H.B. 522, titled “Establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology”, was introduced by Representative Patrick Abrami, who is an engineer, and passed easily in the House and Senate in 2019.
Abrami explained his thought process for introducing this bill and why he believes it’s important:
“The concern is radio frequency (RF) radiation. This with the vision of the Internet of Things; everything electronic being connected to each other via RF means there will be a soup of RF waves all around us. There are 1,000′s of peer-reviewed papers reporting on health and environmental problems. In the House hearing I brought in the former president of Microsoft Canada, a professor of toxicology, and an expert on the push back by municipalities throughout the country as well as others. The skeptical Science and Technology Committee had the same wow moment I did months ago. This bill, designed to establish a road map for N.H. on this topic, passed on the House floor without debate.”
This landmark bill and subsequent Commission not only established a road map for the State of New Hampshire, but could easily become a template for every other state with similar concerns to make significant progress in public awareness of the dangers of RF radiation, as well as establishing widespread safety precautions to protect public health.
Mounting Evidence of DNA Damage From Non-Ionizing Radiation
On November 1st, the Final Report of the Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was released. The Commission, whose members have backgrounds in physics, electromagnetic engineering, epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, medicine, public health policy, business and law, after comprehensively researching the topic for almost a year, agreed in majority that RF radiation is harmful to human health and the environment.
The two exceptions to this nearly unanimous consensus were a wireless industry representative and a telecommunications rep, whose combined opinion was included in a minority report within the Final Report, repeating the standard narrative on the topic that telecom industry reps and the FCC have been parroting for years, which has consistently been downplaying or completely ignoring a mountain of evidence to the contrary. (In related news, this repetitive and dangerously dismissive message from industry and the FCC who supposedly regulates industry has recently been challenged in a large scale lawsuit by the Children’s Health Defense and Environmental Health Trust that is currently in process.)
The Introduction of the Final Report states, “There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum.” Commission members were tasked to answer 8 questions, to assess this topic from every possible angle. The research and study engaged in to answer these questions was lengthy, and supported by considerable evidence and citations within the Final Report.
- The insurance industry considers wireless radiation as high risk, and refuses to cover damages by the pathological properties of RF radiation. Why?
- Why do cell phone manufacturers state in the legal section within their devices to keep the phone further than 5mm from the body, even though the phone’s radiation emission is supposedly within the “SAR safety limits” when “used normally”?
- Why have thousands of peer-reviewed studies, including the U.S. National Toxicology Program 16-year $30 million study, that are showing a wide range of statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and so many other ailments, been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)?
- Why are the FCC-sanctioned guidelines for public exposure to wireless radiation based only on the thermal effect on the temperature of the skin and do not account for the non-thermal, non-ionizing, biological effects of wireless radiation?
- Why are the FCC radiofrequency exposure limits set for the United States 100 times higher than countries like Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland, and most of Eastern Europe?
- Why did the World Health Organization (WHO) signify that wireless radiation is a Group B Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans category, and why are some experts who sat on the WHO committee in 2011 now calling for it to be placed in Group 1 (“known carcinogens”), and why is such information being ignored by the FCC?
- Why have more than 220 of the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to the WHO and the United Nations to protect public health from wireless radiation, and nothing has been done?
- Why have the cumulative biological damaging effects of ever-growing numbers of pulse signals riding on the electromagnetic sine waves not been explored, especially as the world embraces the Internet of Things, meaning all devices being connected by electromagnetic waves, and the exploration of the number of such pulse signals that will be created by implementation of 5G technology?
After reviewing countless study reports, hearing from experts on both sides of the argument about RF radiation safety, and trying to get answers directly from the FCC and other government agencies (with no luck), they were not able to sufficiently answer all eight of their study questions.
What they did take note of are several ongoing lawsuits against the FCC regarding their failure to update health based limits for wireless radiation exposure, and the fact that the World Health Organization and insurance companies are hedging their bets against RF radiation due to potential harm. They became aware of the mountain of research that has already been done that shows the harm of RF radiation, and specifically the pulsed and modulated aspect of these radiation sources which are increasing as the data transmission rate increases. The current situation is far different than when their “health safety limits” were established in 1996, as many different sources of radiation are stacking and overlapping, all piling their separate pulsations on top of the other, creating a “soup” of radiation that is completely new to humanity, and very experimental.
All of that duly noted, they conclude that the precautionary principle needs to be applied. They feel that it is prudent to approach this subject as if these new levels and forms of radiation are extremely harmful to living organisms, because it’s better to be safe than sorry, and the evidence so far is strongly pointing in that direction.
15 Recommendations To Increase Awareness & Protect the PublicAfter one year of meetings with study sessions and educational talks by experts on the topic, the Commission formulated 15 recommendations to shape future policy for the State of New Hampshire. Their objective with these recommendations is to bring greater awareness of cell phone, wireless and 5G radiation health effects, and to provide guidance to officials on steps and policies that can reduce public exposure. The 15 recommendations are all considered to be of equal importance.
1. Propose a resolution to US Congress to require the FCC to commission an independent review of the current radiofrequency (RF) standards of the 300Mhz to 300Ghz microwave spectrum, as well as a health study. Research should be conducted by independent organizations, and focused on establishing safe exposure guidelines that include non-thermal exposure effects, ways to reduce human exposure, as well as optimizing the devices themselves to be less harmful to human health.
2. Require various State of New Hampshire websites to contain links with information on the dangers of RF radiation, and specifically of the 5G small cells installed in public rights-of-way, and showing proper use of cell phones to reduce exposure to RF radiation. Also, public service announcements on radio, television, print media and the internet should periodically appear, warning of the health risks associated with non-ionizing radiation exposure. Warnings concerning babies, young children and pregnant women are of special importance.
3. Require that every pole and other structure in the public right-of-way that holds a 5G antenna be labeled indicating that RF radiation is being emitted above, and to keep a safe distance. This label should be visible at eye level from at least 9 feet away.
4. Schools and public libraries should move away from wireless connections and towards hard wired fiber optic or copper connections for internet. Their stated is goal is to achieve this within 5 years as funding becomes available, acknowledging that schools and libraries have already invested a lot of money into the wireless systems they use currently. They deem this additional investment of resources to be extremely worthwhile, as children and teenagers are far more vulnerable to the harms of RF radiation than adults, as their skulls are thinner and they are still in the sensitive developmental window where external forces can permanently influence their growth in a positive or negative direction.
5. All RF radiation facilities and base stations should be measured for their radiation output, to ensure they are in compliance with the FCC’s current guidelines on safe levels. There have been many cases where a facility has been found to exceed the safety guidelines, threatening the health of humans and animals in the vicinity. Measurements should be done periodically, such as anytime changes are made to the system, and this data should be consistently available to the public on a website. Measurements should be done by an independent contractor, and paid for by the site installer.
6. Establish new protocols for measuring radiation output, taking into account additional nuances of radiation’s health effects, beyond simply measuring frequency, amplitude or heating effects. Of particular importance is the impulsive nature of high-data-rate radiation, which we are increasingly faced with as we move towards faster speeds. This faster pulsation rate has been shown to be especially harmful to living organisms, and there needs to be ways to measure and account for this factor.
7. Require any new wireless antenna located on public right-of-way or on private property to be set back from residences, businesses and schools. This should be enforceable by the municipality during the permitting process, unless the owners of residences, businesses, or school districts waive this restriction.
8. Upgrade the educational offerings for licensure and certification of home inspectors to include RF intensity measurements. Home inspectors are private contractors who can be hired by citizens or businesses to look for hazards such as radon, mold, insect damage and test water quality, prior to renting or buying a home or office space. Being able to detect high levels of non-ionizing radiation in a building would add value to their services, especially as awareness of RF dangers increase and the incidence of electromagnetic illness in susceptible individuals increases (as RF radiation itself increases).
9. The State of New Hampshire should begin to measure RF intensities within different frequency ranges all throughout the state, to develop and refine a continually updated map of RF exposure levels across the state. This information can then be used by RF sensitive individuals (or anyone who just doesn’t want excessive exposure) so they can choose to live and travel mainly in low-RF and RF “dead zones”.
10. Strongly recommend all new cell phones and all other wireless devices sold come equipped with updated software that can stop the phone from radiating when positioned against the body. Cell phones contain proximity sensors that enable them to shut off radiation output when they detect an obstacle, which just requires the installation of software that can utilize this built-in feature. These software upgrades should be known about and available to all cell phone users, and can be easily turned on and off for different purposes. Phones, laptops and tablets that are marketed specifically to children should have this radiation sensor setting turned on, in all circumstances.
11. Adopt and promote a statewide position encouraging the deployment of fiber optic and internal wired connections to serve all commercial and public properties statewide. “The majority of the Commission believes that fiber optic transmission is the infrastructure of the future. When compared, RF wireless transmission lacks fiber optic characteristics: speed, security, and signal reliability while avoiding biological effects on humans and the environment.”
The last three recommendations deal with increasing education and awareness of the clinical symptoms of electromagnetic illness within the medical and health care industry, posting RF exposure warning signs in all commercial and public buildings, establishing RF-free “safe zones” where employees and visitors can seek refuge from RF exposure, and developing RF radiation safety limits that will protect trees, plants, birds, insects and pollinators.
ConclusionOverall, this report is a leading example by one state of what can be done in all states, if we can raise enough awareness. Please consider sharing this with influencers and policy makers in your local area, so we can move towards making changes that will protect the health of people and nature, as 5G is starting to proliferate unchecked and only has the interests of its bottom line and faster speeds in mind. As we work towards increasing humanity’s awareness of RF dangers and fighting the long, slow battle of changing policy, we strongly recommend investing in a Blushield to keep your family healthy and protected in the meantime.
References:Final Report of the Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology – http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NH-State-5G-final-report-2020.pdf
Daily Breaking features Cece Doucette, the Director at Massachusetts for Safe Technology (video interview) – https://www.wccatv.com/video/daily-breaking/dailybreaking-116
Commission Meeting Minutes – http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/minutes.html