Criticizes thermal limits, describes tinnitus varying with location, raises reproductive and neurological…

The present state of regulation address only short term thermal effects from RF radiation. Non-thermal and long term effects are not addressed. However when they occur they are actually short term. Symptoms may vary from potentially causing tumor, by different effects from braking DNA, over oxidative stress that cause many sorts of disturbances. Further is associated to EHS or electro hypersensitivity syndrome, such as headaches, memory loss, tinnitus, problems of concentration, sleeping disorder, anxiety, depression and the other variety of symptoms. The last but not least is the impact on fertility. Studies on moused have indicated strong correlation. My personal opinion is when located in the large city on strong infrastructure, ther use to be tinnitus, when going to the small place on the seaside with lower exposure levels, tinnitus release significantly. The present sate of limits is to ICNIRP up to 10 W/m2 power flux for the general population. However that level is the limit for thermal effects, the non thermal appear at much lower levels in extended time of exposure, such as commonly considered levels over 10 microW/m2. That it difference in exposure of million times under official limits or 60 dB. Recommended levels by independet science are even lower and are considered additionally 100 times or 20dB lower. That may be close to levels that existed before massive base stations deployment, when only TV transmitters were available. Still todays exposure levels to limits are 100 million billions times higher then the natural radio frequency background levels or up 170 dB higher as to some research. That does not match the evolutionary adaptation. The main problem are mobile phone base stations as they present non-stop exposure and they are not a matter of personal choice. On the other hand mobile phones, WI-FI or DECT phones can present some higher levels of exposure on short distance, but they are the matter of personal choice and time of exposure could be chosen on functional preference. As to deployment of wi-fi for schools it is important to note that they cause in vicinity the same radiation as base stations on about 50 meters distance. Many studies on base stations like those done in Minas Gerais Brazil, in the Naila Germany that effects are most dominant in distances up to 500 meters and they even indicated correlation of symptoms by the distance. So the question is how could modern technology like those radiation emitters improve the quality of life if it cause insomnia, tinnitus, depression, sleeping disturbance or any other more severe diseases? If only the infertility rates are increase it can endanger national security as to the possible loss of domestic population. The solution to the problem is to use landlines and cable internet, as all functions can be done, even better, as optical internet is much safer and more reliable then wireless also the classic cable phone instead of mobile or DECT as it completely solves the functional need at any stationary location. Wireless communication makes sense only for airplanes, ships and satellites as the only option. In the car mobile phones are not allowed for use. The other question is where is such emergency that the average person should be in access at any moment? The average person is not ambulance, fireman or police for a need to instant access. Additionally constant exposure to information and access is related to significant stress and reduction in mental health, besides the radiation. As the degraded health can no more be purchased for money, the trade of health for money by the use of radiation exposure devices is not a good deal. They are prone to cause addiction, stress, loss of personal communication, physical and mental health degradation, there is no justification for its use, as all the rational jobs can be done on desktop computers, classic phone and landline internet, without radiation exposure. Costs of health in long term can significantly increase and the trick used by agencies is there is no evidence for side effects in the short term as from those protect the regulation. Actually the regulation protects industry from law suites rather then people from the radiation effects. In the attachement the excellent and wide coverage study from the Austrian health department and Austrian medical chamber, by Dr. Oberfeld, the great exert on environment and independent radiation research. In hope for better public education on risks from radiation exposure and removal of radiation exposure sources. Kind regards, Robert Markusic, ing.med.radiology & mag.oec.