Breaking: The New Hampshire State House Subcommittee Voted for Policy Action Regarding the Issue of Radio-frequency Radiation.  – Environmental Health Trust


Breaking: The New Hampshire State House Study Subcommittee of the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee has voted for further policy action regarding the issue of radio-frequency radiation. 

New Hampshire lawmakers voted to recommend action on the issue of wireless radio-frequency (RF) radiation. This is a historic action by New Hampshire legislatures and will result in the proposal of new statewide legislation addressing cell towers and wireless networks.  Over the last few months, the New Hampshire House subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Energy has held study sessions on RF featuring numerous experts, organizations and residents. In addition, wireless industry consultants and employees have presented testimony.

The meetings were conveyed because proposed House Bill 1644 was sent to interim study. HB 1644 would have established a setback of 1640 feet for cellular antennas from homes.  On September 26, 2022, the NH House subcommittee passed a motion that “we recommend further action be done covering the subjects of radio frequency radiation involving education, acknowledging the issue involving more technical aspects that could involve frequency as well as the power and we suggest a priority be placed on any legislation that might be considered along these lines and that also the committee and municipal county governments be involved in such further legislation as well.” 

Watch the 9/26/2022 Meeting

Several experts have testified during the study sessions and hearings over the last few months including Dr. Kent Chamberlin Chairman Emeritis of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire who has long been advocating for safer technology since serving on the New Hampshire State 5G Commission. 

Patrick Abrami of the House of Representatives has championed the bill and was also Chair of the New Hampshire State 5G Commission. 

Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of
Environmental Health Trust, a scientific think tank,  presented myths and facts regarding cell tower safety. Scarato shared how “cell tower radiation exemplifies the issue of a regulatory gap. The National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration and American Cancer Society have not reviewed the totality of the science to determine if FCC’s limits are safe. In fact, no one is watching the store. There is no federal agency with health or science expertise considering the science on health impacts from cell tower radiation. There is no research report that systematically has reviewed the science to ensure safety. The federal government has dropped the ball.” 

Scarato also shared a letter published in the National Cancer Institute by experts including the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D.; Hugh Taylor, M.D., chief of Obstetrics at Yale-New Haven Hospital; Dr. Devra Davis, President of Environmental Health Trust and other experts which concludes: “The majority of animal and cell studies have found non-ionizing RFR can induce oxidative stress- a key characteristic of human carcinogens and a way that RFR can initiate or promote tumor development as well as play a role in the development of other diseases.  DNA damage and cancer in these state of the art studies signal the need for the public to reduce exposures to RFR now.”

Background The New Hampshire legislature subcommittee has been studying the issue of the cell towers, small cells and 5G after  House Bill 1644 was sent to interim study. HB 1644 would establish a setback of 1640 feet for cellular antennas.  The proposed legislative action in the legislature was prompted by the recommendations of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G Health and Environment which issued a landmark final report on 5G Health and Environment in 2020 after a year of research and testimony of numerous experts.

The 2020 Commission Report made 15 recommendations including setbacks for cell towers from homes, a resolution to US Congress to require the FCC to commission an independent health study and review of safety limits, the establishment of RF-radiation free zones in commercial/public buildings that the New Hampshire health agencies educate the public on how to minimize RF with public service announcements on radio, television, print warning parents and pregnant women. In addition, the commission recommends that New Hampshire schools and Libraries replace Wi-Fi with hardwired ethernet connections as corded technology does not create RF radiation exposures to the children in classrooms.   

Environmental Health Trust is leading the way for federal accountability. Environmental Health Trust led a group of experts and scientists calling on the Federal Communications Commission to promptly respond to the order of the U.S Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit in their recent judgment in  Environmental Health Trust et al. v the FCC which mandated the FCC to re-examine the evidence regarding its 25-year-old wireless radiation safety limits.  The filing by Environmental Health Trust on November 30, 2021 requests the FCC re-open its official proceedings to allow the submission of new scientific research studies on the official record. 

EHTs filing included EHT’s  letter from dozens of scientists, as well as the Environmental Working Group, Phonegate Alert, The Bioinitiative Report,Consumers for Safe Cell Phones and a member of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G

The new filings included a Report “Scientific and Policy Developments in Radiofrequency Radiation December 2019 through November 29, 2021” documenting the critical new scientific research studies published over the last two years which confirm biological effects from wireless radiation and the urgent need to strengthen the FCC’s regulations. The scientists assert that, if the FCC does not officially re-open the record, its response to the Court order would be deficient as it would lack the most recent scientific evidence and be an out-of-date review.