Environmental effects

We recently got a tower about 2 years ago less than 400 yards firm our home. Since. My kids have constantly had tummy aches and low sugar. I have also been a bee keeper for 14 years. I no longer can keep a hive. All my apple trees closest to the tower have all died. I csnt grow things in that area. It is also near a school which is Terrifying Please remove these weapons.

When it comes to cellphone and microwave towers the three main factors that affect human health are: 1. Proximity. 2. Intensity. 3. Duration. Proximity: How close you are to the tower both horizontally and vertically. Intensity: The number and types of transmitters on the tower. Duration: How long you are in the area of the tower. The cellphone tower has recently significantly increased, with 5G transmitters added to the tower. My wife and I have experienced numerous physical problems resulting in symptoms like headaches, difficulty sleeping, excessive thirst and other problems. We are also concerned about the health of our neighbors, particularly those with children and grandchildren. Several pets, ours and neighbors', have also suffered unexplained fatal symptoms.

The 5G turned my pet frog gay :'( and made my pet mouse trans D:

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/).

I urge HHS to prioritize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems when evaluating cellphone-tower radiofrequency emissions. As a parent and concerned member of the public, I support independent investigation of sustained exposure, prompt correction of exposures shown to be harmful, and research into safer transmission methods. My central proposal concerns the frequencies and transmission characteristics emitted by cellphone towers themselves. I ask HHS to investigate whether carefully defined changes in carrier frequency, modulation, power, antenna configuration, or operating schedules could reduce adverse biological effects. I also support rigorous investigation of proposed harmonic transmission methods for any measurable biological benefit. “Harmonic” expresses my aspiration for technology compatible with living systems; a healing claim must be demonstrated through independently replicated research. Please evaluate repeated and long-term exposure under realistic conditions, including exposure from multiple transmitters. Studies should document frequency, intensity, duration, peaks, and changes in network traffic. Measurements should represent homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, farms, and wildlife habitats. Distance from a tower alone should not substitute for an exposure assessment. I request particular attention to children, pregnant people, workers with elevated exposure, and people with implanted medical devices, using evidence appropriate to each group. People reporting symptoms they associate with wireless environments deserve respectful medical evaluation and careful investigation. Reports should inform research without prematurely assuming or dismissing a causal connection. Animal findings warrant serious scrutiny. The National Toxicology Program reported heart schwannomas in male rats under its experimental RF exposure conditions. Falcioni and colleagues’ 2018 study of lifelong exposure to a 1.8 GHz GSM far field reported increased heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest exposure. These findings support further investigation; they do not directly establish the risk to humans living near modern towers. Human evidence, animal findings, and exposure differences should be evaluated transparently together. Ecological protection should be an explicit research priority. Please study relevant outcomes in pollinators, birds, livestock, plants, and aquatic organisms, including survival, reproduction, navigation, growth, and ecosystem function. Account for pesticides, habitat loss, artificial light, disease, weather, and other influences. Insect absorption models and bird electromagnetic-noise experiments raise specific research questions, but should not be generalized into proof that all cellular emissions harm wildlife. If credible evidence identifies harmful exposure, agencies should act to reduce it and verify that corrective measures work. Communities need accessible exposure reports, independent measurements, a clear complaint process, and timely explanations of findings. Research funding, conflicts of interest, methods, and negative results should be disclosed. Protective decisions should be accountable to evidence and public well-being. Proposed beneficial tower transmissions require equally rigorous evaluation. Researchers should specify the signal, compare it with matched conventional and sham exposures, control absorbed energy and temperature, and directly measure benefits and adverse effects. Any therapeutic application should undergo appropriate ethical and safety review before deployment. The research summarized in my accompanying document does not establish a tower frequency that heals people, animals, or water. My broader interest includes harmonious music, bells, singing bowls, prayer, and restorative environments. Music research supports benefits for selected outcomes such as pain and anxiety. These findings do not prove that musical frequencies carried by a wireless network make its RF emissions therapeutic. I also request fair, independent testing of hypotheses inspired by Masaru Emoto’s water-crystal work. Crystal appearance or changes in water spectra alone cannot demonstrate improved water quality, ecological restoration, or human healing. Please prioritize technology that serves life: investigate potential harm honestly, correct demonstrated problems, publish understandable evidence, and test promising alternatives without commercial pressure or predetermined conclusions. I support a responsible path toward safer, more biologically compatible communications infrastructure, including rigorous investigation of harmonic transmission proposals. My accompanying research document provides supporting sources, limitations, and detailed recommendations.

I am submitting these comments in two capacities: 1. As an individual: Based on my personal experience with Wi-Fi and my concerns regarding potential health effects associated with wireless radiation. 2. As a board member of The Civil Health Rights Movement May Day, Denmark: My comments also draw on a legal opinion obtained in 2019 concerning the deployment of 5G in Denmark. The legal opinion references numerous scientific studies. I have included its conclusion below and attached the full document for reference. 1) Individual consumer Question 3 Seven years ago, I spent approximately six hours a day working at my computer for about a week on a major project at my summer house. I had just received a new router (TP-Link) for my fiber net and was very happy that the whole set-up worked so well out in the middle of nowhere. I was writing on my computer and the Wi-Fi was on as I had to be in constant communication with several people all over the country, and I was well connected. Then after three days, I woke up with an overwhelming tinnitus and pressure headache. I wondered for a day why this had suddenly come and then I realized it was probably the radiation from the Wi-Fi. I managed to cut the Wi-Fi and get a cabled solution instead. After 4-5 hours in a Wi-Fi free environment and a walk by the beach, the tinnitus was gone and since then I have experienced the same on tests: 2-3 days in a Wi-Fi environment and the tinnitus and headache turns on. Now everything in my house is cabled. No medical doctor or medicine was involved. No measurements were done at the time. 2) Member of The Civil Health Rights Movement May Day, board member (Denmark) Question 12 and 18 I would like to draw attention to a legal opinion entitled LEGAL OPINION on Whether it would be in Contravention of Human Rights and Environmental Law to Establish the 5G System in Denmark obtained in 2019 by May Day and other stakeholders in Denmark. The opinion examines scientific studies relating to potential health and environmental effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, including exposure within the limits recommended by ICNIRP. The conclusion of the legal opinion is reproduced below. The full document is attached as supporting material. “It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described, would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions. The reason is the very significant body of scientific documentation available, showing that radio frequent electromagnetic radiation is harmful and dangerous to the health of humans (particularly children), animals and plants. This also applies when the radiation remains within the limits recommended by ICNIRP and currently used in Denmark as well as broadly within the EU.” Charlotte, Denmark

I used to wear my phone in my right leg pants pocket, after a few years I developed a numb patch on my leg where I used to keep my phone. I feel more sensitive to the cell phone radiation now. That area starts to hurts a bit after only a short period if I put the phone there. I try to keep it on airplane mode as much as possible now to avoid unnecessary data transfer through my body tissue. If I hold the cell phone to my head for a call I start to develop a headache after a brief period, so I try to use it on speakerphone as much as possible or limit telephone call length. I don’t get these symptoms when using a corded headset. I look forward to broader implementation of fiber optic internet and a return to hard wired communications systems wherever practical. It can’t be healthy for society to be swimming through a sea of radio signals constantly. What are the long term effects on trees & wildlife? I would like to know. Thanks for doing this inquiry.

EMFs and RFs are turning the raccoons gay. We need RFK jr to intervene.

I am responding as an individual consumer, parent, grandparent and concerned citizen. Many studies exist indicating that exposure to electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation can have a deleterious effect on animals and humans. I urge the American government to take this seriously, digest the existing data and enact regulations and guidelines designed to protect the US population.

I belief that wireless radiation impacts both human health and the environment. Such technology should be refined prior to wide scale deployment to eliminate all such issues, or be limited to bands, frequencies, and other such relevant factors that are solely beneficial to said health and the environment. Instead of cutting down trees, see if you can get trees to transmit wifi without ill effect.