Over the past few weeks, the media has been saturated with coverage of deep concerns about the fate of the planet, of national security, of climate change and more besides.
From the bad-tempered Extinction Rebellion protests that caused so much conflict they appeared more successful in distracting attention from the issue at hand than at raising awareness of it, to Labour’s policy on the environment, and the ongoing row over the role Chinese tech giant Huawei might play in the roll-out of the new 5G network, fear has been the media’s primary focus.
And while all those concerns are certainly legitimate, it strikes me that somewhere along the way – particularly in the political approach to Huawei and 5G – we have managed to overlook the biggest threat of all.
Whether or not Huawei are allowed to be an integral player in the 5G story – it seems as though they will in Europe, but not in the US – the biggest threat we face in the immediate future, is the one that 5G technology itself poses to human, plant and animal health.
And it’s not just me saying it.
As of today (April 30 2019), more than 230 prominent and highly-regarded doctors and scientists from more than 40 countries have signed the 5G Appeal – a document created two years ago which calls on European governments to halt the roll-out of 5G due to serious concerns over the impact it will have on health.
5G is the planned evolution that will take us from the current 4G standard network that allows smart but largely personalised tech functionality on our phones and devices. As users, we see the benefit in faster network speeds which give us better connectivity to smart tech, rapid download and upload speeds and the ongoing development of smart homes (e.g. linked home systems – lighting, power, refrigeration and heat – that we control from an app.
By contrast, 5G will see an upgrade in wireless tech that is far greater than anything we’ve seen before. While the transition from 3G to 4G was in many ways revelatory on a personal level, 5G on paper will have the power to run the world. Literally.
Driverless cars, integrated road systems, instant data transfer, heads-up systems management, military systems – there is very little that 5G won’t enable us to do in the tech-driven future.
The price? Greater infrastructure. More receivers, more satellites, more systems – and, critically, more radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) which, the 230+ experts who’ve signed the 5G Appeal – and many more who haven’t – argue is the greatest threat yet to global health.
According to the document ‘numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines’.
The effects these publications have identified extend to increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.
But, crucially, the risk isn’t limited to human health. There is already plentiful, and growing, evidence of harmful effects of RF-EMF to both plants and animals.
The worries about the impact on health, and of cancer risk in particular, from cell phone technology aren’t exactly new – the media has been reporting on and off for years, and certainly since the very early generation of cellular technology, that microwave radiation from mobile phone masts was a serious and real threat. Furthermore, there are particular concerns with children and unborn children being more sensitive to these higher RF-EMFs.
But 5G ups the ante further. A truly global 5G network capable of delivering the ‘advances’ it boasts will require significant increases in transmitter sites which, in turn, will generate billions more connections to smart home and car technology than we currently capable of achieving.
So far, the EU has sent two responses to the calls for the 5G programme to be stopped until assurances over health can be given. Those responses have been lukewarm at best.
The first, in October 2017, claimed there was not sufficient evidence to justify putting the brakes on the 5G strategy. The second, very slightly more conciliatory reply sent a month later gave assurances that Europe would ‘stay abreast’ of research on the subject, but stopped well short of committing the Commission to more a proactive or collaborative approach on the issue.
Despite these lukewarm responses it’s interesting that Brussels of all places is the first city to put a hold on any 5G roll out for the moment. That in itself should sound alarm bells; it being the home of many European bureaucrats?
It is extremely worrying that there is no independent research outside the telecoms industry that confirms the safety of 5G – so why are governments not more concerned than they seem to be about its roll out?
I am one of the concerned doctors and scientists that strongly feel there has to be more independent evidence of safety before this is commonplace. If the 230+ doctors and scientists are right based on the existing evidence, then the roll out of 5G is potentially catastrophic for human, animal as well as plant health.
I believe this technology poses a much greater shorter-term threat than any changes in climate.
I put this out because it is a topic that needs to concern everyone, and no-one is talking about it in the mainstream media. Nor does it seem to be engaging the appropriate government concern.
Faced with the weight of evidence that has been carried out in dozens of countries around the world, it appears that for all the hand-wringing protests, posturing and proclamations around ecology, environment and health, the ability to instantly watch Netflix carries greater appeal than saving the planet and its human landlords.
If you would like explore this subject for yourself and read further information about the concerns, the following is a good source https://ehtrust.org/resources-to-take-action-on-us-5g-streamlining-bills/