Children, schools & development

I urge the FCC to respond to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The current guidelines do not adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. The impact of RF radiation on both adults and children are serious matters and the FCC and critical federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, should rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because my husband developed a severe reaction to electromagnetic radio frequencies after contracting Lyme Disease. He experiences a very specific type of headache with exposure to wifi routers, cell towers, and all types of electrical devices. We have to shield our computers with nickel shields to reduce his exposure; and we do not have wifi in our house and we use ethernet only. There is an elementary school adjoinnig our property, and these children need protection. Cell towers are being placed on school property, church properties and at parks, all places where children are being harmed. I was a public school nurse in the 1980's and am well-aware of the types of diseases children faced in that era. They were few. Today, children are sicker than ever. They need protection from harmful influences, including radiation. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to personal experiences and evidence and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Do not put off this important matter.

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. This issue matters to me because my life, my career and my health has been irreparably harmed by the ubiquitous and insidiously ever increasing RF exposure. I am unable to live a normal life or perform in my career. My family has ostracized and then accepted my situation, although visits are fewer and short due to their dependence on their devices for their being and livelihoods. It breaks my heart to watch them utilize their wireless devices and to realize they have no choice in today’s world and recognizing the difficulty I have experienced by not using them and doing my best to avoid the RF radiation. I have had to become a recluse and cannot even go to a city park as they all have towers, placed there to avoid public scrutiny. Fear of being ostracized goes to a whole new level because the device addiction predicates that people are afraid to know or literally do not want to know deleterious effects of RF radiation. While I was still practicing medicine, I came to recognize that people would rather swallow poisonous chemicals with multiple side effects (otherwise known as pharmaceuticals) or have the AV nodes in their heart atria burned (“ablation therapy”) and undergo chemotherapy rather than recognize the cause of their anxiety, lack of cognition, insomnia, headaches, joint pain, insulin resistance, type II diabetes, high blood pressure, tachycardia, a-fib, cancer, etc., etc. I have researched the subject and written a book, still yet to be published because I was warned it would never be picked up by major publishers as they will not bite the hand that feeds them. Media rarely touches the topic for the same reason. Yet thousands upon thousands of people continue to proliferate their ownership and use of wireless devices while increasing their “pills for the ills”, undergoing procedures and opting in for surgeries, because, you know, “my insurance pays for it”. It is estimated that thirty percent of the population is experiencing symptoms from RF radiation exposure. If an evaluation of the pharmaceuticals used to address symptoms were included in that analysis, then 98% of the population would be shown to have one or more symptoms from the man-made frequencies that the FCC has allowed to proliferate in our environment at an unprecedented rate with no regard for safety. The FCC’s failure to adequately protect humans was seemingly purposeful since it has allowed legislation to pass in 1996 that prohibits communities and people from objecting to towers and antennae placement based on health or environmental influence. The FCC is a captured agency via lobbying and the the revolving door of the wireless industries’ and FCCs board positions and in my not-so-humble opinion, the agency should be dismantled. My ‘opinion’ is also supported by complete disregard of the Court ruling that 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. That’s right - on August 13, 2021, the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination. Specifically, five years ago, 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. In July 2026, the FCC adopted a fourfold increase in power limits for wireless devices, with no public health analysis of what that would do to exposure. It has moved to end environmental safety reviews for cell tower projects. This is unfathomable! The FCC has an immediate obligation to 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. Since the FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health, it must work with the HHS and other health agencies to evaluate the plethora of studies that DO show harm. WE DON’T NEED MORE STUDIES. Other countries have been gracious enough to provide valid studies that prove harm. Yet, the FCC 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. This issue matters to me personally because: I have concerns about long-term exposure on humans, animals, and plants. 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.

Battling extreme fatigue, consistent headaches, brain fog, digestion issues. Morgan City, LA is loaded with RF and by my children’s school. I have reached out to local officials and have not received a reply on what safety studies were done to make sure exposure was safe.

I have electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which I contracted by overexposure to the radiofrequency radiation (RF) that comes out of cell phones, routers, wifi, and the like. This has been diagnosed by two medical doctors. It is unconscionable that the telecoms don't warn people that the RF that comes out of their products can give people brain and heart tumors, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It is the U. S. government's job to protect its people, and making clear that RF presents clear and present danger to human health is job one. People, especially children, are at risk for serious damage, are at strong risk every day. Make that clear to everyone ASAP - that is your job, and that is what our tax dollars pay you for.

My name is Laurie Brown. I taught middle school for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for approximately 26 years. I rarely was ill and accumulated approximately 800 hours of sick time during my career, the equivalent of nearly 7-8 months of work. I enjoyed a normal, healthy life and never had to concern myself with routers, Wi-Fi or electro-magnetic radiation. Unfortunately, my career, health, and life as I knew it changed in April 2015, when my school “upgraded” our Wi-Fi system and added 190 access points, two in every classroom, and brought in wireless devices, increasing the total wireless radiation on campus. My District did little to protect me from the peaks or spikes of radiation emitted from all the wireless devices on campus. Our system was activated in April 2015. After a few hours on campus, I would begin to feel ill and experience symptoms such as headaches, heart palpitations, skin burning, earaches, nausea, foggy headedness, inability to concentrate, and many other debilitating symptoms – all symptoms of microwave sickness. I was becoming electro sensitive and was diagnosed with Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome caused by exposure to RF radiation. After a few consecutive days of work and increased exposure on campus, I started using my illness days. Some other staff members experienced physical and debilitating symptoms from the increased radiofrequencies on campus, too. My Principal contacted LAUSD’s Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) and wrote to the Inspector General of LAUSD sharing his concern as well as staff members’ concerns. The District’s OEHS waited approximately 6 weeks, until Common Core Testing was over, when fewer students would be operating devices and on campus with cell phones, to measure the RF frequencies in specific classrooms. On June 22, 2015, during the summer break, my principal wrote to LAUSD's Inspector General stating, "After the system was turned on, several employees complained of illness (headaches, light headedness, etc.).” After the installation of the new commercial Wi-Fi system at my school and becoming ill from my exposure to EMF/EMR, I learned LAUSD had been warned by doctors and scientists, prior to installation, that the commercial grade Wi-Fi being considered was untested and potentially dangerous in school environments. Cindy Sage, an EMF expert and environmental scientist, critiqued URS Corporation’s (the designer and installer of the new Wi-Fi system), evaluation and could not support URS’ conclusions regarding the safety of LAUSD’s proposed Wi-Fi system. In February 2017, Sage wrote the following to LAUSD: “Children who attend LAUSD schools are being placed into classroom environments with pervasive exposures from wireless routers and devices, and for some of them, is likely to result in permanent electro hypersensitivity characterized by chronic health and cognitive impairments. The same is already true for some teachers who have sought accommodations due to their acquired hypersensitivity to wireless exposures.” The Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote to LAUSD and stated, “it is unlikely that there are currently enough doctors in Los Angeles County familiar with the biological effects of microwave radiation to diagnose and treat the numbers of children who will potentially become symptomatic from exposure to your wireless system should you elect to install it. Statistics show that you can expect an immediate reaction in 3% of your students and time‐delayed reactions in 30% of them. This will also include teachers.” In my opinion, by using averages compared to “raw” data, the RF peaks/spikes to which students and staff are exposed each day, every day, over the course of an entire school day or school year (cumulative effects of spikes and exposure), are mitigated and diluted on paper, likely creating, and providing a false sense of safety to the public, parents, staff and students. Clearly, spikes, density, and time (duration) of exposure are important and should matter to those responsible for protecting the public and assuring safety measures. Here is an example of LAUSD’s RF protocol and evaluation: “For the purpose of the evaluation, The AVE data set was evaluated and compared to the LAUSD adopted criterion. A combination of the magnitude and the duration of the energy bursts are integrated by the SRM-3006 to provide the AVE power density results which are averaged for each frequency. The AVE power density is lower than the Maximum power density results. The average of the AVE (AVE-average) of each measurement is used for comparison to the adopted criterion.” In other words, averaging the spikes and peaks does not truly reflect real life exposure! The current FCC guidelines are outdated and only thermal based. The FCC and Department of Health and Human Services should not continue to ignore the overwhelming abundance of scientific studies proving biological harm caused by pulsed EMR/EMF/RF, nor should they allow RF spikes to be averaged and diluted over time. Medications are prescribed with specific instructions to minimize side effects and overdosing. The same safety precautions and concerns apply to overdosing on wireless radiation. More is not better and controls and guidelines are necessary. The FCC and Department of Health and Human Services must address this immediate public health crisis. Protocols and protective measures must be developed and applied in real time, before it is too late. Today, I no longer teach, something that was not only a career, but a great passion in my life. I loved teaching, found it stimulating, rewarding, and incredibly fulfilling. Because I enjoyed it so much, I intended to work for a lot longer, until a ripe old age, but I found it difficult to return to work without being reasonably accommodated. Unfortunately, I am unable to fill all my free time with meaningful activities and work due to the proliferation and installation of wireless antennas and devices everywhere. My husband and I removed our Wi-Fi and cordless phones, turned off our wireless emitting devices, and use hardwired connections. I have a cell phone, but do not keep it on and my husband mostly keeps his off around me. I know longer have the same freedom or luxury to enjoy limitless time out, travel, staying in a hotel, visiting family, and grocery shopping as I once did without feeling lousy. Living with Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome caused by EMFs (microwave sickness) is challenging and limiting. My quality of life has been severely reduced and none of it occurred by my choice: it was the direct result of the FCC’s, Department of Health and Human Services’, and FDA’s failures and disregard of biological harm caused by pulsed wireless radiation. My health, lifestyle, quality of life, and freedom to come and go as I please have been drastically and negatively affected. In addition, my income and retirement have been significantly reduced. I am very fortunate to have a supportive and loving husband and family. Still, though, my condition and losses have impacted us. Federal guidelines, limits, and protocols are needed to monitor and ensure the public’s safety from exposure to wireless radiation in real time, without averaging the spikes and peaks! No longer can we ignore biological effects caused by pulsed, wireless radiation. Although it may be an inconvenient truth, more is dangerous and is biologically disruptive; we are electrical beings. Too many people are already sick and more people will become seriously ill if we stand by and do nothing to address our chronic and limitless exposure to wireless radiation. I do not want others to suffer the same fate as me. /s/Laurie Brown Laurie Brown 4221 Noble Ave Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

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 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. 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. I personally moved out to where there were no Cell Towers to get away from harmful EMFs and to where the environment is natural and raw. 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.

I am a grandfather with two promising granddaughters. I have always, like most grandparents, tried my best in augmenting these girls own parents, in providing protective care for them. My daughter is an attorney who was employed in the communications (cell towers) field. Opponents of these towers always insisted that such towers not be close to schools. They normally succeeded. Same here.

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 marketing communications professional, I must use devices daily for my work...especially my cellular phone. I sometimes feel sick after using for too many hours. I am also very concerned about my university age daughter using wireless headphones. We know these are linked to brain damage and they should be banned. She often has 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.

The number of cell towers that have gone up in Honolulu is concerning given their proximity to homes and schools. Research shows that EMF can have harmful effects on people, plants and animals. In order to be cautious there should be a reduction of cell towers compared with how many there are now. Studies showing damage related to EMF should be heeded out of a cautious approach.