Cancer & tumors

Please update the human exposure guidelines for radio frequency exposure. Many studies identify the health risks such as Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell, L., et al. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

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 of cell tower proximity to my home, as well as a smart meter that is located near my home's bedrooms. My wife has had numerous health issues the past 7 years and I am concerned she may be sensitive to RF radiation.

Subject: Public Comment: Urgent Need to Reevaluate RF Radiation Limits Based on Current Scientific Evidence Dear Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I am a scientist and, as a scientist, I have learned to be careful about my own biases and to keep an open mind about things I don’t fully know or understand. Technology is progressing at unprecedented rates and exposing humanity and all life on Earth to unknown effects. Scientists try to anticipate unwanted consequences of technological developments, but unfortunately, industry interests often contradict cautious development. It is deeply concerning that the FCC continues to maintain that its current safety limits adequately protect public health, while effectively ignoring a large and growing body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating biological harm at non-thermal levels. We are at a critical point in time where we must rigorously assess the risks over the potential benefits. The advent of social media, technology relying on 5G, and the ever-increasing development of energy-consuming artificial intelligence are creating unprecedented pushes on the use of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), making it fully omnipresent. The science already suggests that technology developed more than a decade ago has real biological effects on the central nervous system and cellular health. Key research in this field underscores this reality: • National Toxicology Program (2018): The multi-year NTP rodent study conducted by the U.S. government provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity (specifically heart schwannomas) and some evidence of malignant brain gliomas linked to non-thermal RFR exposure. • Hardell et al. (2013): Extensive epidemiological pooled analyses demonstrated a statistically significant association between long-term mobile and cordless phone use and increased risks for glioma and acoustic neuroma. • Coureau et al. (2014): The French national CERENAT case-control study found significantly higher risks for central nervous system tumors, including gliomas and meningiomas, among heavy, long-term mobile phone users. With recent technological developments, it is absolutely necessary to revisit these studies, further them, ensure new studies are conducted by independent scientists not affiliated with industry, and actually heed their findings. It is time for the FCC to take meaningful action to update safety guidelines and protect humanity from these uncontrolled technological developments. Sincerely, Barbara Cerf-Allen, PhD.

Hello, I just want to state that there is no doubt about the adverse effects of wireless radiation. I know the FCC has guidelines regarding this but they are 30 years old and so much has changed since then. We now have 5G and our society is full of wireless devices, it's really unavoidable at this point. I used to have my router and all my network equipment in my bedroom and when I did I had terrible insomnia. Once I moved it to another room my sleep greatly improved. This is just 1 example. There are so many people that I've talked to that have various issues from wireless radiation and there are now thousands of studies verifying their negative effects. Here is just one of them that shows cell phone exposure reduces HRV (heart rate variability) in people which is a huge stress on the nervous system and the body as a whole which is a big deal. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32249199/ There are so many studies showing that the radiation causes tumors, DNA damage, neurological issues, fertility issues, negative effects on wildlife etc. This is a serious matter and I appreciate your attention to this. Thank you.

Independent Science on the Effects of Wireless Radiation on Human Health and the Environment There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of Radiofrequency (RF radiation). Here we present some of the most recent studies. Effects on Fetuses Effects on Children and Adolescents Brain Tumors Parotid Gland Tumors Other Malignancies DNA Damage and Gene Expression Changes Neurological/Cognitive Effects Cardiovascular Effects Male Fertility EMR Syndrome (Electromagnetic Sensitivity) Implanted Medical Devices 5G Effects Wildlife and Plants Reports, Articles and Reviews

As an Epidemiologist and Health Researcher, I am appalled by the FCC's dragging its feet again and again. Meanwhile, many millions of people in the US are exposed to wireless radiation regularly, if not daily and hourly. Again, the US government chooses to lag behind many other countries that proactively respond to potential health-threatening effects of this technology as well as the formidable scientific research indicating that the effects are very dangerous. In my work as a Cancer and Chronic Disease Researcher, I have been surprised at the many years it takes to put even preliminary health and safety guardrails in place in this country. The FCC is now (again) in a position to change its sluggish "responses" to the many known negative effects of this technology upon the human body as well as our precious environment. I strongly urge the FCC to finally update its. in scientific parlance, "ancient" guidelines and work diligently to begin the process of truly protecting our health and safety regarding this technology. We are all watching now, as is the world.

I see hundreds of clients in my clinic with all manner of diseases. Brain Fog, Cancer, fatigue, Afib etc When these same clients go out of town, away from Cell towers, they get better. 5G towers put near homes are causing the most havoc. My wife gets ill every time we go to the downtown area of our city, where there are a huge number of towers. She can't go to our downtown area because of the cell towers. Studies have been shown towers must be at least 2000 or more away to mitigate damage.

I strongly oppose cell towers within 100 miles of any population. I also oppose smart meters. We live in a townhouse that has 6 smart meters within 6 feet of our bedroom. Since the meters have been installed, we have suffered significant health issues that have disappeared when we stay overnight somewhere else. Several studies done in several countries have all concluded using cell phones increases the risk of cancer. Several people have reported ill effects from living close to a cell tower. Cell towers disrupt other living organisms, particularly bees, by decreasing their populations and disrupting their form of communication and flying patterns. I do not consent to cell towers being anywhere near where people inhabit.

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 my son and I often have tinniutus and head pressure/migraines from the wireless technologies that plague our home. We turn off our wireless at night, which has helped to a point, but are still surrounded by many neighbors who leave theirs on 24/7. We often do not feel well the longer we are on our cell phones and laptop because of such direct exposure of wireless frequencies. We can literally feel the uncomfortable frequencies driving past the cell towers or being near a smart meter. The wireless frequencies are disturbing the cells within our bodies because we are made of frequencies as well. It feels as if we have been guinea pigs/research subjects for so many experiments, and it's about time someone is putting a spotlight on wireless radio frequencies and its harmful consequences, so that we can do something meaningful about it. Overall, I believe that 1) homes and workplaces would have more reliable connections with wired services for phone, TV, computers, equipment than what wireless can provide. 2) There is also more security from being hacked with wired services. 3) There needs to be ethical longitudinal studies into wireless frequency and how it affects not just humans but also wildlife--animals, plants, soil, water, air, environment as a whole. 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.