Research & federal duties

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.

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.

Sayer Ji, geoengineering.org Arianna Masters and the geo fight have A LOT of scientific evidence that EMFs, radio frequencies .. are harming us. In many ways. Please include the mold piece when studying. I am very sensitive to it as was my son. EMFs can and do cause heart attacks. The small cells now everywhere have done nothing to help the internet.. they cause fires, they are an absolute eyesore and they are doing nothing but keeping us going to the doctor. Please investigate for our health. Stop the fcc from putting this crap up everywhere. Stop chemical spraying from planes, stop weather control haarp and trying to control what God already has control of. Please.

If you have ever learned about EM radiation then you would know what poses a danger and what doesn’t. Cell phones, WiFi, etc do not pose a risk because that type of EM radiation is non-ionizing radiation. Please spend 10 minutes reading up on ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation.

Hello, It is far past time for you to be looking into this issue. The FCC has shamefully been avoiding this issue for 30 years. EMF radiation has exploded over that time period with no further research or regulations coming from any federal agency. At the same time 90% of non-industry funded research shows some level of harm from almost all levels and frequencies of EMF, and many below what people are currently exposed to. I thank Mr. Kennedy for getting involved in this but it is way past due. I am especially concerned about smart meters for residential electric metering, as they are getting ready to implement them in my area. I don't believe these should be forced on people and they really don't perform as advertised. They do however emit extreme levels of EMFs constantly while sending everyone's personal info all over the place where it can easily be intercepted. But the health effects are my primary concern. Anyway, we are all inundated daily with 1,000 times more EMF than we were just 20 years ago. It is way past due for the federal government to seriously and unbiasedly (uninfluenced by the industry) look into the health effects of EMF. I believe the main reason it hasn't been done is because it's already known what they will find, and it's not good. It's shameful that they continue to allow continued implementation of greater and greater amounts of this radiation without any concern for human health. I know this is officially the FCC's jurisdiction, but that agency has been captured by the communications industry almost since it's inception. HHS's reputation is not much better as you seem unable to remove your self from Big Pharma's influence. Maybe you can do some honest and meaningful work in this area as Pharma is not directly involved. I'm sure if you classify it as a disease they will come up with a vaccine or medicine to try to alleviate the symptoms but not cure it. Please put some real effort into this, the world's health is at risk. Thank You

Executives that knew about the exposure should be held liable. As a customer, I trusted that proper research had been done as to the health liabilities related to this technology. It’s time we start holding companies and executives accountable for damages. Once serious consequences are given, others will do their homework before soliciting products. Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion.

I am sincerely asking you to study the long term effects of cell phone use in the house, school or even in a car. We just do not know enough about it at the present time. So many conflicting ideas, I just want truth and comfort in knowing we are not causing harm.

Please accept my testimony reference cell phone RF emissions and breast cancer. In or around January 2011 I was diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the left breast. I have been battling metastatic cancer since that time. Over the course of 15 years of treatment, millions have been spent on my health care via insurance or personal pay. I am the definition of a profit center to the cancer industry. Prior to the diagnosis, it had been my regular practise to carry my phone in my swimsuit or brassiere when I didn't have pockets. I am right handed so it always was placed over my left breast. Had I known the dangers of these RF emissions, I would not have done this. Subsequently after years of this practise, the cancer was found in the exact spot where the cellphone maintained skin contact. Obviously no one has ever connected my cancer to RF emissions because it cannot be "proven." However, it is a fact that the cancer grew in the exact area exposed to skin contact with the cellphone over the years. Very little has been done to warn women of this danger with only a few studies such as https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3789302/ , https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/CMAR.S267415 , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41623445/ . Mainstream cancer organizations, including the National Breast Cancer Alliance, treat the bra-cancer link as unproven or "a myth." Yet here I am, in the company of many other "profit centers" being ravaged by this terrible disease that is possibly related to cellphones. Many of us are wondering if big industry decided the dangers of their product should remain hidden at the expense of our lives. It is my hope that MAHA and Mr. Kennedy will get to the bottom of the carcinogenic nature of cellphone use as it relates to cancer of the brain, breasts, and testicles. We need national exposure of the risks, protocol to mitigate the risks, and studies to prove the correllation between RF emissions and cancer. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sandra Robles