Exposure limits & oversight

Carcinogenicity of radio-frequency radiation in the occupational and military setting Prepared jointly by: Elihu Richter, ORCID 0000-0003-3218-7765 Michael Peleg, ORCID 0000-0002-7520-8741 peleg.michael@gmail.com A slightly longer and better formated version is attached as a PDF file. We took part in research reported in the papers in the reference list below. The research provides a strong indication of carcinogenicity of Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR). The research subjects: Groups of young cancer patients previously exposed to RFR in the military and occupational setting. The exposure: The exposure was from radio communication transmitters, from radar and from electronic warfare. The exposure was repetitive, typically over a year or more. The Israeli Defense Forces exposure levels are guided by the occupational standards set by ICNIRP which allow average power higher by a factor of 5 relative to the ICNIRP recommendations for the general population. Importantly, those standards almost do not limit the peak power of radar pulses provided the average power is within the limits. Power concentrated in strong pulses may be more bioactive as explained in the references. Research methods: The primary information was from the patients; most of them were trained operators, technicians and engineers. For small subgroups of patients, we knew the size of the whole exposed population and thus we were able to estimate cancer Risk Ratios (RR) relative to the general population. For most of the patients the size of the exposed population was not available. Therefore we examined also cancer characteristics since cancer characteristics which are very different from those of cancer patients from the general population indicate an additional carcinogen. We examined Percentage Frequencies (PF) of cancer types and proportion of cancer patients suffering from multiple primaries. The main results: The RRs for cancer in the small subgroups were very high, e.g. 8, and statistically significant. The PF of hematolymphoid cancers was about twice the value in the general population and statistically significant. The two results above are consistent with research results of other research groups in different countries, see table 7 and figure 4 in reference (4) and section 3.4 in reference (3). Proportion of patients suffering multiple primaries as reported in reference (3) was higher by a factor of 4.5 than the value expected in the general population. This indicates a potent carcinogen. Such a dramatic rise in multiple primaries was not observed in our next work (4). The latencies in (4) may not have been long enough to develop multiple primaries. Our recommendations: Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) should be recognized as a human carcinogen. Limit human exposure to low levels, for example 1μW/cm2 average level and 5μW/cm2 peak pulse level. The suggested level is in the range of known community levels. In the military and the occupational settings, reduce exposures to the lowest possible level, striving to the specifications above. Use Faraday barriers to reduce exposures at the source and personal level and any other means required. Document individual exposures and provide this information to all highly exposed humans. Provide the exposed humans with long-term periodical medical surveillance for cancer and for other health effects. Perform epidemiological cancer research on all known personnel exposed to significant levels of RFR. Please see the detailed recommendation section in reference (4). Acknowledgement: We thank the Environmental Health Trust for organizing, in Israel, two international conferences on RFR and EMF health aspects which enabled very useful information exchange among the participants. References: (1) Richter E, Berman T, Ben-Michael E, Laster R, Westin JB. "Cancer in radar technicians exposed to radiofrequency/microwave radiation: sentinel episodes." Int J Occup Environ Health. 2000 Jul-Sep;6(3):187-93. doi: 10.1179/oeh.2000.6.3.187. PMID: 10926722. (2) M. Peleg: "Report on a Cancer Cluster in an Antenna Ranges Facility", International IEEE Conference on Microwaves, Communications, Antennas and Electronic Systems, IEEE COMCAS 2009, Tel Aviv, 9-11 November 2009. (3) Michael Peleg, Or Nativ, Elihu D. Richter: Radio frequency radiation related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting, Environmental Research, Volume 163, May 2018, Pages 123-133, ISSN 0013-9351 (4) M. Peleg, E. M. Berry, M. Deitch, O. Nativ, E. Richter: On radar and radio exposure and cancer in the military setting, Environmental Research, Volume 216, Part 2, Jan 2023, 114610, ISSN 0013-9351 (5) Peleg M, Berry E M, Deitch M, Nativ O, Richter E. 'Carcinogenicity of Radio-Frequency Radiation: Similarities and Differences Between Outcomes of Two Studies'. Med Discoveries. 2025; 4(7): 1267

COMMENT ON SCOPE, AUTHORITY, AND SCIENTIFIC METHODS Formal Request for Transparency This comment raises material issues concerning HHS’s RF/EMF RFI. The notice says responses are voluntary and HHS will not comment on individual submissions. I do not claim HHS must answer each question now. If HHS, or other agencies involved in this RFI (e.g. FCC, and others), later relies on this record for reviewable action, HHS should disclose its basis and address material issues through the applicable process. 1. AUTHORITY. The notice cites “21 CFR subpart J” without a part or section. Give the exact citation and statutory authority. Distinguish research authority (42 U.S.C. § 241; 21 U.S.C. § 360ii) from binding electronic-product performance standards (§ 360kk). For power-frequency fields, consumer products, communications infrastructure, and occupational exposures, identify the authority and intended output. For sources outside “electronic product radiation” under § 360hh(1), identify the separate authority. 2. SCOPE AND LEGAL EFFECT. Will HHS separately evaluate power-frequency fields, consumer RF devices, communications infrastructure, and occupational exposures? Is the intended output research/nonbinding advice or binding requirements? Confirm the RFI itself does not change limits, testing, disclosure, or siting rules and cannot substitute for procedures required for later binding action. 3. CORRECTING QUESTION 6. The RFI asks about effects “caused by current exposure limits.” A limit is a threshold, not an exposure. Does HHS mean effects associated with exposures at or below applicable limits? How will it define exposure/outcome and distinguish measured from estimated exposure and association from causation? 4. REVIEW PROTOCOL. Before synthesizing evidence, will HHS disclose its search sources/dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, screening/extraction methods, and material protocol deviations? If no systematic protocol will be used, how will it guard against selective study inclusion? 5. STUDY QUALITY. What predefined criteria will assess confounding, exposure misclassification, statistical power, multiple comparisons, publication bias, replication, and conflicts? Will positive, null, and contradictory studies face the same criteria? Will human, animal, and mechanistic evidence be evaluated separately, distinguishing biological response, adverse outcome, association, and causation? 6. EXPOSURE MEASUREMENT. How will HHS validate dosimetry, report uncertainty, and distinguish SAR, power density, electric fields, and magnetic fields? Will it identify source, frequency, intensity, duration, and whether exposure was measured, modeled, or self-reported? 7. CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. What validated method permits aggregation across different sources, frequencies, units, and durations? Will HHS justify additivity or dose-equivalence assumptions? If no common metric is valid, will it report source-specific measures rather than sum unlike quantities? 8. STANDARDS COMPARISON. For each standard, identify issuer/date, binding or advisory status, frequency range, metric, averaging time, population, endpoints, and uncertainty. Explain material differences before comparing limits. 9. SUBGROUPS AND ENVIRONMENT. For sensitive groups, will HHS identify prespecified analyses, statistical power, and multiple-comparison limits? How will it treat personal/clinical reports as hypothesis-generating, not causal proof? For wildlife and infrastructure, will it distinguish proximity from measured/modelled exposure and address confounders and field-study gaps? 10. TRANSPARENCY AND AGENCY ROLES. Will HHS publish methods, evidence tables, exclusions, bias assessments, exposure characterizations, uncertainty, and gaps, as law permits? Will it avoid vote-counting and double-counting studies across reviews? How will it distinguish HHS functions from FCC authority over communications facilities? Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 360ii, 360kk; 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a, 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Thank you and God Bless.

I submit this comment requesting independent scientific investigation, transparent environmental monitoring, and stronger public accountability regarding electromagnetic field (EMF), WIFI, and ELF exposure and its potential effects on human health, cellular function, neurological development, and future generations. The expansion of telecommunications and electrical infrastructure raises legitimate public-health and bioethical questions. Wireless RF radiation and extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields, including 60 Hz power transmission, have distinct physical characteristics and must be evaluated separately, including their potential cumulative and long-term effects. Located on schools, churches and parks. Children are stakeholders, not merely passive recipients of technological development. Their developing nervous systems, cellular processes, and longer potential lifetime exposures warrant specific scientific attention. Pregnancy, fetal development, infancy, and childhood represent critical periods during which environmental influences may have lasting consequences. Human health depends upon cellular homeostasis, mitochondrial bioenergetics, ATP production, DNA integrity, and coordinated neurological signaling. Disruption of these processes can contribute to disease and impaired development. Whether particular environmental EMF exposures adversely affect these mechanisms, and under what conditions, requires rigorous investigation rather than unsupported assumptions of either harm or safety. HHS should prioritize research examining oxidative stress, mitochondrial signaling, membrane potential, cellular repair, neurodevelopment, reproductive outcomes, and potential intergenerational effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation and evaluate exposure intensity, frequency, duration, developmental stage, and individual susceptibility. Existing epidemiological research has identified associations between certain residential ELF magnetic-field exposures and childhood leukemia, although a causal relationship remains unestablished. Such findings demonstrate the importance of continued investigation rather than premature dismissal of unresolved questions. The ethical question extends beyond whether an exposure meets current regulatory limits. It concerns whether those limits adequately account for developing biological systems, prolonged exposure, combined environmental conditions, and populations not sufficiently represented in existing research. Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, and intergenerational equity, the public deserves meaningful access to scientific findings and environmental exposure information. The burden of investigating potential public-health risks should not fall exclusively upon families who lack the resources to commission environmental testing or independent scientific evaluations. Communities should have access to infrastructure information, standardized exposure measurements, monitoring results, and understandable explanations of applicable safety standards. Public participation must be meaningful, particularly where infrastructure affects residential neighborhoods, schools, and vulnerable populations. I request that HHS: Support independent longitudinal studies evaluating RF, EMF and ELF exposures, particularly during pregnancy, infancy, and childhood. Investigate cellular and neurological mechanisms, including mitochondrial function, ATP metabolism, oxidative regulation, and neurodevelopment, using reproducible methods. Evaluate cumulative and chronic exposure patterns while distinguishing established effects from emerging hypotheses. Assess potential ecological consequences for wildlife, pollinators, vegetation, and interconnected environmental systems. Establish transparent public reporting of exposure measurements, research limitations, funding sources, and regulatory assumptions. Examine disproportionate environmental burdens and ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in research and policy development. Coordinate with the FCC, EPA, and relevant agencies to address scientific gaps and clarify oversight responsibilities. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not equivalent to conclusive evidence of safety under every exposure condition. Scientific uncertainty requires investigation, not speculation or complacency. Technological advancement carries corresponding responsibilities. Public-health protection should not depend upon proving widespread injury after exposure has occurred. Children, families, communities, ecosystems, and future generations are stakeholders in decisions affecting shared environments. Our responsibility is not simply to accommodate technological progress, but to ensure that progress does not compromise the biological integrity, developmental potential, and environmental inheritance of generations yet to come. Respectfully, Cherrish Castaneda Roots Indigenous Priory Sacramento County, California

I am a healthy person in my mid 60s. For the last 10 years, it's been increasingly difficult for me to engage in all the activities I enjoy, due the side effects that Wireless Radiation causes in my body. I am a scientist by training and have repeatedly observed how specific symptoms such as headache, elevated heart rate, increased blood pressure, insomnia, nausea and tingling skin sensations occur when I'm around wifi technology, and then dissipate when I leave wifi laden rooms and buildings. I have modified my home and work environments so there is no wireless radiation or smart devices, only wired connectivity, which produces measurable relief of my symptoms. The scientific literature on the physiological effects of EMFs and RF goes back to the 1950s when the military first conducted studies, and at this point consists of well over 10,000 published studies. The FCC safety guidelines are antiquated and inadequate, and there's an urgent need for these guidelines to be updated to incorporate scientific findings from recent decades. It is grossly negligent for the FCC to continue with their status quo, and to delay the implementation of more rigorous and accurate guidelines to protect public health.

It does not make sense that the policy has not changed over 30 years despite the sign having changed, and that it does not factor in recent developments, showing the toxic effects of proximity to these cell towers. It doesn’t make sense.

Thank you to HHS for issuing this RFI. As a 63-year-old with two adult children, I am very concerned about the long-term health effects of wireless radiation exposure. When I hold a cell phone to my head for longer than five minutes, I begin to develop a headache on the side of my head where I am holding the cellphone. My head and ear also start to feel warm. I’m no doctor, but this can’t be a good sign! Sometimes it’s hard not to envision a room full of telecom executives cranking out the numbers – we know this product is unsafe, but we’re going to sell it anyway because only some people will die or get cancer and we’ll still make a profit. Very reminiscent of big tobacco! Please update today’s exposure limits to ensure they reflect the latest science and use patterns of wireless technologies. The FCC has failed on every front to do this, and it’s high time for HHS to pick up the slack.

I attest and affirm under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge and understanding. I reside in Alachua County, Florida. I have a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and a Master of Engineering. I have worked in industry at Geneal Electric and in research at the University. I am a Professional Engineer licensed in the state of Florida I am a Building Biology Institute certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist. I have always stood for the truth and the right to informed consent in all matters and hold to high ethical standards. I did not consent, nor do I consent today, to the continuous and involuntary exposures to pulsed modulated, biologically active electrical and radiofrequency / microwave (RF/MW) radiation. I previously led a normal, productive life until I was injured and harmed by the electrical and pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation from cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and radios which all utilize pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation for communications. The agent of harm was the RF/MW radiation, I now have Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome, also known as Radiofrequency Sickness. I developed a rare aggressive cancer, severe intestinal damage and malnutrition, severe pain and pressure in my head, imbalance and coordination issues, resulting in many broken bones and bruises. ` I developed bouts of sudden onset eye pain, short term memory and concentration problems I developed irregular heartbeats when driving near proximity to cell towers. I had to adjust my driving routes to avoid the harmful exposures. I was unable to work as I dealt with my illness and symptoms. I had to navigate as best I could to pinpoint that my health decline was caused by the harmful RF/MW radiation exposures and then how to regain my health and wellbeing. I began to analyze and connect the dots of symptoms and exposures harming me. I started to question the medical providers regarding the RF/MW radiation when I reported my correlations of exposure and symptoms. The medical professionals were dismissive, which was extremely frustrating for me. I found the Building Biology Institute and that was instrumental to put me on the path to measuring and analyzing my environment and then taking actions to remove all known exposures within my control. Also, I now avoid and reduce as much as possible what is out of my control which includes cell towers and others homes with Wi-Fi and other devices, stores and medical facilities with high exposures, routes with high tension power lines. My commitment to take actions to survive came with great expense and inconvenience. Even though I removed and avoided all exposures within my control to allow my body to recover, I still must avoid RF/MW radiation devices and infrastructure or I experience severe pain and pressure in my head, gastrointestinal issues, irregular heartbeat, eye pain, and much impaired functioning. When I am required to go to places with high pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation I always have symptoms return which require long periods of time in isolation so I can recover. I must have a home, a place that I have control over to maintain my health and well being and not be forced to accept increasing high pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation from cell towers, satellites, “smart” utility meters with that infrastructure. I will never be able to go to places and participate in “normal” events and activities because of the pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation that is outside of my control. My requests to Health and Human Services: Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome is caused by the harmful biological effects from pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation and this should be recognized and respected and action taken. Require the necessary training to medical professional to recognize and diagnose Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome. Many citizens have ill health and may have undiagnosed biological effects from RF/MW radiation exposures. Make recommendations to the public to use technology “safely”, to educate and allow for informed consent. Require the industry to make changes to reduce the negative biological effects from infrastructure and devices. Combinations of exposures, power density and pulsed modulation including durations of exposure, from different infrastructures and devices must all be considered during evaluations and analysis. Utilities must be required to provide analog meters to anyone who chooses one. Copper landlines must be provided to anyone who chooses one. I request that you will maintain high regard for human health regarding the toxic environmental exposures from pulsed modulated RF/MF radiation so that we can Make America Health Again. I have attached files of research for your review. Thank you for your kind and caring attention to my facts that I have presented Signed this 21st day of October 2026,

Thank you to Health and Human Services for requesting information and public comment on this long-ignored agent of harm. Question 2 – Perspective I am commenting as an individual with a degree in physics and extensive knowledge of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radio frequency (RF) radiation. Question 3 – Experiences with Potential Adverse Health Effects I started having headaches after using my first mobile phone. During years of careful observation, I noticed similar headaches after being near operating Wi-Fi, smart utility meters, cell antennas, and other wireless infrastructure. Fortunately, where I worked, the networks were hardwired, and I was not required to carry a mobile phone. And, I live far enough away from cell antennas in a wired house. I don’t carry a mobile phone and avoid high RF radiation areas, e.g. sports stadiums. I did not consent to be irradiated so other people can stream video on their mobile phones. Questions 6 and 12 – Existing Scientific Evidence Scientists around the globe have performed literally hundreds of investigations of the adverse effects on human health and the environment. Other commenters to this RFI submitted the reports of many investigations. I attached one article that is particularly insightful. THE PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM RF/EMF RADIATION EXPOSURE DON’T NEED ANOTHER INVESTIGATION OR ASSESSMENT OR RESEARCH. THEY NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ITS CITIZENS. Remember, tobacco smoking was considered safe for decades before governments took action. Question 11 – Exposure Assessment Any exposure assessment should include ALL populations since many people suffering from RF/EMF radiation are not in the listed groups. Many people may treat symptoms of RF/EMF radiation with caffeine or over the counter drugs. No wonder Americans are so unhealthy. Question 13 – Cumulative Exposure Any manmade RF/EMF radiation source that radiates into public spaces and a public person cannot power off must be included in any cumulative exposure assessment. Question 15 - Wireless Infrastructure Exposure ALL types of scientific evidence should be considered when evaluating RF exposure associated with wireless infrastructure for the listed items. I hope somebody reads my comments.

Dear HHS Team, Re: your question No. 5, I co-founded Hilltown Health (hilltownhealth.org), a safe technology advocacy organization in Western MA, more than a decade ago following my wife's developing electromagnetic radiation syndrome (EMR-S) in 2010. We made a film about the above experience, under the auspices of the theatre company we co-founded in 2004 called "Canary in a Gold Mine" which was released several years ago (ptco.org/canary) In short, Hilltown Health has been collaborating with local planning boards to strengthen and update telecom by-laws as well as advocating for more transparency about RF/EMF health effects given the recent rollout of "smart" meters by our utilities, Eversource and National Grid. We have also reached out to school administrators about the involuntary exposure of school age children in classrooms. There are decision makers who receive evidence of harm (for example, the National Toxicology Program cell phone study: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones or this review of health effects on children and pregnant women: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1915745/full) and are concerned enough to take action. However, many people in decision making positions, for a wide variety of reasons, have not taken any protective measures on behalf of the people for whom they are responsible. Perhaps the most significant reason for inaction is that the concerned federal agencies have generally indicated that the current exposure standards are protective. The majority of the public thinks the wireless devices they are buying (or installing in the case of educational institutions) have undergone some kind of government testing to ensure that long term exposures are safe. Of course, there has been no such testing. The technology is still too new to fully understand the cradle to grave impacts of 24X7, 365 days a year exposure. And the current "safety standards" were based on a test of one hour or less on a group of animals in the 1980's (see slide 19 of Dr. Kent Chamberlin's public talk in Greenfield, MA entitled "Smart Meters: Health, Safety and Opting-Out" given on November 13, 2025 just before smart meters were installed in Western MA with most residents either not knowing that opting out was an option, not realizing there was any cause for concern about wireless exposure from the meter or accompanying infrastructure or simply not being able to afford the opt out fee despite not wanting to be harmed in their home: https://www.hilltownhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chamberlin-Slides.Smart-Meter-Presentation.Greenfield.pdf This has created a wild west atmosphere with huge amounts of money at stake and led to public comments, for example by a designer of the smart grid for one of our state utilities that he is not aware of any "credible research" indicating health impacts. We know there are thousands of studies going back to the US Navy research in the 1970's documenting health impacts: https://zoryglaser.com/ But the lack of any clear government guidance beyond a general denial / dismissal on the part of the FCC of there being any health effects emboldens those who have been charged by their corporations to maximize profit. In other words, there is a large scale game of "passing the buck" as in, "if you are concerned, take it up with the FCC." And the FCC saying that they rely on organizations like the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) comprised of industry-funded scientists as is well documented in the documentary "Microwaves, Science and Lies": https://vimeo.com/89144337 Meanwhile, my wife's life and the lives of many, many others have been decimated or simply lost in the case of victims of cell phone induced glioma: https://ehtrust.org/science/cell-phone-radiation-linked-to-brain-cancer-and-tumors-published-science/ Thank you for taking prompt action to rectify this inhuman situation which so closely resembles many other US public health disasters fueled by profits and captured agencies, ie, tobacco, Agent Orange, lead, the automobile industry before Nader, DDT, etc. In addition to updating the safety standards, thank you for considering, the design of "off ramps" for stakeholders who are justifiably concerned about massive losses in class action suits if they were to acknowledge wireless injury. Just as auto makers wound up competing on safety, the wireless industry is very capable of doing the same in the context of a thoughtful policy environment. In the long term, they will be grateful for your help. The engineers and PR people doing the day to day work @ Big Tech are not motivated by the opportunity to harm. But most people are not eager to lose their employment which is currently the bind any potential whistleblower would find themselves in. And thank you for your service.

MY NEIGHBORS AND ANIMALS ARE DYING I am SICK. My family members have been SICK SINCE more than a hundred UNREGULATED TOWERS WENT LIVE over our community. This has been a challenge for me to get anyone to help in my community. I wanted to share my story in hopes of helping others. My story is one of many in Terrebonne Parish. After multiple (9) 300-foot 5G towers were put over our homes, four 300-foot 5G towers were put over my home and animal sanctuary, and four 300-foot towers were put over my office. At the same time, smart meters were put on my home, along with those of every other Entergy customer. I began getting sick, very sick. It began in my petting area with heart palpitations, headaches, vomiting, ringing in my ears, confusion, bleeding gums, insomnia, nightmares, dizziness, anxiety, ears buzzing 24 hours a day, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, and more. I have now been diagnosed with radiation syndrome / EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome) caused by extreme exposure to radiation. Many residents are experiencing similar symptoms. Countless children are now suffering. Being a very healthy person my whole life, this has been a life-changing situation. I am usually the one helping others; now I need your help. I never thought this could happen until I was forced to face it by becoming sick. I'm not sure where this illness will take me. However, I must do all I can to protect my family and my community. Seven neighbors on my street and friends have died after the towers went live over their homes. Many other residents are also sick. My community is surrounded by towers that have no regulatory testing information, nor does our planning department ask for it, citing the FCC's outdated RF radiation guidelines. I became certified in RF radiation testing. I now test the towers and smart meters. I can confirm that the EMF (electromagnetic frequency) / RF (radio frequency) radiation being emitted is extreme for every single product, tower, and smart device I have tested. It has been a fight to protect my family, my community, and myself, with EVERYONE CITING THE FCC'S OUTDATED RF RADIATION GUIDELINES. I had to learn all I could about this to protect my health and theirs. I've had to turn my home, where I have lived for 28 years, into an EMF-safe house (until I sell it), as well as my barn, which is surrounded by EMF material and protection. My bed is covered with EMF protection as well due to the radiation levels in my home. I now have to wear protective clothing all day. Leaving my safe area means becoming exposed due to the unbridled towers around me. I am a very private person. This is not easy to share, but if I do not ask for help now, many more innocent people will be sick, or they will die like my neighbors, my friends, and my animals. Since the towers went live, six of my horses have died instantly under the towers. All of my little animals have died. My 200-pound tortoises started going blind. I'm not sure where the daily radiation exposure will take me, so I thought now is the best time to ask for your help in making a change. THE FCC MUST REGULATE THE RADIATION, OR THE DEATH & DESTRUCTION WILL NEVER END. Technology is safe only if it is REGULATED. Always, Shari Champagne