Topics & supporting passages
  • Cancer & tumors: “The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer.”
  • Children, schools & development: “Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.”
  • Towers, antennas & siting: “This issue matters to me personally because: My family tries to be mindful of our exposure and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to avoid homes, schools, and businesses that are close to cell towers and other wireless sources.”
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices: “Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.”
  • Wildlife & environment: “Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.”
  • Exposure limits & testing: “Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.”
  • Court remand & agency accountability: “Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.”
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: “Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.”

Topics matched to original text; attachment contents excluded. Classification details

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745 The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: My family tries to be mindful of our exposure and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to avoid homes, schools, and businesses that are close to cell towers and other wireless sources. Our children end up spending all school day in buildings placed next door to towers, constantly exposed to radiation and there seems to be little regard for the potential impact of long-term exposure. Their school experience is on top of cell phones they may use and the radiation we are all exposed to working from laptops and being connected to the internet all day at work and home. Humans were not designed to withstand these levels of exposure, and research shows that there are real health implications here, especially for still-developing children. We have experienced sensitivity to RF first hand, and worry about the silent toll this is taking on our bodies. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
Official source ↗Open this comment on its own →