Wireless Wirral and the Planned 5G Rollout



The test dummy upon which the ICNIRP guidelines are based.

The latest in our debate generating series of posts brought to you by ‘Bright Spark’  :

Over the last two weeks we focused on the new LED lampposts and the unhealthy blue/white LED light and transmitters on top. These posts have hopefully got your attention and got you thinking about the prolific expansion of wireless technology in recent years and the impending ‘Internet of Things’ and the 5G testing in Liverpool and Birkenhead with the rest of the Wirral 5G enabled and ready to turn on. Whilst wireless technology is very convenient, it is very inconveniently unsafe, period.

There is no safe level of microwave radiation (Barry Trower).

Existing EMF (electromagnetic frequency) smog created by wireless technology (2G, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, cell towers, wifi, smart meters, Bluetooth, cordless DECT phones, wireless sensors, baby monitors, Sky Q boxes, Echo, smartphones, tablets, laptops, smart TV’s, games consoles, all manner of smart tech and remote controlled devises, driver assisted cars etc.) and now 5G (which will lay the infrastructure to blanket every inch of the country and globe with millimetre waves c.100 times stronger than current levels for even faster download speeds, driverless cars, delivery drones, virtual reality, facial recognition, AI and other, as yet, inconceivable technologies) have already/are being rolled out in the Wirral, UK and across the world and positioned as safe, environmentally friendly and essential for every area of the economy.

When being sold the conveniences of wireless technology (instead of the more inconvenient and expensive hardwiring), or being sucked in by the lure of the promises of 5G to provide even faster download speeds and improve your life so you can download a video in 6 seconds instead of 7 minutes; have a driverless car, live in a virtual reality; sit on the couch whilst turning your lights and washing machine on and ordering your dinner to come by drone delivery; live in smart cities controlled by facial recognition and enjoy being connected to billions of other devises via the Internet of Things (IoT) and controlled by the cloud…you may want to look at the human and environmental health risks that have already occurred at current levels. In a future post we will focus on the exponential dangers of 5G which will use both existing microwave bands as well as new millimetre waves and utilises a different beam forming technology.

Is it worth your health and that of your children, grandchildren and the destruction of the environment to carry on accepting this as ‘progress’? We have all been complicit in inviting this technology into our homes and children’s lives and it is now down to each and every one of us now to reconsider our priorities.
The issue with government and industry guidelines and PHE/ICNIRP guidelines is this:-

The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR), which Public Health England (PHE), government departments and industry steadfastly quote, maintain that there is no ‘convincing evidence’ or that ‘it does not appear’ that exposure to radio frequencies below ‘guidelines’ poses any risk.

These PHE/ICNIRP guidelines have not been updated since 1998 before wireless technology had been prolifically rolled out and are based SOLELY on ‘thermal’ (i.e. heating effects) over a short (c. 6 minute) exposure on a fluid filled test dummy (see above). They are based on the out-dated belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous and that non-ionising radiation does not have enough power to affect DNA as ionising (nuclear) radiation does. They steadfastly maintain that there is no issue whatsoever with non-ionising radiation except a potential heating effect at high enough power densities (e.g. your microwave oven heats you up but your wifi is miraculously safe at a lower power, both of which operate on 2.4 GHz spectrum).

These guidelines DO NOT take any of the following into account:-

The non-thermal effects of RF radiation. These effects take place at levels way below recommended guidelines.
Any effects on actual cell biology, cell membranes, mitochondria and DNA etc.
The effects of multiple frequency exposure
The effects of ‘pulsed’ frequency exposure
The cumulative effect of 24/7 exposure
The addition of multiple RF emitting sources in one location
The effects on wildlife, trees, plants, birds, bees, pollinators, bacteria and viruses etc. on their biology and navigation etc.
The effects on infants, children, foetus and vulnerable groups

This link shows the fluid filled test dummy that has no biology upon which all so called ‘safety standards’ are based.

The International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) exposure level is approx. 900 quadrillion times higher than natural background microwave radiation levels ( µW/m²).

The current guidelines DO NOT PROVE that exposure to RF radiation is ‘safe’. They only state that there is no evidence to ‘suggest’ that it is not safe and are not considering the growing body of evidence and calls from scientists all around the world that demonstrate that it is most definitely not safe at levels way below these guidelines.

No ‘body’ is even measuring exposure levels or ‘combined’ exposure levels from cell towers, devises sold into homes and therefore combined in any location even against the glaringly inadequate guidelines. Big Telecoms and Big Wireless is rolling out unchecked and with impunity.

Damage from RF exposure is uninsurable. The Government, utility companies, big telecoms and smart tech industries may be turning a blind eye to the dangers of wireless radiation exposure but the insurance business has not. Lloyd’s of London sets the standard for the world and has a clause that excludes any compensation for claims: “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electro-magnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” Radio waves are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc. So RFs are invalidating insurance policies.

Whilst there are undoubtedly many benefits and conveniences of wireless technology, it is also clear that TRILLIONS OF £ & $ are at stake as well as geopolitical agendas that choose to ignore the dangers. The fact is there are thousands of research papers and calls from credible research scientists across the world that conclude that the current ‘safety standards’ are woefully inadequate and that the roll out of 5G will exacerbate the current issues exponentially. These are simply being ignored by industry/governments/councils and/or discredited by industry sponsored research.

A few examples that are being ignored:

On 31st May 2011, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorised RF EMFs as a possible CARCINOGEN (Class 2b) – the same category as lead, DDT, chloroform & methylmercury. There are calls to upgrade this to a Group 1 (definitive) carcinogen.

Below is a recent commentary by Prof. Lennart Hardell on the findings of a $25mn US NTP study into cell phone signals.  His conclusion is unequivocal:

Based on the IARC preamble to the monographs, RF radiation should be classified as Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
’This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.’ (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php)

Hardell’s work led to the category of 2B back in 2011, he now is calling for it to be upgraded to Class 1.

On 6th May 2011, the Council of Europe issued a report titled “Potential dangers of EMFs and their effect on the environment” in which they called for an IMMEDIATE reduction in exposure to EMFs by children. The Council advocates a precautionary principle be applied to wireless emissions to prevent public health disaster akin to “tobacco, leaded petrol and asbestos”.

See the Bioinitiative Report 2012. This is informative and gives a clear statement of the problem and a lot references http://www.bioinitiative.org.

Martin Pall, PhD (Caltech, 1968) Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University. Below are some links to his extensive research and letter to California legislators:



Other references throughout this note contain many credible and peer reviewed studies of evidence of harm that are being ignore/dismissed in favour of government/industry objectives.

Health Effects of RF Radiation and Biological Mechanisms:-

Symptoms of RF (radiofrequency) radiation exposure are many and many of these conditions have increased exponentially in the last 10-20 years since the advent of wireless technology, cell towers, wifi and EMF exposure etc. One has to wonder why there is no other viable explanation that has been shown for these huge increases in conditions that co-inside with this timeline. Doctors are not recognising (or not allowed to recognise the connection).

Some of these health effects include:-

Sleep problems, fatigue, learning and concentration problems, stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, tinnitus, heart problems, palpitations, arrhythmias, cramps, nausea, nosebleeds, hormone disruption, fertility problems, ADHD, autism and neurological and sensory spectrum disorders, immune system disorders, respiratory problems, diabetes, skin rashes and flushes, dementia, alzheimers and cancer. These are known radiation sicknesses.



There is also alot of information and references on the dangers of wireless radiation on the following links:-


Basic biology is clear in that every cell and nerve in the body operates using minute electrical signals. There can be no doubt that these biological signals will be affected by exposure to unnatural and continuous high frequency microwave radiation at billions of cycles per second.

Wifi, for example, operates at 2.4 Ghz (2.4 billion cycles per second) and so too does your microwave oven! Although the power density is less, how does a microwave oven on a stick in your home suddenly become safe? In short, it does not. It might not heat you up by 2 degrees in 6 minutes but any logic would tell you this is not safe 24/7.

5G is set to use various higher military grade millimetre wave frequencies e.g. 60Ghz (60 billion cycles per second) and 125 Ghz (125 billion cycles per second) which have been auctioned off already at huge profit to governments all over the world. High-frequency 60GHz 5G has already been shown to interfere with the oxygen molecules we breathe amongst many other serious metabolic issues.

The actual biological mechanisms by which these illnesses manifest are many and complex and too many to note in details this paper but research includes:-

Changes in DNA and mitochondria, changes in cellular process, damage to voltage gated ion channels leading to electrical signal changes in the cell, changes in brain waves and neuron responses, oxidative stress, cell inflammation and damage to the blood/brain permeability.



Dr Martin Palls work, papers and lectures explain clearly the mechanisms of harm as well as how children, insects and trees are particularly affected. His predictions are dire and should urgently be heeded but are ignored by government and industry:


Contrary to ICNIRP, PHE and Government guidelines, it is quite evident that there is considerable scientific doubt of the safety of these EU, UK guidelines and standards.

Anecdotally, many people are becoming sick with many conditions noted above but with ‘unknown cause’ and for others, lives have become a misery with Electro Sensitivity. It is estimated that Elecro Sensitivity will increase from the current estimate of 3-10% to 50% in the coming years. Peoples health and the environment is being damaged whether they are ‘electrically sensitive’ and aware of it or not.


These connections are simply dismissed by government and NHS doctors. Living close to unavoidable sources and being forcibly exposed to RF radiation is a real misery for many people. Many people are acutely aware of the cause of their illness or discomfort, often living close to a cell tower or becoming sensitive after being exposed to Wifi all day in work, school or home or recently having a smart meter installed and others remain unaware of the cause getting medical treatments that will not help.

A recent article in the Lancet outlines concerns of harm from conception that has now occurred and increased rapidly in the past 20 years. Amongst other issues, it outlines evidence of the effects of exposure to wireless devices on the CNS, including altered neurodevelopment, increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases, behavioural disorders and structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour in children.


At a time when environmental health scientists tackle serious global issues such as climate change and chemical toxicants in public health, it calls for an urgent need to address so-called electrosmog.

The current guidelines are simply irrelevant to continuous exposure:


Please refer to the Bioinitiative report and the Building Biology Levels precautionary guidelines for RF/Microwave exposure which take non thermal effects into account:


The conversion and the various measuring units are very complex and it is easy to understand how invested interests can persuade government and decision makers into believing inadequate safety measures.

In summary, however, by comparison, the EU standard being used to determine ‘safety’ is thousands of times higher than the levels shown to cause cellular damage and health issues and the precautionary levels advised by building biology guidelines. In nature, levels are almost undetectable which is a clear measure of the real level at which biology operates at a healthy level:-

EU Safety Standard: 1 mW/cm2 (= 61.4 V/m)

Nature: <0.00002 V/m

Building Biology No Concern: < 0.006 V/m
Building Biology Slight Concern: 0.006-0.06 V/m
Building Biology Severe Concern: 0.06-0.6 V/m
Building Biology Extreme Concern: >0.6 V/m

To reiterate, the ‘EU/UK safety standards’ are thousands of times higher than biological safety standards and only measure SAR (thermal) effects performed on a fluid filled dummy. They do not take ANY account of non thermal effects, continuous exposure, pulsed frequency exposure, multiple frequency range exposure etc. to the actual biology of any creature large or small. No one is measuring the combined exposure effect in an average home e.g living next to a cell tower, 3 smart meters, wifi, plus neighbours smart meters and wifi, combined with the vast array of wireless devises. No one is measuring effects on wildlife, plant health and the decline of insects, pollinators and birds. Insect populations have plummeted dramatically in the last 10 years and this correlates with the introduction of 3 and 4G, smart meters and smart LED lamp posts.

There are simply thousands of peer reviewed studies linking RF radiation exposure to cancer and many of the illnesses above and yet these studies, along with the classification of the WHO are being ignored. The government/industry is rolling out ever increasing wireless infrastructure including masts for full UK 4GLTE coverage and is now laying the foundations for the 5G infrastructure and smart cities (including allowing existing masts to be upgraded to 5G, new 5G upgradable masts, LED lampposts with RF transmitters, and any number of street furniture such as manholes and telephone boxes as well as (the insane) space satellites planned to augment the coverage). Industry, with an eye on ‘the internet of things’ is selling every conceivable devise loaded with RF transmitters, that in most cases cannot be disabled, to the unsuspecting and technology enraptured public.

There is so much evidence of harm that is being ignored in favour of the industry/government interests. It is an extremely inconvenient truth that this technology is not safe and action must be taken to STOP THE ROLL OUT OF 5G and limit the use of existing wireless technology.
Most of the public are unaware of the dangers as they are not being informed of these dangers by the mainstream media or may simply not believe that the government would knowingly allow this to happen (refer tobacco, diesel, asbestos, GMO’s, fracking, pesticides etc!). This is a global experiment without informed consent. RF radiation cannot be seen, heard or perceived. Those that are aware and/or sensitive are horrified at the complicity of the government and councils in allowing this crime against humanity.

It should be the duty of the council and the government to act in the best interests of the environment and the health of the public and this is currently not the case. The future liability for complicity in the irreversible harm to human health and the environment must surely rest with the council, government and government advisory bodies as well as industry with whom they work hand in hand. They need to immediately acknowledge the scientific evidence and amend the government policies proliferating the infrastructure roll out and industry sales of RF devices. Unfortunately, this does not look like it will happen any time soon and may already be too late for the health of many.

To make any changes millions of voices and careful individual purchasing changes are required. Do not assume someone else will take action.

15 thoughts on “Wireless Wirral and the Planned 5G Rollout

  1. I don’t follow the logic of your argument. The ICNIRP guidelines relate to the testing of exposures a “quadrillion” times higher than any likely human lifetime exposure. Yet, the results show no significantly harmful effect upon the test model. How does this prove that exposure levels that are a tiny fraction of ICNIRP guidelines do cause harm? Surely it proves entirely the opposite, unless you think that there is a type of homeopathic effect at work (i.e. efficacy increases as concentrations decrease)?

    I very much doubt that any ethics committee would sanction exposing a living, breathing human being to the ICNIRP tests. Test models such as this are used very commonly in science.

    More and better testing is a good idea. As technologies advance it is quite right to continue to ensure that the public are being exposed to an acceptable level of risk.

    Rather than trying to whip up public hysteria I think your efforts would be better focused towards influencing and changing the international treaties that govern the use of this equipment. Brexit also provides an opportunity for the United Kingdom to adopt stricter guidelines than the rest of the world, if that is what new science persuades us to do.

    However, as I have stated before, senior decision makers must base their findings upon accepted science. Whatever disagreements there may be in the scientific community, one thing is certain, decisions cannot be based upon public hysteria. If they were, they would quickly be overturned by the courts.

    • That is the point…ICNIRP guidelines have not been updated since the late 1990’s. They test one item at a time and if that does not heat the fluid filled dummy up in a few minutes then it is miraculously safe…of course using that totally inadequate test!! They are NOT testing the health issues created from exposure to one quadrillion times higher RF radiation levels that we have now from multiple sources and frequency bands. They are allowing everyone and everything to be exposed based on if a fluid filled head heats up or not. That is not science. There is no testing for how cellular biology is impacted in any safety ‘standards’. It is the non thermal effects on cellular biology which the independent scientists are proving where harm occurs which is caused well below thermal levels. Did you not review any of the work of e.g. Martin Pall? No matter who one writes to in government, councils or industry, they just quote these untouchable ICNIRP guidelines. No one person or group has the massive resources required to change international treaties! This is an unrealistic comment. It is not a case of creating mass hysteria. It is a case of informing people just how inadequate the safety ‘guidelines’ are and the impact this uncontrolled wireless RF exposure is having on their health and the environment. It is only a mass public outcry and action that will make any change to this issue and it is people who sit back and assume that one person or group is going to be able to do this that allows this crime to continue. People assume that government is looking after the interests of the population rather than industry profits and control and this is simply not the case, as has not been the case many times before. Perhaps people should have a choice if they are exposed to ”acceptable” risk, but they are not, they are forcibly exposed and the councils are allowing telecoms to literally deploy what they want on our streets.

  2. Bright spark .. I don’t know who it is but send this to the chair of environment committee and ask for it to be discussed (😬😂.. I know they need to be able to read and understand but you never know 🤷🏼‍♀️)

    Excellent research btw

  3. Take a look at this site (Children’s Health Defence) run by Robert F Kenny Jr. This man is from a top political and legal family. He is no scare monger or conspiracy theorist. His mission is to fight for all injured children from environmental toxins which the establishment know about. This includes RF radiation which is now providing the perfect storm for the massive increase in children’s neurological conditions. If you or anyone you know had a child with ADHD, autism or a chronic disease please do not ignore this information and stand up against the proliferation of wireless technology in schools, streets, homes and especially the imminent roll out of 5G along with the other environmental assaults that are destroying a generation (and for the certain the next).

    • The fact that Florida, Switzerland, Belgium and more have banned it on the grounds of health and safety sends alarm bells. Why should we be guinea pigs

  4. This should make the local papers. A guy I know in a National online group got a front page story in his local area Totnes, with the Totnes advertiser. How about this site using its influence to do that?

      • Sounds about right. I can pass on good news though 2 towns in the South West Frome and Glastonbury have suspended roll out after council discussions

      • You are welcome. I wasn’t sure how to start a new thread here but this should be worth tuning into if nobody is aware. https://the5gsummit.com it’s free and online and runs from today 26th August starting at 3pm and runs through until September 1st, you just need to click the link to register with an email and a link will be sent to attend.

  5. This is complete nonsense. The devices on the lampposts produce 1/2 of one watt. Less that a small walkie talkie device. The videos presented do not focus on 5g. 5g signal broadcasts are produced on the c section part of the Microwave band 1 – 2 GHZ You omit the difference between ionized and none Ionized radiation. The spin you refer to is created when electrons are moved or excited by ionized radiation from a host atom. There is no explanation of Photon Exchange rate force or any logical information at all. There is no EMF Smog it is all non ionized.

  6. All this fuss over non ionized radiation. Are you kidding me? Do you understand the process of Photon exchange force? 5G is broadcast on the c spectrum of the microwave band. Why do you not mention ionized and non ionized radiation in theory and in full.? There is no honest Science produced in this argument that backs up any claims for any health risks. The portion of the band that produces harmful effects is on the E . Not licensed.. 5G is not the entire spectrum.. Can you tell me how it is possible for 5G to excite and move electrons from a host atom. Given that the aerial used only delivers a signal on 1 -2 GHz. With the capacity of up to 3Ghz,Then tell me how it produced ionized radiation? The devices on the lampposts produce a 1/4 of 1 watt PEP. That is not dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s