Court remand & agency accountability

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.

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 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.

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.

I call for strong public health protections - just about none exist today! - on health issues associated with electromagnetic radiation from cell towers and cell phones. In 2021, in EHT v FCC, the court mandated the FCC must address the scientific evidence regarding wireless radiation impacts on humans and the environment. Since then, the FCC has done nothing! The last time there were health standards for wireless radiation was in the early 1990s – before many people even owned cell phones. The FCC would do well to look at Europe’s strong heath standards. Meanwhile there are hundreds of studies that point to terrible health effects for all species on Planet Earth: humans and every other species on this planet. Electromagnetic radiation has proven to be toxic to insects, for example, and a major contributor to the extreme drop off in insect populations around the world. There’s no longer an escape from wireless radiation – it’s everywhere on this planet. It’s long past time that we took action to protect humans and every other species.

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

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 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 nor is it an expert in medicine, but it 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 truly thought I was going to die young as any and all I tried did not work. In fact, the 15 different problems I had just kept getting worse, until I read and read and research, and talked to others until it all pointed to EMF toxicity. Once I took care to "distance and avoid" problems disappeared. No one talks about the dangers of EMF; no one informs the customer buying wireless gadgets it could be harmful. That's why I had to suffer for years until I did my own research and found a way to help myself. Even today, if I'm out in a heavy EMF area or if in a room full of people cell phones, I feel terrible. This is a real problem! I bought an expensive meter to see that it was not "in my head". No, it's a real problem alright. 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 must act in accordance w/ the federal order. I would like FCC to do their job and do it well and thoroughly. Thank you for this opportunity to express what is a very real and personal problem.

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.