Topics & supporting passages
- Cancer & tumors: “government provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity (specifically heart schwannomas) and some evidence of malignant brain gliomas linked to non-thermal RFR exposure.”
- Towers, antennas & siting: “The advent of social media, technology relying on 5G, and the ever-increasing development of energy-consuming artificial intelligence are creating unprecedented pushes on the use of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), making it fully omnipresent.”
- Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices: “(2013): Extensive epidemiological pooled analyses demonstrated a statistically significant association between long-term mobile and cordless phone use and increased risks for glioma and acoustic neuroma.”
- Exposure limits & testing: “It is deeply concerning that the FCC continues to maintain that its current safety limits adequately protect public health, while effectively ignoring a large and growing body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating biological harm at non-thermal levels.”
- Court remand & agency accountability: “It is deeply concerning that the FCC continues to maintain that its current safety limits adequately protect public health, while effectively ignoring a large and growing body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating biological harm at non-thermal levels.”
- Research, evidence & monitoring: “Subject: Public Comment: Urgent Need to Reevaluate RF Radiation Limits Based on Current Scientific Evidence Dear Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I am a scientist and, as a scientist, I have learned to be careful about my own biases and to keep an open mind about things I don’t fully know or understand.”
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
Subject: Public Comment: Urgent Need to Reevaluate RF Radiation Limits Based on Current Scientific Evidence Dear Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I am a scientist and, as a scientist, I have learned to be careful about my own biases and to keep an open mind about things I don’t fully know or understand. Technology is progressing at unprecedented rates and exposing humanity and all life on Earth to unknown effects. Scientists try to anticipate unwanted consequences of technological developments, but unfortunately, industry interests often contradict cautious development. It is deeply concerning that the FCC continues to maintain that its current safety limits adequately protect public health, while effectively ignoring a large and growing body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating biological harm at non-thermal levels. We are at a critical point in time where we must rigorously assess the risks over the potential benefits. The advent of social media, technology relying on 5G, and the ever-increasing development of energy-consuming artificial intelligence are creating unprecedented pushes on the use of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), making it fully omnipresent. The science already suggests that technology developed more than a decade ago has real biological effects on the central nervous system and cellular health. Key research in this field underscores this reality: • National Toxicology Program (2018): The multi-year NTP rodent study conducted by the U.S. government provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity (specifically heart schwannomas) and some evidence of malignant brain gliomas linked to non-thermal RFR exposure. • Hardell et al. (2013): Extensive epidemiological pooled analyses demonstrated a statistically significant association between long-term mobile and cordless phone use and increased risks for glioma and acoustic neuroma. • Coureau et al. (2014): The French national CERENAT case-control study found significantly higher risks for central nervous system tumors, including gliomas and meningiomas, among heavy, long-term mobile phone users. With recent technological developments, it is absolutely necessary to revisit these studies, further them, ensure new studies are conducted by independent scientists not affiliated with industry, and actually heed their findings. It is time for the FCC to take meaningful action to update safety guidelines and protect humanity from these uncontrolled technological developments. Sincerely, Barbara Cerf-Allen, PhD.
Community corner
Community discussion
Reader replies are separate from the official FCC submission. They are reviewed before publication. Display names are not verified.