New Hampshire Commission Studies 5G Technology Health and Environment Effects

The first Commission formed in the United States to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology released their comprehensive final report November 1, 2020. The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was born in the in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, and included 15 recommendations addressing the need for public education about wireless hazards, RF health studies, RF measurements, cell antenna setbacks, fiberoptic rather than wireless deployment, commercial warning signs and wildlife protection. After hearing extensive testimony in a series of 13 meetings over the course of a year and reviewing an abundance of research, the Commission highlighted the lack of a single definition for 5G, insufficient evidence of safety for 5thgeneration technology, a concern that safety standards for wireless technologies have not been updated with the latest science and that 5G is largely a marketing concept. They also expressed concern that the FCC has a long history of being accountable to industry over the desires of communities and individuals.

Update 8/30/21

Members of the Commission included representatives from the both the New Hampshire House and Senate, the Attorney General’s Office, Department of Business and Economic Affairs, CTIA, the University of New Hampshire and McGill University Medicine. While the majority of the Commission voted in favor of the recommendations, a Minority Report was also prepared by 3 members of the Commission. 

 Kent Chamberline, Ph.D., Chair and Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Hampshire, presented a slide show Take-Aways from the New Hampshire HB 522 Commission on 5G Final Report July 5, 2021.

New Hampshire 5G Commission Chair Will Write RF Safety Bill

After the New Hampshire Report was complete the New Hampshire Representative Patric Abram, who chaired the commission started drafting a state bill on RF safety. It is slated to be a simple bill that nevertheless will be fought by the telecom industry. This comes on the heels of a DC Court of Appeals decision against the Federal Communications Commission for failing to reevaluate RF safety standards. The Court concluded, “Under this highly deferential standard of review, we find the Commission’s order arbitrary and capricious in its failure to respond to record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” and that, “We find the Commission’s order arbitrary and capricious in its complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.”   ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE AND PETITIONERS V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. August 13, 2021 

Updated 8/29/21

New Hampshire HB 522

The New Hampshire Commission was formed as a result of legislation, HB 522 (Rep Patrick Abrami-R and Sen Thomas Sherman-D), which was introduced in January 2019 and was signed by Governor Sununu 7/19/19. The legislation titled, An Act establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology”, noted that  “Fifth generation, or 5G, wireless technology is intended to greatly increase device capability and connectivity but also may pose significant risks to humans, animals, and the environment due to increased radiofrequency radiation exposure.  The purpose of the study is to examine the advantages and risks associated with 5G technology, with a focus on its environmental impact and potential health effects, particularly on children, fetuses, the elderly, and those with existing health compromises.”

Text of HB 522

The commission shall:

(a) Examine the health and environmental impacts from radiofrequency (RF) radiationemitted from the waves in the 30-300 gigahertz(GHZ) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls somewhere between microwaves and infrared waves, and which are required with the rollout of 5G technology.

(b)  Assess the health and environmental impacts of 5G technology, which requires small cell towers to be placed at a distance of 250 meters from each other at telephone pole height from the ground and will operate in conjunction with the 3G and 4G technology infrastructure. 

(c)  Receive testimony from the scientific communityincluding but not limited to physicists and electrical engineers, the medical community including but not limited to cellular experts and oncologists, the wireless technology industry including but not limited to cell phone businesses and businesses working on the development autonomous vehicles which will rely on 5G technology, as well as other organizations and members of the public with an interest in 5G technology.  

(d)  Consider the following questions and the impact on New Hampshire citizens, municipalities, and state government of:

(1)  Why the insurance industry recognizes wireless radiation as a leading riskand has placed exclusions in their policies not covering damages caused by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation?

(2)  Why do cell phone manufacturers have in the legal section within the devise saying keep the phone at least 5mm from the body?

(3)  Why have 1,000s of peer-reviewed studies,including the recently published U.S. 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, being ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)?

(4)  Why are the FCC-sanctioned guidelines for public exposure to wireless radiation based only on the thermal effecton the temperature of the skin and do not account for the non-thermal, non-ionizing, biological effects of wireless radiation?

(5)  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?

(6)  Why did the World Health Organization (WHO) signify that wireless radiation is a Group B Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans category, a group that includes lead, thalidomide, and others, and why are some experts who sat on the WHO committee in 2011 now calling for it to be placed in the Group 1, which are known carcinogens, and why is such information being ignored by the FCC?

(7)  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?

(8)  Why have the cumulative biological damaging effects of ever-growing numbers of pulse signals riding on the back of 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?

II.  The commission shall prepare and publish an interim and final report of its findings and recommendations.  The reports shall:

(a)  Outline the advantages of, and risks associated with, 5G technology running in conjunction with the 3G and 4G technology infrastructure.

(b)  Develop a strategy, if deemed necessary, to limit RF radiation exposure from 5G or lesser generation technology relying upon electromagnetic waves.

(c)  Include a public policy statement on 5G wireless systems, which either declares the technology safe or outlines actions required to protect the health of its citizens and environment.

(d)  Consider alternatives to 5G technology that will accelerate information flow speeds and volumes without the use of electromagnetic waves that emit high levels of radiation.

(e)  Provide any recommendations for proposed legislation developed by the commission. 

III.  The commission shall submit the interim report required under paragraph II to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2019, and shall submit the final report on or before November 1, 2020.

Summary and 15 Recommendations of the Commission

The Commission heard from ten recognized experts in the fields of physics, epidemiology, toxicology, and public policy and they note that all but the Telecommunications representative expert acknowledged the vast body of peer reviewed science showing harm to animals, insects, vegetation and humans, with children being highly vulnerable.  The push for 5G is for a presumed need, with “assurances by federal regulatory agencies that 5G technology is not harmful.” This safety is now called into question as more people are using devices for longer periods of time and closer to the body. More cell towers are being deployed in cities with an expected 800,000 cell towers ultimately placed adjacent to homes, schools and businesses. Space satellites will connect with these towers and billions of Internet of Things devices resulting in a dense layered blanket of RF radiation to the planet.

FCC standards have not been updated to include new research on wireless effects on biological systems. The report concludes that one reason federal agencies have ignored the research may be that the FCC is a captured agency and highlights Harvard Fellow Norm Alster’s widely read white paper, “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates”. The report details the revolving door of industry into high governmental offices which provides taxpayer funded industry lobbying while ignoring the public health of the taxpayers – over industry profits. 

The recommendations were approved by the majority of the commissioners with a general agreement that they should partner with government agencies to have the FCC standards reevaluated and updated.A summary of the report notes that cellular and wireless communications are advantageous,  however,  The majority of the Commission believes that some balance can be struck to achieve the benefits of technology without jeopardizing the health of our citizens.”

15 Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1– Propose a resolution of the House to the US Congress and Executive Branch to require the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to commission an independent review of the current radiofrequency (RF) standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum as well as a health study to assess and recommend mitigation for the health risks associated with the use of cellular communications and data transmittal. 

RECOMMENDATION 2- Require that the most appropriate agency (agencies) of the State of New Hampshire include links on its (their) website(s) that contain information and warnings about RF-radiation from all sources, but specifically from 5G small cells deployed on public rights-of-way as well as showing the proper use of cell phones to minimize exposure to RF-radiation, with adequate funding granted by the Legislature. In addition, public service announcements on radio, television, print media, and internet should periodically appear, warning of the health risks associated with radiation exposure. Of significant importance are warnings concerning the newborn and young as well as pregnant women. 

RECOMMENDATION 3- Require every pole or other structure in the public rights- of-way that holds a 5G antenna be labeled indicating RF-radiation being emitted above. This label should be at eye level and legible from nine feet away. 

RECOMMENDATION 4- Schools and public libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops, pads, and other devices, to hard- wired or optical connections within a five-year period starting when funding becomes available. 

RECOMMENDATION 5- Signal strength measurements must be collected at all wireless facilities as part of the commissioning process and as mandated by state or municipal ordinances. Measurements are also to be collected when changes are made to the system that might affect its radiation, such as changes in the software controlling it. Signal strength is to be assessed under worst-case conditions in regions surrounding the tower that either are occupied or are accessible to the public, and the results of the data collection effort is to be made available to the public via a website. In the event that the measured power for a wireless facility exceeds radiation thresholds, the municipality is empowered to immediately have the facility taken offline. The measurements are to be carried out by an independent contractor and the cost of the measurements will be borne by the site installer. 

Recommendation 6- Establish new protocols for performing signal strength measurements in areas around wireless facilities to better evaluate signal characteristics known to be deleterious to human health as has been documented through peer-reviewed research efforts. Those new protocols are to take into account the impulsive nature of high-data-rate radiation that a growing body of evidence shows as having a significantly greater negative impact on human health than does continuous radiation. The protocols will also enable the summative effects of multiple radiation sources to be measured. 

RECOMMENDATION 7– Require that any new wireless antennae located on a state or municipal right-of-way or on private property 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. 

RECOMMENDATION 8– Upgrade the educational offerings by the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) for home inspectors to include RF intensity measurements. 

RECOMMENDATION 9- The State of New Hampshire should begin an effort to measure RF intensities within frequency ranges throughout the state, with the aim of developing and refining a continually updated map of RF exposure levels across the state using data submitted by state-trained home inspectors. 

RECOMMENDATION 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. 

RECOMMENDATION 11- Promote and adopt a statewide position that would strongly encourage moving forward with the deployment of fiber optic cable connectivity, internal wired connections, and optical wireless to serve all commercial and public properties statewide. 

RECOMMENDATION 12– Further basic science studies are needed in conjunction with the medical community outlining the characteristics of expressed clinical symptoms related to radio frequency radiation exposure. 

RECOMMENDATION 13– Recommend the use of exposure warning signs to be posted in commercial and public buildings. In addition, encourage commercial and public buildings, especially healthcare facilities, to establish RF-radiation free zones where employees and visitors can seek refuge from the effects of wireless RF emissions. 

RECOMMENDATION 14– The State of New Hampshire should engage agencies with appropriate scientific expertise, including ecological knowledge, to develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect the trees, plants, birds, insects, and pollinators. 

RECOMMENDATION 15– The State of New Hampshire should engage our Federal Delegation to legislate that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the FCC do an environmental impact statement as to the effect on New Hampshire and the country as a whole from the expansion of RF wireless technologies. 

Members of the 5G Commission
Rep. Patrick Abrami (Chair) NH House of Representatives
Rep. Kenneth Wells NH House of Representatives
Rep. Gary Woods NH House of Representatives
Sen. James Gray NH Senate
Sen. Tom Sherman NH Senate
Denise Ricciardi Public
Brandon Garod, Esq. Attorney General’s Office
Carol Miller Department of Business and Economic Affairs
David Juvet Business and Industry Association
Kent Chamberlin, PhD University of New Hampshire
Bethanne Cooley CTIA – wireless communications industry
Michele Roberge Department of Health and Human Services
Paul Héroux, PhD McGill University Medicine

Oregon SB 283 Requires Review of Wireless Studies to Protect Students 

In 2019, the Oregon Legislature unanimously enacted SB283, a similar bill which directed the Department of Education and the Oregon Health Authority to examine “Review peer-reviewed, independently funded studies of the biological effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposure that results from the use of wireless network technologies in schools or similar environments; “ In addition, bill, introduced by Senator Monnes Anderson, also requires that the Department of Education to “develop recommendations to schools in this state for practices and alternative technologies that would eliminate students’ exposure to microwave radiation that the studies identified as harmful.” The report was delayed due to COVID 19 but was released Jan 2, 2020, when the bill takes effect.  

Note: The original bill SB283 which was introduced January 2019 was more specific in it’s request including adding (A) Prepare a statement that discloses the potential health risks of wireless network B) Make the statement described in this paragraph available for distribution by public and private elementary and secondary schools of this state. C) The department by rule shall offer guidance for including in school curricula, assemblies, open houses, meetings between parents and teachers and related settings information about the hazards of exposure to microwave radiation and how to use wireless devices more safely to reduce risk.

Update 1/26/21

Th Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published their “Wireless technology health risks report” Jan 2, 2021 which was at best considered a flawed report and a disappointment to parents, educators and scientists who hoped for an honest scientific research evaluation looking at all the data, as well as precautionary advice. They OHA focused on human epidemiology studies thus eliminating animal studies, basic science in vitro research, occupational studies and studies not in English. Industry funded studies were not supposed to be included but were. The report fell flat, concluding, “Finally, the available epidemiology research examining RFR health effects does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that RFR exposure in school settings is associated with adverse health effects. “ Scientific rebuttals and requests for retraction or correction of the report have already begun.

After some letters by concerned community members questioning the OHA report, the Oregon Health Authority released an SB 283 Legislative Report Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the report on January 19, 2021.


Technological Arrogance, Plus Ignorance, Spells Disaster

Our society does not even have a forum to discuss the possible results of technological change, nor any center with the power to reject or re-direct that change on behalf of the general welfare. By failing to establish such a mechanism—a body chosen, directly or indirectly, by the people—we have placed the fate of the planet in the hand of technical specialists who, however brilliant, are unqualified to decide questions of the common good. They, and those that hire them, do what they are trained to do while the rest of us appear content to be silent, disenfranchised witnesses to approaching desolation.” Technological Arrogance, Plus Ignorance, Spells Disaster. May 14, 1986. Professor Richard Goodwin, former aide to John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson. 

See Also 

5G Telecommunications Science

Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failure to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety Standards

Wi Fi in Schools

Firefighters Fighting Fires…and Now Cell Towers 

The First Report of 5G Injury From Switzerland  

Senator Blumenthal Blasts FCC and FDA for No Research on 5G Safety  

For Scientific Literature See Also

Behavior and Memory Effects of RF

Cell Tower Health Effects

Electrosensitivity Science

Industry Influence in Science

Military and Government Reports on Radiofrequency Radiation

Nervous System Effects of RF

Reproductive Health Effects of RF

Wi Fi Radiation Effects

Resources and Articles

Kent Chamberline, Ph.D. Take-Aways from the New Hampshire HB522 Commission on 5G Final Report. Slide presentation. .Pittsfield- Dr. Kent Chamberlins Slides Pittsfield Massachusetts Cell Tower July 2021

The New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology . Nov 1, 2020.

HB 522 2019 : AN ACT establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G Technology.

Testimony Cece Doucette to New Hampshire Science, Technology and Energy Public Hearing.

Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates. Harvard Ethics Fellow Norm Alster. 2015.

Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks.  Timothy Schoechle, PhD. 2015

5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies. April 2019.

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health? Nov 10, 2020.EMR Safety. Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

Senate Bill 283.Introduced January 14, 2019 “Relating to exposure to radiation in schools in this state; and declaring an emergency”- Orginal Bill introduced

Senate Bill 283 Signed by Oregon Governor August 9, 2019

Senate Bill SB 283 Overview and History 2019.

School Wireless Safety Bill Passes Senate

Letter to Portland Oregon Schools SB 283 Wireless in Schools. Dr. Cindy Russell 2019. 3/23/19

Wireless Technology Health Risks Report. Oregon Health Authority. Jan 2, 2021.

SB 283 Legislative Report Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Oregon Health Authority
anuary 19, 2021.

Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing. March 2020.

[Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. (2020) Lennart Hardell and Rainer Nyberg.  Molecular and Clinical Oncology. January 22, 2020.

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American.  Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019.

500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019)  Pearce M.  Environmental Research, Nov 2019;

Planetary electromagnetic pollution: It is time to assess its impact.(2018) Bandara P and Carpenter D. The Lancet. Planetary Health. Vol 2. Issue 12. Dec 1, 2018.

On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Non-Ionizing Radio Frequency Radiation: The Case of Digital Technologies in the Home, Classroom and Society. Professor Tom Butler. University of Cork, Ireland. May 2020.    or  5G Professor Tom Butler On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Non-Ionizing Radio Frequency Radiation or here

5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. Martin Pall PhD. 2018. Book published online with scientific references.

5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL.  Environ Res. 2018 Apr 11. or at

A 5G Wireless Future: Will it Give us a Smart Nation or Contribute to an Unhealthy One? SCCMA Bulletin Jan/Feb 2017. Cindy Russell, MD.

Wireless Silent Spring. SCCMA Bulletin Oct 2018. Cindy Russell, MD.

New Law Asks California Schools To Ban Smartphones In Classroom. AB272. July 8, 2019. CBS News Sacramento.

Environmental Health Trust Blog on the New Hampshire Commission.

NH 5G Commission Chair Writing RF Safety Bill. Aug 24, 2021. Adam Bender. Communications Daily.

New Hampshire 5G Legislative Report Interview with Dr. Kent Chamberlin and Cece Doucette here

%d bloggers like this: