All comment threads

My entire life shifted six years ago. Before my demise, I was a successful actress, wrote four books, two screenplays, started a children's theater company, became a spiritual marketer supporting the holistic, therapeutic community, and traveled the world. And then, my world stopped. In succession, I was exposed to mold, botulism, Roundup, and Radiation Poisoning. The radiation was the worst, triggering severe Tinnitus. You see, you can't smell, feel, or see radiation, but you feel it. It still feels like the wires in my brain are shifting. My memory is disappearing; I can no longer sleep through the night. I had to move seven times to stay away from towers, antennas, and transformers. It became worse when the "powers that be" started ramping up the radiation. My teeth started hurting every time I opened the computer. I had to get all my crowns out and get new ones that were compatible with my microbiome. I had to sell my car, buy an old Jeep, remove anything that was electric, and choose a car with fewer EMFs (electromagnetic fields). My gut is worse than ever. I developed SIBO, and no longer have a stomach that can digest anything. I weigh 95 pounds instead of 120. Clearly, it is getting harder and harder to find a place to live where I can use an Ethernet cable or remove the Digital Meter attached to one's home. Analog meters are safer, as they don't bring radiation into the home. Perhaps, one day people will come together and create a safe place to live WITHOUT wires, Transformers, and Towers (that are now being covered with green leaves).

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: My mother contracted ear cancer and had to have the top portion of her ear surgically removed. I have been having headaches almost every day since 1993. 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: Because at the time that all this wireless radiation was being rolled out in Arlington Virginia my Vitamin D started declining despite getting lots of sunshine. I became prediabetic as my blood sugar increases coincided with each subsequent decline of vitamin D as measured by tests at the doctor's office. I started taking increasing doses of vitamin D3 which helped me avoid diabetes but I eventually developed other autoimmune issues despite a healthy diet and active lifestyle. The doctors I saw were all baffled. I can't prove that EMF was the cause but I suspect that how EMF affects various minerals in the body, like magnesium and calcium, had something to do with 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.

I was living in Fayetteville AR. when cell phone towers first began going up, and there was one near my home. I am very sensitive to EMFs, and when I drove past the tower, I could feel a very toxic energy being emanated from it. I began to have panic attacks because I was becoming forgetful, and I feared I might be coming down with early onset Alzheimer's, but I also suspected it might have been due to the cell phone technology. I decided to move to a much more rural area and as soon as I did, I was fine. Sadly, there is no longer many ways to escape the dangers of cell phone tech. Since then, I have become a member of an international forum online which discusses at length the many toxins , both biological and technological, that are infesting the planet now. There has been no lack for a very long time of very credible evidence about how toxic cell phone tech is not only to humans, but to many lifeforms on Earth, including the bees which human life depends on to continue. I believe we are in the End Times, which so many prophets have warned us against, and that we all need to make sure we are ready to meet our Maker. Those who defend these dangerous technologies will have much to answer for when they do.

The only way to avoid radiation from these horrendous boxes that line every corner of my world...when I was looking to buy a home and finally finding one I like and can afford, I looked up....and what????? A box the size of my car directly over this country home. Well, didn't buy it and got sick to my stomach Take these things down and let's get back to why we are here on this planet. To make it better, not burn it down.

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.

It is damaging to every living thing! But the big companies are making tons of money so they will fight it! RF has made me dizzy, all the time!

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: We believe a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was negatively impacted by cell towers located outside the mobile home community where he resided. Other countries limit exposure, even China requires all pregnant women wear EMF protective clothing. 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.

Four years ago, I started having unexplained irregular heartbeats, often in the middle of the night but also during the day. I knew about the health issues arising from proximity to cell towers but didn't see any immediately around where I lived. I hired a woman who was a specialist in measuring the amount of radiation in one's home environment as well as in one's body. Her equipment was expensive and made in Germany. When she tested my bedroom and apartment, the test reflected off-the-chart numbers (we combed the neighborhood and did find a tower--mostly obscured--very nearby). But more startling, discovered how much radiation my body was absorbing! I also watched a video test of a gentleman with no heart symptoms who, when hooked up to a monitor, had significant heart abnormalities when a smart meter--in another room and out of sight to the test subject--turned on and off. I then had my room painted with a special paint and used a specialized blanket to help protect me from these heart anomalies. These things did help, but they all stopped when I moved to a semi-rural location with no 5G towers!!! Please, PLEASE put an end to these towers!!!

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: We believe a family friend, was negatively impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community, and recently died of cancer. Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women. 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.