Submitted 10/16/22: I've been watching the science on electromagnetic fields, specifically power frequencies and wireless transmission frequencies, for 22 years. Despite the fact that there were already concerns expressed by the EPA iby 1980 regarding the carcinogenicity of RF and the adequacy of the FCC exposure limits (before EPA studies were defunded), and already by the 1970s the Navy had compiled over a thousand studies showing biological effects at low intensity levels, and already a great majority of the modern studies are showing biological effects of EMF at levels that are not supposed to be biologically active according to the now out-dated thermal paradigm (which itself was based on animal behavior studies and "hunches" back in the last century), and despite the fact that the NIEHS/National Toxicology Program found "clear evidence of carcinogenicity" at non-thermal levels of RF, backed up by the Ramazzini Institute's similar studies at even lower intensity levels---PBS and NPR seem to be uninterested in investigating and sharing findings -- not industry PR -- with the public. No major insurers or reinsurers will cover liability for the wireless industry should the emissions from their wireless devices and infrastructure cause health harm to users--why? because they have looked at the evidence and they don't want to lose their shirts on another tobacco debacle. Last year a federal judge in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC ruled that current exposure limits are not based on a full review of the current science----that in fact, no federal agency has conducted such a full review, although they all give semi-reassurances of safety on their public information websites. The wireless industry---which funds much of public broadcasting--tells the FCC what to do, and they help place their own people as director and commissioners. They get laws passed in Congress that take away the rights of citizens and municipalities to have any say in where telecom infrastructure goes, what is used and how. They get waivers from FCC to test body SAR on cell phones a slight distance away from the test "body," (a gel filled receptacle) which then registers a much lower SAR than would be experienced by someone carrying a cell phone in their pocket. Brain cancer lawsuits filed in 2001 are only coming to a hearing now in 2022 because of convenient delays perpetrated by the industry. There is so much wrong in the telecom realm, but public broadcasting is not covering any of it---and you have an investigative team for Frontline that could provide the perfect venue with experienced investigative reporters, but year after year, Nothing. As the lawyers say, there is no smoking gun to seek out----all the information is readily available and out there, you just have to put the dots together, and know which "experts," committees and commissions are actually associated with the industry, and not independent of its influence.
This situation has made me very cynical about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, NPR, etc. You have every man, woman, and child --all your constituents--exposed to this in nearly every environment they sleep, live, work, grow, and study in. All ages, including pre-birth. They trust that if Public Broadcasting doesn't say there's a problem, then everything's all right. Well, it isn't all right, for people, or for flora and fauna, but you have to be willing to put the present and future well-being of your constituency first, and hold a shady industry accountable for its continued obfuscation of the facts.
I speak from my own experience on committees with the telecoms, and years of communications with scientists. There is a problem. Go there!
EPA history: https://ehtrust.org/epa-recommendations-and-reports-on-cell-phones-radiofrequency-and-electromagnetic-fields/ Navy history: https://zoryglaser.com/ Bioeffects science today: https://bioinitiative.org/ (see H. Lai research summaries) and https://www.saferemr.com/ (J. Moskowitz monthly science updates) History of thermal paradigm: http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/RF%20history.pdf References N. Steneck's 1984 book, "The Microwave Debate" NTP report: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/11/NTP-final-reports31.html J. Moskowitz (UC/Berkeley) discusses the studies (with reference links) Insurance liability: https://www.jrseco.com/lloyds-insurance-company-does-not-cover-health-damage-caused-by-electromagnetic-radiation/ Federal judge ruling: https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/ FCC+Industry: https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf Flora/Fauna impacts: https://www.microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/review-emf-and-rf-effects-flora-and-fauna
Margaret M. Glaser Chicago, IL