AI summary & topic connections
Describes people who developed wireless sensitivity after environmental illness and face work and building-access barriers, questions restrictions on local health objections, and advocates investigation.
- Electromagnetic sensitivity: “ to environmental exposures resulted in them developing sensitivites to wireless technology. I don't know anyone who was actually injured by using wireless ”
- Housing, work & access barriers: “rfered with being able to work and even with access to many buildings. I don't know the ins and outs of legislative issues surrounding”
- Section 704 / TCA: “ have managed to pass laws that even make it illegal for residents of a community to oppose cell towers and 5G technology on health grounds. I have read that In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed ”
- Research & federal duties: “orefront, I support all possible caution and investigation into these issues rather than a continued violation of consumers' rights to protec”
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
My late wife was teaching in a sick building in San Francisco in 1989 and was environmentally injured. Because of this we got involved in a support group for people with similar difficulties. Over the years, because of my involvement with that group, I've met many people whose neurological reactions to environmental exposures resulted in them developing sensitivites to wireless technology. I don't know anyone who was actually injured by using wireless technoclogy, but I know plenty of people who cannot tolerate being around electro-magnetic radiation. This has profoundly interfered with being able to work and even with access to many buildings. I don't know the ins and outs of legislative issues surrounding this, but I do know that telecommunications companies have managed to pass laws that even make it illegal for residents of a community to oppose cell towers and 5G technology on health grounds. I have read that In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. Obviously something is not right about that. Since the issue is now in the forefront, I support all possible caution and investigation into these issues rather than a continued violation of consumers' rights to protection from harm.
Discussion
Reader replies are separate from the official HHS submission. They are reviewed before publication. Display names are not verified.