26110083596
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110083596

Thank you to the FCC for requesting information and public comment. I am commenting as an individual with a degree in physics and extensive knowledge of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radio frequency (RF) radiation. The FCC invites comments on “other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines.” These guidelines and associated testing methodology from 1996 are beyond outdated for modern wireless infrastructure using digital pulse-modulated beam-formed radio frequency radiation. In laymen’s terms, the FCC's guidelines and testing methodologies are trying to measure a high-speed physical projectile, for example a bullet, with an old film camera. The impact of this physical projectile would be deemed harmless by the FCC’s methodology of basically averaging over outsize time and area. Cell phones from twenty years ago obviously don’t work on today’s cell networks. I encourage the FCC to contact Waterford Consultants in Frederick, Maryland, waterfordconsultants.com. Waterford Consultants has more than twenty years’ experience in radio frequency engineering, exposure assessment, and regulatory compliance. Waterford Consultants has recommendations for the gaps in the FCC’s testing methodology. The FCC also invites comments on “the ubiquity of wireless devices.” The telecommunications industry is frantically pushing wireless infrastructure and multitudes of cell antennas into every corner of the United States. Do the FCC’s guidelines and testing methodology address cumulative exposure to RF radiation that more and more Americans are experiencing? What was that about “safety of life”? Tobacco smoking was considered safe for decades driven by the tobacco industry’s greed before governments finally took action.