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: After installation of a 5g tower within 1/4 mile of my home, we have experienced strange muscle pains along with GI issues. 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. 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 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: Several members of or household are noticeably affected by wireless technologies. I experience physical symptoms of anxiety without any anxious thoughts when I hold my cellphone for too long. Symptoms include shakiness, externally visible heart palpitations, butterflies in my stomach, and an overwhelming urgency to put the phone down even though I am not done composing or reading an important message or email. I also get hot on my ear or side of head if I make a long call, or that hand gets oddly numb or tingly, or my ear starts ringing. Two members of our family have neurological problems that got considerably better when we turned the wifi router off. 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 electromagnetic sensitive and have a negative reaction to wireless radiation and strong magnetic fields. Because wireless and 5G technology is everywhere, it is hard for my body to recover enough to heal. I am concerned about my children who are exposed to wireless in their school s. 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 FCC needs to reconsider the parameters regarding any ‘HARM’ that they are looking at. Previously they have only tested for the transference of ‘HEAT’ – that shows a disturbing lack of understanding of EMFs. I hope it is understood that devices such as microwave ovens, cell towers and cell phones emit certain frequences that cannot be seen, felt or smelled by a regular human being. This does not mean that they don’t exist and/or don’t cause harm! Take the example of X-rays. When I was growing up, when you went to a shoe store, you would expected to find an X-ray machine in every store so that customers could check to see if the shoe was a good fit for the foot. As kids we would take great delight in checking as many shoes as we could. It would take many years before it was discovered that X-rays were actually harmful to the human body! I suspect that the FCC is not taking the similarity between the seemingly harmless EMF frequencies and the dangerous effects of X-rays seriously enough. I was made aware of the effect of EMF’s when I was at a conference a few years ago in a hotel that was right next to a cell tower. One woman complained of feeling unsteady and slightly sick. She couldn’t come up with any reason why she might feel that way. When she moved closer to the center of the hotel the miserable, unsettling feelings would reduce a little. When she went outside she felt like collapsing, almost like her energy was being drained away from her. Since then I have heard of people who have had similar experiences and it has since been revealed that certain people are more sensitive to these EMF frequences than others. Like in the woman at the conference, no one else noticed anything untoward. Also, the FCC years ago was testing for the effects of the EMFs on plants. They promised to go back and do more of those tests, but they never did. I suspect that much could be learned by doing more investigations in that arena.

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 practicing Internal Medicine physician with additional expertise in Integrative Medicine, which uses biologic strategies to reverse chronic illnesses. I also suffer from chronic illness myself, and as such have found myself extraordinarily sensitive to the presence of the microwave carrier frequencies used ubiquitously by the telecom industry (cell towers and cell phones), home and office connective infrastructure (WiFi routers, computers using WiFi, office equipment continuously emitting wireless radiation, even the newer automobiles that continuously emit wireless radiation. I have extensively measured my local environment with a portable, handheld wireless emissions meter and made a note where they are particularly high. I have discovered that whenever I am exposed to these areas, even for an hour or two, I experience physical effects. This happens in a relatively stereotyped sequence, starting after about 3 hours with activation of my sympathetic autonomic system (ie, "fight or flight" system, due to immediate damage), then progressing to difficulty sleeping that night, sometimes accompanied by a "restless legs" feeling (which I otherwise never have) and then fairly profound fatigue for the next 2 to 3 days, until my system recovers, utilizing passage of time in the relatively "safer" environment of my home, along with several biological strategies required for recovery. Fortunately, I have been able to eliminate wireless devices in my home by using a router which connects via data cable to my computer, along with using hardwire connections to printer, etc. Measurements of radiation have confirmed fairly low levels, though I still have ambient radiation from neighbors, local cell towers, etc. I also keep my cell phone on airplane mode except to text, essentially never using my cell phone for calls. I have also noted extreme stiffness of my knee joints when in high exposure areas. I also believe that, even in the relatively lower exposure area of my home, my sleep is unnaturally difficult, and that my bowel function is unnaturally sluggish. Certainly as a result of my own experiences, let alone millions of my fellow countrymen and women and children who don't have the benefit of a medical education and experience practicing Integrative medicine to understand this exposure from a technical perspective, 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 very concerned about radio frequency and its impacts on humans, especially children. 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. Since the FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health, I'm not sure why 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 2 children have chronic illness, and doctors are not sure whether long-term exposure to RF radiation is a cause of their illness. 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 highly affected by non native EMFs and would be thrilled if there were actions taken to mitigate the dangers of them. I am unable to sleep if there is any Wi-Fi in im my home. If there is Bluetooth or Wi-Fi around me, I suffer with massive headaches. I am unable to ride in a Tesla or any car that uses Bluetooth due to severe migraines. Often times my heart will begin to hurt. As someone who works in agriculture i have seen the effects of these toxins on my animals and their production as well as the produce production amd quality. I just can’t imagine anyone using these toxins around children. It causes severe behavior issues and harms the cells of any individual. Please consider actions to help with this.

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. This issue matters to me personally because of the increase in the usage of cell phones, microwaves, and other developing technology. Non-thermal effects of radio frequencies lead to concerns such as cellular stress and DNA damage. Some studies suggest exposure to RF radiation could potentially affect the blood-brain barrier. This barrier is crucial for protecting the brain from harmful substances. Other effects that are reported include headaches and memory loss. Outdated guidelines need revamping. I am all for the FCC looking at the damage radio frequencies can do to humans, flora and fauna, using the up-to-date amounts of radiation exposure taken in by the most ardent users of radio frequency technology!

I am sensitive to Radio Frequencies, My head hurts, my arm gets a deep irritation, and my ears ring loud when I am in an area that has cell phones, routers, blue tooth or cell towers. I have to prevent such things from operating in my home which is getting harder to do with so many products equipped with RF antennas. I am greatly limited because most product come with high frequency Radio Frequency signals that pulsate even when products are turned off. I would ask that the FCC adhere to the courts ruling to do extensive reporting on the following as ordered by the court: The harmful impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation which has been shown in the NTP study on Radio Frequency in 2016 showing strong correlation to the harmful effects from low RF exposure. The invasive and unavoidable exposure of RF from wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996 which avoided the science on non-particle radiation. The impacts of RF radiation on the environment. To correct the inadequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices. And to require all devices equipped with an antenna to emit a RF or to receive a wireless signal also be equipped with a physical switch to turn the antenna off so antennas are prevented from emitting or receiving or searching for a RF signal so that the owner or operator may have the personal choice as to when and how often they may be exposed to the Radio Frequency. These switches would make buying a new car possible, as well as staying in a hotel where smart products occupy each room and allow for having more modern products in the home or class rooms that do not exposure families and children to this harmful radiation. 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. I am very concerned about the effects of EMF's on all of us. The studies that have been done to date, show drastic health impacts and impairments on both humans and animals; and I would hope that no more animals are tortured by human experimentation in the name sake of science. 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 of all of the EMF's I have so much difficulty sleeping, and it seems to be affecting many people. This has been affecting my health in a negative way. I've noticed this more and more over the last 10 years. My younger brother, who actually worked on the cell towers for many years, now has ALS and only has, maybe 6 months to live. He just turned 58. These frequencies are harmful to all, and we need to address this problem now. There has to be a better way to advance our technology without harming the people, the animals and the planet. 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.