In November 2019, the state of New Hampshire established a special commission. Its purpose? To prepare a comprehensive report addressing the massive concerns around 5G implementation. This commission was made official with a new House Bill 522 (HB 522), which enlisted 15 members from different scientific and government bodies, giving the report a 360-degree scope of opinions. This commission’s formulation also made New Hampshire the first state to really take the concerns around 5G seriously.
HB 522 stated the purpose of this commission as “to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology”.
One year later, on November 1st, 2020, the commission sent their final report, which states that 5G is not nearly as safe as the telecommunications industry shows it to be. The report also has 15 recommendations on how to make it safer for people to use 5G technology if appropriately implemented.
5G is the 5th generation of wireless internet which is in the process of mass deployment around the world. It is based on the millimeter (mm) wave technology which operates on frequencies ranging from 30 GHz to 300 GHz. For context, our current 4G and WiFi technologies operate on frequencies 10-100 times lower than this.
5G lies in the non-ionizing range of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is why EMF-based gadget manufacturers and network providers claim it to be completely safe and possesses no health risks. But thousands of peer-reviewed research studies published within the past few decades disagree with this claim. We have enough evidence to know that EMF, even in the non-ionizing range, is harmful to humans, flora, and fauna.
If you want to understand more about 5G, I have a collection of posts dedicated to 5G technology, its health risks, and protection.
The Commission’s Task
5G has been a topic of debate ever since companies began working on it. And the discussion about its health effects is not only among the general public, but the scientific community too. The EMF Call, EU 5G Appeal, and the EMF Scientist Appeal are some of the many examples of scientists, doctors, and concerned agencies raising their voices to stop the increase in our already EMF-polluted environment.
So, keeping this in mind, the commission was tasked with answering eight questions. They answered these in detail with supporting credits in their report (Final Report – Pg 47). Here are those questions.
1. Why does the insurance industry recognize wireless radiation as a leading risk and has placed exclusions in their policies not covering damages by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation?
2. Why do cell phone manufacturers have in the legal section within the device saying keep the phone at least 5mm from the body?
3. Why have 1,000s of peer-reviewed studies, including the recently published US Toxicology Program 16-year $30 million study, that are showing a wide five range of statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and so many other ailments, been 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 effect on 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 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 the implementation of 5G technology will create?
Science on EMF-induced Health Risks
Science is clear —EMF-induced health risks are real, and ignoring them can result in undesired consequences. The commission cited many research studies on EMF-induced health issues in their report, but they put their major focus on issues such as EHS, infertility, and cancer. Let’s look at them individually.
Does EMF cause cancer; do cell phones cause cancer? These are some of the most frequently asked questions on the internet.
The way these questions are phrased makes it easy for companies to answer ‘no,’ because, unlike some carcinogenic viruses and chemicals, EMF is not directly responsible for cancer development.
But this doesn’t mean that EMF can’t create issues that can eventually lead to cancer.
For example, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) linked constant EMF exposure to DNA damage. In their animal study, they exposed rats to EMF operating on a 900 MHz frequency, similar to what 2G uses. In this study, they observed that constant exposure was causing DNA damage in some areas of the subjects’ bodies. Those areas are:
- the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice,
- the blood cells of female mice, and
- the hippocampus of male rats.
Now, DNA damage doesn’t always result in cancer, as our body’s healing mechanism is good at treating DNA damage. But EMF is known to suppress our healing mechanism too. And if the DNA damage is not healed, it will develop into a tumor which eventually evolves into cancer.
The World Health Organization (WHO) right now considers EMF as a Class 2B Carcinogen, which translates to “possibly carcinogenic.” But in 2018, Anthony B. Miller, MD, an advisor to the WHO, said that radiofrequency radiation fully meets WHO’s criteria to be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogen.”
The link between EMF and infertility is a well-researched area. EMF is known to increase the risks of lowered male fertility, lowered female fertility, lowered estrogen levels, progesterone and testosterone, and lowered libido.
The final point being, and what the commission also said, is that constant EMF exposure from sources like cell phones, laptops, tablets, WiFi routers, which are common in almost every household, can heavily affect your reproductive system leading to temporary or permanent infertility.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity or EHS is a medical condition where an individual loses the ability to tolerate any form of EMF exposure. If an EHS patient comes in close perimeter to an EMF source, they’ll experience symptoms like “fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances.” EHS also weakens the patient’s immune system opening a pathway for several other illnesses.
Thankfully, the medical world has started taking EHS seriously, and now medical professionals worldwide are learning to diagnose and treat this condition.
The recently held EMF Medical Conference in January 2021 also provided training to doctors, nurses, and first responders to identify and treat EHS.
I have a separate post that contains detailed information on EHS, treatment, and prevention.
Children Are at a Greater Risk
Apart from addressing the health risks of EMF exposure on the general population, the commission also mentioned that children are more vulnerable to EMF-induced health issues than adults.
There’s a vast difference between a child’s body and an adult’s body. A child’s body is not as developed, so it’s easier for EMF to pass through their defenses and create long-lasting health problems.
I have a collection of posts addressing EMF’s effect on younger ones. If you’re a parent, then you might want to give it a read.
Reducing Wireless Radiation Thresholds
Network providers and EMF-based gadget manufacturers are constantly attempting to convince countries worldwide to increase their wireless radiation thresholds and match the numbers from IEEE & ICNIRP.
IEEE & ICNIRP thresholds only take the thermal effects of EMF into account and completely ignores the non-thermal effects. This is not right because there are enough research studies to confirm that EMF at a non-thermal level also adversely affects human health — see the Bio Initiative report.
Here are the current EMF safety limits from different countries:
µW = Microwatt, cm = centimetre
|Country||Power Density Threshold|
So, as you see, many developed countries have very high radiation thresholds. This exposes those countries’ populations to numerous health problems. And with the recent massive deployment of 5G, there’s no doubt that EMF-induced health problems will skyrocket in the coming years.
EMF’s Effects on Flora & Fauna
Even though many developed countries only take the thermal effect of EMF into account while determining the radiation thresholds, there are still safety limits for humans. Sadly, we can’t say the same for the flora and fauna in our natural environment.
The radiation thresholds in most countries don’t consider the effects of EMF on trees, plants, birds, insects, pollinators, and wildlife. According to the commission, “no US agency nor international authority with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever acted to review research and set safety limits on these non-human species.”
The truth is, EMF affects nature too, and it is important that we take the necessary steps to protect our nature from EMF’s effects.
I have a separate post that contains a more in-depth discussion on this very subject.
After reviewing every detail possible, the commission made 15 recommendations that will make the 5G implementation in New Hampshire a bit safer — if not completely safe. Let’s have a quick look at those recommendations.
- Propose a resolution to the US Congress and the executive branch to require the FCC to commission an independent review of the current EMF safety limits at 300 MHz – 300 GHz range, combined with a detailed health study to examine the adverse effects of EMF at a non-thermal range.
- Require all the appropriate agencies in the state of New Hampshire to contain information on RF-radiation from all sources on their websites.
- Require every pole or other structure in the public rights-of-way that holds a 5G antenna to have a label with information on EMF emissions. This label should be at eye level and readable from nine feet away.
- Remove wireless infrastructure from schools and public libraries, and use hardwired or optical connections.
- Collect measurements from all wireless facilities as part of the commissioning process and as mandated by state or municipal ordinances.
- Establish new protocols for performing signal strength measurements in areas around wireless facilities.
- No wireless antennae near residences, businesses, and schools unless the authority of said bodies waives the restrictions.
- Upgrade the educational offerings by the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) for home inspectors to include RF intensity measurements.
- Measure the intensity of RF all over the state and develop a map of RF exposure levels using data submitted by state-trained home inspectors.
- Strongly recommend all new cell phones and other wireless devices come equipped with software that can stop the phone from radiating when positioned against the body.
- Promote the adaptation of fiber-optic cable connectivity, internally wired connections, and wireless optical state-wide.
- Conduct further scientific studies in conjunction with the medical community outlining the characteristics of expressed clinical symptoms related to radiofrequency radiation exposure.
- Post exposure warning signs on commercial and public buildings.
- 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.
- Engage federal delegations to legislate the FCC to do an environmental impact assessment of EMF’s effect in New Hampshire and the country as a whole under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This effort by New Hampshire serves as a fantastic example for all the other states. It shows how investing in a proper study can allow the US population to enjoy advancements in technology while mitigating the risk to their health.
That said, there’s no doubt that the government bodies will take a lot of time to recognize the gravity of this situation. But right now, you don’t have to wait for them to keep your own EMF exposure in check and prevent EMF-induced health problems.
I have hundreds of posts on this website containing practical and actionable tips that you can use to protect yourself and your loved ones from the adverse effects of EMF. My SYB Healthy Living Tips page is a good place to begin.