Cancer & tumors

There is no reason the FCC should be allowed to ignore a court order demanding that recent research be not only explored but used to develop new safety guidelines for the human exposure to EMFs. They damage health. The research is there. It makes me wonder who the FCC is in bed with so they do not have to abide by court orders. I thought the FCC existed to keep us safe too. The present guidelines are too old. Guidelines and safety standards need to be studied for 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G and 10G. No human or animals should be exposed to this much radiation. There are radiation safety standards for a reason. Is it all about the money? Money over health. We cannot get away from EMFs. Cell phones, wi fi towers, are all around. And companies just want more and more placed by schools, nursing homes, churches and neighborhoods. My headaches increase more often. According to my biofeedback my ATP cellular energy is lowered by more and more radiation effects. Hospitals and clinics have to follow strict radiation standards and so should EMF companies. Since I have cancer, I cannot afford to have a weakened immune system. Since EMFS cause that weakness, I should be able to sue EMF companies for my health bills. I say NO MORE CELL TOWERS, NO MORE WIFI BOOSTERS. Our country is sick enough.

Hello - My doctor has identified me as an emf sensitive person. He has instructed me to protect myself from these harmful frequencies. I know personally people who have died of cancer from using cell phones. I would love to see you the FCC be interested and invested in making these products safe. Another doctor I see has expressed that there are frequencies that could be used which are beneficial instead of harmful. I wonder why does no one seem to care about this or be interested in developing these? Please do the right thing and find ways to change these devices ie cell phones, computers etc. with safety as our main goal. Let's be the intelligent sensitive human beings that we are meant to be... 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. 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. 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 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 family and I live 50 yards from a large 5G tower that hovers above a track and field and a playground. I can see the tower from my front yard and my family and I have experienced frequent headaches, brain fog and sleep disturbances. There are two children in our area who have been diagnosed with leukemia and it is difficult to not assume the 5G tower could have had some impact. We live in a densely populated neighborhood where many families are impacted by the use of this large tower. In addition to the tower, AT&T and Verizon have placed at least Four 5G "boosters" within a 100 yard radius of my home. They are in our alleyways and along our sidewalks. My Broadband RF meter detects levels far above "safe" at extreme levels (87,000 µW/m²). My children are exposed to this around the clock while at home. Would you feel comfortable with your family in this environment?

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 live by a large cell phone tower that is emitting radiation. I have read the book "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg, which gives a very strong case that EMF exposures can cause serious health effect. I have also read the book "The Body Electric" by Robert Becker, a scientist who studied the impact of EMF on biological systems and health. It is very difficult for a person like me to have the resources to prove that health issues are caused by EMFs. But it should be the responsibility of the government to make sure that environmental effects are not introduced which are dangerous to human health and potentially to the health of all biological things. It is difficult to prove which adverse health effects are being caused by EMFs since there is essentially no control group -- everyone is being bathed in 4G, 5G etc. Is it just a coincidence that the whole Covid-19 "pandemic" happened at the same time as the rollout of 5G cell towers across the country? 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: During 2021 when 5G was introduced to my neighborhood, I developed tinnitus, vertigo, and was unable to sleep in my bedroom secondary to headaches. I discovered, by using an EMF meter, that some of my issues were due to the Smart meter that had been placed on our home, outside, electrical meter. Once this was removed, I was able to sleep in my bedroom but I still experience the tinnitus especially in some parts of my home. However, when I am outside walking at the park, the tinnitus is almost totally resolved as I am away from the home wifi. I have also noticed that flies die very shortly after entering the home which I suspect might also be due to the wifi exposure. 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 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.

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.