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 is important to me because the researchers I trust who don't have financial ties to the cell phone industry are showing a strong correlation between cell phone radiation exposure and cancer, as well as to nervous system disruption. 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.
The risks of EMF radiation hasn’t been studied in decades. I know for a fact my family and I have more health issues as a result of Wi-Fi radiation. When I remove us from as much of it I can for an extended period of time our symptoms Always go away, but return once we are back living in this high field of radiation all around us in the city , schools, hospitals, doctors, everywhere. If you aren’t concerned for the American people, as it’s obvious you’re not, think of your children and their children. Only GOD, the great I AM can get us out of this mess man has created
Wireless radiation causes me to have screaming tinnitus every minute of the day and therefore I never get any quality sleep, due to it both keeps me awake and wakes me up if I'm asleep.
I am very concerned, stressed, and worried about the abundant and rapid roll out of antennas, cell towers, 5G, and wi-fi routers in so many public places and schools. I do not feel there is adequate protections, testing, and transparency in the Cell and wireless industry. I am also worried for the babies, bats, bees, birds, and big mammals at sea affected by underwater sonar. The technology is moving so fast and furious that animals, birds, and humans have become Guinea pigs in a giant experiment of Eco smog, EMF, and EMR microwave radiation. Many people are showing symptoms of Electro Magnetic Hypersensitivity (EMS) and wireless exposure. Companies are well known for producing products with harmful issues and only strict regulations will force them to do the right thing. We need Liability Guidelines & Rules to protect the consumers. Please do the right thing and protect people from high tech advancements that expose animals and people to EMF and EMR. 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 suffer heart palpitations, headaches and sleep difficulties as a result of proximity to RF emissions, wireless routers and the proximity of wireless enabled devices. Turning off and/or removing wireless technology results in dramatic improvements in my energy level and ability to sleep through the night, and it also stops my heart from beating irregularly. Thank you for your consideration.
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 suffer from health issues that are exacerbated by forced exposure to wireless electric company meters on the wall of my house right outside my bedroom. In addition to computer routers, cell phones and neighbors smart technology, I am bombarded by radiation contributing to fatigue, brain fog, insomnia and anxiety. 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.
My 14 year old son cannot look at an iPhone in the mornings as the light and radiation from the phone hurts his eyes and head. WiFi hurts my sons head and eyes all day long.
Please do all you can to reduce wireless radiation as I deal with head pain everyday to the point of disability and nothing can be done. Our children deserve better as their bodies are being attacked in numerous ways and this may affect their abilities to conceive their own children!!
My name is Tina Kim Noble. I live in Boise, Idaho. I am filing this comment so the Commission has a human record, not only paper studies, when it finally answers the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 order to explain whether 1996 radiofrequency limits protect people from long-term exposure. Bob was my partner. As a young adult he was a ham radio operator. He and his friend spent long hours next to towers and transmitters. He believed that early, close work beside the towers was connected to what killed him. I can tell you what happened to him, how fast it took him, and how it feels for someone who lost the love of her life. He called me right after walking on the stair climber at Fort Boise. He had tried to speak and could not. A few days later we were together in the afternoon. He looked at me and tried to say that he loved me. He mouthed the words. Only drool came out. We hoped it was a TIA. It was a tumor. They said the best surgeon was in Seattle. We went immediately. The doctor came in and told us it was inoperable. Grade 4 glioblastoma. Bob and his sister, who had flown in from Florida, sat and listened. I collapsed in tears. We got home from Seattle on September 10, 2001. On the morning of the 11th I walked into the living room and saw the plane hit the tower. Watching it fall, I thought the world was ending. It was all too much to take in at once. The doctor gave him four months without chemo and radiation, nine months with them. He started Temodar and radiation. For months we talked about miracles. He took steroids to keep the swelling down. The steroids changed him. He became paranoid and angry. He thought I was having an affair. I asked him when I would have had time—raising three children, working, and driving him to radiation. When he needed round-the-clock care, his sister came to Boise. I kept calling and visiting. He lost all speech. One day I knew something had changed. I called her. He had stopped the chemo. Shortly after he had a seizure, then a stroke, and then he died. Before he died I got to say goodbye. He could not speak, but the love was back in his eyes. He patted the bed for me to sit beside him a while. I told him how much I loved him and how much I would miss him. Cody and Jenny (my two oldest) said goodbye too. Cody called him “brittle-bones Bob” because Bob was quite a bit older than I am. Bob loved that. We all loved him. I still do. Twenty-five years later I can finally feel the size of that loss. The Commission’s 1996 limits treat the body as safe if it does not heat. They were not written for a man who worked in a building next to towers for years, or for a family that later watched speech, personality, and then life leave in a few months. The court already told you to address long-term exposure, people close to sources, and whether those old testing rules still protect anyone. Please do that work. Do not close this record with another sentence that a certified device is fine if it does not cook tissue. I am asking you to stop pretending a 1996 thermal number is a complete answer to a grade 4 glioblastoma in a man who spent heavy time next to transmitters. Respectfully submitted, Tina K Noble, 208-629-9415
10 comments displayed. More load as you scroll.
These are separate official submissions grouped by topic. A comment can appear in more than one board.