Children, schools & development

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: A dear elderly friend of mine killed herself last November after months of living with nearly constant radio-chatterfrom a nearby microwave tower, no matter what she tried, including a Faraday Cage, which helped incompletely. She was clear-headed, not mentally ill. She had lived through a lot, including metastatic breast cancer 20 years before, but this did her in. 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'm without energy, I'm so tired that my level of activity is very limited, I have chronic insomnia, my wounds take months to heal if at all. My mind is foggy and I can't concentrate. My vision has gotten worse very quickly. 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: There are many reasons that I know that RF is harmful; my own personal experience from when I have the opportunity to stay with friends that live very far from congested areas. Ear ringing goes away and headaches are less. They, the headaches and ear ringing, come back as soon as I return home to Yardley boro. Also, I’m an acupuncturist and I have many patients that tell me similar stories about decreased symptoms when they leave the area. Some patients are much more sensitive than others and some of them have moved to less congested areas specifically to get away from the cell towers. To be honest and frank; it’s really disgusting because the FCC has been getting complaints about this for quite a long time and the complaints have only increased IMO because they allow stronger RF to be emitted. And why? Because ask anybody if there reception or speed of their phone or internet connection has gotten any better and according to my experience The reception has not gotten any better. Yet the FCC in its own infinite ignorance has decided that it can allow the placement of these ugly cell towers all over the place and then try to make them look acceptable by disguising them as trees. You are destroying the health causing suffering and other debilitating and possibly deadly diseases. STOP NOW.

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 the video of bees dying close to a 5G tower, and the video and story of the island of birds where the birds died off because of the proximity of cell towers. I am concerned about the birds and bees that are fundamental for our ecosystems. I suspect that the presence of 5G cell towers is affecting all the nature and wildlife in a detrimental way. This was revealed to me by a possible manifestation of God. The radio frequencies are infiltrating everywhere, into every biological body in range. They are detrimental and we need to really study the health effects in a scientific manner.

I am very sensitive to EMF radiation. I cannot be near cell phone towers, smart meters, flat screen televisions, routers, or a room full of cell phones. I believe I am the canary in the coal mine--perhaps I'm the lucky one. My headaches, chills, and discomfort around these devices doesn't mean I'm unusual, but give me a chance to try to avoid EMF radiation. All living things are effected by EMF radiation whether they are sensitive enough to consciously feel it or not. Our children have no say about EMF radiation in their schools, playgrounds, rec centers or homes. Many of them carry cell phones. The FCC appears to be captured by the wireless providers using very outdated standards to evaluate our safety. Please reevaluate this hazard. Thank-you.

Radiation has gotten out of hand. I work in the public schools as a RN. Is the FCC at all concerned about what happening to our children? Shame on you for not seeing this gross injustice to our children. Obesity, ADHD, seizures, Diabetes, just to name a few.

We are 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. We 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. We 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 was occupationally exposed and became sensitized to electromagnetic radiation in 2003. My neurologist of over 30 years has acknowledged in writing that I am sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. I am now forced to live in an exponentially increasing amount of RF radiation which greatly exacerbates migraine headaches and results in extreme insomnia if I am not protected (which is everywhere outside of my home, including medical offices, hospitals, etc.). I have spent years studying this and untold thousands of dollars on mitigation including wired only connections for phone* and internet such as coaxial cable and ethernet, health strategies and metering, metal roof and special fabric (mostly silver) for bed canopy and windows. I do not use a cell phone (*but have one only in case of emergency as there are no longer any alternatives and it is contained in a metal box and always off because even on airplane mode phones can "leak" which I have detected and measured). I have contacted state and federal representatives and agencies, some of which include innumerable congressional representatives, Florida Public Service Commission which was compelled by some of us to hold a hearing on smart meters to ultimately be told that no one has any authority over health effects other than the FCC, Brevard County Commission, former Governor Scott, Attorney General of the State of Florida, the FCC-numerous times, FDA, etc., basically to no avail, partly because the FCC is a captured agency which has thus far refused to acknowledge the now hundreds if not thousands of studies demonstrating BIOLOGICAL effects (not thermal) of RF radiation at very low levels or to perform required NEPA studies for small cells despite a federal appellate court ruling! I apparently have NO protection under the ADA due to the FCC's blatant negligence and loyalty to the telecoms rather than the American public. After suffering for over 2 decades I am no longer mincing words and have lost all faith in US government agencies. The US has among the worst EMR standards in the world and seemingly does not care at all for the fate of its children who are being exposed 24-7 (INCLUDING FROM SPACE) and are more vulnerable to the health effects than adults. The Dept. of the interior put the FCC on notice many years ago that bird populations were being adversely affected by RF radiation...if only there were an agency concerned about also protecting people! The FCC is derelict in its duty to protect us - there is no longer any doubt or argument that can rationally be made about this.

I am writing today 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 deeply to me personally as someone who has experienced unexplainable, chronic headaches that started, coincidentally, around the time our house was 'upgraded' to wireless electric usage transmission. I would like proper scientific studies that investigate the effects of wireless signals on our brains. It is particularly concerning to me because I am an adult who is, perhaps, more sensitive than other adults--what about the effects on children's developing brains? What about migratory wildlife that utilize magnetic fields to guide their journey? We are energetic beings, and to reject out of hand that RF radiation and electromagnetic currents could interfere with biological processes is both myopic and foolhardy. The FCC MUST give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it in order to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you for all you can do to leave no stone unturned in our endeavor to safeguard life from technology that could potentially interfere with our health.

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 primary healthcare provider for 44 years and after just hearing Michael Adams present a 13 chapter presentation on genetic survival, I urge each member of the CC to listen to the potential interactions that occur when mRNA spike proteins meet the wireless radiation affects. If it is a population reduction that you are interested in producing then go ahead and continue with this propagation of electromagnetic field Radiation. Reference this at geneticsurvival.com. 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.