“We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us…If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”

“Our wireless business is also subject to lawsuits relating to alleged adverse health effects of wireless phones and radio frequency transmitters. Any of these allegations or changes in government agencies’ assessment of the risks associated with using wireless devices could result in significant legal and regulatory liability and other remedies, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.”

“In the wireless and wireline area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies including, for example, wireless devices. We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.”

“We are subject to current and potential future lawsuits alleging adverse health effects arising from the use of wireless handsets or from wireless transmission equipment such as cell towers. In addition, the FCC has from time to time gathered data regarding wireless device emissions, and its assessment of the risks associated with using wireless devices may evolve based on its findings. Any of these allegations or changes in risk assessments could result in customers purchasing fewer devices and wireless services, could result in significant legal and regulatory liability, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition, cash flows and operating results.”

“….Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular and other wireless communications technology could slow the growth of wireless companies, which could in turn slow our growth. In particular, negative public perception of, and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks, including claims that the deployment of 5G networks is linked to adverse health effects, could undermine the market acceptance of wireless communications services and increase opposition to the development and expansion of tower sites. If a scientific study, court decision, government agency ruling, or misinformation, disinformation or malinformation campaigns resulted in a finding that radio frequency emissions pose health risks to consumers, it could negatively impact our customers and the market for wireless services, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition…”

“From time to time, media and other reports have highlighted alleged links between radio frequency emissions from wireless devices (including new 5G technology) and various health concerns, including cancer, and interference with various medical devices, including hearing aids and pacemakers. This may discourage the use of wireless devices or expose us to potential litigation even though there are no definitive reports or studies stating that these health issues are directly attributable to radio frequency emissions. Future regulatory actions may result in more restrictive standards on radio frequency emissions from low-powered devices like wireless devices. We cannot predict the nature or extent of any restrictions.”

“Public debate about potential health risks from mobile communications and electromagnetic fields (EMF) may impact the build-out of mobile infrastructure and lead to regulatory intervention, such as stricter limits for electromagnetic fields or the implementation of precautionary measures for mobile communications, e.g., amendments to building laws or the risk of labeling requirements for devices. This could lead to increased operating and capital expenditure.”

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is listed as a risk on page 65, which has a graphic showing EMF as one of their principal risks along with climate change, Brexit, and the health pandemic. Page 68 states, “EMF: The risk can be broken down into three areas:

• failure to comply with national legislation or international guidelines (set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (‘ICNIRP’)) as it applies to EMF, or failure to meet policy requirements;
• the risk arising from concerted campaigns or negative community sentiment towards location or installation of radio base stations, resulting in planning delays; and
• changes in the radio technology we use or the body of credible scientific evidence which may impact either of the two risks above.”

Ranked EMF as a “Principal Risk” with “High” Impact “Electro-magnetic signals emitted by mobile devices and base stations may be found to pose health risks, with potential impacts including: changes to national legislation, a reduction in mobile phone usage, or litigation.”

“The WHO has classified extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as radiation emitted by cell phones, as potentially carcinogenic to humans (Class 2B carcinogen). Furthermore, a recent ruling by an Italian court suggested a link between mobile phone radiation and human health impairment. Overall, however, scientific studies are still inconclusive regarding possible adverse health effects of EMF. If a direct link between EMF and human health problems were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses under product liability covers. Liability rates would likely rise.”

“The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years.”

“Some research has shown biological effects from lower-level ‘non thermal’ exposure and people exposed at lower levels have reported headaches, dizziness, nausea, mood disorders, mental slowing and memory loss.”

“It may take two more decades to know if electromagnetic radiofrequency energy is a significant liability issue for telecommunications companies, so, in the interim, insurers are treating the risk as cautiously as a downed power line after a storm. Insurers often exclude the risk from commercial general liability policies, strictly limit the coverage or avoid policyholders in the wireless industry, brokers say.”

“This insurance does not cover any claim… directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

“Exclusions: This insurance does not apply to: Bodily injury, personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of, resulting from, caused or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation, provided that such loss, cost or expense results from or is contributed to by the hazardous properties of electromagnetic radiation.”

“Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion liability for any Injury or Damage or any investigation costs arising out of based upon or attributable to or in any way involving any actual or alleged electromagnetic fields or radiofrequency radiation.”

Exclusions for pollutants includes “any substance exhibiting any hazardous characteristics including ”contaminants or smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals or waste materials” and also “waste water, oil or oil products, infectious or medical waste, asbestos or asbestos products, noise, fungus (including mold or mildew and any mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts produced or released by fungi) and electric or magnetic or electromagnetic field.”

“Exclusions. This insurance does not apply to…Bodily injury, personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of, resulting from, caused or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation, provided that such loss, cost or expense results from or is contributed to by the hazardous properties of electromagnetic radiation. This includes any costs for the actual or threatened abatement, mitigation, or removal.”

“The risks associated with long term use of cell phones, although much studied over the past 10 years, remains unclear. Dangers to the estimated 250,000 workers per year who come in close contact with cell phone antennas, however, are now more clearly established. Thermal effects of the cellular antennas, which act at close range essentially as open microwave ovens can include eye damage, sterility and cognitive impairments. While workers of cellular companies are well trained on the potential dangers, other workers exposed to the antennas are often unaware of the health risks.The continued exponential growth of cellular towers will significantly increase exposure to these workers and others coming into close contact with high-energy cell phone antenna radiation.”

“The ATHEM 2 project investigated cognitive effects as well as whether and how the RF-EMF changes cells of the human body.”

“The ATHEM project investigates the athermal (heat-independent) biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on an interdisciplinary basis.”

“The Austrian General Accident Insurance provides a research report on athermal effects of mobile radio radiation and calls for precautionary policies.”

“The AUVA studies have verified that: Electromagnetic fields from cell phone radiation have an impact on the: Central Nervous System (brain), Immune System, Protein Syntheses.” “The radiation-induced effects observed, however, were not always dosage-dependent as would be expected from thermal effects. Some cells showed an even stronger response when the 5-minute expo- sure was followed by a 10-minute break (intermittent exposure). This would also support a nonthermal effect mechanism. The project results, therefore, serve as a further confirmation of the existence of so-called nonthermal effects.” (p. 169) “One of the observations showed that, among the different cells, those respond particularly strongly, which are metabolically active. This cell property is especially pronounced in growing tissues, that is, in children and youth. Consequently, these population groups would be more susceptible than average to the described effects.”