All comment threads

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. 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. My real world experience of wifi radiation impact on my health is current and ongoing; I've detailed it below. 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 was this past spring (2026) notified by my oncological nutritionist that the abrupt rise in my yearly a!C level likely is due to emf exposure. It shows pre-diabetes level 5.7, whereas my diet has kept it between 5.1 and 5.4 for many years, and I have not changed my eating plan this past year. The nutritionist showed me the current online map of cell towers and antennas within 3 miles of my Oakland home. 2300 plus antennas and about 1900 towers emit emf radiation which may be partly what's causing this. However most likely she said the worse source is my home wifi. In addition to blood sugar rise, I have insomnia and increasing tinnitus. So I've taken step one: hardwired my computer and dispensed with wifi. I've felt immediate relief, especially regarding the tinnitus. Will be interested to see results of my next a1C test later this fall. I am astonished that the FCC has let this situation get to this point in which people who are severely affected by the vast increase in efm radiation must make huge changes in their lives, including having to move. To me it's clear that emf has strong biological effects (beyond thermal) on humans (and animals, insects and plants). I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence we are submitting before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

It is unreasonable for the FCC to determine issues of health. The safety of any form of communication should be determined by disinterested qualified medical professionals. Otherwise we are subject to the wishes of business entities who want profit at any cost to public health.

I have had to move my office away from our college's technology help desk that I managed. Whenever I was working at the desk, I would feel a sense of brain fog that interfered with my work. I had difficulty performing my job because the brain fog interfered with my ability to concentrate. At home, I opted out of having a smart meter because it affected my heart, causing palpitations and irregular heartbeats whenever I was in the bedroom next to the meter. I have two grandsons who are very sensitive like myself, and I want to comment here in hopes of protecting them in the future from unwanted wireless EMR.

Hello, We need you to provide stricter rules on these companies who are putting profit over people. We have very little control over our exposure to radiation and it can be debilitating to our health. I personally get very bad headaches from this. You need to take action. Thank you!

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 noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall. I covered it and my heart palpitations decreased and my concentration increased. I also do a lot of gardening and I have noticed less bees every year. Human bodies and insects are not made to fend off all these radiation waves. Who knows what is really going on inside my body??? My sister lives in higher elevations and she can not keep fresh produce for more than 1-2 days, the radiation rots the food. 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.

One time I was sitting in the public library, using their WIFI, with my tablet, since I do not have WIFI at home and wanted to download something. My computer system at home is hard-wired. Driving home, I could barely stay in my lane, because my mind was so befuddled, I think because of the WIFI. I feel for the people who have to be in school, in public or in a workplace with WIFI unavoidably impinging on them. My hearing aids are some of the last models made which have FLIGHT MODE, whereby the bluetooth may be turned off. I have to turn it off each time I put them on, using a certain sequence of button presses. Until I have it properly turned off, I feel the bluetooth in my brain. It is difficult to describe the feeling of electromagnetic radiation. It is not like saying, "I have an earache" or "a tummy ache", as we would say to our mothers. It is akin to a pressure, a dark vapor, an unwelcomed presence. I feel the effects first in my head, then a tightness in the area of my heart. Of course, wireless radiation is immensly convenient and profitable, but I believe it is harmful, not just to sensitive people, and many are much more sensitive than myself, but to everyone in its proximity.

Hello, 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 it affects my family. My son has to sleep with his bed away from the wall because of the radiation being emitted by the electrical wires within the wall, and my husband can walk into a room and know if a wireless printer is turned on because his body senses it. We don't understand all the risks, especially because we can't see the radiation, but we can feel it. 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. Thank you

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. 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: Wireless radiation affects the health a vitality of children and families; causrs adverse health effects, and causes cancer; there are obvious concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; especially impacts bees, birds, pollinators, animals, wildlife, plants and the environment. 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. ALL CELL TOWERS MUST BE SHUTDOWN, REMOVED, DISMANTLED AND DESTROYED PERMANENTLY!!!