Research, evidence & monitoring

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.

I am a biostatistician. There is no data on long-term biological effects of RF exposure, and precious little data on acute effects. This is completely unacceptable. Even if we accept that wireless communications are a part of our society and our economy, here to stay, there are policy decisions to be made about transmission protocols, tower placements, and power limits. These should depend on frequency and on modulation, and we don't have the information we need to minimize health impacts. Let's begin now a massive program of information gathering.

It is time to review:The impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation. The ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996. The impacts of RF radiation on the environment. The adequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices.

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: My autistic son continued to have seizures and medications did not stop his seizure. The wireless router about 6 meters away from him got damaged and it was replaced with another one further away from him. Within 3 months his seizures stopped! He did not have seizures for 2 years and he got another seizure after he used a phone for several hours for an activity. 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 I have been severely and adversely affected by wireless radiation. My health and career have been severely hampered by the exposures, and I have suffered immensely as a result. I have also been bullied by many people in my life because of my intolerance for exposure to wireless radiation. I live in constant fear of a wireless transmitter being installed near or on my home and the debility that would result. I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to remediate my home and purchase protective clothing and other equipment that allows me to leave the safety of my home for short periods. This needs to be addressed at a federal level and the citizens' safety, health, and wellbeing prioritized and protected. The current level of exposure is unacceptable and the direction we are headed in as a nation poses an even greater threat to my safety and wellbeing.

The FCC is not a health agency and is not taking into consideration the scientific evidence showing the very harmful effects of RF radiation on humans and animals. Recent decisions need reconsideration to protect human health and the environment.

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: You need to obey the court, and do your job. The thousands of studies (many of them Russian) need objective evaluation. Stop relying on the decades old decision that harm can’t be done without tissue heating. Look at glioma rates. Stop Stonewalling us. 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.

My family and I noticed our headaches were getting more frequent over the years. We all bought cell phones around 2010. In 2015 - 2020, the increase of headaches, and general fatigue, had increased by more than 40%. During this time, we moved from New Hampshire to Arizona. The headaches, lowered immune responses (getting sick more often), general fatigue, not sleeping well, all increased significantly from 2020 to 2025. Talking to neighbors around us, we discussed similar issues and that it seemed to be getting worse. We became aware of the number of cell towers were within a 3 mile radius of our home. We stopped holding the phones to our heads during conversations, wearing faraday hats, shutting the wifi off at night, using faraday blankets at night and discontinued as much wireless technologies as possible, including cutting down by almost 50%, our iPhone scrolling and starting reading more books and spending time out in nature. The headaches and general fatigue continued but significantly less and to a much lesser degree of intensity. From all the studies, the warnings and what the government fails to inform the public of the real dangers of wireless technologies, we are convinced that this technology is destroying human health. The public deserves to know, so they can make informed decisions about the wireless devices they consider using in their everyday lives.

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 guidelines that FCC has in place is from decades ago. At that time we didn’t have as many electronic or computerized devices. More devices means more usage of RF and harm to people, the environment and all its inhabitants.

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: Our family personally feels mentlaly and physically drained and gets headaches when exposed to WiFi or towers for extended period of time. A good friend of ours who lives near a cell tower has experienced pregnancy complications and a baby born at 23 weeks, who passed away shortly after birth. Another close friend qho lives by a 5G antenna has many autoimmune and health issues. Ontop of this, there are many people who live by cell towers and antennas who develop cancers. 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.