International scientists have provided to the WHO researched proof of the multiple effects of man made EMR/EMF. This has been discounted and manipulated by those with vested interests in expanding the particular infrastructure, this to the detriment of human health. Eventually we all pay the price for ignorance.
I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old 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. 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. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless 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. 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. This issue matters to me personally because: I experience negative physical affects being close to wireless radiation. I 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.
I am the father of two children: Joel, seven and Bresly 12 years old. My wife and I didn't know any better at the time and left our kids use their wireless devices as they wished, as a result: Joel suffers from a constellation of symptoms from difficulty to concentrate to nose-bleeding ....and when we bring him to doctors they don't know how to diagnose or treat him. Bresly, at her young age is almost blind because her excessive use of wireless screens/devices. And we are "lucky" because our neighbor has cancer. We live within 110 meters of two cell towers and the vegetation here keeps dying and birds don't come to nest as before. In my opinion wireless technologies and devices should come with big radiation warnings.
I suffer from a physiological response to wireless technologies. This happens when I am in a strong wifi environment and if I stay too long near electromagnetic frequencies from standard electrical pulsations. I didn’t want to believe that my symptoms and suffering would be so clearly caused by such ubiquitous daily technologies but the facts have remained- I feel the intensity of pulsed electromagnetic waves. My symptoms are: insomnia, headache, increased and heightened tinnitus (ringing becomes more shrill), and an overall increase in anxiety. To alleviate my reactions/illness, I have learned to prepare for a specific environment. For example, when I enter a restaurant, I use an EMF meter to find the areas of least radiation. My house is hard-wired with ethernet cables providing my internet connections and I use a landline to communicate. I do own a cell phone but it is kept in airplane mode or off most of the time. My friends and family know about my condition and they do not keep their phones on around me. I can’t attend stadium concerts, games and events where I know all phones will be pulsing their signals so, I don’t go. Luckily, I own my home and I am not subject to others’ wifi signals that would occur were I living in an apartment building. What about those who can’t afford a home and are forced to live in an unsafe environment? Sadly, I have come to believe that our government does not care about people like me. They care about the profits made by Telecom and they continue to deny that my sub-group has validity. Despite the studies that show harm, the FCC has just continued to allow more transmitters at higher frequencies to be developed. These higher frequencies (4G, 5G, 6G, 10G) are currently causing damage to plants and wildlife while the Federal government just looks the other way. I urge the FCC to take me and the thousands of us (could be millions, with symptoms blamed on the wrong cause), seriously. We are disabled and are often unable to participate in general society. Today, it is hard to find a safe place where there are no EMFs. This is why many escape into a forest, living off grid and on the edge. The small cell antennas now being deployed in every conceivable location- schools, office buildings, churches (shouldn’t they be sacred and safe places?), and on people’s homes make life impossible for those suffering from EMR-S (Electro Magnetic Syndrome). Please, take action now and prevent more suffering. Thank you, Kelly Marcotulli
EMF radiation emitting towers needs to be reigned in. The health effects that we already know about are profound. Radio Frequency limits must be lowered. Of course the issue is big tech and big money and now having rolled this out in such a huge way and then say "oops", is a big lift with enormous push back. We need limits and better testing and reduction of exposure. We have been allowing the tech companies to race from 2G to 6G and beyond. NO, we need a halt to this before everyone is sick and sickly. I, for one person, have extremely disrupted sleep in the presence of towers and wifi. This technology was rolled out with no proper long term safety studies and the safety foundations are resting on antiquated numbers from long, long ago (i.e. does it raise temps) Questions: What does it do to cells, the immune system, T cells, mitochondria, a pregnant woman and the developing fetus? I have palpitations and a heart rate around 110 in the presence of towers and moderate EMF signals. Is there a significant portion of the population that has more sensitivity to this as I do? Is it causing cancers? Let us use the Precautionary Principle to protect people and the unborn and back off and lower the exposure levels. An Inconvenient Truth it may be, but do not let that stop the FCC from doing the right things for Americans and future generations. Science shows cells and life can be harmed, sleep patterns disrupted and thus Radio Frequency Limits need to be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERED.
DIGITAL technology is pulsed. Human and wildlife biology is accustomed to natural radio waves, and is not adjusted to the impact of intermittent pulses generated without relief from cell masts. Therefore, digital technology must be either superseded or used with the greatest precaution. THIS submission identifies four areas where there are gaps in necessary protection for long term public health, as follows: CELL masts capable of RF transmission are being installed in residential streets— # Without long term effects having been proven safe for human and wildlife health; and # Without reported adverse effects having been avoided or remedied; and # Without the democratic agreement of residents living within reach and sight of the technology; and # Without adequate monitoring of transmission levels. THE regulatory authorities are failing to protect human and wildlife wellbeing in those four ways. Through disregard of public wishes, the FCC is denying the public control of our own health. ISSUES of public concern regarding positioning of cell masts in residential areas: # The telecom companies are not required to remedy loss of good health, nor pay for shielding materials to avoid effects, nor compensate loss of pleasure in life. # There is no provision for the public to have rights of objection to the choice of site for a cell mast, nor rights to compensation and fair settlement. # Recourse to legal processes is beyond the means of most households. That is, the costs of shielding materials, re-designing bedrooms where children sleep, and “leaving all fair” should fall on the telecommunication companies and not on the householder.
10 comments displayed. More load as you scroll.
These are separate official submissions grouped by topic. A comment can appear in more than one board.