Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Dr. Powell to WSSC: Wireless smart meters harm human health.

 November 17, 2020


To:  Carla A. Reid
General Manager and CEO
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Laurel, Maryland
Email:  carla.reid@wsscwater.com
CC:    Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Officials

WSSC Board of Commissioners
WSSC Corporate Secretary, Julianne M. Montes de Oca, Esq.
WSSC Legal Counsel, Amanda Stakem Conn, Esq.
WSSC Board of Ethics, c/o Latonya Allen, Administrative Assistant to the Board
WSSC Office of the Inspector General, Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., J.D., CFE, CBA

Officials of Maryland Counties Served by WSSC

Montgomery County Executive, Marc Elrich
Montgomery County Council Members
Prince George's County Executive, Angela D. Alsobrooks
Prince George's County Council Members
From:  Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
Retired U.S. Government career scientist

Subject:  Introduction to "Wireless smart meters harm human health."

As a retired U.S. Government scientist, I urge you to stop WSSC from making its biggest mistake ever:  the conversion of its metering system to wireless smart meters.  They will increase the exposure of the public to harmful radiofrequency radiation every day and every night for the indefinite future.

In this era of COVID-19, we do not need another assault on the health of the public, especially in the two counties served by WSSC.  They continue to have the highest cumulative numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths of any counties in Maryland.


My understanding of WSSC's Plan, in Brief

WSSC plans to provide wireless smart meters for all of its customer accounts, which number 475,000 in the two Maryland counties that WSSC serves:  Montgomery County and Prince George's County.  If I understand correctly, each of these smart meters will likely have a peak radiofrequency (RF) power output between 1 and 2 watts.  Thus, altogether, WSSC is planning to add 475,000 to 950,000 watts of peak RF power output capability, distributed throughout the two counties.  And WSSC apparently wants us to believe that this capability will have no adverse health effects on any county residents.

The Health Argument Against Wireless Smart Meters

To be judged "safe", those wireless smart meters must cause NO HARM TO ANYONE, even though these meters will be communicating with WSSC every day and every night, indefinitely.  However, to date, WSSC seems to be showing very limited interest in safety.  In fact, to those of us outside of WSSC, even that limited interest seems to have surfaced only AFTER WSSC Management had already decided to implement wireless smart meters.  That limited interest took the form of a presentation, and a related document, from a consultant hired by WSSC Management to speak to the WSSC Commission at its meeting on February 19, 2020.  That consultant made an earnest effort to make the case for safety, but had insufficient evidence to assure NO HARM TO ANYONE.  WSSC has apparently supplemented that opinion of a single individual with isolated bits of information presumably indicating safety.  This paucity of data on safety must be weighed against the overwhelming evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation presented by the scientific community throughout the world and by the hundreds of individuals actually harmed by the radiofrequency radiation from wireless smart meters specifically.  Key elements of that evidence are presented in the attachments to this message.  Sadly, it is not possible to present here the thousands of individual peer-reviewed biomedical research papers in which scientists throughout the world have thoroughly documented the evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation.  But it is possible to include here references to review papers and other documents that summarize such evidence.

Please see the first attachment, called "Wireless smart meters harm human health."  This document was first presented to WSSC Management on January 19, 2020 and has just been updated for you.  To date, no response has been received from WSSC, not even to the many questions raised about the wireless smart meters that WSSC is planning to install.  This document cites many references and is further supported by four additional attached documents that present the results of surveys of those harmed by the radiation from wireless smart meters specifically.

For a quick look at what is covered in the first attached document, here are key section titles:
o  Overview of the health challenges posed by radiofrequency radiation
o  Personal stories of those harmed by radiofrequency radiation from wireless utility meters and other wireless devices continue to accumulate.
o  Three surveys link health problems to exposure from wireless utility meters.
More than 600 individuals contributed to these surveys, indicating how their health and lives have been harmed.
o  Individuals harmed by exposure to radiofrequency radiation tell their stories in videos.
o  Scientific evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation has been growing for decades and has become overwhelming.
o  The NIH National Toxicology Program finds "clear evidence" that radiofrequency radiation causes cancer.
o  The World Health Organization classifies radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B human carcinogen.
o  253 of the world's EMF scientists appeal to the UN and the WHO to protect the public from harm from radiofrequency radiation, including the radiation from smart meters.
o  Review papers document the scientific evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation.
o  Books document the harm from radiofrequency radiation.
o  Public awareness of harm from radiofrequency radiation is growing and is finding expression at local, state, national, and international levels.
o  40,369 Maryland ratepayers have "opted out" of wireless smart meters for electricity.
o  297,823 individuals and organizations have signed the "International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space".
o  217,000 individuals have signed up for the "5G Summit".
o Multiple Jurisdictions in Switzerland implement a moratorium on 5G because of health concerns.
o  Public Television programs raise public awareness about the risks of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
o  Video documentaries bring discussions of the risks of radiofrequency radiation to the public.
o  Children's Advisory Council to the Governor of Maryland recommends phasing Wi-Fi out of Maryland's schools.
Other Concerns that WSSC's Plan Raises

While this message focuses on health concerns, there are other important concerns that are stated below but that are not further elaborated in this message or in the attached documents:
o  Privacy concerns arise from the daily monitoring of customers' behavior through their water consumption (such as when their homes are occupied and when they are not, and when their children arrive home from school).

o  Security concerns arise from the need to keep secure an immense database of largely unnecessary information about WSSC's customers, since no organization, not even the Department of Defense, has succeeded in protecting its data from unwanted intrusion.

o  Economic concerns arise from the immense cost ($100 million, estimated by WSSC) for the conversion to wireless smart meters, at a time of extreme fiscal stringency.  Also of concern is the high uncertainty that these costs can ever be fully recovered without rate increases, as WSSC attempts to maintain technically complex wireless smart meters that will likely have shorter lifetimes than current metering technology.

o  While WSSC claims that no meter readers will be fired when wireless smart meters are implemented, employment concerns still arise because the projected cost recovery motivates such firing, when unemployment is already dramatically high in this era of COVID-19.  And most of these staff do outdoor jobs that are much safer in this era than most indoor jobs.

o  The MANDATED installation of wireless smart meters, as currently contemplated by WSSC, would ignore the rights of property owners to control which equipment is installed on their property, especially in the absence of an unpaid opt-out option.  A paid opt-out option, though better than no option, would smack of extortion ("pay or we will irradiate you, forever").  And neither an unpaid, nor a paid, opt-out option would protect the public from the radiation from their neighbors' wireless smart meters.
There is no argument for wireless smart meters strong enough to overcome their threat of harm to human health and their myriad other drawbacks.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University, 1975).  During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with other informed individuals around the world about the impact of electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency radiation, on human health.

I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,
 
Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.


Monday, November 16, 2020

WSSC Meters to pulse over 4 Million times a day!

 

492,805 meters pulsing 10 times a day equals 4,928,050 pulses of radiation a day . 

WSSC is cherrypicking the facts to downplay the radiation exposure of their water meters. Just like lead companies argued that the lead from gas emissions was so so low, WSSC is not arguing that their meters pulse so so little. While it is true that battery powered meters pulse less than electric meters, the cold hard fact is that EVEN if the AMI meters pulse just 10 times a day, that means over 4 million pulses int our community! 

If they choose meters that pulse just once a day that means over 400,000 pulses. 

When it comes to radiation, it is a matter of perspective. 

The birds and bees will be harmed from this exposure. We will be harmed. 


 



Action Alert: Tell The WSSC a $200 Opt Out is Extortion and Environmental Racism. Vote on Wednesday

WSSC wants to charge ratepayers $200 to Opt Out of their toxic smart meters with AND on top of it spend 200 Million on toxic AMI meters. See PPT WSSC will present here. 


Action needed immediately

1. Write the WSSC and Tell them NO EXTORTION: Opt outs should be free. Shame on WSSC for charging people for something they do not want!! How did they come up with 200 dollars?? Put in the subject line- Opting out of toxic AMI meters should be free 

2. Testify at the November 18, 2020  WSSC meeting and/or send testimony to the WSSC

Link to the meeting here https://www.wsscwater.com/contents/events/public-meetings/commission-meetings/2020/commission-meeting-november-18.html

Watch: Virtual meeting will be broadcast live for public viewing

Call-in number to provide comment: 1-240-800-7929 / Conference ID: 913 233 470#  

  • The public comment period will start shortly after 10 a.m. Those wanting to speak should watch the meeting via the link above to know when it’s time to call. Members of the public will have three minutes to speak.
How did WSSC determine the 200 dollars! 
Many communities opt out fees are less https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/OPT-OUT-FEES.pdf


Email list for WSSC Meeting November 18, 2020

PG residents send to:  

budgetgroup@wsscwater.com, chris.lawson@wsscwater.com, eloise.foster@wsscwater.com, fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com, howard.denis@wsscwater.com, keith.bell@wsscwater.com, sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com, marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov,  countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, BLLaster@co.pg.md.us , CouncilDistrict1@co.pg.md.us, councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict6@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict7@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict8@co.pg.md.us, ouncilDistrict9@co.pg.md.us, District4@co.pg.md.us, DLTaveras@co.pg.md.us, dmglaros@co.pg.md.us, GPKonohia@co.pg.md.us, anne.healey@house.state.md.us. joseline.pena.melnyk@house.state.md.us, mary.lehman@house.state.md.us, ben.barnes@house.state.md.us, alonzo.washington@house.state.md.us, nicole.williams@house.state.md.us, geraldine.valentino@house.state.md.us, marvin.holmes@house.state.md.us, ron.watson@house.state.md.us, erek.barron@house.state.md.us, andreafletcher.harrison@house.state.md.us, jazz.lewis@house.state.md.us, darryl.barnes@house.state.md.us, nick.charles@house.state.md.us, dereck.davis@house.state.md.us, veronica.turner@house.state.md.us, kris.valderrama@house.state.md.us, jay.walker@house.state.md.us, susie.proctor@house.state.md.us, michael.jackson@house.state.md.us, Damion.Lampley@wsscwater.com, James.Price@wsscwater.com

MoCo residents send to: 

budgetgroup@wsscwater.com, chris.lawson@wsscwater.com, eloise.foster@wsscwater.com, fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com, howard.denis@wsscwater.com, keith.bell@wsscwater.com, sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com,marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov,  countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov, 
Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov, anne.kaiser@house.state.md.us, eric.luedtke@house.state.md.us, pam.queen@house.state.md.us, kathleen.dumais@house.state.md.us, david.fraser.hidalgo@house.state.md.us, lily.qi@house.state.md.us, ariana.kelly@house.state.md.us, marc.korman@house.state.md.us, sara.love@house.state.md.us, kumar.barve@house.state.md.us, kumarbarve@gmail.com, jim.gilchrist@house.state.md.us, julie.palakovichcarr@house.state.md.us, alfred.carr@house.state.md.us, emily.shetty@house.state.md.us, jared.solomon@house.state.md.us, charlotte.crutchfield@house.state.md.us, bonnie.cullison@house.state.md.us, vaughn.stewart@house.state.md.us, lorig.charkoudian@house.state.md.us, david.moon@house.state.md.us, jheanelle.wilkins@house.state.md.us, Damion.Lampley@wsscwater.com, James.Price@wsscwater.com

Testifying to WSSC?
AMI smart meters (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) are the highlight of the meeting with 2 agenda items. The first AMI agenda item is a review of the recently-released AMI cost benefit analysis (updated from a 2011 study). The cost of the AMI program has doubled to $208M - mostly because it calls for the replacement of all 492,805 meters (why WSSC has not been installing AMI-capable meters since 2011 is a head scratcher). The analysis purports that AMI is financially beneficial to WSSC - mainly by claiming that replacing older, underbilling meters with newer, more accurate meters raises revenue (but if that is true, so would a non-AMI initiative to simply refresh meters). The degree to which newer meters increase revenue by billing more accurately is not backed up by data from other utilities. The City of Rockville found that this was true, but mainly for large commercial meters that are sometimes wrongly-sized. Arcadis, the company with a $9M AMI consulting contract since June 2018, produced the analysis after months of prodding by commissioners.

The second AMI agenda item is a recommendation and vote on the opt out policy. Staff is recommending either of 2 options: Meter relocation out of homes to the property line or opt out with a fee.

  
Dr. David Carpenter Presented to WSSC on SmartMeter Health Effects 
We also understand he presented comments to the WSSC and they can be found here. 

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Dr. David Carpenter Presents to WSSC on SmartMeter Health Effects


Dr. David Carpenter Presented to WSSC on SmartMeter Health Effects 
We also understand he presented comments to the WSSC and they can be found here. 
Will WSSC put these comments online for the community to read? 

AMI Smartmeters for water is a FAILAcross the country ! WSSC should stop wasting our money!

Check out these news stories on high bills and disruptive defective meter messes!

DC Water
Bowie, MD
Baltimore, MD
Chicago
California 
Pittsburgh
Michigan 
Mississippi
Canada


Monday, October 26, 2020

Action Alert: Montgomery County Council to increase water rates by 5.9%

 Did you know Montgomery County Council is going to recommend a WSSC Water rate increase of at least 5.9%? Yes, with all our financial struggles, from COVID they expect you to pay more for water! 


There is a Council vote this Tuesday morning 10/27. They need to hear from us by 9:00 am Tuesday!

Here's a EMAIL IDEA -- it's as easy as copy, paste, send! 

Subject line: I Oppose WSSC Water's rate increase for their FY22 Budget

Body: Montgomery County Council should keep our water and sewer rates steady during this time of economic crisis and job loss, especially among retail workers and low income jobs. Continuing to increase rates will not resolve WSSC’s long-time financial management problems, keep our water supply clean, or fix the aging infrastructure. Instead, WSSC's continued practice of luxurious spending combined with investments on poorly-managed projects will continue to be enabled by the Council's repeated approval of unnecessary annual rate increases. 

Note: WSSC also just shared that the AMI smart meter proposal will be a whopping 200 million dollars! 


Since these increases are at the expense of your constituents, I request:

1) No salary increase for upper Management. With the unprecedented amount of job losses throughout the county, ratepayers cannot afford to continue to fund the overly inflated salaries of WSSC. The General Manager already makes more than twice as much as most of our elected officials. 

2) WSSC should defer funding at this time for planning work that has no direct bearing on the provision of clean, safe water by WSSC to the public. This includes the debt services charges -- in the tens of millions of dollars -- for projects in the Capital Improvement Plan. Such projects include: Laboratory Division Building Expansion, Energy Performance Program, Advanced Metering Infrastructure, and Piscataway Bioenergy.

3) Your awareness that the WSSC staff, by its own admission, provided an out of date, 9-year old financial estimate regarding the Advanced Metering Infrastructure project to the WSSC Commissioners and you. The practice of Montgomery County customers continually bailing out WSSC resulting from its financial mismanagement and lack of transparency should stop.

In the midst of a global pandemic and utilities becoming less affordable, you need to support your constituents and wise practices. Water is essential to survival. Increasing the price of water while households and businesses are suffering is unacceptable.  Instead, make WSSC stop the mismanagement of their funds –– and do not approve any rate increases for WSSC’s FY22 budget.

Signed,

[your name]
[your county]





Friday, October 23, 2020

Todd M. Turner Sends Outrageous Response on Radiation Meters!

 Dear  RESIDENTXXXX

Thank you for reaching out on the current proposal before the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC or Commission) for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) or “Smart Meter” project within the Sanitary District.  We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this issue. 

 

We understand the Commission is currently considering the implementation of the AMI project to modernize operations to better serve WSSC customers.  As a result of the discussion before the Commission conducted two virtual public hearing to seek additional public input on this project in late September.  In addition, we understand that WSSC also conducted a public survey of customers and a cost-benefit analysis for implementation of the AMI project.  A full copy of the survey and cost-benefit analysis can be found at www.wsscwater.com/AMI.  

 

At the Commission’s October 21st meeting, we have been advised that the project team presented opt out options and made a recommendation for an opt out program which provides a customer with an inside meter the option to move the smart meter outside of the house to the property line and underground. This option is expected to reduce concerns related to human proximity to radio frequencies all while allowing WSSC to maintain one consistent, state-of-the-art meter reading system across the entire WSSC Water’s network.  The Commissioners are expected to vote on this recommendation during the November 18th Commission meeting.  Tentatively, the AMI contract will be presented to the Commission for approval in October 2021 with meter installation tentatively to begin in Winter 2022 with project completion expected in Summer 2026.

 

I thank you again for expressing your position and interest as a WSSC customer and resident of the 4th Council District, Prince George’s County and/or the Sanitary District.  We hope this responds to your inquiry.  Be well and safe.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Office of Council Chair

Hon. Todd M. Turner


Dear Hon Todd Turner, 


Are you serious? Are you even considering this as an opt out?? Shame on the WSSC for thinking this is an opt out! 

Councilman Todd Turner we expect more from you. 


THIS IS NOT AN OPT OUT 


"At the Commission’s October 21st meeting, we have been advised that the project team presented opt out options and made a recommendation for an opt out program which provides a customer with an inside meter the option to move the smart meter outside of the house to the property line and underground. This option is expected to reduce concerns related to human proximity to radio frequencies all while allowing WSSC to maintain one consistent, state-of-the-art meter reading system across the entire WSSC Water’s network. 

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Next Steps with the WSSC 200 Million SmartMeter AMI Fiasco

 By Nov 1st - both County Councils provide direction to WSSC regarding a soft upper-limit to next year's rate increase.

November 18th - Commission scheduled to vote on smart meter opt-out policy
January 2021 - Montgomery County public hearing on CIP (including WSSC's CIP)
February 2021 - Montgomery County Council worksession on WSSC's CIP
March 2021 - Montgomery County Council worksession on WSSC's CIP
May 2021 - joint meeting of the Montgomery and Prince George's County Councils to approve WSSC's operating budget (rates) and CIP
June 2021 - WSSC commission final pro forma vote to approve budgets and rates for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021

What can you do? 
Contact WSSC, your elected officials and your friends and neighbors and tell the WSSC NO! 
Let your voice be heard! 

Details here 

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Conflicts of Interest? Money? Who is making money here

Adam Krantz testified in favor of AMI. He is CEO of the National Association of Clean Water agencies. He failed to disclose that WSSC paid them around $60,000 in both fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (possible an annual membership fee).This is according to the searchable vendor databasehttps://my.wsscwater.com/PSD/#/wsscvendors

 

Insanity! WSSC AMI Radiation Meter Project Has Ballooned from $100 Million to $208 Million




The project cost has doubled overnight to $208M! The AMI line item in the CIP presented to the County Councils less than 1 month ago was $103M.

At long last, WSSC has released an updated cost benefit analysis. They had been working off a 2011 study.


The new analysis was done by Arcadis who has a $9M AMI consulting contract with WSSC. 


WSSC Has Some Explaining to Do! Will They Provide Facts on How Many Times Meter Radiate or a Whitewash?

Dear WSSC, 

Do not mislead the public. In the October 21, 2020 WSSC Commission meeting WSSC Deputy General Manager  Joe Beach hopped on the zoom and said "The meters only transmit for milliseconds a day." 

Where is the data to support this what we believe is misinformation? 

This is not a correct characterization of the radiation that smart meters emit. 

Utility companies have long played this game talking about how it is just seconds a day when we know as a fact it is NOT. 

Question: How do we know?

Answer: Just read the manual. 

The manual of the Neptune Smart Water meter says, "The E-CODER)R900i meets FCC Regulations Part 15.247 allowing higher output power and greater range. It uses frequency hopping spread spectrum technology to avoid RF interference and enhance security. The transmitted data is updated at 15 minute intervals and transmits a mobile message that includes the meter reading data and the unique ECODER)900iID every 14 to 20 seconds. 

The E-CODER)R900i also transmits a high power fixed network message every seven and one half minutes …If connected to a LoRa network , the E-CODER)R900i can transmit a  high power fixed network message every three hours on an interleaved basis." 


The Itron water meter says transmissions are numerous times! 


yup. in fact the manual also says that people should be 20 cm from the meter. 20 cm is about 8 inches. 


Read it Here 

"RF Exposure Information 

This equipment complies with the FCC RF radiation requirements for uncontrolled environments.  To maintain compliance with these requirements the antenna and any radiating elements should be installed to ensure that a minimum separation distance of 20 cm is maintained from the general population." 











Monday, October 19, 2020

An immediate halt to the AMI "smart" meters until an environmental impact statement/review is completed.

 Dear WSSC, 


I am asking for an immediate  halt to the AMI "smart" meters until an environmental impact statement/review is completed. 

The AMI meters emit Radiofrequency radiation  (RFR) and there are no laws in place to ensure protections for birds, bats, insects, bees or trees. You cannot just rollout a network that increases RFR into our neighborhoods when you have not investigated the effects on the environment. 

In light if the fact that we are talking about thousands of radiating meters, you have a responsibility to ensure safety for our community and environment by evaluating effects before deployment. 

The "health expert hired did not review impacts to trees or insects. 

Thank you, Theodora Scarato 

FCC  and ICNIRP limits were not developed to protect our flora or fauna. Wireless radiation “safety” limits for trees, plants, birds and bees simply do not exist. No US agency nor international authority with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever acted to review research and set safety limits for birds, bees, trees and wildlife. 
It is a major gap in accountability. 
The FCC project that the 5G needs over 800,000 “small” cell tower sites in the US alone. These new “small” cell towers (taller street lights and utility poles) will substantially increase the ambient environmental levels of radiofrequency radiation. Birds do perch on cell antennas. Bats, bees and pollinators will be flying directly through the radiation plumes from these new cell antennas. Tree leaves and limbs will receive high exposures from near direct contact to cell antennas in neighborhoods with heavy foliage. 
No agency has ever set limits to ensure safety for wildlife or trees. The FCC limits (outdated) we have are for humans.
Furthermore at this time there is no environmental agency with a funded mandate to ensure bees, trees birds and wildlife are protected in regards to cell tower networks.
It is not that the laws we have are inadequate… it is that we literally have no laws and no agency with oversight when it comes to impacts to our flora and fauna- the environment. 
Several literature reviews warn that non-ionizing EMFs are an “emerging threat” to wildlife (Balmori 2015Curachi 2013Sivani 2012) and impacts to pollinators are documented in published studies (Favre 2011Kumar et.al., 2011Lazaro et al., 2016). Field research has found years of exposure to cell tower radiation damages trees (Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. 2016Helmut 2016, Haggerty 2010) and plants  (Halgamuge 2017Pall 2016Halgamuge and Davis 2019). Radiofrequency radiation has been found to affect the magnetic sense of invertebrates (including insects) (TomanovĂ¡ and VĂ¡cha, 2016; VĂ¡cha et al., 2009) birds (Engels et al., 2014) and mammals (Malkemper et al., 2015). Furthermore research shows bees and pollinators could suffer serious impacts from the higher frequencies to be used in 5G as the higher frequencies resonate with their bodies resulting in up to 370% higher absorbed power. 
Currently there is no U.S. Government-funded research program into the non-thermal biological effects of RF emissions to the environment. The EPA, which formerly conducted such research, lost all of its research funding in 1996, and has done nothing since.  In July 2020 the Director of the Radiation Protection Division of the EPA  Lee Ann B. Veal wrote Theodora Scarato Executive Director of EHT that  the EPA had no funded mandate to regarding wireless radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment. Read the letter. The EPA stated their last research review was their 1984 Report. The FCC confirmed in a USTTI webinar October 15, 2020 that their limits were for humans only. 
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from September 8, 2000. It clarifies how decades ago, when FCC limits were set, the EPA was defunded from properly reviewing the science on harm from electromagnetic fields.
“The Court’s reliance on the EPA was technically correct but substantively naive. What the Court did not realize was that Congress terminated funding for radiation research by EPA in 1996, and no staff has been available at EPA to conduct such research for the past five years.”
“The Court’s reliance on the EPA was technically correct but substantively naive. What the Court did not realize was that Congress terminated funding for radiation research by EPA  in 1996, and no staff has been available at EPA to conduct such research for the past five years.”
Thus when companies state that proposed antennas are FCC compliant, this has no applicability to protections for bees,  trees or the environment. As the scientific literature amply demonstrates, findings demonstrate the pressing need for a heavily-funded federal environmental- oriented research program and compliance with NEPA that considers impacts to wildlife from the increased radiofrequency radiation. 

SOME RESEARCH STUDIES TO KNOW

Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations.” Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016): 554-69.
Haggerty, Katie. “Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings.” International Journal of Forestry Research2010.836278 (2010).
Halgamuge, M.N. “Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, 2017, pp. 213-235.
Shikha Chandel, et al. “Exposure to 2100 MHz electromagnetic field radiations induces reactive oxygen species generation in Allium cepa roots.”Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5.4 (2017): 225-229.
Halgamuge MN, Skafidas E, Davis D. A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environ Res. 2020;184:109227. doi:10.1016/J.ENVRES.2020.109227
Halgamuge MN, Davis D. Lessons learned from the application of machine learning to studies on plant response to radio-frequency. Environ Res. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108634
Gustavino, B., et al. “Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips.” Mutagenesis 31.2 (2016): 187-92.
Halgamuge, Malka N., See Kye Yak and Jacob L. Eberhardt. “Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station.” Bioelectromagnetics 36.2 (2015): 87-95.
Balmori, Alfonso. “Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.” Science of The Total Environment 518–519 (2015): 58–60.
 Balmori, A. “Electrosmog and species conservation.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 496, 2014, pp. 314-6.
Cucurachi, C., et al. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Environment International, vol. 51, 2013, pp. 116–40.
Kumar, Neelima R., Sonika Sangwan, and Pooja Badotra. “Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.” Toxicol Int., 18, no. 1, 2011, pp. 70–2.
Favre, Daniel. “Mobile phone induced honeybee worker piping.” Apidologie, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 270-9.
“The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.” Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, resolution 1815, 2011.
Balmori, A. “Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 29, no. 1-2, 2010, pp. 31-5.