Topics & supporting passages
- Sensitivity & health experiences: “It makes me extremely fatigued.”
- Sleep & neurological concerns: “I have serious brain fog whenever I'm around it.”
- 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 wireless radiation negatively affects me in numerous ways, namely in that short and long term exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and other wireless sources impacts me substantially.”
- 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.”
- Wired connections & alternatives: “In terms of home use, it is imperitive we keep fiber optic and copper landline technology which poses no danger whatesoever and is far more secure and reliable, especially in severe weather.”
- 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.”
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. 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 wireless radiation negatively affects me in numerous ways, namely in that short and long term exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and other wireless sources impacts me substantially. It makes me extremely fatigued. I have serious brain fog whenever I'm around it. I never get deep, restful sleep when exposed to wi-fi, 4G, or 5G radiation. My fatigue is off the charts because of it. On rare ocassions when I can escape the wireless onslught, such as in remote rural areas with no cel coverage, I sleep very well and feel rested upon awakening. Every since wireless electric utility smart meters were deployed on every home and business in 2013, I haven't had a decent night's sleep in all this time. It's a VERY serious problem. In terms of home use, it is imperitive we keep fiber optic and copper landline technology which poses no danger whatesoever and is far more secure and reliable, especially in severe weather. 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.
Community corner
Community discussion
Reader replies are separate from the official FCC submission. They are reviewed before publication. Display names are not verified.