All comment threads

They're safe. Completely. Radio waves are nonionizing forms of radiation. Change nothing about them. There is no effect whatsoever on human health from these forms of radio waves.

Whenever there come's 5G on cellphones around me or at other places where I walk in and out of 5G radiation, my muscles weaken. Most notably with my blatter. My body seems to want to get rid of the radiation that is targeting my body.

I may be mistaken, cause Facebook didn't tell me explicitly, but I think there are actual EXPERTS in these fields that could probably give you a whole lot more insight than Paul, wearing the tinfoil hat and lives next door. Seriously?? This is what we're doing now?

I am a licensed GMDSS radio maintainer and former maritime navigation and communications technician. Any continuous non-ionizing radiation under 100 watts per square meter is within safe guidelines. For context on how much it would take, a 25,000 watt 9GHz radar is considered safe at 1.5m from the transmission source.

Al jarenlang ben ik stralingsgevoelig en wordt dus ziek van elektromagnetische straling. Thuis heb ik geen wifi, maar heb mijn laptop aan de kabel. Ik gebruik geen mobiele telefoon, maar get een stralingsarme vaste telefoon. Bankbetalingen doe ik altijd met een identifier en nu ze daarmee willen stoppen krijg ik grote problemen. Ook betalingen in winkels doe ik met mijn bankpas en niet met een mobiel. Wereldwijd zijn er tienduizenden onderzoeken die de schadelijke effecten op het menselijk lichaam hebben aangetoond. Dus waarom doet onze regering net of die onderzoeken niet bestaan? Bijna 15 jaar geleden had Zembla hier al reportages over gemaakt. Veel mensen hebben gezondheidsklachten, maar weten niet dat dat komt door hun mobiel of wifi. Waarom wordt dat geheim gehouden? De meeste mensen denken daarom dat EMS veilig is. Op Malta werden waarschuwingsfilmpjes op de nationale tv uitgezonden. Waarom niet hier? Is de telecomindustrie en geld belangrijker dan de gezondheid van de bevolking? Dus ik doe een beroep op het moreel besef van de mensen die hierover beslissen.

Introduction In 1961, I was five years old and was diagnosed with Ewing’s sarcoma. The tumor, considered lethal at that time, was located in my left leg, between the tibia and fibula. I was immediately treated with cobalt radiation treatments. Chemotherapy was not available at that time. Background The treatment was done via Palm Harbor Hospital in Garden Grove, CA by Dr. John Knauer in 1961 and was considered rather experimental, since the usual approach was immediate amputation of the diseased limb. My evidence is anecdotal. Results and Analysis Since this treatment was fairly new, I received a substantial dose of cobalt radiation to my left leg, while protected with a lead sheet. After a few weeks, my leg turned dark brown and atrophied in a bent position. The brown surface skin would peel off if rubbed. My leg stopped growing. I developed a deep gaping wound where my calf used to be, which never healed and was always raw and full of pus. Several skin graft surgeries were attempted but did not take. Physical therapy was attempted, but, after two years of trying, the wound was still there and hadn't improved and my leg was still bent and hadn't grown. However, I was alive and free of cancer. After two years, the disparity between my two legs increased and the leg was amputated above the left knee. I have a short stump and x-rays show the residual femur is quite thin. Long Term Outcomes For 65 years, I have led a normal life with no further major issues and no recurrence of Ewing's sarcoma. I use an artificial leg and have some scoliosis. I hav three healthy children. At 43, I had a partial thyroidectomy due to a benign cyst. At the age of 70, I was diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma on my collar bone. I have osteoporosis and arthritis in my spine, right hip, and right knee. X-rays reveal my pelvis is partially malformed, and my residual left femur is very thin. Late effects from that era are the same radiation injuries seen with any mega voltage therapy, often more extensive because of the beam geometry and the doses then used. Long-term follow-up of patients treated on cobalt units, and of childhood-cancer cohorts that include the cobalt years, consistently finds these late effects: • Fibrosis, atrophy, and poor wound healing in the treated field, driven by obliterating endarteritis. • Growth arrest and deformity when growing bone was in the field. A PENTEC review of childhood spine irradiation found clinically significant scoliosis after doses of about 15 Gy or more in infants, and grade 2 or higher scoliosis after 30 Gy in children irradiated at ages 2 to 6. Height loss was more common when large spinal segments were treated before puberty to more than 20 Gy. The review notes that orthovoltage and cobalt beams were worse than later techniques because of dose gradients across the vertebrae. • Second cancers in the irradiated volume, usually after a latency of 10 to 30 years or more. In Ewing sarcoma survivors, a Childhood Cancer Survivor Study analysis found a 14.3% cumulative incidence of subsequent neoplasms at 35 years (standardized incidence ratio 7.8). Breast cancer and osteosarcoma in the field were the standouts; the osteosarcoma SIR was 377. • Musculoskeletal and cardiac morbidity in the same Ewing cohorts. Relative risk of a musculoskeletal condition was 18.1 and of a cardiac condition 1.8. By 35 years, 85% had at least one chronic condition and 74% had two or more. Treatment-related death, not recurrence, became a major cause of late mortality. • A British Columbia series that specifically separated eras found patients treated on cobalt-60 units from 1960 to 1982, then on linear accelerators after 1983. Among survivors of five years or more, 77% had a late complication; musculoskeletal problems were the most common (50%), then cardiac toxicity (28%). Actuarial second-neoplasm risk was 5% at 10 years. • Organ-specific injury matching the field: A German review estimates that about 8% of second solid tumors in adult radiotherapy patients are radiation-induced, roughly 3 extra tumors per 1,000 patients at 10 years, with latency from months to decades. Recommendations I would like to see more studies on late effects of cobalt radiation and would recommend an intense educational program for the benefits of today's safer forms of radiation therapy. Conclusions In the early 60s radiation therapy dosages were experimental. More studies of late effects of cobalt radiation would add to data that could prove valuable today. A deep education of the public about benefits would counter deep public distrust. I survived a lethal form of bone cancer thanks to early detection and cobalt radiation treatment.

There are many non profits and individuals who have been studying this stuff for years. Please look them up, skywatchcollective, geoengineering.org, Arianna masters, Sayer Jai… I have sensitivities to EMFs. As does my daughter and son. In combination with mold and heavy metals especially. Headaches, chronic cough, anxiety and a bussing through out my body. My husband experienced tinnitus since they installed a smart meter by his head around 10 years ago, it still hasn’t gone away. The small cells everywhere. I believe it contributes to heart attacks and has something to do with mold, heavy metals (chemtrails spewing aluminum, barium and strontium all visible in the after spray sunsets). I feel like we are being attacked physically.

I'm being stalked and tortured by my community in Tracy,ca. Everyone has synthetic telepathy and can read my brain and see through my eyes. They are constantly echoing into my mind, so I have to keep headphones on. It's been 6 years now. My joints and intestines hurt more than ever. I feel my freedom's raped.

The US government should adopt the IEEE C95 group of standards ( .1 through .7), as their limits are harmonized with those of ICNIRP and therefore the basis of regulations employed in most of the world's countries. OSHA 1910.97 is unenforceable and 60 years out of date. FCC (47 1.130) is also dated and not useful for regulation consideration. IEEE standards have a long history of employing the best science available, as evidenced by their international participation and agreement with those used around the world. Peer-reviewed science is what regulations should be based on.

I am submitting this comment as a member of the public who is concerned not only about the scientific questions surrounding radiofrequency and electromagnetic field exposure, but also about the increasingly involuntary nature of that exposure. For many years, I made a deliberate personal choice to minimize unnecessary wireless radiation in my home. That choice became increasingly difficult to exercise as communications providers and other systems shifted away from wired infrastructure and toward wireless technologies. In my case, Cox Communications previously provided service over fiber-optic infrastructure extending directly to our home. That option was later discontinued, leaving wireless-based service as the practical alternative presented to us. I had avoided relying on that technology because of concerns about RF exposure, but eventually found myself in a position where accepting greater wireless exposure was effectively a condition of maintaining ordinary modern communications service. This raises a broader public-health concern that I hope HHS will consider carefully. When the long-term biological effects of a form of environmental exposure remain the subject of scientific investigation, individuals should not be placed in a position where meaningful avoidance is progressively designed out of everyday life. Yet wireless transmitters are now embedded not only in phones and routers, but throughout homes, vehicles, appliances, utility systems, schools, workplaces, public spaces, and communications infrastructure. For people who would prefer to exercise precaution, the practical ability to do so is disappearing. I am not asking HHS to presume a conclusion that the scientific evidence has not yet established. I am asking the Department to recognize the ethical and public-health significance of involuntary exposure itself. A population should not effectively become the subject of a decades-long, uncontrolled exposure experiment simply because wireless deployment has outpaced our ability to establish complete answers about cumulative, chronic, and multi-source exposure. Where reasonable lower-exposure alternatives exist, they should be preserved. In particular, I encourage HHS to consider recommending policies that protect access to wired communications, fiber-optic service, wired building systems, and other non-wireless alternatives. People who wish to reduce RF exposure should not have to abandon basic communications services in order to do so. I also encourage HHS to examine cumulative real-world exposure rather than treating each device or transmitter only in isolation. The relevant question for many members of the public is no longer simply whether one device complies with an exposure limit. It is what happens when many sources operate continuously in the same home, neighborhood, workplace, vehicle, and public environment over many years. Whatever conclusions HHS ultimately reaches about health risk, precaution and informed choice should remain legitimate options. Individuals should have a meaningful ability to reduce unnecessary exposure in their own homes and immediate environments, rather than having that choice gradually removed by technological and infrastructure decisions over which they have little control.