Research & federal duties

There are hundreds of studies showing that we are being poisoned by wireless radiation. No other country allows the amount of radiation that the US does. It is time for our government to protect us form this harmful exposure!!! May God bless attorney Jimmy Gonzalez for trying to warn people about what he believes caused his terminal cancer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlOVJd0lA8&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1TmqCh84ovxoDi8_jx2OoUKpk6ysHuQaZasKRBbPa6WLYWlgATIkzSTzI Here are some of the studies showing the dangers of wireless radiation: https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

There need to be studies to provide the public with the whole truth on EMF's. They are dangerous and damaging to our bodies.

Thank you for addressing all aspects of our environment and what factors affect our health. It will be a refreshing change to see our government research based on actual science and professional expertise and not Lobbyists or hidden agendas. We should not have to beg for a healthy environment and food supply while other civilized nations surpass us in safety. Thank you for your dedication to the well-being of all American citizens.

The concerns about EMF, RF, and WiFi radiation are exaggerated. The sun above shines many more times the radiation every day. We simply cannot go through our lives without artificial radiation if we are going to have electricity and radio at all. Yes, higher frequency and higher power radio waves generate more, but the levels of radiation from the towers and even the devices are not enough to cause an unreasonable amount of danger to humans. Also, over time, the levels will eventually go down because vendors have an incentive to lower electricity costs, and the best way to do that will be to make more efficient radio transmitters and receivers.

Around the time our area was upgraded to 5G, we noticed several changes, including ringing in our ears, eye discomfort, and more frequent headaches. After our local internet provider upgraded our modem, we also noticed symptoms such as brain fog, increased thirst, and difficulty sleeping. Our cats began showing signs of illness, and the bird population around our rural property noticeably declined. My husband also battled cancer, which eventually spread to his bones and brain, despite initially being told those were areas his cancer was not expected to spread to. His cancer was also found to have a rare secondary cancer, adding another unexpected complication to his illness. I understand that these observations and my husband's cancer do not establish a connection to EMF exposure, and other factors may be involved. However, our experiences have left me with questions about the potential long-term effects of increased wireless technology. I believe more independent research is needed into cumulative EMF exposure and its possible effects on human health, animals, and the environment.

I submit these comments as an individual consumer and concerned family member (Q2). People cannot readily opt out of ambient exposure from nearby antennas. I urge federal agencies to reassess whether existing limits adequately address lifelong, real-world exposures, including for children and ecosystems. Q3–4: Sources of concern include cell towers/small cells, phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, and wearables. People report headaches, sleep disruption, fatigue, and other symptoms they associate with RF exposure. Investigate these reports systematically without assuming causation. I report no personal diagnosis or clinical observations. Agencies should collect nonidentifying reports documenting device/source, measured exposure, timing, symptoms, medical evaluation, and changes after exposure reduction, using blinded tests where feasible. Q5–6: Compare FCC limits with ICNIRP 2020 and IEEE standards, WHO reviews, and IARC assessments. Explain how limits address frequency, SAR, power density, modulation, duty cycle, beamforming, distance, exposure duration, and multiple sources. The U.S. National Toxicology Program reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats under specific high-level RF exposure conditions; these results do not establish risks from everyday 5G exposure. IARC classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B) in 2011. Recent human reviews, however, found no increased risk for several studied cancers. Assess studies below limits and distinguish cellular changes from proven harm. Q7–9: Use calibrated broadband and frequency-selective meters, personal dosimeters, SAR testing, and validated modeling. Measure actual exposures across locations and times, including indoors, during peak traffic, and from multiple sources. Publish accessible antenna locations, operating characteristics, compliance methods, measured exposure ranges, uncertainties, and ways to request independent review. Q10–11: Build privacy-protective surveillance combining cancer registries, occupational and environmental monitoring, longitudinal cohorts, and voluntary adverse-event reports. Investigate clusters with comparison groups; reports are not proof. Biomarkers for individual RF dose are not established. Prioritize children, pregnant people, older adults, workers near transmitters, people with implanted medical devices (including interference risks), and people with preexisting conditions. Evaluate symptoms reported by people identifying as electromagnetically hypersensitive without presuming an RF cause. Q12–13: Investigate reproducible biological findings reported below some limits, while recognizing that a laboratory effect is not necessarily a health hazard. Compare exposure profiles—not merely the number of devices—for 5G, emerging 6G, Wi-Fi, satellites, IoT, wearables, smart homes/cities, autonomous vehicles, wireless medical devices, and smart meters. Exposure characteristics differ. Require updated assessments when technologies change. Q14–15: Fund rigorous studies of pollinators, birds, plants, and livestock, controlling for pesticides, habitat, climate, and other factors. An evidence map found hundreds of studies with quality limitations. Evaluate installations near homes, schools, childcare and healthcare facilities using site-specific measurements, cumulative neighborhood assessments, antenna characteristics, and realistic small-cell operation. Q16–17: NIH should fund independent, preregistered long-term epidemiology, developmental research, animal replication, and mechanistic studies. FDA should evaluate consumer and medical devices; CDC should coordinate surveillance and risk communication. FCC and health agencies should publicly explain how new evidence informs exposure standards and disclose conflicts of interest. Q18: I request (1) a time-bound, public reassessment of RF limits and their treatment of long-term, multi-source exposure; (2) publicly accessible environmental monitoring; (3) special review and community consultation for installations near schools and homes; (4) funding for ecological and human studies independent of industry; (5) practical wired options and clear device settings for consumers; and (6) a transparent process to report concerns and challenge incomplete compliance assessments. The 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC required the FCC to better explain its treatment of certain health and environmental issues; it did not find that 5G causes disease. A rigorous, updated public accounting is necessary. Sources: NTP, Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies (2018); IARC Monographs Vol. 102 (2013); ICNIRP RF Guidelines (2020); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021); WHO-commissioned systematic review of RF exposure and cancer (Environment International, 2024).

1. The study needs to evaluate induction from power lines as well to set a standard for distance per kw future homes should be built to power lines. 2. The study should look at mitochondria health and the ability to recover. The body is resilient and human effects will show in symptoms such as low energy, poor sleep, and being sick more often. These effects might be seen as “normal “ and not related to EMI/EMF. So the study should include pre and post evaluation of mitochondria health during exposure.

Read The Electric Rainbow by Arthur Firstenburg

I studied biology to degree level, graduating in 1994. The subject of cell science was a favourite of mine. My comment arises from the fact that there is evidence that the current, Safe E/M Radiation Level is much too high, current levels causing changes in biological cellular activity. 5G masts are of concern in the UK, and LED street lighting is a further issue. While you can put up heavy curtains to dim the light, the radiation is of course unimpeded. Furthermore, one environmental consequence of LED lighting is that insect reproduction near these lights is mostly absent. A great deal more research into the neurological and neurophysiological response to these EMF sources should be carried out if we are to set a more realistic Safe level of exposure for the general public and all those who work near EMF sources.

I don't know anything really, I'd get expert opinions if I were you. Is like to get the unredacted Epstein files out there though.