{"id":"26110083607","body_sha256":"0ddbd5f69b14303d594f175e6dd2d469dca474c01f3dd8b0f6438dd7a287b4e2","status":"text_matched","primary_topic":"school-connectivity","topics":[{"id":"school-connectivity","evidence":"Therefore, based on the above, I am very concerned about the health and environmental impacts from the following: (1) cell towers going up at an accelerated pace, many in areas that already have sufficient broadband access, such as my community."},{"id":"health-experiences","evidence":"Symptoms include headaches, nausea, dizziness, brain fog, anxiety, heart palpitations, insomnia, and tinnitus, and more serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardiac irregularities, neurological conditions/issues, and infertility."},{"id":"sleep-neurology","evidence":"Symptoms include headaches, nausea, dizziness, brain fog, anxiety, heart palpitations, insomnia, and tinnitus, and more serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardiac irregularities, neurological conditions/issues, and infertility."},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its RF exposure guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of such exposure (RF radiation unrelated to cancer)."},{"id":"children-schools","evidence":"For this reason, I also believe that the FCC never should have adopted, in 7/2026, changes allowing certain mobile and portable wireless devices to transmit at a fourfold increase in power levels, without assessing the potential implications for human exposure; Specifically, the court directed the FCC to address: (1) the impacts of RF radiation on children; (2) the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation; (3) the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996; (4) the impacts of RF radiation on the"},{"id":"pregnancy-reproduction","evidence":"And the studies that are done should be transparent so that independent, non-conflict of interest scientists can replicate them; (5) with regard to the impacts on human health, pay particular attention to children (court order required this), but also to other vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, workers, people with implanted devices, etc.; (6) listen to the people who have become very ill from electromagnetic radiation and study them because their experiences provide important insights into potential areas of scientific investigation."},{"id":"biology-metabolism","evidence":"From what I understand, the only studies the FCC has relied on for its guidelines were those done in the1980's, which focused on the behavioral effects of animals who were exposed to heat from microwave radiation (short term study), and not on cell, DNA, etc."},{"id":"disability-access","evidence":"in order to accommodate the 5G or up cell phones; (5) my wifi router, which sits right next to my desktop computer; and (6) my smart appliances."},{"id":"towers-antennas","evidence":"- court ordered this to be done) of electromagnetic radiation from all sources, such as cell phones, 5G and 6G networks, wifi routers, wifi infrastructure (cell towers, small cells, etc.) smart meters, wearable devices, wireless medical equipment, satellites, etc.; (2) review published independent, non-conflict of interest scientific studies."},{"id":"wifi-devices","evidence":"For this reason, I also believe that the FCC never should have adopted, in 7/2026, changes allowing certain mobile and portable wireless devices to transmit at a fourfold increase in power levels, without assessing the potential implications for human exposure; Specifically, the court directed the FCC to address: (1) the impacts of RF radiation on children; (2) the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation; (3) the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996; (4) the impacts of RF radiation on the"},{"id":"wildlife-environment","evidence":"Over the years, there has been a growing body of scientific research raising concerns about non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation effects on human health and the environment."},{"id":"standards-testing","evidence":"Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision to retain its 1996 radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines was arbitrary and capricious because the FCC failed to consider a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating serious biological harm."},{"id":"remand-accountability","evidence":"I am aware that in 2021 (and in 2026 when the Court gave the FCC 30 days to explain why they took no action on their 2021 order), the U.S."},{"id":"research-requests","evidence":"Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision to retain its 1996 radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines was arbitrary and capricious because the FCC failed to consider a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating serious biological harm."}],"summary":"","method":"Local topic rules v1; exact supporting passages; not an AI or medical review","scope":"Captured filing text only. Attachment contents not examined."}