Exposure limits & oversight

These are an eyesore! Why can’t there be regulations on how these towers look!

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: While in the military I developed migraines and vertigo that were triggered by high EMF environments. Moreover, It is well know that HF radios in fighter jets cause cancer. Please reference any fighter jet systems manual. We use to call the cone of the antenna in front of the jet the cone of cancer. There are notes, warnings and cautions pertaining to this danger. While there are different frequency ranges to the many avionics in a fighter jet some of these frequency bands reserved for the military have been released for use by the tech industry within the civilian population(Why?). There is a clear safety issue with this current technology please also reference the military studies done on radar operators in the 60's and 70's showing health concerns. It's time to FOIA all government organizations to include the military for all experiments regarding technology using any type of frequency based power. Non ionizing radiation should be looked at differently than ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is more apt to cause damage via thermal heating. Non ionizing radiation is more likely to affect the calcium channels of the body therefore showing damage later in a persons life that is not expressed by thermal damage. Because of this it also tends to affect people in different ways depending on their individual exposures and body type. We know that different types of frequency's can affect a person with more fat differently than someone with less fat. We know a millimeter wave cannot penetrate the body as deep as a longer wave frequency. Therefore more fat could potentially equal more protection against a millimeter wave reaching an organ. This is especially important with children as most do not have the body fat of an adult allowing the millimeter wave to penetrate deeper into their developing bodies. Currently the FCC only looks at ionizing radiation effects, this is pure negligence on the FCC's side as it is common knowledge among anyone that works with avionics that there are other dangers to frequency then just ionizing radiation as I explained above. This issue is going to have the most damaging effects on our children. It's time to start caring about our future generations and immediately stop any further roll out of cell towers and wireless technologies, remove all antennas from schools, remove wifi from schools and cease the use of 3g/4g/5g towers within our cities until the FCC does its job and does a complete overhaul of its safety standards to reflect measuring all the dangers that can result from this use of technology. The FCC must also ensure the Tech companies are held to the strictest 3rd party study's to ensure what they are proposing is safe. Then the FCC must remove all employees with conflicts of interest ensuring no industry employees are allowed to ever work for the FCC or vice versa. Or at least have a 5 year no compete agreement in their contracts. The FCC should also be required to work with HSS. The HSS should study the health effects and then the FCC must be required to update its standards to ensure the dangers Identified by HSS are addressed in their safety standards. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

I am hypersensitive to all those EMFs and they always tell me they’re safe. They’re not I have been researching for over 4 years. Please stop them. Read the Energy Policy Act of 2005!,,,

“I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on that. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.”

I am writing this to urge you to adopt a regulatory profile that would significantly reduce EMF radiation. Furthermore, I also urge robust independent biophysical research to be performed to asses EMFs impacts upon humans and other living organisms.

I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment. AI Overview: Wireless devices emit low-intensity radiofrequency (RF) radiation (a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields) to transmit data. Major health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration state that current scientific evidence does not conclusively prove that low-level RF exposure causes adverse health effects or cancer. However, independent researchers, public health groups, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer note several potential and debated risks. Main Health Risks and Studies • Carcinogen Classification: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B "possible carcinogen" based on limited evidence in humans and animal studies linking heavy, long-term cell phone use to certain brain tumors (such as malignant gliomas and non-malignant acoustic neuromas). • Animal Studies & DNA Damage: The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found clear evidence of heart tumors (schwannomas) and some evidence of brain and adrenal gland tumors in male rats exposed to high levels of cell phone RF radiation, along with signs of cellular DNA damage. • Oxidative Stress: A large portion of peer-reviewed laboratory studies indicate that low-intensity RF radiation can trigger oxidative stress (an imbalance of free radicals and antioxidants), which may lead to cellular or tissue inflammation and disrupted cell signaling. • Symptom Reports: Some individuals report physiological symptoms—such as headaches, chronic fatigue, sleep disturbances, agitation, and tinnitus—that they attribute to close or prolonged exposure to mobile phones, Wi-Fi routers, and cellular base stations, though conditions like "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" are not formally recognized by mainstream health consensus as directly caused by EMF fields. • Reproductive & Developmental Concerns: Certain studies point to potential drops in sperm count and motility from carrying phones in pants pockets, as well as possible developmental or behavioral impacts tied to early-life exposure. Vulnerable Populations • Children and Pregnant Women: Children absorb proportionally higher amounts of RF radiation into their brain tissue and bone marrow than adults because they have thinner skulls, smaller head sizes, and higher tissue water content. I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on the findings. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.

PLEASE REGULATE THE EMF EXPOSURE WITH SAFETY TESTS AND REGULATIONS TO AMOUNTS OF EXPOSURE TO EMR. TRUMPS IDEA OF 6 G MAKES ME CRINGE!!!!

Thank you Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the staff of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for at long last offering the general public as well as medical and scientific professionals the opportunity to inform you of the many adverse effects of RF/EMF infrastructure and devices. I am a U.S. citizen, writing as an individual consumer, who has been researching these adverse effects (with others who are equally knowledgeable and pro-active) for 7 years. I have written a number of Op-Ed submissions to my local newspaper, as well as made oral and written comments to my city council, RI General Assembly representatives, and to my federal Representative and Senators. Rather than summarize all of this work, I will attach them to this public comment. I will be addressing the following numbers as delineated in the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure: #3. a.—focusing on cell tower placement, small cell antennas on utility poles in front of homes and schools, Wi-Fi, smart phones, cordless phones, so-called Smart Meters, and the wireless mesh required to run these meters #5—the total inadequacy of the 1996 FCC exposure guidelines (as well as the ICNIRP guidelines) to protect the public and the organic environment #9—exposure-related information should be disclosed to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments #10—the need for disease registries and environmental monitoring and reporting #11—pregnant women, embryos/fetuses, children, adolescents, adults, the elderly, those with implanted devices, and those with preexisting medical conditions all need to be considered #12—scientific evidence has existed for decades that establish harm from exposure many times lower than the 1996 guidelines Please read and consider all of the testimony presented to you and acknowledge that the FCC’s1996 radiation exposure guidelines must be revised to protect human health and the organic environment. Attachments: White Paper on Scientific Evidence of Harm from Smart Meters Links to Op-Ed Submissions Written and Oral Comments to the RI Department of Environmental Management/Office of Air Resources Re: Sources of Air Pollution on the Pastore Center Campus

The HHS needs to protect the public from wireless radiation. If HHS does not do its job, it is a useless agency,

I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment. The available literature is conflicting regarding EMF exposure and health effects. While many published studies conclude that there are no adverse health effects from established acceptable levels of EMF exposure, others conclude that adverse health effects may result from long-term exposure to high level EMFs. Until ultimately EMF exposure can be verified to be safe for human/environmental exposure, a cautious approach is the only prudent option.