Summary: <br> Commentary<br> <br> <br> <br> The 5G wireless network currently being rolled out around the world and across New Zealand is getting a bad rap from people who claim the wireless radiation this system emits is not good for our health.<br> <br> <br> <br> Ask a phone company about your 5G concerns and they’ll likely point you to someone else’s report that will conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, 5G will likely cause you, your pets or plants, no harm.<br> <br> <br> <br> Well that’s a lot different to the CEO of some telecom firm standing up and saying “5G is perfectly safe”. As far as I know, telecom CEOs are not saying that publicly.<br> <br> <br> <br> One reason might be that, and I have tried to confirm this, is that I am led to believe that insurance companies are apparently refusing to insure telecom firms against 5G related health claims (should there be any). <br> <br> <br> <br> But imagine if millions of people started a class action claiming 5G had caused them ill health – and you had no insurance to bat that one away using an army of lawyers. Imagine the embarrassment of a court trial (where anything could be said with the protection of the courts).<br> <br> <br> <br> I have read a lot about 5G and to be honest, I’m 50 – 50. But what concerns me is that no one is saying outright, hand on heart, that 5G is a technology that has been consumer tested, verified as safe by an independent body (not funded by telecom firms), and will cause no harm. No one without a vested interest is saying this. <br> <br> <br> <br> There are clearly some industry supporters posting comments on social media saying that 5G is safe; but they are distanced – by fact or design – from the telecom firms. After all, there is a lot at play.<br> <br> <br> <br> In fact, mobile phone technology has never been tested in the same way pharmaceuticals or food are – or even your child’s toy. Everything we buy is tested to check it causes no harm. <br> <br> <br> <br> So that causes me to put a feint question mark over 5G. It may be feint, but it is an issue of concern for me non-the-less.<br> <br> <br> <br> Trees removed<br> <br> <br> <br> Telecom firms have invested a lot of cash in 5G. Driverless cars will need unencumbered line-of-sight 5G wireless signals to work, and that in turn has led to claims of trees being cut down for fear they may interfere with 5G signals.<br> <br> <br> <br> Telecom firms will tell you that if trees are determined to be a problem then they will consult with the public (before chopping them down). Have you noticed any trees being removed from your street for no good reason? <br> <br> <br> <br> The issue is that while 5G can handle lots of data very fast; the 5G signal is not strong and cannot penetrate foliage or trees. That’s another reason why 5G transmitters – small cells – will be placed on lampposts 250metres apart. Critics say there will be no escape from 5G wireless signals.<br> <br> <br> <br> Crowd control<br> <br> <br> <br> Then there are claims that the millimetre wave technology that 5G is capable of has been used for crowd control by the military in some countries. That’s not to say that this level of technology is being deployed at the moment. Although I am sure there are some people in Hong Kong right now who wish they had it. Some people in Hong Kong have taken to cutting down lampposts with small cells on them.<br> <br> <br> <br> The <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://bioinitiative.org" target="_blank">Bio Initiative</a> report is worth a read, despite one telecom PR person telling me its authors are ‘crystal wavers’. And comments such as that don’t help; because rather than address the actual content of this report,
