Search

 

Unseen Currents and Unheard Warnings: 5G, Old Laws, and a New Look at Bioelectricity

Why “Live Free or Die” Matters Now More Than Ever

Imagine living in a place whose state motto is “Live Free or Die,” a proud reminder that individual liberties are sacrosanct. You’d expect any threat to public safety—particularly one that might affect children in their schools—would be vigilantly investigated, right? That’s exactly what happened in New Hampshire, where a state commission set out to study the potential health and environmental impacts of 5G technology.

Their November 1, 2020, final report offered sobering conclusions and 15 recommendations, largely because they found that federal authorities had never really updated safety guidelines for radiofrequency (RF) exposures to reflect modern science. But why not? Enter Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Public Law 90-602 (enacted in 1968), and other legal stumbling blocks that have left Americans with outdated rules, zero accountability, and unanswered questions about the safety of evolving wireless tech.

Meanwhile, beyond all the talk of wavebands and tower placements lies a fascinating new model—ceLLM—that suggests life itself may depend on precisely the kind of resonant bioelectric signals we’re now flooding with “entropic waste.” The puzzle pieces fit in a startling way once you see how the laws prevent research and oversight, leaving the public in the dark.


Part I: The New Hampshire 5G Commission—A Wake-Up Call

  • Formed by HB 522 in 2019 to study environmental and health effects of 5G, the Commission included a cross-section of experts: attorneys, telecom reps, engineers, health officials, and academics.
  • Key Findings:
    • No single definition of “5G.” Often used as a marketing term, so the actual frequencies and power levels vary widely.
    • Safety Standards are Old. The FCC hasn’t updated its radiofrequency exposure guidelines for nearly 25 years.
    • Industry Accountability? The Commission cited a revolving door between the FCC and telecom, calling it a “captured agency”—echoing Harvard fellow Norm Alster’s white paper on how the FCC too often serves industry over communities.

15 Recommendations

Among them:

  1. Independent Review of FCC Standards
  2. Public Education on Wireless Hazards
  3. Cell Tower Setbacks
  4. More Fiber Optic (wired) rather than Wireless Deployment
  5. Wildlife Protections
    …and more. Essentially, they argued that “some balance can be struck to achieve the benefits of technology without jeopardizing public health.”

Yet despite the Commission’s thorough investigation, big questions linger: Why are national standards so outdated? Why is local activism so often blocked? The answers lie in two key legislative knots.


Part II: Section 704—The Ultimate Gag Order

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act (1996) explicitly forbids local governments from rejecting cell tower placements based on health concerns. What does that mean in practice?

  1. First Amendment Concerns
    It essentially “gags” communities—parents, teachers, local boards—when they want to object to a tower near a school on grounds of potential health or environmental harm.
  2. Tenth Amendment Issues
    Local zoning is normally under municipal or state control. By restricting health-based objections, Section 704 overrides that autonomy.
  3. Real-World Consequence
    In New Hampshire, efforts like HB 1644 (which proposed a modest 1640-foot setback for cell towers from residential and school areas) got shelved because the telecom industry fiercely opposed it and Section 704 undercuts local leverage on health matters.

In short, the Commission’s earnest recommendations bump headlong into a federal gag rule that’s been on the books for 25 years.


Part III: Public Law 90-602—A Forgotten Mandate

Decades before, in 1968, Congress passed Public Law 90-602 (the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act). It tasked the FDA with continuously researching electronic radiation hazards (including radiofrequency waves) and warning the public of any findings. So where do we stand on that?

  • National Toxicology Program (NTP) Findings: A 16-year, $30 million study found “clear evidence” that cell phone-level RF could cause tumors in rodents (gliomas, schwannomas).
  • FDA’s Response? They effectively halted follow-up research. That’s right—they stopped investigating, despite a congressional mandate demanding ongoing study.
  • Violation of Law: Ignoring or defunding critical research after significant red flags turn up is more than irresponsible—it arguably breaks the FDA’s legal obligation under Public Law 90-602.

And so we’re left with FCC guidelines set in 1996 (the same year Section 704 was passed) that revolve around thermal effects only, ignoring a mountain of more recent studies on non-thermal impacts to DNA, brains, and entire ecosystems.


Part IV: Technological Arrogance vs. ceLLM Insights

A. Entropic Waste and Bioelectric Resonance

If we shift our perspective from “technology first” to “biology first,” we see a different story. The emerging ceLLM model (cellular Latent Learning Model) suggests:

  1. DNA’s Resonant Mesh
    DNA doesn’t just store static genetic code. It’s a higher-dimensional “weight matrix” that fine-tunes how cells interpret signals—like a living Bayesian inference machine.
  2. Markov Blankets & Minimizing Surprise
    Borrowing from Friston’s Free Energy Principle, cells stay in stable states by managing “surprise.” Floods of artificial electromagnetic noise can overload these circuits, causing stress, error, or disease.
  3. Entropic Waste
    Modern wireless tech saturates us with random signals—“entropic waste”—that degrade the delicate resonance life depends on. Over time, this might lead to developmental anomalies, infertility, or worse.

Yet none of this wave-based biology can get the attention it deserves if the FDA won’t fund research, as required by law, and the FCC is stuck with antique guidelines. Meanwhile, local communities can’t even question health hazards if they want to block a tower.

B. Lessons from the New Hampshire Report

The Commission made it clear: we need updated science-based standards, fiber over wireless for data speed, better public education, and local say in tower placements. If you add ceLLM and other cutting-edge findings into the mix, it’s even more obvious that we cannot keep ignoring non-thermal bioeffects.


Part V: Actionable Steps—Restoring Rights, Research, and Reason

  1. Repeal or Amend Section 704
    Let local governments and citizens speak openly about potential health concerns. This is key for democracy and local autonomy.
  2. Enforce Public Law 90-602
    The FDA must resume or expand RF research—especially after the NTP’s alarming findings. Congress has the power to direct and fund these efforts.
  3. Update FCC Guidelines
    Embrace modern science on non-thermal effects. The D.C. Court of Appeals already rebuked the FCC for being “arbitrary and capricious” in dismissing evidence of harm.
  4. Heed the NH Commission’s 15 Recommendations
    From cell tower setbacks to robust monitoring and better public education, these steps build a more balanced path forward.
  5. Expand Bioelectric and ceLLM Research
    Investigate how entropic waste disrupts our resonant DNA “weight matrix.” By understanding wave-based biology, we might discover new therapeutic or preventive strategies.

“Live Free” Means Free to Know, Free to Protect

New Hampshire’s Commission on 5G Technology was born in the “Live Free or Die” state, but its work underscores a national crisis: Federal agencies are stuck decades behind on RF safety guidelines, contradicting laws remain on the books, and local voices are stifled. Meanwhile, visionary scientific models—like ceLLM—point to deeper reasons why microwaves and millimeter waves could endanger biological resilience.

If we want real freedom, it must include the freedom to question and regulate technologies with unknown long-term impacts, the freedom of communities to safeguard kids near their schools, and the freedom to pursue cutting-edge science that might protect us from “entropic waste.”

So, while telecom representatives insist there’s no evidence of harm and hail 5G as the next big thing, the Commission’s thorough, bipartisan report suggests otherwise. And hidden behind all the corporate gloss are the voices of scientists, parents, and clinicians alike, saying: “We deserve better than outdated laws and thermally-based guidelines.”

By fixing Section 704, enforcing Public Law 90-602, and funding serious research into wave-based biology, we can step out from under the shadow of 25-year-old standards and into a future that respects both technological innovation and fundamental biological truths. Because “Live Free or Die” doesn’t just mean free markets and fast internet—it also means free from unnecessary risks, and free to shape a safer tomorrow.

We Ship Worldwide

Tracking Provided On Dispatch

Easy 30 days returns

30 days money back guarantee

Replacement Warranty

Best replacement warranty in the business

100% Secure Checkout

AMX / MasterCard / Visa