N.H. legislators ask questions about 5G technology

PUTNEY — If the reader does not know what 5G is, a visit to the website of the Prove-it Initiative will be informative. Entities responsible for the planned launch of more than 20,000 satellites to saturate the entire Earth in high-frequency microwaves seem to count on our silence while extreme harm is undertaken.

On poles everywhere, you can see the extra transformers needed for the extra energy required and 5G hardware associated with this damaging technology.

What follows are a series of questions gleaned from New Hampshire House Bill 522, brought by Rep. Patrick Abrami and Senator Thomas Sherman, calling for a commission to study the health effects of the current rollout of 5G technology.

“(1) Why [does] the insurance industry [recognize] wireless radiation as a leading risk and [why has it] 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 [device], saying [to] keep the phone at least 5 mm from the body?

“(3) Why [are] 1,000s of peer-reviewed studies, including the recently published [National] 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 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 radio frequency 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 [why has nothing] 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 why have we not explored] the number of such pulse signals that will be created by implementation of 5G technology?”

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates