次の情報は、Environmental HealthTrustから引用したものです。

米国の連邦通信委員会（FCC）は、無線周波数（RF）曝露制限、携帯電話のテスト手順などに関する新しい規則をリリースしました。新しい規則は、1996で採用された元のRF曝露制限を{を含むより高い周波数に拡張します。 1} Gおよびミリ波。ルールはまだ生物効果や健康効果の研究に基づいていません。むしろルールはに基づいています 実験動物で観察された行動の変化 物理学者やエンジニアが「熱効果」と見なしているもの。したがって、新しいルールは、5 Gインフラストラクチャ、および公衆と環境の健康を危険にさらすワイヤレス電力を含むその他の新しいワイヤレステクノロジーの展開への道を開きます。

FCCがオープンしました 整理番号19-226 彼らのパブリックコメントのために 提案された規則。  コメントの提出期限がに延長されました 6月 17 2020。

これらの新しい規則を採用するかどうかを決定する際に、FCCはこのドケットに提出された情報のみを考慮する必要があます。そして、彼らは、彼らがそうしたことを示す情報がにある場合にのみ、不適切または悪い決定をしたことを法的に説明するために保持することができます このドケット。したがって、このドケットへのコメントや研究の提出は重要です。詳しくは下記をご覧ください。

Here's what the FCC is considering: 

How to File to the FCC Docket No. 19-226

• Online: Go to the  Federal Communications Commission’s Website: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/how-comment. Go to the top of the page where it states “Submit a filing” Click on that. Fill out the form.
  • Under Proceedings put in 19-226.  Be sure to get a confirmation number.
• Mail: Filings can be sent to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

Remember, you must comment before the end date of 5月 15, 2020.

Detailed instructions related to the content of submissions

General:  Please ask the FCC to request the FDA to establish biologically-based population-protective limits for all electronic product radiation, as they are statutorily required to do (http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/PressReleaseFDANegligence12Feb2020.pdf).  The FCC has readily acknowledged that they lack the expertise to set safety limits themselves so they should be asking the FDA to do so.  Specifically, any limits should be readily measurable on location, necessitating the use of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) field strength and power density.  Although thermal effects must be a backstop (just like immediate toxicity for chemicals) and NO MPE should be allowed whose corresponding SAR would result in thermal harm, long-term biological effects of chronic exposure should guide the formation of population-protective RF/MW safety limits.  This is what the BioInitiative Recommendations are based on.  The FCC and FDA should adopt the latest BioInitiative recommendations in the interim as they begin to set up their own continuous review program to revise those recommendations as additional studies show that reductions and refinements are needed.  Limits for higher frequencies should be established using available literature and FDA should commission additional studies to further determine safety limits that prevent adverse biological effects using techniques like the one recommended by Dr. Martin Pall to test for inappropriate voltage-gated ion channel activation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308.  Addressing paragraph 120, peak exposure levels should be used to determine compliance, not averages, because peak measurements are more predictive of adverse biological effects.
 
Any comment only needs to be submitted once, but be sure to get a confirmation number.  Any further references can either be submitted as standalone documents if they speak for themselves or with a cover letter discussing what you think the FCC should learn from that particular document or set of documents and how it should influence their decision and actions, include a reference to a particular question where appropriate.  These arguments can be used later legally, but only need to be made once if they are generally applicable.

Experts: Your comments are very important, please address the specific technical questions asked and proposals being made (***p.56-72 of FCC 19-126 (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf).  The FCC is most likely to listen to answers that specifically address their questions and proposed actions.  You are not necessarily limited in addressing them e.g. they want to know how to average exposures, but biological responses are often not best predicted by averages.  It is fine to disapprove of their proposal, but please elaborate and support your answer with peer-reviewed published papers as much as possible.

Concerned individuals: Please make a statement about the reason for your concern and provide references to studies published in peer-reviewed journals as support if you can.
 
Injured individuals: Ideally your submission will contain your personal statement documenting biological harm, including any experiential evidence you can offer sowing that the harm is indeed caused by electronic product radiation (http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/PressReleaseFDANegligence12Feb2020.pdf) (e.g. you feel better when it is turned off or you leave the area, especially any “blinded” exposures that illustrate the connection), a doctor’s letter stating the connection as their medical opinion, and scientific studies supporting the connection.

Some excerpts from the newly proposed rules found at  Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC referenced the FDA as a source showing there is no danger to children from cellular radiation, “With respect to any special considerations for children and consumer information, we refer to the FDA website, which states that “[t]he scientific evidence does not show a danger to any users of cell phones from RF exposure, including children and teenagers.”

The FCC also again quotes the FDA as part of their proof of safety for these higher frequencies stating, “I want to underscore that based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue and taking into account all available scientific evidence we have received, we have not found sufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors. Based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting public health.”

The FDA reaffirms the limits as based on heating only, ignoring biological effects, and states, “We are unaware of any reason the limits should be different above 100 GHz than across the already existing wide frequency range. As the difference in body penetration further diminishes towards zero, there is no apparent reason to expect that thermal effects will effect change in the increasingly higher frequencies. Accordingly, we propose to extend the same constant exposure limits that presently apply from 6 GHz to 100 GHz up to an upper frequency of 3,000 GHz (3 THz), which is considered to be the upper bound of existing radiofrequency bands.”

“The Commission’s RF exposure rules do not yet specify a spatial maximum power density limit for localized exposure at higher frequencies. As portable devices are being developed for operation at higher frequencies for future 5G services in millimeter-wave bands, we propose a general localized power density exposure limit above 6 GHz of 4 mW/cm2 averaged over 1 cm² for the general population or uncontrolled exposure, applicable up to the upper-frequency boundary of 3 THz, also proposed above.”

“The Commission further seeks comment on what factors it should consider ensuring that the RF beam from the transmitting unit is closely concentrated at the receiving unit, such that RF energy along the path(s) does not exceed the applicable RF exposure limit for any human that may be situated along the path(s)…”

“If the Commission establishes power limits, what should be the basis for such limits, and should any consideration be given to potential harmful interference to other non-part 18 devices, given the popularity of these ISM frequency bands for consumer devices? With respect to the potential for harmful interference from wireless power transfer devices to active medical devices that may be worn or implanted (e.g., body-worn insulin pumps, implantable cardiac pacemakers, implantable deep brain stimulators (DBS), spinal cord stimulators, and the like), what mitigation techniques should be required?”

https://ehtrust.org/action-alert-submit-comments-to-the-fcc-on-5g-and-cell-tower-radiation/