I Don't Think They Heard Me: The Less-Than-Helpful Reply From the F.C.C.

Question:  Are YOU willing to trust your health and well-being (and that of all of your loved ones) to an over-whelmed, understaffed and (IMHO) far too WiFi Industry-cozy federal agency ("Trust us, we're with the government.") ?

(Please note:  I'd contacted the F.C.C. (please see previous blog post) out of concern regarding a real public health hazard:  I'd felt my shoulder being burned by a retail, wall-mounted, WiFi booster antenna at a local shopping mall - not to complain about any "provider".)

F.Y.I. ~ The F.C.C.'s own website claims that public, wireless, network antennas don't emit the type of extremely high R.F. (Radio Frequency aka "microwave") radiation that can damage human flesh. 

In the wake of my recent experience, I beg to differ.

*The Wireless Industry's sole motivation is the raking in of Profit.

*My sole motivation has always been and continues to be Public Safety.)

Here's the REPLY that I received from the F.C.C.:

"Thank you for sharing your story. Your Ticket No. is 1324555.

Your story will not be served on a provider but will be shared internally to inform policy and potential enforcement. You will not receive any further communication from the FCC. 

If you want to file an informal complaint that will be served on your provider, please go to www.consumercomplaints.fcc.gov and select a complaint category.

Your story provides the FCC with important information we can use to develop policies to protect consumers, remedy violations of the Communications Act, and encourage future compliance with the law.

Thank you for your help in furthering the FCC’s mission on behalf of consumers."

Hmm...

If I won't "... receive any further communication from the FCC. ", then how will I know if this information ever reached the appropriate persons/parties at the agency?

An Open Letter To The EPA Re: Cellphone Boosters, RF Radiation and Burning Skin, Oh My!

An Open Letter/Email To The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Re: Cellphone Boosters, RF Radiation and Burning Skin (Oh My!):

"Dear EPA:

I am concerned about a recent experience I had while sitting in a public courtyard at a local open-air shopping mall.  I was sitting at a table with a friend and suddenly realized that I felt a focused heat on my left shoulder and upper arm.  Initially, I assumed that I had, inadvertently, sat too close to a nearby restaurant's patio heat-lamp.  But, when I got up to leave, I turned to look for the lamp and there was no heat-lamp... in fact, there was only an exterior, wall-mounted, cellphone booster antenna nearby.  It was placed about 8-ft. above the ground.  But, I definitely felt it heating my skin and deeper.  Like I said, I had thought it was a heat-lamp before I turned around.

I am concerned because, according to your own website, "At very high levels, RF energy is dangerous.", but the non-ionizing radiation from wireless technology that is capable of heating the body's tissues rapidly is supposed to be "... found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters." and you go on to say that, although cellphone and wireless networks emit RF radiation, it's "not at levels that cause significant heating."

My recent experience definitely refutes these statements and I am concerned, not only for my own, but also for the public's safety.  Especially if there's no regulation of or laws regarding the amount of RF radiation that is being emitted from these widely-used, human-adjacent devices.

Please let me know - including the EPA - to whom and at what agency should I report this?

Thank you!

San Francisco, California

(From: "About Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)
... At very high levels, RF energy is dangerous. It can heat the body's tissues rapidly. However, such high levels are found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters. Cellphones and wireless networks produce RF, but not at levels that cause significant heating. In addition, RF energy decreases quickly over distance. At ground level, exposure to RF from sources like cellphone towers is usually very low.""

Happy Thursday!

I just sent this email to San Francisco's Public Utility Commission (PUC) and wanted to share it with you/make it public because I'm concerned about the safety of our drinking/cooking/bathing water AND I'm very concerned about the safety of the marine life in San Francisco Bay/ the Pacific Ocean/etc...

I'm guessing these might also be issues that are important to you.  Especially since most municipal water departments have switched from using 'free' chlorine as a disinfectant in drinking water to using chloramine (a chlorine/ammonia compound).  Not only is chloramine not easy to remove, effectively... it is deadly to fresh- and salt-water fish, amphibians and reptiles.

Hello PUC:

I was compelled to contact you after discovering glaringly conflicting information in regards to what the Public Utilities Commission (sfwater.org) states about effective methods of removing chloramine from tap/drinking water and what the EPA states about such methods.

According to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/chloramine/pdfs/Q29.pdf):

Neither boiling water; nor allowing water to sit at room temperature; nor reverse-osmosis filters removes monochloramine from drinking water.

Yet, sfwater.org's (http://www.sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=6920) "QUESTIONS REGARDING CHLORINE AND CHLORAMINE REMOVAL FROM WATER Updated March 2015" states:

"If desired, chloramine and ammonia can be completely removed from the water by
boiling; however, it will take 20 minutes of gentle boil to do that."

In another paragraph, it discourages "... letting an open container of water stand because it may take days for chloramine to dissipate."

It also states: "If desired, both chlorine and chloramine can be removed for drinking water purposes by an activated carbon filter point of use device that can be installed on a kitchen faucet."

In researching this last statement, I learned that the activated carbon filter alone is not enough to remove chloramine from tap water.  Brewers of beer and - especially - aquarium-keepers repeatedly confirm this statement.

Also, since chloramines are deadly to fish and amphibians at levels used for drinking water, I am very concerned about the harm being done to marine life in San Francisco Bay (and, in turn, the Pacific Ocean) by run-off from fire hydrants, water mains, etc. and from water released from wastewater treatment plants into the environment.

I look forward to hearing from the PUC in regards to these two important matters:
1.) Why are there such glaring discrepancies between SF's PUC and the EPA re: effective chloramine removal at home/What is the Truth? and
2.) What is San Francisco doing to protect San Francisco Bay's (and the Pacific's) marine life from toxic chloramine exposure?

Thank you.

Best regards,

San Francisco, CA

Rep, Anthony Weiner Rips Into House Republicans For Cowardice On 9/11 Health Care Bill

2011 will mark the 10th Anniversary of 9/11.

Unbelievable.

Did you know...
That the Wizards who were at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 had declared that the air at ground-zero was safe to breathe after the towers collapsed and disintegrated? (Remember that Dust/Debris Cloud?)

Heck, I knew the air at ground zero couldn't be anything other than Unsafe.
How could the EPA think/say it was safe?

At least 20 cops have died of illnesses related to WTC exposure (9/11 Police Aid Foundation).

Firefighters who worked tirelessly on that enormous, smoking and dangerous debris pile have developed elevated levels of sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease of the lymph nodes and other organs - which is often also accompanied by breathing difficulties.

There have been numerous cancer diagnoses and cancer deaths amongst First Responders, which many believe are a result of exposure to the toxins at ground zero (Thanks, again, EPA.)

And, 1000's of New Yorkers who were there have also developed breathing difficulties.

And now comes word that, in the House Of Representatives, all but 12 Republican Representatives did what they've gotten phenomenally good at over the last two years...

Saying "No.".

"No" on Health Care. "No" on a Public Option For Health Care. "No" on extending the Unemployment Benefits of Millions of Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work.
"No" on Wall Street Reform.

Their response to any and/or all timely, needed, beneficial legislation: "NO." "NO." "NO."

Basically, the GOP is tossing out "No's" with the rapidity and recurrence of a group of people who are suffering from (apparently) undiagnosed cases of Tourette's Syndrome.

Today, all but 12 card-carrying members of the "Grand Ol' Party Of No" in the House Of Representatives callously rejected and killed the Bill which would have given free health-care and compensation for those 9/11 First Responders and Rescue Workers.

And, they did it over a petty procedural issue.

The Democrats hadn't wanted the GOP members to drag out the discussion of the bill while trying to add unrelated or unnecessary amendments to it. So, they sped up the process and put it to a vote.

And, for that, the House Republicans said, for the umpteenth time, "No.".

Our Heroes from 9/11 are suffering and they are dying and the GOP said, "No.".

And, that's when Representative Anthony Weiner (D, NY) stood at the podium and laid into those House GOP'ers who'd rejected the bill and who, thereby, turned their backs on our 9/11 First Responders.

Bravo, Representative Weiner.

Thank you for calling them what they are... cowards.

Check him out: