Preventing the spread of new telecommunications technologies would harm New Hampshire
[ad_1]
A House bill before the committee this week would deny much of New Hampshire access to state-of-the-art telecommunications technologies.
House law 1644 would require “telecommunications antennas” to be placed “at least 1,640 feet from residential areas, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers and schools.”
The bill’s stated purpose is to protect people from the “significant risk to public health associated with the cumulative effects of growing radio frequency radiation with the proliferation of cell tower transmitters.”
Some people who believe that cell phone radiation causes cancer think that 1,640 feet, or 500 meters, is the minimum security distance from a cellular network antenna.
But this fear is unfounded, according to hundreds of studies and numerous public health agencies and organizations:
The Food and Drug Administration concluded in February 2020 that “there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by mobile phones.” The FDA report noted that brain cancer cases have declined as cell phone use has grown. An Australian study published in March 2021 reviewed 138 studies of radio frequency fields compatible with 5G networks. He found “no evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz, such as those used by the 5G network, are dangerous to human health.”
The World Health Organization concluded in 2014 that “no adverse health effects caused by the use of a mobile phone have been established.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that “we don’t have the science to relate health issues to cell phone use” at this time. “At this time, there is no solid evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes significant health effects,” the American Cancer Society concluded.
The National Cancer Institute notes that mobile phone radio frequency “energy is too low to damage DNA” and that “the only constantly recognized biological effect of the absorption of radio frequency radiation in humans than the public It can usually be found in the body area where a cell is heated.The phone is subject (for example, the ear and the head.) However, this warm-up is not enough to increase the body temperature. clearly established health hazard effects on the human body from radio frequency radiation “.
If lawmakers passed the bill with the wrong sense of caution, the economic and quality of life effects would be substantial and negative. The city of Amherst shows how.
The Amherst zoning map shows that residential / rural zoning covers 62.7% of the city, and “Rural North” zoning, where single-family homes are allowed, covers another 24.43%. This leaves little room for new telecommunications antennas. The bill would reduce the remaining areas by 1,640 feet from any side that touches a residential area and create areas without an antenna around all parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, daycares and schools.
In addition, if “residential areas” means any area that allows any residential use, then the areas where antennas would be allowed would be reduced to a small fraction of the land available in a given community.
Think of Charlestown, a community in dire need of economic development. A look at its zoning map shows that the vast majority of the city is divided into “mixed use” or “residential / rural” areas. Residential housing is allowed in the mixed use area.
Residences are also allowed in the “City Center”, “North Main Street” and “Business” areas. Residences are only prohibited in a small part of the city intended for industrial use and in the historic site of the Fort at number 4.
If HB 1644 were to become law, Charlestown would probably be out of the state-of-the-art 5G cellular network that would soon connect much of the planet to ultra-high-speed wireless broadband service.
This scenario would be repeated city after city throughout New Hampshire. The bill would risk removing New Hampshire pieces from the 5G map, creating large gaps in coverage and aggravating the digital divide that is already costing rural areas financially.
If that wasn’t enough, the bill violates the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act.
The New Hampshire Commission to study the environmental and health effects of the evolution of 5G technology concluded in its final report that “this law says, among many other things, that the location of 5G technology cannot be denied. no antenna due to health problems “.
HB 1644 explicitly attempts to deny citation of antennas for health reasons. It clearly violates federal law.
Distant parts of New Hampshire are already economically disadvantaged in relation to places closer to shopping and technology centers. Preventing the expansion of advanced communications technologies in these areas would harm them, not help them.
