Research, evidence & monitoring

I know when the cell towers went to 5 G, the children and families in the area of the tower all got sick. This was like having the flu, body aches, headaches. When the cell tower went in the farmers in the area had cows abort their calves and then you also had the uterine prolapse, which takes a cow out of production. Cornell did a study, never saw the results. It time to end the addition of towers, and upping the level.

I lost my husband to cancer 5 months ago. If you ever saw a loved one die of this disease, its unbearable. Studies have been done on the effects of wireless radiation. I fear for all of us on this planet!

I have definitely noticed pain and a tingling sensation in my hands when using certain cell phones (so I use them less often now. I think we should conduct studies to try and understand some of the risks, and hopefully try to make wireless technologies safer to use.

I've personally been impacted by wireless radiation through devices at home and work. From headaches, sleeplessness, and inability to concentrate, wireless radiation has significantly impacted my life, as I've had to spend money i don't have on airtube headphones and expensive EMF blockers that I must carry everywhere to stay in my protected bubble. This has helped, but I don't know what the next generation phones and other technology may bring that I'll have to research ways to mitigate just so I can function. It's egregious that the FCC has allowed unbridled rollout of all of this wireless radiation without simple safety testing. Go to those in the EMF blocking industry. They can help, quickly. Stop harming generations of people.

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 live in a condominium complex and my building has five attached units. Five out of the five units have residents who have been diagnosed with cancer, four with bladder cancer and one with lymphoma. We have had the water tested by the State DEP and the result shows no reason for concern. There are seven cell towers within three miles of our building, two of which are within less than one-half mile. 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: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants or the environment.] 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.

Insomnia has been a constant for me since the rollout of cell towers, wi-fi and the spread of EMFs on a vast scale. The studies made in the '90s based on heat have been shown not to be valid. Please review all studies that show effects of EMFs on the animal and even plant biology. Sincerely, Marie Roulleau

Greetings FCC, I have experienced loss of equilibrium due to electromagnetic frequency bombardment and sleep interruption from the dangerous standard frequency of 2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz frequency band is a globally recognized, unlicensed spectrum range (2.400–2.4835 GHz) within the Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band, allowing devices to operate without regulatory licensing. It serves as the foundational infrastructure for ubiquitous short-range wireless technologies, most notably Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b/g/n/ax), Bluetooth, Zigbee, and cordless phones. This is a harmful frequency implemented rather than a beneficial frequency for an unknown, but likely nefarious, purpose.

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 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 the long-term exposure to this kind of technology has not been studied. So we do not know the facts, and it’s unacceptable to expose millions of people to this technology without doing studies to see if it’s safe or not. My personal experience has been that when I set up and started using my home office, my health deteriorated. I noticed that I always feel much better whenever I’m traveling and staying at a relative’s house, which is hardwired And each time I go back home and start working in my office again, my health deteriorates again. Since I live very near two large apartment buildings, I decided to check and see how many wifi networks reached my office. The most recent reading showed more than 25 networks can be accessed at the area where I am working much of each day. Since there are currently no studies that show whether this is safe or not, it is unnerving. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the iss idueentified by the court.