Forum Topic

No to 5G

i had no idea they wanted to build a 20 metre high 5G mast in Blondin park , i have spent a lot of time looking into the issue of 5G and my conclusions are that it is not safe , Lloyds for example will not insure against any risks associated with it. regardless of that there has been zero public consultation about this military grade  technology rollout npo can anybody explain who exactly is paying for it as it does not actually meet any actual public requirement , the fact that these horrifc eyesores were erected all over the world at exactly the same times as the public were locked up due to the alleged Covd pandemic is another reason for suspicion , why was this unusual technology give  priority , in may area ugly masts have been erected between Pitshanger and Cleveland Park and i saw NO consultation documents or requests for local residents feedback , anyway I am far from alone in my opposition to this Franeknstein tech a recent consultation document for Blondin had 189 objections and ONE  in suppor lol . i daresay Andy Jones will add his name to the 5g supporters list in due course but the rest of us need to say a resounding NO https://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=Q7P015JMJGZ00&activeTab=summary

P Taylor ● 1361d59 Comments

Just seen on a foreign TV channel. US seeks 5G delay to study interference with planes! Anybody have more info?

Nicholas Beard ● 1347d

Aw diddums. Example of what?????All you do is answer a  question with a question.You have been asked 3 or 4 times by a few people, a simple question.So Pc Sadiq James Khan , why did you drive????Instead of spouting your anti car rhetoric,?try to answer the qt

Peter Yale ● 1358d

sorry about that as this antique comments system does not show threads meaning I have no idea who is replying to whom

P Taylor ● 1358d

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/106070048305926/5G%20And%20The%20IOT.pdfits really not my fault that this archaic comments system that looks like it came from the 70s is being used there is no thread and its not always clear who is replying to who , however since the average age of people here seems to be about 90 i guess its cutting edge , even so I wonder why people who use slide rules are so keen on 5G

P Taylor ● 1358d

>no idea why you are blabbering on about road tax,It was somebody else that went off topic in this thread, not me, I asked them to stay on topic.> you smear people online , that is factualAn example please?

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

no idea why you are blabbering on about road tax, i started this thread i just pointed out you smear people online , that is factual

P Taylor ● 1358d

Examples please.Saying stuff you don't like, like there's no such thing as road tax, is not harassment. What you do is harassment.

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

Don't think Mr Taylor has read some of the links that he has provided - apart from the conspiracy nut ones. The main voice urging caution is Dr Devra Davis but her views are very much in the minority and her use of data and sources has been widely criticised by other academics. Even if she turned out to be right, her argument is not that we should abandon technologies that create EMFs but that we should proceed more slowly as over time health impacts may emerge.Some countries have much tougher than we do, which could reduce the health impacts if they were to emerge but there will be an economic impact and we know for sure that making people poorer reduces their life expectancy.

Mark Evans ● 1358d

Which you contribute to & cause.Do stay on topic

Peter Yale ● 1358d

Harassment!!! Ha ha ha or DDD as you put.’It’s quite simple, the question has been raised  & you fail to answerYou are quick at any or every opportunity to spout anti car bile.Suddenly hypocrisy steps in & you scuttle off.We await  eagerly your response???

Peter Yale ● 1358d

> 5G is not safe and is used in Direct Energy WeaponsAnything can be used like that if enough energy is put behind it.The signal used for 5g data networks is not as powerful as a torch bulb though and certainly not as powerful as a 4g radio wave...

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

look at the exploitation of children to make Lithium batteries which are unrecyclable , wind turbines are also unrecyclable and are put into landfill and take up enormous space , scrapping good vehicles to purchase chinese made EV is bad for the environment , i find air quality ok by big city standards , this eco fascism is really quite sickening and again the data i already provided shows that 5G is not safe and is used in Direct Energy Weapons

P Taylor ● 1358d

The biggest health issue affecting our lives today is too many cars. Nobody ask me, or you, about that !And emissions from cars really do damage your health (unlike 5g signals)

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

nobody asked you either , have you got any objections to prior public consyultations about major national and local issues or should they simply do whatever they like in advance and wait for objections later , you exhibit very strong Communist tendencies

P Taylor ● 1358d

>go to sleep in a microwave for all I care ,that would be a silly idea as microwaves use high energy standing waves in a box to generate hotspots> i was also not consulted about itAh the old "Nobody asked ME!"...

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

go to sleep in a microwave for all I care , dismissive people like you have blind faith in technology and the vested interests that control it , read up on active denial systems 5G is not wanted or needed and represents a danger , i was also not consulted about it , they built the wretched Orwellian infrastructure during lockdown when people were told not to work and stay at home . its amazing that this site attracts so many of your sort , Rosco and Andrew are exceptions  but the balance is with your typeps i think we are all aware that 5G is a frequency , the question is is it safe, is it affordable and is it needed and my answer is a resounding no

P Taylor ● 1358d

Of course it can, 5g IS a radio frequency, this is why frequency bands have to be tightly controlled so people can use them without interfering with each other.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

>Ssshh, Simon. Don’t look  now but Pc Khan James is back.Stay on topic Peter and quit with the harassment please.

Paul Richard James ● 1358d

Ssshh, Simon. Don’t look  now but Pc Khan James is back.He can come out of hiding & tell us about his drive(l)DD etc, if that’s how it works!

Peter Yale ● 1359d

the links i have already provided show evidence that 5G is potentially very dangerous and that regardless it is totally unnecessary , visually repugnant and enormously costly , i could post even more links but whats the point when nobody will bother reviewing them , it would not surprise me if 5g will also interfere with radio frequencies but for me that is a less important consideration

P Taylor ● 1359d

There is no reason to avoid 5g (in the same way as there is no reason to avoid a lightbulb), but very good reason to avoid too much exposure to sunlight :D :D Like I say if you're worried about 5g you should be trembling in terror at the idea of being exposed to the sun!

Paul Richard James ● 1359d

I don't believe that 5G is dangerous to our health, but this is interesting in another way:- The Dogfight Over Airports and AirwavesIf you had to guess the No. 1 worry for airline execs right now, what would you say? Omicron lowering holiday travel demand? Rude passengers refusing to mask up?The answer, in fact, is not at all related to Covid: What the industry is most concerned about, Southwest CEO Gary Kelly told senators last week, is the arrival of a new 5G wireless service from AT&T and Verizon on Jan. 5. The aviation sector has been arguing that this launch will interfere with key cockpit systems and lead to major disruptions for travelers in the new year.United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that the 5G rollout could delay, divert, or cancel ~4% of daily flights.The trade group Airlines for America projected 5G-related delays will cost passengers $1.6 billion annually.Why can't 5G and cockpits get along?Airline execs say 5G signals, which operate in a range of radio frequencies called the C-band, could mess with the cockpit systems that are used to track a plane's altitude and help with landings in bad weather. So, in a situation where those systems are interfered with and dense fog rolls into Chicago, landings at O'Hare might be deemed unsafe, which would then wreak scheduling havoc across the country.In response to these concerns, telecom leaders are playing the world's smallest violin. Wireless companies paid at least $81 billion for the rights to this C-band, and they're not going to let airline execs ruin their much-hyped push into next-gen wireless networks...especially when they consider those concerns unfounded."The aviation industry's fearmongering relies on completely discredited information and deliberate distortions of fact," Nick Ludlum, senior vice president at wireless trade group CTIA, said.Looking ahead...telecom and aviation leaders are locked in high-stakes negotiations with the White House and regulators over a deal that would dim 5G signal power near airports. In the meantime, airlines are warily prepping for flight restrictions.—NFSOURCE:  www.morningbrew.com

Rosco White ● 1359d

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/106070048305926/Scientists%20Questions%20the%20Safety%20of%20Untested%205G%20Technology%20at%20International%20Conference.pdftry reading the links I have provided before spouting off

P Taylor ● 1359d

sunlight is good for us at our northern latitude and in moderation , sadly Ealing today is full of people like you, ignorant buffoons who have absolute faith in the state which authorised thalidomide, smoking, DDT , etc as for sunshine we cant avoid it because its natural 5G is artificial , this website has an unreal number of absolute bounders

P Taylor ● 1359d

People voted out of the EU so why should they be interested in a EU paper. Blondin park was discussed on the Brentford TW8 site some time ago.

Nicholas Beard ● 1359d

Mr Taylor, if you imagine 5g signals causes damage to people (it doesn't) wait 'til you hear about sunlight (which actually does!)!:D :D

Paul Richard James ● 1359d

this is why i did not mention a name. the person asked me not to Okay-- you can put my anonymised comments in the thread, but please not my rather ad hominem remarks about those folks' rigidity of opinion -- such argumentation never helps, and was for your eyes only.Best wishes,

P Taylor ● 1360d

i dont find it hilarious, i find it sad that you are clueless about whats going on

P Taylor ● 1360d

my imaginary friend lol just somebody who did not wish to be named for obvious reasons

P Taylor ● 1360d

Tricia - hilarious!!!

M Anderson ● 1360d

Glad to see your imaginary friend agrees with you.Where on earth do you pick up this nonsense.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1360d

i contacted one of the many experts on this topic after directing them to this thread , this is what he/she had to say I think your responses are entirely reasonable, but both your correspondents have such fixed views that no amount of argumentation will shift them, I fear. Mr Southwell in particular has an extraordinarily naive view of what doctors globally know about such matters, and the reliability of current oversight processes to protect public safety - in the UK and most countries.I wish you good luck with your tower but have never heard of one being torn down due to local opposition. If so, your next best option is likely to defeat a few local politicians on this issue (and no doubt other ones!) Plus ca change...Best wishes.

P Taylor ● 1360d

thanks for your reply , the xdanger of 5G is that it affects the skin and nerve ending , this is why it can be used in military active denial systems, the 5G infrastructure can also be used in future to facilitate 6G 7G etc etc , there is no need for it, it cannot be funded without massive public subsidy, its ugly as hell , i recall seeing a video at a US hearing were they ADMITTED that they had not actually looked for any evidence of harm , some poeple seem to have a sexual fetish for technology and clamour for anything described as new , smart meters, apps, heat pumps , electric cars , sex robots , no doubt Gordon and Brookes would love them , the fact remains that the public DO NOT WANT them and that in a democracy should be enough , there is no benefit that I can see in 5G , i do not want driverless cars as I LIKE DRIVING unfortunately the true purpose of 5G is to usher in the Grest rest and the 4th Industrial revolution that is promoted by the World Economic Forum, UN, EU etc again i reject the argument that i must stop using my phone if I object to 5G , its like temperature at 40C a hot shower is enjjoyable but at 50C you will get scalded we all accept and enjoy some benefits from modern technology, i get a chance to challenge the complacent online but that is not CARTE BLANCHE to usher in unproven, untested and unnecessary tech that offers no genuine benefits and will result in millions of unsightly towers looking over our once beautiful but now degraded landscape no genuine patriot would ever support this programme and I think both Southwell and Brookes flag themselves up by their blind faith in what is in fact Scientism

P Taylor ● 1360d

If you are basing your opposition to 5G on the notion that Lloyds won't insure against it you are misinformed. A report was issued some time ago by them that advised against blanket coverage for illness caused by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which includes all radio signals, wi-fi and mobile phone signals. This observed that although there is currently no evidence that EMFs cause health problems there remained a risk that longer term they might emerge. Therefore underwriters were advised not to accept policies with these clauses. This is because the extra revenue gained would be tiny but the potential payouts would be huge — it was a commercial not a medical decision. No medical evidence has emerged yet to prove any damage and at this stage we can safely say that if it does, it will show that it is minimal and only becomes apparent in the very long term. If you believe the risk is material you should not own a mobile phone or any device dependent on wireless internet. The report does not mention 5G and as EMFs go it is one of the least potentially threatening. Because of the frequency it operates at the signals emitted are less powerful which is why these massive masts have proliferated. The reason 5G has become controversial is the visibility of these masts which has made the ill-informed more aware of the amount of EMFs they are exposed to daily. Ironically it is the type of field that is least likely to cause harm which is causing the most controversy probably due to the conspiracy theorists on Facebook. Previous experience has taught me that it is impossible to persuade anyone who is fixated on imagined dangers of 5G that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them and serious consequences of EMFs would have emerged by now. Any logical person would have long concluded that the unanimity of medical opinion on this across the world is a good indication that this technology is safe. I'm not going to engage further in debate on this matter with anyone who doesn't agree with these facts because they are not going to be persuaded to change their mind. The sad thing about the misinformation about 5G is that it makes people reluctant to object to masts that are being place intrusively across the country for fear of being seen a tin-foil hat wearing techophobe. The risk of 5G is that is makes where we live more ugly rather than it makes us sicker.

Gordon Southwell ● 1360d

i did a poll on my twitter account, tiny sample i admit but here were the resultsI do not want 5G, do you?https://standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-b954525.htmlyes10%no90%20 votes·Final results

P Taylor ● 1360d

https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/collaboration/index.htmlthey are in bed with MANY vested interests and WEF collaborators , you can edit your own posts . i will leave mine with some typos intact

P Taylor ● 1361d

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5784487/The-roll-5G-wireless-service-massive-health-experiment-public-health-expert-warns-a.html

P Taylor ● 1361d

ICNIRP receives not a penny direct from the mobile industry.Before you cast such aspersions you need to read https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/funding-governance/index.htmlPerhaps you should ask Neighbournet to edit your post

N V Brooks ● 1361d

In conclusion, it is important that all experts evaluating scientific evidence and assessing health risks from RF radiation do not have COIs or bias. Being a member of ICNIRP and being funded by the industry directly, or through an industry-funded foundation, constitute clear COIs. Furthermore, it is recommended that the interpretation of results from studies on health effects of RF radiation should take sponsorship from the telecom or other industry into account. It is concluded that the ICNIRP has failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of health risks associated with RF radiation. The latest ICNIRP publication cannot be used for guidelines on this exposure.you need to readhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/

P Taylor ● 1361d

Best turn off all televisions, radios, mobile phones DECT phones, vacuum cleaners in fact anything with an electric motor, and compact fluorescent lamps then as they all generate EMF.It is a question of degree and, for one FINAL time, there is not a single piece of peer reviewed research that shows a risk that is quantifiable.

N V Brooks ● 1361d

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include 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. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

P Taylor ● 1361d

Thankfully, the world does not wait for proof of safety, else we would not have the wheel, most surgery or aeroplanes.Scientists adopt a precautionary principle. The seminal multiple reviewed research relating to mobile telephony is the 2000 Stewart Report (qv). This quite rightly did not claim that mobile telephony was safe (neither have or will I if you actually read my replies) but rather that ongoing research was needed as has been the, ongoing, case since the late 1970's.No scientist will ever claim that anything is "100% safe" as there are simply too many variables.As example, is drinking a cup of tea  safe? Tens of millions do it every day despite the risk of choking and the adverse effects of caffeine.NOTHING is safe, but this does not mean that there is an unsafe bandwagon upon which,  in the absence of proof positive which will never be provided, some will choose to jump. The precautionary principle serves us well in a world where nothing, except our eventual demise, is certain.

N V Brooks ● 1361d

let me give an example , would you eat a mushroom that nobody had proven dangerous ? or would you wait until multiple safety tests were done to ascertain if the new variety was safe to eat , you doint just eat anything on the basis that nobody has proven it to be dangerous ( using N V Brookes logic) we must ALWAYS err on teh side of caution and there is no evidence to prove 5G is safe

P Taylor ● 1361d

something that is not proven safe MUST be considered dangerous, you cannot show me any proof that its safe , you really are a nasty piece pof work, i can suggest a place for your so called peer reviewed studies

P Taylor ● 1361d

You made the claim that it is dangerous, you cannot. I have given you every opportunity to prove your claim, you cannot. I have repeatedly asked you to provide ONE piece of peer reviewed research, you cannot. It is not for me to prove anything.This is going nowhere. Doubtless you can take this as a victory as those without a shred of evidence often do.

N V Brooks ● 1361d

these are experts , anyway there is no evidence that 5g is safe , you must prove it to me and the parents that 5G is safe , its not for me to prove its dangerous YOU PROVE ITS SAFE and if you are so sure put your property on the line as collateral

P Taylor ● 1361d

Which part of peer reviewed do I need to explain?An individual contribution with no review is as valid as me saying that two plus two is three because I want it to be. Their beliefs may be sincerely held but they are simply individual opinions until reviewed.

N V Brooks ● 1361d

The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed-urges-expert/

P Taylor ● 1361d

Do let me know when you find that single piece of peer reviewed research from any one of the "thousands of experts".Until then......

N V Brooks ● 1361d

https://jech.bmj.com/content/75/6/562i suggest people reading this thread use perhaps startpage.com or duckduckgo and do a thorough search ignoring the sponsored resuults that always endorse the official theories of every issue, there is enormous information from experts that contradict this Brookes fellow with his tech fetishhttps://magdahavas.com/biography/she may have a biology PHD  but during a long career you can branch off into many other related fields ,the issue is that radiation affects LIVING TISSUE so its absolutely related to this study , her credentials are impeccable but she is unlikely to have shares in Huwaias for my mobile i am prepared to accept the risks of 3G and 4G ( not that one can get a signal in many shops) as a risk but 5G is absolutely a different thing altogether and is an active denial system that can be used in crowd control and other nefarious useshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Active_Denial_System

P Taylor ● 1361d

You keep shooting yourself in the foot, I don't even need to supply the bullets. She has a PhD in .. Botany, not a single adanced medical qualification. As to having  a 5G mast in my back garden, yes please. If you knew the first thing about how mobile masts and aerial arrays work you would know that they cannot broadcast downwards and have a black spot for around thirty to fifty metres around them.  Keep make ng sweeping exaggerations about these thousands of experts, not one of my hom has published a single piece of peer reviewed research.  Just a he kind if thing that some swallow as Gospel.  Sleep well with your mobile or have you binned it yet?

N V Brooks ● 1361d

she is not a botanist and there are thousands of similar experts who agree with her , she is an academic at a major university i am sure your beloved WEF linked corporations can fiddle some evidence that will impress the sheep , just like your experts claimed thalidomide was safe , that DDT could be sprayed on children and that Iraq had WMD , lets wait for some others to speak as me and you have nothing in common

P Taylor ● 1361d

Thanks for the YouTube link. As I said, a SINGLE piece of peer-reviewed research NOT the personal beef of a botanist.Her last paper published in a journal that can be taken seriously (unsurprisingly it was about botany) dates from 2008.As I said scarmongering and never was the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" more apposite.

N V Brooks ● 1361d

189 comments against the proposal various reasons why not read them ?please do some research and dont just assume the government are acting in our best interests because that is not a safe assumption https://insiderpaper.com/is-5g-detrimental-to-your-health-only-time-will-tell/only time will tell? sorry but thats not good enough this paragraph is of interest“The first two frequencies are similar to those used for 2G to 4G technologies and have been investigated in both epidemiological and experimental studies for different end points (including carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental effects), while 26 GHz and higher frequencies have not been adequately studied for the same end points,” the EU paper read.Regrettably, there is a scarcity of data on the potential dangers of RF-EMF.a SCARCITY OF DATA i recommend Ealing Council build a 5G tower in your back garden , you can show your confidence in your beloved high tech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eQzy0O9Hk8

P Taylor ● 1361d

They were not "votes" they were comments on a planning application, it's good when you understand the difference.I did not vote because I am like, everyone else save for those affected by the visual impact, TOTALLY UNAFFECTED by the proposal as there is NO proven health risk.Time to go and throw your mobile in the bin I guess because that is where the risk, such as it is, resides. ALL mobile phones generate radiation and yet people are happy to put them next to their head or leave them on the bedside table.Sleep well.

N V Brooks ● 1361d

189 votes against the Blondin 5G mast against 1 vote in favour ( probably you) thats more than 99% but i didnt want to exaggerate https://youtu.be/8mE_hfiktrA

P Taylor ● 1361d

Please cite a SINGLE piece of peer reviewed evidence of any risk.Lloyds have NEVER insured against radiation (just like they would not insure against a badly shielded vaccum cleaner motor which also generates non-ionising radiation).Please also cite the source of "99% opposition".

N V Brooks ● 1361d

also bear in mind in for example the Blondin park consultation that i didnt even know about only about 0.5% of the people approved it absolutely nothing should be done that has more than 99% opposition from local residents

P Taylor ● 1361d

apart from the science and there is enormous evidence for the dangers of 5G and in fact all radiation there are many other considerations1) its immensely ugly, those things are eyesores , they also add 5G to all the lamp posts including one outside my flat 2) safe or not safe there has been no genuine public consultation about what its actually needed for? 3) technology overload I am sick to my back teeth of this obsession with high tech, smart meters, apps, gizmos and gadgets . I dont want a heat pump either 4) the cost , its enormously expensive and like all other useless government projects its costing billions , where is the government finding the money or are they borrowing it from your children?5) pompously describing what i said as ' scaremongering twaddle' and then shoehorning your beloved Covid cult  into it 6) I repeat Llloyds of London will NOT insure against it , if its as safe as you aggressivley claim then answer me WHY NOT?https://stop5g.co.uk/insurance-companies-exclude-illnesses-caused-by-emfs-from-mobile-phones/

P Taylor ● 1361d

Scaremongering twaddle. There has not been a single piece of peer reviewed research that shows any risk from 5G base stations. Plenty of rubbish citing 'proof' from those opposed, many of whom m have '5G protection' products to sell and loads of crap from anti-vaxers but NOT A SINGLE piece of proper research.

N V Brooks ● 1361d