26110081977
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110081977

To FCC's Directors and Leadership Supervisory Commitees, 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. Here is just a couple of studies that I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: 1. Morgan, Kesari & Davis (2014): Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences – Reviewed evidence that children may absorb more wireless radiation than adults due to anatomical and physiological differences, raising questions about the adequacy of existing exposure standards. 2. BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – Collection of scientific research concerning neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022. 3. Panagopoulos et al. (2021): Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage – Reviewed evidence and proposed mechanisms linking human-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. 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. Please give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence, aforehand mentioned, and fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you. Sincerely, Mendie Moranville Ovi Poptean cc: family members, neighbors, friends, fellow citizens of the United States of America.