State of New Hampshire HB.522 Majority Report

State of New Hampshire Commission, Set up by HB.522

Mission: Study the Environmental & Health Effects of Evolving Densified 4G/5G Infrastructure

From the Introduction:

"Many on the Commission note that this 1996 Telecommunication Act (1996-Act) did not contemplate so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) being located on the public rights-of-way in front of people’s homes . . . many Washington, DC watchers noted that the FCC is a captive agency whose Commission members come from the industry they are overseeing . . . the Commission recommends protective measures that will stay within the current federal framework.

As far as the FCC and other federal agencies, we made several attempts to have them testify before the Commission. The Commission was disappointed that the FCC and other federal agencies did not replyto these requests . When the agencies did not reply, we asked several agencies to answer very specific written questions. Instead of answering our specific questions, the responses directed Commission members to certain locations on websites for what turned out to be just general information."

New Hampshire Bombshell Report Documents Scientific Evidence That Questions the Safety of Densified 4G/5G Infrastructure

On November 1, 2020, the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology has released its final report to New Hampshire Governor Christopher T. Sununu, Speaker of the House Stephen J. Shurtleff, President of the Senate Donna Soucy summarizing its findings that safety assurances for Densified 4G/5G have “come into question because of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies documenting deleterious health effects associated with cellphone radiation exposure.”

The majority of the New Hampshire Commission voted to support 15 recommendations to the New Hampshire Governor. Recommendations include:

  • support an independent study of 5G health effects;
  • reduce public exposure to cell phones, wireless devices and Wi-Fi in schools and libraries;
  • ensure cell network infrastructure antenna setbacks from schools and homes;
  • measure levels of cell network radiation;
  • establish wireless radiation limits to protect trees and insects;
  • establish more sophisticated measurement protocols to include high data rates;
  • require software changes to reduce radiation exposure into the body;
  • establish wireless radiation-free zones; and
  • call on the US Federal Communications Commission to complete an environmental impact statement on the impact of Densified 4G/5G and wireless infrastructure expansion.

The report referred to the FCC as a “captured agency with undue industry influence,” citing the Harvard Press Book “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates,” which compares the wireless industry to the tobacco industry.

The final report recommends US federal agencies coordinate “to protect people, wildlife, and the environment from harmful levels of radiation” and states “until there is Federal action, New Hampshire should take the initiative to protect its environment.”

The New Hampshire Commission includes several legislators who are also medical doctors and engineers, a scientist with expertise in electromagnetic radiation, a New Hampshire Town Councilperson and representatives from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Business and Economic Affairs. Also represented on the Commission were members of the industry, including a CTIA Wireless Industry representative who was one of the three members signing onto the minority report.

In contrast to the majority report which documents why hundreds of scientists are raising the alarm about Densified 4G/5G because of substantial scientific evidence finding harmful health and environmental impacts, the minority report purports that “the scientific consensus” is that wireless is safe.

Testimony was presented to the Commission by numerous experts, including

  • US National Toxicology Program scientists Dr. Michael Wyde and Dr. John Bucher (slides) who conducted the large-scale studies on cell phone radiation,
  • Dr. David Carpenter (slides)
  • Herman Kelting PhD (minutes)
  • Dr. Paul Heroux (minutes)
  • Eric Swanson PhD (slides)
  • Tim Schoechle PhD (minutes)
  • Devra Davis PhD, MPH (slides)
  • Theodora Scarato (slides)

The FCC and FDA did not respond to the Commission’s request for testimony, and the FDA did not fully answer the Commission’s questions. The National Cancer Institute response to the Commission was that NCI does not make safety recommendations or issue guidelines and is not aware of any federal agency mandated to ensure wireless signals are safe for trees, plants, insects or birds.

The New Hampshire Densified 4G/5G Report contains an extensive list of research studies, medical organizations and scientists in support of calling for a halt to 5G.

Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust

“The scientific research can no longer be ignored. We must reduce our wireless exposure. I commend the state of New Hampshire for taking the time to generate such an important and historic document,”

Davis has published research documenting the scientific evidence indicating wireless is a human carcinogen and recently published a paper on cell phone radiation and colon cancer. Davis is one of the hundreds of scientists signing onto the Appeal to Halt 5G referenced by the New Hampshire Commission.

Devra Davis PhD, MPH

“This New Hampshire report should be required reading for all elected officials and community planners.”

Davis pointed out that the Commission’s investigations confirmed the inadequacy of FCC limits to protect health just as the EHT et al., v. FCC legal appeal claims.

On October 31, 2019, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) scientists Dr. Michael Wyde and Dr. John Bucher presented on the NTP study that found clear evidence of brain cancer and DNA damage in animals exposed to cell phone radiation.

During the Q and A Commissioner Ricciardi asked, “Your study was designed to test non heating damage. You found damage so doesn’t that mean that FCC assumption that only heating can cause damage is incorrect and no longer accurate? Would you agree?”

To this question Dr. Michael Wyde responded

“A lot of people believe unless you heat tissues, you won’t see health effects with RF. This study disproves that as we did not have overheating but we did see damage.”

“Children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation and research has found brain damage from wireless radiation. I am thankful to see the prudent public health recommendations recommending reducing wireless exposures in schools,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust, who published research on how to reduce wireless in buildings.

“The New Hampshire Commission recommends using wired, not wireless, networks in schools which is in line with recommendations by the Maryland State Commission on Children and Environmental Health, the Council of Europe Resolution 1815 and the policies of several countries to remove Wi-Fi from classrooms.

Scarato continued:

“The Commission’s recommendation 14 points out that FCC limits were not designed to protect trees or insects and that federal agencies should close this gap in accountability to ensure safety to wildlife and our tree canopy by developing exposure limits for safety. Numerous studies documenting harm to the environment are listed in the New Hampshire Report as well as my letter from the EPA.

When I asked the EPA about their review of impacts to birds, trees and wildlife they responded that ‘The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other US agencies have reviewed it."

International Action to Halt 5G

In the United States, Resolutions to halt 5G have been passed by Hawaii County, Farragut Tennessee and Easton Connecticut. Cities such as Los Altos, Petaluma, Mill Valley, and San Diego County California have adopted policies to restrict 5G small cells near homes. Oregon passed a Bill to study Wi-Fi health effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Department of Health recommend children reduce cell phone radiation exposure, as do medical organizations internationally, such as the Vienna Medical Association, Athens Medical Association and International Society of Doctors for Environment.

Over 600 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G, as have cities throughout Europe, such as Trafford, United Kingdom, Lille, France, Ormidia, Cyprus, Balchik, Bulgaria. The Pancyprian Medical Association and Cyprus National Committee on the Environment and Child Health sent Parliament their position paper “The Risks to Public Health from the Use of the 5G Network.” Bermuda has halted 5G pending a report on safety. Switzerland’s report on 5G health effects resulted in the Parliament’s refusal to loosen their radiation limits despite heavy industry lobbying efforts. The Netherlands issued a 5G report that recommended measuring radiation levels and also recommended against using the 26 GHz frequency band for 5G “for as long as the potential health risks have not been investigated.”

History of the Commission

The Commission was established by New Hampshire Bill 522: An act establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology. The Act tasks the commission to answer several questions including, “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)?”

Questions Posed in New Hampshire State Bill HB.522

There were eight questions asked in the legislation creating the Commission.

  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 1,000’s 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, 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 [core body] 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 2B 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 pulsed, [modulated] signals riding on the electromagnetic waves not been explored, especially as the world embraces the Internet of Things, meaning all devices being connected by electromagnetic power transmitting through the air, and the exploration of the number [and complexity] of such pulsed, [modulated] signals that will be created by implementation of Densified 4G/5G infrastructure?

Majority REPORT: Results and Recommendations

The following members endorse this Majority Report:

  1. Rep. Patrick Abrami (Chair), NH House of Representatives
  2. Rep. Kenneth Wells, NH House of Representatives
  3. Rep. Gary Woods, NH House of Representatives
  4. Sen. Tom Sherman, NH Senate
  5. Denise Ricciardi, Public
  6. Brandon Garod, Esq. Attorney General’s Office
  7. Carol Miller Department of Business and Economic Affairs
  8. Kent Chamberlin, PhD University of New Hampshire
  9. Michele Roberge Department of Health and Human Services
  10. Paul Héroux, PhD McGill University Medicine

The Commission heard from ten recognized experts in the fields of physics, epidemiology, toxicology, and public policy. All but the presenter representing the Telecommunications Industry (the transcript of that presentation can be found in the Commission’s minutes of Nov 21st) acknowledged the large body of peer-reviewed research that shows that the type of RF/MW radiation generated by wireless devices can have a deleterious effect on humans, especially children, as well as animals, insects, and vegetation.

Date Activity
9/16/19 Organizational meeting
10/10/19 Electromagnetic Spectrum Physics Presentation Dr. Kent Chamberlin, Chair of UNH Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Presentation on Biological Effects of RF radiation Dr. Paul Heroux, Professor of Toxicology, McGill University
10/31/19 National Toxicology Program Study on RF-Radiation Michael Wyde, PhD Framing the Issue Video Frank Clegg, Former Microsoft Canada President
11/21/19 Non-Existence of RF-Radiation Biological Effects Argument Eric Swanson, PhD, University of Pittsburgh.
12/13/19 Reinventing Wires and 5G in Colorado Tim Schoechle, PhD, Colorado State University
1/10/20 Studies Showing RF-Radiation Biological Effects Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Founder/President Environmental Health Trust (EHT) The Landscape Nationally and Internationally Surrounding RF-Radiation, Theodora Scarato, Executive Director EHT
2/14/20 What is 5G and What Do We Know About the Health Effects of 5G David Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany
7/1/20 13 Objections To 4G/5G Herman Kelting, PhD, Retired Las Vegas, NV
7/24/20 Around the table discussion of where we are and next steps. Established a work group to formulate recommendations.
8/31/20 Presentation of work group recommendations and discussion. Discussed that a minority report would be required.
9/22/20 Discussion and voting on first half of recommendations
10/8/20 Discussion and voting on second half of recommendations
10/27/20 Review and vote on final report.


. . . The total RF/MW radiation exposure for individuals is compounded by the RF/MW radiation from nearby sources, including cell towers, wireless routers, Bluetooth devices, etc. Because of the large number of radiating devices in today’s environments, exposure for people is many times greater than when radiation thresholds were established, and the nature of today’s radiation (high data-rate signals) has been shown to be more harmful than the lower-data-rate signals that were prevalent before

. . . a large number of independent scientists have concluded that the thresholds for Japan and the U.S. are unsafe.

. . . The majority of the Commission has endorsed the 15 recommendations presented in this report. These recommendations are not in prioritized order, and each should be given equal consideration.


  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 harms associated with the use of cellular communications and data transmittal.

    • The majority of the Commission believes that the FCC has not exercised due diligence in its mission to manage the electromagnetic environment by not setting exposure limits that protect against health effects
    • Commissioned research should study the health effects of RF/MW radiation and should be conducted by an independent research organization with standards which have been mutually agreed to by all the stakeholders


  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 for 4G/5G small cells deployed on public rights-of-way . . . warning of the health harms associated with RF/MW radiation exposure. Of significant importance, are warnings concerning the newborn and young as well as pregnant women.

  3. Require every pole or other structure in the public rights-of-way that holds a 3G, 4G or 5G antenna be labeled indicating RF-radiation being emitted above. This label should be at eye level and legible from nine feet away.

    • public rights-of-way are the jurisdiction of our municipalities and not of the Federal Government
    • 1996-TCA did not contemplate antennas being placed in the public rights-of way of municipalities


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

    • There is strong evidence that the younger the child the more susceptible they are to the negative impacts of RF/MW radiation.
    • Hard-wired connections or optical wireless do not subject children to RF/MW radiation


  5. Signal strength measurements must be collected and accurately reported for all wireless telecommunications facilities as part of the permitting process . . . Measurements are also to be collected when changes are made to the system that might affect its RF/MW 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 empo . . .The measurements are to be carried out by an independent contractor and the cost of the measurements will be borne by the site installer.

    • Collecting field measurements provide the only valid approach for determining whether exposure guidelines have been met
    • Some municipalities (e.g., the town of Burlington, MA) have ordinances requiring measurements of RF/MW radiation and signal strength from cell towers
    • Federal law and NH law grant to municipalities the power to enact zoning rules regulating the placement of personal wireless service facilities within the geographic boundaries of the municipalities.


  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 [including pulsation and modulation] as has been documented through peer-reviewed research efforts. Those new protocols are to take into account the impulsive nature of high-data-rate RF/MW 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 cumulative exposures [from multiple RF/MW sources and total exposures over time] of multiple RF/MW radiation sources to be measured.

    • Current approaches to performing signal level measurements do not provide a means to evaluate the pulsing or modulation of signals, the peak values of power density exposures due to equipment limitations
    • References that address the deleterious effects of pulsed radiation on organisms are given in Appendix J


  7. Require that any new wireless antennas 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.

    • Local public rights-of-way are under the jurisdiction of municipalities, and the
    • Commission feels that municipalities should uphold the rights of individuals impacted by infrastructure antennas (See Appendix K)


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

  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.

    • Identify geographic areas of notably high RF exposure, places where RF signal for wireless communication is inadequate (dead spots) and places where RF is unusually low (white zones) sought by people who wish to minimize their RF exposure
    • An extensive New Hampshire RF database will exist to provide useful maps and data for future public health investigations (see Appendix L)


  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.

    • Some wireless smart phones already have a proximity detector to turn off the screen and soft keys when an obstacle is present
    • With this change, the screen and the RF/MW antennas would automatically turned off under certain user-defined and selected conditions
    • This would remove the problems of brain cancers (glioblastomas and acoustic neuromas) and the issue of exceeding SAR limits, which occur today.
    • There should be a button on the unit to easily power off all antennas, for example when the unit is handed to a child
    • Similar installation/use of such proximity sensors is also encouraged for laptops and tablets


  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.

    • Majority of the Commission believes that fiber optic transmission is the infrastructure of the future
    • RF wireless transmission lacks fiber optic’s benefits: peed, security, and reliability while avoiding biological effects on humans and the environment


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

    • The majority of the Commission feels the medical community is in the ideal position to clarify the clinical presentation of symptoms precipitated by the exposure to radio frequency radiation consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which identifies such a disability
    • Basic science, clinical assessment, and epidemiological studies must be completely independent and outside of commercial influence


  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/MW-radiation free zones where employees and visitors can seek refuge from the effects of wireless RF/MW emissions

    • Many NH citizens report sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation emitted from devices used in the delivery of in-building cellular and fixed wireless services
    • Commercial and public buildings, especially healthcare facilities, voluntarily place signage at entrances identifiying the RF-levels in the building and locations of shielded RF-free zones (similar to non-smoking sections of yesteryear, but more effective)


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

    • The majority of the Commission understands that current federal RF-EMR Maximum Public Exposure (MPE) limits were made with the intention of only protecting humans from short-term RF-EMR exposures, not protecting humans from long-term -EMR exposures — which is what is actually happening when so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) are constructed in the public rights-of-way in residential zones.
    • Wireless radiation from sWTF antennas is very high in a plume surrounding the antennas. The RF-EMR could exceed FCC limits for 10-15 feet from the antennas, yet this is the exact area where leaves of trees, birds, and pollinators access
    • Every living organism endures higher RF-EMR exposures when in direct line of sight of wireless RF-EMR beams (see Appendix N)


  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 densified RF/MW wireless infrastructure.

    • The majority of the Commission agrees that any new large-scale project that will densify 4G/5G infrastructure antennas requires an environmental impact study (EIS),
    • The EIS must cover the full array of planned infrastructure: the modification to existing WTFs, the new Macro cell tower WTFs, the sWTFs planned for the public-rights-of way and the thousands of planned low orbit satellites



The following members, being unable to agree with the majority of the Commission, endorse this Minority Report:

  1. James Gray, New Hampshire State Senator
  2. David Juvet Business and Industry Association
  3. Bethanne Cooley, CTIA – wireless communications industry