- Professor & Chair of the Dept. of Electrucal and Computer Engineeinr at University of New Hampshire (now emeritus)
- Served on the InterOperability Laboratory Advisory Board, which is an international evaluator of wireless technologies
- Active in Project 54, addressing the communications needs of police and first responders
- Serving as Vice-Chair for the Virtual Learning Academy Charter School BoT
- Joined the New Hampshire State Commission
Earlier Work on Chamberlin Slides
- 2021-0716-Kent-Chamberlin-Pittsfield-MA-orig.pptx (30 slides, 7.4 MB)
- 2021-0731-Kent-Chamberlin-pmg-edit-v3.pptx (85 slides, 27.4 MB) . . . delivered by Box Cloud Drive service, remember?
- 2021-0829-Lenox-MA.pdf (45 slides, 2MB) seems to be derived from , not .
- 2019 Paper re: Electromagnetic Sensitivity Prevalence
- 2020 New Hampshire Commission Report
2021-0829 Chamberlin Lenox Presentation — First Ten Minutes
- Key Problems with far too much of the peer-reviewed literature: What are high? low? levels of RF Microwave radiation . . . compared to what? how metered? Peak? Average? Is it specified in the study methods section? Why is one chosen over the other? Which matters more . . . peak or average? Can one reliably meter a peak? (only after a multi-hour period of data collection: 24-48 hours for each spot metered) . . . what is the TOTAL DOSE of poison/pollution that is RF microwave radiation?
- @ 3:57 . . . in my presentation, I will identify some of the
concernsproblems, but I also will talk about some of the solutions.
- @ 4:19 . . . So the science is clear about the
health risksnegative health consequences or adverse health effects
- @ 5:31 . . . In fact what I thought is that we would find there were no
concernsproblems, we would be done and then we would be able to go home and declare victory
- @ 5:45 . . . we came to the conclusion that, no, this is a
concernhazard, people need to know about it and people need to address that issuetoxic pollution
- @ 6:42 . . . I come to you as fellow citizen with an awareness of
a concern of a health riskbiological harms from RF microwave radiation
- @ 6:51 . . . the only people that say that say the cell phone radiation is harmless are people affiliated with the cell phone industry
- @ 0:0 . . . Slide says “Why are we
concerned aboutknowledgeable of the need for responsible placement of cell towers?”
- @ 8:40 . . . by the way, all radiation is a
concernhazard, but digital radiation is a greater concernhazard because of its impulsive nature
- @ 9:03 . . . biochemist describes those bursts of energy as a jackhammer on your cells. Your cells are basically electromagnetic in nature . . . this is more harmful to you physically than radiation from 30 years ago, like FM radio and AM radio statiuons . . . TREVOR CAN ADDRESS Orders of Magnitude; See https://mystreetmychoice.com/thisworks/#/29 . . . Human Cell Scale = 50 milli-electron-Volts = 8 × 10 −21 = 0.000000000000000000008 Watt-Seconds (i.e. Joules)
- @ 9:25 . . . AM/FM radio stations were a
concernproblem, but not as much of a concernproblem as with cell phone type radiation. NOTE: as you explain in your slide, all impulsive RF microwave radiation is harmful, including from Wi-Fi routers/access points and Wi-Fi connected televisions, tablets, laptops, chromebooks, baby monitors, Bluetooth speakers Bluetooth/wireless headphones/earbuds and nearly all hearing aids; it is so the term cell phone type radiationis unnecessarily limited/innaccurate . . . you could just use pulsed, modulated RF Microwave Radiation
- @ 9:51 . . . sense of the relative
riskharms from these wireless devices on that’s a concernproblem, smart meters are a great concernproblem . . . we are particularly concerned aboutaware of the hazards of cell towers and their placement. Slide for Commonly Asked Questions: discussing different frequencies and power levels. are these power levels for input power or output effective radiated power? NOTE: See Slides 5-20 from 2021-0731-Kent-Chamberlin-pmg-edit-v3.pptx . . . let’s discuss for accuracy
Suggested Edits: See suggested Additions and
Slide 01: Opening Statement
Hello, I’m Kent Chamberlin, Professor and Chair Emeritus in the Department of Electrical and Computer engineering at the University of New Hampshire. I’m recording this video to provide details on a key recommendation of the NH Commission that I served on last year. That Commission was convened to explore the health and environmental impacts of RF Microwave Radiation from Wireless of any “G”, including the industry’s current push to densify 4G and 5G antennas in our communities. I served on the Commission, along with other experts in the scientific community, and I have been active in public outreach since the Commission submitted its final report in November 2020.
This video is one in a series of videos that I have created to document some of the findings of the New Hampshire Commission, and I’ve linked to those videos in the comments below. And, I’ve linked to the slides for this video in the comments section so that you can easily access the documents referenced in the slides.
Although this video is not intended to be stand-alone, I will provide a quick overview of the Commission before addressing the main topic of this video. The objective of this video is to address a single and very important recommendation made by the Commission. Specifically, the Commission recommended that a reasonable horizontal setback distance for
cell tower transmitters Wireless Telecommunications Facilities of any size or any “G” be no closer than 500 meters or 1,640 feet from places where people live, work, heal, go to school or recreate.
I have a PhD, specializing in calculating electromagnetic energy transmissions, including RF microwave radiation, used for telecommunications service. Using this expertise, I identified two additional parameters that are critical to locally-regulating the construction, placement and operation of WTFs for personal wireless services. They are vertical offset and the maximum power output from all channels of all the antennas that are part of any particular WTF.
Vertical offset is simply the distance between the number of feet above ground where antenna is placed and the top floor of any buildings where people live, work, heal, go to school or recreate.
Maximum power output is easily calculated via simple multiplication from the antenna’s spec sheet: one multiplies maximum power input by power ratio (derived from antenna gain) and by the number of channels that can operate simultaneously.
Importantly, maximum power output is a measure of how the antenna could run, not any statement of how any particular wireless carrier projects it will run the antenna. There is currently no effective monitoring or policing — by anyone — of the power at which these carriers actually run these antennas. That is a real blind spot in current federal regulation that can be addressed by the State of New Hampshire in its role under cooperative federalism, set up by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
In showing where the horizontal setback number came from, I will refer to a range of peer-reviewed, scientific studies that were published in reputable journals. I will provide links to those studies in the slides. Many of these studies evaluated the adverse biolological effects of RF microwave radiation from WTFs that were constructed between 1996 and 2006, when carriers placed many antennas 200 feet or higher off the ground, a vertical offset that, in the US, triggers FCC registration in the FCC database. Anything lower than 200 feet is not tracked by the FCC at all. Being in the FCC database is the only way the FCC has actual knowledge of a WTF’s location or operating parameters. Therefore, 200 feet above ground can be considered a logical and useful minimum height for any future WTF antenna constructed in New Hampshire.
The shorthand to remember these three critically important variables is . . . VHP: Vertical, Horizontal, Power . . . one has to regulate all three as a set, in order to achieve effective local regulation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
I am linking to theses studies so you can check for yourself the sources that we used to draw our conclusions. I should note that I am preparing this video in collaboration with Professor Paul Héroux who was also a member of the New Hampshire Commission. Professor Héroux is an active member of the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational health at McGill University and is an internationally recognized expert in the effects of electromagnetic fields and human health.
Before I begin, I’d like to state that I have no conflict of interest in this discussion. I have not received any compensation for my work on the Commission nor have I been compensated for any of my follow-on work which includes giving presentations and creating videos like this one. I’m speaking to you now simply as a fellow citizen.