Children, schools & development

This email is a reply to 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. It’s shameful that the FCC is not fully considering 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 must recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because ever since the summer of 2020, when 5G became ubiquitous without any testing or even discussion of its health impacts, I suddenly had EMF intolerance and tinnitus. Neither of these conditions normally appear suddenly, but huge numbers of people had the same experience that I did in 2020. The FCC’s job, among other things, is to protect people from harmful radiation. It is currently failing at this important duty. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it. To do less than this is to continue in its complete dereliction of duty.

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 a 73 year old male. Over the last few years I have developed a very real and very inconvenient sensitivity in my hands to any electromagnetic field generated by wireless devices. I now have to wear EMF protection gloves when I use my phone, tablet, TV/Roku wireless remotes or anything that is wireless and depends on WiFi or data modems or towers for signal transmission. My hands burn when I do not use my gloves, even when I use wireless devices for a few seconds! I've had to change all of my wireless computer accessories and return to wired/corded connections. All of this began happening during the 4G days. I have read many accounts similar to mine, and many that are worse than mine. Since I am adversely affected by the simple devices I named, what else is happening because of larger and more powerful structures, such as towers? I urge you to stop moving forward with technologies that immediately harm EMF/Radiation sensitive people like me and place everyone else, including yourselves, in a kind of living test laboratory. Auto-immune diseases and cancer rates are soaring, especially among young adults and children who are defenseless to speak up for themselves. Pursuing money and power over the health of Americans is unethical!

I live 500 meters from a high level 5/6 G tower. I have been experiencing severe headaches and restless sleep(I must wear special hats to mitigate some of it's effect to help with the pain) Also we used to have bees and they always died after a year These towers that are in residential areas and school zones must be taken down now.

I know when the cell towers went to 5 G, the children and families in the area of the tower all got sick. This was like having the flu, body aches, headaches. When the cell tower went in the farmers in the area had cows abort their calves and then you also had the uterine prolapse, which takes a cow out of production. Cornell did a study, never saw the results. It time to end the addition of towers, and upping the level.

Since the installation of 5G in y area I am tired so much of the time. My son who lives with me has to take a long nap during the day too. The before and after effect has been abrupt, not gradual. I try to keep as many wireless devices out of my home as possible, and even pay $10 a month extra to have an analog electrical meter. It amazes me how the government could make an experiment of this magnitude without being entirely sure of the health effects on every living creature on this planet.

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 in a condominium complex and my building has five attached units. Five out of the five units have residents who have been diagnosed with cancer, four with bladder cancer and one with lymphoma. We have had the water tested by the State DEP and the result shows no reason for concern. There are seven cell towers within three miles of our building, two of which are within less than one-half mile. 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: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants or the environment.] 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 as a disabled veteran, my years of exposure to very high EMF contributed to the cancer which is threatening my very life. As I was still on Active Duty when the cancer erupted, I didn’t have to prove causation, however the connection was very clear. 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 long-term exposure to this kind of technology has not been studied. So we do not know the facts, and it’s unacceptable to expose millions of people to this technology without doing studies to see if it’s safe or not. My personal experience has been that when I set up and started using my home office, my health deteriorated. I noticed that I always feel much better whenever I’m traveling and staying at a relative’s house, which is hardwired And each time I go back home and start working in my office again, my health deteriorates again. Since I live very near two large apartment buildings, I decided to check and see how many wifi networks reached my office. The most recent reading showed more than 25 networks can be accessed at the area where I am working much of each day. Since there are currently no studies that show whether this is safe or not, it is unnerving. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the iss idueentified by the court.