Cancer & tumors

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

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 ever since 5G rollout and towers popping up everywhere my and my loved ones' health has declined significantly. We can often feel when we're getting beamed by cell phones, routers, towers and suffer from headaches including migraines, malaise, thyroid and heart issues, cancer and overall ill health. When I measure with a milligauss detector in homes, businesses, hotels and airplanes the ratings are more often than not far beyond what is considered "safe". Very "low" levels cause leukemia in children - so no level is safe, correct? 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 no longer use a microwave; all my light bulbs are incandescent; I do not carry a cell phone on my body and when I do use it I do not hold it close to my head - I have so many friends who did/do and now have brain tumors. Indeed I carry it in a Faraday bag; all my phones and computers are hard wired. Why you may ask? Because when I did use those items in the way most people use them, I had headaches regularly. My husband had cancer, which I am fairly sure was negatively impacted by all things wire-less and partly the reason I changed away from wireless when he died. Since changing as I mentioned above, I no longer have headaches. 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.

To whom it may concern! 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 tired of seeing cell phone towers at kids schools and having wireless technology forced on us without proper safety studies. 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 have two children and while I can control how much RF radiation they are exposed to at home, I can not control how much RF radiation they are exposed at school and other places. I can't even control how much RF radiation our house is exposed to from the neighbors. None of us was exposed to this much RF radiation when we were children. We didn't have wifi, cell phones, even computers until we were teenagers. Young children are more vulnerable to RF radiation as their brain, nervous system, their body still grow. It's not possible to have long-term exposure studies yet as all the new wireless technologies are new and no one who is in their retirement age has been exposed to these technologies since birth. Now our children are under experiment! I strongly don't want my own children to be experimental rats to see if they are going to develop cancer or some other health conditions by the end of their life because of their constant exposure to RF radiation in school and other places! 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 am a health practitioner employing assessment methods of epigenetic expression and bioenergetic priorities of people and their pets, and I repeatedly see high challenges relative to microwave, cell tower, cell phone and other EMF emissions. Remediation of these exposures is costly and is never as good as simply not having the exposure in the first place. 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 studies on radiation have been proven to be harmful and we should not be exposed to this in our communities. Our government should care more about its people.

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 small children and new towers go up around our house all the time. There is no escape and I worry about the long term effects of the constant exposure. The laws and research have not caught up and we are being exposed 24/7 without being fully aware of the consequences. 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 rwdiation have been proven to be harmful to humanity, including but not limited to, biological and biochemical dysregulation. We the people have not voted on this and do not support this harm being positioned on our communities. 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.