A healthcare provider cites the FCC court remand and research gaps and recommends standardized clinical i…

2.I am responding as a healthcare provider. The federal limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996. n 2013 the FCC itself asked whether the limits should be revisited. In 2019 it answered: no. Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense and others sued. On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court found the Commission had failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer,” had failed to address the impacts on children, long-term exposure, and the ubiquity of wireless devices, and had shown “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm.” It noted roughly 200 comments from people reporting illness or injury that the agency had not addressed. It sent the matter back to the FCC with instructions to explain itself. (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025) 18. (https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms) The FCC had relied on the Food and Drug Administration’s assurance that the limits were fine. The court said an agency cannot lean on another agency’s conclusion if that conclusion comes without an explanation. 3g. Five years later, no explanation has been produced. https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms Recommendations (m). I recommend (1) a validated clinical intake instrument for suspected RF/EMF-related complaints; (2) a federal adverse-event intake comparable to MedWatch; (3) biomarker studies in symptomatic patients following the oxidative-stress findings of Irigaray, Caccamo & Belpomme (Int J Mol Med 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30015864/); and (4) exposure-measurement studies that do not rely on self-report, following Bogers et al. (Environ Int 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30227317/).12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/ (Adams et al., Environ Int 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24927498/; Liu et al., Andrology 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700791/) and exposure reduction is low-cost. The peer-reviewed record on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT and smart-meter exposures is thin (Simkó & Mattsson, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/, concluded available studies "do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment"). This is a gap, not a reassurance.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/); Balmori, Sci Total Environ 2015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747364/).