Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)

> towers than workers. The so-called 50-fold safety factor > mentioned in the article has been debunked by some researchers in > a submission to the FCC. This means that many people may not be > protected from the heating effects of cell phone tower radiation. > Many more people are likely adversely affected from the > nonthermal effects of microwave radiation exposure which the FCC > standards completely ignore. > If the results of this study are generalizable, then more than > 30,000 cell towers in the U.S. are illegal, i.e., they emit more > microwave radiation > than the law permits for occupational exposure. > That the FCC has issued only two citations since 1996 for > noncompliance with the Federal regulatory standard is appalling. > Will this scandal trigger a Congressional investigation? > I'm glad to see that the article mentions the industry's > potential product liability as the insurance industry will not > insure the wireless industry for fear that the potential damages > from pending and future lawsuits may be enormous. > Cellphone Boom Spurs Antenna-Safety Worries > Many Sites Violate Rules Aimed at Protecting Workers From > Excessive Radio-Frequency Radiation > lanthe Jeanne Dugan and Ryan Knutson, Wall > Street Journal, Oct. 2, 2014 > Radio-frequency engineer Marvin Wessel has taken > readings at more than 3,000 cellphone antenna sites across the > country. > Ryan Knutson > The antennas fueling the nation's > cellphone boom are challenging federal safety rules that were put > in place when signals largely radiated from remote towers > off-limits to the > public. Now, antennas are in more than 300,000 > locations? rooftops, parks, stadiums?nearly double the number of > 10 years ago, according to the industry trade group CTIA. > Federal > rules require carriers to use barricades, signs and training to > protect