Research, evidence & monitoring

There has been no current since the 4G and 5G telephones have caused EMF radiation damage to human beings. Many brain cancers on the Campus of SDSU in San Diego. Not sure if it the servers on campus or the other products installed by att, verizon, etc. We have not studied the effects that I am aware of. If you Look up IEEE WBAN 802.15.6 you will see that we are electrical beings and the companies have set up equipment to track through nodes (human bodies) our signal we each have one. This means they are capable of tracking us and sending a signal to kill us. Unless you are not aware there has been a man studying the Havana Syndrome patients for 20 years. It is appauling you have let it go this far.

The FCC must update the requirements to protect public health from the effects of wireless radiation. This technology has exploded to being omnipresent in a short time period with disregard for a growing body of evidence of harm to humans and other species. For example, one study, Effects of Short and Long Term Electromagnetic Fields Exposure on the Human Hippocampus. Deniz, O.G., et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5(4):191-197. (2017). Could help explain the profound health impacts a good friend experiences in direct response to wireless radiation. The current scientific literature must be taken seriously to protect life from harmful exposure. Clearly guidelines that are 30 years old based on even older studies are irrelevant in today's world.

Is the FCC actually protecting public health? In a 2021 the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, finding it failed to show proper review in regards to numerous issues related to public health and the environment. The court issued a mandate that the FCC show proper examination of evidence on its record related to non-cancer health effects (such as impacts to reproduction, brain development and the immune system), long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, and environmental impacts. If it is indeed true that this is a complex issue and that the FCC needs more time, then why hasn't the FCC stopped the roll out of wireless technology given that it is clear that it is harmful to our biology and mental health? I am citing a study, one of thousands, to remind the FCC that you are an organization that was created to protect human health, and to regulate, not stand by while humans remain vulnerable and negatively affected by the proliferation of wireless technology that invades my personal, professional and social existence. Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Thatte HS, Cho MR. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):319-29. doi: 10.1667/RR1118.1. PMID: 18302487.

We are only on this earth for a short time, and given the population on the planet, it is imperative that we work together to mitigate the negative causes of disease, both mentally and physically. I am hypersensitive to electromagnetic radiation because of how much emr is present in our environment. The human exposure guidelines that were created long ago are outdated. It is scientifically evident that wireless technology has adverse health effects, and those of us whose health is teetering because there is literally no place to go to get away from wireless radiation, it is exponentially detrimental, as it continues to increase on our planet. How can it be that the FCC has not responded to the courts ruling to investigate and take into account hundreds if not thousands of studies proving harm. My life has been altered because I cannot go to certain establishments, drive on certain roads, or go to certain outdoor areas because of 5G towers. When will the health and well being of humans take precidence over profits? Our communication needs can be met with wired technology for the most part, and cellular towers for other things. Wifi is dangerous, 5G is dangerous. I have experienced being in a stupor when I was unknowingly parked too close to a 5G tower.

The continued study and update of wireless radiation exposure limits are critical in today's saturated world. The science is already in! I have two grandchildren - most parents assume that if a cell tower is next to their child's school, it must be safe. This is not true! Just look at the average child's daily exposures: (1.) Wi-Fi in the home, (2.) smart home electric, gas and water meters, (3.) classroom white board and router, (4.) school laptop or tablet, (5.) multiple smart toys, (6.) cell towers at school and neighborhood, (7.) cell phones are now used as toys from infancy up, (8.) telecoms push in home Wi-Fi booster devices. *No wonder infertility and colon cancer is at epidemic levels in younger populations. All radiation is cumulative! Please act now to save future generations from RFR harms. "Big Wireless" relies on the media blackout. It is past time to educate and protect our children. Parents deserve to know the truth.

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).

The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of Radiofrequency (RF radiation). EMR Syndrome (Electromagnetic Sensitivity) Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40:188-200. (2019). Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. et al. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299. (2017). “Hot Nano Spots” as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, H. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69. (2016). Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, S., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(3):ZC82-ZC85. (2016). Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros, L., et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104. (2016). Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, M. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 7(Part B):43-51. (2016). Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross-Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, C., et al. BMJ Open 3(12). (2013). Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, N., et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686. (2012). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius, S. et al. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112. (2012). Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al. Neurotoxicology 28(2):434-440. (2007). Electrohypersensitivity: Sate-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258. (2006). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268. (2006). Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170. (2006). Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature. Levallois, P. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8. (2002). Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysiological Effects of Cellular Phones – Facts of Needless Anxiety. Harma, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86. (2000). Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal. 53(3):236-238 (1998).

There is an overwhelming amount of electro magnetic radiation in our world today and it has increased substantially since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, which was then based on science from the 1980s, which is quite outdated now. I am personally aware how exposure to routers, towers, smart meters, etc., negatively affects life because the negative effect all of this is having on my life. If this technology was actually safe, I wouldn’t experience heat flushing through my body so much so that I sweat, prickly feelings on my skin, ringing in my ears, the inability to sleep if a router is left on and negative thoughts when in a home that has a router or if I am knowingly or unknowingly in close enough proximity to a tower. My understanding is that the Federal Communications Commission was created to protect public health. The body of scientific evidence showing that there is definite biological, neurological and mental health harm from wireless technology has grown. One cannot go to a movie theatre without being exposed to electro magnetic radiation because many theaters mounted 5G technology onto their buildings. Churches were paid to allow 5G technology to be encased within a new structure that makes it look like it was a part of the church all along. There are 5G structures mounted on local streets where I used to shop. When I drive on the highways in California, it is impossible not to drive close to a 5G tower and I feel the negative effects. The FCC was created to be a regulatory agency to protect human health. It is unconscionable that an agency of the American government would turn its back on the very people it serves. I am citing the following study: Lai, H. (1994). Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. In: Lin, J.C. (eds) Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2542-4_2

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.