Environmental effects

After investigating several school cancer clusters, this non-ionizing radiation crisis must stop! It is a proven carcinogen and the FCC has done nothing after the win with the CHD/EHT on August 13, 2021, of which I was a plaintiff. I lost a son who was near a cell tower on the SDSU San Diego campus and 4 men in the same room/building were diagnosed with brain cancers. I found several documents of illegal emissions with this cell tower, which is still on campus and near students/faculty/staff. To date there have now been over 20 deaths from this cell tower. You add any other form of wireless and it is a disaster waiting to happen. ALL of the school cancer clusters (at least 6) have been contributed to wireless radiation and the deaths of many children. The school districts release epidemiological reports and all investigations stop. They know not to have 'Toxicology Studies and Reports' to be had. Another issue to stop! The FCC is a captured agency via industry and many arms of the ITU (International Technology Union), one included is the ITU-BDT (Technology Development Bureau). The State Departments gets meetings between the ITU-NTIA and the FCC to collaborate. This must also stop. We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this country and my son and many of these other wireless radiation victims deserved the right to their health and safety! Please, make the FCC review the 11.000 paged documents of harm and if they cannot change the standards, another department such as HHS must take this issue on! We can no longer wait since satellites are now upping their transmission powers by 700%. This will not only effect you and your loved ones, but the whole human race. Doctors must also be educated on the symptoms of wireless radiation exposure. My son had many of these symptoms at the time, yet I didn't have a clue about what was causing them. One prominent symptom was loss of memory. I have attached a picture of the cell tower and please notice the dead tree foliage. This has destroyed my life and the lives of my family. ~Virginia Farver~

I strongly support a thorough and independent review of human and environmental exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation. I personally suffer from the radio waves from wireless devices. It is uncomfortable. Our exposure to wireless radiation has increased dramatically with the expansion of cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, antennas, 5G infrastructure, connected appliances, and other wireless technologies. Yet questions remain about the potential effects of continuous, cumulative, and long-term exposure, particularly when people may be exposed twenty-four hours a day in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. I believe public health standards should be based not only on whether RF radiation produces heating effects, but should also continue to evaluate research concerning possible biological effects associated with long-term, low-level exposure. This review should consider children, pregnant women, older adults, people who report sensitivity to electromagnetic exposure, and individuals who may receive unusually high cumulative exposure. It should also examine potential effects on animals, birds, insects, pollinators, plants, trees, and other living organisms. Human health cannot be considered entirely separately from the health of the environment in which we live. I encourage the government to support independent research that is free from industry influence; examine cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources; evaluate whether present exposure standards adequately address modern technologies and long-term exposure; and consider practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. Where reasonable alternatives exist, people should also retain the ability to choose lower-exposure options—including wired connections and non-transmitting utility meters—without being penalized for doing so. Wireless technology provides important benefits, but technological convenience should not replace careful scientific evaluation and prudent public-health protections. When scientific uncertainty exists and exposure is widespread, a precautionary approach is appropriate. I respectfully request that this review be comprehensive, transparent, independent, and attentive to both human health and the health of the natural environment. I deliberately made this **firm but scientifically defensible** rather than saying that all EMF or RF exposure is already proven to harm every living cell. That will make your comment harder to dismiss and, in my view, more effective.

We are exposed to unacceptable levels of EMF short-wave pollution. People have experienced headaches, dizziness, inability to function, fatigue, heart issues, insomia,tumors, cancer and more. These cell towers with 5G and other toxic EMF exposures are sick. Even it you do not experience the above knowingly, you are still exposed and building health issues. Wildlife, which includes plants are also negatively affected. In other words, life itself is attacked by these EMF non-ionizing radiation. The concept that only heat generates injury was incorrect. There are safe ways to improve communication, such as fiber optics. In 1996 Pres. Clinton exempted the communication industry from health, safety and environmental issues connected to this industry. That non-regulation needs to be stopped. This industry is out-of-control. Cell towers are built near schools, which is an absolute travesty. We are entitled to a safe environment without rogue industries such as the above operating unregulated, immune to lawsuits for the health and environmental destruction they cause. I appreciate your concern for the public. Another issue involves geo-engineering. The public is now noticing the obvious spraying of chemicals and maybe more in the atmosphere. Whatever is sprayed is pulled down to the earth via gravity. A life on the planet is adversely harmed, and we are seeing the results. We are told the spraying is for ameliorating "climate change", which makes no sense. This spraying needs to be stopped. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I am submitting this from Scotland, UK, because in April 2020, around the time two 5G masts were installed close to our home, both my son and I experienced a dramatic deterioration in our health. My change was extreme. I went from having lifelong health problems that I had largely managed to experiencing severe neurological and autonomic symptoms. I struggled to walk, lost control and function on my left side, developed bladder-control problems, could not remain upright and at times struggled to hold a conversation. I also became aware of a persistent humming-type noise. I am not presenting the timing alone as proof that RF exposure caused this. I am reporting what happened to us and asking why it happened, and whether people with particular underlying biological vulnerabilities could be more susceptible to environmental exposures, including RF/EMF. What makes my experience particularly relevant is what was discovered afterwards. I was eventually diagnosed with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS), Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS), ADHD and autism. Before these conditions were recognised, many of my symptoms had instead been attributed to fibromyalgia, Functional Neurological Disorder, EUPD and body dysmorphia. There was no joined-up explanation for what was happening throughout my body. My son has also experienced significant health problems. We had both experienced health difficulties throughout our lives, but these had been considerably more manageable before this period. The deterioration around 2020 was different and significant enough that I began questioning whether something in our environment had changed. I was so concerned about the sudden change in our health and environment that I raised it at the time with my GP, local political and council representatives, and even contacted environmental campaigner Erin Brockovich. These were not concerns I developed retrospectively; I was actively reporting them while this was happening. There is another observation I believe is important to record. I had the smart meter removed from our home nearly two years ago. Since its removal, neither my son nor I has required an ambulance to be called to our home. Before its removal, our health episodes had been severe enough for ambulance assistance to be required. I cannot say that removing the smart meter caused this change, but the timing is significant enough that I believe it deserves investigation alongside our other RF/EMF exposures. I have also had concerns about mould and Aspergillus exposure. Blood testing has included IgE and IgG findings relating to mould/Aspergillus exposure, and I continue to have concerns about mould in my environment. This raises a wider question that I believe deserves investigation: are environmental exposures being studied together rather than independently? I would particularly like to see research examining RF/EMF alongside damp and mould, indoor air quality and other environmental stressors. I would also like research to look specifically at potentially susceptible groups. Are people with mast-cell disorders, dysautonomia/PoTS, connective-tissue disorders such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD and autism being separately examined when RF/EMF health effects are assessed? My experience cannot establish causation, but I believe the pattern is important enough to investigate: a substantial deterioration affecting two members of the same household around a period of environmental change, followed by another notable change in our experience after the smart meter was removed. I have extensive medical documentation covering my symptoms, subsequent diagnoses and environmental concerns. I would be willing for my experience and records to contribute to properly designed research into these questions. I am asking HHS to investigate whether there are vulnerable subgroups whose responses may be missed when population-level results are averaged together, and whether combinations of environmental exposures could matter. Karen Johnston Scotland, United Kingdom