From California to Montgomery County Maryland, Chapters of the Sierra Club have worked to oppose the streamlining of 5G and cell towers near homes in communities coast to coast.
Montgomery County Maryland Sierra Club
The Montgomery County Maryland Sierra Club wrote several letters to the County Council on ZTA- 19-07 (5G Cell Towers) expressing concern about the energy use implications which would allow more wireless antenna installations in the County.
“As stated in the letter we submitted on May 15, 2018, regarding ZTA 18-11, we would like to reiterate that we oppose this ZTA and urge you not to pass it in its current form today. This amendment will enable a huge expansion in the construction and use of cellular communications towers, to facilitate a transition away from wired networks to a wireless network of mobile broadband services called 5G. While this new technology may expand cell service, unfortunately, it also will likely result in dramatically increased energy consumption, and therefore much higher greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the carbon footprint of the county.”
- Read the 2019 Montgomery County Maryland Sierra Club Letter.
- Read the 2018 Montgomery County Maryland Sierra Club Letter.
California State Sierra Club
“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.”
Washington DC Sierra Club Testimony on 5G Small Cells Washington DC
The Washington DC Sierra Club testified for the trees in 2018 when the City was investigating 5G cell towers stating that, “It’s a good thing that DDOT has thought about the effect that small cell technology will have on the trees of DC. However, deeper consideration of the issue is needed. Specifically, the District of Columbia must ensure that street trees are not aggressively pruned as DC moves toward small cell infrastructure. This technology requires a direct line of sight between small cells. That could require chopping off large portions of tree branches – which could kill some of the District’s largest and most majestic trees. These are trees that have been enjoyed by District residents and visitors for decades.”
Cell Tower Radiation Can Impact Trees and Wildlife
The Department of Interior wrote a letter in 2014 detailing several published studies showing impacts of wireless radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to birds stated that, “There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of non-thermal, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication towers on nesting and roosting wild birds and other wildlife…. And “However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. “ and “third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species.”
“Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007). Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges- 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States.”
“In laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarloet al. (2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002).” –Department of Interior, 2014
Albert Manville, former senior biologist of the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote “A BRIEFING MEMORANDUM: What We Know, Can Infer, and Don’t Yet Know about Impacts from Thermal and Non-thermal Non-ionizing Radiation to Birds and Other Wildlife” published in Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Solutions, 2014 on the impacts of RFR to birds and bees. India dropped their RF limits by 1/10th after a research review documented the majority of research studies found adverse effects to wildlife, birds and bees.
Regarding bees and pollinators, the study “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports found insects (including the Western honeybee) can absorb the higher frequencies that will be used in the 4G/5G rollout with absorbed power increases up to 370%. The researchers warn, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” Research also has found impacts to bees from wireless frequencies including inducing artificial worker piping (Favre, 2011), disrupting navigation abilities ( Sainudeen, 2011; Kimmel et al., 2007) reducing colony strength (Harst et al., 2006) impacts to honey bee physiology (2011).
In 2020 Alfonso Balmori reviewed research that has been conducted on the link between exposure to power-frequency fields and wireless radiation and the decline of insect species in a paper entitled “Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects.” He found some of the harmful effects on bees from power-frequency and wireless electromagnetic field sources include:
- loss of queen cells
- changes to weight gain of hive
- poor survival in winter
- changes to propolisation
- changes to flight, foraging and feeding
- changes to short-term memory
- causes worker piping signals which can mean disturbance or preparation for swarming
- reduced egg-laying speed of queen
- no honey or pollen in a colony by the end of exposure
- lower weight of honeycomb
- increased mortality.
Balmori 2020 concludes, “here is sufficient evidence on the damage caused by electromagnetic radiation. The precautionary principle should be applied before any new deployment (e.g. 5G).”
Research on trees has found trees are harmed by RFR. A 9 year field study Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al 2016, found significant impacts to trees near cell antennas and an investigation of 700 trees found damage starts on the side of the tree with highest RF. A review on impacts to plants entitled “Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants concluded, “a substantial amount of the studies on RF-EMFs from mobile phones show physiological and/or morphological effects.” A study on aspen seedings found ambient RF in a Colorado setting were high enough to cause necrotic lesions on the leaves, decrease leader length and leaf area, and suppress fall anthocyanin production (Haggarty 2010).
Several literature reviews warn that non ionizing EMFs are an “emerging threat” to wildlife (Balmori 2015, Curachi 2013) .
Click here to see EHTs list of scientific citation on impacts to birds bees and trees.
