Court remand & agency accountability

Public Comment to the Federal Communications Commission Re: ET Docket No. 13-84 — Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies I am submitting this comment as a concerned resident and parent regarding the serious imbalance between federal telecommunications policy, public health protections, and the rights of local communities to determine whether wireless telecommunications infrastructure should be constructed near their homes and schools. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 fundamentally altered the ability of local governments to protect their communities from unwanted wireless infrastructure. Under Section 704, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), local governments are prohibited from regulating the placement, construction, or modification of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions when those facilities comply with FCC regulations. For nearly three decades, this restriction has placed residential communities in an extraordinarily difficult position. Residents may express concerns about long-term RF exposure, proximity to children, cumulative exposure from multiple installations, or the adequacy of existing safety standards, yet their elected local officials are severely restricted in their ability to consider those concerns when deciding whether to approve a tower. In practical terms, federal law has deprived communities of meaningful local authority over one of the very issues that matters most to them: whether continuous, involuntary RF exposure near their homes and schools presents an acceptable risk. As a resident in a suburban neighborhood marketed to buyers as a "healthy living" community, I have seen the number of cell towers near my home grow from approximately 40 towers four years ago, to over 100 towers currently. This includes three currently in progress, which were forced through administrative approvals without opportunity for public notifications and public hearing. Wireless communications development companies are abusing the liberal policies established under the Federal Telecommunications Act, forcing tower construction upon residential neighborhoods, against the will of the local community. Not only does this deprive the community of an opportunity to voice opposition, but it also takes away freedom of choice for exposure to something that the American Cancer Society cannot definitively declare "safe" or that it does not cause cancer, due to lack of long term studies to substantiate that it does not cause cancer. Further, the limited studies that exist, are based upon estimated exposure levels and not actual exposure levels, and are limited to exposure from one towers RF emissions, rather than considering the collective level of exposure from all sources. If someone already has 5 towers within 1,000 yards from their home, adding an additional tower is not necessarily within tolerable safety limits because the estimated exposure from the new tower does not consider the cumulative levels emitted from all towers and sources. Because populated areas have limited spaces to erect these towers, the wireless communication companies are aggressively targeting unincorporated areas, public utility easements, and even school grounds. Many school districts in Austin TX are entering into lease agreements with wireless communications companies, erecting towers on top of schools, which poses a risk to student health. My own children have a cell tower right on top of their middle school. I personally have a BRCA mutation and I am more susceptible to DNA damage from RF. I may have passed my gene to my children. It is wrong that there is RF exposure continually forced upon us in our own backyard, and we should have the right to refuse. There should be a moratorium on new cell tower construction in residential areas and school zones until such time that there is long term safety data definitively proving that it is completely safe with no risk. I recognize that reliable wireless communication is important. However, the public's need for connectivity should not automatically outweigh the rights of residents, parents, and communities to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their immediate living environments. I am particularly concerned about the placement of wireless infrastructure on or near school properties. Schools should be places where children's health, safety, and welfare are the foremost considerations. Yet school districts and telecommunications companies may enter into arrangements allowing wireless infrastructure on educational property, potentially generating revenue while exposing surrounding families and students to an installation they may have little practical ability to oppose on RF health grounds. The fact that a telecommunications facility complies with existing FCC exposure limits should not automatically end the public health discussion, especially when those limits themselves are the subject of ongoing scientific and regulatory scrutiny. The 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC illustrates why public confidence cannot rest solely on the assertion that existing standards are adequate. The court found deficiencies in the FCC's explanation for retaining its RF exposure limits in light of issues raised in the administrative record, including noncancer health effects, children's health, and long-term exposure. Communities should not be legally prevented from considering potential RF health impacts while the federal agency responsible for establishing the governing exposure limits is still addressing questions concerning the adequacy of those standards. This creates a fundamental accountability problem: federal law restricts local governments from considering RF health concerns, while residents must rely on federal standards that they have no meaningful ability to challenge through the local tower approval process. I urge the FCC to take the following actions: Conduct a comprehensive, transparent, and independent reassessment of RF exposure standards, including long-term exposure, potential nonthermal biological effects, children's health, and cumulative exposure from multiple wireless installations. Give particular consideration to wireless facilities located near residences, schools, childcare facilities, and other locations where children and families spend substantial amounts of time. Require meaningful public disclosure of proposed antenna configurations, operating frequencies, projected RF exposure, and cumulative exposure from existing nearby facilities before new installations are approved. Establish stronger public participation and independent exposure-assessment procedures for wireless infrastructure proposed near residential neighborhoods and schools. Recommend that Congress revisit the preemption provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that local governments can meaningfully consider RF exposure and public health concerns when evaluating proposed wireless facilities. Ensure that the burden of demonstrating compliance with scientifically justified safety standards rests with wireless infrastructure operators, rather than requiring individual residents to prove harm after a facility has already been constructed. I am not advocating for the elimination of wireless communication. I am advocating for a regulatory framework that recognizes that technological advancement and public health protections are not mutually exclusive. The wireless infrastructure landscape has changed dramatically since 1996. The number, density, configuration, and proximity of wireless installations to homes and schools have evolved, and federal oversight must account for those changes. No community should be forced to accept a wireless installation near its homes or schools without meaningful consideration of health and safety concerns simply because federal law prevents local officials from evaluating those concerns. The FCC has an obligation to ensure that the standards relied upon to override local decision-making are supported by a thorough, transparent, and current scientific assessment. I respectfully urge the Commission to address these concerns and to recognize the consequences that federal preemption has had on residential communities and families across the country. Thank you for considering my comment.

I appreciate being asked by HHS for comments on this topic. The FCC has not done so in the thirty years since the Telecommunications Act was enacted in 1996. I do not have reason to believe that I have been injured physically. However, I do not want a Smart Meter on my house and Pennsylvania is the only state that does not allow opting out which is a negation of the liberty given to us in the Constitution: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Many studies have been done over a period of many years that show the effects of EMF’s (Electro Magnetic Frequency) on the health of humans, animals and the environment. For any industry to not test their products for more than thirty years is ludicrous and dangerous. The wireless devices available today are completely different from what available in 1996. Smartphones didn’t even exist yet. 4G and 5G were unheard of. Children are particularly vulnerable to this damage as their bodies are smaller and spend more time outside where they can be near sources of EMR (Electro Magnetic Radiation). The FCC clearly only cares about the bottom line and not the welfare of the taxpayers who support them. I learned about the dangers of cell phone radiation twenty years ago, not from the industry, but from independent doctors and researchers. It’s time for the wireless industry to prove the safety of their products. Until then, those products are to be viewed as unsafe and the industry to be untrustworthy. Note the following review: Investigation of the Adverse Health Effects of Cell Phone Radiation and Propose Solutions to Minimize Them: A Systematic Review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11111148/ Sec. Kennedy has promised the American people, “gold-standard science.” It’s time for the FCC to do the same.

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. I hope the FCC will 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 intense physical symptoms when I am in areas with a lot of wi-fi signals and cellular phones. I get very dizzy, have intense ringing in my ears, headaches, nausea, and experience visual problems when I go into an airport, a large discount box store like Costco, or into a a building that has over 10 wi-fi signals from multiple apartments or offices. I've also had friends and co-workers who have ended up with cancerous tumors where they kept their cell phone on their body or against their ear i.e. a brain tumor behind the ear used with phone and cancer in the hip bone where a friend kept their phone hooked to their belt all the time. 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.

It is known that RF energy is dangerous when it heats tissue, so keeping exposure below the heating threshold has been the “safety” goal since the 1990's. However, “The Federal Communications Commission’s safety exposure limits for wireless radiation are based on the assumption that the radiation can harm human health ONLY at levels high enough to heat human tissue. Cellphones emit radiation at levels lower than that.” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cellphone-radiation-abnormal-blood-cells-rouleaux-formation/? So an entire category of biological effects from RF energy has been denied consideration by the FCC. It is now imperative that the FCC fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning ALL possible types of health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation. Personally I have been dismayed that for many years the FCC has refused to update their decades old “safety standards” for RF exposure, clinging to “thermal effects” as the only possible harmful impact on living beings. Yet a government funded review of 2300 studies done before 1971 found a plethora of biological effects. https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Naval-Medical-Research-Institute-2300-Studies-on-EMF-Health-Effects.pdf In this comment I will focus on my own individual personal experience related to symptoms listed in that bibliography such as sleep disturbance; lens of eye (cataractous lesions)/ lens opacity and coagulation; blood disorders; blood oxygen content resulting from EMF/RF exposure; hypertension. SLEEP DISTURBANCE Some time after forced installation of smart meters on both my household electrical system and natural gas system, I began to notice a strange pattern. I would wake up from deep sleep at precisely the same time every night. (For a long while it was 4:14 am.) It mattered not what time I had gotten to bed nor how tired I had been, etc. Just a peculiar waking up at exactly the same moment every night, often with heart arrhythmia or racing heartbeat. And then having great difficulty getting back to sleep. This became very tiresome and took a serious toll on my health and well-being. I believe some researchers have found a way to trace when smart meters release some sort of energy blast that could cause such a sleep disturbance. There is nothing inside my home that would generate an “alarm” waking me every night, so I have had to question other possible sources and smart meters are a likely suspect. The exact repetitive timing of waking points to an automated system. EYE LENS IMPACTS From 2016 t0 2026 I did a tremendous amount of volunteer computer work for an organization I supported. Over time I became convinced intuitively that this extensive screen time was damaging my eyes, as my sight became more and more blurry until I could not use the computer without wearing glasses. Previously I had only ever worn glasses for distance vision while driving or at movie theatres. I was eventually diagnosed with serious cataracts and have had to pay for cataract replacement surgery. I found an explanation by Dr. Tom Cowan of the mechanism by which RF and the light from screens deteriorates the eyesight--thus confirming my intuition. BLOOD DISORDERS In 2006 and 2007 I had live blood cell analysis done out of curiosity to explore ways to enhance my health. There were no Rouleaux Formations visible in my blood sample (when red blood cells stack together like coins). During that period in my life I had no cell phone. Smart meters were not installed in my area until 2010-2012. As of then no cell towers had been erected nearby. In 2021 I returned for another live blood cell analysis and my red blood cells were all clumped in Rouleaux Formation. This was extremely alarming as that can impact blood flow and circulation and put one at risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart attack. At that point I had owned a cell phone since 2017 and generally tried to avoid it, keeping it as far from my body as possible and touching it as little as possible. When away from home I carried it in the back of my knapsack, not immediately on my body. (But I needed to bring it with me to the blood test in order to get in the door.) I wish to point to several studies that have been done that tie Rouleaux formation in the blood to EMF/RF: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cellphone-radiation-abnormal-blood-cells-rouleaux-formation/? “RBCs that are stuck together in Rouleaux or other aggregates increase the blood viscosity, and this affects the passage of RBC through the microvessels throughout the body.13 RBC shape and deformability are also relevant to blood flow. The typical round disk shape of normal RBCs is considered optimum for blood flow. The shape of the echinocytes might impair blood flow and oxygen release from echinocytes is known to be impaired.14” https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/does-short-term-exposure-to-cell-phone-radiation-affect-the-blood/#gsc.tab=0 BREATH AND OXYGEN CARRIAGE IN BLOOD The fact sheet on Rouleaux Formation produced by Environmental Health Trust also notes that “blood may not carry oxygen efficiently”. I have been noticing in the last few years that when I hike uphill I “huff and puff”, getting out of breath more than would seem appropriate for my otherwise good health and exercise habits. I have puzzled about that. (Typically when hiking I have my cellphone in my knapsack or backpack, which according to the research I have just cited, could be generating Rouleaux Formation in my blood while I am hiking.) It definitely feels as though, in spite of breathing strongly, I am not getting enough oxygen. “…clumped blood cells flow less easily and thus can impact oxygen delivery throughout the body.” (Study published in February 2025, conducted by Dr. Robert R. Brown, Vice President of Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs at EHT) HYPERTENSION I purchased my first cell phone mid 2017. In 2018 my blood pressure was within “normal” range—since then it has continually crept up, as has my cell phone usage. Research suggests a correlation. I don’t have wifi in my home, choosing to use ethernet connections instead to minimize EMF/RF exposure. However as I write at least 10 of my neighbor’s wifi systems are impinging on my inside space. My neighbor’s smart meter is just across the driveway from where my head is when I sleep…There is a cell tower approximately 3 blocks away in one direction and another about the same distance in the other direction. I am not happy about any of these RF sources but can not control them.. Do I hear the reader saying “These are all normal symptoms of aging”? Are they, or have they just been “normalized” because of the omnipresence of RF/EMF impacting our health? DATA CENTERS And now Data centers are trying to gain a foothold EVERYWHERE including in crowded communities such as mine. These emit RFs / EMFs and can have a serious impact on neighbors—or some say, on everyone within a several mile radius. Do we want to choose this as a culture? to create “sacrifice zones” that are uninhabitable by anyone concerned with health? CONCLUSION The FCC should take a Precautionary Principle position about RF/EMF safety standards. I have presented many of my own health issues that COULD be impacts from RF/EMF. Indeed research has pointed to most of them as potentially “caused” by RF/EMF. It is difficult to prove causality of anything—but if our goal is to support health in the general population and lessen healthcare spending, then we need more stringent RF safety standards..

My comments are simple The FCC is in breech of trust to do its work ensuring the safety of the technology you allow in our homes. The courts have ordered you do something, like how about doing some reviews of all the peer reviewed studies already existing since your last review WAY BACK in 1996? That is 30 years ago here are some studies : Levitt, Lai & Manville (2021) Panagopoulos et al. (2021) BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates) I think it pretty obvious that very measurable harms will found from exposure to cell phones, smart appliaances, wifi, and most of the other RF waves that are bouncing around. Please do the dillegence expected of a Federal Agency and do a proper review and make some serious changes to the technology you are allowing into our lives. There are better ways, better frequencies etc to use than what is being used today. Thank you

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, infertility and more! As a longtime commercial FCC licensee, I want you to know that this has got to change ASAP. For too many years, we who work in broadcast radio have been treated as unstudied guinea pigs, with our heightened unprotected exposure to man-made electromagnetic radiation. Today, the FCC is treating almost the entire population of the settled world as unstudied guinea pigs. The Federal Communications Commission already exercises regulatory power over most players in the broadcast and communications environment. It has chosen to use that power in a limited and biased way. Let's talk about changing that or at least improving it.

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’ve been suffering from EMR Syndrome for 5 years. Whenever there’s a cell phone turned on near me—or Wi-Fi, a DECT phone, a cordless device, or an antenna nearby—I get headaches, pain all over my body, and brain fog. I become aggressive, and if it goes on for too long, I end up with burnout or depression... I’m a musician and flute teacher. I’ve not been able to play in concert the late 2 years. I can still teach, but it’s become very difficult. If I'm in my classroom and there's a cell phone turned on in the hallway, I can't see it, but I can sense it! I have to wear protective clothing—it's very expensive, but it's not enough—and it's very hard to live like this. I’m OK when there is less than 0,020 V/m (HF). I can support with the shielding clothes until 0,2 V/m during one or maybe 2 hours. If it is 1V/m or more, that’s not possible for me, and I’ll be very ill during at least 2 weeks. It’s not possible to travel, nor to go at restaurant, cinema, concert, etc. 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.

Following the installation of 5G antennas in 2021 on the roof of a neighboring building : Mid-February 2024, strange headaches appear, with a runny nose. My histamine level high, which is a characteristic marker of intolerance to electromagnetic waves. I take metro line 3 In Paris and inside the carriage, my legs are suddenly electrified. I could no longer walk. My legs had become as if on fire. Mid-June 2024, still inside the carriage of line 3 in the metro, this time the entire body is electrified, at Saint-Lazare station in Paris. Mid-August 2024, a new neighbor with a 5 Ghz router, and my face and my entire body began to burn. An association advised me to take shelter in my cellar. Luckily I had one, to escape the burning sensations. I am in possession of three medical certificates that I can send to you personally upon your request: • The first certifying my intolerance to electromagnetic waves from August 26, 2024. • Medical certificate from September 9, 2024, diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy at Henri-Mondor Hospital. Reason for the examination: investigation of neuropathy in the presence of pain like electric shocks and stabbing sensations, initially in the lower limbs then diffuse, onset in February 2024 at the same time as intolerance to electromagnetic fields. Physiology and functional exploration department, at Henri-Mondor University Hospital Center. • Another, certifying my EHS, electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome, on On July 24, 2026 Here is a very interesting read for you: Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health. Publication en ligne anticipée. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104 In light of these severe health impacts, I urge the FCC to apply the precautionary principle (as recognized in international environmental standards, such as Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration) and revise its obsolete RF exposure guidelines under 47 CFR § 1.1307 to truly protect human health.

PUBLIC COMMENT — HHS DOCKET HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Submitted by: Slowphone Brasil Slowphone Brasil advocates for healthier and safer use of technology. We urge the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards, consider the scientific evidence already available, and prioritize public health and the protection of life over commercial interests. 1. REASSESS EXPOSURE LIMITS Current radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards should be independently reassessed in light of peer-reviewed research reporting biological effects and potential health concerns below existing guidelines. The review should address voltage-gated calcium channels, oxidative stress and peroxynitrite pathways, blood-brain barrier permeability, and tumors, including gliomas and schwannomas. HHS should evaluate the US National Toxicology Program studies and the Ramazzini Institute's 2018 findings alongside epidemiological research, systematic reviews and subsequent evidence. Animal findings and proposed mechanisms should be distinguished from proven human causation, without dismissing relevant evidence because scientific uncertainty remains. 2. ENSURE SCIENTIFIC INDEPENDENCE HHS should examine conflicts of interest, funding sources, professional affiliations and evidence-selection methods in organizations whose recommendations inform exposure standards, including ICNIRP. Relevant concerns should be assessed through verifiable documents, declarations of interest and transparent review procedures. Independent experts should evaluate the full body of evidence, including findings that challenge existing assumptions. 3. ADOPT MORE PROTECTIVE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS We propose an international outdoor RF reference level of 100,000 µW/m² (0.1 W/m²) for consideration and scientific evaluation. HHS should compare US standards with current regulations in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Poland, Italy and Israel, identifying more protective approaches and the rationale behind them. Comparisons must specify frequency, averaging periods, measurement conditions and whether values are binding limits or precautionary targets. 4. REDUCE EXPOSURE AT SOURCE HHS should promote a comprehensive strategy to reduce unnecessary exposure while maintaining essential communications. Wireless routers should provide effective low-emission modes, adjustable transmission power and automatic reduction of unnecessary transmissions. JRS ECO technology may serve as a technical reference, subject to independent testing. Public institutions, schools, hospitals, childcare facilities and workplaces should prioritize wired Ethernet connections where practical, reducing dependence on Wi-Fi in locations occupied for long periods. Wireless networks should be deployed only where needed, with access points configured to avoid unnecessary transmission power. Consumers should have access to mobile phones with low specific absorption rates (SAR), transparent and comparable exposure information, and easy-to-use settings that reduce unnecessary transmissions. Hands-free use, speakerphone use and keeping active devices away from the body when practical should be encouraged. HHS should also evaluate exposure from cellular infrastructure, small cells, Internet of Things devices, wearables, smart meters and emerging wireless technologies. Infrastructure planning should consider exposure in homes, schools and other sensitive locations. 5. PROTECT CHILDREN AND SENSITIVE SETTINGS Public-health guidance should give particular attention to children, pregnancy and fetal development. Schools and childcare facilities should favor wired connections where feasible and adopt practical exposure-reduction measures. Public procurement policies should consider low-emission connectivity options and transparent technical specifications. 6. ADDRESS DIRTY ELECTRICITY HHS should support independent, reproducible research on high-frequency electrical noise conducted through wiring, sometimes called dirty electricity. Proposed filters should be assessed through standardized measurements before and after installation; health benefits should not be presumed without reliable evidence. Measurement methods and units must be clearly defined. 7. WARN AND INFORM THE PUBLIC HHS should consider prominent graphical health-information labels on RF-emitting devices and products, inspired by tobacco warnings. Labels should explain that exposure and scientific uncertainty exist and provide practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. A broad public-awareness campaign, drawing on documented initiatives in Cyprus, should explain exposure sources, research findings, uncertainties and preventive options. Environmental measurements should be publicly accessible and report RF in µW/m², electric-field strength in V/m, and magnetic-field strength in nT. Dirty electricity requires separate, clearly defined measurement methods. 8. GLOBAL ACTION AND TRANSPARENCY The United States should encourage international cooperation on independent research, standardized environmental monitoring, public disclosure of measurement results and periodic reassessment of exposure limits. Publicly funded research should disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources, publish results regardless of outcome, and enable independent verification. OUR PRINCIPAL REQUESTS 1. Reassess existing RF exposure limits and evaluate an international outdoor reference level of 100,000 µW/m². 2. Implement a broad public-awareness campaign and promote practical exposure-reduction measures worldwide. 3. Introduce prominent graphical warnings on RF-emitting products and strengthen protections in schools and other sensitive settings. Public health and the protection of life must take precedence over commercial interests. HHS should act on existing evidence, improve scientific transparency and advance proportionate preventive measures without waiting for every uncertainty to be resolved. REFERENCES IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Monographs, Volume 102 (2013). https://publications.iarc.who.int/126 US National Toxicology Program. Technical Reports 595 and 596 (2018). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/apptoxres/cartox Italy. Law No. 36 of 22 February 2001. https://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/01036l.htm

Complete top to bottom regulatory capture. We need a national smart meter opt out on individual residences for all types of technologies for every utility available, electricity, natural gas, water, and beyond. Local energy and utility companies consistently refuse to offer opt outs, charge punitive pricing for those whom refuse smart grid systems, refuse to listen, deceive customers about the dangers of these technological items, and force us to have them on our homes. We want cell towers of all kinds removed from all public parks and public schools for similar safety concern reasons. We were supposed to have low priced broadband and fiber optic access, which is what 1990's infrastructure built out subsidies and grants were intended for. Instead the telecom companies hijacked the infrastructure and sold everyone high price cellular instead, built on the backbone of the fiberoptic network the public paid for, for public benefit and low priced access. The biological damage from these technologies goes far beyond thermal heating. Bees and pollinators are at historically low numbers, we are experiencing an insect and other biological forms of life die off on this planet. Please will someone force a removal of the never ending new satellites in the sky and get that under control immediately? We do not need to blanket the entire earth with wireless access emf fields. The corporations pushing these technologies are clearly unchecked and effectively unregulated at this point. We need additional investment in fiberoptic with public access everywhere there may be sub standard connectivity. The last thing we need anywhere is another technological smart device or spyware data broker collection device anywhere. Get every single one of these out of our public areas immediately please. Keep it wired. Keep it safe. From wireless devices within the homes, for entertainment, work purposes, the unwelcome injection of synching devices pervading everything everywhere, clearly there is no regulatory check to these industries. These have deleterious and cumulative negative effects on human health, down to the cellular level. The damage builds the more emf field exposure is present. Yet the industry and captured government agencies insist on ignoring studies and scientific proof from around the world the harms these new technologies cause. At this point it may be better for medical professionals to prescribe safe limits because there is nowhere anyone can turn for valid safety or meaningful privacy advisement from within the government agencies whom allegedly oversee these industries. We want 3glte systems available again. The ewaste generated from these forced transitions to 4glte or higher is incredible and wasteful. We want our qwerty flip phones back. The kind without all the monitoring capability, built in spyware, and dangerous high frequency emf generating fields like all the 'modern' phones. The amount of fraud, spam of all sorts, is clearly out of control and unchecked on these systems too. From smart devices of all sorts to every day phones, there needs to be new rules prohibiting all types of unwelcome communication and solicitation. Real penalties for scammers whom never ever stop and have created a billions of dollar a year industry defrauding Americans. We're forced to have these devices through a myriad of ways or denied normal societal access, then there is no effective oversight to prevent harm and abuse of the systems integrations. The bees are dying. The trees are dying. The soils are increasingly contaminated. Yet big industry continues to pull the strings of government. The waste fraud and abuse has truly reached epic levels. This is not the bright future of technology we were promised. As the surveillance network builds at a rapid pace all around us, tyranny on the horizon. All it takes to turn these technologies into tools of control and harm is a policy change. The very last thing anyone needs is another data center and we're also in desperate need of right to be forgotten type laws, strict limitations on data gathering of data brokers and the corporations they deal with. We want our fourth amendment right to privacy back immediately. The wireless infrastructure and IOT network of devices is a key part in the erosion of civil liberties, ongoing abusive process by these corporations whom build, deploy, utilize, and profit from the devices presence. When do we as consumers get a meaningful opt out option? We're all opted in without consent then are not allowed to opt out? Nobody does anything about this as they ignore privacy and safety advocates from around the world whom have irrefutably proved harm? That is regulatory capture. Save the bees. If you don't care about rights and health of humans, at least save the bees. Our food supply depends on them. The emf fields decimate pollinators even worse than chemical pollution. Endless studies, ignored.