Topics & supporting passages
- Sensitivity & health experiences: “This matter is of particular personal concern to me because: For several years, I have suffered the consequences of exposure to electromagnetic waves; my health has been lastingly impaired (manifesting as chronic pain and severe sleep disturbances).”
- Sleep & neurological concerns: “This matter is of particular personal concern to me because: For several years, I have suffered the consequences of exposure to electromagnetic waves; my health has been lastingly impaired (manifesting as chronic pain and severe sleep disturbances).”
- Cancer & tumors: “The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision that its guidelines adequately protect humans against the harmful, non-cancer-related effects of radiofrequency radiation.”
- Children, schools & development: “Specifically, the Court required the FCC to address the effects of radiofrequency radiation on children, the health consequences of prolonged exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological advancements, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for mobile phones and other portable devices.”
- Biological mechanisms & metabolism: “(2021): Man-made electromagnetic fields: Ion-gated channel dysfunction, oxidative stress, and DNA damage—an examination of the evidence and proposed mechanisms linking man-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction.”
- Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices: “Specifically, the Court required the FCC to address the effects of radiofrequency radiation on children, the health consequences of prolonged exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological advancements, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for mobile phones and other portable devices.”
- Wildlife & environment: “The FCC should carefully examine evidence and real-world experiences regarding the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation—including non-cancer-related health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and effects on wildlife and the environment.”
- 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: “The FCC should carefully examine evidence and real-world experiences regarding the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation—including non-cancer-related health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and effects on wildlife and the environment.”
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 decision that its guidelines adequately protect humans against the harmful, non-cancer-related effects of radiofrequency radiation. Specifically, the Court required the FCC to address the effects of radiofrequency radiation on children, the health consequences of prolonged exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological advancements, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for mobile phones and other portable devices. The FCC should carefully examine evidence and real-world experiences regarding the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation—including non-cancer-related health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and effects on wildlife and the environment. Below is one study, among others, that I believe the FCC should review when addressing concerns related to wireless radiation: • Panagopoulos et al. (2021): Man-made electromagnetic fields: Ion-gated channel dysfunction, oxidative stress, and DNA damage—an examination of the evidence and proposed mechanisms linking man-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. The FCC is not a health agency and possesses no expertise in medicine, biology, or public health. Yet, it continues to assert its authority over radiofrequency exposure standards and is preparing to conclude whether its current guidelines provide adequate protection for the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the essential role of federal health agencies—most notably the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—and to draw upon appropriate expertise in the fields of health and biology to address the issues raised by the court. This matter is of particular personal concern to me because: For several years, I have suffered the consequences of exposure to electromagnetic waves; my health has been lastingly impaired (manifesting as chronic pain and severe sleep disturbances). I find it difficult to work in environments where such exposure exists; I can no longer travel by train due to the presence of Wi-Fi and passengers’ mobile phones; I cannot stay in hotels because of Wi-Fi; and my life has been significantly diminished by the omnipresence of these waves. I urge the FCC to give serious consideration to the experiences and evidence submitted to it, and to fully address each of the questions raised 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.