The ugly side of 5G: New cell towers spoil the scenery and crowd people's homes

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Local • Perspective

The ugly side of 5G: New cell towers spoil the scenery and crowd people’s homes

By Robert McCartney
Columnist
July 12, 2021|Updated today at 5:04 a.m. EDT

The telecom giants promise that 5G technology will thrill us with dramatically expanded, ultrafast wireless service. But they don’t mention that it also means installing vastly more equipment, including cell towers, in ugly and intrusive ways. ... Property owners and local governments across the country are pushing back with a surge of grass-roots objections pressing the industry not to erect poles that spoil a view or crowd a home and potentially reduce its value.

Such a protest in Dewey Beach, Del. — summer playground for thousands of Washingtonians — has drawn national attention. The resort has emerged as a champion of the movement after persuading Verizon to promise to remove three of five towers that marred the scenery along the dunes.

{snip}

Julie Levine of Topanga, Calif., founder of 5G Free California, said new poles “are ugly and are placed too close to homes. . . . It looks awful on the mountaintops.” ... Levine and others also warn against what they see as health risks from radiation generated by the 5G antennas. But several authorities — including the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute — have said no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

An academic paper in March looked at 107 experimental studies in a “state of the science review” of research into possible health dangers of 5G technology. ... “This review showed no confirmed evidence that [radiation fields] such as those used by the 5G network are hazardous to human health,” the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology said. ... But it also called for further research: “Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.”

{snip}

By Robert McCartney
Robert McCartney is The Washington Post’s senior regional correspondent, covering government and politics in the greater Washington area. Twitter https://twitter.com/McCartneyWP

[TexLaProgressive]

1. The odd thing is, when cellular telephony was first proposed the idea was to have lots of "cells."

These mini transceivers and antennas would be mounted on utility poles, traffic lights and buildings. For some reason, the concept of cells morphed into mega sized cells requiring towers. Now this make sense in rural areas but not so much in urban. 5G is sort of going back to the smaller cell size, but it doesn't look like they are implementing it well. One thing to consider, is that cell phones were originally just that, telephones. The ubiquitous internet has required the simple audio device to become the smart phone.

I don't have any solutions for the people who get their knickers in a knot over towers. This isn't really new. I saw odd trees on top of hills in Connecticut, and some churches got a windfall by leasing the steeple and a room for equipment. The steeple would be replaced with one that looked identical but is transparent to radio frequencies. The antenna would be inside. The lease money was often more than enough to cover utilities and maintenance expensive of the church.

In any case, it sounds a lot like The Former Guy (Prima Donald) complaining about wind generators visable from his Scottish golf courses.