Vermonters love their state but not their cellphone service.
The hilly topography, low population density and demands that data-sucking smartphones put on wireless networks have led to slow connection speeds, spotty coverage and dead zones in rural Vermont.
So it might come as a surprise that a growing number of residents are actively working to block better wireless technology. Concerned about possible health impacts of the next generation of cellular service, or 5G, wireless critics are hoping to thwart the expansion plans of powerful wireless carriers.
At times, they’ve made dubious claims, blaming radio-wave radiation for everything from brain cancer to bee colony collapse.
“We are not trying to scare people, but we are very concerned about some of the really severe health implications of some of these technologies,” said Derrik Jordan, a musician from Dummerston involved in a group called EMF Safety for Vermont.
Fear of health impacts due to the increasing use of electronic and wireless devices has persisted for decades, despite assurances from groups such as the World Health Organization that the concerns are unfounded. “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use,” the organization says.
The rollout of fifth-generation technology is nevertheless stoking fears anew.
5G promises to dramatically increase wireless speeds compared to the current best technology, known as 4G. That would allow users to download movies in seconds and could help transform enterprises such as telemedicine, virtual reality and self-driving cars.
To deliver those blazing speeds, however, carriers are tapping into higher frequencies in the radio-wave spectrum. The higher the frequencies, the faster the transfer of data.
5G would use what is known as the millimeter wave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, between 30 GHz to 90 GHz — a much higher frequency than cellphones and wireless routers use. Though capable of carrying enormous amounts of data, waves in this part of the spectrum don’t travel as far as lower frequency signals and can be more easily blocked by things such as building walls and even wet leaves.
So, 5G networks would require a larger number of small antennas closer to one another to be installed on street lights and telephone poles. That would be a sea change from relying on a few large antennas that cover wider areas from their perches atop mountains and church steeples.
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and some smaller providers have begun rolling out 5G in larger cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, New York and Boston.
In Vermont, by contrast, only a limited number of antennas so far support even the slower 4G networks. Nevertheless, the prospect of a vast number of additional wireless antennas operating at higher frequencies worries a small number of environmental and health advocates.
Annette Smith, an industrial wind power opponent and founder of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, said that while 5G may not be here yet, carriers are quietly building the infrastructure needed to make it a reality.
“All the pieces of the puzzle are being put in place,” said Smith, who has joined those calling for a halt to 5G.
Officials say the notion that 5G is going to take Vermont by storm fails to take into account that the state is a backwater in the eyes of major carriers and unlikely to soon attract the kind of infrastructure investment needed to make the next gen a reality.
“I don’t believe that 5G is coming to Vermont in any meaningful way in the near term or even the long term,” said Clay Purvis, director of telecommunications and connectivity for Vermont’s Department of Public Service.
The state’s cell network has such a long way to go to catch up to basic service levels that worrying about the arrival of 5G seems premature, he said.
“We have large swaths of the state that have no coverage whatsoever,” Purvis noted.
So why, then, are people so worried about a technology that’s not arriving anytime soon?
Partly because cell carriers and device manufacturers are using the term 5G in advertising whether it applies to their service yet or not, raising people’s expectation about upgrades that may be far off, according to Purvis.
“There’s this thing swirling around called 5G, and nobody knows what it is, what it does or why we want it,” he said. “For consumers, I think, it’s very confusing.”
Carriers are clearly sending mixed messages. As the Senate Finance Committee considered a bill in April that would make it easier to roll out and fund broadband services in the state, AT&T’s lobbyist in Montpelier, Charles Storrow, told the panel that 5G was “not going to happen anytime soon.”
AT&T spokesperson Karen Twomey wrote in an email that the company was “laying the groundwork all across the country for our next generation network” but has “not made any public announcements on our 5G plans in Vermont yet.”
When applying for permits for new cell towers, however, the company regularly cites the role the antennas will play in a 5G future. In at least a dozen applications before the Public Utility Commission, AT&T Mobility said the new equipment would “densify” its network and “allows AT&T to prepare for implementation of newer technologies — including 5G capabilities.”
The projects include proposed new antennas in Burlington, South Burlington, Williston, Winooski, Essex and Shelburne.
The uncertainty about 5G is proving confusing for residents of Fairfax. The Franklin County burg of 4,700 people is considering leasing a 56-acre chunk of town forest to Verizon for a 130-foot cellular communications tower.
The structure is needed to help the company keep up with network demand, town manager Brad Docheff said. Cell service downtown is good but with so many people using their phones, Verizon says it needs more bandwidth.
“The purpose of the tower will not be to bring 5G to rural northwest Vermont,” Docheff said. “The way I think of it is, there will be another lane on the highway, so when traffic gets busy, there’s more space for everyone to operate.”
Even though there are no plans to roll out the new technology “anytime in the near future,” the tower would be built in a way that is “5G compatible,” Docheff said.
That troubles residents such as Jill Decker, who has lived on Fletcher Road beside the town forest for 19 years. The 67-year-old retired federal worker is a Verizon customer, but her current wireless phone and internet service relies on a tower four miles to the west, atop Georgia Mountain. The new antenna would be a four-minute walk through the woods behind her home.
“It’s constantly going through your home and through you,” Decker said of the radio waves.
She’s heard people in public meetings say the project won’t be 5G right away, but that gives her little comfort. She reads stories, mostly on her computer connected to the internet through a Wi-Fi router in her bedroom, about communities pushing back against 5G, and she figures they’re probably on to something.
“If people are in an uproar, normal regular people, and want it down, there’s got to be a good reason,” Decker said.
She acknowledged, however, that she sometimes is influenced by online videos of unknown provenance or scientific validity. One she found particularly compelling was a video on YouTube of a plant covered in aphids purported to be near an airport radar tower. “Every time that tower sent off a wave, all those little bugs in unison would jump up in the air, you know?” Decker said.
That video, however, appears to have been produced in the 1970s by John Ott, a retired banker whose pseudoscientific inquiries focused on the effects of light on plants.
While she can’t vouch for the scientific validity of such online info, Decker doesn’t think she should have to. The town should err on the side of safety of residents over money from a huge corporation, but the issue is divisive, she said.
“People don’t know if it’s bad or good or what, and now everyone’s taking sides and getting angry,” Decker said.
The town and Verizon haven’t settled on a price for the lease, but preliminary figures are “substantial enough” that it merits selectboard consideration, Docheff said. The proposed term is 25 years, renewable every five years.
The town would not decide whether any tower could be built on the property. It would just decide whether to lease the land, and Verizon would be responsible for navigating the permitting process required by the Public Utility Commission.
Still, residents’ concerns make the board’s decision more difficult, Docheff said.
“In small-town Vermont, the rumor mill goes pretty wild, and it certainly adds complications to the job of getting information out there,” he said.
People affiliated with EMF Safety for Vermont have played a role in disseminating theories of questionable authority.
One member of the group, Beverly Stone, a Brattleboro resident who ran unsuccessfully for state Senate as an independent in 2018, gave a presentation in April to about three dozen people in Montpelier, suggesting wireless was responsible for the collapse of honeybee colonies because it interferes with their ability to navigate. She cited no specific studies. Experts say pesticide use is the most likely culprit of honeybee decimation.
Another member, Brattleboro resident Iishana Artra, described herself at the same meeting as an “EMF testing professional.” She said she has a doctoral degree in psychology and claimed studies link wireless radiation to cancer, diabetes, depression, anxiety, resistance to antibiotics, disorientation, tinnitus and other forms of “neuro-psychiatric suffering.” In an email, she deferred questions about science to Jordan.
The all-volunteer group is not the first to be concerned about 5G. Emily Peyton, a perennial gubernatorial candidate who ran on the Liberty Union Party line in 2018, raised similar questions — albeit in a more alarmist fashion — in 2017, running newspaper ads that read, “5G: Deadly for Vermonters.”
Jordan said the EMF Safety for Vermont group, which claims about 180 members, came together in January hoping to prevent the broadband bill from being a “Trojan horse” for the telecom industry’s 5G rollout, which relies on widespread deployment of fiber-optic cable.
In addition to the public event at the Statehouse in the spring, members of the group testified before multiple committees considering the broadband bill. One woman, Deb Chandler, held a sign that read “Don’t Toast to 5G. We Are Toast With 5G” while she protested in the Statehouse cafeteria.
They didn’t block portions of the bill that concerned them, including streamlining rules for placing new broadband gear on poles. They were, however, able to convince the Senate Finance Committee to add a requirement that the Vermont Department of Health study the health impacts of wireless radiation. That study is due in January.
Dr. William Irwin, director of the Vermont’s Radiological Health Program, said he plans to base his report on a review of publications “of the highest scientific integrity and authority.”
There is a “clear body of evidence” that the higher frequencies at which 5G operates, unlike lower frequencies, do not penetrate human skin in normal use.
But determining whether the technology is safe involves issues of power and distance from antennas that deserve more study. Irwin thinks regular folks are right to ask questions, but he hopes they turn to solid science to inform themselves.
“I think it’s very important for all of us to have a questioning attitude about whatever we are exposed to, whether it’s electromagnetic phenomenon or the food we eat,” he said.
Jordan, for his part, has already made up his mind.
“We’re trying to say that 3G and 4G are bad enough,” he said. “Let’s not make it worse.”
The original print version of this article was headlined “Can You Hear Them Now? | 5G cellphone tech is spooking some Vermonters — before it’s even here”
This article appears in The Tech Issue 2019.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The 5G is falling! The 5G is falling! Run away.
Where have we heard this before?
I bet these idiots all think vaccines cause autism and windmills cause cancer, too
This reporter would have better served the public interest by looking at the subject with an open mind instead of the obvious industry bias he portrays. For instance, he challenges the effect of radio frequencies on bees. Took about two seconds to find a credible study that finds that yes, it is a problem.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2…
The Effect of Cell Phone Radiations on the Life Cycle of Honeybees
Abstract
As many other species, honeybees are becoming extinct in the world; this phenomenon is called the Colony Collapse Disorder. Many reasons have been proven to be behind this environmental disaster like climate changes, pesticides, fungal pathogens and others, in addition to radiations generated by mobile phones, especially, since in recent years wild life has been exposed to microwaves and radio frequency’s radiation signals from various sources, including wireless phones. Bees have a specific organ for sensing magnetic forces, enabling them to navigate using their own compass. The claim of the research is that radiations generated by mobile phones are disturbing the life cycle of honeybees and affecting their reproduction system and honey producing. The research involves testing the behavior of honeybees away from mobile phones, with a mobile phone in its standby mode and active communication mode. The results of the experiments verified that mobile phone affect the honeybees’ life system.
Jeff Murray – even as a non-scientist its clear that the “research” you link to has limited value.
First, it isn’t a peer reviewed published paper; it’s a conference paper, presented at a 2013 event in Croatia where you pay $500 to attend and submit a paper to the event database.
Second, it doesn’t connect radio emissions to colony collapse. At best, it suggests a link between emissions and some behavioral changes in bees. And there are lots of gaps – putting a cell phone on a beehive does not replicate real life conditions in any sense. How do the emissions of a cell phone making a call compare to cell towers? Is there a distance related drop off in effect? Since they were calling the phone, did it make a sound or otherwise change (light up, ring?) These are questions that might be answered during the peer review process, except this paper never went through that.
If you don’t understand the value of your sources you can’t effectively use their claims to make decisions.
Holy linkspam, Batman!
Not shocked Annette Smith is fighting against the latest version of chemtrails.
Well since we’re spamming the hell out of this article, here’s a video to assist some of you in making your foil hats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8dNzRhMg…
The obvious industry bias in this article is not an issue if one does not care about health. One of the very convenient things about the negative health effects of 5G is that they are ubiquitous and can easily be attributed to other causes- overwork? environmental toxins? stress? Our environment is rampant with these issues. One of the other convenient cloaks for industry is that the 5G is invisible and imperceptible to most people (except for the unfortunate few who find themselves sensitive to it). One can turn the other way while talking on one’s cell phone and bathing in the wifi signals that are becoming an increasing feature of modern society and difficult to escape. The effects are cumulative and the negative effects are not obvious immediately (for most people) so Verizon will be able to spread its infrastructure unimpeded while we are being unavoidably exposed to a carcinogen which is also a primary means of causing diabetes in experimental rats. This will be very fortunate for the investors- fortunate for all those who are poised to earn big $ on the widesperad “deployment” of 5G. The $ for tending the ensuing health problems will not be their problem. It will be public and private funds as well as public suffering that will pay for the after effects of all this “wonderful” technology. It will not be paid by insurance because insurance companies refuse to cover it. They know better.
Lots of creative tinfoil construction instructions can be found on line. Suggest you spend a little more and get the heavy duty foil. I would settle for any G that would cover the whole state
Multi-functional radio frequency directed energy system – Patented by Raytheon… patent rights purchased by Lockheed-Martin https://patents.google.com/patent/US7629918B2/en
Because we’ve never had to worry about corruption & collusion between our politicians and big industry to the destruction of our own health before…
And the propaganda machine rolls on and on.
“The state’s cell network has such a long way to go to catch up to basic service levels that worrying about the arrival of 5G seems premature, he said. ”
This quote says it all, there has to be a economic driver and need for infrastructure for basic cell service before an upgrade would even be considered by any major provider. From my understanding, 5G reception isn’t a good solution for a rural states either because the wavelengths are shorter, traveling less distance, and are more easily obstructed that 3G or 4G wavelengths. There are countless speed tests videos you can find on Youtube that show how unpredictable 5G speeds are in urban areas where there are claims of 5G coverage. Turning a corner around a building obstructs 5G signal, effectively lowering speeds to 3G or 4G reception or sometime less. There simply isn’t an economic benefit for any provider to upgrade this state (except for maybe in some localized areas of Burlington), & given the geography of the state 5G just wouldn’t work in most areas anyways.
Couple quotes from Neil Postman, well before the idea of 5G and not related to RF waves.
“If a society does not examine its technology or doesnt direct its direction mindfully, it risks to be tyrannized by it.”
“What is the problem to which this technology is a solution?” -Neil Postman
All I know is on one phone I have xfinity and their service really sucks!! On my other one I have qlink which Sprint is the cell carrier and they are very good! I never get the disconnects like I do with xfinity. AT&T isn’t any better.
Are there more hysterical nincompoops in Vermont than in other states or does it just appear that way?
“…the worlds largest $25 million study, conducted by the National Toxicology Program in the US, shows statistically significant increases in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to cellphone radiation at levels below international guidelines. This supports human studies on cellphone radiation and brain tumour risk, as demonstrated in many peer-reviewed scientific studies.” Source: https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/
RFR (radio frequency radiation) was classified as a Class 2B POSSIBLE HUMAN CARCINOGEN by WHO in 2011 – and that’s when we were only dealing with the lower frequencies, not the 5G frequencies which are higher on the elctromagnetic spectrum and thus are higher energy, and turn signals into beamform… think lasers. Radiation in laser form between your cellphone and the tower… No thanks, I’ll follow the precautionary principle and pass on that.
“The adequacy of RFR regulatory limits was challenged in 2011 when an expert panel convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified RFR (100MHz300GHz) as a Group 2B, possible human carcinogen, largely based on the human epidemiological evidence of increased risk of glioma [36,37], a type of brain cancer. This classification includes wireless frequencies from all types of RFR-emitting devices, including Wi-Fi. In 2019, an IARC advisory group recommended reassessment of the 2011 classification, in light of recent animal research [38].”
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132319305347?fbclid=IwAR0Em4NkobXU7rq0QELLBs4Ib8s-wOuQZyDPwvTkrWIetY8JgVuRfvlJuHA#fig3
The title is absolutely stupid about being spooked before it is here. That is as stupid as saying do not yell or move if someone has a massive weapon pointed at you and your family. Just protest after they shoot you and you are bleeding to death.
Kevin McCallum does not seem to know much of anything about 5G and he is not even good at faking it. You can tell he does no research, but just babbles at the mouth instead, ignorant as can be. The people he tried to put down in this article each know a hundred times more than he. That includes Jill Decker, who I am sure, could teach Kevin a few things if he could control his arrogance and stop to listen. If Kevin thinks something that puts out as much radiation as 5G, and continuously, should just be ignored until it already has damaged people, then why doesnt he hold his head under water for 10 minutes and then complain about drowning. Like our VT legislators, Kevin is a lost cause. Maybe he has been keeping his cell phone too close to his head!
However, we Vermonters should all feel blessed that we still have people like Bev Stone, Iishana Artra, Derrik Jordan, and the others who work with EMF SAFETY for Vermont, still working hard to protect our rights and liberties, our health, and our children. These people, whom I personally know, do their research. They do not make up stupid comments and babble to impress anyone. They do not need to! Intelligent, well informed people who listen to them, and research the many major studies themselves, do know for sure that they tell us the truth, and have the correct facts about what they are presenting.
While the science community has yet to determine the harmful effects of RF emissions from 5G, it doesnt mean that the average Vermonter should not take protective actions.
Over the years the Tin Foil Hat and pasta caldron has widely been proposed, however, this not a good solution as Aluminum Foil is not an effective shield against electromagnet forces, lacks the material properties for longevity of a clothing product and has yet to be deemed fashionable.
Copper, however, is widely used by top secret agencies and corporations for foiling (pardon the pun) electromagnetic eves dropping. This all-natural element is readily available at your local scrap yard, highly malleable and, unlike lead, far safer to handle.
Common Lamp wire is the best as it is comprised of very small diameter copper strands that mimic the knittability of a good heavy wool. Any good knitter can easily crank out hats in all the popular fashions. Skull caps, traditional snowboarder caps with the flappy ears, feminist pussy ear hats, kippot, cat in the hat style, the possibilities are endless. Over time Copper will take on a lovely green patina or you can polish it regularly to a mirror like finish.
I see the production of copper knitted hats as a win win for Vermont! It would be truly unique and fitting with our character. It promotes recycling and does so in a manner that has minimal impact on the energy consumption in the recycling process. Its a perfect job fit for home workers or those looking to augment their minimum wage incomes.
While I can understand how the progressive party is torn with how to address the 5G issue they certainly should be able to get behind a grant or two to help fund the reclamation & redistribution of discarded lamp wire.
It won’t be the first time humanity leaps forward with new technology blissfully ignorant of the effects on human and animal health-witnessing the testing of nuclear weapons was hilarious- until those who were exposed started dieing from those exposures after a suitable lag time. And Round up is so safe you can drink it (said one of its proponents a few years back). Now the courts have judged Monsanto (now Bayer) liable for Glyphosate’s (Round-up) carcinogenic effects. “Pay no attention to those scientists behind the curtain who are noticing the ways the radiation affects human and animal health.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
In response to the above article – I’d like to say the following: (Pt 1)
I split my time between VT & NYC. In NYC we are now surrounded & bombarded by 5G & just 3 weeks ago 4 antennas were installed providing 5G / WiFI to the rest of the city. It is a building of over 3000 people, many of who are now very sick from said antenna installation. We are suffering greatly, all with the same symptoms – massive, chronic headaches, heart palpitations, fullness in head, vertigo, sleeplessness, and ringing in ears. It’s a horrific situation and there have been 2 deaths in as many week (although we still do not know conclusively what they were from it’s highly disturbing)
When I am in VT, away from 5G, every single one of the above listen symptoms disappears. I know however at some point there will be a tipping point where so much damage has been done that the current ‘bounce back’ I now experience may not happen & a rapid decline may instead occur.
In response to the above article – Pt 2
I’d strongly encourage everyone to do their due diligence & research all avenues of literature concerning the health effects of 5G millimeter microwave technology. Educate yourself on how it was originally developed as a weapon of war. How it drastically degrades organs & skin & now the incidence of those living near such cells & towers have a much much higher incidence of cancers, especially Gliomas (brain cancer)
Don’t stop at the first pages on Google on the topic – go to page 9, 10 and beyond. Use other search engines such as Duck Duck Go or Bing.
Do your research – you owe it to yourself and your family to do so.
I am living in what is being pushed on VT here in NYC & it is literally a death sentence.
AT&T has been putting canister antennas on poles in Chittenden County, with the project narrative referencing 5G. These locations are:
Cedar St., Maple St., Fern St., in Burlington
Route 2A east of Tafts Corner and near Texas Roadhouse in Williston
Hickock St. in Winooski
Other locations are permitted through the PUC, not sure if they have been erected yet.
Im surprised that Kevin McCallum is not aware that the FCC has not updated safety standards regarding electro-magnetic radiation since 1996, despite having been directed by the GAO several times to do so. They have also passed a ruling that will only allow citizens comments on 5G cell tower equipment that has to do with aesthetics. COMMENTS ON HEALTH CONCERNS ARE NOT ALLOWED. Are you spooked yet? I would also like to go on record as stating that Mr McCallum’s article is a fine example of yellow journalism, propaganda in other words. One can only wonder what his connection is to the telecom industry as it is the only party who benefits from a citizenry too busy putting down each other to awaken and read the research about the harmful effects of electro-magnetic radiation, which very clearly exists, for themselves.
“While she can’t vouch for the scientific validity of such online info, Decker doesn’t think she should have to.”
This should be the beginning and end of our serious consideration of this community member’s concerns. Check “yes” in the box that says “opposed by local conspiracy wingnut?” and keep moving…
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously in matters of public policy or community governance, and cannot vouch for their validity, you must be willing to submit those opinions for review by more critical and better informed folk.
Karl, should equal standards apply to the telecom industry? They say RF emitted by cell tower antennas is safe. They say 5G is safe. But in testimony they admit there are no studies on 5G. However there are many studies on 2G, 3G, 4G that are very disturbing. Two were released this week showing DNA damage from exposure to existing frequencies used by telecom.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/316338…
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/88667…
If the industry want yours their opinions to be taken seriously in matters of public policy or community governance, and cannot vouch for their validity, they must be willing to submit those opinions for review by more critical and better informed folk.