This commentary is by Deborah Moore, a central Vermont resident who is a semiretired executive director of a national environmental health nonprofit.
Listening to a recent governor’s press conference, I was more than dismayed to witness the full-on steamrolling for increased cell service in Vermont, calling for the deployment of 100 new cell towers throughout the state along Vermont’s roads.
I heard three officials discuss the dire need for cell service so people can talk while driving, as well as from their homes, listing all the reasons only enhanced cell service would do.
Not one word to address known health, safety and environmental effects from cell towers and wireless radiation. Their arguments completely ignored other perspectives that deserve acknowledgement and discussion.
I do not recall there being any robust public discussion of these issues at any recent time prior to this, although I am aware that two decades ago, Sen. Leahy remarked that he wouldn’t want to see Vermont look like a pin cushion.
Using taxpayer dollars to roll out a well-funded, industry-friendly technology that can and does directly affect human and environmental health is shortsighted at best. Just because the perception is that “everybody” uses smartphones doesn’t mean that it’s a smart thing to do.
I heard mention of people in their homes not getting a good enough cell connection to get help in times of emergency. Remember landlines? Good quality, trustable landlines that always have clear, reliable, and more secure reception than any cell service? And are far safer?
State government agencies should be focusing on enhancing landline service rather than helping to make it obsolete. This potential statewide service is actually now materializing via statewide installation of fiber-optic cable, which, when wired to the premises, will provide high-quality phone and internet service (that never gets dropped) that can be used to access cell service, if desired, in people’s homes.
A journal article was recently published of peer-reviewed studies on the deleterious effects of cell towers on animals, plants and insects in the wild, including pollinators. Why, especially in Vermont, would we ignore the inevitable consequences of negative effects on cows and milk production?
An excellent recent article, written by a knowledgeable Vermont beekeeper in the February issue of Bee Culture Magazine, describes how EMFs impact the extreme decline of bees and other pollinators.
How can our leaders ignore the rapidly increasing numbers of seriously electro-hypersensitive people? If you are worried about attracting people to move to Vermont, why not, instead, make Vermont, particularly in more rural areas, a more hospitable haven to those who can’t live anywhere else in the country because of wireless devices and towers? There are many thousands of these health-affected people in this country, many of whom already live in the more remote parts of Vermont for the very reason that there is no cell service. They would not want cell towers in their neighborhoods.
The state of New Hampshire appointed a 13-member commission of diverse public and private professionals to conduct a yearlong study on wireless radiation, which resulted in November 2020 in a comprehensive report and recommendations for regulations and enforcement of health and safety measures in that state. New Hampshire’s Legislature is now considering legislation to restrict how close cell towers can be located from residences, and other measures to protect people from the harmful effects of radio frequency radiation.
The Federal Communications Commission, one of many captured federal agencies, was sued by high-profile environmental health organizations in the U.S. District Court of Appeals in D.C. regarding its dereliction of adequate safety regulations. On Aug. 13, 2021, in a game-changing decision, this court ruled strongly against the FCC on the grounds that it failed to address impacts of wireless exposure on human health and the environment, in spite of thousands of pages of peer-reviewed evidence of harm that they were sent to review, but ignored.
Arthur Firstenberg is a scientist who has electro-hypersensitivity and is one of the best authorities in the world on the subject. He has written a book: The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. He has also just issued an excellent document answering frequently asked questions regarding wireless generation and devices. If you think your cellphone is safe, you should read it.
Cellphones are conveniences that usually provide poor-quality sound and require constant upgrading of devices at consumer expense. They are not and should not be treated as panaceas for any purpose when there are safer and better quality options.
No, cell service along Vermont’s roadways, where it will increase distracted driving, and in more remote areas of the state is not needed. Vermonters have thrived thus far through other means. EMF pollution is just like any other pollution, is dangerous, and is increasing by orders of magnitude, but is being ignored altogether.
Vermont can find many other better uses for the money it has been gifted. Or has our Vermont government also been captured by the telecom industry?
This letter was sent to Gov. Phil Scott, Public Safety Commissioner June Tierney, Acting Human Services Secretary Jenney Samuelson, Health Commissioner Mark Levine, Vermont legislators on four relevant committees; and to Christine Hallquist, executive director of the Vermont Community Broadband Board; Clay Purvis, director of the state’s telecommunications and connectivity division; and Lt. Gov. Molly Gray.
