We have received an application for a 5G upgrade of the telecom post at Sutherland Grange 51283 T&A. I have called this in. This means it will be debated at the RBWM Planning Panel.
I believe there is a great deal of public interest in the subject of 5G and its potential benefits and possible negative side effects and so would like to hear our Councillors debate the subject at RBWM Planning Panel meeting and hear any public & community thoughts on the subject.
Around the world many countries, towns and cities are asking questions with many halting 5G installations until the research is done into the impact on human health and evidence presented.
Brussels, Ireland, Wales, Slovenia, Russia, Netherlands, California, Australia, Switzerland, France, Italy, Germany and Bangladesh on an international footing and Glastonbury, Shepton Mallet, Kingsbridge, Frome, Wellington, Winchester and Brighton more locally.
Celine Fremault, minister for housing, environment and energy of Brussels Capital Region said last July: “I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards which must protect the citizen are not respected, 5G or not. The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt.”
Quoting the Mayor of Bad Wiessee, Bavaria, “5G offers many things that are attractive to people who love technology, such as time-saving automation, autonomous vehicles, ubiquitous smart homes, real time data-transfer, and the Internet of Things, to name but a few. But 5G also means increasing the number of cell towers in Germany from 90,000 to 750,000; launching approximately 12,000 5G satellites into space; increasing public exposure to microwave radiation from around 2.5 GHz currently to 200 GHz; seeing potential liability claims against owners of cell-tower locations; chopping down trees on a large scale (to ensure good transmission); as well as irradiating plants and animals. Above all, there is uncertainty about whether 5G can be considered safe in terms of public health. This is a very serious matter and, until such uncertainty is adequately clarified, the precautionary principle must be applied.”
US Senator Blumenthal asked CEOs of telcos in America how much money was being spent on this research and was told ZERO. Senator Blumenthal sharing some of his concerns…
I believe from a legal perspective it is a white wash with Government legislation promoting the interests of telecom companies based on the promised massive income potential from 5G with no apparent regard given to public health and the potential damage to human life as we know it.
In guidance there are comments like “May pose a health risk” and “the balance of evidence from research to date suggests this is not the case” because not enough research is being done.
If I’m wrong, show me…
In the UK the The National Planning Policy Framework states
‘Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.’ (Para 29 of Appendix)
So it falls to the RBWM Planning Panel to determine if they feel able to grant permission despite the lack of evidence relating to the impact on human health?
There is the natural appeal of faster this and faster that. With better connectivity a surgeon could operate on someone remotely with robotic arms, cars could travel 10 cm apart and there will be no accidents! Plus countless other perceived benefits.
Campaigners against 5G have raised concerns that the higher frequencies can have an impact on the human body, affecting our blood supply and potentially to be carcinogenic.
Mark Steele is a geordie who designs digital military helmets and has been campaigning in Gateshead where he claims there are more people dying because of the 5G installations. Challenged in court by Gateshead Council, the judge ruled his voice should be heard.
Is it possible that there isn’t enough known about the potential impact on human life and while the Windsor Leisure Centre post has already been upgraded to 5G, I would like to see more professional research papers on the potential impact on human health before 5G is further rolled out across Windsor.
In the applicant’s supporting document for the upgrade it states:
“The higher frequencies that 5G will use can provide more bandwidth and thus greater capacity but the signal will not travel as far as those of previous generations. The implications to the built environment will be that more infrastructure needs to be deployed with the added significant increase in capital required.”
I would prefer to see a delay in the roll out until scientific evidence can be provided as to its safety and a number of towns and cities have been successful by applying the Precautionary Principle (see below) but my roll is simply as a Councillor, representing my residents and so it is for them to ask me to call a motion urging that the Precautionary Principle be applied to the installation and roll out of 5G in RBWM.
I will gather the mood of Windsor residents at this time through social media and more traditional channels and if the demand is there, I am happy to call the motion as part of the public debate.
The precautionary principle is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.