Dr. Kent Chamberlin is chair and a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Hampshire. Chamberlin was appointed in 2019 by the university system chancellor to serve on the New Hampshire 5G Commission. The commission developed a list of 15 recommendations, including establishing a 500-meter setback for the installation of cell towers. Download the New Hampshire Commission Report here.
Dr. Kent Chamberlain—Professor and Chair Emeritus of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Hampshire—breaks down crucial findings from the New Hampshire Commission on 5G and Wireless Technology. The Commission’s work culminated in a set of recommendations aimed at minimizing public health risks from microwave radiation emitted by cell towers and other wireless transmitters. Of particular importance is a recommendation that cell towers maintain a setback distance of at least 500 meters (about 1,640 feet) from areas where people live, work, or attend school. In this blog post, we’ll expand upon the key points made in Dr. Chamberlain’s presentation, delve into the underlying science, and explore the broader context of why such precautions are increasingly relevant. Whether you’re an engineer, a public health advocate, or simply a concerned citizen, this analysis will help you understand the nuances behind the Commission’s recommendations and why they matter.
Below, you will find the embedded video of Dr. Chamberlain’s talk. However, this written analysis goes beyond the transcript—offering deeper context, supplementary examples, and a thorough overview of the science behind non-ionizing radiation, epidemiological studies, and risk assessment. By the end, you should have a clear understanding of why the 500-meter setback was proposed, how it aligns with emerging research on microwave radiation, and why it may strike a balance between technological needs and public health concerns.
Introduction
The topic of wireless radiation safety has been heating up for years as mobile devices and wireless networks continue to proliferate. While many still assume that “non-ionizing” automatically equates to “harmless,” mounting research—and the cautionary stance of many scientific bodies—suggests we should scrutinize how devices like cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, and smartphones affect biological systems. The New Hampshire Commission on 5G and Wireless Technology was formed precisely to answer these pressing questions: Are there legitimate health risks from daily, low-level exposure to microwave and radiofrequency (RF) radiation? If so, how do we mitigate these risks?
Dr. Kent Chamberlain served on this Commission alongside a diverse panel of experts, including physicists, epidemiologists, and engineers. Their final report, submitted in November 2020, makes several recommendations intended to protect the public from potential harm—chief among them a minimum setback distance for cell towers of 500 meters from places where people spend significant time. The Commission’s work stands out because it represents one of the first legislative forays in the United States to seriously investigate potential health implications of 5G and other wireless technologies. The bipartisan nature of its creation and the broad professional backgrounds of its members lend weight to its findings.
In this expanded blog post, we’ll explore the reasoning behind the Commission’s recommendations, the science that underpins them, and how Dr. Chamberlain and his colleague Dr. Paul Héroux—an expert in epidemiology, biostatistics, and occupational health at McGill University—arrived at these conclusions. We’ll also see why the Commission’s scientific framework is relevant well beyond the borders of New Hampshire, touching on issues that communities nationwide—and globally—face as wireless technologies continue to densify.
Understanding the New Hampshire Commission’s Work
The Formation of the Commission
According to Dr. Chamberlain, the New Hampshire Commission was formed through a bipartisan legislative process. State lawmakers recognized that 5G (the fifth-generation wireless standard) and the industry’s push to densify 4G/5G antennas in residential areas warranted closer scrutiny. Concerned about growing evidence pointing to potential negative health and environmental impacts, the legislature passed a bill convening a 13-member commission. This panel included experts across multiple fields, from physics and electromagnetics to epidemiology and toxicology.
One critical point Dr. Chamberlain highlights is that this represented the first legislation in the United States to formally convene a commission to study the health effects of 5G and wireless communications. Over the course of a year, the Commission surveyed academic literature, brought in additional experts, and deliberated on how best to reconcile the technology’s undeniable convenience and economic benefits with concerns about non-thermal biological effects.
An Interdisciplinary Team
By necessity, the Commission had to be interdisciplinary. Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is a complex physical phenomenon, requiring insights from engineers and physicists to characterize its propagation and power levels. Meanwhile, epidemiologists and toxicologists are needed to interpret studies linking RF exposure to various adverse health outcomes. Finally, public health experts and legal advisors can translate those findings into policy recommendations. Dr. Chamberlain, whose expertise in electromagnetics and radiofrequency engineering is extensive, worked alongside Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill University’s Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health. Their combined perspectives allowed for a robust interrogation of whether the science justifies precautionary measures.
The Commission’s Overarching Conclusions
Dr. Chamberlain states the Commission’s overarching conclusion plainly: wireless radiation is harmful, or at least potentially so. In the final report, the Commission offers a range of recommendations about how to safeguard citizens—covering everything from public awareness and labeling to the specific setback distance for cell towers. They emphasize that these guidelines aren’t intended to deprive people of wireless convenience but rather to empower them to reduce involuntary exposure. The recommended 500-meter setback is a central piece of this puzzle, striking a balance between public health considerations and the practicalities of modern telecommunication networks.
Why a 500-Meter Setback?
Dr. Chamberlain’s video focuses on a single, yet vital, recommendation: that cell towers be placed at least 500 meters (about 1,640 feet) from locations where people live, work, learn, or spend significant time. But why exactly 500 meters, and not, say, 100 meters or 1,000 meters? As he explains, the Commission arrived at this figure through two complementary approaches:
- Approach One: Epidemiological studies examining health outcomes relative to how far individuals live from a cell tower.
- Approach Two: Identifying the “lowest observed adverse effect level” (LOAEL) in controlled laboratory settings, then finding the distance at which a typical cell tower’s emissions drop to or below that level.
Both approaches converge at roughly 500 meters, making the recommendation scientifically coherent from two distinct vantage points.
Approach One — Epidemiological Studies of Cell Tower Distance
The Importance of Epidemiological Data
Epidemiological research provides real-world evidence about how RF radiation might affect human health under normal living conditions. Rather than relying solely on lab experiments—where variables can be controlled but might not reflect everyday life—epidemiological studies track health outcomes among populations exposed to cell towers at varying distances. This is critical, as individuals in these studies are not merely exposed to theoretical power levels but to actual, in-situ radiation from towers in their communities.
The Brazilian Study as a Case Example
Dr. Chamberlain zeroes in on a Brazilian study (spanning 1996–2006) that assessed the cancer mortality rates among more than 7,000 people living within various distances of over 800 cell towers. Because cell phone ownership in Brazil was relatively low at the time, the study isolates the contribution of tower emissions more reliably (less confounded by each individual’s own cell phone usage). The findings were stark: elevated cancer mortality rates tracked closely with proximity to the tower. At the same time, the highest measured radiation level at any location in the study was just 5% of what U.S. regulations deem permissible—a striking result suggesting that these permitted levels might be insufficiently protective.
Converging With Other Epidemiological Studies
Dr. Chamberlain states that the Brazilian work is far from the only epidemiological research linking distance from cell towers to health outcomes. In total, at least ten studies have explored how such distance correlates with metrics like cancer incidence, neurobehavioral symptoms, and other ailments. A meta-analysis pooling data from these studies further validates that 500 meters appears to be a threshold beyond which health risks generally taper to population-average levels. Though not every study is perfectly designed—some have small sample sizes or confounders—when considered collectively, their results paint a consistent picture: living too close to a cell tower elevates the likelihood of undesirable health outcomes.
Approach Two — Laboratory Thresholds and Real-World Power Density
Identifying the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)
Beyond epidemiology, many studies look at how cells, tissues, or organisms respond to specific power densities of RF radiation in controlled lab conditions. Among the most thorough is the BioInitiative Report, a compendium that synthesizes thousands of papers on RF and extremely low-frequency (ELF) radiation. According to Dr. Chamberlain, the BioInitiative Report points to a consensus LOAEL near 0.03 to 0.05 milliwatts per square meter, meaning that detectable biological or health effects often begin occurring at or above this range of power density.
It’s important to note, says Dr. Chamberlain, that 0.03 to 0.05 milliwatts per square meter is significantly lower than the threshold required to sustain a strong cell phone signal. In other words, you could have a fully functional call at radiation levels well below anything that would heat tissue or break molecular bonds. This underscores the gap between thermal-based regulatory standards and the possibility of non-thermal biological disruptions.
Measuring Power Density Around a Typical Cell Tower
If 0.03 to 0.05 milliwatts per square meter is where effects begin to appear, the next question is: at what distance from a typical cell tower does the power density drop to that level? Dr. Chamberlain presents a chart showing how measured power density decreases as one moves away from a tower. However, because cell towers often use directional antennas, there is a region (about 30 to 70 meters away) where power density can actually increase before falling off again at greater distances. Past about 70 meters, free-space loss dominates, and the curve steadily declines.
When Dr. Chamberlain’s data cross-references the 0.03 to 0.05 milliwatts per square meter threshold, it intersects at around 500 meters—mirroring the epidemiological results. This neat convergence of real-world measurement data and lab-derived thresholds provides strong evidence that “about 500 meters” is a sound guideline, at least for the “typical cell tower” in question.
Additional Context on Wireless Radiation Risks
Non-Ionizing but Not Benign
A fundamental sticking point in debates about cell tower safety is the phrase “non-ionizing radiation.” Non-ionizing means the photon energy is too low to strip electrons from atoms (unlike X-rays or gamma rays). However, “non-ionizing” does not automatically equate to “harmless.” Many biological processes rely on subtle electrochemical signaling, such that even low-energy fields can interfere with voltage-gated ion channels, trigger oxidative stress, or alter gene expression if the exposures are frequent and prolonged.
Beyond Cancer—Infertility, Neurological, and Developmental Effects
While the Brazilian study focused primarily on cancer mortality, non-ionizing RF exposure has also been linked to other health issues:
- Infertility: Some studies suggest that men who carry cell phones in front pockets may experience reduced sperm count and motility.
- Neurological Disorders: Low-level RF exposure has been associated with insomnia, headaches, brain fog, and potentially higher risks of neurodegenerative conditions.
- Developmental Effects: Concerns arise for children, whose developing systems—especially the nervous system—may be more vulnerable to electromagnetic fields.
Though results vary by individual study and the specific frequency or power density examined, the overall trend in peer-reviewed literature points to biologically significant changes at non-thermal levels.
The Role of Electrosensitivity
Dr. Chamberlain emphasizes electrosensitivity (sometimes called electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS). People who report EHS claim a variety of symptoms—headaches, fatigue, pain—that they attribute to electromagnetic fields at intensities considered benign for the majority of the population. Though the exact prevalence and mechanisms of EHS remain debated, a number of agencies, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), offer accommodations for severely affected individuals. If EHS is indeed real for a subset of the population, even a 500-meter setback might not be enough to alleviate their symptoms.
Industry Influence and the Pushback Against Science
The Telecommunications Industry’s Stance
One recurring theme in debates over cell tower safety is that many telecom corporations categorically deny the possibility of non-thermal harm. They hold firm to existing regulations—rooted in the mid-1990s—that base safety primarily on thermal considerations. Because of these guidelines, the industry often argues that if a tower stays below the FCC’s established limits, the public has nothing to fear. However, Dr. Chamberlain points out a glaring contradiction: the epidemiological and lab studies show adverse effects at levels below what the FCC permits.
Consultants and Critiques of the Brazilian Study
Dr. Chamberlain references how a particular industry consultant criticized the Brazilian study—claiming it had been “discredited”—without acknowledging personal affiliations or disclosing that the study’s authors had already responded to these criticisms. This pattern illustrates a broader tactic in corporate defense: sow doubt or confusion around robust scientific findings. While healthy scientific discourse should welcome challenges, the selective, non-transparent approach from some industry consultants appears geared more toward muddying the waters than furthering collective understanding.
Legitimacy of the New Hampshire Commission
Critics may question whether the New Hampshire Commission’s recommendations are alarmist or insufficiently grounded. However, the Commission’s membership included credentialed professionals from relevant domains, and they spent a year examining high-level research. It’s not a group of fringe activists but a government-sanctioned, interdisciplinary body with no obvious conflicts of interest.
Practical Implications of a 500-Meter Setback
Balancing Public Health and Connectivity
Opponents sometimes fear that imposing such setbacks would severely degrade mobile connectivity. Yet Dr. Chamberlain contends that using taller towers—perhaps spaced a bit farther from residential zones—can actually increase coverage uniformity. Although it might raise deployment costs slightly, it doesn’t entail an outright ban on wireless infrastructure. The Commission’s stance is that public health should not be compromised just for the sake of cost savings on tower siting.
Giving Citizens Control Over Exposure
The fundamental argument for establishing a setback is to ensure that residents have some baseline guarantee that a strong RF source won’t pop up within a stone’s throw of their homes or schools. While individuals can switch off personal devices (like Wi-Fi routers or smartphones) to limit exposure, they have no control over a tower’s transmissions. A 500-meter buffer creates a zone where power densities should (in theory) fall below the threshold associated with non-thermal effects for most people. By doing so, the Commission says, you permit wireless availability but grant communities the freedom to reduce involuntary exposure.
Costs vs. Benefits
As Dr. Chamberlain notes, certain cost impacts are likely. Tower operators may need to invest in better signal propagation technology or accept that more towers—albeit placed with higher structural designs—are required. However, if the alternative is potential long-term health costs or public outcry from anxious residents, that trade-off could be well worth it. Communities are increasingly demanding more say in where towers can be placed, and the 500-meter figure offers a concrete, research-based figure they can cite.
Addressing Counterarguments
“No Conclusive Evidence” Claims
One common refrain is that there’s “no conclusive evidence” linking cell tower emissions to serious health issues. Dr. Chamberlain’s response—and that of many researchers—is that science rarely deals in absolute certainties. Instead, it deals in probabilities, risk factors, and consistent findings. While the body of evidence pointing to potential harm is not 100% ironclad, it’s extensive enough to warrant precaution, especially for something as ubiquitous as wireless radiation. The presence of plausible biological mechanisms, strong correlational epidemiological studies, and laboratory findings all weigh heavily against the status quo.
Thermal Guidelines Are Enough
The FCC’s and other agencies’ guidelines revolve around Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) or exposure limits measured in watts per kilogram, focusing on heat transfer to tissues. These standards date back decades to when fewer people had cell phones, let alone the “densified” networks of 4G and 5G. Dr. Chamberlain’s Commission contends that an unrelenting emphasis on thermal effects ignores how electromagnetic fields can trigger cellular responses at far lower power levels. If people can develop headaches, insomnia, or changes in neurotransmitter levels without any measureable tissue heating, then the entire framework of thermal-based regulation is inadequate.
The “Not in My Backyard” Accusation
Sometimes, communities pushing for setbacks are accused of hysteria or a “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) attitude that resists technological progress. However, Dr. Chamberlain distinguishes his recommendation from fear-driven campaigns to ban wireless altogether. The Commission does not advocate removing towers or shutting down networks; it merely advocates implementing a scientifically justified buffer so that members of the public who do not want high-dose, constant RF exposure near their homes can avoid it.
Why This Matters Now
For years, the conversation around cell tower safety was relegated to academic conferences or niche advocacy groups. But as Dr. Chamberlain demonstrates, the evidence pointing to potential non-thermal health risks from RF exposure has grown too large to ignore. The Commission’s recommended 500-meter setback is not a radical stance; it’s an attempt to reconcile modern demands for connectivity with a growing body of data that suggests caution is warranted.
By focusing on two complementary lines of evidence—real-world epidemiology and laboratory-defined thresholds—this recommendation gains credibility. It also highlights a broader lesson: public health guidelines for emerging technologies must be adaptive and responsive to new research, not anchored exclusively in older, incomplete assumptions about what constitutes a safe level of radiation.
With the densification of 4G and 5G antennas steadily increasing, and future generations of wireless technology on the horizon, the stakes are only going to intensify. If we fail to act on the precautionary principle, we risk exposing large populations to low-level, omnipresent radiation that, based on current evidence, could have subtle yet impactful consequences for long-term health. On the other hand, if we implement scientifically guided measures—like a 500-meter setback—we can reduce these risks without substantially sacrificing the benefits that wireless technology provides.
A Call to Action
- For Communities: Familiarize yourself with the Commission’s report and findings. If you’re concerned about a tower planned near your home or child’s school, reference the scientific literature behind the 500-meter setback to shape local policy or zoning board decisions.
- For Policymakers: Use New Hampshire’s Commission model as a template. Form your own fact-finding panels, bring in interdisciplinary experts, and create open channels for public input. Legislation should account for up-to-date science, not rely solely on decades-old regulatory frameworks focused on thermal hazards.
- For Individuals: Reducing personal exposures (e.g., turning off Wi-Fi at night, using wired connections when possible) is an option, but it doesn’t solve the problem of towers installed close to residential areas. Be informed, engage with local governance, and advocate for safe, balanced approaches that respect both technological progress and health.
- For the Telecom Industry: Recognize that consumer trust rests on transparency and a willingness to adapt to credible scientific concerns. Investing in infrastructure that places towers a safer distance from dense populations could ultimately save on litigation, quell public opposition, and demonstrate corporate responsibility.
In closing, Dr. Chamberlain’s work with the New Hampshire Commission underscores a crucial pivot in how we talk about wireless radiation. Instead of a binary argument (“safe vs. unsafe”), it’s about mitigating known risks by blending new data with sound engineering principles. The 500-meter threshold emerges as a thoughtful, evidence-based compromise. Whether you’re worried about potential biological effects or you simply want reliable connectivity, the Commission’s findings and Dr. Chamberlain’s presentation reinforce that science and precaution can, and should, go hand in hand.
Key Takeaways
- A Commission of Experts
Formed by bipartisan legislation, the New Hampshire Commission was the first of its kind in the U.S. to formally investigate 5G and wireless health risks. Its 13 members included specialists in physics, epidemiology, electromagnetics, and toxicology, lending credibility to its ultimate conclusions. - Two-Pronged Approach for the 500-Meter Setback
- Epidemiological Findings: Multiple studies, including a seminal one from Brazil, show a higher rate of adverse health outcomes—especially cancer—within about 500 meters of a cell tower.
- Laboratory-Derived Thresholds: The BioInitiative Report and other labs identify the lowest radiation levels at which non-thermal effects appear. When mapped onto real-world data from “typical” cell towers, these harmful levels converge at roughly 500 meters.
- Non-Ionizing Radiation Is Not Necessarily Harmless
The older approach focused on ionization and thermal effects overlooks subtler bioelectrical disruptions, such as oxidative stress and voltage-gated calcium channel activation. These can occur at power densities far below FCC limits. - Electrosensitivity Is Real
Some individuals experience acute symptoms (headaches, fatigue, sleep disturbances) even at lower exposure levels. Though the 500-meter guideline won’t protect everyone fully, it does significantly reduce risk for the general population. - Balanced Solutions Exist
Imposing a 500-meter setback does not ban cell towers but encourages taller towers placed further from residential zones. This can potentially improve uniform coverage while lowering health risks and community resistance. - Industry Pushback
Dr. Chamberlain recounts how telecommunication consultants often dismiss or distort findings like the Brazilian study. In the bigger picture, legislative bodies and public advocates must be aware of such tactics that aim to maintain the status quo of minimal restrictions. - The Future of Wireless Safety
With 5G and upcoming networks on the rise, adopting a precautionary framework that accounts for non-thermal hazards is increasingly urgent. Regulatory standards developed decades ago need updating to reflect modern science and usage patterns.
Conclusion
Dr. Kent Chamberlain’s presentation and the New Hampshire Commission’s report provide a glimpse into a future where regulatory frameworks evolve to incorporate decades of research into non-thermal EMF effects. The 500-meter setback recommendation balances human health with the need to stay connected in a world that depends on wireless technologies. By elucidating both epidemiological patterns and lab-based evidence, Dr. Chamberlain and his colleagues lend weight to the argument that our current guidelines—rooted in thermal-based assumptions—may be inadequate.
Ultimately, the Commission’s focus on real data, thorough expert input, and a pragmatic approach to rolling out infrastructure offers a model for other states and nations to consider. Their work suggests that we must craft policies that allow for continued technological advancement while acknowledging the mounting evidence that not all forms of “non-ionizing” radiation are risk-free. For communities worried about a new tower sprouting up in their neighborhood, the 500-meter figure is no random number; it is a solid, research-backed marker of caution.
The challenge now is implementation. Whether other jurisdictions follow suit depends on how effectively concerned citizens, policymakers, and health advocates unite around these findings. If you’ve found this information compelling, share it with local officials or community boards facing decisions about new wireless infrastructure. Encourage them to look at Dr. Chamberlain’s data, the BioInitiative Report, and the broader body of scientific literature. Only with informed dialogue can we ensure that a new era of connectivity doesn’t come at the cost of our collective well-being.
