26110081789
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110081789

The Peace Research Institute of Oslo, PRIO, provides in an article titled: Imagining War in the Neurotechnological Age: ‘We are entering a world, where technologies no longer simply threaten our bodies. They are directly affecting our minds’ (quoted in Evans, 2022). In this new neurotechnological age, which is characterized by a growing geopolitical neurobiological and Artificial Intelligence (AI) arms race (NSI, 2017a: 20), traditional concepts of war, security and peace are increasingly replaced by terms such as ‘cognitive warfare’ (NATO, 2021), ‘neurodeterrence’ (NSI, 2012: 50), and digital biosecurity” (Giordano and DiEuliis, 2021: 22). Just a few sources on this topic are accessible here: Imagining War in the Neurotechnological Age: https://www.prio.org/comments/1816 https://spectrum.ieee.org/neurotechnology-battle-for-your-brain https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology https://mronline.org/2021/10/13/behind-natos-cognitive-warfare-battle-for-your-brain-waged-by-western-militaries/ As cited by Soucie v. David in a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case from 1970 that was presented in an effort at government disclosure: Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in response to a persistent problem of legislators and citizens, the problem of obtaining adequate information to evaluate federal programs and formulate wise policies. Congress recognized that the public cannot make intelligent decisions without such information, and that governmental institutions become unresponsive to public needs if knowledge of their activities is denied to the people and their representatives. The touchstone of any proceedings under the Act must be the clear legislative intent to assure public access to all governmental records whose disclosure would not significantly harm specific governmental interests. The policy of the Act requires that the disclosure requirement be construed broadly, the exemptions narrowly. The public's need for information is especially great in the field of science and technology, for the growth of specialized scientific knowledge threatens to outstrip our collective ability to control its effects on our lives. The OST itself was created to help alleviate this problem; Congress intended that the OST would provide better information and coordination with respect to federal activities in the scientific field. It would defeat the purposes of the OST, as well as the purposes of the Act, to withhold from the public factual information on a federal scientific program whose future is at the center of public debate (https://openjurist.org/448/f2d/1067/soucie-v-e-david). With this in mind, I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old insufficient radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer and should include known effects of non ionizing radiation from thousands of publications found in early research studies. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. Because the FCC controls this policy during a time when there has been a massive roll out of essentially all wireless technology that is also entirely weaponized and evidence suggests is sharing the same exact network being used by the civilian population to drive all that we use in the day to day for everything we do in our lives from the workplace, inside of our homes and in our schools to the wireless of the medical body area network now advancing in many areas of public health and now also involving increasing surveillance, SMART city and SMART meter technologies that are largely pulsed frequency radiation technologies advancing a system mostly without any safety testing capable of communicating with our appliances, vehicles, HVAC systems, home wiring, and most certainly the bodies of ourselves, our children and our pets. https://technav.ieee.org/topic/wireless-sensing/ The FCC, as a gatekeeper, must reconcile established evidence that is well documented and published like the evidence given in the numerous Biological Effects of Radiation and or Electromagnetic radiation studies in the government records database that have been conducted or originated by agencies such as ARPA, DOD, the Department of National Intelligence, known by the Directors of National Intelligence,published decades ago by the Behavioral Radiology Laboratory, the Division of Neuropsychiatry, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND and a long list of others—frankly, too many of them to name them all have every one conducted their own research studies as well in those agencies. To illustrate how well known this has been across agencies of government, consider the following quote from the July 1971 report on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation: Mead Data Central has had the contractual responsibility for building a computerized data bank of abstracts of the literature which would subsequently be made available to investigators interested in the effects and hazards of nonionizing radiation (Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, July1971, p.1). https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0887119/page/1/mode/2up). The FCC should fully consider all evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation electromagnetic radiation,, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public, which clearly do not and that are decade after decade being used to cover for what may amount to crimes against humanity if not properly dealt with. Please consider the testimonies given in 2011 to the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues here: Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 1/6: https://youtu.be/9iqIaQ94c8o?si=9Xbej-CEqufC0fzP Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 2/6: https://youtu.be/MinTxWhEwiw?si=IPtVc6I74fo1MjA_ Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 3/6: https://youtu.be/-Gim3EQ2s88?si=nrOEhwM5MPsyV1hL Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 4/6: https://youtu.be/TrgSpF70ZRo?si=pbJoWhtfHUBVCYU4 Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 5/6: https://youtu.be/MAxVYPYUVwA?si=vxCZmsHedn8rmHQj Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 6/6: https://youtu.be/8JkcYM6YsBE?si=Ev6DooUTJLSwtASt As noted by the International Association of Firefighters IAFF: The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF/MW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower-radiation/). I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court, which in all honesty may be seriously deficient given the nature of wireless frequency based technology and the capability to interact with human bodies and biological systems that are also weapons systems. I also urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. It is critical that we have a widespread campaign to address what has been kept from the record for decades regarding wireless based technologies and their impact on health systems and the environment. These are also very much so weaponized as already noted, and the same weapons in use by intelligence, law enforcement, military and its contractors now are made a part of our daily lives coexisting in the spaces we share while causing significant unregulated effects and subsequent damages. This has likely been since the very beginning but is only increasing with their widespread implementation. In many ways, bringing this weapon system into the hands of civilians is also having the effect of damaging the testimonies of those who have been made into victims of systematic non consensual and for dual use human subjects of weapons research because what is happening is that those reporting similar health effects as the ones who are intentionally being targeted for experimentation declared legal for purposes other than warfare, are the same or similar symptoms being reported by those who are having various health effects simply from chronic daily exposure to wireless devices without this being necessarily weaponized against them in any way. The two may have similarities but those who are targeted are experiencing things that others are not experiencing, so it is important to make the very clear distinction to recognize that this is a technological system that should never have been made available for dual uses in the civilian environment because this technology was released and employed without any update to the safety guidelines making it impossible for many people who have suffered long before the full scale introduction of wireless for civilian use to be recognized as research subjects or for those who are being targeted simultaneously to this full scale introduction. There were already a growing number of people reporting to government agencies of this experimental dual use program going back to the writing of EO 12333 stating that they were being targeted by various hidden methods and weapons prior to the roll out of cellphones and completely wireless systems, so that must be dealt with to give relief to those people, because if not, what type of government are we running and what type of government do we really have? Because the FCC gate keeping of information regarding this technology and its safety guidelines have not been updated in thirty years even those who in their day to day jobs are around, maybe are testing and or are using these technological weapons are not always able to receive adequate health coverage for any injuries or chronic health conditions as a direct result of a lack of full disclosure.