AI summary & topic connections
Argues that FCC limits are outdated and industry influence restricts public input on antenna siting. Refers to unread papers.
- Exposure limits & oversight:
olved in pressing for setting and keeping RF exposure standards appropriate since the 1996 Telecom Act was first enact
- Section 704 / TCA:
led out. Congress's express mandate in the Telecom Act of 1996 on the FCC was that the FCC must set and keep exposure
- Environmental effects:
s of cell radiation exposure are the Balmori White Stork study (attached). Please also see my paper (attached)
- Towers & siting:
successfully gagged Americans from demanding safer siting for cell antennas -- for a better understanding of why
I am a citizen advocate involved in pressing for setting and keeping RF exposure standards appropriate since the 1996 Telecom Act was first enacted and cell telephony rolled out. Congress's express mandate in the Telecom Act of 1996 on the FCC was that the FCC must set and keep exposure standards based upon current science. The FCC, apparently subject to industry lobbying pressure, has failed, for decades, to do this. The most convincing study of the biological effects of cell radiation exposure are the Balmori White Stork study (attached). Please also see my paper (attached) explaining the influence of this industry on Congress on this issue, and how the industry has successfully gagged Americans from demanding safer siting for cell antennas -- for a better understanding of why Congress and the FCC are motivated to do nothing to protect Americans from harmful RF exposure. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important topic. Respectfully submitted, Gabriel N. Seymour