Nothing to fear here?
The recently formed ‘5G Free Sunshine Coast’ group is onto it!
( Page 8 of GHCN, if you find the Australian or SMH a little dull.)
I decided against attending their forum on the weekend. The thought of making a gold coin donation to attend was just too much.
Directly, members of the local community are welcome to meet and discuss concerns. Perhaps wrapping a home in Alfoil, turning off wifi in schools and expecting the local council can ban 5G technology across the LGA is all on trend?
There was probably little new to be learnt from this event, so we stayed home. Casual conversation turned to why it needed two concrete pumper trucks to pour the footings of our soon to be NBN Fixed Wireless tower. 18 months behind schedule due to planning objections. The last was withdrawn, shortly before the Federal Govt was able to use its ultimate powers to trump any further objections.
From a consumer view point, such groups desire to oppose change do have consequences. Their actions can delay planning approvals, and cause unnecessary impacts on the greater community. The ongoing work by the Telcos is valuable in filling mobile black spots, and improving internet options. More so given the poor NBN outcomes for many around here.
For 5G nationally, is opposition due to EMR a more widely spread concern?
Evidently so. Limiting discussion to 5G and cancer is a bit of a distraction. As the Lancet article linked above says:
Transmissions are rising to ever-shorter wavelengths. Field strengths to which we’re all exposed are increasing. The article labels it electromagnetic pollution. There might be no cause for concern (the Lancet hasn’t always got it right). Then again …
It might have been wise as it could have been part of their ‘roadshow’ to gain support for this…
Fear and concern in the community doesn’t necessarily indicate that there are real or direct risks of EMF exposure. As outlined above, one should refer to agencies like ARPANSA to find out facts in relation to EMF. There are also other independent international bodies which also look into effects of EMF and present consensus science on potential risks.
EMR Australia may be behind the forum also sell some products on their website that are supposed to shield the user from ‘EMF radiation’. One is the Wi-Se Shielding Singlet for Women… but I wonder if these products work?
Edit: having watched a significant part of one of Raymond Broomhall’s presentations on YouTube, one thing which is raised is the belief that one has EMF hypersensitivity and the potential health consequences of such a belief (whether physical or mental). There can be a physical or mental response to a strong belief, irrespective of whether the EMF causes direct health impacts through exposure. I also suspect that a point being made is whether one with such beliefs (EMF hypersensitivity) should be protected from EMF exposure, since knowledge of such exposure can cause a potential health impact (namely, believe a health impact will/has occur/occurred as a result of the exposure).
Oh dear - not another study they’ll have to retract in ten years or so? On the bright side, it does not appear to be a ‘mainstream’ Lancet article and I saw nothing about it having been peer reviewed.
Quite possibly. Wasn’t it the Lancet that published the Wakefield study?
From the body text:
It appears to be a meta-analysis.
I have an open mind. That said, the language looks a bit weird to me and I’d question whether field strengths are high enough.
The Planetary Health Alliance referred to at the start has a web site and Facebook group. Make of it what you will.
Then, there’s this mob:
If there isn’t cause for concern about levels of non-ionising radiation then there’s probably cause for concern about the number of groups saying there’s cause for concern. My head hurts!
We probably won’t know until we know - and then it will either be OK or too late for those who collectively revealed the answer … like so many things we’ve seen go before, we seem to disregard safety for our desires, wants, convenience, especially when proof of safety or otherwise seems out of reach … and motorcycles
Oh. They have a bit of a reputation - while they can be done well, a large proportion are not. In this instance, given that the paper appears to be from a group that begins with an assumption about anthropogenic impacts on ‘planetary health’ I suspect the end result is more likely to be in the latter group.
This is his third broadband satellite setup. The one before this was supplied under the Australian Broadband Guarantee (ABG). That dish had a warning sticker, but he doesn’t remember anything in the documentation. The sticker fell off before the first year was out.
The current dish is on the roof, so chances of anyone getting into the beam area are remote. The ABG one was on a pole about two metres above the ground. The HiBIS one was on a post less than a metre high. People would have repeatedly walked through the beam.
It seems we’ve learnt a thing or two in the intervening fifteen years.
Off-topic, but interesting. The ABG ended in 2011. The implied level of service was:
It may be a similar frequency band, but would be a different transmit power level ? As well as what has been learned, the standards that apply to these products are frequently revised. You’ve piqued my curiosity, and when I have a moment, I’ll try to access the relevant standard.
I have some vintage portable radio gear at home that wasn’t labelled with safety advice when new. I’m fairly certain it would be if sold today, eg do not hold antenna whilst transmitting, or similar.
Yes. There are substantial differences between a focused beam and broadcast transmission, as well. For example, putting one’s head between the feed-horn and the dish would be very unwise. That said, I still wouldn’t want to be too close to the business side of a transmitting 5G (or any-G) panel antenna.
It would be interesting to know whether standards have changed. Maybe the HiBIS installation was non-compliant. The evolution of SARS ratings for mobile 'phones might be worth looking into as well.
Meanwhile, this site looks a bit dodgy to me, but might give some insights into the basis of peoples’ fears.
I was wondering just how ignorant the author of the article was, until I read this little gem. A product promoted to save householders from smart meter EMR.
So, what exactly is a smart meter cover?
Well, it’s essentially just a small faraday cage, that you place over your smart meter, and it blocks up to 98% of the radiation emitted from the device, while still allowing it to transmit the data it needs to the utility company.
Assuming the device is an effective faraday cage the smart meter will also be shielded and invisible to the mobile phone network. Misleading and deceptive if the product is being promoted in Australia whether it is effective or not?
Of course ours is also on a grounded heavy metal meter box to start with, so a little mesh isn’t likely to change that either.
What I find more amusing is our smart meter has an external aerial at the end of a length of coax. A common solution in rural areas. The suggested faraday cage solution would be totally pointless! Although perhaps a suitable warning sign as it is immediately next to the front door might discourage some door to door callers?
An alternate overview, suggesting the higher frequencies of 5G, present an even lower risk than 4G and have radiation levels many times lower than current standards.
Dr Karl Kruszelnicki has updated his article in 5G and cancer…
What is interesting is… 'According to the New York Times, a major source of disinformation about the 5G network has been the Russian TV network Russia Today (RT), which is available worldwide. ’ Not the first time the Russians have tried to manipulate the west, creating fear to disrupt the status quo.
On February 6, 2019, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation held a hearing on 5G technology. Senator Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) pressed representatives of FDA, FCC, and several major wireless companies to cite one peer-reviewed, scientific study on the health risks of 5G, and not one person knew of any such study. So, the government and the industry admitted publicly that the health risks of 5G technology has not been studied. Meanwhile, there are allegedly thousands of non-government, non-industry studies showing health risks of 5G to be significant.
Poland’s PM Backs Move To Stop 5G Network Roll-Out
Perhaps dozens of studies but not thousands. The GreenMed article you linked to states there are dozens of independent studies.
The other links are opinions of people and are not studies. While the PM of Poland as a private individual backs blocking he 5G rollout he did not do so as the PM of his country. There was no evidence cited in either of the Poland or Brussels pieces as to why 5G may or may not be dangerous.
I am not dismissing your concern just pointing out that without good evidence you will have difficulty in mounting a convincing argument.
My head hurts!
smart meters use 5g now?
There’s an awful lot of this sort of stuff around. It’s no wonder people are confused and worried.
