Thank you for your consideration. The basis of my proposal starts with an acknowledgement the panel faces…

Thank you for your consideration. The basis of my proposal starts with an acknowledgement the panel faces of the challenges getting good studies in today's system. The docket summary shows people are concerned but that it is difficult getting good clear actionable information. I could point out studies here or elsewhere but the usual issues would be sited that the study does not represent our society or that there are other contributing factors to any harms. On the other hand, the same could be said when relying on an Australian study to state that there are no biological harms. Australia is different than the US. Their average exposures are less than the US; 1.06V/m versus 1.44V/m. I expect the panel's own frustrations at getting good studies would be a driver for my proposal. My proposal is that for any new technology that changes exposures, select a distributed random subset of states to roll it out to first. Conduct a health survey with concerned health and industry experts in those and neighboring states before and after introduction. Passing this rule could motivate states to get good health and environmental records to be able to be a part of a new innovation rollout. I expect that industry and states will be against it. However, an economic study using forecast computer models would be interesting. It would help distribute technology through the country rather than having central points of innovation. Without a plan, the alternative is to continue innovating at a blind, break neck speed. Why chance breaking the nation's neck? This is not stopping innovation, but planned implementation. I expect an argument against the proposal to be why make an update when there are no known harms. The 'no known' part is the reason to implement. Ruben et al 2010 states no findings of harms, but noted 2% of the population could detect fields. Studies in plants and animals note biological impacts, but often are argued that the test isn't representative. If there are biological impacts on plants and animals I expect people also have those impacts and we expose ourselves to worse conditions more similar to how the animals are tested. Is RF causing reproductive harms? We can't know because there are pesticides, pollution, and other factors. We could know if there was planned implementation.