All comment threads

I am concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electronic device and use air buds all the time.One has ADHD and the other has gone through some depression, which I am sure the constant radiation exposure doesn't help. I am worried about this whole younger generation and what the years of exposure, that is cumulative will do to them. Their school has 2 5or6 G towers outside it, so even playing & watch soccer games, we do not feel safe. Please do current testing, as the radiation is so much stronger now than previous test on how it affects the brain body.

I am very concerned about EMF exposure on our health, animals and the environment. I am highly sensitive to it and have had health issues from it. It is not good for our health. The testing for how it affects our bodies is out of date. Please start honest testing and protect us from it. Also, data centers! Please stand up for our health against big business. That is what you are hired to do.

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. This issue matters to me personally. I initially became aware of the presence wireless devices when my city began installing smart meters. Soon I began felling dizzy, oozy, unsteady on my feet, and even felt like my skin was being pricked with sharp needles. The discomfort now includes cold numb hands and fingers. My body feels fatigued , reaching the point of exhaustion. I am specially concerned with the effects of short, medium and long-term exposure to wireless radiation on our children, growing under this ever present radiation. 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.

Dear Sirs, Twenty years ago when living in Taiwan, I knew a girl there who was very sensitive to everything. For example, she would feel uncomfortable when walking in front of an operating microwave oven. And, she preferred Nokia to Motorola mobile phones, because the latter hurt her more when using (holding up to her head/ear). Around that time, I started carrying a mobile phone in a holster on my hip (popular to do then). After about a month, I started to feel a pain in my groin and, fearful and remembering my friend (a "canary in a coal mine"), I stopped carrying the phone there (instead putting it in the outermost pocket of my backpack). After a few days, the pain was gone and did not return. Instead of being captured by the industry (as all government agencies seem to be nowadays), you might conduct a serious, impartial, and independent investigation into the potential harms of wireless radiation (which are now even more ubiquitous in our society), and take decisive, impactful action if any harms are found.

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 directly adversely impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community in where he resided. We know other countries limit exposure, even China requires pregnant women to 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.

I am a biostatistician. There is no data on long-term biological effects of RF exposure, and precious little data on acute effects. This is completely unacceptable. Even if we accept that wireless communications are a part of our society and our economy, here to stay, there are policy decisions to be made about transmission protocols, tower placements, and power limits. These should depend on frequency and on modulation, and we don't have the information we need to minimize health impacts. Let's begin now a massive program of information gathering.

I experienced serious vertigo from a 5G cellphone. I experienced insonmia from sleeping near a wifi router. I experienced anziety from sleeping near a wifi router. I have now mitigated the wifi radiation emitting devices with faraday cages. and my symptoms have gone away. Im very sensitive to wifi radiation.

It is time to review:The impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation. The ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996. The impacts of RF radiation on the environment. The adequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices.

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 autistic son continued to have seizures and medications did not stop his seizure. The wireless router about 6 meters away from him got damaged and it was replaced with another one further away from him. Within 3 months his seizures stopped! He did not have seizures for 2 years and he got another seizure after he used a phone for several hours for an activity. 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 a medical doctor, board certified in both family practice and environmental medicine. I have seen countless patients who were sickened by wireless radiation. Some were permanently damaged from the prolonged exposure. Others had to leave their home and live in remote areas of the country in order to regain their health. The amount of radiation that we are being exposed to is starting to play a major role in destroying the health of our population.