to do with mobiles why are you bringing it in to a discussion on mobiles?
One of the main reasons that more people are diagnosed with cancer now is that we are living longer as other stuff isn't killing us and cancer is predominently a disease of old age. You could view the rise in rates as a success story of modern medicine.
If you don’t trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
True, but I suppose because sadly cancer is more tangible. In my team of 4, 3 of us have lost our Mums to cancer, 1 of us has a wife currently in the middle of chemo and another's Father is having it cut out of him today.
But anyway, I shouldn't have made that comparison.
If you don’t trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
I'm always really wary of big, vague statistics like this, the detail often reveals a much more nuanced and less frightening story. What are these cancers? What is causing them? When are people getting them? Are they treatable? etc etc...
It doesn’t seem to be anything to worry about, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was found to be an issue in many years to come. As a side note and I’m absolutely not saying this is anything to do with mobiles etc but not that long a go I remember SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it’s 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
Even taking it at face value, there's plenty of things that we do know cause cancers to worry about without spreading rumor's and misinformation about things we can't link to cancer but can't prove a negative. As politecameraaction put it, 100% of phone users will die, doesn't mean the phones did it.
As with all of these they should be shoved up in cities or on top of electricity pylons where they are virtually invisible. Or made much shorter. If they can't do that than they shouldn't be made.
I work on these sites occasionally. If you check the planning documents you'll probably find the RF diagrams I see when visiting, showing the direction of the signal beams and how it's been mapped to miss anywhere that a human could reasonably expect the access, and clearances over rooftops. I use an RF monitor and it's never gone off, even when waved on a stick towards the edges of the beam path (not in the middle as I don't have a stick long enough!)
I did once work on a hospital rooftop and whilst admiring the view I noticed a microwave dish pointing straight at me from a distant hospital building a few hundred metres away. I turned around and behind me was the other dish, pointing straight at the back of my head. Microwave is bad and I moved out of the way sharpish, quite likely I caused an outage 🙂
As with all of these they should be shoved up in cities or on top of electricity pylons where they are virtually invisible.
For effective coverage, they need to be quite closely spaced (around every 200m) so that won't work.
there’s plenty of things that we do know cause cancers to worry about without spreading rumor’s and misinformation about things we can’t link to cancer but can’t prove a negative.
Exactly. Saying "they should ban 5G masts because no-one's proved they don't cause cancer" is like saying "they should ban leopards because no-one's proved they don't cause diabetes"
Which researchers are you talking about? Which technical journals do you read? Which conferences do you attend?
I'm sorry, I don't have citations to hand. Do you have citations which support negative health effects of 5G masts? Very keen to read if so.
Even taking it at face value, there’s plenty of things that we do know cause cancers to worry about without spreading rumor’s and misinformation about things we can’t link to cancer but can’t prove a negative.
I don't believe I was if that's what you're inferring?
If you don’t trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
I’m always really wary of big, vague statistics like this, the detail often reveals a much more nuanced and less frightening story. What are these cancers? What is causing them? When are people getting them? Are they treatable? etc etc…
This is a point about trusting experts, I think.
they should be shoved up in cities or on top of electricity pylons
How do you propose we work on them, huge electricity outage and hang from a helicopter? They've also need to be powered from 400,000v!
I’m sorry, I don’t have citations to hand.
So you distrust research, but have never actually looked at any of it? If you could point to some peer-reviewed research that has the problems you claim exist, it would be more convincing.
FFS, not this shite again. I spent a lot of time a couple of years ago with another forum contributor going over all this.
My doctorate was in this area (RF propagation on/around the body) none of which was paid for by the telecoms industry. I have then worked in this field in the defence industry for the last 15 years.
EDIT: - If you have any questions after reading the above linked thread please just ask and I'll provide any answers I can.
This is a point about trusting experts, I think.
My point was more about public understanding of science and how the media present scientific findings.
My doctorate was in this area (RF propagation on/around the body) none of which was paid for by the telecoms industry. I have then worked in this field in the defence industry for the last 15 years.
But you can't name a single research paper that you think has the problems you describe?
“they should ban leopards because no-one’s proved they don’t cause diabetes”
Well, that's stupid. Everyone knows it's Lions that cause diabetes.
There are two things here. One is that there is no known mechanism by which electromagnetic waves at those frequencies cause the health issues that the tin foil hat brigade claim. A lot is known about how E.M. waves interact with matter. Ionizing radiation is dangerous, but not all radiation is ionizing. Communications signals do not operate at frequencies high enough to cause that sort of danger.
Is that definitely true?
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf
"Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats."
"The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans ... However, the studies question the long-held assumption that RFR is of no concern as long as the energy level is low and does not significantly heat the tissues."
“Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats.”
Anyone who is worried about this should probably read the full article. The full story is far less alarming than this headline.
Particular points to note are:
"The exposure levels and durations were greater than what people may receive from cellphones.
• The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cellphone in their pocket or next to their head."
And
"The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum exposure to the local tissue (cells) currently allowed for cellphone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cellphone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted for local tissues"
And
"NTP studies of RFR used in 2G and 3G cellphones do not apply to 4G or 5G technologies. These newer technologies use different methods of signal modulation than NTP used in the studies. The NTP
studies also did not investigate frequencies and modulations used for Wi-Fi."
Some mice in a chamber exposed to levels of RFR between 3 and 10 times the mandated limit put out by a phone? I suppose if you spent 24hrs a day on 10 mobile phone calls simultaneously you might have an issue. It also didn't look at 4G/5G frequencies.
*Edit* Like he said up there! 🤣
Is that definitely true?
The key word is "known."
However, as I also pointed out, telecom technicians don't seem to all die of cancer at a young age. If there is an effect, it seems to be so small that it's very difficult to detect.
we know the impact, becasue; physics. James Maxwell – who wrote the original maths that describe the effects of electromagnetism were developed in the 19th C, I don’t think there’s been any further research that has disproved the effects, or revised our understanding on the effects of it.
If you're going to play that game then you need to consider another more modern text here: description of paper. Quite a famous/credible author, most would agree. [Edit - link was going to wrong paper, search "Einstein 1905 light" should get it]
This radically changes how we think of the ionising effects of light - and adds to the body of evidence that radio / microwave frequency light doesn't ionise anything.
Thols2: there might be some crossed wires (ironically) but I think you, molgrips and jonm81 are all agreeing with each other.
There are loads of debunking articles by actual scientists, with actual science backing it up. The articles claiming there’s a health risk seem to be insinuation and hyperbole, from what I can tell.
Hmm I used to work with someone who couldnt have a computer near him (due to electrical interference). He couldnt go near electricity pylons as they made him ill, and he had a patch of black tape on the wall in the office to prevent a reflection of sun coming through the window that gave him migraines. How dare you suggest he was making it all up.
Damn it, my link didn't work.
Here it is: https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/5g-towers-being-destroyed-for-transmitting-coronavirus/page/2/