{"id":"26110083607","number":"26110083607","name":"Janice Troia","source_name":"Janice Troia","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-23","received":"2026-10-23","body":"Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to you. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. 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. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. 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. 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. effects of humans/animals who were exposed to RF radiation (long-term study needed). 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). My opinion on this is that since 1996 there have been massive increases in the levels of radiation exposure in the environment due to advances in the technology, and, therefore, it is incomprehensible that the 1996 radiation exposure guidelines would have any relevance in 2026. 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 environment; and (5) the adequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices. I strongly believe that in responding to the 2021 court order, the FCC should work with HHS Secretary RFK Jr. (who has expressed great interest in addressing this issue) and let his health agency take 100% of the lead in addressing each of the issues identified by the Court. HHS has the expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, for which the FCC does not (its expertise is primarily in regulating communications, communications technology, and spectrum management). Also, given HHS's expertise, and the fact that it doesn't regulate the telecommunications industry, I believe that public trust in its studies/conclusions, its responses to the Court, and its implementation of protective measures, will be greatly enhanced. I believe the following should be done, which will also encompass the issues identified by the court: (1) study the human health and environmental effects (animals, plants, etc. - 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. A compilation by researcher Henry Lai, Ph.D. includes more than 3,000 peer-reviewed studies published since 1990 that reported significant adverse effects from EMF exposure; (3) do not review any studies prepared or funded by the conflict of interest telecommunication industry unless their studies have been replicated by independent non-conflict of interest studies; (4) if the current published studies are insufficient (gaps in research) in any areas, such as real-world exposure levels, long-term consequences (court ordered this to be done – L-T exposures), and cumulative exposure, appropriate federal research priorities should be established (new studies- short term or long-term, as required). 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. 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. In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, lawyers represented residents who reported serious health effects directly following the installation and activation of a cell tower in their neighborhood; (7) listen to parents who have reported their concerns about the growing presence of wireless devices and screen-based technology in schools; (8) 330 of the studies reviewed by Henrry Lai, Ph.D listed oxidative stress and free radicals as adverse effects from electromagnetic radiation, which we know are precursors to cancer. So even though the Court did not require this information, long-term studies should be done to identify cancer issues; (9) After all the studying, investigating, analysis, etc. has been done and the results are in as to the human health and environmental (animal, plants, etc.) impacts of electromagnetic radiation, and the necessary protections to our citizenry and our environment have been proposed: (a) update the exposure guidelines and prepare any other protections that are necessary. In this vein, also answer the Court order on the ubiquity of wireless radiation and technology development since the last Guidelines update in 1996; (b) update the RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other wireless devices as the Court ordered. In updating, use adults, children, etc. and not a plastic head since it doesn't model real human tissue. Do long-term studies to measure non-thermal biological effects as well as thermal effects; (c) HHS and FFC should review all the completed data together, give meaningful consideration of the experiences and evidences before it, prepare an answer to the 2021 court order; and swiftly implement the protections to public health and the environment; (10) until all the above steps are completed, there should be a moratorium on any expansion of electromagnetic radiation technologies in our communities. I do not have a story of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation on myself, and no one I know has expressed any of these issues. However, in the last 5 years, I have listened to, and read articles by, independent non-conflict of interest scientists that say that my body (cells, DNA, etc) may be continuously affected without my awareness and eventually lead to a symptom or illness (long-term exposure). One study that speaks about this is https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). 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. A nearby church has a cell tower and that concerns me; (2) the smart meter on the side of my garage; (3) the increases from 5G to 6G and further, which will increase the electromagnetic radiation we are subject to; (4) the small cell towers that they will need to put on properties every 700 or so ft. 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. Thanks Janice","attachments":[],"attachment_names":[],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110083607","filing_type":"COMMENT","proceedings":"ET 13-84","capture_reviewed":false,"captured_at":"2026-10-23T21:07:34.439Z","supplied_classification":null,"tags":["school-connectivity","health-experiences","sleep-neurology","cancer","children-schools","pregnancy-reproduction","biology-metabolism","disability-access","towers-antennas","wifi-devices","wildlife-environment","standards-testing","remand-accountability","research-requests"],"source_hash":"7acf5ae5b6ce2aa84d4720943a1fd2a9180edf6ff6d4d018501251e23358b0e9","slug":"school-connectivity-filing-26110083607","classification":{"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."},"forum_topics":["school-connectivity","health-experiences","sleep-neurology","cancer","children-schools","pregnancy-reproduction","biology-metabolism","disability-access","towers-antennas","wifi-devices","wildlife-environment","standards-testing","remand-accountability","research-requests"],"primary_topic":"school-connectivity","forum_title":"Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to you. I am responding from the perspective of a co…"}