Affiliation:
1. Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, Paris La Défense Paris France
2. Department of Information Technology Ghent University‐imec Ghent Belgium
3. Belgium & Advanced Science and Research Center The City University of New York New York New York USA
4. Department of Grassland and Natural Landscape Sciences Poznań University of Life Sciences Poznań Poland
5. Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Stirling Stirling UK
6. Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle Paris France
Abstract
AbstractThere is an unprecedented exposure of living organisms to mobile communications radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF‐EMF) emissions. Guidelines on exposure thresholds to limit thermal effects from these emissions are restricted to humans. However, tissue heating can occur in all living organisms that are exposed. In addition, exposure at millimetric frequencies used by 5G may impact surface tissues and organs of plants and small‐size species. It is also expected that the addition of 5G to existing networks will intensify radiofrequency absorption by living organisms.A European Parliament report proposed policy options on the effects of RF‐EMF exposure of plants, animals, and other living organisms in the context of 5G: funding more research, implementing monitoring networks, accessing more information from operators on antennas and EMF emissions, and developing compliance studies when antennas are installed. However, there is no evidence on the preferences of relevant stakeholders regarding these policy options. This paper reports the findings of a survey of key European stakeholders’ policy option preferences based on the European Parliament's report. It reveals a broad consensus on funding more research on the effects of exposure of plants, animals, and other living organisms to EMFs. It also highlights the need for deliberation concerning the other policy options that could provide solutions for regulatory authorities, central administrations, the private sector, nongovernmental associations and advocates, and academics. Such deliberation would pave the way for effective solutions, focusing on long‐term output from funding research, and enabling short‐term socially and economically acceptable actions for all parties concerned.
Reference66 articles.
1. Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR). (2022).Synthèse des travaux et réunions du comité national de dialogue sur l'exposition du public aux ondes électromagnétiques pour 2022. Comité National du Dialogue.ANFR.
2. A critical review of multi‐criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning;Ananda J.;Ecological Economics,2009
3. ANSES. (2022).Exposition aux champs électromagnétiques liée au déploiement de la technologie 5G. Avis actualisé de ANSES. Rapport d'expertise collective.ANSES.
4. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). (2015).Radiation protection of the environment. Guide G‐1.ARPANSA.
5. Mixed valuation methods: A combined AHP‐GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation;Aznar‐Bellver J.;Annals of Operations Research,2011