Cancer & tumors

I see hundreds of clients in my clinic with all manner of diseases. Brain Fog, Cancer, fatigue, Afib etc When these same clients go out of town, away from Cell towers, they get better. 5G towers put near homes are causing the most havoc. My wife gets ill every time we go to the downtown area of our city, where there are a huge number of towers. She can't go to our downtown area because of the cell towers. Studies have been shown towers must be at least 2000 or more away to mitigate damage.

I strongly oppose cell towers within 100 miles of any population. I also oppose smart meters. We live in a townhouse that has 6 smart meters within 6 feet of our bedroom. Since the meters have been installed, we have suffered significant health issues that have disappeared when we stay overnight somewhere else. Several studies done in several countries have all concluded using cell phones increases the risk of cancer. Several people have reported ill effects from living close to a cell tower. Cell towers disrupt other living organisms, particularly bees, by decreasing their populations and disrupting their form of communication and flying patterns. I do not consent to cell towers being anywhere near where people inhabit.

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 son and I often have tinniutus and head pressure/migraines from the wireless technologies that plague our home. We turn off our wireless at night, which has helped to a point, but are still surrounded by many neighbors who leave theirs on 24/7. We often do not feel well the longer we are on our cell phones and laptop because of such direct exposure of wireless frequencies. We can literally feel the uncomfortable frequencies driving past the cell towers or being near a smart meter. The wireless frequencies are disturbing the cells within our bodies because we are made of frequencies as well. It feels as if we have been guinea pigs/research subjects for so many experiments, and it's about time someone is putting a spotlight on wireless radio frequencies and its harmful consequences, so that we can do something meaningful about it. Overall, I believe that 1) homes and workplaces would have more reliable connections with wired services for phone, TV, computers, equipment than what wireless can provide. 2) There is also more security from being hacked with wired services. 3) There needs to be ethical longitudinal studies into wireless frequency and how it affects not just humans but also wildlife--animals, plants, soil, water, air, environment as a whole. 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 over the last several years, I’ve noticed trees dying, all my roses have died. My personal health has changed by lower energy, hair suddenly becoming thinner and low energy and brain feeling like it’s being zapped. Many salon owners say clients hair and symptoms similar. As an adult our bodies are feeling it, imagine children. It’s changing their minds and altering their behaviors and energy levels. Now all the nano particles in air, water, foods which we have no idea, then metals in them react to radiation. It’s logical. Even our animals are sensing it with lethargy waking at night (just like humans). Society wants to chalk it up as hormones, or adults getting older etc. That doesn’t fly anymore. We know the networks of corporate medical and energy industrial complexes. We are NOT buying the narrative they have repeated over and over. Nature to nature heals. Not nature with radiation, chemicals and greedy networks overriding public health and safety. The jig is up. Plain and simple. We want smart meters removed from ALL schools, hospitals, homes, etc. They shoved this tech down our throats for their greed and progressive soul ending “energy.” There are much better ways to power. Energy is free actually and we shouldn’t need to pay for harming people anymore. CHANGE IT NOW. Protect our CHILDREN, HUMANITY AND OUR PETS from this harm. With that being said 29072 has over 62 cell towers of all kinds within a three mile radius. Why? And cancer has increased in people, especially prostate and breast cancer. Kids have incredible add:adhd:addictions etc. I’m here 16 years and it’s ridiculous to amount of towers just popping up overnight in areas. The public is kept from knowing anything about it. You will see how much the medical system has increased patients. Maybe we need to audit the tower companies, medical centers locally, schools with WiFi. I’m sure it will open your eyes. Thank you for hearing my voice. I’m definitely feeling affects and hair thinning by this. I would move tomorrow if could but the network banks have us trapped in by interest rates. Another rabbit hole for you dig into. This says so much. You can see for yourselves. https://www.celltowermaps.com/cell-towers/near/zip-code/29072 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.

As a concerned parent , 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.

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 have seen how wireless radiation can impact my sleep and mood. 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: I experience negative physical affects being close to wireless 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.

I am the father of two children: Joel, seven and Bresly 12 years old. My wife and I didn't know any better at the time and left our kids use their wireless devices as they wished, as a result: Joel suffers from a constellation of symptoms from difficulty to concentrate to nose-bleeding ....and when we bring him to doctors they don't know how to diagnose or treat him. Bresly, at her young age is almost blind because her excessive use of wireless screens/devices. And we are "lucky" because our neighbor has cancer. We live within 110 meters of two cell towers and the vegetation here keeps dying and birds don't come to nest as before. In my opinion wireless technologies and devices should come with big radiation warnings.

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. I am pleased that 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. It is so important to require 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. I can remember reading the package insert of instructions when our cell phones were 2 and 3 G, and we were instructed not to keep the phone to the ear and to use an ear piece to have a conversation on the phone. I've seen my partners phone tells you when you are holding the phone too close. Obviously it is noted that wireless radiation can affect one's health. My daughter's children always had difficulty sleeping, when she lived next door to me in Long Beach, New York, her children now sleep much better at night since she moved out of New York on top of a mountain in North Carolina where the nearest tower is 3 miles away. She moved 4 years ago and her children then were 4, 7 and 10, so they were not infants when they had difficulty sleeping. I also have difficulty sleeping at night. but we have a house in the Adirondacks and I sleep great there, I hear a constant hum here in Long Beach. It is not tinnitus. I am an RN and I know the difference. The hum is not inside my head. It comes from outside and being that I also am a musician, I needed to hum to myself to match the note sound and it is an F sharp on the lower end of the piano give or take a 1/4 note. It hasn't changed the note since I've been noting it. I wired my household desk top computers to ethernet and turned off the wi- fi, to diminish the exposure while I'm on the computer, however of course I still have wifi in the house for TV and phone use. And the low hum is constant all day and night. I use a phone case with an EMF radiation barrier. I don't know how much it helps, but I know there are devices that help block the radiation. Perhaps the towers can be housed in a blocking radiation structure. I do know in the medical field we recommend not keeping cell phones close to the body or in pockets, especially for couples going through fertility treatments. So it seems it is known that EMF radiation does negatively affect the body. The big question here is how much do we let corporate greed dictate policy impacting all of humanity in a negative way. Thank you for your reaching out to Americans for their experiences and hopefully you can devise and implement ways to protect us. Lori Field, RN

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 am concerned for the safety of my family, friends and students/coworkers at the elementary school where I am employed. I have seen the behavior and mental health of my students decline once they were assigned one-to-one wireless devices. Children are using wireless devices at school and at home for excessive hours daily. We have a student in Children's Hospital undergoing treatment for a deadly cancer that normally affects senior citizens. Our electric company Eversource is currently replacing meters with smart meter and I am concerned about the effects on students and staff being bombarded 24/7 with more RF. 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.