Children, schools & development

I'm a doctor of oriental medicine and I work with a Holistic Pediatrician. We have noticed poor sleep when a child is wearing an owlette device on their ankle. Children with eczema have a hard time healing from the eczema no matter the topical medications or other alternative therapies. The worst cases we've noticed are the kids that have the wifi router closest to their bedroom. When children with autism are near devices their behavior increases. With all these cases the first thing we have the parents do is move the router as far away from children's bedrooms as possible, turn the router off at night, and remove all wifi devices from the room. Even in adults/parents with apple watches we've seen reduced anxiety, better milk supply, and less migraines when they take devices off and shut off the wifi router at night.

For me personally there is a continuous hum, which causes palpitations and shakes daily. The only way I can cope is by having electric fans and frequency music on to drown out the hum. This is not sustainable. Other members of my family are beginning to hear this hum and we live in different areas. I am fearful for the future of my grandchildren. Something needs to be done. New street lights are going up everywhere and they are adding to the hum. My neighbour, who can hear the hum, called environmental health. They dismissed her claims of noise and did nothing. She suffers daily .

Living organisms are full of delicately balanced electric potentials and moving electric charges which could be readily influenced by the levels of artificial microwave exposure that have become standard in modern life. Legislation based on the idea that non-ionising radiation can only interfere with biological processes when of sufficient intensity to heat the tissue, which is the basis of current legislation, is dangerously ignorant in its understanding of biophysics. One of the greatest tragedies in human history has been unfolding over the last few decades in the form of the destruction of the health of the population, particularly in children. Thorough research is desperately needed into the impact of electromagnetic radiation on living organisms, and it is needed thirty years ago.

Where are all the safety studies promised from the outcome of Children's Health Defense 2021 lawsuit toward the FCC? I was on a Zoom, which RFK Jr. and the CHD attorney for the case, Daphne Tachover, were on, in August 2020 about this. God bliss them both. How come Conneticut Senator Richard Blumenthal was concerned about no studies for 5G in 2019, and then 5G was installed during the carefully coordinated covid lockdown, which representatives are too red taped to admit? https://youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4. Wish Senator Blumenthal was as concerned about the covid shots, as Senator Ron Johnson is. Also, what effects is EMF having on those injected or PCR'ed or geoengineering loads? Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea shows self-assemblying nanotechnology in people's blood. Dr. David Nixon shows self-assemblying nano technology, as well, in the covid shots, whether one wishes to believe it, or otherwise: https://DrDavidNixon.com. Here is a peer reviewed study on it: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291. People have been picked up on Bluetooth, too. https://rumble.com/v48wr4o-the-bluetruth-documentary.html. Explain. Please provide the safety studies needed for cell generations. Also, provide school district funding to educate parents and students on EMF safety equipment and financially support fiber internet. There are enough people with disabilities - EMF sensitivites to consider. And demand copper wire is available for landlines. Regarding cell phones, educate all on these, too. They get hot, and people like myself's skin breaks out when holding them. Also, a computer technician, by trade, neighbor of mine had developed brain cancer. I wonder. RIP. Please protect us all, "We the People," health is number 1. 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. 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 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. My real world experience of wifi radiation impact on my health is current and ongoing; I've detailed it below. 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 was this past spring (2026) notified by my oncological nutritionist that the abrupt rise in my yearly a!C level likely is due to emf exposure. It shows pre-diabetes level 5.7, whereas my diet has kept it between 5.1 and 5.4 for many years, and I have not changed my eating plan this past year. The nutritionist showed me the current online map of cell towers and antennas within 3 miles of my Oakland home. 2300 plus antennas and about 1900 towers emit emf radiation which may be partly what's causing this. However most likely she said the worse source is my home wifi. In addition to blood sugar rise, I have insomnia and increasing tinnitus. So I've taken step one: hardwired my computer and dispensed with wifi. I've felt immediate relief, especially regarding the tinnitus. Will be interested to see results of my next a1C test later this fall. I am astonished that the FCC has let this situation get to this point in which people who are severely affected by the vast increase in efm radiation must make huge changes in their lives, including having to move. To me it's clear that emf has strong biological effects (beyond thermal) on humans (and animals, insects and plants). I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence we are submitting 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 noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall. I covered it and my heart palpitations decreased and my concentration increased. I also do a lot of gardening and I have noticed less bees every year. Human bodies and insects are not made to fend off all these radiation waves. Who knows what is really going on inside my body??? My sister lives in higher elevations and she can not keep fresh produce for more than 1-2 days, the radiation rots the food. 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.

One time I was sitting in the public library, using their WIFI, with my tablet, since I do not have WIFI at home and wanted to download something. My computer system at home is hard-wired. Driving home, I could barely stay in my lane, because my mind was so befuddled, I think because of the WIFI. I feel for the people who have to be in school, in public or in a workplace with WIFI unavoidably impinging on them. My hearing aids are some of the last models made which have FLIGHT MODE, whereby the bluetooth may be turned off. I have to turn it off each time I put them on, using a certain sequence of button presses. Until I have it properly turned off, I feel the bluetooth in my brain. It is difficult to describe the feeling of electromagnetic radiation. It is not like saying, "I have an earache" or "a tummy ache", as we would say to our mothers. It is akin to a pressure, a dark vapor, an unwelcomed presence. I feel the effects first in my head, then a tightness in the area of my heart. Of course, wireless radiation is immensly convenient and profitable, but I believe it is harmful, not just to sensitive people, and many are much more sensitive than myself, but to everyone in its proximity.

Hello, 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 it affects my family. My son has to sleep with his bed away from the wall because of the radiation being emitted by the electrical wires within the wall, and my husband can walk into a room and know if a wireless printer is turned on because his body senses it. We don't understand all the risks, especially because we can't see the radiation, but we can feel it. 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 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.