Argues that existing evidence warrants stronger regulation and a halt to wireless expansion, and advocate…

First, we don't need more research and studies. The scientific community already has more than 20,000 studies. This is an established science. We have more than enough studies to put in place much stronger regulations and bans. Scientists for Wired Technology (scientists4wiredtech.com) is an excellent in-depth scientific knowledge base on the hazards of continuous exposures to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR), which is a manmade, toxic, highly xenobiotic agent that causes systemic biological damages at levels many thousands of times lower than current U.S. RF-EMR radiation exposure guidelines. See especially "The Largest Unethical Human Experiment In Human History" on that website. The FCC is not a health and environmental agency. So why has it been in charge of defining what is acceptable for humans and other living beings? We need scientific standards (set in collaboration with ANSI and public health experts) based on the solid knowledge gained for the past 70 years, --not mere guidelines -- let alone outdated ones from 1996, which were rubberstamped for their 1965 version or even as old as 1953!? We also know what microwave sickness looks like and why this RF-EMR technology is so suitable for use by the military as a weapon. The mere fact that wired technology is faster (has the speed of light), much more energy-efficient, secure (not hackable like wireless), much longer lasting (30-50 years vs. 5-6 years for wireless), safer, provides more privacy, does not depress home values, AND has already been subsidized to the tune of billions of US tax payer dollars (Irregulators vs. FCC) -- should be sufficient to immediately stop the wireless and 5G buildup, set scientific standards, and ask the telecom industry to fulfill their paid obligation and complete the wiring with copper and fiber optic cable networks to provide real and safe broadband to every community in the country, especially including the last half-mile or so from the street into homes. What is the justification for choosing the slower, energy guzzling, unsafe, hackable, privacy invading, wasteful (think of all the additional junk generated with each upgrade of wireless technology every few years), and posing a fire risk (as with smart meters) to boot -- over its opposite? What is "green" about this technology?