A photo of cut-down trees on a residential street is being circulated on social media along with the claim that the trees are being removed because they block 5G signals. Usually the photo is being described as coming from Holland.
Commotion about tree cover (but replacement is already on the way) Suddenly many trees along the street were stripped of their heads.
N-VA Leuven [the North Flemish Alliance, a conservative political party] is concerned about the felling of a large number of trees at Baron Descampslaan in Wijgmaal. According to councillors they were due for replacement. In the meantime, new plants are already being planted.
So, the trees have been cut down because they were due for replacement, and indeed they are already being replaced. A look at Google Street View imagery from last summer shows that the trees had grown rather large for a narrow residential street, and there seems to be some damage to them as well.
and if you literally turn around from your google maps spot you can see them in the process of being replaced.
I don't really get what trees on a sidewalk have to do with 5g anyway. we have much bigger trees around me. and dont houses mess up cell phone towers more than anything? And i dont get my internet from a cell tower, is 5g only for cell phones?
I dont see any "lines" in this neighborhood, so their electric and phone etc must be underground. ?? i cant beleive they would even replant trees knowing how much damage roots can do.
Urban tree maintenance pruning removal and planting divides polarizes draws many opinions.. daily my role is to explain, negotiate, defend and/or/ address/calm public concerns. I had thought i'd heard all the reasons for or against tree removal-pruning or planting but trees interference with 5g network is a new claim I not come across.. I await the letters of concern to the City Arborist..
Urban tree maintenance pruning removal and planting divides polarizes draws many opinions.. daily my role is to explain, negotiate, defend and/or/ address/calm public concerns.
Be grateful you don't work for Gateshead council's street lighting department who are being slandered and libelled daily by people who believe, having noticed all these new 5 GHz WiFi SSIDs with 5g in them, that the local authority's LED streetlights are actually part of a stealth 5G mobile trial beaming cancerous death rays into people's bedrooms.
(I could post links to the lunacy but the metabunk bot pops up and tells me not to do that every time I do.)
Be grateful you don't work for Gateshead council's street lighting department who are being slandered and libelled daily by people who believe, having noticed all these new 5 GHz WiFi SSIDs with 5g in them, that the local authority's LED streetlights are actually part of a stealth 5G mobile trial beaming cancerous death rays into people's bedrooms.
(I could post links to the lunacy but the metabunk bot pops up and tells me not to do that every time I do.)
It should be sufficient to follow the "No Click" guideline.
Get an excerpt - the relevant part - from the target page and put it below the link, enclosed in the "external content" tag. See [´x´] button in the edit toolbar.
Trees have been scientifically proven to interfere with the 5G Network.
The best source for this is a scientific study by the University of Surrey, Institute of Communication Systems, Whitepaper on Rural 5G Vision ( the graphic on page 4 shows this clearly)
Having adjacent trees and or building at comparable heights to the mast can reduce coverage by as much as 70% in that direction, which is not in the interests of the operator, the local planning authorities and more importantly the mobile phone user. This is the source of many of today’s mobile coverage issues for consumers in many rural locations.
This has been reported in mainstream media sources in the US, Australia and the UK :
"Could Obstacles Such as Trees Screw up Verizon’s 5G Hopes?"
Verizon is working with friendly customers who are using its antennas. “Certainly, the download speeds are very good,” said Dunne. “What we need to understand is all of the conditions: the leaves on the trees you know, your UPS van pulls up outside and blocks a line of sight to some of the millimeter wave spectrum. Those are the sort of things that we’re looking at.”
The mmWave technology has been criticized for its short propagation range and line-of-sight paths.
And Dunne acknowledged that, saying “Yeah, I think some of the propagation has probably been better.”
In its field tests, Verizon is looking at “not what’s the maximum throughput, but it’s what’s the minimum throughput in certain experiences,” he said. The company is looking at propagation in certain weather conditions such as snow and heavy rain. And it’s helping people to self-install and find the optimum window and location inside
Telstra is also funding research into whether uniquely Australian obstacles - including flora - will disrupt 5G signals, which occupy a higher frequency and don't travel as far as other mobile signals.
"Something that seems to be unique to Australia, and we found with earlier standards, is how gumtrees impact those radio signals and the way they get from the radio tower to the end user," Mr Wright said.
That's not being disputed here. What is being debunked is the claim that urban trees (and specifically the ones in the picture) are being removed because of that interference. That doesn't appear to be happening anywhere. Where trees are being cut down, they are being replaced with new trees. Many street trees planted in the past were unsuitable varieties, that grow too large for the street scene (as seen in the "before" photo above).
Unless you call 10 years "in the process of" I believe you are mistaken. They are shown in the 2009 version of that street view. I am not disputing anything else
So far this is the situation. The fact that trees interfere with 5G has been proven by numerous technical sources.
What we need data on is the link between 5G trials and tree felling.
If anyone has evidence of the link between tree felling and 5G trials, can you post here? Thanks
Unless you call 10 years "in the process of" I believe you are mistaken. They are shown in the 2009 version of that street view. I am not disputing anything else
thats a good point. as we drive down the street in 2009 we can see interspersed new trees. i think considering this is government and budgets matter, i'm ok with 'in the process of'. but i'm ok if you dont agree.
we'll have to wait for the next google car to go through i guess and see if there are new little trees put up, or find someone on social media who can take pics for us at the end of the summer.
Here is an important document. "5G Planning – geospatial considerations A guide for planners and local authorities" from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport/ Ordinance Survey (UK).
On page 10 it states :
mmwave signals are affected by objects in their path, buildings, monuments, statues and bus shelters to name a few. Within the UK, Ordnance Survey provide detailed mapping of many of the objects that will have an affect but not all objects as these do not form part of the OS Mastermap specification. Consideration must be given to these additional objects Figure 7-1of significance Figure 7-1 and, although not exhaustive, will include:
Here is an important document. "5G Planning – geospatial considerations A guide for planners and local authorities" from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport/ Ordinance Survey (UK).
On page 10 it states :
mmwave signals are affected by objects in their path, buildings, monuments, statues and bus shelters to name a few. Within the UK, Ordnance Survey provide detailed mapping of many of the objects that will have an affect but not all objects as these do not form part of the OS Mastermap specification. Consideration must be given to these additional objects Figure 7-1of significance Figure 7-1 and, although not exhaustive, will include:
Following your logic all buildings, monuments, statues and bus shelters would be removed also!! Dude, the trees in Sheffield and along rail lines are NOT coming down due to 5G rollout. [...]
Nobody disputes that trees block 5G signals - just about any physical obstacle, including the walls of your house itself, will block the signals. What is being disputed is that trees are being cut down because of this. No councils that I am aware of have any policy of removing street trees because of 5G problems. If anyone has any evidence that such policies exist then they should share it, as you said yourself up thread.
I did come across another claim of city tree removal for 5G event in Marseille France of 2018.
It would seem it was a strong willed council landscape idea up against differing public feelings. And the tree removal was by some claimed due to 5G nework needs.
The inhabitants do not digest the ongoing slaughter of 115 trees in the square. Gerard Chenoz, the elected LR who leads this violent renovation says regret the "emotional shock" and points to a "manipulation of the far left."
i work for local gov tree dept and have contacts thought my state & country and have not yet had any claim of 5G network install to require impact to trees.
I have had (some 5 years ago) a pubic safety CCTV micro link network ill designed and it did conflict with trees that after much augment ultimately i had to prune some canopy to allow systems cameras to link. ( public safety vs trees is hard to fight debate)..While told it was micro wave system i dont think the CCTv network was 5G
There are CCTV cameras mounted throughout Frankston City with footage streamed back to the Frankston Police Station or monitored by authorized Frankston Council employees. The vision is used for either live monitoring or reviewed by investigators as part of a criminal enquiry.
this was an interesting stuff up, they actually put this pole in incorrect location. Once placed the $cost & project engineers embarrassment was formidable so i was compelled to prune some tree tops.
Licencing of spectrum is controlled by Ofcom. It is assumed that solutions will be targeting mmwave technology for use in dense urban areas and radio technologies operating at frequencies in the 26GHz band. We anticipate Ofcom supporting the use of this frequency.
Large and less dense coverage areas are likely to use lower frequencies being considered for 5G; 700MHz and 3.5GHZ. This document does not discuss planning for these.
2 Purpose of document
This document focuses on how the geo-spatial environment (man-made and natural) impacts the propagation of mmwave signals and what network planners and local authorities need to consider when planning a new network. It aims to provide a comprehensive approach to help assess the environment being considered for deployment, identifying which geo-spatial features are important to consider, how to identify them and, where new features need to be captured, which techniques and associated indicative costs may be involved to assist planners in budgeting.
It's essentially the same as what was posted in post number 12. Guidance that identifies obstacles that can block signals but are too small and/or not permanent enough to appear on large-scale mapping, and so must be additionally taken into account when planning 5G coverage, and added to maps if necessary.
Nowhere in any of these documents does it suggest removing trees, and to the best of my knowledge no councils anywhere have a policy of removing street trees to facilitate 5G signals. If anyone can cite any such policy then this thread can be updated; as it is there is no evidence of anything other than normal street tree renewal.
Urban trees do not have a very long lifespan, so it is hardly surprising that you will often see trees being removed and replaced in any large town or city:
The many constraints that the typical urban environment places on trees limits the average lifespan of a city tree to only 32 years – 13 years if planted in a downtown area – which is far short of the 150-year average life span of trees in rural settings
The UK National Infrastructure Commission’s “Connected Future” report (December 2016) is an excellent read on this topic. Some of the key points in this report include:
“Mobile coverage on our rail routes is notoriously poor; making it difficult to carry out tasks taken for granted in many other contexts, such as making a phone call or checking emails”
“Roads, railways and city centres must be made 5G ready as quickly as possible”
“The railway network must rapidly improve connectivity. This will be best delivered in future by a trackside network”
“Around 40 per cent of railways are in tunnels or cuttings, causing base station signals to be blocked. These difficult geographies mean that even with near-ubiquitous geographic coverage MNOs would be unlikely to provide sufficient coverage and capacity to deliver a quality service to passengers without trackside infrastructure.
Ultimately, the government should ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place on the main rail and key commuter routes by 2025 at the latest if it wants to offer a reasonable level of connectivity on a timescale consistent with the deployment of 5G networks
1. Further sources that rail companies are rolling out 5G
Ray Walton witnessed hundreds of trees being chopped down along the length of track between Christchurch and Bournemouth. “It was total mass destruction, they obliterated every tree,” he said. “These trees were mature 30-foot-high trees which have been there for 50 years in some cases and never caused a problem.
“This went far beyond reasonable management of the trees. They took them all out, and destroyed the habitat for wildlife.”
Environment Secretary Michael Gove met Network Rail boss Mark Carne on Wednesday to discuss the issue.
An internal Network Rail document shows it is planning to carry out an “enhanced level of clearance” along lines from 2019 to 2024, according to The Guardian
You have links about 5G, and you have a link about tree felling, but nowhere do you provide evidence of any kind of connection between the two. The graphic you posted also shows buildings blocking signal, so you might as well suggest that there are plans to knock down buildings beside railway lines too!
The line that I travel into work on has also had a lot of trees and shrubs on the embankment cut down in the past year or so. This has been happening for as long as I can remember - since long before 5G was ever dreamt of - to prevent leaf-fall which causes delays to the extent that special "leaf fall timetables" have to be run on many lines.
The Guardian article makes absolutely no mention of 5G whatsoever, so I fail to see where you are trying to go with this. Once again: I have seen absolutely no evidence that trees are being cut down to improve 5G signals. Given that Network Rail are quite happy to publicise the fact that they remove trees from the line side and have no reason to lie about why they are doing so. Leaves on the line and fallen trees are a very real problem, as any rail commuter in Britain can tell you.
And if you read the document - even the short excerpt that you posted - you can see that the 5G network it suggests would have absolutely no requirement to cut down trees:
“The railway network must rapidly improve connectivity. This will be best delivered in future by a trackside network"
“Around 40 per cent of railways are in tunnels or cuttings, causing base station signals to be blocked. These difficult geographies mean that even with near-ubiquitous geographic coverage MNOs would be unlikely to provide sufficient coverage and capacity to deliver a quality service to passengers without trackside infrastructure.
The whole reason it recommends a trackside network infrastructure is that this would be right beside the tracks and therefore not blocked by trees, buildings, tunnels, cuttings etc!
Hi, my first post here, as you may guess from my username, I am a bit of a radio anorak, and on one radio forum, a resident conspiracy theorist has made the claim that trees are being cut down in Sheffield, England, because of the 5G roll-out.
Assuming he was posting nonsense as usual, I did a quick google & stumbled across this interesting site & thread, and thought I would share my reply to him, as I am sure it will be of interest to some here.
-------
If the tree felling in Sheffield has anything to do with the roll-out of the 5G network, perhaps Geoff can explain:
1 – Why has the government appointed a new 'Tree Champion', who duties include preventing the unnecessary felling of street trees?
He will bring together mayors, city leaders and other key players across local government to prevent the unnecessary felling of street trees – alongside supporting the introduction of a new duty for councils to properly consult with communities before they cut down trees.
One of the first things he did was announce that he will be looking into the situation in Sheffield.
The Government’s new ‘tree champion’ is to make the controversial programme to replace thousands of street trees in Sheffield a priority in the wake of “unprecedented” strength of feeling from local residents.
2 - Why has the government's Forestry Commission launched an investigation into the situation in Sheffield?
The Forestry Commission has confirmed it is investigating the entire programme of tree-felling work being undertaken by Sheffield City Council as part of its £2.2bn highways maintenance contract with Amey, which is known as the Streets Ahead project.
Felling growing trees without a licence is an offence under the Forestry Act but one of the exemptions which applies is carrying out felling in line with a legal obligation. The Streets Ahead scheme is being conducted in connection with the council’s duty to maintain and repair highways under the Highways Act but it is understood the Forestry Commission is examining whether some felling work has been carried out outside of these obligations and therefore whether a licence was required.
3 – If Sheffield is doing this, because of 5G, why have cities where it's already being rolled out (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff and Belfast) not done the same?
---------
It's totally normal to replace street trees, our council does it all the time, admittedly not on the scale of what Sheffield is doing, it does seem they are going over the top, but they are certainly not felling 36,000 trees as you claim.
The current target is to replace 10,000 trees, although they have budgeted for a maximum of 17,500 in case of a wide spread outbreak of disease, as part of a 25-year highways contract, running until 2037!
25 years to clear trees for the roll out of 5G? You're having a laugh, Geoff.
---------
Part of that contract contains 'a requirement for straight pavement kerbs – affecting decisions on whether trees can be saved', and that's one reason trees get replaced across the country. Trees can start lifting up kerb stones & paving slabs, resulting in uneven surfaces, which provide a danger, particularly for senior citizens and people with poor vision, which can be costly in injury claims made against councils. It can also make pavements difficult to navigate for wheelchair users, and people pushing prams or pushchairs.
I was aware of the situation in Sheffield, and the associated protests, but this is the first time I've heard claims that it had anything to do with 5G, hence I've spent a few minutes on google. I found the above links, which somewhat rubbish the claim, and I couldn't find any reliable source to back-up the claim, just a few weird conspiracy-type sites.
Here is an interesting article from Tallahassee in Florida :
The Leon County Board of Commissioners is holding its only public hearing Dec. 12 at 6 p.m. on a proposed local ordinance addressing legislation recently signed into law by the governor which potentially threatens Leon County’s iconic canopy roads.
According to Assistant Leon County Attorney Jessica Icerman, the Advanced Wireless Infrastructure Deployment Act (“AWIDA”) is state legislation supporting the deployment of 5G cellular technology, which, among other things, will pilot self-driving cars. AWIDA overrules local authority and ordinances protecting Tallahassee and Leon County’s cherished canopy roads and trees.
AWIDA was overwhelmingly approved by the Florida Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott on June 23.
Tallahassee also has a proposed ordinance regulating communications facilities that is anticipated to go before the city commissioners for consideration at a public hearing in January or February 2018.
Canopy road tree protection zone tree or vegetation removal applications.
[...]
(2)
Mitigation requirements. The permit application for removal of trees or vegetation in the canopy road tree protection zone must be accompanied by a mitigation plan which shall include at a minimum, the following:
a.
An analysis documenting the purpose which necessitates the tree removal and explaining why the project cannot be modified to avoid the need for the tree removal.
b.
An analysis of the canopy road section to be impacted by the proposed activity within the canopy road tree protection zone. The analysis shall include a narrative description of the affected roadway section together with other material helpful in assessing the impact of the intrusion on the existing canopy road effect. Such characteristics as understory density and species composition, tree species and size distribution, high bank areas and opacity should be included as appropriate.
c.
A replanting and management plan designed to mitigate the visual and vegetation impacts identified in subsection (b)(2)a of this section.
[...]
(c)
Other protected tree removal, patriarch tree removal, and vegetation management applications.
(1)
Required information. Permits for removal or relocation of protected trees and applications for vegetation management plan approval shall be obtained by making application for permit to the County Administrator or designee. Additional requirements for tree removal or vegetation management within a canopy road protection zone are found in subsection (b) of this section. Applications for vegetation management plan approval shall be accompanied by a diagram depicting the area to be subject to the plan and the existing vegetation therein, and a description of the nature and purpose of the plan. The application for tree removal shall be accompanied by a written statement indicating the reasons requiring removal or relocation of each protected tree and an area map indicating the location of trees to be removed or relocated and any existing and proposed structures or vehicular use areas. In addition, the application shall contain a signed acknowledgment by the applicant verifying that no protected trees will be removed on the site except as noted on the approved application and permit. If the proposed tree removal is associated with development requiring a stormwater management application as part of the environmental management permit application, the written statement and area map mentioned above shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a.
Written, detailed justification for the proposed removal of each protected tree, which shall reference the development area where the trees are to be removed. Each tree that is 36-inch DBH or greater and any dogwood four-inch DBH or greater must be shown on the required development area map by map number designation for each such tree.
b.
The locations and dimensions of all existing and proposed vehicular use areas and other improvements, including finished elevations for each.
c.
Significant natural site features.
d.
Existing and proposed site contours.
e.
If the applicant chooses the option of obtaining credit for preserved trees on site instead of replanting the developed area with 40 trees per acre, the preserved trees must be identified on the plans. Existing protected or required trees to remain on-site, and protected trees proposed to be removed, shall be indicated by a number assigned to each tree and noting DBH, species and critical protection zone. Indication of the general location of the trees, including blocks of trees, may be acceptable depending on-site conditions, and provided that a listing of individual trees by species and size is submitted.
f.
Existing and proposed utilities, underground and overhead, and location of any other known manmade on-site features, such as underground tanks or old building foundations.
g.
Building and other setbacks.
h.
Protected trees on adjacent property which may be affected by proposed development activity within the critical protection zone of such trees.
i.
All applicable land use requirements pertaining to property use or restrictions, including easements, zoning, rezonings, site and development plan or plat reviews and development orders.
j.
For proposed patriarch tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate that no feasible alternatives exist.
So it looks as though applications would still need to go through the usual planning process and comply with mitigation requirements if approved.
I would like to refer you to a recent debate at Westminister, the British House of Parliament, on 25th June 2019 on Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects
MP for Swansea, Geraint Davis, asked this question:
Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern that 5G cannot penetrate trees and that, as a result, we are looking at the destruction of thousands and thousands of trees? That destruction has already started around Swindon. How can we possibly be serious about our ambitions for zero carbon if we are destroying the trees and have this huge carbon footprint? It does not add up and is clearly environmentally ridiculous/EX]
I would like to refer you to a recent debate at Westminister, the British House of Parliament, on 25th June 2019 on Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects
MP for Swansea, Geraint Davis, asked this question:
Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern that 5G cannot penetrate trees and that, as a result, we are looking at the destruction of thousands and thousands of trees? That destruction has already started around Swindon. How can we possibly be serious about our ambitions for zero carbon if we are destroying the trees and have this huge carbon footprint? It does not add up and is clearly environmentally ridiculous/EX]
Geraint Davies has left, but I do not think we are cutting down trees; in fact, I am sure that the Government have committed to planting more trees. I know that the Secretary of State is very keen on them, so I will write to him on that issue.
I would like to refer you to a recent debate at Westminister, the British House of Parliament, on 25th June 2019 on Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects
MP for Swansea, Geraint Davis, asked this question:
Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern that 5G cannot penetrate trees and that, as a result, we are looking at the destruction of thousands and thousands of trees? That destruction has already started around Swindon. How can we possibly be serious about our ambitions for zero carbon if we are destroying the trees and have this huge carbon footprint? It does not add up and is clearly environmentally ridiculous/EX]
So does anybody know where Geraint Davies got the idea that trees are being cut down en masse "around Swindon"? I can't find anything about this, and, as Seema Kennedy points out, the government has committed to planting more trees. The only news stories I can find from the Swindon area relate to people's concern about the timing of routine maintenance work coinciding with bird nesting season, or works to remove overhanging branches blocking traffic.
It seems that 5G has attracted a certain type of conspiracy theorist, to the extent that any sign of trees being felled gets linked to 5G. Perhaps people passed on these unfounded concerns to their local MP?
(As an aside, I follow a couple of Flickr accounts that compare old photos of British towns and cities with the present-day scene. It's amazing how much less greenery there was in urban areas in the "old days"!)
(As an aside, I follow a couple of Flickr accounts that compare old photos of British towns and cities with the present-day scene. It's amazing how much less greenery there was in urban areas in the "old days"!)
This is something I've also noticed with my old home town in Yorkshire. I digitized thousands of photos from the 1960s, and sometimes geolocated them in Goggle street view. I'd frequently have problems because the view that was clear in the 1960s is now obscured by trees.
These things likely come in waves, with development comes tree planting. The tree mature at around the same time, and start to become a problem at around the same time.
For example, I used to play on this street corner about 40 years ago. I remember all the trees were skinny sapling like the one behind the white van, and now they are mature trees 50 feet high.
So they age together, and at some point will need to be cut down around the same time. A forward-thinking local council will phase in the replacement (here there's a couple of new trees). But lots of places end up just reacting to something like one of the trees being blown over, and they trim or replace them en masse.
This is also something that varies a lot with location. So individual perceptions will vary.
Looks like the day before the meeting, this article was out about birds nests in swindon. (a nesting bird survey is undertaken before vegetation removed, so says Swindon ecologist Debbie MacKenzie)
A number of streets have seen vegetation disappear in recent months, including Freshbrook Way, the playpark near Shaw Ridge School, the path and park near Oliver Tomkins Primary School and an area close to Sudeley Way.
I don't think that this issue can truly be "debunked" as you claim until you show evidence that no small cell towers or 5G transmitters are scheduled for that street, and if there are small cell towers or transmitters scheduled, where they will be. The city councils can tell their public anything they want to justify cutting down these trees. They don't want to face the wrath of people not only fighting the illegal, forced installment of dangerous wireless technology but ALSO upset about their lovely tree-lined street being dramatically changed and removed of its beautiful, mature trees for that technology. The replacement trees are immature, with skinny trunks and far less foliage. Plus, judging from their height already, will probably grow their canopies higher, far out of the way of the laser-like beams of 5G radiation from street-level "small towers" (every 500 feet!) targeting the houses and businesses along this lane...
I don't think that this issue can truly be "debunked" as you claim until you show evidence that no small cell towers or 5G transmitters are scheduled for that street
and if it took 10 years + for the saplings to grow to the size we see... I highly doubt they will be tall enough to be above any alleged 5g tower for another 20 years at least (if ever).. there is little indication their canopy's will be higher than the old trees. (and they could just trim the bottom branches of the old trees.
But either way Wigjmaal, while close to Brussels, isnt Brussels anyway.
Licenses were never agreed on
Belgium’s governing bodies fail again to agree on 5G licenses
Wednesday, 27 March 2019
Personally i have a hard time believing any small town would have the funds (or inclination) to preplan tree height for less than twenty homes, regarding a futuristic 'faster connection speed' internet plan in a country that doesn't yet allow the technology as it is, because of radiation laws. Less than 2 months, no less, after the even possibility of getting 5g in wijgmaal eventually, looked like it was at least a 'maybe' proposition.
I apologize if this was covered earlier and I missed it while skimming, but is there even any reason to think that in response to tree interference, a body couldn't simply mount the antennas higher or in a slightly more dense arrangement? I would think the former would at least not be terribly costly....
Here is a very interesting quote by Charles Kennelly, CTO Esri UK, from the Futurescope Conference in Dublin 'Smart cities and connected futures – a report'.
What are the problems and challenges of implementing 5G?
Paul Billington: “There is going to have to be a return on investment very quickly, so greenfield sites have an advantage over everybody else.”
Charles Kennelly: “The strength of the signal is very much governed by the local environment. There is nothing worse than a wet thick spruce tree for blocking signals. So you start having to deal with vegetation management.
"So you start having to deal with vegetation management." - What does this mean? The pruning and felling of trees that is currently underway all over the world to make way for smart cities and self-driving cars.
This is the agenda. The evidence is hidden in plain sight.
Here is a very interesting quote by Charles Kennelly, CTO, Esri UK from the Futurescope Conference in Dublin 'Smart cities and connected futures – a report' .
What are the problems and challenges of implementing 5G?
Paul Billington: “There is going to have to be a return on investment very quickly, so greenfield sites have an advantage over everybody else.”
Charles Kennelly: “The strength of the signal is very much governed by the local environment. There is nothing worse than a wet thick spruce tree for blocking signals. So you start having to deal with vegetation management.
"So you start having to deal with vegetation management." - What does this mean? The pruning and felling of trees that is currently underway all over the world to make way for smart cities and self-driving cars.
This is the agenda. The evidence is hidden in plain sight.
Hi Deirdre, you were most probably right about the original picture in Holland, but there is truth in the overall claim that trees are being pruned/ felled for 5G. The evidence is and will continue to grow. This website has been instrumental in spreading awareness, thank you
Hi Deirdre, you were most probably right about the original picture in Holland, but there is truth in the overall claim that trees are being pruned/ felled for 5G. The evidence is and will continue to grow. This website has been instrumental in spreading awareness, thank you
Hi Landru. The evidence is so far circumstantial. I know where I am from in Ireland there has been a significant increase in tree felling over the past few years.
Over 7,000 trees felled by local authorities in 18 months:
Issue under increasing public scrutiny following several high-profile removals
This has co-incided with similar reports in other countries ( I have shown evidence in other posts on this thread). The official reasons given are always nothing to do with 5G :
The majority of councils cited trip hazards, as well as tree diseases, storm damage and “health and safety” as the reasons for felling trees.
I feel that the people running this site are experts at debunking misinformation. I am asking you to turn your critical faculties on the official line- to debunk the idea that trees are not being cut to make way for the 5G network. You would be doing a great service.
Hi Landru. The evidence is so far circumstantial. I know where I am from in Ireland there has been a significant increase in tree felling over the past few years.
Over 7,000 trees felled by local authorities in 18 months:
Issue under increasing public scrutiny following several high-profile removals
This has co-incided with similar reports in other countries ( I have shown evidence in other posts on this thread). The official reasons given are always nothing to do with 5G :
The majority of councils cited trip hazards, as well as tree diseases, storm damage and “health and safety” as the reasons for felling trees.
I feel that the people running this site are experts at debunking misinformation. I am asking you to turn your critical faculties on the official line- to debunk the idea that trees are not being cut to make way for the 5G network. You would be doing a great service.
The source you site also says that 3,000 new trees have been planted. There is nothing to suggest that the tree removal is anything but what is stated. Your evidence is not even circumstantial.
