The commenter reports disabling symptoms attributed to pulsed RF exposure and urges the FCC to revisit it…

I have been writing the FCC for decades without a response. All of this, including this court case happening in America is because of the FCC abusing its power authority, denying people protection/forcing exposure. For me a multitude of neurological symptoms occur as a result of exposure to pulsed and modulated RFR. The symptoms described in the scientific and medical literature I suffer with include headaches, sleep problems, heart palpitations, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, depression, memory, and cognitive problems, among others. In my experience, exposure avoidance is the only effective management. If government had collected data, evidence and claims, it would be legally bound to respond long ago. Over the last 10 years I have been increasingly forced to find ways to live to escape exposure to expanding wireless installations. It has become impossible to find safe employment from debilitating exposure to pulse frequencies that disable me. The 10 questions below I have submitted to the FCC without a response: 1. When will the FCC take responsibility for clear communication of risk? 2.When will the FCC educate the public on how to avoid potential harm? 3.Why is the precautionary principle not being included within FCC policies regarding all wireless technologies, including 5G? 4. The 5G narrative leads to several issues and related questions, why has the FCC still not answered them? 5. Why does the FCC authorize criminal trespassing for wireless installations to pulse into my home that make me sick to the point of disabling me? 6. Highly experienced organizations, scientists and doctors have been speaking out for 30 years, now into the 5G narrative, claiming adequate evidence for risk of harm. They have organized into independent science-based advocacy groups, why has the FCC not recognized the evidence-based concerns? 7.Why is the FCC allowe to downplay the results of scientists who claim that harm exists including testimonies of countless people with symptoms consistent with microwave sickness from exposures to FCC authorized installations? 8. The FCC standards the wireless industry has been using since 1996 to make the claim for forced deployment in 2021 were defeated in a U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. They ruled that the FCC’s decision not to re-assess the adequacy of 1996 exposure guidelines was “arbitrary, capricious, and not evidence-based.” The court found the FCC had failed to provide evidence of properly examining long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness and impacts to the developing brain and reproductive system.”Why is the FCC still not properly examining long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness doing research reviews, spectrum reports, environmental monitoring, risk mitigation and full body (RF) radiation exposure in homes and schools from cell towers, small cells and all wireless access points? 9. Forcing exposure without informed consent to wireless access points, according to U.S. law, is clearly criminal trespassing, robbery of life and health in the 1st Degree. Why is the FCC allowed to break that law decade after decade forcing countless people to become sick? 10. The 1996 FCC standards do not account for any impact of differing signal characteristics, such as carrier wave modulations or pulsing of the signal. Small cells are designed for massive increases in data density, where the polarized wave form radically increases. The spectrum employed is in no way scientifically connected to the FCC Safety Standards, why are they still being used? 11. For decades the FCC has openly admitted it has no expertise in health issues. The FCC often mentions it’s the responsibility of “sister agencies” like the EPA on which it relies in order to give credibility to its 1996 guidelines. 27 years ago the EPA wrote the FCC that the guidelines are “flawed.” How can the FCC justify that? 12. FCC limits should have been changed long ago to be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions. Why do you refuse to update your standards with scientific evidence? For a complete undeniable understanding of how FCC safety standards cannot be scientifically connected to the spectrum previously and currently employed including scientific evidence demonstrating how, read this 25 page study I previously sent to you and congress titled. "Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G"