{"id":9069,"date":"2019-09-08T09:23:57","date_gmt":"2019-09-08T09:23:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/?p=9069"},"modified":"2026-04-18T19:34:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:34:31","slug":"caution-5g-ahead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/2019\/09\/caution-5g-ahead\/","title":{"rendered":"Caution: 5G ahead"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last week First Minister <\/strong>Nicola Sturgeon made a big, bold announcement on 5G,<\/strong><\/a> the next generation of mobile internet (fifth generation cellular network technology). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

She committed Scotland to becoming a \u20185G leader,\u2019 claiming that the country would benefit enormously from the \u2018vast potential growth\u2019 that 5G could unlock. An accompanying Scottish Government document \u2018Forging our Digital Future with 5G\u2019<\/a> sets out how this technology could improve, for example, health care and environmental management as well as allow \u2018the internet of things\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Update April 2020: Coronavirus 5G conspiracy theories. <\/strong>\u00a0In view of new interest in this article, let us repeat, this conspiracy theory is\u00a0 dangerous misinformation. There is NO link between 5G and Covid-19.\u00a0 Attacks on b<\/span>roadband engineers and telecoms infrastructure are a potential risk to essential networks connecting emergency services, hospitals and vulnerable people. YouTube has banned all\u00a0conspiracy<\/em>\u00a0theory videos falsely linking\u00a0coronavirus <\/em>symptoms to\u00a05G<\/em> networks. Facebook has removed one anti-5G group encouraging members to supply footage of them destroying mobile phone equipment.\u00a0 For more information click\u00a0 HERE\u00a0<\/a> and see further reading at the end of this article.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What the First Minister or strategy document failed to acknowledge is the mounting concern among many scientists and doctors on the health implications of 5G. One of the most vocal critics is Dr Martin Pall, Emeritus Professor of biochemistry and general medicine at Washington State University in the US. Pall maintains<\/a>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Pall has extensively studied the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) mainly caused by phone signals and wi-fi and has shown how existing technology affects the human body.<\/a> Like many other researchers and doctors, he argues that this everyday radiation is leading to the rise of a whole range of health problems such as auto-immune diseases and cancer. Indeed he argues<\/a>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

low level EMF exposures attack each of the four things we often value most as individuals and as a species: Our health, our brain function, the integrity of our genomes and our ability to produce healthy offspring. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Professor Pall is particularly concerned about 5G<\/a> given the frequencies it uses, its pulsation and the way it is delivered by mounting antennae on lamp posts in residential streets. Indeed he is so concerned that he predicts<\/a> that such exposures could have potentially disastrous consequences for human civilisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mounting concern<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Others have sought to debunk his work but Pall is not a lone voice. For example, Professor Trevor Marshall<\/a>, an auto-immune specialist, agrees wholeheartedly that blanket coverage of 5G could have profoundly negative effects on our society. What\u2019s more, there are now two substantial petitions, signed by hundreds of scientists and medical practitioners, asking the EU<\/a> or international agencies<\/a> to halt the roll out of 5G. Some politicians are listening: city authorities in Brussels<\/a>, Florence and the municipality of Rome have blocked the use of 5G. In the UK the towns of Glastonbury<\/a> and Frome<\/a> have resolved to stop 5G and there is a major campaign against its roll out in the south west of England.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Scotland 5G is already in Edinburgh with antennae mounted not just in city centre streets but some residential areas. There is also a test site in Glasgow and 5G is being trialled in Orkney. Initially in the UK 5G will use frequencies similar to 4G<\/a> and won\u2019t use the millimetre wave spectrum that so many scientists and doctors are worried about. Nonetheless it is ramping up people\u2019s exposure to wireless frequencies as these antennae are like mini cell phone towers sited in busy streets and paving the way for full strength 5G. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Given the health concerns why are our politicians, like\nthose in Westminster, allowing 5G to go ahead? Surely there are authorities who\nadvise them on the safety of wireless technology? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to a Freedom of Information request<\/a> on 5G, the Scottish Government stated that it \u2018takes advice on the health impacts of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from Public Health England\u2019. This organisation follows the guidance of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). But it is this very body\u2019s actions many scientists and doctors are criticising so robustly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What safety standard?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The ICNIRP set its safety standard for exposure to wireless\ntechnology in 1998 when there was little radiofrequency radiation and it was\nwidely thought that the risk was simply confined to what is called \u2018thermal\neffects\u2019. In other words, how much of this non-ionising radiation heats tissue\nthereby causing damage. But in the last 20 years more than 2000 academic\nstudies suggest that radiation from wireless frequencies has \u2018biological\neffects\u2019 and that these effects can happen at levels well below that set by the\nICNIRP. A\n2018 article in The Lancet<\/em><\/a> summarises the research and explains the\nproblem:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism \u2026 electrical activity in the brain, and systemic immune responses. Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage and cancer risk. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A biological effect, even from low levels of EMFs, is perfectly plausible. Electrical impulses are fundamental to human physiology: our hearts, brains and even the microbiota in our gut communicate electrically so these could easily be influenced by radio wave frequencies. Of course, there are some scientists who still argue that we should only be concerned with thermal effects and that the standards are safe. However, a 2019 article<\/a> in the peer-reviewed journal Magnetochemistry<\/a> points out \u2018at most a few dozen scientists continue to defend the thermal-only paradigm. Five times that number \u2026 have signed the International EMF Scientists Appeal.\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Others like Kenneth K. Foster, a professor of bioengineering, and John E. Moulder, Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, while not necessarily saying that there can only be thermal effects, take issue with Pall\u2019s claim that wi-fi is unsafe, claiming that the studies he refers to are badly done and that he is guilty of \u2018cherry picking.\u2019 <\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Precautionary principle<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

However, it is difficult to look at this scientific\ncontroversy, and the fears many doctors and scientists have about 5G, and not advance\nthe \u2018precautionary principle\u2019. This says that the public should not be exposed\nto harm when scientific research suggests, but has not necessarily proven\ncategorically, that there are risks. Even if there is not 100 per cent proof\nthat EMFs do harm there is certainly enough evidence to suggest that we need to\nproceed with caution. Remember how long it took governments to act on tobacco, asbestos\nand thalidomide. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s also concerning that 5G which, thanks to the Scottish\nGovernment, will hastily be rolled out not just to urban but rural Scotland, has\nnever been subjected to health checks. Would anyone allow officials to add\nanything to the water supply without rigorous health testing? Pharmaceutical\ncompanies have to test drugs for years before bringing them to market and get\napproval from bodies such as NICE, why are telecom companies not obliged to do\nthe same?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some countries do not use the ICNIRP standard and set exposure limits much lower than what that body advises. As Figure 1 shows this is true for both Russia and China. What this figure shows too is that the UK adheres to a standard which permits the highest level of non-ionising radiation in the world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1: Adapted from Dr Isaac\nJamieson\u2019s work and reproduced by the Physicians\u2019 Health Initiative for Radiation and\nEnvironment<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Babies\nand children<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What is particularly concerning is the impact that our current exposure to microwave radiation may be having on pregnant women<\/a>, infants and children. The Physicians\u2019 Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment explains why children are particularly vulnerable<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018A five year old can absorb sixty percent more microwave radiation than an adult and exposures in bone marrow can be up to ten times greater.\u2019 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It goes on to point out that children are more likely to suffer greater \u2018biological effects from EMR exposure\u2019 because they have thinner skulls and smaller bones and this allows for \u2018greater absorption into bone and deeper tissues\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s more, children\u2019s brains (especially neonates) can\nhave higher water content and so absorb more radiation than adults. Normal\nneurodevelopment may also be compromised by exposure to various microwaves,\nparticularly during sensitive periods of development. France, Israel and Cyprus\nhave all banned wi-fi in pre-schools. Belgium has banned the sale of mobile\nphones to children. Contrast that to what\u2019s happening here: a UK survey<\/a> found that a\nquarter of children under six have a smart phone and use it for up to 21 hours\nper week. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if researchers are worried about children\u2019s current exposure to EMFs, many are extremely fearful of what will happen with 5G. Professor Trevor Marshall calculates<\/a> that the advent of small cell 5G antennae on lamp posts will be like having a phone tower every 20-30 feet in residential areas. Given the strength of the signal, he says, this will raise people\u2019s EMF exposure at home thousands of times. What will this mean for children playing outdoors in gardens or in the street? What does it mean for children attending schools, nurseries, or playparks, particularly since they absorb more radiation? The Scottish and Westminster Governments are silent on any 5G health issue, including its potential impact on children. How can the Scottish Government square this with its desire for Scotland to become \u2018the best country in the world to bring up children\u2019? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Environmental\nimpact<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

But the\nimpact on human health is far wider as these radiofrequency electromagnetic\nfields affect all living things. The Environmental Health Trust has compiled a summary of the burgeoning\nresearch literature<\/a>\non the effect of EMFs on animals, plants and insects. Radio frequencies have\nbeen shown to have an impact on insects and migratory birds. Dr Andrew Goldsworthy argues<\/a> it is because they use \u2018a group of magnetically-sensitive\nsubstances called cryptochromes\n<\/em>for magnetic and\nsolar navigation and also to control the activity of their immune systems.\u2019\nThere are now various studies<\/a> which show that EMFs may be implicated\nin the collapse of bee colonies. A European study<\/a> showed that trees in the vicinity of\ncell phone towers are \u2018damaged\u2019 by the radio-magnetic radiation. Researchers have shown<\/a> that crops like tomato, onion and\nmaize are very sensitive to RF-EMFs even at low levels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we add environmental findings to the fact that some meteorologists predict<\/a> that 5G could interfere with satellites and therefore weather forecasting and the widespread concern about the personal<\/a> and national security<\/a> implications of 5G (e.g. the role of the Chinese company Huawei), its rapid deployment in Scotland should cause real public concern.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political\nand economic considerations <\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The\nICNIRP\u2019s standards have also been supported by the World Health Organisation\n(WHO) while both bodies have come in for considerable criticism from scientists\nand doctors for holding to such standards in the light of current research on\nbiological effects. Swedish oncologist Professor Lennart Hardell has\nstudied the ICNIRP<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ICNIRP is a private organisation (NGO) based in Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of ICNIRP. Many of ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom\/IT and power industry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s little doubt that Big Wireless has a huge economic\ninterest in the continuation of the present light-touch regulation for existing\ndevices. When it comes to 5G they stand to lose billions with tighter\nregulation or an outright ban. In her statement on 5G Nicola Sturgeon estimated\nthat it could add \u00a317 billion to Scotland\u2019s gross domestic product and an\nadditional \u00a33.3 billion of export sales by 2035. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of July she gave an inspiring TED\ntalk<\/a> on the \u2018wellbeing economy\u2019 which has already been viewed by over a\nmillion people. She concluded by saying: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I want, and I’m determined, that Scotland will also be the country that helps change the focus of countries and governments across the world to put well-being at the heart of everything that we do. I think we owe that to this generation. I certainly believe we owe that to the next generation and all those that come after us. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The First Minister should urgently look again at her\ngovernment\u2019s enthusiastic embrace of 5G and start applying the precautionary\nprinciple. Yes, we need technology but fibre optic cabling to homes and wired\nconnections within them are much safer alternatives. This is what the Scottish\nGovernment should promote. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, the rest of us should start saying loudly to our local councils, governments and phone companies that we are not prepared to be 5G guinea pigs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist<\/a>, author of The Master and His Emissary, adds: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are rapidly learning about the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on life, and how they interfere with processes within the cells of all living things. The \u2018rolling out\u2019 of 5G will have effects that we cannot predict on health and might be seriously damaging.  There are at least as important security concerns about the use of this technology, and about the hands into which it may be delivering information; 5G may turn out to be a Trojan horse.  It is therefore irresponsible to embrace this technology without much more thorough evaluation of its risks, especially given that we have fibre optic that poses neither a health risk, nor a security risk, and does not disfigure our towns and countryside with the need for further transmitters.  Please take note of what Carol Craig is arguing, and voice your concerns to the Scottish Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof John Frank, chair Public Health and Policy, Edinburgh University, comments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Driving this current debate on EMFs is a steady accumulation of lab and animal evidence that would force any rational person to invoke the precautionary principle.  In particular I am conviced by the writings of Pall and others that there are just too many suggestive findings (as well as many uncertainties) in the research in vivo<\/em> and in vitro<\/em> on EMFs in the frequency\/wave-length range and intensity levels expected from 5G transmission\/reception systems, to be confident that they are \u2018safe’ for deployment now. Given this I agree with the overall conclusions of Carol Craig\u2019s article. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main image of anti-5G protest in Switzerland: by MHM55, licensed under Creative Commons<\/em> via Mid City Messenger<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Further reading<\/h5>\n

BBC: YouTube has banned all conspiracy theory videos falsely linking coronavirus symptoms to 5G networks.Coronavirus: YouTube tightens rules after David Icke 5G interview<\/a><\/p>\n

The Economist: Misinformation and mobile networks\u00a0 How 5G Conspiracy theories used covid-19 to go viral\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

‘The Scottish and Westminster Governments are silent on any 5G health issue, including its potential impact on children. How can the Scottish Government square this with its desire for Scotland to become \u2018the best country in the world to bring up children\u2019? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":9078,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[706],"tags":[61],"class_list":["post-9069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society","tag-scottish-industry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/55"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9069"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9069\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18743,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9069\/revisions\/18743"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9078"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}