Exposure limits & testing

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 concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electronic device and use air buds all the time.One has ADHD and the other has gone through some depression, which I am sure the constant radiation exposure doesn't help. I am worried about this whole younger generation and what the years of exposure, that is cumulative will do to them. Their school has 2 5or6 G towers outside it, so even playing & watch soccer games, we do not feel safe. Please do current testing, as the radiation is so much stronger now than previous test on how it affects the brain body.

I am very concerned about EMF exposure on our health, animals and the environment. I am highly sensitive to it and have had health issues from it. It is not good for our health. The testing for how it affects our bodies is out of date. Please start honest testing and protect us from it. Also, data centers! Please stand up for our health against big business. That is what you are hired to do.

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. I initially became aware of the presence wireless devices when my city began installing smart meters. Soon I began felling dizzy, oozy, unsteady on my feet, and even felt like my skin was being pricked with sharp needles. The discomfort now includes cold numb hands and fingers. My body feels fatigued , reaching the point of exhaustion. I am specially concerned with the effects of short, medium and long-term exposure to wireless radiation on our children, growing under this ever present radiation. 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.

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.

At the congressional hearing on 5G several years ago, Sen. Blumenthal asked the FCC representatives, "Has there been any safety testing on humans for 5G?" The answer was "No." Is there funding set aside for safety testing of 5G on humans?" The answer was "No." Appalling! This is egregious that you are experimenting on us and our children with your only concern - profit and how fast you can download a movie. Please show some sense of ethics and listen to the science. Remember to exercise the precautionary principle.