Take Action: Detailed FCC comment instructions - Deadline Sept 3, 2013-Amended

Catherine Kleiber of electricalpollution.com shares the following:


Please Distribute Widely!

Are you concerned about radiofrequency (microwave) radiation emissions from smart meters, cellphones, WiFi, cellphone antennas, baby monitors etc or you are having health problems as a result of the FCC's outdated physics-based radiofrequency radiation limits ?  This is your chance to make your voice heard!

Support biologically-based radiofrequency radiation safety limits or the FCC could elect to raise its existing outdated physics-based safety limits.  Please submit a comment in the comment round at the FCC by September 3, 2013.   (You can react to other submissions or add information during the reply round until November 1, 2013.)


Even if you submitted a comment in February, it is imperative that you do so again - EVEN IF IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME COMMENT! Otherwise it will not be considered.



Don’t wait until the last minute. Try to submit your Comment on Friday August 31, 2013 before Labor Day.

You can submit a Comment in two FCC Dockets - ET Docket No. 03-137 and ET Docket No. 13-84.

In ET Docket No. 13-84, the FCC is proposing to review the thermal (tissue-heating) model of harm that is the basis of its RF radiation safety policies.

We have been pushing for this for 15 years!  The FCC is reassessing its Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation exposure limits and policies.  The FCC is asking if it should change its rules regarding human exposure to RF radiation.

For the first time since the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, the FCC has specifically opened a docket requesting/allowing comment on its radiofrequency radiation limits.  This docket is essentially the same as the one in February so you can simply update your comment from February.

Because this docket is dedicated to the question of whether RF safety limits need to be modernized (and it is a stand alone docket instead of a footnote) there are a few new points that need to be included in your comments.



Submitting your document in an official FCC proceeding is the only way to get information to the FCC that it is legally required to consider.   Please take the time to do so!

See http://stopsmartmeters.org/2012/03/09/a-primer-on-the-fcc-guidelines-for-the-smart-meter-age/ for background information on the FCC radiofrequency radiation limits.

We need to bowl them over with the numbers of comments in support of lowering the radiofrequency radiation limits so as to make them true safety limits - based on biology, as all true safety limits are.


If you have been injured by a rooftop antenna or have regular exposure to a rooftop antenna because of where you live or are regularly exposed to one occupationally, you will want to submit a comment in ET Docket No. 03-137 which is related to rooftop antenna exposures.  Be sure to detail your experiences.  You may still want to address many of the points listed below for that docket as well.

Background:
The FCC does not have the expertise to set safety limits so they have to adopt them from somewhere.  Thus far, they have felt that they have only two options - the IEEE and the ICNIRP .  At the EPA's urging, they chose the lower ones and adopted the IEEE exposure guidelines which are outdated and inadequate.

The Industry would like them to re-consider and adopt the more lenient ICNIRP guidelines.

In other words, the radiofrequency radiation limits could be RAISED if the FCC does not receive enough compelling comments asking that they be lowered.

We need each and every one of you to send in every bit of research, personal anecdotal material and comment you have regarding the existence of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation transmitted by all forms of wireless.

You can submit more than once.  You can attach documents.  Use the template provided below so your feedback goes to the right place.  Send this to everyone you have ever known who is in any way involved in the wireless effects issue.


In this proceeding, the FCC is responding to the July 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office (GA0) which recommended that the FCC:
• Formally reassess the current RF energy exposure limit, including its effects on human health, the costs and benefits associated with keeping the current limit, and the opinions of relevant health and safety agencies, and change the limit if determined appropriate.
• Reassess whether mobile phone testing requirements result in the identification of maximum RF energy exposure in likely usage configurations, particularly when mobile phones are held against the body, and update testing requirements as appropriate.
Complete text of FCC 13-39 (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0422/FCC-13-39A1.pdf)
At paragraph 6 the FCC states:
6. Since the Commission is not a health and safety agency, we defer to other organizations and agencies with respect to interpreting the biological research necessary to determine what levels are safe. As such, the Commission invites health and safety agencies and the public to comment on the propriety of our general present limits and whether additional precautions may be appropriate in some cases, for example with respect to children. We recognize our responsibility to both protect the public from established adverse effects due to exposure to RF energy and allow industry to provide telecommunications services to the public in the most efficient and practical manner possible. In the Inquiry we ask whether any precautionary action would be either useful or counterproductive, given that there is a lack of scientific consensus about the possibility of adverse health effects at exposure levels at or below our existing limits. Further, if any action is found to be useful, we inquire whether it could be efficient and practical.  [Emphasis added.]

New Important Points:


The FCC makes it clear that it will give less weight to personal experiences (paragraph 109).  Paragraph 209 contains similar wording.:



In proposing, in this Further Notice, changes to our RF safety rules, our intent is to appropriately protect the public without imposing an undue burden on industry. While acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and burdens, we need to determine whether the overall costs of the regulation are outweighed by the benefit to consumers, workers, and other members of the public. We therefore request comment, below, on a wide range of questions that will enable us to weigh those costs and benefits of our proposed rules. We also request comment on the most cost-effective approach for modifying existing policies and practices to achieve the goals of our proposed rules while still ensuring appropriate protection of the public. For each cost or benefit addressed, we ask that commenters provide specific data and information such as actual or estimated dollar figures, including a description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained and any supporting documentation. All comments will be considered and given appropriate weight. Vague or unsupported assertions regarding costs or benefits generally will receive less weight and be less persuasive than the more specific and supported statements. (Emphasis added)



  They are legally not allowed to do dismiss citizen experiences.  See the legal precedent below.


In 1965, the first key federal court decision dealing with a federal agency's responsibility to protect the environment (Scenic Hudson v. Federal Power Commission) said:
If the Commission is properly to discharge its duty in this regards, the record on which it bases it determination must be complete.  The petitioners and the public at large have a right to demand this completeness.  It is our view, and we find, that the Commission has failed to compile a record which is sufficient to support its decision.  The Commission has ignored certain relevant factors and failed to make a thorough study of possible alternatives . . .
. . . the public is entitled to know on the record that no stone has been left unturned.
The Commission of its own motion, should always seek to insure that a full and adequate record is presented to it.
A regulatory commission can insure continuing confidence in its decisions only when it has used its staff and its own expertise in manner not possible for the uninformed and poorly financed public.  (Emphasis added.)
In this case, as in many others, the Commission has claimed to be the representative of the public interest.  This role does not permit it to act as an umpire blandly calling balls and strikes for adversaries before it; the right of the public must receive active and affirmative protection at the hands of the Commission.
The Commission must see to it that the record is complete.  The Commission has an affirmative duty to inquire into and consider all relevant facts.

Two Key Points to Make related to the above case law

Tell the FCC that it should make a direct request to the EPA to use its taxpayer-funded resources and experts present at its National Risk Management Research Laboratory to conduct all of the cost analyses it has asked for in this proceeding.
Remind the FCC that it has a duty under Scenic Hudson to create a complete record and to consider seriously your Comment in order to fulfill its obligation to represent the public interest.

If you are able/willing to monetize what the absence of biologically-based RF safety limits has cost you and society, please do.  (Remember, this is a public record.)  Some items to consider are: medical costs (including to additional premium due to diagnosis related to RF), disability payments, lost income, the cost of creating a special low RF environment.



Additional new points to make:


Contrary to FCC assertions, this proceeding requires a NEPA assessment due to reports of injury traceable to radiofrequency exposure occurring under existing guidelines, which establishing biologically-based RF safety limits would prevent.
Under NEPA, “federal officials are required to assume the responsibility that the Congress recognized . . . as the obligation of all citizens: to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the [federal] decision-making process.” Envtl. Def. Fund v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 468 F.2d 1164, 1174 (6th Cir. 1972). Officials comply with NEPA “primarily by [conducting] an [EIS] for any ‘major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.’” Burkholder v. Peters, 58 F. App’x 94, 96 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)).


[Ref. - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0374p-06.pdf Per No. 09-5761 Heartwood, Inc., et al. v. Agpaoa, et al. there is standing to challenge the current exposure guidelines because you have suffered an 'injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized; is actual or imminent; is traceable to wireless exposure; and that it is likely that this injury will be redressed by lower exposure guidelines.] from Angela Flynn



In addition to your own experience, which should be enough to trigger a NEPA review, you can site these documents which show that there is reason to believe that the lack of appropriate  biologically-based RF safety limits is damaging the environment.  This one was commissioned by the government of India: http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/final_mobile_towers_report.pdf  and this one is a review of the literature http://www.biolmedonline.com/Articles/Vol4_4_2012/Vol4_4_202-216_BM-8.pdf "Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review," Biology and Medicine



The FCC has gone out of its way to keep the EPA from being involved and prevent a NEPA review.  They specifically state "This rulemaking, which revises the FCC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does not require an environmental review under NEPA."  in footnote 10 which continues quite extensively.   While EPA is often unpopular due to toes they have stepped on in regulating, and due to citizens thinking they didn't step hard enough, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to perform risk analysis.  They should be directly involved in the risk assessment that the FCC is trying put on citizen shoulders and in doing a thorough NEPA review of the environmental impacts of the existing RF safety limits and developing biologically-based safety limits.  Then we, as the aforementioned citizens, have the job of making sure that they do their job well.



The FCC is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to modernize its RF safety limits and promoting blanket wireless radiation coverage.  The microwave radiation from wireless technology causes serious functional impairment to many whose symptoms have been characterized under the name radiofrequency sickness.  The symptoms can range from discomfort to life-threatening depending on the exposure and the individual involved.  [Please see   “Provocation Study using Heart Rate Variability Shows Radiation from 2.4 GHz Cordless Phone Affects Autonomic Nervous System” (Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5) at  http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Havas_HRV_Ramazzini1.pdf  to read about how potentially serious the effects can be on the heart.]  The near universal presence of radiation from wireless devices that does not fall below biologically meaningful safety limits is seriously limiting the ability of a growing segment of the American population to participate in civil society and community life.


Below are some points that you might want to include in your  comment, then personalize/support them with a brief account of your own experience and your favorite references (which you should also upload for the FCC to read).  These points were all mentioned in February.

IARC of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a class 2B possible carcinogen in May 2011.

2012 BioInitiative Report classifies radiofrequency radiation as a carcinogen.  (Here is a sample wording to use to include 2012 BioInitiative Report in your comment without uploading the whole thing:  The 2012 BioInitiative Report is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety (http://www.bioinitiative.org /))

“Public safety standards are 1,000 – 10,000 or more times higher than levels now commonly reported in mobile phone base station studies to cause bioeffects.”(http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/) - You can find other great quotes relevant to your situation to include by visiting their conclusions section.

The Fenton Reaction, which is partially responsible for the carcinogenic nature of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, also occurs with exposure to radiofrequency radiation.  See 2012 BioInitiative Report.

The FCC has a duty to the public to protect the public health and safety from harm from radiofrequency radiation.

US citizens and tax payers deserve radiofrequency radiation safety limits based on biology, not physics. In order for the FCC to fulfill its Congressional mandate to protect the public health and safety from harm from radiofrequency radiation, it must update its RF safety regulations.
"In the Telecom Act of 1996 Congress directed the FCC to set its own RF safety regulations for emissions from Personal Wireless Services Facilities (PWSF).  The House Committee on Commerce said it was the Commission's responsibility to adopt uniform RF regulations "with adequate safeguards of the public health and safety."  (H.R. Report No. 104-204, p. 94)


The FCC’s failure to protect the health and safety of citizens by providing updated biologically- based RF safety limits on electromagnetic radiation exposure goes to the heart of the Chevron and Massachusetts v. EPA rulings on an agency's authority to disregard its Congressional mandate.  Such agency action and inaction are "arbitrary and capricious...[and] otherwise not in accordance with law."  (Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 534-535 (2007))


The statute requiring the FCC to adopt and update RF safety regulations is not ambiguous, and therefore the clear intent of Congress applies." EMR Policy Institute Comment in FCC Docket


FCC does not possess the expertise to set biologically-based radiofrequency radiation safety limits.  EPA does.  Therefore, the FCC should advocate that Congress direct the EPA to establish biologically-based radiofrequency radiation safety limits and provide the budget and resources to carry out that task.  2012 HR6358 was an excellent example of legislation to authorize the EPA to establish biologically-based radiofrequency radiation safety limits
Compliance with FCC radiofrequency radiation limits is often cited as an excuse to ignore evidence of harm by transmitting utility meters...etc and force harmful exposure on people against their will.  Be sure to support with documentation from your experience.Therefore the FCC is causing substantial harm to citizens by not updating RF exposure limits to biologically-based safety limits.
A moratorium should be placed on sales of new spectrum, transmitting utility meter installation, and installation of additional base stations for wireless service while biologically-based safety limits are being developed.

Directions:  

Don't wait until the last minute or the server may be too busy to take your comments.

These proceedings allow the public to inform the FCC why it must update its RF safety guidelines in order to comply with its proposal “to amend its rules to ‘ensure that the public is appropriately protected from any potential adverse effects from RF exposure.’” For example, FCC’s current RF safety guidelines do not take into account published research on the bioloigcal effects brought on by the ability of RF signals to communicate with living tissue.


Write your Reply, using this template for the first page( http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/action/template_comment_%20fcc_13_39.doc).


Using the webpage submission form requires that you attach your Reply either in WORD or PDF. To do so, be sure you use this template (http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/action/template_comment_%20fcc_13_39.doc) for the first page of your Reply. PDF is the most secure form as no one can make changes to your Reply after you submit it.


Submissions from individuals have the greatest impact when filed in the form of an Affidavit. Page 2 of the template gives you the format for an affidavit.  If you have the technology to scan and send a notarized version that would be even better, but it is NOT required.


Submit your Reply in FCC Proceedings  ET Docket No. 13-84, and ET Docket No. 03-137, using instructions below.

Webpage (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=a7cs6) where you can submit your FCC Reply electronically.

Once on Webpage follow the directions below to submit your Reply:

• First fill in the box for the Proceeding Number with 13-84. Then click on the link <Add Another Proceeding> and type in 03-137.


• In the Contact Info section type in your name in the <Name of Filer> box and your e-mail address in the <Email Address> Box.


• In the Details section ignore Exparte Presentation. For <Type of Filing> COMMENT will be showing in the box.  Leave it showing.  In the File Number box type – 13-39. Ignore the Report Number and Bureau ID Number boxes.


• In the Address section you want <Address for: Filer>. Most of you will also want <Address Type: US Address>. Then type in your own address information in the remaining boxes in this section.


• In the Document(s) section click on the Browse button and find the name of your document where you have saved it on your computer in your own Folders. Click on the name of your document. If you have addition information that you wish to submit such as some kind of Exhibit, click on the <Add Another Attachment> link and follow the same procedure.


• If you have made an error, click on <Reset> at the bottom of the page to clear the form and start over.


• Lastly click on the <Continue> button at the bottom of the page to review your submittal and to finish the process.


• Print out the confirmation page so that you have a record of the number assigned to your submittal.


Directions were adapted from those provided by The EMR Policy Institute with some additions - original at http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/action/index.htm


Sent from a hardwired computer in a low rf environment







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]