All comment threads

Regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. This issue matters to me personally because I am negatively physically affected by RF radiation exposure and microwave radiation. I have to use my landline for communication. I will NOT give up my landline. I can't have Wi-Fi on my computer because, again, it affects my physical well-being. 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 filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

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: As a multispecialty board-certified physician with over 30 years of experience in the practice of medicine, I have consulted with and treated numerous patients who have reported significant health effects from exposure to RF radiation resulting from the use of cell phones or other wireless devices. These reported health effects have involved multisystem illnesses including neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and immunological. In a more personal manner, my wife has suffered serious ill health effects due to RF radiation exposure resulting from the use of a cell phone. The international scientific literature documents a clear signal regarding the potential noxious effects that exposure to RF radiation can have on human health. RF radiation exposure guidelines urgently need to be updated to reflect the current knowledge base in order to minimize the impact that the exploding wireless technology industry is inflicting on human health and the environment.

I was one of the first cell phone users, back around 1997, and used the device always, even when it was huge and required an antenna. And for the first 20 years, I held it right up against my ear. I developed a sore on my ear back around 2005 or so, that wouldn't heal. I never wanted surgery because I knew they'd take away part of my ear. But over the years, it only grew into full-on skin cancer. I always hoped I could cure or reverse it…but it became a permanent, painful, open sore. At this point, most of my ear is gone, and my hearing is diminishing on that side. I'm 76 and otherwise perfectly active and healthy. There is NO QUESTION that cell phone radiation caused skin cancer in my ear. And I'm glad someone is finally looking into this terrible problem that NO ONE takes seriously.

I would like to say that I read different publications and I watched videos about EMF and I am very concerned about it. I watched some scientists talking that this radiation breaks down the DNA and it causes cancer .My best friend who was a doctor she used to have her cell phone in the pocket ( left chest pocket ) and she developed left breast cancer and died of it. I also read that it causes thinning of the cerebral cortex and dementia , increases risk of neurodegenerative disorders 3 times and decreases the attention span . I also find myself many times I am kind of scattered. It definitely affected my eyes , I had a very good vision and now my eyes are not good anymore . I read the emf has the same radiation as the microwave and than I am thinking wow , Am I microwaveing my eyes !Since 30 Y ago I heard that Microwave is not good because it produces free radicals , so I never used it to heat the food or anything . Than some PHDs told me that it decreases your dopamine and it causes addiction . I read about EMF that it is way above the safety limit and that Children are more sensitive to it because their skull is not ossified until later. I can not imagine the horror of having this cells and tablets in the hands of the little children when they blind them and thin their cortex , or give them cancer and also sterility and decreases their attention span. Also I heard it gives brain cancer if kept near the temple when talking on the phone . The wireless headphones are very dangerous because to much EMF to the brain . Than everyone is talking about nanotechnology in vaccines and in Pepsi and Coca Cola and that this interact with EMF and connect us to internet which has the same brain wave as the brain and will hijaack our independent thinking and individuality and our sense of self. I think that regulating the emf exposure and this devices would be of great benefit for the children with are our future and for all the people overall.We need children that are smart and emotionally and physically healthy.

PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND ON RF RADIATION EXPOSURE GUIDELINES I am submitting this comment in direct response to the remand ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which mandated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provide a reasoned explanation for maintaining its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court made it abundantly clear that the FCC failed to establish that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect against non-cancer health effects, cumulative long-term exposures, vulnerability in developing children, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. As a communications regulator rather than a biomedical or health agency, the FCC cannot continue to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific evidence and real-world human experience while clinging to obsolete, thermal-only models. Why This Issue Matters Personally In my day-to-day work and personal life, I regularly interact with individuals, families, and chronically ill patients who report debilitating sensitivities and symptom flares when exposed to ambient, near-field, and cumulative wireless radiation. From headaches, brain fog, and severe sleep disruptions to heightened biological stress responses, these experiences are real, observable, and disruptive to daily living. Modern life has created an unprecedented environmental shift: citizens no longer experience single, isolated RF exposures. Instead, we are subjected to a continuous, overlapping blanket of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from modern cell phones held directly against the body, high-output Wi-Fi routers operating 24/7 in homes and schools, smart utility meters, and an accelerating density of small-cell infrastructure placed within feet of bedroom windows. To achieve even a baseline level of comfort and restorative sleep, an increasing number of people are forced to take extraordinary measures—relying on RF shielding fabrics, hardwired Ethernet connections, and physical barriers just to reduce ambient field exposure in their own living spaces. When individuals consistently experience tangible relief and improved well-being simply by eliminating or attenuating these fields, the agency's insistence that "no non-thermal biological effects exist" is directly contradicted by everyday reality. Furthermore, testing protocols that rely on large plastic mannequins (such as the legacy SAM phantom) filled with liquid do not reflect real-world device usage. Real people—and specifically children with thinner skulls, developing central nervous systems, and smaller body geometries—absorb proportionally higher rates of radiation from devices used directly against the head and lap. Direct Actions Requested of the Commission In accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s mandate, the FCC must: Defer to Legitimate Health Authorities: Re-engage with independent biomedical researchers, toxicologists, and relevant federal health agencies—including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)—rather than relying on decades-old industry assumptions. Update Testing Procedures for Modern Devices: Overhaul device compliance testing so that cell phones, tablets, and wearable tech are evaluated in direct contact with biological tissue at maximum power output, eliminating artificial separation distances. Establish Biologically Based Standards: Transition away from an outdated thermal-only standard to an exposure model that accounts for chronic, low-level, non-thermal biological impacts, pulsed wave modulations, and cumulative lifetime exposures. Evaluate Environmental and Wildlife Impacts: Give substantive, non-dismissive consideration to the documented impacts of radiofrequency radiation on plant biology, pollinator behavior, and avian populations. The public record must reflect that the public demands accountability, scientific integrity, and public health safeguards over unchecked commercial deployment. I urge the Commission to address each deficiency identified by the federal court completely, transparently, and rigorously. Respectfully submitted, James Concerned Citizen & Clean Environment Advocate

I get rashes, break outs, immune crashes, anxiety, panic attacks,... all while being a teacher with WIFI in my room. Most of it went away when I unplugged it. Now, I have my home WIFI router on a timer to turn off at night as it disrupts my sleep otherwise.

We urge the FCC to comprehensively study and report on the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation (especially on children) and we OPPOSE wireless towers and hotspots being constructed/ installed in residential areas. Thank you...

I’m grateful to have an opportunity to express my concern about radiation from cell towers and all 5G technology. I’m experiencing an inflammatory condition, causing rashes and neurological damage. I’m in the care of a chiropractor, a physical therapist, and several other healthcare providers and have been for several years since moving into the city of Montpelier from a rural town.

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