Exposure limits & testing

I am responding to the FCC invitation to comment on the subject docket from the broadest range of commenters. As an interested party, I have researched the impacts of wireless radiation on humans and the environment extensively and it is now quite clear that RF radiation is harmful to us and all living things. It is devastating to some individuals – and they deserve to be heard. The FCC’s evaluation of the totality of available science has never been made available to the public. The same is true for the FDA. They claim it is prudent to address the totality of available science; however, they have not made their review of the ‘totality’ of available science available for public review and scrutiny. Herein lies the problem with any proclamation that the totality of available science has been reviewed. The American public deserves a full assessment of potential harm. Urgent attention is required to protect the population, environment, especially vulnerable children who depend upon government protections. Society is letting our children down in the most egregious fashion imaginable by forcing them to absorb radiation into their bodies and brains through forced deployment of wireless infrastructure throughout our country. In order to protect the public, an independent review of the totality of available science is critical. If the FCC believes the science is incomplete, even with the depth of scientific papers from the US and around the world that point to harm, then it is incumbent upon the FCC to exercise the Precautionary Principle at a very minimum to protect vulnerable children. Rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure that is potentially extremely harmful to our children and the population at large - must be addressed. Well documented scientific papers provide ample support to show the FCC adopted radiation limits do not protect the population. An excellent, well-supported paper is linked below. A review of the totality of available scientific evidence is vital to protect humans and the environment from harmful RF radiation. Reference: Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G https://rdcu.be/4ngRtwSvrZYa

I request an independent review of the science, performed by entities not tied to the wireless or mobile communications industry. Over the last nine years, neighborhoods all over the USA have been left helpless against devices that you (FCC) categorize as intentional radiators. These devices have been installed right outside peoples homes, without their consent. Some antennas are not even found on antennasearch.com. People in urban areas are being overexposed to non-ionizing radiation and safety standards must be re-examined and updated. Prolonged exposure to RF radiation has adverse health impacts. I can limit the time I hold the cell phone up to my head, and keep my phone away from me when I sleep. Besides moving, what can I do to protect my health from the intentional radiator outside my bedroom while I sleep?

Re: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC - ET Docket No. 13-84 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. This is my second comment and the next several paragraph's are the same as yesterday's. The Court directed the FCC to explain its determination that FCC 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 using wireless devices and technological developments, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence from those of us who have suffered harm from the accumulative effects of RF radiation along with the 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. I believe the FCC should review the following study to address the concerns regarding wireless radiation because my sibling and I both suffer from neurological effects, oxidative stress, probably DNA damage if we can get tested and electromagnetic sensitivity and I have witnessed many of the same symptoms in other families in my community who suffer from EMR Syndrome: BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – Collection of scientific research concerning neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022. Updated Research Summaries Updated Research Summaries 2022 Updated Research Summaries (May 2022) These are invaluable sets of abstracts and tables covering the RFR... MY STORY CONTINUED: Another expense I will now incur is restating my Living Trust and specifically my Special Needs Trust for my sibling. I am now sailing into unchartered waters as I navigate options, along with an attorney, that should something happen to me, my sibling needs to remain in my shielded home and shielded car. I need to be able to sleep at night knowing she will be protected because there are no words to describe how devastating the ill-effects of RF radiation on the body really are. Even though my older car has RF blocking window film on it and although the RF signal is lower inside my car going from "extreme" on the outside of the vehicle to "high" on the inside of the vehicle in my driveway which, then of course the signal fluctuates driving through different neighborhoods, I still have a high magnetic field inside my car confirmed by my building biologist with his specialized and more sensitive meters. As an amateur, I detect the magnetic field using my TriField EMF meter TF2. Approximately three weeks ago, I realized the roof of my mouth was throbbing every time I was driving but then realized the throbbing stopped every time I got out of my vehicle so we are still being effected by RF radiation even with RF window film shielding. This might explain the excessive bony overgrowth in my upper mouth and a possible link with tooth crowns that I will be researching next and am out of time today. Wanted to mention for others to consider. Prior to the roll-out of 5G my sibling was beaming from ear to ear on a daily basis and couldn't wait to get out of bed daily as we both were living life to the fullest with a huge support system. Daily, she would ask where we were going and what would we be doing that day. Now daily she asks what we're going to watch on TV all day long. My sibling just started in-home PT because she hasn't been to the gym in almost 2.5 years and her body is very stiff but there is a limit on the number of covered home visits. An at home, personal trainer is too expensive and not covered by insurance. It's too hard for me to train her. We don't even get to use our Medicare Advantage plans free gym membership(s) anymore when we need it the most. How are we expected to go to the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) in person when or if required, social security office if needed, nursing homes (hard time visiting our mom in 2023 before she died) with RF radiation, smart TV's and staff cell phones, i-watches, riding with a tow truck driver should our car need towing, could possibly drive somewhere for a day outing but can't stay in hotel or motel, I could camp or ideally backpack but my sister can't, financial institutions and most importantly, health care settings especially hospitals? We need solutions. We are equally as important as anybody else. Questions/Comments: 1. I was able to opt-out of both electric and gas RF radiation smart meters that humans are getting sick from. I would like the FCC to provide a way for those affected, to "opt-out" of 5G, RF radiation that's making us sick. 2. Why would I spend approximately $100,000,00 from my retirement IRA instead of "paying off my mortgage" if RF radiation wasn't making me too sick to live inside my own home? 3. Why are there over approximately 100 non-profits challenging and/or bringing awareness to 5G radiation if it wasn't a danger to human health and probably all living species' health? 4. I used to have an abundance of bees on my property. Now I don't. Why? 5. Why are so there so many excellent and reputable companies selling EMF protection to shield your house and body from 5G, RF radiation if it wasn't a danger to human health? Thank you excellent companies. 6. On the flip side, why are there so many "online predators" taking advantage of those of us with EMR Syndrome claiming their products will protect us from RF radiation? I was forced to spend approximately $100,000.00 incrementally, over the last many years to protect my families health because the FCC failed to protect me and my sibling's health from the harmful effects of RF radiation. As a "non-licensed" agency in regards to medicine, biology and public health, the FCC must not assert authority over RF exposure standards. 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. I urge the FCC to consider the real-life experts which are those of us suffering from bodily and financial harm from RF radiation and to completely address ALL issues identified by the courts. The evidence is clear that the FCC needs to change it's rules and protect human health. Our lives matter and so do your lives and your families lives. Thank you.

Re: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC - ET Docket No. 13-84 The FCC's limits were set 30 years ago, amidst a very different environment and lifestyle and there has been no scientific review since. And even with all the existing science, the United States still has no radio-frequency exposure guidelines that address long term, chronic, non-heating exposures. Therefore I request that the FCC update and correct their guidelines in line with all of the research that was presented in the original court case, EHT/CHD vs FCC . Declaration of Toby Stover Toby Stover declares under penalty of perjury the following: 1. I live in Ulster County, New York. 2. I never gave consent, nor do I consent today, to continuous, involuntary exposure of pulsed modulated, biologically active electrical and radio frequency / microwave (RF/MW) radiation emitted into my home or on my property. 3. I was perfectly healthy, living in my home for many years with an analog electric utility meter but was made ill by the electrical and pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation coming from a “smart” digital electric utility meter which was installed on my property without my consent. 4. After having a grid-tied solar system installed on my home, Central Hudson Electric Company switched my mechanical analog meter to a “smart” electric utility meter without my knowledge. A number of weeks later, I became extremely ill and discovered that the company had switched out my meter. I contacted the electric company demanding that they remove the “smart” meter and return an analog meter. I was told by Central Hudson that the solar array would not work without a “smart” utility meter. After researching this, I discovered that solar arrays work perfectly well with analog meters but Central Hudson still refused to remove the “smart” meter. Since I was unable to live with the continuous pulsation of the smart meter I was left with the decision to either have to leave my home of 35 years or cut the electric line to the smart meter. I chose to cut the wire rather than be sickened in my home as I had no means to move. As a single woman in her 60’s, I was living without electricity for 9 months through the winter, using a wood cook stove and candles. I had to store food in a cooler and buy ice to keep it fresh. Finally I hired an electrician to disconnect my wiring to the “smart” meter & re-connect my home wiring to an analog meter which was on my barn. I was then able to use electricity in my home again. 5. However, having been injured by weeks of exposure to RF/MW pulsed radiation, many years later, I am still unable to go into buildings that are using smart meters or wifi. I cannot tolerate the radiation for more than a few minutes without becoming ill and must leave the area as I now have Eletromagnetic Radiation Syndrome, known as EMR Syndrome. This has made it difficult for me to travel as I cannot stay in hotels, motels or shop at stores where there is microwave radiation. As a professional musician, I am often hired to go into public buildings or play music for school shows. It is a frequent occurrence that today I can no longer spend much time in these buildings without my symptoms returning. I consider this a grave personal injury that has made my life much more difficult. 6. When I am exposed to RF/MW radiation, I experience severe pain and pressure in my head, especially in the forehead. I also feel tingling sensations on my skin as well as tightness in the chest, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating and insomnia. I simply must leave the area as I feel sick around the microwave radiation. 7. Since I have been injured by “smart” meter radiation, I have become a member on the board of New York Safe Utility Meter Association, (NYSUMA). This organization has been working for years in the effort to legislate a safe utility meter choice to anyone who chooses to have returned, or to retain an analog utility meter. Analog utility meters have been used safely and successfully for many years. All utility companies should be required by law to provide analog meters to all consumers who choose to have them. Analog meters work perfectly well and are safe. No one should be forced to accept a device on their property that is a known health hazard. The FCC must update their exposure guidelines for MW/RF radio-frequency radiation exposures from "smart" meters and cell towers and all other wireless devices. 8. References: https://virginiansforsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Balmori-Cell-Tower-Radiation-2022-Review-.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512601371X https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/ 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11672739 https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Preliminary-Clinical-Guidelines-for-EHS.pdf https://journal.fcrisk.ru/eng/2021/3/4 https://smartmeterharm.org/2025/04/26/victory-against-enedis-the-court-rules-against-the-forced-installation-of-linky-meters/ 9. According to Public Law 90-602, October 18, 1968, AN ACT to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public heath from radiation emissions from electronic products. “Subpart 3 - Electronic Product Radiation Control “DECLARATION OF PURPOSE “ Sec. 354.The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electric product radiation”. I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. 10/22/26 Toby Stover

Comments of Erin Finegold ET Docket No. 13-84, DA 26-997 Remand Issue: Testing Procedures for Cell Phones and Other Portable Devices I write in support of compliance testing that measures portable devices as they are carried and used. I am the founder and CEO of StingRay Shields Corporation, which develops patented passive RF technology, including Shield Antenna. I request no endorsement of any product and submit no proprietary information. This comment rests on the Commission’s own record. The question on remand is narrow. The court did not resolve the scientific debate and did not find the Commission’s procedures technically invalid. It held that the Commission had not reasonably explained its decision to retain them. Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), slip op. at 19–20, 31. A reasoned explanation must address three points. First, the Commission cannot merely repeat its safety-margin rationale without curing the explanatory deficiency identified by the court. In paragraph 14 of FCC 19-126 the Commission gave four reasons for declining zero-spacing body testing: head testing with no separation, maximum-power testing, actual test distances that tended to be less than 2.5 centimeters (with a maximum of 1 centimeter for hotspot testing), and the “large safety margin” in the limits. The court held that the safety-margin explanation depended on an inadequately explained premise: that RF exposure below the existing limits does not cause harmful non-cancer effects. The court concluded that this explanatory defect also undermined the justification for retaining the testing procedures, noting that footnote 49 of the order linked challenges to testing with challenges to the exposure limits. On remand the Commission should state whether the first three reasons independently justify retaining the procedures, and on what record basis. Second, the Commission should separate two questions it merged in 2019: whether a certified device stays within the numerical limits in ordinary body-contact use, and whether those limits protect health. The first is a measurement question. The Commission should explain, with record support, whether a device certified at the distances described in paragraph 14 can exceed the applicable SAR limit at zero spacing and, if it can, why the procedure remains adequate. Third, footnote 47 relies on proximity sensors that reduce power near the body and on manufacturers’ antenna design changes. The Commission should identify the certification procedures that apply to those features, explain how they are verified, and describe how test configuration, separation distance, and power-control behavior are documented so that results are reproducible. If the Commission cannot make these showings on the record, it should revise the procedures to test devices in the configurations in which they are used. The Commission’s own footnote recognizes that design, including antenna design, affects exposure. A procedure that measures the device as sold would allow any design remedy to be judged on demonstrated performance in that device rather than on assumed benefit. The Commission should answer the deficiency the court identified directly rather than restate its 2019 assurances. References: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, Public Notice, DA 26-997, ET Docket No. 13-84 (OET rel. Sept. 17, 2026), 91 FR 60128 (Sept. 22, 2026). Resolution of Notice of Inquiry, Second Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 19-126, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, ¶ 14 and nn.46–49 (2019). Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), No. 20-1025 (consolidated with No. 20-1138), slip op. at 19–20, 30–31.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies ET Docket No. 13-84 To: Secretary, FCC Comments: Jean Lemieux, President of the Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured, Inc. submits comment in the above-captioned proceeding. I, Jean A. Lemieux, am providing comment on behalf of the members of the Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured (MACI), a volunteer, non-profit statewide support, education and referral organization for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity on the proceeding of FCC Docket 13-84. The Massachusetts Association for the Chemical Injured’s comment centers on the issue of EMFs, wireless (RF) technology and potential health effects and harms experienced from the EMF and RF exposure from a general population public health perspective and specifically for vulnerable segments of the population, including those living with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/Intolerance and those who are electrically sensitive (EHS)/EMR-S. My position on the current proceeding focuses on its reassessment of FCC exposure limits and policies that address the following: 1). a complete review of all of the science, inclusive of the biological health effects in the non-ionizing exposure category that has accumulated ii this docket and past one. FCC needs to review for reassessment the vast amount of research and scientific evidence that had been submitted in response to an update of new FCC guidelines and public health policy. 2). MACI’s comment on this proceeding will demonstrate the impact that the FCC’s failure to update guidelines on the current research and scientific evidence inclusive of the non-thermal biological evidence impacts human health. MACI participated in Public Comment to our State Departments of Public Utilities Dockets and the impact of the deficient FCC guidelines was used as a benchmark by the Department in the setting of policy (see MACI Reply Comment to DPU). My comment furnished evidence of real-life experience in related matters before our State Department of Public Utilities Dockets. 3). The unaddressed potential health risks by the FCC failure to update guidelines failed the Federal Agency’s duty to reflect a public health standard and failure to consider vulnerable populations who should be afforded special protection under federal and state laws. Many people who suffer from chemical sensitivities are concomitantly vulnerable to the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radio frequency radiation (RFR). A population survey of Hypersensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields in CA found chemical sensitivity to be an important risk factor for hypersensitivity to EMFs. The combination of sensitivities is quite disabling and puts their ability to work or live in their residences at greater risk. See submitted published research and studies that attest to the issue on prevalence of MCS and EHS, health effects experienced, risk for vulnerable members of public, comment to Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397, exposure to smart meters - a device covered under the FCC, and the Public Comment to Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. They should be considered part of my comment. The FCC must recognize, acknowledge and take the necessary steps to implement guidelines and rules based on all of the science, not just the “thermal” limits exposure that may have been protective in the 1980’s. The FCC has a duty and the responsibility to review and reassess fully the range of exposure to this environmental pollutant where EMFs and RFR exposure has become ubiquitous to ensure safe exposure for the population, for vulnerable members of the population, and equal access for this vulnerable population in their living environment, their workplace, and access to participate in society in today’s environment. The current research and scientific evidence which has become extensive showing biological health effects, epidemiological evidence through published studies, surveys, and real-life experience should be assessed in the setting of guidelines and policy. The matter of this docket did indicate that a broad range of commenters could participate. I offer this brief introductory comment with the submitted documents. In conclusion, there has been a failure of the FCC to update guidelines for today’s exposures and the current state of the science on EMFS and RFR. A view of impact on the public and especially those most vulnerable to EMF and RF and wireless exposure must be included in the reassessment of FCC radiofrequency exposure limits and policy. This failure on the Federal level has implications for State regulatory agencies who have hid behind and used as a benchmark these FCC guidelines which are insufficient to protect public health and allows for the pressure of Industry to control and set public health policy. There is sound reason why this is an important issue and the Federal Communication Commission should heed this important information and recommendations in the Commissions deliberation and the setting of FCC policy, rules and regulations. Respectfully submitted, Jean A. Lemieux President Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured, Inc. P.O. Box 754 Andover, MA 01810 978- 681-5117 macimcs@aol.com There was no box to upload the attachments. The regular form to submit by pdf failed in the Proceedings and didn't allow my filing of comment on this proceeding. Attachments: • AAEM Board of Directors, Statement: “Wireless Smart Meters Case Series”, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, October 23, 2013. • Belpomme, Dominique and Phillippe Irigaray, Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent it”, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2020: 21, 1915. • Belpomme, Dominique and Phillippe Irigaray, “Why electrohypersensitivy and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electrmagnetis fields: An overview and medical assessment.”, Environmental Research, 212 (2022) 113374. • International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Is A Humanitarian Crisis That Requires An Urgent Response”, Issued July 2024: Revised December 2024. • Lamech, Federica, MBBS, “Self-Reporting of Symptom Development From Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields of Wireless Smart meters in Victoria, Australia: A Case Series”, Alternative Ther Health Med. 2014; 20(6): 28-39. • MACI’s statement outlining a section of the Reply Comment from the Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured, Inc. to the Department of Public Utilities on D.P.U. 12-76 on two questionnaire surveys on smart meters and health effects (Reference #12 on comment to HHS). • Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured, Inc. Comment to the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register: Notice of Request for information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. • McCredden, McLean, and Steinemann study titled “Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States.” March 2026. Science Direct, Next Research [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745]

As American citizens and human beings with the right of keeping our bodies and minds healthy - we deserve full testing and transparency as to how EMF or any other form of wireless or wired technology can be affect our health and our families health. This way we can make a fully informed decision if we would like to be exposed to such harms. We should also not be forced to have towers put anywhere or place of residence.

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. There is published, peer-reviewed data which shows clear evidence of harm from RF radiation that the FCC should be sure to consider carefully and diligently. BioInitiative 2012 has amalgamated many studies, although there are far more available. https://bioinitiative.org In particular, these studies are valuable: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec09_2012_Evidence_Effects_Neurology_behavior.pdf https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec08_2007_Evidence_%20Effects_%20Immune_System.pdf https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec07_2007_Evidence_for_Stress_Response.pdf I have personal experience in this area. Prolonged exposure to RF radiation can give me headache, brain fog, heart palpitations, sweating, and a feeling of internal heat. The microwave sources that cause these symptoms include cell towers, cell phones, wifi routers, and cordless phones.

The FCC is a captured agency whose revolving doors include commissioners that are former CEOs, lawyers and lobbyists of the telecom industry. The FCC has refused to update their safety standards since 1996, even though a $25 million dollar industry-funded research concluded that wireless radiation raised the risk of brain tumors. Those 1996 safety standards considered only the thermal effects of wireless radiation for brief exposure...no long term exposure to the exponentially stronger electromagnetic radiation of today's technologies. In August 2021, the FCC was ordered to update their safety standards in the federal case Environmental Health Trust,et. al. V FCC supported by over 11,000 scientific health and safety studies. Yet the wireless industry has proceeded as if this ruling never took place. Updated safety standards for human health are long overdue and must be integrated into systems to protect Americans NOW. The world's largest insurance companies have responded by excluding any liability coverage for claims "directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or contributed to, by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." Lloyds of London and Swiss Reinsurance Company have put wireless radiation in the highest risk category, next to smoking and asbestos. 30+ countries around the world including the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil have banned Chinese-made 5G technology because of national security concerns. Wireless broadband is not cyber secure, it's unreliable in bad weather, it's a proven fire hazard, it's untested for EMF safety, it uses much more energy than fiber-optic and its giant equipment is aesthetically offensive. Only fiber-optic cable direct to homes and businesses delivers speed-of-light internet connection that will meet the needs required for next generation programs and services, with no threat to cyber security because it can't be hacked and it poses no health risk to humans or the environment. Californians have already paid for fiber optic to their homes in their phone bills over a 20+ year period. The IRREGULATORS vs. FCC lawsuit in 2020 exposed the largest accounting scandal in American history where telecom corporations fraudulently funnelled the money already paid by their customers for fiber-optic-to- the-premises, into wireless technology instead. Where is that TRILLION DOLLARS now? I implore you to update safety standards NOW, using third party testing, NOT funded by the wireless industry. Sincerely, Jeannie Ferrara, Realtor & Concerned Citizen For more eye-opening information, click on any of the links below for articles in the news and organizations that promote safe and responsible technology: https://sooke.civicweb.net; https://ourweb.tech/fires-and-collapses/ https://5GFreeCalifornia.org; http://www.Americans4RT.org/california; http://www.mdsafetech.com; http://www.bioinitiative.org https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/ https://scientists4wiredtech.com › cell-tower-installation... The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety

I have a friend who is sensitive to wireless, she can feel it, and is unable to sleep near any RF like cell towers, wifi routers, cellphones, and more. I have seen this have a huge negative impact on her life and health, and she is unable to travel much and often has to drive distances to do normal activities. I am very concerned for the lack of science, studies and protocols to protect the public’s health, and that no real third party testing, science or disclosure about health has been done or shared for over 30 years. It’s hard to believe that we have been in the dark about safety, health and wireless exposure all this time, and that needs to change right now. There are people who are at risk most for health issues including children, and more research and transparency is needed now. Please make current testing, funding and appropriate scientific research required starting now, and public health conversations mandatory and mainstream. Corporations shouldn’t decide what’s safe for us, science and health should be the main focus, and the public process should be the priority. We need to closely examine non-ionizing wireless radiation and all RF. European and Scandinavian countries have done this- they prohibit cell towers near schools and homes for a reason. We need to follow their example. Put science and safety first before profit. Thank you. I am attaching relevant articles and studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1499499/full https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ ttps://www.techsafeschools.org/science https://www.babysafeproject.org/science https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-EMREMF/