Disability, access & daily life

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

In March of 2020, with the deployment of 5G, I was suddenly and dramatically deprived of my ability to walk and talk. It happened in less than a minute. At the time I was living in Cambridge, MA. A year later my neurologist found that my peripheral nervous system tested normal. In their professional opinion, something was keeping my brain from communicating with my body. Less than a month later, I had to go to Vermont – for my father’s funeral. With just two night’s sleep I fully regained my ability to walk and talk. As soon as I returned to Cambridge, I lost that ability to walk and talk again - in less than an hour. Thinking that reducing population density by almost 10x might be the key to restoring my health, I moved to Canton, MA. No such health effects materialized. In Canton, as in Cambridge, my symptoms are unsustainably aggravated as soon as any Wi-Fi device comes within 6 feet of me. My PCP has diagnosed me with Epidemic Vertigo, Ataxia and Dyslalia – etiologies “unknown”. Mounting evidence suggest that close proximity to neighboring EV’s charging at night, and a solar power plant less than a mile away, represent an important part of the problem. IMPORTANT CLUE: In Dave Stetzer’s professional opinion [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/dave-stetzer], the process of converting Alternating Current to Direct Current and vice versa, is a SIGNIFICANT OFFENDER. Ref: High Frequency Transients [HFT] Recent research [JAMA neurology Nov 2025] found that one out of two American’s were struggling with neurological disabilities in 2021. This is not a small problem. The mounting costs to our healthcare system have been snowballing unsustainably. AND Poorly thought-out electrical engineering may in fact also be hurting our competitive edge in the global economy.

The 1996 radiofrequency limits are long outdated, and with more and more impact studies that have been done in the past three decades proving, not suggesting, biological harm, there needs to be much tighter regulation regarding the communications industry and the increasing “electro-smog” problem and the detrimental effects of short-term and long-term exposure to these fields. We used to be able to place the responsibility (though still unfairly) on the end consumer to know the risks of the technology they partake in, but no longer are people exposed to one or two electromagnetic fields at a time – we are now entering a time where people are often exposed to ten, twenty, even more fields at a given time, and often don't escape that exposure throughout the entire day. Given the breakneck speed of technological innovation and adoption in the past three decades, and those technologies should be held to a stricter standard in order to protect the health of the people who use them. Not everyone feels WiFi or cell tower radiofrequencies, though more and more do - and others, it has a destructive impact on their lives. We have friends who have kids with brain tumors from being near cell phone towers, and we have known so-called “antenna refugees,” hypersensitive to the frequency radiation. My partner, who is hypersensitive to EMF, had to move when there was a cell tower constructed nearby and saw significant health decline at that time, fourteen years ago. We bought a property in Washington State and we paid the utility company to remove the smart meter because she couldn't sleep. We had the neighbors reduce their WiFi signal because it gave us both headaches, and now AT&T wants to install a cell tower in our neighborhood which, if they do, will force us to sell our property and move again and find a new place free of signal which, in an increasingly electrified civilization and culture, is becoming more and more difficult to find. We need much stricter regulations regarding exposure limits for the general public, especially children, women and hypersensitive people. We need a broad action plan for keeping certain areas (“white-zones”) completely pure and clean of any EMF/electrosmog, where these people can go (without going into a fight-or-flight response or nervous system going haywire), and for minimizing exposure in residential areas. We need to stop blinding ourselves about the side effects of technology for the sake of the GDP and to reconsider the health of the people. We need change.

Re: Health effects of Wireless Radiation, Cell towers, and Smart Utility Meters To the FCC 13-84: I am a resident of Hurricane, Washington County, Utah. I have been diagnosed with electromagnetic radiation (EMR) syndrome, also described as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I write to request that the Department of Health and Human Services assess the health and safety of wireless infrastructure and of devices that place high-frequency voltage transients on building wiring, including smart utility meters; support independent, biologically based safety testing; and promote meaningful accommodations for people who cannot tolerate these exposures. Personal Circumstances It is critical that I limit exposure to electromagnetic radiation. My household uses a hardwired landline telephone and wired Ethernet. We have shielded our home with protective paint and other mitigation measures, at substantial cost. Even with those steps, I have become increasingly isolated in order to avoid exposures that I experience as medically serious. My autoimmune problems have worsened. My symptoms include, but are not limited to, loss of balance, headaches, chest pain, anemia, elevated blood sugar, hypotension, increased heart rate, and insomnia. I have groceries and prescriptions delivered. A walk outside is often painful. Doctor and dentist visits are very difficult. Hospitals I have used have not provided low-exposure accommodations. Smart Utility Meters I opted out of the electric smart meter. I was charged $228 to do so and then paid $22 per month for the opt-out meter. That opt-out meter produced high levels of electromagnetic interference on the wiring in my house. Average readings exceeded 1,650 mV. To my knowledge, no biologically based pre-market safety testing of this equipment was conducted. Hurricane City Power company did not measure the interference and did not respond for months to my request for an analog meter. When the meter was replaced with an analog meter, average interference readings fell to about 20 mV. The company then charged me $380 for the meter and required a $48 monthly reading fee. Washington County Water Conservancy District Manager Ron Thompson refused to allow me to opt out of the “smart” water meter, despite a letter from my physician. I have also measured radio frequency emissions from neighbors’ meters reaching my property, as well as Wi-Fi from surrounding residences. Other jurisdictions have begun to treat customer choice as a policy issue. Colorado’s H.B. 25-1175, enacted in 2025, requires large investor-owned electric utilities to give residential customers advance notice before installing advanced metering infrastructure and to honor a request for a noncommunicating meter. The statute does not create an unlimited statewide ban on installation and does not cover water meters. I cite it only as an example of a notice-and-choice framework that remains unavailable to many utility customers, including water customers in my area. The bill is available at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1175. Cell Tower Near My Home A cell tower was placed next to my home on property owned by the Washington County Water Conservancy District, without notice to residents. There was no meaningful opportunity for public comment because residents were not notified. No environmental review was conducted. The tower is in the fall zone of a water tank and is close to residences. The tower was originally approved for three antennas. Many additional antennas have since been added, including a 5G upgrade and antennas for an internet provider. There was again no environmental review for the 5G upgrade. In 2009, a cell tower was approved—again without notice—within about 100 feet of my property and between two residential developments. No cellular service was provided for the next three years. In 2011, AT&T contracted to place cellular antennas on the tower. Additional antennas have been added or “upgraded” since then, including 5G service, without notice or review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Other internet providers have also been added. Upon activation of service on this tower in 2013, radiation levels increased and the quality of cell service declined sharply. Before the nearby tower was activated, I had about four bars of reception. After activation, I often have no bars, and occasionally one bar. Many neighbors report the same problem. This result is contrary to what residents expected. The previous nearest tower was about seven miles away. Because there were few obstructions, service at my location had been relatively good. Antennas on the new tower are directed toward the Hurricane Cliffs, which rise about 1,000 feet above our home. Reflected, out-of-phase signals can degrade service and can redirect scattered energy back toward the residential area. I contacted the Federal Communications Commission. The agency showed no interest in measuring or testing the signals. Other, more remote sites were available and would have reduced reflection from the cliffs. When my husband and I asked an employee of the tower company why this site was chosen, the answer was economic: it was cheaper to build where electrical and road infrastructure already existed. Some residents have been forced to install indoor small cells in their homes in order to obtain usable service. According to Verizon, coverage from such equipment can extend to multiple users. That radiation can reach neighboring properties. Loss of Wired Service Relying on landline DSL for internet and telephone service is no longer workable. CenturyLink is not maintaining the copper landline, and electromagnetic interference has made that line effectively useless. In a utilities easement near my home there are two radio frequency-emitting water meters, one radio frequency-emitting electric meter, a fiber-optic utilities box, and an electrical transformer. Their close proximity may be contributing to the landline interference. Fiber-optic service is available, but it is owned by an internet provider rather than by Washington County, which limits competition. Fiber also does not support traditional alarm-line service in the same way, and the optical equipment at the premises does not function when household electricity fails. Interference with Implanted Medical Devices A friend who used our tennis court later received a pacemaker. After the implant, he could no longer play on the court because the pacemaker stopped working there. When he entered our shielded home, the pacemaker functioned again. This occurred twice. The American Heart Association notes that certain electrical and radio frequency sources can interfere with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. See https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention--treatment-of-arrhythmia/devices-that-may-interfere-with-icds-and-pacemakers. My husband’s grandchild, who has epilepsy, collapsed while playing on our tennis court. My husband has an Inspire implant to treat sleep apnea. He is concerned that electrical and wireless interference could impair the device and, in turn, his breathing. Radio frequency levels at St. George Regional Hospital have been high enough that the Inspire implant did not work there. The manufacturer’s materials discuss electromagnetic interference. See https://manuals.inspiresleep.com/. Neighborhood Health Observations I cannot prove that any individual illness was caused by the tower or by smart meters. I report the following because residents are frightened, some have moved or chosen not to build, and the pattern is why I ask the Department to investigate rather than leave the matter solely to the Federal Communications Commission. Individuals have died, and several people have told me they believe their symptoms are related to the tower or to smart utility meters. A neighbor had prostate cancer that was not initially thought to be fatal. The disease progressed despite extensive treatment, and he died. I noticed a smart utility meter on the wall outside the bedroom where the head of his bed was placed. The smart meters in our development are relatively high-powered because of large lot sizes of one acre or more. A neighbor died of a heart attack while walking along the road. Another neighbor had a heart attack while walking along the road. My late husband had a heart attack while walking along the road. Four other neighbors have had heart attacks. One neighbor who lived next to the cell tower had bowel cancer, was in remission, and later died of a pulmonary embolism. A neighbor allowed an internet provider to place an antenna on his home, over his office, to serve the surrounding area. He died of cancer. A woman who had been in remission from multiple myeloma came out of remission. Some residents have moved because of the tower. One decided not to build on their lot. As I understand the occupancy of the development, there are 41 lots, of which about eight are vacant; about 33 homes; and about 22 full-time residences. Among those households I am aware of three cancer deaths, eight heart attacks, including three fatal heart attacks, and one suicide of a person suffering severe pain. These are community observations, not a controlled study. My stepson and his wife lived in Magna, Utah, close to a cell tower. He died of stage 4 metastatic stomach cancer at age 54. His wife died shortly afterward. The spread of wireless radiation has been life-altering for me. I cannot use my pool or tennis court, and I cannot enjoy a walk. I am struggling with repeated infections and an immune system that no longer functions as it should. Requested Action The Department should take responsibility for assessing the safety of wireless devices and of equipment that places high-frequency voltage transients onto building wiring, including smart utility meters. Existing federal exposure limits and siting practices have not answered the health questions raised by people in my situation. I agree with the following recommendations of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields: 1. Update national exposure limits on wireless, power-frequency, and other non-ionizing electromagnetic fields to reflect current scientific evidence and to protect against biological effects. 2. Fund independent research on long-term, cumulative biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. 3. Require independent pre-market safety testing and independent post-market surveillance for wireless and other electromagnetic-field-emitting devices. 4. Ensure compliance tests for cell phones and Wi-Fi devices reflect children’s physiology and real-world use, including direct body contact. 5. Halt introduction of new technologies until rigorous pre-market safety testing is performed. 6. Inform families about the scientific literature on health risks and about ways to reduce exposure from phones, wireless devices, electronics, and other sources of electromagnetic fields. 7. Adopt a risk-mitigation approach that reduces children’s daily exposure at home and school and limits their use of wireless devices. 8. Promote safer designs, including wired networks, low-emission equipment, and devices that minimize user exposure. 9. Establish low-electromagnetic-field spaces in schools as a priority. I also ask the Department to support: A. Non-punitive analog or noncommunicating meter options for customers with medical need, including water as well as electric service; B. Meaningful public notice and health-focused review before cell towers are sited near homes or upgraded with additional antennas or 5G equipment; C. Preservation and maintenance of wired telephone and internet options; D. Low-electromagnetic-field accommodations in hospitals and clinics, especially for patients with implants or reported electromagnetic sensitivity; and E. Coordination with the Federal Communications Commission that does not treat thermal exposure limits as the end of the health inquiry, consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/dc-circuit-decision-environmental-health-trust-v-fcc. The proliferation of wireless infrastructure is, for me and for several of my neighbors, not a convenience issue. It is a housing, medical-access, and daily-function issue. I respectfully ask the Department to treat it as a matter of public health. Respectfully submitted, Rosemarie Russell 854 W 3390 S Hurricane, Utah 84737

The FCC should fully consider the effects of its wireless radiation policies on health, although the FCC is not a health agency. Therefore, it must consider the evidence and real world experience of persons in it. For fifteen years I have battled these symptoms from wireless radiation: Sleeplessness; Restless leg syndrome; Shortness of breath; Dizziness; Nausea; Tinnitus; Extreme fatigue; Heart palpitations; Vibrations passing through me as if I were jello; Brain fog and concentration issues; To combat these ailments, and others not listed here, I shield myself 25/7 in some way: I have put up metalic paper in my rented condo where possible. I wear a shielding jumpsuit (it is warm in summer) and a head-covering daily. I sleep between layers of shielding fabric and a sleep cap. I do not subscribe to internet in my residence nor do I use an internet phone. Still, the wifi readings in my place are very high and spike into the red danger zone throughout the day. Let it be known, due to more recent health impact studies, the present-day meters are out of date as to the levels considered "danger zones." To be brief, these issues have impacted my studies, my job choices, and living accommodations and forced relocations. It has disconnected me from family and friends due to incompatible environments. There is no where to hide; at least, none I could afford or would survive, such as an unpopulated island. Alexandra Fileccia-Busch fileccia2011@gmail.com

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.

PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND ON RF RADIATION EXPOSURE GUIDELINES I am submitting this comment in direct response to the remand ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which mandated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provide a reasoned explanation for maintaining its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court made it abundantly clear that the FCC failed to establish that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect against non-cancer health effects, cumulative long-term exposures, vulnerability in developing children, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. As a communications regulator rather than a biomedical or health agency, the FCC cannot continue to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific evidence and real-world human experience while clinging to obsolete, thermal-only models. Why This Issue Matters Personally In my day-to-day work and personal life, I regularly interact with individuals, families, and chronically ill patients who report debilitating sensitivities and symptom flares when exposed to ambient, near-field, and cumulative wireless radiation. From headaches, brain fog, and severe sleep disruptions to heightened biological stress responses, these experiences are real, observable, and disruptive to daily living. Modern life has created an unprecedented environmental shift: citizens no longer experience single, isolated RF exposures. Instead, we are subjected to a continuous, overlapping blanket of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from modern cell phones held directly against the body, high-output Wi-Fi routers operating 24/7 in homes and schools, smart utility meters, and an accelerating density of small-cell infrastructure placed within feet of bedroom windows. To achieve even a baseline level of comfort and restorative sleep, an increasing number of people are forced to take extraordinary measures—relying on RF shielding fabrics, hardwired Ethernet connections, and physical barriers just to reduce ambient field exposure in their own living spaces. When individuals consistently experience tangible relief and improved well-being simply by eliminating or attenuating these fields, the agency's insistence that "no non-thermal biological effects exist" is directly contradicted by everyday reality. Furthermore, testing protocols that rely on large plastic mannequins (such as the legacy SAM phantom) filled with liquid do not reflect real-world device usage. Real people—and specifically children with thinner skulls, developing central nervous systems, and smaller body geometries—absorb proportionally higher rates of radiation from devices used directly against the head and lap. Direct Actions Requested of the Commission In accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s mandate, the FCC must: Defer to Legitimate Health Authorities: Re-engage with independent biomedical researchers, toxicologists, and relevant federal health agencies—including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)—rather than relying on decades-old industry assumptions. Update Testing Procedures for Modern Devices: Overhaul device compliance testing so that cell phones, tablets, and wearable tech are evaluated in direct contact with biological tissue at maximum power output, eliminating artificial separation distances. Establish Biologically Based Standards: Transition away from an outdated thermal-only standard to an exposure model that accounts for chronic, low-level, non-thermal biological impacts, pulsed wave modulations, and cumulative lifetime exposures. Evaluate Environmental and Wildlife Impacts: Give substantive, non-dismissive consideration to the documented impacts of radiofrequency radiation on plant biology, pollinator behavior, and avian populations. The public record must reflect that the public demands accountability, scientific integrity, and public health safeguards over unchecked commercial deployment. I urge the Commission to address each deficiency identified by the federal court completely, transparently, and rigorously. Respectfully submitted, James Concerned Citizen & Clean Environment Advocate

I began to suffer from extreme insomnia, chronic health issues, etc. after the installation of our WiFi router and the purchase of cell phones back in 2004. These issues went on for more than a decade until I was diagnosed with myelin issues and emf sensitivity. I moved to the country, disabled all WiFi, had the smart meter removed and installed ethernet cable for our internet. I am now able to sleep and my health issues continue to heal. Whenever I encounter a friend or family member with insomnia, I instruct them to unplug their router at night and leave their cell phone in a room far from their bedroom. This always improves their symptoms. This is real. The technology is toxic. The children are being harmed the most.

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 was diagnosed with extreme EMR sensitivity at work when they moved my office in front of largeadjacent computer and phone database space. Within minutes of being in my new office, my heart rate was over 120 BPM I was nauseous and felt faint so I called OSHA RR in company and was sent to ER where my BP was 210/110 and they wanted to admit me to hospital - i refused, recd therapy and stayed there all day for observation When I was released they told me I had severe sensitivity to EMR, and needed to watch my environment To militate it/ I have trouble staying at any hotel, can’t work in many spaces with excessive wireless. Have severe sleeping issues unless I Use expensive tools to mitigate exposure. I was doing oat home until Xcel Emergy and WI refused to give me health consideration for a smart meter outside and below my BR. I have spent $1K + To mitigate so I can sleep but still have major medical issues. I carry my phone in a radiation bag and avoid all sources of this radiation in my environment. It severely limits my life, and it’s inconceivable that the State of WI and Xcel Energy cannot grant health exceptions to smart meters etc with diagnosed health issues. We plead for help to assist us and remove this health threat. We should be able to have a safe nontoxic home that does not threaten our health since we pay taxes to live in it.