Environmental Groups are Calling For Caution With 5G and Cell Tower Proliferation

Numerous environmental groups have written letters and appeals on the issue of the wireless radiation exposure, the unfettered energy consumption of 5G and the harm to trees, bees and wildlife. 

• The Green Party of California issued a statement on 5G recommending precautions with 5G to reduce wireless exposures and promote safer alternative technologies to 5G. They also recommend the adoption of the recommendations of the New Hampshire State 5G Commission. 
• A letter from Environmental Working Group To California State Officials states “there is already adequate existing sound science for government to proceed with caution on the roll-out of the new technology. In particular, the results of the $25 million National Toxicology Program study (2016) that showed tumors in rats caused by a typical amount of heavy cell phone use are to be reckoned with.”
• When a proposed California State bill was being debated that would fasttrack cell towers into neighborhoods the Sierra Club of California wrote a letter stating that these “small cell” installations not only can  cause an aesthetic blight, but can release levels of radiation that we don’t yet know conclusively the health impacts they can impose of  humans, especially developing bodies and minds of children. These small cell boxes could pop up  anywhere: grocery stores, outside school, playgrounds, communal  places, with no requirement to  mitigate effects or understand potential environmental and health hazards.” 
• Greenpeace France released a position on 5G  as creating “digital pollution” that will increase carbon emissions, increase e-waste, strip the earth of natural resources and contribute to human tragedies on a global scale.  
• In Belgium Extinction Rebellion blocked a Wireless Company store stating, “We are opposed to the large-scale deployment of the 5G mobile telephone network…There is, first of all, an ecological reason to fight this deployment”, he explained. “Data traffic and digital energy consumption are already responsible for 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. With 5G, this energy consumption and the resulting effects will double, which is unacceptable while we are currently fighting against global warming.”
• In France the “Extinction Rebellion Orléans” collective mounted actions such as posting anti-5G posters and a protest.  See also twitter of Extinction Rebellion France protest on 5G
• A major environmental group in Spain Ecologists in Action  issued a position on 5G calling for precaution.

When 5G was proposed for Washington DC, the Sierra Club of Washington DC took a position that trees were at risk and needed protections from the unfettered building of small cell towers on streets.  

Documented Impacts to Wildlife and the Environment

• A landmark three part 2021 research review on effects to wildlife published in Reviews on Environmental Health by U.S experts including former U.S. Fish and Wildlife senior biologist Albert Manville states current science should trigger urgent regulatory action citing more than 1,200 scientific references which found adverse biological effects to wildlife from even very low intensities of non ionizing radiation with findings of  impacts to orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest, den building and survivorship (Levitt et al., 2021a, Levitt et al., 2021b,  Levitt et al., 2021c).
• “A review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF” reviewed 113 studies finding RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms, and plants in 70% of the studies (Cucurachi 2013). Development and reproduction in birds and insects were the most strongly affected. As an example of the several studies on wildlife impacts, a study focusing on RF from antennas found increased sperm abnormalities in mice exposed to RF from GSM antennas (Otitoloju 2010). 
• “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports is the first study to investigate how insects (including the Western honeybee) absorb the higher frequencies (2 GHz to 120 GHz) to be used in the 4G/5G rollout. The scientific simulations showed increases in absorbed power between 3% to 370% when the insects were exposed to the frequencies. Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….”
• Studies on bees have found behavioral effects (Kumar 2011, Favre 2011), disrupted navigation (Goldsworthy 2009, Sainudeen 2011, Kimmel et al. 2007), decreasing egg laying rate (Sharma and Kumar, 2010), and reduced colony strength (Sharma and Kumar, 2010, Harst et al. 2006).
• Research has also found a high level of damage to trees from antenna radiation. For example, a field monitoring study spanning 9 years involving over 100 trees (Waldmann-Selsam 2016) found trees sustained more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna. 
• Documentation of tree damage from base stations is made visible in the Report “Tree Damage Caused by Mobile phone base stations” in which he states, “RF radiation effects on plants have not been considered. In the Explosive Proliferation of the diverse wireless communication technologies across the entire environment and almost all areas of life, this represents an uncovered risk” (Breunig, 2017).  
• A study on Aspen trees near Lyons, Colorado entitled “Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings” published in the International Journal of Forestry found adverse effects on growth rate and fall anthocyanin production, concluding that “results of this preliminary experiment indicate that the RF background may be adversely affecting leaf and shoot growth and inhibiting fall production of anthocyanins associated with leaf senescence in Trembling Aspen seedlings. These effects suggest that exposure to the RF background may be an underlying factor in the recent rapid decline of Aspen populations. Further studies are underway to test this hypothesis in a more rigorous way.” 
• An analysis of 45 peer-reviewed scientific publications (1996–2016) on changes in plants due to the non-thermal RF-EMF effects from mobile phone radiation entitled “Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants” concludes, “Our analysis demonstrates that the data from a substantial amount of the studies on RF-EMFs from mobile phones show physiological and/or morphological effects (89.9%, p < 0.001). Additionally, our analysis of the results from these reported studies demonstrates that the maize, roselle, pea, fenugreek, duckweeds, tomato, onions and mungbean plants seem to be very sensitive to RF-EMFs. Our findings also suggest that plants seem to be more responsive to certain frequencies….”