Pregnancy & reproduction

For too long, telecommunications companies have gotten away with gambling with human and animal health via radiation exposure. We need real controlled studies about the potential harms and long-term effects of radiation and chronic exposure to non-ionizing radiation, including children’s vulnerability, long-term exposure, environmental and wildlife impacts, and potential health effects involving reproduction, the immune system, and DNA damage. Here's a link to a relevant news article on this topic, which unpacks the harms potential of radiation pollution: https://www.newsweek.com/migratory-birds-bee-navigation-5g-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-934830 Pollution affects us all, and no person has consented to being chronically poisoned by radiation exposure because informed consent of harms has never occurred. Updated guidelines that take into consideration changes in technology since 1996--and which place a moratorium on new technologies until their potential harms can be properly understood from an informed-consent perspective--are imperative for human and animal health and general welfare.

EMF radiation emitting towers needs to be reigned in. The health effects that we already know about are profound. Radio Frequency limits must be lowered. Of course the issue is big tech and big money and now having rolled this out in such a huge way and then say "oops", is a big lift with enormous push back. We need limits and better testing and reduction of exposure. We have been allowing the tech companies to race from 2G to 6G and beyond. NO, we need a halt to this before everyone is sick and sickly. I, for one person, have extremely disrupted sleep in the presence of towers and wifi. This technology was rolled out with no proper long term safety studies and the safety foundations are resting on antiquated numbers from long, long ago (i.e. does it raise temps) Questions: What does it do to cells, the immune system, T cells, mitochondria, a pregnant woman and the developing fetus? I have palpitations and a heart rate around 110 in the presence of towers and moderate EMF signals. Is there a significant portion of the population that has more sensitivity to this as I do? Is it causing cancers? Let us use the Precautionary Principle to protect people and the unborn and back off and lower the exposure levels. An Inconvenient Truth it may be, but do not let that stop the FCC from doing the right things for Americans and future generations. Science shows cells and life can be harmed, sleep patterns disrupted and thus Radio Frequency Limits need to be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERED.

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 pleased that 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. It is so important to require 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. I can remember reading the package insert of instructions when our cell phones were 2 and 3 G, and we were instructed not to keep the phone to the ear and to use an ear piece to have a conversation on the phone. I've seen my partners phone tells you when you are holding the phone too close. Obviously it is noted that wireless radiation can affect one's health. My daughter's children always had difficulty sleeping, when she lived next door to me in Long Beach, New York, her children now sleep much better at night since she moved out of New York on top of a mountain in North Carolina where the nearest tower is 3 miles away. She moved 4 years ago and her children then were 4, 7 and 10, so they were not infants when they had difficulty sleeping. I also have difficulty sleeping at night. but we have a house in the Adirondacks and I sleep great there, I hear a constant hum here in Long Beach. It is not tinnitus. I am an RN and I know the difference. The hum is not inside my head. It comes from outside and being that I also am a musician, I needed to hum to myself to match the note sound and it is an F sharp on the lower end of the piano give or take a 1/4 note. It hasn't changed the note since I've been noting it. I wired my household desk top computers to ethernet and turned off the wi- fi, to diminish the exposure while I'm on the computer, however of course I still have wifi in the house for TV and phone use. And the low hum is constant all day and night. I use a phone case with an EMF radiation barrier. I don't know how much it helps, but I know there are devices that help block the radiation. Perhaps the towers can be housed in a blocking radiation structure. I do know in the medical field we recommend not keeping cell phones close to the body or in pockets, especially for couples going through fertility treatments. So it seems it is known that EMF radiation does negatively affect the body. The big question here is how much do we let corporate greed dictate policy impacting all of humanity in a negative way. Thank you for your reaching out to Americans for their experiences and hopefully you can devise and implement ways to protect us. Lori Field, RN

It is critical to have strong regulations regarding exposure to wireless radiation. Individuals and families may share experiences involving potential adverse health effects they believe may be associated with RF/EMF exposure. It is also important to receive observations from healthcare professionals, researchers, and public health practitioners that may help identify patterns warranting further study. Information about whether scientific, technical, or regulatory changes could improve the assessment, disclosure, or regulation of wireless radiation exposure. We need to assess Information about methods for measuring individual and population-level exposure, potential improvements for assessing real-world exposure, information that should be disclosed to the public, and existing or potential surveillance systems. There needs to be data about why RF exposure assessment or risk evaluation should differ for populations including children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted medical devices, workers with elevated occupational exposure, and people with preexisting medical conditions. We need to look at evidence concerning potential adverse health effects associated with RF radiation exposure, including exposure below current federal limits. We also need there to be information about cumulative exposure patterns associated with existing and emerging wireless technologies and potential environmental effects. Research priorities should be decided by researchers and the public to identify the highest priority gaps in RF/EMF and public health research and recommend ways federal health agencies can better coordinate research, including through the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

My Personal Testimony After the installation of a 5G cell tower in November 2021, constant high levels of microwave radiation began hitting my sleeping area through my bedroom window. As a result, my husband and I became very injured and sickly, experiencing the following non-exhaustive list of symptoms over an 18-month period: Sleep disturbances • Insomnia • Chronic fatigue • Never feeling refreshed Mood disturbances • Depression • Sadness • Irritability • Rage Vision problems • Blurry vision • Dry eyes • Floaters • Vision loss • Eye twitching • Sensitivity to light Neurological problems • Memory loss • Brain fog • Dizziness • Feeling disoriented • Saying the wrong words • Dropping things Heart problems • Palpitations • Chest pain • High blood pressure Hearing issues • Ringing in the ears • Hearing loss Physical pain • Sharp pain in ears • Joint and muscle pain • Leg cramping • Headaches • Burning and stabbing pain Hormonal issues • Hair loss • Thyroid enlargement • Thyroid nodule • Reproductive issues Metabolic issues • Weight gain • Inability to lose weight • Excessive weight loss Irregular temperature regulation • Getting overheated • Excessive sweating • Facial flushing Other • Teeth grinding • Hand tremors • Urinary issues • Aggressive nosebleeds • Trouble breathing • Coughing • Coughing up blood • Nausea • Dry heaving Based on MyChart data dating back to 2007, I went from an average of 2.5 doctor's visits per year to 22 doctor's visits within 18 months. The above list of ailments was generated from our doctors’ records during this time. During the 18 months of pain and sickness, we thought the air quality or pollution were responsible for how terrible we felt. Then, on a whim, I ordered an RF/Microwave radiation scanner, which led us to the source of our affliction. A thorough scan revealed radiation levels so high that the scanner could not register them (the meter’s maximum reading was 20,000 microwatts per meter squared). The readings came from a cell tower about 1.5 blocks away, which emitted a direct beam of radiation into our bedroom window, exposing us nightly to continuous microwave radiation. Upon discovering this, we blocked the radiation from coming into our window, which brought the signal down to almost nothing, almost eliminating the levels where we slept. That night, I experienced my first night of solid 8 straight hours of sleep in over a year. That was the first night that neither of us woke up repeatedly to use the restroom. Following this was the first morning in over a year that my husband was able to get out of bed without excruciating joint pain. That was the first night that our bodies began to heal. Since removing ourselves from this harmful environment 2 years ago, nearly all our symptoms have disappeared. I have returned to my previous rate of 2.5 doctor’s visits per year. All that remains for me is a shrinking thyroid nodule and a sensitivity to RF/microwave radiation exposure that yields unpleasant to unbearable physical reactions. The entire experience, including its aftermath, has been extremely difficult, scary, and sad for my family. It took two years to recover emotionally and find the strength to share my story. Although I hate telling people about this, I do so out of love, because I don’t want anyone to go through what happened to us.

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. This issue matters to me personally because I am aware of sufficient amounts of evidence and studies that show the great harm EMF's cause, like causing fertility issues and illnesses that can result in death. 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 is not an expert in health and biology and physiology, yet it ignores court orders to consider these things. I lived next to a cell phone tower when my wife was pregnant and had our first and second child. They like many people have different issues that reveal themselves over time. How do we know that none of them were because of the close proximity to that intense radiation exposure? We don’t know because there has not been adequate testing to determine this. Yet the FCC plows ahead without any serious consideration or scientific review. There is plenty of evidence to show the possibility of harm to my children. Worth some more deep research into these health concerns. The determination can be made with the right kind of research. Lets do that adequately and then we will know. And true progress can be made. Either to allow rapid deployment of useful technology, or to help provide the evidence which redirects the industry to the technology that will not harm humans nor biology. Health is cared for and progress is made. This is the responsible sustainable route. The prior route has been only to further corporate interest at the flagrant risk to human and environmental health. Please do the right thing!

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: We believe a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was negatively impacted by cell towers located outside the mobile home community where he resided. Other countries limit exposure, even China requires all pregnant women wear EMF protective clothing. 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: We believe a family friend, was negatively impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community, and recently died of cancer. Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women. 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: We believe, a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was directly adversely impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community in where he resided. We know other countries limit exposure, even China requires pregnant women to wear EMF protective clothing. 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.