Good Morning, I live in Honor Oak, on Friday I received a letter from Lewisham Council advising me that a planning application has been received by Mobile Network UK (EE and one other), to erect a new antennae on the flats at Greystead Road. It is in preparation for 5G which is to be rolled out possibly as early as this summer.
Bearing in mind that no testing has been done to prove the safety of 5G, but plenty of peer studies proving its harm, I believe that we should be opposing this technology until we know it’s long-term effects.
5G has been banned in several places due to health concerns.
Greystead Rd is next to Fairlawn School, and close to the Catholic School on Forest Hill Road. Do we really want our children in the middle of this ‘electro-smog’?
Please consider writing to Lewisham Council by June 1st, the planning ref is DC/19/11166 - you can check out the application on the Lewisham Council website.
If anyone would like to do some leafleting with me, or organise a local group to fight this, please pm me.
5G Antennae Planning Permission
I’d be greatful if you could share the peer reviewed studies as I’d love to take a look. Thanks
Thanks for sharing, @NickyB50 and welcome to the forum.
When I first heard about 5G I was shocked at how ubiquitous the masts will need to be (due to the lower penetrative power of 5G vs 4G). I’d be interested to see the current research on health implications.
I’ve always felt the health scares around the 3G and 4G masts were overblown. But that said, I wouldn’t want to live next door to one…
I think this the application in question:
Hi Andy and Chris, to be honest I am ploughing what seems to be a huge amount of material written by scientists across the world.
I will post some links below for you to check out, I know it might seem lazy not to post one definitive article, but I think that’s the point, we are at a stage of trying to understand this technology which is radically different from 3G & 4G.
For Lewisham Council to say that it is safe and that the masts should be allowed is a little premature.
Thats the one. If you click through the documents you will see that the application has been made in the name of EE who are texting all their customers (me included) to announce the roll out of 5G later this year.
Aside from the main topic, I’m amused that the site drawings include the ‘existing pirate radio equipment and antenna’.
However, the matter of radio transmission safety and limits is surely one for Ofcom, and not a planning issue as such? Notably there is little technical description of what’s being deployed, such as frequency, transmission power and azimuth.
Not one for conspiracy theories, but to play devils advocate:
(AFAIK, NYT is a reputable source of information, albiet biased slightly to the left)
Thanks for the links.
It’s a shame that the neither of the linked articles stipulate what potential ‘issues’ with 5G are, or whether it is a matter of unknown unknowns, rather than known unknowns. The 5G standard is a bundle of mini standards, but I can pick up that two issues relate to the new, higher frequencies used in 5G (currently used in WiFi and microwaves) and the beam forming technologies (you can aim the 5G transmissions). Both of those enable higher energy waves with (i) the frequency being proportional to energy (hello, E = hf from GCSE physics), and (ii) it is safer to aim higher energy waves that to transmit them indiscriminately.
One feature of using the higher frequency waves for 5G is that the waves are attenuated by air, so the signal strength will drop off quickly without requiring solid objects to get in their way, hence the cells have to be more densely arranged.
Time will tell, I guess, but I disagree with Chris as I would be happy for a 5G antenna to be installed on his roof (not on mine though).
BT announced this week that they’re planning on selectively launching a 5G service in September. I’m delighted the we’re amongst the first areas to have 5G. Every mobile generation has had similar stories of frying brains as a result of spectrum usage. We’re also not the first country to launch the tech - s Korea, the us, China, Japan have all had fixed wireless 5 g for a little while now, without any side effects. Bristol, unbelievably a hub of 5G research has had 5G trials in the city centre for a couple of years now.
If you feel uneasy about it, You can read more on the research that has been done by government agencies and others here:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/is-5g-dangerous/
The main benefit of fixed wireless access is that you can cut the landline rental from your monthly bill and go entirely wireless.
There are very few 5G smartphones available at the moment and as an apple user, as I am we can expect to be amongst the last to upgrade. I plan to hold off upgrading my device until probably September 2020 when apple will probably finally get around to launching a 5G capable device.
Will be great to do away with ADSL and fibre, and for everything to be wireless over the cell network. I could accept a little bit of brain frying if it saves me forking out for both broadband and cell contracts
Ironically Relish Broadband, who were providing fixed access via 4G in the 3.8GHz band, were bought by 3UK to gain access to that slice of spectrum for 5G services.
Interestingly Relish was owned by the son of 3UKs ultimate owner. To quote the FT (paywall):
“Three is owned by CK Hutchison, controlled by Asia’s richest man Li Ka-shing, while UK Broadband, the company behind Relish, is owned by Hong Kong-based telecoms company PCCW, which is run by his son Richard Li.”
Either way, and perhaps more relevant to the original post, the sub-6GHz frequency bands for 5G ‘New Radio’ operation should be uncontroversial - WiFi can already operate at 5GHz and 4G (LTE-TDD) mode is at 3.5GHz in parts of the country already. There’s a good overview of spectrum allocation around the world here, for the curious:
https://www.spectrummonitoring.com/frequencies/#UK
Perhaps fear mongering over the new millimetre-wave band’s above 24GHz is more valid as that’s novel for a commercial communications system (and the benefits could be huge!). But still no one’s bringing forth that evidence. Unfortunately testing that something isn’t linked, and doing so accurately and with significant confidence is very hard in science. That can unfortunately allow the psuedo-scientists space for their agenda.
“written by scientists across the World”. That doesn’t mean anything. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists who publish articles and studies every single day. Doesn’t mean they are right or there’s any scientific consensus. The majority of studies published each day are absolute rubbish
The sun is what actually gives you cancer. I thought this Quora answer gave a few pretty straight-forward comparisons:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-5G-and-the-radiation-in-a-microwave-oven
Not really. It’s non-specific to 5G, mentioning it only once, and addressing general ‘electro-smog’.
A number of the linked papers are paywalled too, which is frustrating, and those it does cite aren’t very convincing. For example, in the first paragraph it says “acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists”. If you look at the first linked paper (Effects of Cell Phone Radio frequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism), it concludes that there is an effect, but “This finding is of unknown clinical significance.” i.e. they don’t know if it is harmful, beneficial or anything else for humans. The methodologies in the paper were also poor - they consider being in a ‘phone call’ as a singular state, but the reality is much more complex. While they did have a bit of equipment to verify the mobile signal (an FHS6, better than my FSH4), we know nothing of the output power or frequency. I note they muted the speaker on the phone, presumably to rule out audio stimulation being an explanation. The don’t say if they muted the microphone however - in a quiet or silent surrounding a mobile will actually stop transmitting for periods and greatly lower emissions compared with a noisy environment; this increases battery life and efficiency. They also didn’t rule out other RF sources. To be scientific they should have conducted the experiment in a shielded room with a calibrated RF generator.
So from that paper do we even know that the mobile was producing sufficient RF energy to have any likely effect vs anything environmental? Were other error sources removed, such a direct thermal effects?
As long and respected as The Lancet is, this doesn’t look compelling or conclusive. It wouldn’t however be the first time The Lancet got it wrong, remember when they published the flawed paper wrongly linking MMR and Autism?
BT/EE has announced that they plan to launch 5G services at the end of the month. Doesn’t look like Honor Oak/Forest HIll are included in the first phase of roll out, but with planning underway for further masts, we most probably won’t have to wait long.
Other service providers will follow soon.
5G devices launched with the service include devices from Samsung, Oppo, One Plus (two chinese vendors) and LG.
More detail here:
This is clearly in preparation for 5G. Read the documents attached to the planning application. Government pressure for Lewisham to allow this roll out. Letters from the 5G industry calling for less strict regulations to improve ‘efficiency’.
I’m not a flat-earther or a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that technology introduced to every home should be tested for safety first.
DC_19_111668-5G_AND_FUTURE_TECHNOLOGY-781761.pdf (250.4 KB)
DC_19_111668-DCMS_MHCLG_COLLABORATING_FOR_DIGITAL_CONNECTIVITY_LETTER-781753.pdf (83.0 KB)
The planning application is for changes to an existing cell site, and isn’t exactly a ‘technology introduced to every home’. If we were discussing femto-cell type devices using millimeter wave bands for 5G I would sympathise with the concern. Perhaps we should worry more about Virgin Media set top boxes and BT Home Hubs using 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi signals, but that seems uncontroversial?
Still, it’s the job of Ofcom to regulate spectrum use and safe power levels in the UK, not council planning departments who are skilled in other areas of expertise.
Thanks Chris. Still time to get any letters of objection in. They have to be sent to Lewisham Council by 1st June.
Interestingly, and perhaps to the annoyance of EE, the BBC reported on the EE 5G launch today, but also added a section on “Is 5G safe” at the bottom of the article:
Hi there, sorry I forgot to reply previously. If you look at the new LED street lights on both Forest Hill Road and Netherby Road you will see a small spike, this is I believe a Femtocell transmitter. Essentially they are already in place, ready for when 5G is rolled out.
Great if it is, but are you sure that’s not for the leafnut control system used across Lewisham and other councils? Can you post a picture?
Oh OK, just looked at Leafnuts, that looks them, but they aren’t they also continuously emitting wi-fi and potentially connected to health-risks…?
Before hanging the wallpaper when next you decorate, hang a layer of tin foil. This should stop the WiFi signals from getting into your home, at least.
Hi Promofaux, I get the sense that you are taking the piss and that is possibly deserved given my lazy comment made last evening.
I’d like to make it clear, I am not a flat-earther, a tin-foil hat wearer, a conspiracy theorist or a fan of David Icke, but I am concerned about the potential affect of technology that has not been tested for its long term affects on humans. The fact that Lloyds of London has refused to insure wireless technology is interesting, why might that be?
On 6th Feb this year, US Senator Blumental asked a question in regard to any ongoing independent scientific studies into the affect of 5G on human health. There are none.
I personally am not happy about being a guinea pig when it comes to this technology, if that makes me crazy to some, ce la vie.
It may or may not have been said with my tongue wedged firmly in my cheek. 
It was a comment on the general idea, rather than personally levelled at you, apologies if it was taken as such.
And yet those that are, are, are, and do are the ones writing blog posts and “articles” on the subject. Which makes it quite difficult to properly research the subject and get to the facts
It really took some digging about on the internet to find more information about this. On the surface, you are correct in this statement. As attested to in an article in The Observer back in 1999, and I am yet to find any evidence to the contrary.
So down the rabbit hole I went… after several search terms based around the words “Lloyds” “London” “Refuse” “wireless” “5G” etc, and clicking to the 10th+ page or so of search results for each term, I stumbled upon a paper written by Lloyds covering the subject, and a screen grab of the executive summary from it.
If I’m being honest, I have no real strong feelings on the subject, and I’m no scientist or doctor. But when presented with some information, I find it pays to go searching for the other side of the story. Yes I’m a pompous git sometimes.
Adam Puts on his Conspiracy Theorist hat : If we were being used as guinea pigs for this sort of thing, then those experiments would have happened years ago and in secret before the technology was even considered being announced to the public.
The leafnut system looks to predominantly use the 868MHz ISM band to link the majority of nodes to a central hub which then also has a mobile phone-like modem to communicate back to base. It is not WiFi, but says it uses WiMAC - likely either a proprietary protocol or typo in the marketing department for WiMAX.
The 868MHz is the same as garage door openers, wireless burglar alarms, some wireless CCTV and so on use. It is unlikely to transmit continuously as that would waste power, and it is also a requirement for devices using this band not to ‘jam’ it and co-operate. This means they are restricted to short bursts or chirps of transmission with lots of gaps in between.
I’m doubtful this system has health effects, especially as the transmitters are generally a few meters up so the radiated power very small at street level anyway. There is however a Daily mail article about these systems which claims residents of one village had all sorts of ill health effects from street lighting systems - I won’t link it here as it’s tripe, but I’m sure you can find it if you are interested.
As for generally worrying about this stuff… well if you search around there’s lots about coffee being a carcinogen or not, and even pottery can apparently be toxic too, particularly when firing it. As pointed out by @promofaux there is a lot of bad science written out there so it makes it difficult to form an objective view.
Here’s a reasonable article from Sky news discussing the safety of 5G and mobile phone use:
Just read an article on the subject of misunderstandings of claims around high frequency radio waves, figured it may be if interest here:
There seems to be a lot of misinformation about 5G. This recent article may help:
According to the WHO:
Eating pickled vegetables and using talcum powder are classed as having the same level of risk.
Alcoholic drinks and processed meat are classed as higher risk.
Interesting write up from the Guardian:
Junk science is a fact of life. Between hyperbolic reporting of careful studies, careful reporting of hyperbolic studies and “common sense” dismissal of any studies at all, it is getting harder and harder for non-experts to separate reasonable concerns from medical misinformation.
…
Jones is firm: there is absolutely no evidence that 5G, or any other part of the network, is dangerous. “The wavelengths that 5G uses and will use are all entirely safe and have been in research and testing for decades. It’s a red herring to say it’s a new technology and therefore hasn’t been tested,” he says.To fully debunk the health fears around 5G is impossible: there is no consistent set of claims being made, few explicit studies being cited, and a surfeit of scientific terminology being used in ways that obscure rather than illuminate. Not a single expert the Guardian spoke to believed there was any reliable evidence of harm from 5G or any other part of the publicly licensed broadcast spectrum. …
Notably the planning permission for this particular antenna has 6 objections at present, though the Lewisham website doesn’t divulge the reasons or text.
The planning application for the antennas on the Greystead Road flats was granted yesterday.
Dear Nicky,
I have just found your post about 5G. I am really concerned about wireless devices all together as they are dangerous. How did you get on with finding someone to leaflet with, and did that 5G mast go up in the end.
Currently I have some time on my hands to do some leafleting if the offer is still on the table.
I would like to join an active group that will protest against this violation on our health and wellbeing, and also the trespassing of all this radiation into our homes without our consent.
I don’t use wifi in my home as I am electro sensitive and most times carry my RF reader with me to demonstrate to people what the RF’s from their devices register. My device flashes red when radiation is extreme. I am getting more and more unsettled with the amount of masts that are going up, not to mention the biological affects I have, my skin itches and I feel nauseous. Being at home is more bareable since we ethernet cabled everything in. But I am so sensitive to the neighbours devices sleping at night I get a slight head ache and ear ache. I then measure the readings and they confirm the rf’s are high. Sorry to ramble on. I think there will be a protest against 5G January 25th 2020.
5G, as with 3G, 4G, WiFi etc., is harmless. It is very low power, non ionising radiation. It is not capable of doing any significant damage to the human body.
I do think the cumulative effects need to be considered. I am sensitive to resonance myself. I do have a problem with the electrical processes in my heart. My cardiologist has said it’s idiopathic. I don’t know if my sensitivity to resonance is a result of my conductivity issue or may be a cause. But remember it took a long time for sonar to be recognized as causing problems for whales.
A couple of interesting websites here:
Interestingly, new Public Health England guidance was released last week recommending children avoid excessive use of mobile phones, to reduce exposure to radio waves:
Appears to be just precautionary, but it seems significant that government is issuing the precaution.
It’s not long ago that petrol contained lead, and houses were riddled with asbestos. Who would have thought these might be harmful?
I’m no expert on RF radiation, but I think it’s reasonable to be cautious where we can be.
Hearing and seeing how 5G is being installed just like that is shocking. Not liking this who authorises this and the health issues it can cause. We don’t need it some areas have 2 big giants next to each other already.
Health issues?
Here is a recent overview of the issue
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/02/is-uk-5g-mobile-dangerous-to-human-health-a-fact-check.html
Also https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how-worried-should-you-be-about-the-health-risks-of-5g/
I’d say there is nothing to be alarmed about
I would do bad things for 5G home broadband right now. Working from home with a 0.9 mbps upload speed is rough.
Apparently there is a fake news story linking 5G and corona virus with at least two being set on fire. Some people are idiots.
Thanks for your responses. Hope all is well…I get that part of it the communications. Though I have been seeing updates people sharing on social media examples of dropping dead Ducks and other wild life. Alongside the giant scary towers randomly placed. I don’t know a lot about this not saying I do but it’s about finding a balance??? It’s hard call but who speaks up for the wildlife and nature suffering the consequences. And no one should tolerate threatening behaviour to carry out any type of work. Better education on this is important to everyone needs well you would hope so.
Don’t believe what you read on Social Media unless it is backed by references. Anyone can post saying anything but it doesn’t mean it is true. Don’t believe me either, do some research and follow the science.
We have had decades of this sort of thing and all of it has come to nothing.
I welcome the bandwidth and promise that 5G offers.
And also, don’t believe references!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358 - it’s on the BBC, yes the amount of stupidity is depressing.
I am aware not everything is true on social media and the press. But sometimes the truth can also be told via social media & the press. No harm either in sharing my concerns or chatting about it on a forum. It works both ways!!
Just chatting:
Good Morning Londondrz,
Thank you for kindly for sharing that info. I have noticed there are mixed reviews on both sides of the argument at the same time both sides have some good points. I myself not sure what to believe at the moment but I keep an open mind like anything. Right or wrong time will tell and so will the positives.
Continue to stay safe and keep shining!!
Hi @anon27836993. Thanks for the response. There do seem differing points of view on this. Let’s hope it can be clarified for all of us in a meaningful full way and people can discuss it in the way we are.
Stay safe.
John
There are differing ‘points of view’ and there is science. The problem with a ‘point of view’ is that it aligns with whatever view you want to have and you can pick and choose whatever argument you want. This is like giving climate change believers/deniers 50% airtime each because they have opposing points of view when 98% or whatever have a scientific evidence based peer reviewed argument. You might as well say the earth is flat or vaccines are stupid or wind farms give you cancer. Go ahead, but please let’s not pander to this politely, it just encourages it. Sorry but this really annoys me, even YouTube are removing the 5G causes coronavirus stuff now.
My hope is that by having a polite discussion people may listen. Shouting or angry exchanges lead to closed ears.
That is my hope anyway.
OK, good, I agree. I’m sorry, ignore me. I hope everyone listens to polite discussion.
Not all, you bring a valid point. There has been some “interesting” actions by people recently with burning masts. In my opinion a strange thing to do as I have personally not seen any evidence to show that 5G is dangerous. If shown this I may change my mind. I do remember a certain amount of concern when 4G was rolled out, and 3G.
I have seen quite a lot of informed opinion that it is safe, and this opinion is from scientists who gained their experience at well known universities and institutions.
Exactly this- presenting two positions as falsely equivalent is a danger many news organisations have fallen into and it distorts sensible narrative.
The 5G issue for example- there is no known physical mechanism for this kind of RF field to cause harm, in fact we are exposed to higher intensities due to solar radiation all the time. An extraordinary claim such as implied harm from 5G requires extraordinary evidence- and despite extensive testing there is none.
Today I read that none of the equipment set ablaze by the luddites was a 5G mast, so we can take small relief that the move to 5G [and our continued rule by our lizard overlords] can continue unabated.
So how should one discuss issues such as this with the “social media informed” then? Start from a place where you make it clear that the consensus is that their claims are outlandish? The world is complicated and many people don’t trust experts, even if they are able to discern them.
I have two friends who are flat earthers and genuinely believe the earth is flat. We remain friends regardless. Nothing I, or anyone says will convince them otherwise so we don’t discuss it. Should they feel the need to burn down a mast, or any other item, to prove their point I would cease to be their friend PDQ.
However, being a flat earther does not within itself contribute negatively towards comms for the NHS, anti 5G, in some very rare instances does. So I would suggest that people think long and hard before setting fire to things that “might” cause us harm.
My final post on the subject, from the Guardian.
And we still have minor TV celebs saying unqualified things:
I really hope Ofcom slap a significant fine on this, though doubtlessly that would suit the conspiracy theorists with suggestion of a ‘state narrative’.