All comment threads

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

My Personal Testimony After the installation of a 5G cell tower in November 2021, constant high levels of microwave radiation began hitting my sleeping area through my bedroom window. As a result, my husband and I became very injured and sickly, experiencing the following non-exhaustive list of symptoms over an 18-month period: Sleep disturbances • Insomnia • Chronic fatigue • Never feeling refreshed Mood disturbances • Depression • Sadness • Irritability • Rage Vision problems • Blurry vision • Dry eyes • Floaters • Vision loss • Eye twitching • Sensitivity to light Neurological problems • Memory loss • Brain fog • Dizziness • Feeling disoriented • Saying the wrong words • Dropping things Heart problems • Palpitations • Chest pain • High blood pressure Hearing issues • Ringing in the ears • Hearing loss Physical pain • Sharp pain in ears • Joint and muscle pain • Leg cramping • Headaches • Burning and stabbing pain Hormonal issues • Hair loss • Thyroid enlargement • Thyroid nodule • Reproductive issues Metabolic issues • Weight gain • Inability to lose weight • Excessive weight loss Irregular temperature regulation • Getting overheated • Excessive sweating • Facial flushing Other • Teeth grinding • Hand tremors • Urinary issues • Aggressive nosebleeds • Trouble breathing • Coughing • Coughing up blood • Nausea • Dry heaving Based on MyChart data dating back to 2007, I went from an average of 2.5 doctor's visits per year to 22 doctor's visits within 18 months. The above list of ailments was generated from our doctors’ records during this time. During the 18 months of pain and sickness, we thought the air quality or pollution were responsible for how terrible we felt. Then, on a whim, I ordered an RF/Microwave radiation scanner, which led us to the source of our affliction. A thorough scan revealed radiation levels so high that the scanner could not register them (the meter’s maximum reading was 20,000 microwatts per meter squared). The readings came from a cell tower about 1.5 blocks away, which emitted a direct beam of radiation into our bedroom window, exposing us nightly to continuous microwave radiation. Upon discovering this, we blocked the radiation from coming into our window, which brought the signal down to almost nothing, almost eliminating the levels where we slept. That night, I experienced my first night of solid 8 straight hours of sleep in over a year. That was the first night that neither of us woke up repeatedly to use the restroom. Following this was the first morning in over a year that my husband was able to get out of bed without excruciating joint pain. That was the first night that our bodies began to heal. Since removing ourselves from this harmful environment 2 years ago, nearly all our symptoms have disappeared. I have returned to my previous rate of 2.5 doctor’s visits per year. All that remains for me is a shrinking thyroid nodule and a sensitivity to RF/microwave radiation exposure that yields unpleasant to unbearable physical reactions. The entire experience, including its aftermath, has been extremely difficult, scary, and sad for my family. It took two years to recover emotionally and find the strength to share my story. Although I hate telling people about this, I do so out of love, because I don’t want anyone to go through what happened to us.

I'm not sure what triggered my first attack a couple years ago, but one night I was awakened by an excruciating headache, heart palpitations, loud tinnitis, and a strong uncomfortable "buzzy" feeling throughout my body. It took more than a day to recover, but since then I still experience tinnitis (when it gets especially loud, I know I need to leave the area), a light buzzy feeling throughout my body, and an almost daily headache. I hired a building biologist to help me mitigate the EMR present in my home. This helped somewhat, but I experienced another attack not too long ago. I opted out of Eversource's smart meter, but I hate paying a company to not harm me.

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 matters to me personally because my family (especially our son with brain-injury) has repeatedly noted the negative effects of the increasing presence of radio frequency radiation. Although my husband and I have experienced difficulty sleeping, headaches and difficulty focusing, it is our son who is most noticeably affected by these symptoms. We have observed him more symptomatic in the presence of cell towers or buildings with high levels of wi-fi and a cessation of these symptoms when vacationing in remote parts of NYS. When a smart meter was installed by our electric company, my son cried all night. I thought he was sick but walked around the house, discovering the new meter. Our power company quickly and very cooperatively replaced it with an analog meter (for which we pay a monthly reading fee) and my son's crying and sleeplessness ceased. We do all we can to minimize wireless signal in our home, but it is impossible to avoid the increasing exposure, unstudied and unregulated. 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 pleased that the FCC is reopening the record on the health and environmental impacts from RF radiation exposure. Neighborhoods now seem to be full of 5G cell towers and nobody knows what effect all this radiation has on human bodies and on the environment. Also we don't know how the constant presence of our cell phones and routers is affecting us because radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices has not been updated. I wonder if some of the mental confusion I've experienced lately can be attributed to having these devices around me so many hours each day. I encourage the FCC to sincerely and thoroughly undertake these studies.

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 can not be anywhere where there are cell towers nearby or even around people carrying cell phones. There is definitely a health affect from the radiation being emitted from all these devices. I will get headaches and migraines and feel awful in a short time and have to leave the area I am in. If I see a cell tower overlooking a main street when I am on vacation, I won't even attempt to go shopping on the street. It is ridiculous how cell towers are put right where people want to be. I have even seen them right on school grounds. There needs to be good regulations on cell towers because they are making people short tempered, giving people anxiety and all kinds of health problems that they aren't even aware of. I keep my home wi-fi free and require anyone who enters to turn their cell phone off or even wrap it in aluminum foil since they don't even seem to really shut off anymore. 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 have had the following symptoms from combinations and interactions of emf pollution and vaccine shedding: hemorrhage from ears, nose, rectum, vagina, bladder ocular hemorrhage, a very painful condition which affected my vision, and from which I, have not yet fully recovered throat swelling or irritation, sore throat headaches, commonly occipital, parietal, and frontal brain fog, confusion, slow thinking, transient aphasia disorientation in space or time, sometimes leading to falls or minor injury; sore, blocked meridians indications of cerebellar interference such as uncoordination of left and right or arms and legs sinus irritation, pain, congestion, or pressure as though a cold is coming on, with sneezing, cough, and runny nose bruising on hands or arms, usually from directly touching the skin of an injected person, occasionally from proximity alone pressure or pain in ears, temporary dulling of hearing tinnitus, frequently sudden-onset upon exposure pain in appendix muscular cramps in legs or feet chest tightness, spasm, pain; difficult to inhale; poor perfusion while breathing hard nausea heart spasm and pain; sometimes feels as though my heart is struggling to beat, or jumping out of my chest tachycardia, usually briefly, upon initial contact extended periods of elevated heart rate, even while lying down vertigo abdominal spasm or pain spasm or aching in spleen diarrhea lienteric stool ovaritis, sudden sharp pain or aching of ovaries, or generalized pelvic pain, pelvic inflammation bladder spasm, urgency to urinate, similar to UTI symptoms anxiety insomnia mood swings brain fog feeling dazed malaise shortness of breath sudden-onset weakness fatigue, frequently sudden-onset visual blurring or distortion conjunctivitis rashes, often continuing for several days after exposure cysts, developing the day following exposure, slow to resolve sudden-onset desire to flee feeling of dread: oh, no, i, feel those same toxins again! feeling of panic or fear at the strong possibility that I’m getting yet another headache, and my breathing is being inhibited—again—by these same, now-familiar toxins kidney pain body aches fever plantar fasciitis cough, excessive phlegm lymphatic congestion, especially inguinal, axillary, submandibular asthmatic wheezing coccygeal nerve pain neuralgia in hands, legs, feet, neck, head high white blood cell count, observed under microscope through live blood analysis in october 2023, accompanied by fatigue and mild fever general feeling of assault to my aura, bioelectric field anxiety, stress, health issues such as sinus pressure, congestion, swollen lymph nodes, eye irritation and hemorrhage; malaise, brain fog and feeling dazed, mood swings, sore throat, aching chest pain; and an increase in static electricity from my body; all shortly after known exposure; these have happened repeatedly and still happen to this day; grief over loss of connection to soulful companions; concern of great potential for disease due to dna damage; existential disquietude over potential loss of identity due to dna degradation; economic hardship due to inability to serve vaccinated persons in capacity of touch-related assistance; that is, i, develop debilitating symptoms upon touching a vaccinated person, and am unable to continue; i do and have never had a mobile phone, as i find it harmful to touch one (if it is on). i have myself observed with a small rf meter, the interaction between signals from covid injected persons and wi fi, cell towers, mobile phones; i do assert that this phenomenon exists. if the rf signal is low or blocked enough that it does not harm me, the cell phone does not work. all of these devices must be removed from the environment altogether. i am available and would be happy to testify at court, provided that i will not be irradiated at the courthouse, as this is harmful. for more references on this issue, please see 2:26-cv-oo795-sdm, mauger v. ebel, currently filed at federal district court columbus ohio; i am a witness for this claim. i have interviewed approximately thirty people regarding these issues; i can provide contacts for more statements. here is my landline number: 513 489 9777; i invite a phonecall. thank you, beverly

I have been aware of the fields and energies relating to EMF for years and taken evasive action where possible, including spending thousands of dollars on neutralizing technologies that are not up to the task. We moved into a condo in TN and later saw a mast .3 miles away by I-40. The number of antenna is now up to about 20, up from about 4. At the same time, the number of masts within a 3 mile radius is about 15. During this time, I have perceived a rapid deterioration in my ability to focus, and the beginnings of Parkinsons, especially shaking hands. I have used tri-meters to measure the EMF. We had to leave our condo in Pinellas, FL because the readings were so high as a result of having average 200 towers in a 3 mile radius. Sleep is fitful. When we go to a friend in the mountains of North Carolina, we sleep very well because there are no towers nearby.

I am writing as a private citizen regarding ET Docket No. 13-84 and the Commission's response to the D.C. Circuit's remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The court remanded for the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer, and directed it specifically to address its testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices, the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the guidelines were last updated, and environmental effects. That mandate issued in October 2021. Nearly five years passed before this record was reopened. The delay is itself part of what the Commission should account for. The scale of what is being decided. The guidelines at issue were set in 1996. In the three decades since, wireless exposure has gone from occasional and voluntary to continuous, ambient, and involuntary. Nearly every person in the country is now exposed, in every room they occupy, from birth, with no practical ability to opt out. Because FCC limits and FCC device certification shape international practice and because US-certified handsets are sold worldwide, the reasoning the Commission puts on this record does not stay domestic. The Commission is not choosing between acting and waiting. The exposure is already universal and expands by default while the question remains open. Continuing without a reasoned explanation is itself a decision, and it is the one the court found inadequate. On children, specifically. This is where the Commission's position is weakest, and where the consequences of being wrong are least recoverable. SAR compliance testing relies on a standardized head phantom derived from adult male anthropometry. Children differ in head size, skull thickness, tissue dielectric properties, and the proximity of developing tissue to the device. The Commission has not explained why a model built on adults adequately represents them. More fundamentally: a child born today will accumulate RF exposure continuously from infancy across a full lifespan. No epidemiological cohort of that kind exists, because no such population has yet lived long enough to be studied. The reassurance drawn from existing studies of adult mobile phone users does not transfer to that exposure profile — not because those studies are wrong, but because they did not examine it and could not have. The Commission should say plainly whether it is treating the absence of such evidence as evidence of adequacy. If it is, the court's remand is not satisfied. If it is not, it should state what would satisfy it, and on what timeline. On device testing procedures. Under 47 CFR § 2.1093(d)(2) and OET guidance in KDB 447498, portable devices are certified for body-worn operation at a manufacturer-specified separation distance. Actual use does not match that condition. Phones are carried in pockets, held against the body, and used in skin contact for hours daily — and by children, whose use patterns the certification regime never contemplated. Independent regulator testing, including measurements by France's Agence nationale des fréquences, has found handsets exceeding applicable limits at zero separation. This is a bounded, testable question and the court identified it first. The Commission should either justify the protocol against documented use or revise it. On institutional expertise. The Commission's 2019 order relied substantially on the Food and Drug Administration, including the April 24, 2019 letter from the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Deference to a health agency is appropriate — the Commission is not a health agency and holds no expertise in biology, toxicology, or pediatric development. But deference is not the reasoned explanation the court required. The Commission should state which specific remanded questions federal health authorities have actually evaluated, on what record, and when. Where they have not addressed a question, the Commission should say so rather than treat silence as endorsement. Given the concurrent request for information issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Commission should coordinate with HHS, incorporate its evidence assessment into this docket, and explain how that assessment informs its conclusions. Neither agency should be able to defer to the other while the exposure continues to expand. I have three children. They did not choose this exposure, they cannot avoid it, and they will carry it for a lifetime under a standard written before any of them were born and before the technology that now surrounds them existed. I am not asking the Commission to conclude that harm has been proven. I am asking it to do what the court ordered: address each of these questions on its merits, state clearly which it is answering and which it is deferring, and put its actual reasoning on the record.

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