5G technology

[french frank]

Just received a letter from the council about an application to erect a 10m tower with ten 5G housing cabinets, replacing one with six 3G housing cabinets, on a building about 65 meters away from my back garden. This has been closely followed by a leaflet from a neighbour with a Fact Sheet about 5G ('What is different about 5G?') issued by PHIRE - Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and the Environment outlining health and environmental problems connected with the towers. Apparently, the roll-out has already been stopped or delayed in a number of other countries.

I know there was a fuss when the application went in for the 3G tower but that died down when all the objections were ruled irrelevant to planning consent - but is 5G going to be a problem in a densely populated area?

[Mal]

What's 5G? Two and a half horses? Bury the half, and keep the stalls clean, then shouldn't be a problem.

[Old Grumpy]

Dunno, but I am not convinced of the merits of 5G. Apparently it will only work well in cities due the need for closely spaced masts. It is also likely to interfere with meteorologists' radar as it uses a similar frequency.

OG

[french frank]

What's 5G?

Wot comes after 4G. Not only will there be more large cell towers around the city, there will need to be smaller ones (e.g. on lamp posts) all over the place. And apparently, the health risks are NOT considered a reason for refusing planning consent because the government has already okayed the general roll-out of 5G.

So, when it doubt, OBJECT.

[MrGongGong]

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl2d4zS56cY

[french frank]

Ignoring all those simple guitar strumming chords: apparently these small cells that are set up around everywhere are called Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or WTFs …

https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/

[Ein Heldenleben]

Just received a letter from the council about an application to erect a 10m tower with ten 5G housing cabinets, replacing one with six 3G housing cabinets, on a building about 65 meters away from my back garden. This has been closely followed by a leaflet from a neighbour with a Fact Sheet about 5G ('What is different about 5G?') issued by PHIRE - Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and the Environment outlining health and environmental problems connected with the towers. Apparently, the roll-out has already been stopped or delayed in a number of other countries.

I know there was a fuss when the application went in for the 3G tower but that died down when all the objections were ruled irrelevant to planning consent - but is 5G going to be a problem in a densely populated area?

I would have thought because of the inverse square law the absorbed “radiation” at 65 metres would be insignificant compared to a mobile held against the ear. I try to use speaker on the phone whenever I can and 1 would not want any mobile phone transmitter within 20 feet of my bedroom.

[french frank]

I would have thought because of the inverse square law the absorbed “radiation” at 65 metres would be insignificant compared to a mobile held against the ear. I try to use speaker on the phone whenever I can and 1 would not want any mobile phone transmitter within 20 feet of my bedroom.

Well, neighbours were all circulated with a 'Please object' note from another neighbour, so I see we have now dutifully responded - one neighbour will have it 10m from his bedroom window (others may be even nearer). These are small, 2-story Victorian terraced houses and a 30-ft tower in our midst would seem a little out of place. Anyway, we've been advised that this is the line to take with planners as they understand this.

[Bryn]

Well, neighbours were all circulated with a 'Please object' note from another neighbour, so I see we have now dutifully responded - one neighbour will have it 10m from his bedroom window (others may be even nearer). These are small, 2-story Victorian terraced houses and a 30-ft tower in our midst would seem a little out of place. Anyway, we've been advised that this is the line to take with planners as they understand this.

But frenchie, how are you going to watch all those forthcoming Netflix blockbusters on your smartphone without it?

[french frank]

But frenchie, how are you going to watch all those forthcoming Netflix blockbusters on your smartphone without it?

Oh, you are a caution, Bryn! (I've had my phone for about 18 months now and still haven't bothered to find out it might emit any sort of sound other than the brief, low buzz when something or other has arrived somewhere - oh, and the morning alarm )

[Dave2002]

What was the height of the tower the proposed one will replace? It may be difficult to argue against it if the size and appearance aren’t significantly different. Regarding health and safety issues these can be very hard to assess. Sweden perhaps has one of the best records in this respect, and does appear to take radiation issues more seriously than the UK.
Mobile network technology is very complicated, with variable power settings, which also operate cooperatively with user devices, and may also work on schedules. I think some similar systems have been operating in Japan for a relatively long time, with very small cell sizes, but there’s probably not yet any epidemiological study on health effects of similar systems.

The electronics and communications industries will claim that they have safety standards which are well established, and that they are working within the limits and will continue to operate within those. It will probably be many years before any robust counter evidence can be established, if indeed there are harmful effects.

Straightforward planning grounds might be simpler for objection, rather than speculative “scientific” “justification”.

Let’s face it, many people use iPad, tablets and mobile phones, and have wi-fi in their homes. Users also include very young people, who are often considered to be the ones most likely to have long term adverse effects - if there are any. The main differences then between 5G and other mobile systems which are already being widely used are going to be in the power output, and in the frequencies used.

if there is any evidence that the new systems might interfere with other electrical/electronic systems in the area there might be other grounds, but I am unaware of them. Things to check might include pace makers, digital TV and digital radio, cordless phones, GPS etc. Commercial ventures may have already discounted any such risks. Background electrical noise may be increased, which might affect analogue systems - but I doubt whether anyone will really worry unless there are very major effects.

[french frank]

What was the height of the tower the proposed one will replace? It may be difficult to argue against it if the size and appearance aren’t significantly different.

Excellent question.

This is a photo from my back yard. The tower is on the flat roof of a two storey building, As it appears that the average two-storey house is about 20 ft high (seems a bit low?), I would estimate that the current tower is no more than 15ft high (at most, exaggerating quite a bit), or 4.6m. So the new one will be just over twice the height.

Straightforward planning grounds might be simpler for objection, rather than speculative “scientific” “justification”.

Yes, we were told that it was okay to mention possible health risks, but amenity and environment/biodiversity matters would be what the planners would consider.

[Bryn]

When we moved to Swindon in 1957, the local council had a ban on chimney or other house-mounted television aerials. Everyone on the new housing estates had to have a guyed pole erected in their back garden to lift their aerial above rooftop level, much after this type, though not quite as tall:



That was enough of an eyesore for me.

[Dave2002]

Excellent question.

This is a photo from my back yard. The tower is on the flat roof of a two storey building, As it appears that the average two-storey house is about 20 ft high (seems a bit low?), I would estimate that the current tower is no more than 15ft high (at most, exaggerating quite a bit), or 4.6m. So the new one will be just over twice the height.






Yes, we were told that it was okay to mention possible health risks, but amenity and environment/biodiversity matters would be what the planners would consider.

Mmm. Horrible view, but that’s not necessarily going to stop things getting worse. Views aren’t an entitlement re planning.
Re the height - what’s that measured from? Ground level? Roof top level? I’m guessing that at least the cabinets won’t be too visible, and they will be on the roof.

If you could show that bats might be affected by a new tower (highly unlikely) you might have a case. As an already urban environment it is unlikely to be a wildlife corridor, which could carry some planning weight. You might, however, be able to get constraints put on the proposed development if it looks as though it’s going to be pushed through. For example heights could be reduced. The developer may have deliberately put in for a larger tower, knowing that a planning inspector might ask for it to be reduced. You might also be able to put in mitigation, though difficult without affecting operation. Screening the eyesore might be such a mitigation, or perhaps repositioning the tower on the roof.

You probably don't want to give more details, but maybe more towers of lower height could be acceptable.