26110080374
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110080374

**Re: FCC ET Docket No. 13-84 — Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields** To the Federal Communications Commission: My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap. I am a Colorado resident, a medical visualisation specialist with a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow, and an individual living with severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). I am submitting this comment to urge the FCC to reconsider its radiofrequency exposure guidelines in light of contemporary scientific research, reported health effects, and the lived experiences of people whose health and ability to participate in ordinary society are profoundly affected by their electromagnetic environments. **1. Existing RF exposure standards are inadequate** The FCC's existing exposure limits are largely based on protection against established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. These standards do not adequately resolve questions concerning potential biological effects of long-term, low-intensity, pulsed, or cumulative RF exposure. Research into oxidative stress, cellular signalling, neurological function, and other biological responses warrants continued independent investigation. The absence of scientific consensus about the clinical significance of reported non-thermal effects should not be mistaken for proof that all exposures below existing limits are harmless. **2. Electromagnetic sensitivity is a serious accessibility issue** My own experience illustrates the practical consequences of electromagnetic sensitivity. I experience severe physical symptoms that I associate with exposure to wireless infrastructure and devices, including migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, burning sensations, nausea, and significant sleep disruption. These experiences have fundamentally altered my ability to work, travel, obtain housing, access public services, and participate in community life. I have invested considerable resources in modifying my living environment, including removing wireless equipment, using wired communications, and implementing electrical and RF mitigation measures. Regardless of ongoing scientific disagreements about the causes of electromagnetic sensitivity, the functional limitations experienced by affected individuals deserve serious consideration and appropriate accommodation. **3. The public needs meaningful opportunities to reduce exposure** Wireless technology is increasingly difficult to avoid. Smart meters, cellular infrastructure, wireless routers, connected appliances, and other transmitting devices have become pervasive in residential and public environments. People who wish to minimise their exposure should have practical, affordable options, including: - Access to wired telecommunications and internet services. - Non-transmitting utility meters and alternatives to mandatory wireless equipment. - Transparent information about RF emissions and infrastructure deployment. - Consideration of residential proximity and cumulative exposure when evaluating wireless installations. - Preservation of environments where individuals can live and work with reduced RF exposure. **4. Independent research and modernised exposure assessment are essential** The FCC should support a transparent review of peer-reviewed research, including studies examining biological endpoints beyond tissue heating. Exposure assessment should consider realistic conditions involving multiple transmitters, variable signal characteristics, chronic exposure, and populations with differing health circumstances. The Commission should also meaningfully address the findings and concerns raised by independent researchers, clinicians, and affected communities rather than relying exclusively on historical exposure assumptions. **5. Requested FCC action** I respectfully request that the Commission: 1. Reassess the scientific basis of its RF exposure limits through an independent, transparent, multidisciplinary review. 2. Evaluate evidence concerning non-thermal biological effects and long-term exposure. 3. Consider cumulative and real-world exposure conditions in future regulatory decisions. 4. Protect access to wired alternatives and reasonable accommodations for individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. 5. Improve public participation, disclosure, and accountability in decisions affecting residential RF exposure. The Commission's responsibility extends beyond facilitating wireless communications. It must also give serious consideration to public health, accessibility, and the ability of Americans to make informed decisions about their environments. For individuals such as myself, this is not merely an abstract scientific debate. It concerns the ability to maintain a home, pursue a profession, obtain essential services, and live with dignity. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Morrison, Colorado