ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
Our environment is a shared, communal resource. The air we breathe, the land we inhabit, and the spaces where our children grow are not the exclusive property of industry, companies, utilities, or stockholders.
Yet corporations profit from infrastructure that introduces electromagnetic exposures into environments shared by families with little opportunity to object.
Telecommunications providers, SMUD, PG&E, and Comcast benefit economically from expanding electrical and wireless infrastructure. Meanwhile, children and communities may bear environmental and health risks without informed participation, compensation, or adequate long-term scientific assurances.
The profits are privatized, while potential risks are distributed across the public.
As a mother, I invest my body, time, resources, and energy into my children's health. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, nutrition, education, and medical care are investments in their neurological development, cellular health, and future well-being.
Why should corporations introduce additional environmental exposures without adequately demonstrating their long-term safety for developing children?
Children are stakeholders. They cannot negotiate exposure conditions, commission independent studies, or participate in infrastructure decisions. Their inability to consent creates a greater ethical responsibility for adults, corporations, and government agencies.
The long-term neurological effects of chronic RF exposure, particularly during critical developmental periods, warrant independent investigation.
I am concerned about mitochondrial function, cellular homeostasis, oxidative stress, neurological signaling, reproductive development, and potential intergenerational consequences.
The absence of conclusive evidence of harm does not establish safety under every exposure condition.
There is also a serious security concern. Telecommunications and electrical infrastructure are increasingly interconnected with digital control systems. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities, unauthorized access, deliberate interference, and malicious manipulation deserve independent assessments. These systems should be protected against misuse, including intentional disruption or hazardous operation.
What safeguards prevent infrastructure designed for communication and electrical distribution from being deliberately misused to harm the public?
I request transparent cybersecurity oversight, independent vulnerability assessments, enforceable security standards, and public accountability without disclosure of sensitive security details.
Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, intergenerational equity, and responsible stewardship, government must consider every affected stakeholder—not merely infrastructure owners, investors, and commercial beneficiaries.
The public should not have to finance private environmental testing, establish individual medical causation, or suffer injury before legitimate concerns receive investigation.
I request that HHS recommend a precautionary pause on further wireless infrastructure expansion in residential and child-centered environments pending independent review of long-term developmental risks. I also request evaluation of removal or relocation of existing towers where site-specific evidence demonstrates unacceptable exposure or safety risks.
I request independent longitudinal research, publicly accessible exposure measurements, meaningful community participation, and regulatory coordination among HHS, FCC, EPA, and appropriate state authorities.
I do not consent to my children being treated as involuntary experimental subjects in an environment where long-term exposure questions remain unresolved.
Environmental exposure does not automatically constitute human-subjects research under federal law. However, widespread exposure under scientific uncertainty raises profound ethical questions about informed participation, precaution, and justice in distributing potential harm.
No corporation should receive the economic benefits of technological expansion while transferring potentially preventable health and environmental costs to children and future generations without accountability.
Our children are not collateral costs of technological progress.
Their neurological development, cellular health, bodily integrity, and environmental inheritance deserve consideration before additional infrastructure is approved.
I demand that public-health protection take precedence over unchecked expansion, that existing infrastructure be independently evaluated, and that future generations receive the protection and representation they cannot yet demand for themselves.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherrish “I Do Not Consent” Castaneda
Mother of Three | Student of Law and Bioethics
Sacramento County, California
Attachments · 4
Original public attachments. Their contents are not included in category reviews.