The FCC must become a proactive agency, placing Americans' health first before businesses and other objectives. Subsequently, amending current exposure limits to ensure safety is urgently needed. Independent experts concur that the 1996 RFR exposure limits remain ineffective because they were based on thermal heating of tissue, while ignoring lower frequencies. Studies based on thermal heating used a 200 lb male dummy and a water filled balloon for head exposure. Debilitating health effects occur at much lower frequency levels. Health impacts for pregnant women, babies, children and those working in fields with chronic exposures weren't included. Fast forward thirty years, and the amount of RFR emitting devices and ambient RFR levels has skyrocketed. The proliferation of cell phones, cell towers, 5G, 6G, antennas, WiFi, smart meters, and other smart products is unprecedented. No federal agency has assessed/evaluated the impacts on human health and our environment by addressing these combined multiple exposures. Major areas of concern include: impacts on children, the environment, EHS individuals and the cumulative, involuntary exposure most people encounter every day. As a grandmother, I'm extremely worried about the constant RFR exposure experienced by our children and its long term effects. Children are more susceptible to environmental harms as they are smaller physically and in the process of developing. Their skulls are thinner, allowing more radiation to penetrate. Many schools now default to wireless connectivity with no evidence of safety, subjecting our children to this invisible toxin daily. An increasing number of people experience Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity due to current excessive exposure levels. This involuntary exposure while navigating work and/or public spaces is impossible to avoid. Many individuals through repeated exposure develop hypersensitivity and must actively avoid all exposures. Personally, I find airports intolerable; I experience headaches, vision problems and brain fog that lingers for hours. My home is hard-wired with ethernet cables and I keep my cell phone on airplane mode when not in use. Additionally, unless a state has enacted a no-fee opt-out, involuntary exposures include Smart Meters, which emit continuous pulsed radiation. Independent testing of all devices should reflect real life usage. For example, cell phones are carried in pockets, next to skin, close to the face and head. The US should implement the European Commission's new standard requiring cellphones to be tested for radiation while touching the body — which is how people actually carry and use cellphones: in a pocket or against the skin. Dr. Marc Arazi, Phonegate Alert's founder and president, stated that a recent court ruling represents an “historic victory for European consumer protection and the culmination of nearly 10 years of campaigning against cellphone radiation testing protocols that failed to reflect real-world conditions of use.” The natural world is similarly affected. It is known that RFR radiation affects bees and migratory birds, disrupting their ability to navigate and forage effectively. Flora and fauna are known to experience die-offs in close proximity to cell towers. In 2021, Kent Chamberlin Chairman, Emeritus of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire concluded one of the key recommendations of the New Hampshire Commission to Study The Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology is that cell towers be placed no nearer than 1,640 feet from places where people live, work or recreate. This 500 meter setback should become immediate public policy. There should be an immediate moratorium on any new devices while safety studies are performed to evaluate the countless RFR emitting products already on the market. European Union study finds children absorb more wireless radiation than adults across rangeof 5G frequencies - EHNhttps://www.ehn.org/5g-wireless-radiation-children-exposure 1 The FCC Is Supposed to Protect the Environment. It Doesn’t. https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-environment-cell- towers-failures Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture (2022) 19 https://ehtrust.org/electromagnetic-fields-impact-tree- plant-growth/ 20 https://ehtrust.org/environmental-effects-of-wireless- radiation-and-electromagetic-fields/ 21 https://ehtrust.org/published-research-adverse-effect- wireless-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-bees/ 22 https://ehtrust.org/radiofrequency-radiation-effects-on- agronomy-agricultural-crops-and-crop-yields
I am an occupational therapist, a mother, and a small business owner. The health impacts from RF emissions from a "smart" electric meter installation on my office, along with daily cellphone use, and a new "super powerful" router for my office .... cumulated in an 180 degree change in my life's quality in 2018. Unregulated, unmonitored standards are killing our kids and our society. There are well researched results of the health impact of wireless devices on cellular health. Wireless frequencies have been the standard of which I now navigate my life. Unfortunately, this country that is denying the very real impact of wireless frequency bands is destroying the very base of which it depends upon for future success. FCC’s invitation claims its 1996 wireless radiation exposure limits stem from “gold-standard research” from organizations “including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), internationally recognized standard-setting organizations.” Two other such recognized groups include the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), which shared membership by Dr. James Lin, who concluded: “... RF exposure limits make allowances only to worry about heat with RF radiation. These limits are devised for restricting short-term heating by RF radiation and aim to prevent increased tissue temperatures. Thus, they are not applicable to long-term exposure at low levels. Instead of advances in science, they are predicated on assumptions using outdated exposure metrics, thus their ability to protect children, workers, and the public from exposure to the RF radiation or people with sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and systems. Furthermore, the limits are based on outdated information and circumvent important animal data. These issues are even more relevant in the case of millimeter-wave radiation from 5G mobile communications for which there are no adequate health effects studies in the published literature. Finally, the guidelines do not adequately address conclusions from scientific organizations, such as the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Thus, many of the recommended limits are questionable from the standpoint of scientific justification for the safety and public health protection.” Society needs to know the impact of wireless devices and communications are on cellular health. Ignoring sound historical and current research and discounting debilitating impacts no longer is accepted. REAL integration of the science and regulations need to occur.