All comment threads

I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission. Dated: 9.22.2026 Sincerely, Jodi Rodar [

This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Please update the safety regulations regarding the safety limits of wireless radiation exposure to humans since it is wildly outdated considering the advances in technology and great increases in usage since the standards were set in 1996. I am especially concerned regarding the safety data on installing cell phone towers on school grounds since there is real concern for harm, specifically since children’s brains and bodies are still forming and their skulls are thinner than adults, allowing more penetration of EMFs. California firefighters were able to prevent cell towers from being installed on fire stations, we should be even more cautious with installing those towers next to schools.

As a massage therapist, I have seen firsthand a number of clients having distinct health issues as towers move closer, smart meters are installed regardless of refusal, and devices become so ubiquitous and unavoidable within every day life. This ,,technology" has literally never been tested on human beings, and I'm witnessing just how unequipped are nervous systems are to handle the horrible repercussions. I, also, recently heard that the FAA and aviation has also never been adequately tested, in terms of interference and safely landing planes. This industry poses no shortage of health risks and needs to be adequately evaluated....yet another institution where we are placing profit over human health. Please do the right thing by humanity.

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 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 nor is it an expert in medicine, but it continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. This issue matters to me personally because I truly thought I was going to die young as any and all I tried did not work. In fact, the 15 different problems I had just kept getting worse, until I read and read and research, and talked to others until it all pointed to EMF toxicity. Once I took care to "distance and avoid" problems disappeared. No one talks about the dangers of EMF; no one informs the customer buying wireless gadgets it could be harmful. That's why I had to suffer for years until I did my own research and found a way to help myself. Even today, if I'm out in a heavy EMF area or if in a room full of people cell phones, I feel terrible. This is a real problem! I bought an expensive meter to see that it was not "in my head". No, it's a real problem alright. 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. The FCC must act in accordance w/ the federal order. I would like FCC to do their job and do it well and thoroughly. Thank you for this opportunity to express what is a very real and personal problem.

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: After installation of a 5g tower within 1/4 mile of my home, we have experienced strange muscle pains along with GI issues. 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.

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. 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 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: Several members of or household are noticeably affected by wireless technologies. I experience physical symptoms of anxiety without any anxious thoughts when I hold my cellphone for too long. Symptoms include shakiness, externally visible heart palpitations, butterflies in my stomach, and an overwhelming urgency to put the phone down even though I am not done composing or reading an important message or email. I also get hot on my ear or side of head if I make a long call, or that hand gets oddly numb or tingly, or my ear starts ringing. Two members of our family have neurological problems that got considerably better when we turned the wifi router off. 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.

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 I am electromagnetic sensitive and have a negative reaction to wireless radiation and strong magnetic fields. Because wireless and 5G technology is everywhere, it is hard for my body to recover enough to heal. I am concerned about my children who are exposed to wireless in their school s. 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.

The FCC needs to reconsider the parameters regarding any ‘HARM’ that they are looking at. Previously they have only tested for the transference of ‘HEAT’ – that shows a disturbing lack of understanding of EMFs. I hope it is understood that devices such as microwave ovens, cell towers and cell phones emit certain frequences that cannot be seen, felt or smelled by a regular human being. This does not mean that they don’t exist and/or don’t cause harm! Take the example of X-rays. When I was growing up, when you went to a shoe store, you would expected to find an X-ray machine in every store so that customers could check to see if the shoe was a good fit for the foot. As kids we would take great delight in checking as many shoes as we could. It would take many years before it was discovered that X-rays were actually harmful to the human body! I suspect that the FCC is not taking the similarity between the seemingly harmless EMF frequencies and the dangerous effects of X-rays seriously enough. I was made aware of the effect of EMF’s when I was at a conference a few years ago in a hotel that was right next to a cell tower. One woman complained of feeling unsteady and slightly sick. She couldn’t come up with any reason why she might feel that way. When she moved closer to the center of the hotel the miserable, unsettling feelings would reduce a little. When she went outside she felt like collapsing, almost like her energy was being drained away from her. Since then I have heard of people who have had similar experiences and it has since been revealed that certain people are more sensitive to these EMF frequences than others. Like in the woman at the conference, no one else noticed anything untoward. Also, the FCC years ago was testing for the effects of the EMFs on plants. They promised to go back and do more of those tests, but they never did. I suspect that much could be learned by doing more investigations in that arena.

In 2021 I developed a cardiac arrhythmia (heart palpitation). I was 62 years old. I have been physically active my whole life including 18 years of playing box lacrosse. I found out about symptoms of EMF radiation and an arrhythmia was on the list along with sleep disorders. I immediately removed 2 cell phones, all cordless phones, wi-fi and turned off the "smart meter", on our property. Within one week my heart rhythm had gone back to normal and within about 6 months my sleep returned to a depth where I had forgotten about it. I have been formally trained as an Electronics Technologist (Telecommunications) and an Emergency Medical Technician - Ambulance. The arrhythmia as not returned and I continue to get deep sleep up to this day.