The Microwaves in Your Pocket: The Truth of the Dangers of Wireless Internet ‘Technology ‘As people focus on the advantages of faster speeds of data at our fingertips, implementing 5G will only contribute to the harmful microwave frequencies that already submerge our bodies. Billions of people across the planet are aware of cell phones, cellular networks, and Wi-Fi, yet these people are generally unaware of the negative health effects that have been associated with this technology. Both cellular networks and wireless intemet services function from frequencies transmitted through the Radio Frequency (RF) Spectrum; which is the lowest portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Within the same spectrum that infrared, visible light, and gamma rays exist, are the radio waves and microwaves that provide us with numerous forms of technology. The Federal Commission of Communication (FCC) is required to regulate technology that functions through the RF spectrum, ensuring technology does not exceed the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) known to affect human health, While the FCC promises that, they perform their job adequately and RF technology does not affect human health, they misrepresent the actuality of RF exposure, and we have been saturated with exponential amounts of RF frequencies that have been scientifically linked with aversive health outcomes. As the national organization that licenses and authorizes devices, transmitters, and facilities that radiate RF radiation, the FCC claims the current standards on technology do not impose any risk to human health, The Commission s responsible for all telecommunication and Radio technology, such as AM/FM radio stations, television broadcasts, cellular networks and devices, wireless intemet, ete. The RF guidelines that were implemented are based on the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), in which the FCC adopted the recommended Maximum Permissible Exposure Limits for technology that ranges from 100 kIlz to 100GHz in 1996. The FCC claims RF technology uses radio waves and microwaves, which is a form of nonionizing radiation and cannot damage DNA. The FCC claims the only biological effect of exposure to RF radiation that is above the limit is tissue heating.(“RF Safety FAQ). People are not exposed to RF fields that exceed the SAR limit... Govemmental agencies currently regulate and inspect technological devices to ensure public safety. While these promises and official statements are proclaimed by those in authority, the scientific community and a substantial number of scientific studies reflect a harmful reality, Microwaves are a form of non-ionizing radiation, but would you choose to live in a microwave oven. RF technology induces molecular and physiological changes. Cellular networks, antenna towers, cell phones, wireless routers, and other internet-based devices use microwave frequencies to function. The microwave blanching phenomenon is reported to destroy enzymes, induce heat sterilization, causes dehydration, and is linked to degrading essential nutritive components. The table of U.S. Frequency Allocations indicate each of these technological devices uses microwave frequencies. When food is cooked in a microwave oven, thermal heating induces molecular changes without altering the structure, Microwaves are attracted to water molecules and human bodies are composed of water; our molecular structure is changing while our physical structure remains the same. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation indicates numerous studies that identify indirect DNA damage along with a range of other aversive health effects. The FCC uses the Interphone study as evidence, which acknowledges they are biased and were funded by people who profit from RF technology. This study also indicates they did not choose any studies relating to cellular networks or cell phones. While there are claims of no conclusive research to indicate negative health outcomes related to RF technology, anyone can identify numerous scholarly journals that observe RF technology affecting our bodies” biology.We absorb a substantial amount of radiation from all RF technology. The current SAR limit is 4 watts per kilogram for the whole body and was adopted in 1996, The wide uses of RF technology in society. One antenna tower's use in a small rural town is wireless broadband, television broadcasts, emergency broadcast channel, aeronautical, Union Wireless Network, VLF, etc. The SAR limit was conducted on studies that only searched for thermal heating, were not conducted for a long duration, and do not reflect the frequencies of current technology. Research indicates absorption can be in a localized region of the body. Jagbir Kaur et al studied the RF density in both rural and urban areas and identified rural areas exceeded the SAR limit by 300%, while urban areas exceeded the SAR’s safety limit by over 100% In almost every household, school, business, and home there is technology emitting RF waves. Within a house, there can be several televisions, cell phones, game consoles, laptops, tablets, and VR devices. The radiation density is saturated in each town, and rural areas are typically affected the worst. The SAR limit was created in an era not prepared for this amount of technology. As the SAR limit has been the only concept around RF technology that has not evolved, this safety limit is outdated, and the FCC refuses to revise its standards to protect human health Governmental agencies do not ensure public safety. The FCC states they match the SAR limits that are recommended and to regulate the RF spectrum in the public’s interest. Despite their claims published on their website, when you access these links, you realize they did not actually adhere to the recommendations given to them by the U.S. Accountability Office and the FDA, The FCC proposed on November 17", 2019, the Report and Order and a Memorandum Opinion and Order, to address issues to revise and update their regulations. The FCC plans are to accommodate their licensees by creating flexibility for operators to adhere to complianceregulations and make it easier for them to avoid evaluations. This does not reflect an interest in public safety and is a better representation of the concem of the stakeholders’ best interest. The FCC does not stand as a federal agency with the motivation to ensure public health and safety, their only concem is for the stakeholders that feed their pockets. While we certainly cannot abolish intemet-based devices and cell phones, we can understand the risks and adjust our habits to take the necessary steps to avoid these adverse health effects. Despite the lower frequencies, non-ionizing radiation can be extremely harmful and is a part of our everyday lives, Cellular phones, wireless intemet and antenna towers impose erv: a huge risk to our health, Scientific studies have consistently linked these microwave frequencies with cancer, neurological effects, digestive conditions, reproductive problems, and much more aversive health effects from RF technology. The world is not as it once was, and the studies performed over a decade ago cannot represent the standards of our evolved technology. The FCC does not have the public's interest as its motivation, and it is evident. I am not asking you to leave the world of the intemet and shut down all mobile communication. I am imploring you to research this yourself and find the truth that I did. It only takes simple modifications to our daily lives to start keeping our families safer. Take your phone out of your pocket and place your wireless routers in an unused comer, limit the amount of time your children play with devices. Use fiber technology. and that decreases your amount of exposure.Works Cited “Body Tissue Dielectric Parameters.” Federal Communications Commission, 6 Dec. 2010, https:/iwww.fee.gov/general/body-tissue-dielectric-parameters,“Electromagnetic Compatibility Division.” Federal Communications Commission, 2 Mar. 2011, https:/www.fec.gow/general/radio-frequency-safety-0. “EMF-Portal.” Emy-Portal. Org, hitps:/iwww.emf-portal.org/en/ems/page/home/effectsiradio- frequency/blood-brain-barrier, Accessed 26 Nov. 2022 “ECC Policy on Human Exposure.” Federal Communications Commission, 24 Nov. 2015, hitps:/www.fee.gow/general/fec-policy-human-exposure. Intemational Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), et al, “Scientific Evidence Invalidates Health Assumptions Underlying the FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limit Determinations for Radiofrequency Radiation: Implications for SG.” Environmental Health: A Global Acc Science Source, vol. 21, no. 1, Oct. 2022, pp. 1-25. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ceco.idm.ocle.org/10.1186/512940-022-00900-9. INTERPHONE Study Group. “Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE International Case-Control Study.” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 39, no. 3, 2010, pp. 675-694, doi:10.1093/ijeldyq079. Kalla, Adarsh M., and Devaraju R. “Microwave Energy and Its Application in Food Industry: A Review.” Asian Journal of Dairy & Food Research, vol. 36, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 37-44 EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ccco.idm.ocle.org/10.18805/ajd fr.v0iOF.7303 Kaur, Jagbir, et al. “Effect of Population Density and Surroundings on the Environmental RF Radiation.” Nature Environment & Pollution Technology, vol. 18, no. 3, Sept. 2019, pp. 931-34. EBSCOhost, https:/isearch-ebscohost- com.ccco.idm.ocle.org/login.aspx?direct=true &db=cih&AN=13853248 1 &site=eds- live&escope=sitiLai, Henry. “Genetic Effects of Non-lonizing Electromagnetic Fields 2014 Supplement.” Bioinitiative.Org, 2014, https:/ibioinitiative.orgiwp- content/uploadsipdfs/sec06_2012_genetic_effects_non-ionizing.pdf, Nelson, Trevor. Telephone Interview. Conducted by Gabrielle Garzon, November 9", 2022, U.S. Department of Transportation, “What is Radio Spectrum.” 2017. Retrieved from hittps://www.transportation.gov/pnt/what-radio-spectrum, Peterson, Lamy. “Chapter 1: Introduction” 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach Version 1.1-Dev Documentation, Systems Approach LLC, https://5g.systemsapproach.org/primer.htm] “Radio Frequency Safety.” Federal Communications Commission, 2021, hupsvivww.foc,gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0, “RESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF INQUIRY, SECOND REPORT AND ORDER, NOTICE OR PROPOSED RULE MAKING, AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.” 19-126, vol. 03-137, 13-84, 19-226, 27 Nov. 2019, p. 136, file:/C:/Users/qabri/AppDatall ocal/Temp/Microsoft= dgeDownloads/b701889c- 04bf-4127-9e18-2bc087938c26/fcc-19-126A1%20(1).paf. “RF Safety Highlighted Releases Federal Communications Commission, 24 Nov. 2015, https:/iwww. fice gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility- division/radio-frequency-safety/generalirf “Radio Frequency Safety.” Federal Communications Commission, 25 Nov. 2015, https:/iwww. fcc gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility- division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety,Sedani, B. S., et al. “Critical Review on Effect of SG Technology on Covid-19 and Human Health Issues.” Journal of Scientific Research, vol. 13, no. 2, May 2021, pp. 695-705. EBSCOhost, https:/idoi-org.ccco dm.ocle.org/10.3329/jsr.v13i2.49514. Shuren, Jeffery. Received by The Federal Commission of Communication, Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, 2019, httpsi/www fa eov/media/135022/download. “What Frequency Is SG?” Verizon.Com, 18 Nov. 2019, https:/iwww.verizon.conv/about/our- company/Sg/what-frequency-5g.