{"id":"26110077178","number":"26110077178","name":"Aleks K.","source_name":"Aleks K.","organization":"","posted":"2026-09-21","received":"2026-09-21","body":"I am writing today 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. 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 deeply to me personally as someone who has experienced unexplainable, chronic headaches that started, coincidentally, around the time our house was 'upgraded' to wireless electric usage transmission. I would like proper scientific studies that investigate the effects of wireless signals on our brains. It is particularly concerning to me because I am an adult who is, perhaps, more sensitive than other adults--what about the effects on children's developing brains? What about migratory wildlife that utilize magnetic fields to guide their journey? We are energetic beings, and to reject out of hand that RF radiation and electromagnetic currents could interfere with biological processes is both myopic and foolhardy. The FCC MUST give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it in order to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you for all you can do to leave no stone unturned in our endeavor to safeguard life from technology that could potentially interfere with our health.","attachments":[],"attachment_names":[],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077178","filing_type":"COMMENT","proceedings":"ET 13-84","capture_reviewed":true,"captured_at":"2026-09-29T02:08:42.298Z","supplied_classification":null,"tags":["health-experiences","cancer","children-schools","wifi-devices","wildlife-environment","standards-testing","remand-accountability","research-requests"],"source_hash":"0dacc22b27837db7c3145ef0681d6d1bedd54a807bf57c89d6dcf7f8e92a0fa9","slug":"health-experiences-filing-26110077178","classification":{"id":"26110077178","body_sha256":"a748a1e978e4c7463120c28e918da4ffbea8e5b6af4d2c11265f3b54f53fbfff","status":"text_matched","primary_topic":"health-experiences","topics":[{"id":"health-experiences","evidence":"This issue matters deeply to me personally as someone who has experienced unexplainable, chronic headaches that started, coincidentally, around the time our house was 'upgraded' to wireless electric usage transmission."},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"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."},{"id":"children-schools","evidence":"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."},{"id":"wifi-devices","evidence":"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."},{"id":"wildlife-environment","evidence":"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."},{"id":"standards-testing","evidence":"Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines."},{"id":"remand-accountability","evidence":"Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines."},{"id":"research-requests","evidence":"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."}],"summary":"","method":"Local topic rules v1; exact supporting passages; not an AI or medical review","scope":"Captured filing text only. Attachment contents not examined."},"forum_topics":["health-experiences","cancer","children-schools","wifi-devices","wildlife-environment","standards-testing","remand-accountability","research-requests"],"primary_topic":"health-experiences","forum_title":"I am writing today regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning i…"}