Brought to you courtesy of Google, who thought I'd be interested in this...
How nice of the Somersetlive newspaper to blame this on a mum - because what would a housewife know? Seriously this is 2019, and we're blaming mothers for having a baseless fear?
So EE basically said that the complainant shouldn't be worried because the frequencies they are about to use for their initial installations are in the 3.4Ghz range. Okay, but why is the rest of the world seeking licences and testing 5G that extends into microwave frequencies of upto 100Ghz? Why are we hearing about how trees and buildings block 5G, which means we need more installs or take out unnecessary trees?
Lets break down their responses:
So no SIGNIFICANT increase in sites, and the implementation is based on strict guidelines and "medical studies". Remember the SAR rating that is based on a test for temperature rises in water contained in a plastic head when the phone is stuck to said plastic head - because humans are just vessels for water... sometimes I start to think, maybe some people are.
Sad to see the numerous comments in that article that brush off this mothers concerns, as if they have any idea about the health risks. Trying to hide the truth behind ridicule?
Yet we have articles like this that were written based entirely on a Senate hearing in the US (forgive me for the popup spam):
Ultimately, read this: https://whatis5g.info/health/
TL:DR (and this applies only to 2G and 3G radiation):