Campaigners call for Richmondshire councillors to review evidence against 5G

A mobile phone mast. Photo: Richard Leonard.

A Richmondshire campaign group has called on community leaders to review the evidence against 5G before agreeing to local trials of the technology.

It comes as North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) considers whether rural communities in the district with little or no little or no mobile phone coverage would be suitable to take part in a Government 5G technology trial.

The Richmondshire No to 5G group has already delivered leaflets in the districts claiming 5G generates radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer, cause premature ageing, disrupt cell metabolism and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins.

It is now urging local councillors to examine the evidence against the technology.

A spokesperson for the group said: “Our Dales group advocates fixed line high-speed internet as an important contribution to improved business performance and wellbeing, but we are concerned about wireless 5G for a number of reasons, principally the threat that it poses to human health and the preservation of the ecological matrix of the national park.

“To this end, we receive personal input from experts in the field, and are attempting to persuade locally elected representatives to review the scientific evidence available.”

The group said they would like to see “an independent public review of the science that demonstrates harm to health, together with community consultation, and specific advice on safety precautions being provided to vulnerable individuals, medical professionals and those with metal implants “.

Members are due to speak at a Zoom meeting of Leyburn Town Council on August 17 and are urging members of the public with questions about 5G to submit their own questions.

The meeting is due to be attended by Michael Grayson, who is responsible for mobile connectivity at NYCC.

Anyone who would like to ask a question can do so by emailing it to clerk@leyburntowncouncil.gov.uk

The sparsely populated areas identified as likely to take part in the trial include Swaledale and the north end of Coverdale.

NYCC has secured £4.5m of government funding to explore how the technology could benefit rural communities.

A further £2m is being added by the industry partners.

Announcing the trial earlier this year, North Yorkshire County Council’s executive member for access Don Mackenzie said 5G would open up a huge range of opportunities in the county, such as enabling more businesses to function well in rural areas and rather than being harmful it would boost residents’ health with the wider use of remote health services.

 

31 Comments

  1. I notice that nobody from the group is prepared to be named. Another expensive delaying tactic only ?

    • Very robust pro 5G comments have been made here. No surprises. However, when the telecommunications industry has itself admitted that NO research has been done at all to prove that this technology is safe, is it not remotely worth the general public asking questions of this before it is rolled out? After all nicotine was deemed safe. Thalidomide was deemed safe etc
      Why is asking questions part of a conspiracy these days?

      • 5G is 100,000 times weaker than sunlight.

        It’s non-ionising radiation meaning it’s incapable of knocking an electron out of the shell of any atom in our bodies. So by definition is can’t affect us in any way.

      • Because over a century of particle physics shows us exactly how weak 5G is, and knowledge of biology shows us the minimum level to have effects of any sort, and 5G is not even remotely close to that threshold.

        Do you cower in fear from sunlight too? It’s ionising radiation!

        • Even I know that the frequencies for 5G have never been used before and they cover a low, mid and high range, encompassing 30 -300GHz, and his has never been tested for safety. Which biological ‘threshold do you refer to? I care for my kids future so exposure to EMF needs to be safe for them. The Daily Mail wrote in 2012 about mobile phones and brain cancer.
          A court ruled that mobile phones can give you cancer in a landmark case.
          Businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, was diagnosed with a brain tumour after using his mobile phone at work for up to six hours a day for 12 years.
          Italy’s Supreme Court found that there was a ‘causal link’ between his phone use and his illness.
          ‘Mr Marcolini told The Sun newspaper: ‘This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks.’I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones.
          ‘Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.’ Yes that’s me..I need to know the truth for my kids!

    • I am perfectly happy to be named. As a group our aim is to give people the opportunity to think about the potential adverse affects. Would you risk your child getting leukaemia or a brain tumour because the technology has not been tested? The industry admit there have been no tests done on 5g. Microwave technology (do you think that might be because they know it cannot be proven safe?) there are declassified papers from the 50’s and70’s proving the damage to tissue along with thousands of peer reviewed Published papers By eminent scientists. Personally I would not take that risk and hope that others will go for caution. Let us have wired technology and be safe. Learn from tobacco, lead, DDT, Mercury, thalidomide, asbestos and all the other toxins we were told were safe until people became sick and died!

  2. 5G causes unicorns to lose horns and led to dinosaurs dying out. there are some very credulous people out there

  3. “The Richmondshire No to 5G group has already delivered leaflets in the districts claiming 5G generates radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer, cause premature ageing, disrupt cell metabolism and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins.“

    A simple “there is no scientific basis for these claims,” would’ve sufficed here. As it stands, a wild conspiracy theory is left unchallenged.

    • The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) reviewed 1,955 peer-reviewed scientific studies on EMF and concluded that 68% demonstrated ‘significant biological and health effects’. What element of this conclusion, which is far from unique, constitutes ‘no evidence’?

  4. …. claiming 5G generates radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer, cause premature ageing, disrupt cell metabolism and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins.

    This is a statement of scientific illiteracy of the highest order. Microwave frequencies used in 5G are non ionising and have insufficient energy to damage biological systems (re. Photoelectric Effect / Einstein). The health issues have been researched ad nauseum and no effect found as expected. There is a very minor heating effect but you you would need to place your face in front of the 5G antenna. Electromagnetic radiation only becomes ionising and harmful at much higher frequencies above the mid UV band.

    • Actually Steve, your comments are incorrect. Non-ionising RF EMF has now been proven to have profound effects at a biological level – not just thermal. Have a read of the US National Toxicology Program report 2018, and the Ramazzini Institute report 2018 that followed. It Russian report 1977 on millimetre wave radiation is also conclusive in demonstrating fundamental cellular damage. What can possibly be wrong, or threatening, in asking that there is a full public review of the science? Let’s get it done and allow both factions of the argument to have their say. Mike Sparrow.

  5. We waited too many years before having to recognise the dangers of mercury, aluminium, thalidomide, lead, and many other toxicities. Can we really afford to do the same with the dangers f emfs when so many people are already suffering?

  6. It is a sad state f affairs that folk aren’t willing to review the thousands of peer reviewed studies that offer evidence of the dangers of emfs, that wireless 5g will amplify, especially when so many people are already suffering. I do hope as many people as possible will sign up for the Leyburn Town Council Meeting on Monday 17th August, in order to improve the likelihood that the topic will be taken to a public meeting, when there will be time to thrash through the arguments more thoroughly. Email: clerk@leyburntowncouncil.gov.uk for an invite link.

  7. The threat from 5g to the lives of bees without whom we cannot survive for very long is very serious

  8. Dr Martin Pall has outlined how activation of the Volted gated calcium channel by pulsed EM waves leads to multiple ‘down-stream’ effects, such as Nitric oxide (NO) formation, reduced mitochondrial function, oxidant formation and DNA damage. The latter, in particular, is not widely acknowledged. Cancer Research UK at their site state that, ‘The radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation they (mobile phones) transmit and receive is very weak. This radiation does not have enough energy to damage DNA, and cannot directly cause cancer’. Whilst it is true that pulsed microwaves don’t have high enough photonic energy to damage DNA directly (unlike the higher frequencies of high UV, X-rays and gamma rays), they cause damage indirectly, via increasing intracellular oxidants. The evidence for this is now overwhelming (Panagopoulos, 2019).

    The statement by Cancer Research UK is incorrect on both counts. Pulsed microwaves do damage DNA and there is good evidence that pulsed microwaves do increase cancer risk (Morgan et al., 2015 with further overview by Pall, 2018a and b).

    Of great concern should be the effect that phase-modulated pulsed microwaves might be having on children and young people. We expose most children in school and at home to WiFi and mobile device and pulsed microwaves have been shown to affect DNA repair and embryonic stem cells [Belyaev et al., 2009, Markovà, 2010]. As stem cells occur at much higher densities in children (most abundant in the foetus), impacts on young children are likely to be higher than in adults. EM wave effects on stem cells may also disrupt brain development and function in young children [Bhargav et al., 2015]. This may play a role in autistic spectrum disorders. Hope this assists.

    • How refreshing to read a response from someone who has bothered to read the science. It’s so easy to bury your head in the sand and ignore the warnings because they’re inconvenient. Let’s protect our community and our wildlife and properly review the available science before doing something that our next generation will regret forever. Mike Sparrow

    • > activation of the Volted gated calcium channel by pulsed EM waves leads to multiple ‘down-stream’ effects

      *How* exactly? 5G can’t even penetrate your skin but this statement would have us believe it can disrupt action potentials in the brain, which also has the benefit of being encased by the skull.

      What laughable nonsense!

  9. I think there should be an enquiry as 5G is yet to be proved safe. The Dales has a lot of older people living there and many have underlying health conditions which are not going to improve with 5G, and could make them a lot worse.
    The science should be looked at as its there to study.

    • A strong supporter happy to be named..Surely with the mounting evidence from independent expert studies, most people can agree that an enquiry into the long ten effects of constant exposure to 5g should be done? As of yet this has not been done anywhere and is not planned to be done. Wireless 5g is an intense, new technology, without safety testing how is it possible to know the long term effects? Let’s have it proved to be safe before we dive in to exposing ourselves, our children and the environment to this constant bombardment before it’s too late, as some of the above comments have pointed out happened with many other big money industries in the past. Then let’s get on with with installing wired high speed internet to these areas that need it…

  10. I feel it’s perfectly fair for this to be open to discussion without ridicule. These people obviously believe in what they are doing so everyone’s views should be heard and respected. Who knows, they may be right. I don’t know myself but I sure would like to think that the technology was tested before being rolled out. No good looking back in 5yrs and wishing more tests were done if people get ill.

  11. Respecters of science should note:
    – smartphones kept next to the skin (eg in pockets) result in radiation levels roughly twice the US and EU ‘safe’ levels. Phone makers argue that phones are always kept/held away from the body (at least 10mm) and are therefore ‘safe’.
    – incidents of bowel cancer (eg next to pockets) in 18-30 year olds has increased 7-8 times since 1990s despite their being no rise in older age groups
    – cancer therapy treatments using non-ionising radiation at low levels of intensity have been approved based on proven successful treatment and mechanism, showing that non-ionising radiation does affect cell metabolism.

    Personally, I think research should be focused on handsets for all G technologies rather than specifically 5G, but it is time to take the above mainstream science findings seriously.

  12. It’s one thing to not complete research yourself, but another to assume that others suffer similarly. It is known that even before 5G was proposed, dozens of petitions and appeals7 by international scientists,including the Freiburger Appeal signed by over 3,000 physicians, called for a halt to the expansion of wireless technology and a moratorium on new base stations.
    In 2015, 215 scientists from 41 countries communicated their alarm to the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO). They stated that “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF [electromagnetic fields] affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. More than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate harm to human health from RF radiation.
    The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in 2011 that RF radiation of frequencies 30 kHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, recent evidence, including the latest studies on cell phone use and brain cancer risks,indicate that RF radiation is proven carcinogenic to humans and should now be classified as a ”Group 1 carcinogen” along with tobacco smoke and asbestos.
    Most contemporary wireless signals are pulse-modulated. Harm is caused by both the
    high-frequency carrier wave and the low-frequency pulsations. The idea that we will tolerate tens to hundreds of times more radiation at millimetre wavelengths is based on faulty modelling of the human body as a shell filled with a homogeneous liquid.
    The assumption that millimetre waves do not penetrate beyond the skin completely
    ignores nerves, blood vessels, and other electrically conducting structures that can carry radiation-induced currents deep into the body. Another, potentially more serious error is that phased arrays are not ordinary antennas. When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that reradiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These reradiated waves are called Brillouin precursors. They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough. 5G will probably satisfy both criteria.
    In addition, shallow penetration in itself poses a unique danger to eyes sand to the largest organ of the body, the skin.

  13. This topic of 5G really needs to be investigated. I am not anti 5G if it can be proven that it is safe but at the moment no-one has done any research into this issue. Please lets get the research done and then we will know.

  14. Thank you for this in depth response to such a vital subject. The speed of roll out is alarming. The fact the Dales are being used as a trial area for 5G technology is also extremely worrying. Anyone concerned can send in a form to the county council refusing permission to be involuntarily radiated.The WHO have announced they will do some safety testing of the technology in 2022 …where is the precautionary principle in that ? We are all guinea pigs as is our wildlife. . The vast amount of satellites that have been released into the ionosphere since April 2020 so that there can be worldwide coverage maybe endangering our planet by affecting the electromagnetic field . Thousands of satellites are being released . They are programmed to burn up every ten years which may also increase the rate of global warming. There are some global companies that are so influential they seem to expand unimpeded. .Is it true masts are going up with out planning permission.? There must be a proven safe way forward so we can enjoy the benefits of this new era without risking so much. Maybe less haste more speed ! Great if we can all value one another’s views unlike other forums.

  15. Landowners have been warned about the hidden risks and responsibilities associated with having masts on their land. Jeremy Moody CAAV adviser said, although non ionising, significant levels of exposure to radio waves emitted by base stations on telecoms masts can affect health. He advises exclusion zones and when5g comes along the exclusion zones will need to be extended. So if CAAV can warn farmers about the likely dangers and drawbacks shouldnt our government and councils warn people?

  16. We need save, fast, reliable, secure internet and telecommunication services brought into our homes and businesses in the Dales.
    We need wired technology – technology that safeguards our health, Privacy and security and that evolves over time with the goal of reducing exposure to harmful involuntary wireless radiation. We will NOT be able to turn 5g wireless off ever.
    France, Cyprus, Russia and Israel all banned WiFi in primary schools. Children are more at risk from this kind of radiation. Brain tumours have gone up by 100% in the last 25yrs. All the auto immune chronic diseases have shot up over the same period. People want their phones and their toys and should be able to have them – WIIRED Technology. Safe. Is wireless worth the risk?

  17. Purely by the amount of uncertainty around 5g I think it should be put on hold until it has been proven safe by independent scientists. I was all for it as I live up Dale aNd the signal is rubbish but I have to say I’m a tot uneasy with it all now. I’ve looked a bit ont internet but I’m not so sure it’s as safe as we are being led to believe. Money it’s all about money well let’s just hang fire and see. Let some other area be greedy or daft enough to risk its people.

  18. You want scientific proof of damage to the environment? Look on google for StarlingW Childs MS Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies on EHT.org web site. He states the proven damage to frog spawn and birds. I feel we could be careening headlong into a disaster we can’t stop if this goes on.

  19. At last folk are acknowledging in this thread, the importance of persuading our locally elected representatives, who have a duty of care to do what they can to maximise our health and well-being, to review the available scientific evidence of harm from non-ionising radiation – science that is independent of the industry influenced regulators.

Comments are closed.