Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss lived in a small ranch house in Long Beach, California, for over 20 years. A few years ago, they received a notice from a company they had never heard of, informing them that the streetlight in front of their house would soon be equipped with a wireless transmission facility as part of AT&T’s big 5G rollout in Long Beach. The couple had 10 days to file an appeal against the permit for AT&T’s proposed 5G cell site on the pole in front of their home.
Initially, Hotchkiss, an electrical engineer, didn’t mind the upgrade outside their home, but Hahn was concerned about the potential health effects. She had long suffered from serious migraines that forced her into retirement after years of teaching art at a nearby college. During a consultation with her doctor, he suggested her migraines could be related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a little known, under-researched, and controversial health condition where people experience reactions to certain types of electromagnetic radiation, especially the kind emitted by cell phone towers, or Wi-Fi.
The couple decided to run a test of their own. They returned to the old hard-wired system in the house and went back to using a corded phone. Within a matter of hours, Hahn said her symptoms nearly disappeared. The migraines completely vanished after the electric company switched out the smart meter for an older model, she said.
Hahn and Hotchkiss filed an appeal and included a letter from Hahn’s doctor that explained her sensitivity to cell phone radiation. They found an attorney who could help them pro bono and soon their appeal was ready to file. Despite the odds stacked against them, the couple was determined to fight the proposed 5G cell site.
Hahn researched extensively, tracking down experts, asking questions, and finding out what’s happening in other communities, and what strategies they used to fight against similar proposals. She discovered that the controversy surrounding cell phone towers and street poles extended way beyond city limits and decades into the past.
For many, the controversy kicked off with the passing of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, when Congress sought to create a “seamless network of cellular communications” from sea to shining sea. Many communities across the country were less than thrilled, often citing fear of the unknown potential for long-term health effects of living near such cell sites.
As wireless communication exploded, the demand for high-speed internet became insatiable, and the number of towers in the U.S. ballooned. There are now more than four times as many as there were in 2000. While activists continued the fight, arguing that uncertainty remains regarding potential health risks, industry has consistently reassured the public that federal guidelines protect people from harm.
Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit think tank that’s been fighting the Federal Communications Commission over health concerns for years, argues that studies indicate harmful effects at levels below FCC limits. The FCC is not a health agency, but it is in charge of promulgating guidelines for safe cell phone radiation exposure – a determined threshold that’s currently based on studies done by the Navy in the 1980s.
In 2019, Environmental Health Trust and others sued the FCC, seeking to force the agency to explain why they didn’t make a change to the guidelines. And remarkably, the group succeeded. While a panel of judges found some of the agency’s reasoning satisfactory, the court mandated the FCC to go back and re-evaluate its guidelines based on research the agency had not adequately addressed.
In the end, the couple was able to beat the permit for AT&T’s proposed 5G cell site on the pole in front of their home. While the battle for 5G
Its potential health effects are far from over, Hahn and Hotchkiss’ victory was significant for them and their community. It also highlights the ongoing debate over the safety of wireless radiation and the need for more research.
One of the studies that has raised concerns about the potential health effects of cell phone radiation is the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study. The NTP study, which began in 2010, exposed rats and mice to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at levels below the FCC limits for two years. The results, released in 2018, showed that male rats developed cancerous heart tumors and some brain tumors, and the female rats developed tumors in their adrenal glands.
The NTP study was not without controversy, with some experts arguing that the results were not conclusive enough to warrant a change in the FCC guidelines. However, the study has sparked further debate and raised questions about the adequacy of the current FCC guidelines.
Another significant study is the Ramazzini Institute (RI) study, which exposed rats to RFR at levels well below the FCC limits for 19 hours a day over their entire lifetime. The results, released in 2018, showed an increased incidence of heart schwannomas in male rats and malignant gliomas in female rats.
While the results of the NTP and RI studies are not conclusive, they do suggest a need for more research and a re-evaluation of the current FCC guidelines.
In the case of Hahn and Hotchkiss, their victory may inspire others to fight against proposed 5G cell sites in their communities. The ongoing debate over the potential health effects of wireless radiation highlights the need for more research and a better understanding of the risks involved.
Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss’ fight against the proposed 5G cell site on the pole in front of their home highlights the ongoing debate over the safety of wireless radiation and the need for more research. The controversy kicked off with the passing of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, and as wireless communication exploded, the number of cell phone towers in the U.S. ballooned. While industry reassures the public that federal guidelines protect people from harm, many activists continue the fight, arguing that uncertainty remains regarding potential health risks.
The Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit think tank that’s been fighting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over health concerns for years, argues that studies indicate harmful effects at levels below FCC limits. The FCC is not a health agency, but it is in charge of promulgating guidelines for safe cell phone radiation exposure – a determined threshold that’s currently based on studies done by the Navy in the 1980s.
In 2019, Environmental Health Trust and others sued the FCC, seeking to force the agency to explain why they didn’t make a change to the guidelines. And remarkably, the group succeeded. While a panel of judges found some of the agency’s reasoning satisfactory, the court mandated the FCC to go back and re-evaluate its guidelines based on research the agency had not adequately addressed.
One of the studies that has raised concerns about the potential health effects of cell phone radiation is the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study. The NTP study, which began in 2010, exposed rats and mice to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at levels below the FCC limits for two years. The results, released in 2018, showed that male rats developed cancerous heart tumors and some brain tumors, and the female rats developed tumors in their adrenal glands.
The Ramazzini Institute (RI) study is another significant study that exposed rats to RFR at levels well below the FCC limits for 19 hours a day over their entire lifetime. The results, released in 2018, showed an increased incidence of heart schwannomas in male rats and malignant gliomas in female rats.
While the results of the NTP and RI studies are not conclusive, they do suggest a need for more research and a re-evaluation of the current FCC guidelines. The ongoing debate over the potential health effects of wireless radiation highlights the need for more research and a better understanding of the risks involved.
Currently, the guidelines set by the FCC only consider the thermal effects of RFR exposure, or the heating of tissue, which the agency believes can be avoided as long as exposure levels are kept below certain limits. However, there is growing concern among experts and activists that non-thermal effects, or those that occur at lower levels of exposure, may also be harmful.
Critics argue that the current FCC guidelines are outdated and do not reflect the latest scientific research on the potential health effects of RFR. They also point out that the guidelines only address exposure to a single source of radiation, while in reality, people are often exposed to multiple sources of radiation simultaneously.
As the deployment of 5G technology accelerates, concerns about the health effects of RFR exposure are likely to grow. While the industry insists that 5G is safe and that FCC guidelines are adequate, critics argue that more research is needed to fully understand the risks involved.
In the meantime, communities across the country are fighting against the installation of 5G cell sites in their neighborhoods. While some have been successful, others have not. In many cases, the decisions are left to local authorities who may be swayed by industry pressure or legal constraints.
The battle over 5G and its potential health effects is far from over, and the results of ongoing research will likely shape the debate for years to come. For people like Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss, who have already fought and won against a proposed 5G cell site in their neighborhood, the victory is bittersweet. While they are relieved that their home will not be subjected to the potential health risks associated with RFR exposure, they are also keenly aware that the fight is far from over.
As Hahn told the Los Angeles Times, “I don’t want people to get sick. But I’m just one person in this fight. I think people need to be much more aware of the whole picture.” The ongoing controversy over 5G and its potential health effects is a reminder that the public needs to be informed and engaged in the decisions that shape their communities.
In addition to concerns about potential health effects, there are also worries about the environmental impact of 5G and other wireless technologies. The rapid proliferation of cell phone towers and other wireless infrastructure has led to concerns about the use of energy and natural resources, as well as the impact on wildlife.
Despite these concerns, the deployment of 5G and other wireless technologies is expected to continue to grow. The promise of faster speeds, greater capacity, and improved connectivity is driving demand, and industry leaders are investing heavily in research and development.
However, the ongoing debate about the potential health effects of wireless radiation is likely to continue. As new research emerges, and as more communities push back against the deployment of 5G cell sites and other wireless infrastructure, it is possible that we may see a shift in how these technologies are regulated and deployed.
For Hahn and Hotchkiss, their victory in Long Beach is a reminder that ordinary citizens can make a difference when they stand up for what they believe in. Their fight against the 5G cell site in front of their home may have been small in the grand scheme of things, but it was significant for them and their community.
As the debate over the potential health effects of wireless radiation continues, it is clear that more research is needed to fully understand the risks involved. In the meantime, individuals and communities have the right to make informed decisions about the technologies they use and the potential risks they may face.
Despite these conflicting views, many activists and concerned citizens, like Hahn and Hotchkiss, are calling for more research and stricter regulations regarding wireless radiation. Some argue that the current FCC guidelines are outdated and do not adequately protect the public from potential health risks.
As the demand for high-speed internet and wireless communication continues to grow, the debate over the safety of 5G technology and its potential health effects is likely to intensify. While some experts remain skeptical of the health risks posed by wireless radiation, others believe that the current guidelines do not reflect the latest scientific findings and that more research is needed to fully understand the long-term health impacts of exposure to wireless radiation.
For Hahn and Hotchkiss, their victory was a hard-won battle in a larger war over the safety of wireless radiation. While they may have succeeded in stopping AT&T from building a 5G cell site on the pole in front of their home, the debate over the potential health effects of wireless radiation is far from over. As more communities consider the installation of 5G cell sites, the issue is likely to remain contentious and highly debated for years to come.