Topics & supporting passages
  • Cancer & tumors: “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.”
  • Children, schools & development: “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.”
  • Towers, antennas & siting: “This issue matters to me personally because I have seen the effects the towers have on birds.”
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices: “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.”
  • Wildlife & environment: “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.”
  • Exposure limits & testing: “Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.”
  • Court remand & agency accountability: “Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.”
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: “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.”

Topics matched to original text; attachment contents excluded. Classification details

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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 I have seen the effects the towers have on birds. They swarm them and act neurotic. This is a tower that is feet from an elementary school. One person could very well see that if this tower is effecting wildlife, it has to cause some type of reaction in children or humans in general. Electro magnetic frequencies (EMF) are dispersed from devices, why wouldn’t a tower disperse the same? Continuing with new construction would almost be like a legal form of murder. The environmental signs are there and we need to stop ignoring them. 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.
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
Official source ↗Open this comment on its own →