5G health risks not understood
ONE problem with the proposed 5G coverage is that nobody really knows what effect electromagnetic radiation has on our bodies. We do know that the effects of higher levels of most types of this radiation are adverse to the point of being fatal. We hope that the effects of low levels are not a problem, but whether this is really so, and, if it is, where the cut-off is, is unknown.
History is littered with instances where adverse effects have emerged only after periods of trial and error, from the use of lead aqueducts and cooking vessels in ancient Rome, through Victorians who used arsenic-containing pigments in their wallpaper and clothing, to the extensive use of asbestos for so many useful purposes in the 20th century. As a school child in the 1950s, like many of my contemporaries, I possessed a watch with a luminous dial. I remember the sense of disbelief on discovering later on that these were to be discontinued because of the adverse radiation effects of the luminous paint, not least on those people who did the painting.
If you look at the history of asbestos manufacture in the 20th century, you cannot fail to notice how some manufacturers in this industry were in denial for some time over the adverse health effects of their products, even in the face of increasing evidence. (See, for example, ‘Magic mineral to killer dust’ by Geoffrey Tweedale. Oxford University Press 2001).
We do have the example of the motor vehicle, where societies are willing to accept a relatively high incidence of death and injury to obtain a benefit (not so high in Guernsey, due to low speed limits). The difference no doubt is the very high value we place on personal travel, the fact that the risks are well quantified statistically, and while the results of motor accidents may be horrific, they are straightforward and easy to understand.
In the case of electromagnetic radiation, the risks are not quantifiable at our present state of knowledge, and any adverse health effects are insidious, mysterious, and may occur over a prolonged period.
We already live in an atmosphere well permeated by man-made electromagnetic radiation, and in an environment increasingly contaminated with products from nuclear reactions. Nobody seems to know whether this contributes significantly to the present incidence of malignant and other diseases. Or at the very least, not much is published in the media about it either way, and when it is then it’s difficult to know what to believe. So to a large extent we seem to be groping in the dark.
It does seem at least possible that in introducing 5G the powers that be might be taking risks with the health of the population. There might be a risk of increasing the number of personal tragedies, as well as a risk of placing an additional burden on our already overstretched health services.
The people who are driving 5G forward are naturally driven by technical considerations and demands. It has to be down to our States members to try to balance the possible costs and benefits. If this is gone into thoroughly and carefully, it may not be an easy decision.
BOB PERKINS,
Les Corneilles,
Rue de la Ronde Cheminee,
Castel, GY5 7GD.