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: 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.

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.

This issue matters to me personally because I have experienced significant and persistent health problems that I associate with electromagnetic radiation exposure beginning in 2018. In approximately 2018, after water and gas smart meters were installed near my home, I began experiencing a number of symptoms that were unusual for me and that developed over a relatively short period of time. These included persistent tingling and numbness in my hands and feet, severe sleep disturbance and insomnia, dizziness and balance problems, palpitations, migraines, tinnitus, nausea, weakness, body aches, burning eyes, temperature dysregulation, difficulty typing and thinking, and other neurological symptoms. I also experienced episodes of vomiting, which was unusual for me. These problems became severe enough that I was unable to continue working. I have experienced chronic fatigue and neuropathy/polyneuropathy, and my medical record includes documentation concerning effects from electromagnetic fields/radiation. I have continued to seek medical care and evaluation for my symptoms. One of the most significant observations in my experience has been what happens when I am away from my home environment. On occasions when I have stayed away from my home, including a period in 2024 at my sister's home where there were no smart meters, I experienced noticeable improvement in my symptoms. I have also experienced improvement during shorter periods away from my home. I cannot determine from these observations alone what caused my symptoms, but the repeated difference between my home environment and locations away from it is one reason I believe my experience warrants serious investigation. My exposure concerns have continued as additional electric meters have been installed near my residence. Multiple electric meters are now located under or near my bedroom windows. I have become so concerned about my bedroom environment that I have been unable to sleep there for an extended period and now sleep on my sofa. It is difficult to describe what it feels like to no longer feel comfortable in your own home. I have lost my ability to work and the financial independence that came with it. I live on a fixed income. Ordinary things that most people take for granted—sleeping in my own bedroom, concentrating, typing, using my hands normally, feeling steady on my feet, and simply feeling well enough to function through the day—have become difficult. I have also experienced increasing numbness in my hands and feet and dizziness. At times I have difficulty feeling objects in my hands, which has affected ordinary activities and has caused me concern about driving and my safety. I have photographs, videos, medical records, and other documentation relating to my experience and the electromagnetic environment around my home. I am willing to make supporting documentation available if requested. I am not asking federal agencies to treat my individual experience as scientific proof of causation. I am asking that experiences such as mine be taken seriously and considered as part of the broader investigation into possible non-cancer health effects, long-term and cumulative exposure, individual susceptibility, and real-world exposure conditions. I never expected that I would have to choose between my health and my own home. I never expected that I would lose my ability to work or that ordinary daily activities would become difficult. I am sharing my experience because I do not want other people—particularly children, older adults, people with existing health conditions, or people who may be especially sensitive to environmental exposures—to find themselves in the same position without their experiences being heard or investigated. I respectfully urge the FCC and the Department of Health and Human Services to listen to people who are reporting these experiences and to ensure that appropriate medical, biological, and public-health expertise is included when evaluating the safety of current exposure guidelines.

There is no reason the FCC should be allowed to ignore a court order demanding that recent research be not only explored but used to develop new safety guidelines for the human exposure to EMFs. They damage health. The research is there. It makes me wonder who the FCC is in bed with so they do not have to abide by court orders. I thought the FCC existed to keep us safe too. The present guidelines are too old. Guidelines and safety standards need to be studied for 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G and 10G. No human or animals should be exposed to this much radiation. There are radiation safety standards for a reason. Is it all about the money? Money over health. We cannot get away from EMFs. Cell phones, wi fi towers, are all around. And companies just want more and more placed by schools, nursing homes, churches and neighborhoods. My headaches increase more often. According to my biofeedback my ATP cellular energy is lowered by more and more radiation effects. Hospitals and clinics have to follow strict radiation standards and so should EMF companies. Since I have cancer, I cannot afford to have a weakened immune system. Since EMFS cause that weakness, I should be able to sue EMF companies for my health bills. I say NO MORE CELL TOWERS, NO MORE WIFI BOOSTERS. Our country is sick enough.

Please STOP the onslaught of wireless technologies that have been shown to cause harm to all of us, children being the most at rick! The impacts of RF radiation on children can be very harmful. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation needs more study. The FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996! Discraceful!! The impacts of RF radiation on the environment has also shown great harm. Thank you for peotecting oue Children! K

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 acutely sensitive to RF radiation and have, as a result, had my life drastically curtailed. I am unabnle to tolerate any artificial light currently, with the sole exception of very reduced light from my computer monitor, which I cover with an EMF-reducing fabric. . . and my time on the computer is greatly limited. I do not use a cell phone, due to this sensitivity, but am nonetheless exposed to it without my consent from neighbors and multiple cell phone towers around me. 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 with utmost concern about the FCC's handling of wireless radiation and the significant negative health effects the ever growing radiation is creating for me, my family and everyone. It is the biggest issue I am concerned about as an american citizen right now. I am specifically 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 get terrible headaches when I am in the near proximity of cell towers. In high rises, with multiple wifi, I feel agitation in my body and have trouble sleeping. When I am driving on highways that are increasingly being peppered with towers of all EMF type, I have been feeling wired and physically tired after a short period of time. Until I got an emf blocking cell phone case, my hand holding my cell phone would feel physically zapped after a few minutes of use. I am watching the rapid nervous systems, physical health and emotional well-being decline in our population and it is of utmost concern to me that IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE ACTION and actual broad scale research be done on the effect of this technology. The FCC is NOT A HEALTH AGENCY! It 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 is the single greatest threat to life in our country and world. Please dig deep within your hearts, minds and souls, and act with URGENT PROTECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE MEASURES & WORK IN CONCERT WITH HHS AND OTHER HEALTH AGENCIES!

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. 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. 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.