Children's schools should not be located near mobile phone towers or TV towers or electrical transmission power lines. And the powerful Wi-Fi routers often used in schools should not be near any children's desks. California officially issued guidelines advising of mobile phone dangers, warning of increased risk of brain cancer and other health problems, and that children’s developing brains could be at greater risk. The biggest source of RF exposure for most people is using a mobile phone next to the head. You can reduce RF exposure a lot by using the phone's speaker and holding the phone farther away from your head, or using wired headphones say neuro-oncologists & public heath experts. The city council in Berkeley California passed a law that requires retailers to tell consumers how far away their phone should be held. The European Union recommends wired Internet rather than wireless in schools. France also banned WiFi routers in nursery and daycare centers, and restricted elementary school WiFi to only when in use for education. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) states in an open letter to school superintendents, “There is a consistent, emerging science that shows people, especially children who are more vulnerable due to developing brains and thinner skulls, are being affected by the increasing exposure to wireless radiation.” In 2021 a New Hampshire report outlined health risks of cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods. Scientific American reported a study of mobile phone exposure and cancer in rats: www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/ According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz (UC/Berkeley), "The study's results reinforce the need for more stringent regulation of radiofrequency radiation and better disclosure of the health risks associated with wireless technologies." Dr. Martha Herbert, a Harvard Pediatrician, wrote in this letter to Montgomery County Schools "there are thousands of papers...that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR"..."Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function"..."Powerful industrial entities have a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR, which we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true". The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 requested a review of EMF radiation emissions from technology devices, citing impact on children. Some schools have reduced WiFi exposure of children: https://ehtrust.org/tag/wifi-in-schools/ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/school-wifi-networks-could-put-12602188 In 2011 the World Health Organization classified cell phones (and other wireless devices) as a possible carcinogen due to RF emissions. In 2013 Dr. Anthony Miller from University of Toronto School of Public Health recommended that based on new research, radio frequency (RF) exposure should be reclassified as a probable carcinogen. Regarding power lines: Researchers have found health effects, including a doubling of leukemia rates associated with living in AC magnetic field strengths greater than 4.0 mG. www.emfs.info/health/leukaemia/ www.powerwatch.org.uk/elf/overview.asp www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10944614 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20877339 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11055621 The Swedish National Energy Department issued an advisory warning that schools, playgrounds, and day-care centers should not be sited near power lines, and that children should not be subjected for long periods every day to AC magnetic fields over 3.0 mG.
Public Comment to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ET Docket No. 13-84: Reassessment of RF Exposure Limits I urge the FCC to open a new proceeding to reassess its radio frequency (RF) exposure limits and work directly with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure that those limits reflect current scientific evidence, including potential biological effects beyond tissue heating. Wireless infrastructure has expanded dramatically, with antennas and cell towers appearing on schools, apartment buildings, and near people's homes. Wi-Fi, smart meters, and wireless devices are now widespread, often with limited public discussion about potential health and environmental impacts or the availability of alternatives. I have personally experienced headaches, nausea, feeling unwell, neck and chest tightness, ringing in my ears, and a hot, tingling sensation in my hand when holding a cell phone. I have noticed differences in how I feel under certain wireless conditions, including when using Wi-Fi compared with a wired Ethernet connection. I recognize these experiences do not establish causation, but I believe they warrant serious consideration and further independent research. The FCC should not rely solely on protection against excessive tissue heating without transparently evaluating the broader scientific evidence concerning possible biological effects. I ask the Commission to: 1. Open a new proceeding to review and update its RF exposure limits. 2. Work with HHS and independent researchers to evaluate the latest evidence on potential biological effects, including effects not explained by heating. 3. Improve public access to exposure measurements, the scientific basis for safety standards, and any remaining uncertainties. 4. Consider practical alternatives, including wired technologies, and the environmental and community impacts of expanding wireless infrastructure. 5. Provide meaningful opportunities for public participation before finalizing revised standards. I am also concerned about who benefits financially from the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure and whether commercial interests are receiving greater consideration than public health, environmental protection, and informed public choice. I urge the FCC to take concrete action, commission a transparent review, and work with HHS to ensure that its standards are informed by the full body of credible scientific evidence. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and a meaningful voice in decisions that affect our homes and communities. Thank you for considering my comments.