Environmental impact of RFR

Environmental harm caused by the creation, distribution, installation, operation and disposal of 2G-5G technology is inestimable.  For 5G, with the millions of planned small cell locations and back haul / main frame requirements, the environmental cost is unthinkable, but still given little attention. The ICNIRP guidelines (thermal only) do not even mention protection of wildlife and nature, so this area remains unregulated.

  • The amount of power required to operate the systems and manage the data is more than the aviation industry uses.
  • Microwaves by their very nature create warming, and so the unbridled radiation of the atmosphere contradicts all calls to reduce ‘global warming’.
  • The mining of materials including lithium for batteries and back up power is very harmful. So is disposal.
  • The harm to nature from the pulse modulated polarised radiation is also already well documented.
  • The embodied energy, and in use energy involved in the supply, installation and running of all the equipment the world over is at odds with the agenda to ‘reduce Co2’.
  • Space debris and pollution from rocket launches is set to soar as 10,000’s of satellites are launched for global wireless broadband.

Council of the European Union 2020 : Shaping Europe’s Digital Future

” …today the ICT sector significantly contributes to an increasing percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions and the sharp increase in uses suggests that this carbon footprint may double in the coming years if appropriate measures are not taken.”

How Green is 5G ? All encompassing article by Sally Beare bringing attention to the tremendous environmental impact of unrestrained Telco rollout and operation.  This conflicts with ALL stated sustainable objectives. https://envirotecmagazine.com/2021/11/08/how-green-is-5g/

Smart Oceans: https://stop5ginternational.org/smart-ocean-impacts-of-technology-on-marine-life/

Attaining biocompatible broadband v. the increasing toxic liabilities of old-paradigm RF escalation: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/5597/pdf

With 200 hyperlinks to research it sets out a persuasive vision of the UK as a beautiful garden nation that could lead the world profitably in bringing down EMF pollution.

Society of Environmental Journalists 2021 : “Is Wireless Technology an Environmental Health Risk?”

Environmental Health Trust 2021 : 5G is a sinking ship, energy hog …

Energy Consumption in wired and wireless networks: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5783987

Space Pollution, Scientific American 2021: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-underappreciated-danger-of-the-new-space-age-global-air-pollution/

Click image for article

The ‘Energy Efficiency’ idea has been debunked

‘Energy Efficiency’ is how the telecoms say they will address the exponential rise of carbon emissions from 5G, but 5G will require an exponential amount of electricity, which is not computed  into government projections, AND is hidden in plain sight.

Climate expert Professor Mike Berners-Lee  says that with energy efficiency, ‘total outputs go up not down.’ Efficiency improvements on their own don’t help us. They only help us if we constrain the inputs.’

The Jevons paradox, named after the economist who made the link between increased technological efficiency and greater use.

•Efficiency gains are cancelled out by higher consumption of a commodity – such as leaving your energy-efficient heating on more often.’ Wang et al. 2016; Liang et al. 2009; Greening et al, 2000

•Although the 5G-new-radio standard is more energy efficient per gigabyte than are the 4G standards, the proposed 5G use cases and new spectrum bands will require many more mobile sites, outstripping potential energy efficiencies.

Further to his article above: What’s wrong with wifi? Matthew Barton

Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact

The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiation on wildlife 

5G wireless telecommunications expansion: public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research 165: 484–95.

E-Waste: employees at Orange kick back: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/employees-at-frances-biggest-phone-company-undermine-countrys-5g-push/

A 2018 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity (2018) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534717302896

Always a very sound resource: https://ehtrust.org/environmental-effects-of-wireless-radiation-and-electromagetic-fields/

•According to the High Council on Climate (2020) report to the French government, “The carbon impact of 5G deployment [in France] could amount to between 2.7 and 6.7 million tons of CO2-equivalent in 2030. That’s a significant increase compared to the tech sector’s environmental impact (about 15 million tons of CO2-equivalent),” p 6. 

•IEEE (2019) states ‘a 5G base station is generally expected to consume roughly three times as much power as a 4G base station. And more 5G base stations are needed to cover the same area.’

•Billions of internet-connected devices could produce 3.5% of global carbon emissions within 10 years – surpassing aviation and shipping -and 14% by 2040, according to  Climate Home News (2017.)

•A report (2015) estimates that electricity usage from communications technology could contribute up to 23% of the globally released greenhouse gas emissions in 2030.’ On Global Telecom electricity usage to 2030.

NO Bees=NO Food=NO Children

“Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants”. 

Part 1 Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment – PubMed (nih.gov)

Part 2 Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF – PubMed (nih.gov)

Part 3 is due in Sept

Co-author Professor Henry Lai has been a scholarly stalwart on EMFs for many years.

UK press articles from 2006 to 2010






University of Surrey white paper 

https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-03/white-paper-rural-5G-vision.pdf https://phys.org/news/2010-11-dutch-wi-fi-possibly-trees.html    

RFR injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam, de la Puente, Balmori.


Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success (Odemer 2018)


Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants (Halgamuge 2016)


Tree Preservation Ireland: 5G and trees



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 (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2014)


HESE project, Topical issues: Nature


Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees (2020, Thielens, Scientific Reports) 


Anthropogenic Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as an Emerging Threat to Wildlife Orientation (Balmori 2015)


Impact of 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation on the Fruit Fly, Drosophila melanogaster 2020


Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping Daniel Favre


Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. (Theilens 2018)


Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’


Electrosmog and species conservation (2014)


Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. (Kumar 2011)


Evidence For Nonthermal Effects of Microwave Radiation: Abnormal Development of Irradiated Insect Pupae


Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory.


Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations (Kumar, Current Science, vol. 98, no 10, 2010) 


“We have compared the performance of honeybees in cell phone radiation exposed and unexposed colonies. A significant (p < 0.05) decline in colony strength and in the egg laying rate of the queen was observed. The behaviour of exposed foragers was negatively influenced by the exposure, there was neither honey nor pollen in the colony at the end of the experiment.”

A possible effect of Electromagnetic Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations on the Number of Breeding House Sparrows (Passer domesticus)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454083  (Bauwens, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2007)  

Electromagnetic Fields Act Similarly in Plants as in Animals: Probable Activation of Calcium Channels via Their Voltage Sensor (2016, Pall M., Current Chemical Biology, Volume 10 , Issue 1)



Click to new page.

Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719337805