The commenter recounts concerns about school tower siting, regulatory processes and workplace repercussio…

About 12 years ago I attended a city council meeting in San Marino, CA, where parents were hoping to get a cell phone tower removed from the playground at their children’s school. I was appalled to learn that the parents could be sued if they expressed any concern that the tower might in some way impair their children’s health. So all they could do was talk about their fear that it could burn, or fall over, or that it looked unsightly, etc. Of course, the tower stayed. This is all you really need to know to realize that those who make and enforce our government's regulations have turned a blind eye to the real probability that our health and the health of plants and animals is likely harmed by some of these increasingly ubiquitous RF/EMF fields. One cannot even ask the question! After learning that I could be sued by the powerful communications industry for expressing concern that cell towers could cause health effects, I tried calling the FCC to ask how they came to the conclusion that RF and microwaves radiating at people were safe. I couldn’t reach a single human being to speak with until I finally selected the choice in the FCC phone menu for those who wanted to buy spectrum. After making this selection, I immediately got an engineer on the line. I explained why I was calling, that I was not buying spectrum but was a concerned citizen, and asked about what research the FCC used to establish safety standards. He told me he felt badly, that likely we needed to study the problem more but it was out of his hands. He told me that there was a group from whom the FCC got their reports on RF and microwave safety. I looked at the website he had mentioned. It described a small firm of 5 women whose mandate was to produce reports which interpreted complex data in their clients’ strategic interests. Wow. We were being sold a bill of goods. I tried to interest people at Caltech, where I was working, in this problem. I was told by my PI in no uncertain terms that if I took any measurements with an RF meter or EMF meter I would not be able to work in the HIV research lab anymore. I was told people would be upset and I must not bring “that device” (a simple cheap Trifield meter) to work ever again. I was later fired for specious reasons, and banned from talking to anyone in the lab. This felt really creepy. It was quite an education. I became more interested in the problem. The more I learned the more appalled I became. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. It is not my job to teach you, dear FCC, what you already know: there is something potentially harmful in these energies, else why can we not ask the question at city hall about whether these cell towers on the playground could be harming our kids? You at the FCC already know that you have been encouraging the rapid spread of this powerful addictive technology at the cost of our health and possibly even our climate. You know that in spite of efforts made by you and others to thwart studying this problem, data exists which casts doubt on microwave safety. Why are there articles entitled "The effect of trees on 5G" instead of articles entitled “The effect of 5G on trees"? At Caltech, before the Covid lockdown, I sat in on a bunch of lectures being given by the sustainability people. No one had incorporated the rapid increase in microwaves in our world in their models of our rapidly warming world. I see evidence around me that cell towers harm and kill trees, and likely, dry the soil, start fires, who knows what. The plethora of satellites that measure the ice depth at the poles shine microwaves in and measure what comes back. The difference apparently tells how thick the ice is. But is this a good thing to do? Could the small amount of microwave energy absorbed by the ice be softening the ice’s surface, changing its albedo, causing more of the sun's energy to be absorbed rather than reflected, leading to further ice melt? Are we in a way opening the oven to make sure the cake hasn't fallen yet when we make these measurements? We need to do better. We need a consortium of biologists, physicists, climate scientists, and engineers who are not influenced by profit or lucrative data collection schemes to work together to understand the impact of these energies (with which we did not co-evolve) on our health and on the health of our living world. Thank you for your time.