Research & federal duties

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a Healthcare practitioner and a person who's also been effected by harmful EMFs, RF and WR. In my experience, there are metabolic imbalances that increase one's sensitivity to harmful frequencies but everyone is being harmed, whether they're aware of it or not. Over the decades that I've practiced medicine; first with paper charting and later using electronic medical records and sitting in front of a screen all day; I've noticed a significant shift in my energy levels directly proportional to how long I'm in front of a wireless device. For my patients, I've learned through trial and error that many of their symptoms can be attributed to exposure to various harmful frequencies. This includes but is not limited to; fatigue, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo, insomnia, chronic pain syndromes and cardiovascular symptoms. This is not the underlying cause in all cases but for many people, when we've addressed their exposure properly, it completely eliminated these health concerns. What are we doing to children who are now sitting in front of screens all day and inundated with EMFs and wireless radiation? I support HHS taking an active role in examining the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Scientific researchers around the world have already done a lot of the work but it continues to be ignored. Federal agencies that are in place to protect the health of Americans, are blatantly ignoring the staggering amount of evidence related to these concerns. Not just for people but for the health of the entire planet. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

As a qualified scientist that has done a lot of research in this area, it is crucial that head and body resonance is legitimately used in the determination of the safety standards. The fact that it is not, and that this goes against the obvious science, is very questionable, and I'd say in even stronger terms that it's actually very suspicious. Some research from Grok 4.7 Extra High references this obvious science: "Head size sets the radiofrequency dose. Standards and most of the research behind them use one adult size. That misses what decides how much energy is absorbed, and where in the brain it lands. The head works as an antenna. Size sets the frequency it absorbs most strongly, and which parts of the brain receive that energy. Head size changes greatly from infancy to adulthood, and among people of the same age. The FCC does not measure this. Phones are tested on a single adult head. The environmental limits are tightest where an adult body resonates, and they loosen where the head resonates. The ARRL RF Safety Committee states it directly. "The adult head, for example is resonant around 400 MHz, while a baby's smaller head resonates near 700 MHz. Body size thus determines the frequency at which most RF energy is absorbed." The same guidance puts a grounded adult body near 35 MHz and an insulated adult near 70 MHz, with further resonances near 1 GHz at the body surface. An adult and a baby are not the same antenna. Absorption peaks when head size matches the wavelength in tissue. The field inside the skull then forms a standing wave, so some parts of the brain absorb several times more than others. A head about 10 percent smaller peaks about 10 percent higher in frequency. Circumference is about 35 cm at birth and 54 to 58 cm in adults, a factor of roughly 1.6. Applied to the adult figure, 400 MHz moves to about 640 MHz, beside the ARRL figure of 700 MHz for a baby head. At one age the spread is still several centimeters, about a 10 percent shift, enough to move a peak on or off a band in real use. A small adult and a large child overlap. Age is not a stand-in for head size (Nellhaus, Pediatrics 1968; Rollins, Collins, and Holden, J Pediatr 2010; CDC and WHO growth charts). Calculated models show the same size dependence, and a second peak a uniform head misses. Kritikos and Schwan (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1972) found internal hot spots in a tissue-like sphere, the frequency of strongest heating set by radius. Joines and Spiegel (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1974) modeled the skull in layers, skin through brain, at 7 and 10 cm radius, to cover different skull sizes. The layered head has a broad peak near 2.1 GHz. A uniform head of the same size does not. At that peak the field is a standing wave that shifts with frequency. Weil (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1975) mapped layered heads from 2 to 12.5 cm radius, and the hot spots move with size. The 400 and 700 MHz resonances and this peak near 2 GHz are different. Both move with head size. One adult size sees neither one. The FCC tests a phone at the ear on one shell, the SAM phantom required by IEEE 1528 and FCC KDB 865664. It is the 90th-percentile adult male from the 1988 Army survey (Gordon et al., Natick/TR-89/044, 1989), filled with uniform liquid, which misses the layered peak. It is not a child, a small adult, or the spread at one age, and it cannot compare 400 MHz with 700 MHz. SAM was meant as a cautious overestimate for older handsets (Beard et al., IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 2006). Later work finds designs where an anatomical head, including a child's, exceeds SAM (Lee and Choi, ETRI Journal 2019). Papers disagree on the size of that gap (Gandhi, Lazzi, and Furse 1996; Christ et al. 2010). One shell measures neither side. Away from the phone, the limits (47 CFR 1.1310; OET Bulletin 65) are strictest from 30 to 300 MHz, at 0.2 mW/cm2. The ARRL states why they loosen above 300 MHz: higher power densities are permitted "based on the concept that the body will not be resonant at those frequencies and will therefore absorb less energy." The head resonances sit in that range. At 700 MHz the limit is f/1500, about 0.47 mW/cm2, more than twice the 30 to 300 MHz limit. A smaller body resonates higher as a whole. The University of Florida newborn model resonates at 240 MHz, with a second peak near 800 MHz, and at resonance the public reference level does not hold the whole-body dose to the basic restriction (Dimbylow, Bolch, and Lee, Phys Med Biol 2010). The same shortfall appears for 1-year and 5-year models (Dimbylow and Bolch 2007). A study or a limit built on one adult head assigns the wrong frequency, and the wrong place in the brain, to children and to many adults. The effect happens where the energy lands, and those peaks move when head size changes. A certification number is the result for one large adult shell. Research and standards need the resonant frequency and the internal pattern across real head sizes, including people of the same age."

As a just turned 83 year-old man, I am very concerned about the rapid buildout of wireless technology , most probably is not backed by adequate study of the harms it might cause. I encourage and will support this effort. Thank you. Walt Epley

Question 2 — Perspective Individual consumer reporting unlicensed wireless transmissions, NIER fraud, and FCC complicity. Question 5(n) — Regulatory changes Abolish all RF categorical exclusions. Require independent annual NIER safety inspections of every wireless facility, without exception. Question 8 — Improvements in exposure assessment Require independent site inspections, verification of all antennas and transmitters, transmission identification, and residential-area measurements. Investigate unlicensed transmissions and missing equipment rather than accepting company paperwork at face value. Question 9 — Technical and exposure-related disclosures Require public disclosure of each facility’s FCC registration, installed antennas and transmitters, licensed frequencies, power levels, inspection results, and RF safety records. Question 15 — Evidence concerning wireless infrastructure The Crown Castle Edgemont cell tower, BU 855801, at 5351 W. 6th Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado, has no current FCC registration (permit TELE24-00035; project CN13-796 / 2400001). There are no registered active call signs or frequencies for this site in the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS). All transmissions measured at this site are publicly unlicensed. Two antennas physically present on the tower are omitted from the current site plan. Using a TinySA Ultra ZS-407 spectrum analyzer and HTOOL HT8 directional antenna, I measured an unlicensed transmission at 10.7777 GHz at +22.3 dBm beneath the tower and +9.4 dBm on my patio, approximately 0.27 miles away. At that same patio location, my cell phone signal measured −90 dBm. The +9.4 dBm reading represents approximately 8.7 billion times the received power of the phone signal. I also measured unlicensed transmissions at 10.0912 GHz and 11.5878 GHz. These transmissions, omitted antennas, and lack of FCC registration demand investigation. Question 18 Crown Castle’s NIER checklist identifies its radio service as Wireless Communications Services (Part 27). That service is not included among the services eligible for the checklist’s categorical exclusion. Crown Castle nevertheless claimed a categorical exemption that does not apply to Wireless Communications Services (Part 27) and left the follow-up power-screening questions blank. The FCC/LSGAC guide sets a 1,640 W EIRP threshold for routine environmental evaluation of Wireless Communications Services. The permit lists two Ericsson AIR 6419 antennas: the B77D has a published maximum EIRP of 80 dBm (100,000 W), and the B77G has a published maximum EIRP of 79 dBm (approximately 79,433 W). Both published maximum EIRP ratings vastly exceed the 1,640 W threshold, even before accounting for two additional antennas omitted from the site plan. Because Crown Castle left the required power calculations blank, the actual effective EIRP of the installed equipment cannot be independently verified from its submitted safety paperwork. Edgemont demands a full RF environmental evaluation, not a categorical exclusion. I allege Crown Castle committed NIER categorical-exclusion fraud by claiming an exemption that did not apply and bypassing RF safety screening. I also allege FCC complicity in a coordinated cover-up and circumvention of NIER safety regulations. Through FOIA, I requested all Edgemont site documentation held by the FCC. The FCC reported that it had no responsive records. I later obtained Crown Castle’s completed NIER categorical-exclusion checklist and site documentation through the City of Lakewood. The checklist identifies itself as the FCC/LSGAC Local Official’s Guide to RF and applies FCC RF-exposure rules to this facility. The FCC’s assertion that it possessed no responsive records is difficult to reconcile with the existence of this documentation. When I reported the unlicensed transmissions and missing antennas, the FCC dismissed my report by focusing on whether my equipment was calibrated instead of investigating. I allege that the FOIA discrepancy, refusal to investigate, and dismissal of my measurements are evidence of a cover-up warranting investigation into the FCC’s role. I allege regulatory capture and a cover-up enabling unlicensed spectrum deployment while bypassing RF safety safeguards. The FCC’s proposed “Build America” rules (WT Docket No. 25-276) would fast-track wireless deployment and restrict local oversight, which would further weaken the FCC’s safety rules. AT&T’s role in the site’s equipment, transmissions, and operation must also be investigated. Abolish all RF categorical exclusions. Require independent annual NIER safety inspections of every wireless facility, without exception. Investigate the unlicensed transmissions and Edgemont facility, establish responsibility for the alleged NIER categorical-exclusion fraud and cover-up, and hold Crown Castle, AT&T, and the FCC accountable.

My name is Dr. Marion Van Horn. I am a neuroscientist and mother of three. I am submitting this comment because I believe there is an urgent need to reassess whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits adequately protect human health and the environment. This issue recently came to our attention when our friend Alison Morrow Westover tried to stop a cell tower from being installed in her neighbour’s backyard. What surprised us most was learning that, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, health concerns cannot be used as grounds to reject a proposed cell tower, provided it complies with FCC exposure limits. But I was shocked to learn that the FCC’s RF exposure limits haven’t been substantially updated in nearly 30 years, despite ongoing scientific research in this area! As a neuroscientist who has studied brain development, I know that early-life environmental exposures can profoundly influence the developing brain. These are critical periods of development, during which environmental influences can have lasting consequences. While the long-term health effects of RF exposure remain an active area of scientific investigation, parents are absolutely justified in asking questions about the safety of placing a cell tower so close to where their children are growing up. Given the evolving scientific evidence, I believe it is essential that the FCC undertake a thorough, independent review of its exposure limits, with particular attention to long-term exposure, children’s developing nervous systems, and potential environmental effects. We should not have to wait for conclusive evidence of harm before asking whether our existing safety standards are sufficiently protective.

Re: Radiofrequency Exposure Standards, Biological Effects, and Outstanding Research Gaps I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public regarding the adequacy of existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards. The central issue is not whether RF radiation can produce biological effects. Experimental research demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can interact with biological systems. The unresolved question is whether existing exposure standards adequately account for potentially adverse effects across different exposure conditions, particularly those involving modulation, pulsing, chronic exposure, and developing biological systems. Of particular interest is U.S. Air Force-funded research conducted by Drs. Gale Craviso and Indira Chatterjee at the University of Nevada, Reno (AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0377). Their 2008 final performance report documented apparent nonthermal alterations in catecholamine release from adrenal chromaffin cells exposed to pulsed microwave frequency sweeps, particularly between 5 and 6 GHz. Bulk temperature and pressure were monitored, although the researchers acknowledged that localized microscopic heating remained a possible explanation. Related experiments demonstrated that extremely brief, high-intensity electrical pulses could trigger intracellular calcium influx and catecholamine release. These experiments involved exposure conditions substantially different from ordinary wireless communications, but illustrate the importance of investigating biological responses to different electromagnetic exposure parameters. Separately, the National Toxicology Program's 2018 studies (Technical Report 595) reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation, alongside certain noncancerous tissue changes. Although these exposure conditions cannot be directly extrapolated to typical human wireless-device use, they warrant appropriate consideration in risk assessment. The scientific literature contains both positive and negative findings. Biological responses are not automatically adverse health outcomes, but neither should the absence of substantial tissue heating be treated as sufficient evidence that all biologically relevant effects have been excluded. I respectfully request that federal agencies prioritize independent, reproducible research evaluating: 1. Biological effects of RF modulation, pulsing, frequency sweeps, and peak versus time-averaged exposures. 2. Potential neurological, endocrine, reproductive, and cellular effects, including calcium signaling and oxidative stress. 3. Long-term, cumulative, and simultaneous exposures from multiple wireless sources. 4. Vulnerability during childhood and development, alongside realistic device-use conditions. 5. Whether existing SAR-based compliance procedures adequately characterize relevant exposure parameters. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (2021), the D.C. Circuit required the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation concerning noncancer health effects and related shortcomings in its assessment. Compliance with an existing exposure limit is not, by itself, proof that every potentially relevant biological effect has been investigated or excluded. I urge federal agencies to transparently identify unresolved questions, evaluate the evidence according to methodological quality, and support targeted research before making categorical assurances about the safety of current and emerging wireless technologies. Relevant sources: Craviso & Chatterjee, Final Performance Report FA9550-06-1-0377 (2008); Vernier et al., Bioelectrochemistry 73, 1–4 (2008); National Toxicology Program, Technical Report 595 (2018); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on EMFs, Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am very pleased with HHS's initiative and hope it will take action to to examine the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I also hope that my government of Canada will follow suit. I urge HHS to carefully examine the submitted experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research and give particular attention to children, and other vulnerable populations that are affected in different ways. Please do not delay in taking action.   I was a healthy woman, leading a normal (and international) life until a RF communicating smart meter made me sick. Since 2016, my life and that of my family has been turned upside down. I had to move away from what is deemed 'normal' society. I do not consent to the continuous involuntary exposure to pulsed modulated, biologically active electrical and radio-frequency radiation. Thank you for providing an opportunity to be heard.  1. & 2. Responding as: an individual 3a. Type of sources: pulse-modulated RF radiation from: smart (utility) meters, Wi-Fi routers, any 'smart' tech including in cars; iPads/ laptops; earbuds/ hearing aids ; cell towers. Low frequency EMF's from wiring, electrical appliances, transmission lines, cars. 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, timing: Adverse health effects have changed over time: including severity of symptoms, timing of onset, - some with delay, others directly when exposed - and recuperation time after exposure.  3c. Adverse health effects: Symptoms experienced over the last ten years (difference in presence and severity over time) : Cardio-vascular (heart palpitations, tachycardia); eye sight, neurological effects including speech problems, memory, tinnitus; chest pain/tightened chest; sleep dysfunction/  head aches/ stabbing pains, tremors; sensations in thyroid and face/ jaw area, chills/ flu like symptoms.  3d. Time from exposure to appearance of adverse effects; did a change coincide with onset: In 2016 our family returned to Canada after living in Europe for some years. Upon our return I developed electromagnetic radiation syndrome (EHS), with debilitating neurological and heart problems, very likely caused by frequent and prolonged exposure to a smart meter installed right outside the kitchen on our home in Canada. At the same time A Wi-Fi router in the basement beamed up under my feet and smart phones were charging on the counter.  I had milder symptoms in Europe but did not recognize it as such. I started to use a smart phone around 2014 and developed heart arrhythmia; a cardiologist in Europe could not find anything wrong. I had stabbing pains in my head, but they came and went so quickly, that I did not pay attention. I also already had unusual, unexplainable, out of the blue fatigue. 3e. Medical evaluation sought? Diagnosis?  In Canada I sought medical help from my own family physician: he had never heard of the condition but would look into it and asked how he could help. I did not know. Two other physician-friends were dismissive: one did not respond, the other could not find it in the BMJ". The waiting list for an environmental doctor was too long. I mostly found my way on my own. A few years ago I sought help from an acupuncturist who worked on my neurological system, and recently I started to work with a cranio-sacral therapist.  3f. Steps taken to reduce exposure; subsequent changes in effects: We managed to have our utility company change our smart electricity meter into a non-communicating meter in December 2016, after repeated requests. Early 2017, an EMF specialist measured RFR and low frequency EM fields in our house. We switched off our Wi-Fi; went back to cabled computers and lap tops; replaced our DECT-phone with a corded phone; got rid of dimmer switches; switched back to incandescent lighting and use kill switches to turn off electrical groups at night,.  Regularly being outdoors, walking (and grounding) in the woods, exposing myself to natural sunlight (and the Earth's magnetic field), swimming in summer (in the river), and eating healthy are essential for me to stay healthy, heal and deal with exposure.    I can now better tolerate some exposure for a short duration. Yet radiation density all around is rapidly increasing. It seems a Sisyphean task to grow more tolerant in an an environment that is ever more inundated with artificial forms of electromagnetic radiation. I cannot imagine how life is like for people who have no safe place to live and without a support system.  I try to raise awareness in my community, in the political scene, through the media. I write letters and articles and work with advocacy groups in Canada and across the world, but we encounter many brick walls. That is why I even more appreciate HHS's initiative. 

I'm writing on behalf of my wife, son and myself. We are the Haller family from Minnesota. Our story has been all over the internet so privacy is already compromised. We live in very very rural northern MN. Only 4 neighbors in a half mile. We purchased our property in 2007 and while building our home in 2008 a 300 food tall cell tower went up at the same time. We were unaware this was even happening until it reached above the trees and almost appeared to be on our property. It ended up being on the neighbors land but only 900 feet from our home. We didn't think much at the time and even joked at least we'll have great cell service. Life was normal from 08 until 2012, when I was diagnosed with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis at Only 39 years old. No family history of it but I learned how to deal with it and once again life returned to normal until 9-2019. A large crane appeared at the tower for two weeks, we watched the workers remove the top and replace it with a new one. When they left we noticed immediately our phones switched from 4glte to 5g. Within a week of the crane leaving my wife was stricken with severe vertigo, that's what the hospital said anyway. After a few days of no relief and worsening symptoms we were back at the emergency room. After a MRI the confirmed she was having mini strokes, buy the dozens. Local hospitals had no idea what was happening so we were referred to the mayo clinic in Rochester. They treated her with plasmapherisis and chemo therapy to slow her immune system down enough to make the strokes stop. This worked for a short time until we returned home. Symptoms returned with our return. While we were navigating our own problems we learned our neighbor who owned the property where the tower is had a brief battle with aggressive cancer and died from a stroke at home in 2/2020. We couldn't stay at home so we moved to the inlaws house which is only a mile away. They were working across the country at the time and offered it to us. We moved there in March 2020 and stayed until they returned home in Oct 2020. While staying there the wife's condition improved immensely, she went from walking with a walker to walking on her own. Her brain function improved and she decided to return to nursing school, she was in school when the first round of strokes started but we had her withdrawn. As a family I noticed we were happier, more energetic, sleeping better and just "better". When we returned home in just days the nightmare was returning. With no choice at the time I built her a room in our detached garage and made it RF proof. It worked excellent, while in the room she feels no Symptoms. When she would feel like she had been exposed for too long she'd simply say "I'm going out to the room"! I nicknamed it "the penalty box"! We've stayed away from home as much as possible since Mar 2020 and sleep together every night in that black box I created. It's now been 6 years sleeping in there. She fully recovered to a point, she completed nursing school and is indeed a nurse. She can take some exposure but too much time on the computer or phone and she has to go out to the room. She can feel the tower in her head as soon as she comes home, describing it as a "buzzing" in her head. We've adapted as best as possible. Doctors still are baffled at how this all happened and what made it stop(I never told them what we did), they said it's a miracle...I beg to differ. We tried getting the tower owners to redirect the antennas, through local town board and even federal court. Each time we were told that the FCC preempts local government from any action against telecom. If I was better at computers I would attach files and documents but I simply don't know how. I would love to discuss this further with you and would love if you reached out to us. In closing I would like to say no business/person/organization should be immune from causing personal harm to others, such as the wireless industry. More studies, more testing needs to be done at today's levels of radiation and done so in a 24-7 exposure time. This wireless radiation affects more than just humans. I've studied the local American Grey(timber) wolf as well as whitetail deer, hummingbirds and bats for the last 6 years. I've learned much about their behavior around this tower and the lengths they go through to avoid it. We've lost family pets to this as well. Our beloved dog Ms Daisy had so many tumors on her the weight of them wouldn't let her breathe. The vet had never seen anything like this when we brought her in to be put down. Please HHS listen to all these pleas you are receiving, for too long they have been swept under the rug. I've met hundreds to thousands of families like our after out story aired on the children's health defense website. We were receiving phone calls everyday from people asking for help. I told them what I did for us and it helped. Now I'm asking for your help! We are not crazy,we are victims. Jay & Marcia Haller

I have been electrosensitive for a few decades. I must wear shielding when I go out and can't have wireless or anything "smart" in my home. I can't socialize normally because I can't be around cell phones or wifi. I can't go in an ambulance or a public bus,train or airplane. I can't go the hospital and can't have surgery if I need it. Too much wireless radiation. It's a big problem that other people will increasingly experience. My cardiologist tested me with a cell phone & saw an increase in my heart rate.I also get arrhythmias, brain fog, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches that land me in bed.I am very concerned about the effects on babies,children,all people. You know that wireless radiation is harmful. I am not going to attach studies.You have all of them you don't need me to show you. I am aware of the studies at ehtrust.org & mdsafetech.org. Our radiation exposure standards are less protective than most countries & are not protective at all. I want you to protect us and our environment (animals, insects and birds) from this pollution.I want you to maintain land line infrastructure & service for national security and health reasons.Children who use wireless phones before adulthood have a 4x higher rate of brain cancer according to the scientific literature. Yet most children now use cell phones and do not have land lines at home. People need to be made aware of what that is doing to their children, to our future, including to their fertility and the fertility of future generations, and to their lifespan and health. Protect children in schools. Stop irradiating babies and children, including in doctor's offices. Stop irradiating hospital patients. Study the exposures from medical devices like insulin pump therapy that is a 24/7 exposure, put a focus on these patients, be transparent, communicate findings to endocrinologists and other involved practitioners so that best practices can be determined and implemented without further delay. Use hard wired connections in schools and wherever possible in society. Start a nationwide program to measure individual exposure levels so that we know what people are actually exposed to from all these separate sources that add up. Investigate the exposure levels of employees required to use tech for work like store employees that are required to use a business cell phone and/or tablet throughout their workday and police officers who are required to wear wireless cameras over their hearts and laptops in their cars, &other wireless equipment on or near them throughout their shifts. What are the exposure levels for these people? Nurses too who are required to wear hospital cell phones around their necks, over heart, lungs and thyroid, above pregnant abdomens, that transmits to and from the nurse's station throughout their shifts. The FCC didn't approve the radiation from these extra phones. And these employees usually have a personal cell phone in their pockets. Even while pregnant. Measure the exposure of pregnant women and teach them how to minimize it. Make knowledgeable experts available to help citizens measure, understand and deal with this pollution. TEACH the public what the problems are and how to mitigate them. Teach children in schools so they understand what this is and how it works and how to use it safely (if there is a way to use it safely). END the use of technology that is known to be dangerous until it is shown/proven to be safe. Stop exposing people in nursing homes and other institutions like prisons. Follow the precautionary principle. Keep wireless out of schools, BAN cell tower placement anywhere near homes, schools, and businesses of any kind. And here is the big problem with cell tower placement - there is no place on earth where there is not life that can be harmed and we should be concerned about ALL life, not just human life. Animals, birds and even plant life is adversely affected. The bird population is declining rapidly. Birds roost on cell towers. It is a crime. EMR even causes an increase in mold and fungal growth and illness. It affects all body systems, every cell, and makes people very sick. People affected are often misdiagnosed because physicians do not recognize the cause since it is invisible and our government assures it is safe. Young adults have a massively increased rate of colon cancer. The most likely cause is radiation from growing up with laptops on their laps, wireless game controllers in their hands in their laps and cell phones in their pockets. NO ONE bothered to tell a generation that a laptop should not be closer than 8 inches from the body and cell phones should not be closer than 5/8" from the body according to the manufacturer's fine print. And they still don't know. And most doctors don't know. Stop denying that there is a problem. Stop playing games and do your job. PLEASE. This is a neglected crisis.

We want an expedited review and safety studies on EMFs and RFs. There have not been adequate studies done to date.