The commenter reports neurological, cardiac and thyroid effects following workplace wireless deployment, …

See attached for my complete response to questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 18. 3. My experiences/adverse health effects associated with exposure to RF/EMFs: I first experienced adverse health effects from RF/EMF when my employer went wireless in the conference rooms. Hindsight sleep disturbances I had attributed to menopause went away after opting out of the automatic meter reader, precursor to the SMART meter. c) adverse health effects experienced: • neurologic effects ◦ loss of fine motor skills ◦ left sided delays ◦ impaired concentration/foggy thinking ◦ vertigo • heart palpitations • thyroid nodules and increased vascularity • difficulty regulating blood glucose • tinnitus • sleep disturbances • electric feeling in hands and legs • headaches • fatigue during exposure • insomnia following exposure d) When health effects appeared relative to exposure Thyroid abnormalities were first observed by ultrasound in October 2014, three months after my employer went wireless in the conference rooms. By October of 2017 ultrasound was showing two nodules (abnormal growths). In July of 2018 I move to an office a remote location within the building and was attending all meetings virtually with wired technology. My November 2018 ultrasound showed the nodules were gone! f) steps taken to reduce exposure; subsequent changes in adverse health effects • got rid of cordless telephone • opted out of automatic meter reader, precursor to the SMART meter, and later the SMART meter • attended work meetings virtually from my private office • moved my office to a low RF/EMF location in the building and later telecommuted fromm home full time • used vacation to create a three day weekend to recover from the adverse effects of RF/EMF so that I could continue working • no longer own a cell phone • avoid public places and try to limit trips to town to once a month • drive back roads • avoid major metro areas • have no wireless devices in my home Reducing exposure in the workplace resulted in resolution of thyroid nodules which had developed subsequent to employer transitioning to wireless devices. Other adverse health effects also improved with avoidance of RF/EMF. g) supporting documentation I have thyroid ultrasound reports which document adverse changes in thyroid. I have taken meter readings when experiencing RF/EMF adverse health effects that are well below 0.1µW/m2. Research related to the effect of RF radiation on the thyroid: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451508/ 5. n) What changes would improve assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure? Regulation • RF/EMF needs regulation, not just guidelines • Biological harm needs to be addressed • regulations need to be set based on how devices are actually used i.e. cell phones against the body and the multiplicity of exposure • RF/EMF health and safety standards need to be based on long term exposure not just from individual devices but ambient levels • The FCC is not a health organization. Establishing health safety standards for RF/EMF exposure should be transferred to HHS or NIH. They should work collaboratively with FDA, EPA and OSHA. Disclosure The American people deserve full disclosure. p) How should a classification system account for exposure-related characteristics, including operating frequency, power density, specific absorption rate (SAR), electric- and magnetic-field strength, modulation and pulse characteristics, duty cycle, beamforming, simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies, duration of exposure, distance from the source, proximity to the body, and cumulative exposure over time? All of these are important. The ones of greatest concern to me are: • pulse modulated wave form including the peak amplitude • simultaneous and cumulative exposure • power density and duration of exposure • frequency • beam formation 11. Should exposure assessment or risk evaluation differ for sensitive populations? Yes, children’s skulls are thinner, their brains contain more fluid and are still developing. A failure to consider these differences would constitute gross negligence. 18. Please identify any additional scientific evidence, technical information, data, or recommendations that federal health agencies should consider when evaluating potential adverse health effects associated with RF/EMF radiation exposure. Federal health agencies should promote a precautionary stance. Wired technology should be encouraged whenever possible in homes, schools, medical facilities, workplaces, and other public businesses. Action should be taken to establish RF/EMF free areas in public places such as medical facilities.