Cancer & tumors

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.

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.

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 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

In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the router because the radiation was burning my ear and causing skin cancer. My doctor had a couple of options for me: chemo and/or radiation, or lop off my ear. Neither of those were palatable to me, so I found a holistic salve that killed the cancer. My ear is permanently disfigured, but at least it's still there to support my eyeglasses. This madness needs to stop! If I'm that sensitive to 3G, I can't imagine what 5G or 6G will do to me! It's terrifying!

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 been severely and adversely affected by wireless radiation. My health and career have been severely hampered by the exposures, and I have suffered immensely as a result. I have also been bullied by many people in my life because of my intolerance for exposure to wireless radiation. I live in constant fear of a wireless transmitter being installed near or on my home and the debility that would result. I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to remediate my home and purchase protective clothing and other equipment that allows me to leave the safety of my home for short periods. This needs to be addressed at a federal level and the citizens' safety, health, and wellbeing prioritized and protected. The current level of exposure is unacceptable and the direction we are headed in as a nation poses an even greater threat to my safety and wellbeing.

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: You need to obey the court, and do your job. The thousands of studies (many of them Russian) need objective evaluation. Stop relying on the decades old decision that harm can’t be done without tissue heating. Look at glioma rates. Stop Stonewalling us. 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 The guidelines that FCC has in place is from decades ago. At that time we didn’t have as many electronic or computerized devices. More devices means more usage of RF and harm to people, the environment and all its inhabitants.

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: Our family personally feels mentlaly and physically drained and gets headaches when exposed to WiFi or towers for extended period of time. A good friend of ours who lives near a cell tower has experienced pregnancy complications and a baby born at 23 weeks, who passed away shortly after birth. Another close friend qho lives by a 5G antenna has many autoimmune and health issues. Ontop of this, there are many people who live by cell towers and antennas who develop cancers. 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.

This issue matters to me personally because I have experienced significant and persistent health problems that I associate with electromagnetic radiation exposure beginning in 2018. In approximately 2018, after water and gas smart meters were installed near my home, I began experiencing a number of symptoms that were unusual for me and that developed over a relatively short period of time. These included persistent tingling and numbness in my hands and feet, severe sleep disturbance and insomnia, dizziness and balance problems, palpitations, migraines, tinnitus, nausea, weakness, body aches, burning eyes, temperature dysregulation, difficulty typing and thinking, and other neurological symptoms. I also experienced episodes of vomiting, which was unusual for me. These problems became severe enough that I was unable to continue working. I have experienced chronic fatigue and neuropathy/polyneuropathy, and my medical record includes documentation concerning effects from electromagnetic fields/radiation. I have continued to seek medical care and evaluation for my symptoms. One of the most significant observations in my experience has been what happens when I am away from my home environment. On occasions when I have stayed away from my home, including a period in 2024 at my sister's home where there were no smart meters, I experienced noticeable improvement in my symptoms. I have also experienced improvement during shorter periods away from my home. I cannot determine from these observations alone what caused my symptoms, but the repeated difference between my home environment and locations away from it is one reason I believe my experience warrants serious investigation. My exposure concerns have continued as additional electric meters have been installed near my residence. Multiple electric meters are now located under or near my bedroom windows. I have become so concerned about my bedroom environment that I have been unable to sleep there for an extended period and now sleep on my sofa. It is difficult to describe what it feels like to no longer feel comfortable in your own home. I have lost my ability to work and the financial independence that came with it. I live on a fixed income. Ordinary things that most people take for granted—sleeping in my own bedroom, concentrating, typing, using my hands normally, feeling steady on my feet, and simply feeling well enough to function through the day—have become difficult. I have also experienced increasing numbness in my hands and feet and dizziness. At times I have difficulty feeling objects in my hands, which has affected ordinary activities and has caused me concern about driving and my safety. I have photographs, videos, medical records, and other documentation relating to my experience and the electromagnetic environment around my home. I am willing to make supporting documentation available if requested. I am not asking federal agencies to treat my individual experience as scientific proof of causation. I am asking that experiences such as mine be taken seriously and considered as part of the broader investigation into possible non-cancer health effects, long-term and cumulative exposure, individual susceptibility, and real-world exposure conditions. I never expected that I would have to choose between my health and my own home. I never expected that I would lose my ability to work or that ordinary daily activities would become difficult. I am sharing my experience because I do not want other people—particularly children, older adults, people with existing health conditions, or people who may be especially sensitive to environmental exposures—to find themselves in the same position without their experiences being heard or investigated. I respectfully urge the FCC and the Department of Health and Human Services to listen to people who are reporting these experiences and to ensure that appropriate medical, biological, and public-health expertise is included when evaluating the safety of current exposure guidelines.