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

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Thu Jul 15, 2021, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

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

[jimfields33]

1. I say move the towers

4G is good enough. Nobody NEEDS 5G. Good for the protesters.

[FoxNewsSucks]

6. I have never thought my phone was downloading too slowly

as long as I was in an area with decent service. 4G is more than fast enough for individual use.

I think it's the driverless-truck/car, or government surveillance, or some other reason. They just want the cellphone user to be convinced they need it so they will pick up the tab.

I won't get one until there's nothing else available. I don't see anything changing that would cause me to need a faster phone connection than I have now.

[hlthe2b]

2. I've seen all kinds of innovative ways to conceal cell towers--even in parks and forrests...

This pinterest stream shows some of the many. Rather than fight them, I'd think they might want to lobby for something artistic or that would blend well into the landscape.

https://www.pinterest.com/leaseadvisors/disguised-cell-towers/

[FoxNewsSucks]

7. That might make them look nice,

but I still wouldn't want that kind of EMF near my house.

[Pobeka]

3. If what I read in a comment is right, you'll need a 5G tower every 1000 feet.

in which case -- who's the genius who thought this would be a good idea?

Massive installation of towers required in high density population areas.

Which means massive installation costs.

And massive ongoing maintenance costs.

Seems to me 4G was more than adequate for actual needs.

[unweird]

4. Think telephone poles instead of towers

With increased density of cells the antenna height is lowered. And transmit power drops also.

Verizon is in process of building a 5G cell across the street from us on the corner. Looks like the antennas will be about 40 feet off the sidewalk

[Pobeka]

8. It's not the height, its the number of installations to maintain.

That's what seems expensive.

[keithbvadu2]

5. There is one on my street. Looks similar to a light pole but shorter. 1500 ft range/radius I think.

There is one on my street. Looks similar to a light pole but shorter. 1500 ft range/radius I think.