Guernsey Press

Resist forced exposure to 5G radiation

MANY of us will be aware that the States plans to use Guernsey as a test bed for the new 5G mobile technology, also known as ‘fibre in the air’. Following on from Laurie Queripel’s plea for caution, I would like to add a couple of points.

Published

One reason why 5G is so different from our current 4G technology is that the industry is having to use a microwave radiation that is relatively easily stopped by foliage, buildings and human bodies. To overcome this limitation the industry has two main solutions. Firstly, 5G will use a far higher density of masts, with Guernsey needing about 150 additional, albeit mostly small, masts, meaning that most people will live much closer to a mast than at present. Secondly, the masts will transmit a concentrated beam of radiation. It is this second aspect, together with the predicted massive increase in radiation generally, that has many scientists concerned.

Our current 4G masts transmit a blanket of radiation on all sides, but 5G uses ‘beam forming’ and ‘beam steering’, where many small transmitters in each mast aim a concentrated beam of radiation directly at the device (phone), and the device fires a beam right back. Whilst not wishing to scare anyone, it is not at all unlikely that, at one time or another, we will come between such beams of radiation. In other words, microwave radiation will pass through our bodies in concentrated form, possibly for extended periods. This is most likely to happen when in a crowd of people, but might also happen when we or our children are, say, asleep in bed or watching telly. No one knows with provable certainty how this will affect our health, our thinking or our ability to sleep at night, although many experts say it is likely to be harmful.

Whether we should be concerned is a matter of dispute between the mobile phone industry, which claims that 4G and 5G radiation is safe until proven otherwise, and those scientists who claim that exposure is likely harmful but will take decades to prove. There is now a large amount of research documenting microwave sickness and sensitivity due to cell masts. A paper by Zothansiama et al (2017), for instance, compares people living close (within 80 metres) and far (over 300 metres) from phone masts, and claims that those living closer have statistically significant increases in blood damage biomarkers predictive of cancer. Even if such research will be disputed by the industry, many more scientists argue that 5G is being rolled out with grossly inadequate research into its health and environmental effects and that the cautionary principle should prevail and 5G be delayed.

The States’ chief information officer told an audience that, although health concerns should be taken seriously, the States is reliant on ICNIRP emission guidelines and the World Health Organization. However, although the WHO has relatively little to say on mobile phone radiation, it even now categorises it as ‘possibly carcinogenic... based on increased risk for glioma, a type of brain cancer associated with mobile phone use’ (IARC 2011).

As for ICNIRP, China, Russia, Israel Japan and five European countries have more stringent standards. It has been claimed by Deputy Dudley-Owen that 5G will bring health benefits and reduce radiation emissions. On the first point, little more need be said. On the second point, 5G is more efficient so, if network traffic remained static and 4G disappeared, overall radiation levels would diminish. However, network traffic is predicted to rise very significantly with 5G and many believe that 4G is unlikely to disappear. The States is intending to forcefully expose us to 5G radiation.

If we do not want to be forced, we can resist. The deputies’ email is deputies2016@gov.gg.

NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD.