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 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 family and I live 50 yards from a large 5G tower that hovers above a track and field and a playground. I can see the tower from my front yard and my family and I have experienced frequent headaches, brain fog and sleep disturbances. There are two children in our area who have been diagnosed with leukemia and it is difficult to not assume the 5G tower could have had some impact. We live in a densely populated neighborhood where many families are impacted by the use of this large tower. In addition to the tower, AT&T and Verizon have placed at least Four 5G "boosters" within a 100 yard radius of my home. They are in our alleyways and along our sidewalks. My Broadband RF meter detects levels far above "safe" at extreme levels (87,000 µW/m²). My children are exposed to this around the clock while at home. Would you feel comfortable with your family in this 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 I live by a large cell phone tower that is emitting radiation. I have read the book "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg, which gives a very strong case that EMF exposures can cause serious health effect. I have also read the book "The Body Electric" by Robert Becker, a scientist who studied the impact of EMF on biological systems and health. It is very difficult for a person like me to have the resources to prove that health issues are caused by EMFs. But it should be the responsibility of the government to make sure that environmental effects are not introduced which are dangerous to human health and potentially to the health of all biological things. It is difficult to prove which adverse health effects are being caused by EMFs since there is essentially no control group -- everyone is being bathed in 4G, 5G etc. Is it just a coincidence that the whole Covid-19 "pandemic" happened at the same time as the rollout of 5G cell towers across the country? 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: During 2021 when 5G was introduced to my neighborhood, I developed tinnitus, vertigo, and was unable to sleep in my bedroom secondary to headaches. I discovered, by using an EMF meter, that some of my issues were due to the Smart meter that had been placed on our home, outside, electrical meter. Once this was removed, I was able to sleep in my bedroom but I still experience the tinnitus especially in some parts of my home. However, when I am outside walking at the park, the tinnitus is almost totally resolved as I am away from the home wifi. I have also noticed that flies die very shortly after entering the home which I suspect might also be due to the wifi exposure. 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 is important to me because the researchers I trust who don't have financial ties to the cell phone industry are showing a strong correlation between cell phone radiation exposure and cancer, as well as to nervous system disruption. 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 very concerned, stressed, and worried about the abundant and rapid roll out of antennas, cell towers, 5G, and wi-fi routers in so many public places and schools. I do not feel there is adequate protections, testing, and transparency in the Cell and wireless industry. I am also worried for the babies, bats, bees, birds, and big mammals at sea affected by underwater sonar. The technology is moving so fast and furious that animals, birds, and humans have become Guinea pigs in a giant experiment of Eco smog, EMF, and EMR microwave radiation. Many people are showing symptoms of Electro Magnetic Hypersensitivity (EMS) and wireless exposure. Companies are well known for producing products with harmful issues and only strict regulations will force them to do the right thing. We need Liability Guidelines & Rules to protect the consumers. Please do the right thing and protect people from high tech advancements that expose animals and people to EMF and EMR. 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 suffer heart palpitations, headaches and sleep difficulties as a result of proximity to RF emissions, wireless routers and the proximity of wireless enabled devices. Turning off and/or removing wireless technology results in dramatic improvements in my energy level and ability to sleep through the night, and it also stops my heart from beating irregularly. Thank you for your consideration.

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 suffer from health issues that are exacerbated by forced exposure to wireless electric company meters on the wall of my house right outside my bedroom. In addition to computer routers, cell phones and neighbors smart technology, I am bombarded by radiation contributing to fatigue, brain fog, insomnia and anxiety. 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 name is Tina Kim Noble. I live in Boise, Idaho. I am filing this comment so the Commission has a human record, not only paper studies, when it finally answers the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 order to explain whether 1996 radiofrequency limits protect people from long-term exposure. Bob was my partner. As a young adult he was a ham radio operator. He and his friend spent long hours next to towers and transmitters. He believed that early, close work beside the towers was connected to what killed him. I can tell you what happened to him, how fast it took him, and how it feels for someone who lost the love of her life. He called me right after walking on the stair climber at Fort Boise. He had tried to speak and could not. A few days later we were together in the afternoon. He looked at me and tried to say that he loved me. He mouthed the words. Only drool came out. We hoped it was a TIA. It was a tumor. They said the best surgeon was in Seattle. We went immediately. The doctor came in and told us it was inoperable. Grade 4 glioblastoma. Bob and his sister, who had flown in from Florida, sat and listened. I collapsed in tears. We got home from Seattle on September 10, 2001. On the morning of the 11th I walked into the living room and saw the plane hit the tower. Watching it fall, I thought the world was ending. It was all too much to take in at once. The doctor gave him four months without chemo and radiation, nine months with them. He started Temodar and radiation. For months we talked about miracles. He took steroids to keep the swelling down. The steroids changed him. He became paranoid and angry. He thought I was having an affair. I asked him when I would have had time—raising three children, working, and driving him to radiation. When he needed round-the-clock care, his sister came to Boise. I kept calling and visiting. He lost all speech. One day I knew something had changed. I called her. He had stopped the chemo. Shortly after he had a seizure, then a stroke, and then he died. Before he died I got to say goodbye. He could not speak, but the love was back in his eyes. He patted the bed for me to sit beside him a while. I told him how much I loved him and how much I would miss him. Cody and Jenny (my two oldest) said goodbye too. Cody called him “brittle-bones Bob” because Bob was quite a bit older than I am. Bob loved that. We all loved him. I still do. Twenty-five years later I can finally feel the size of that loss. The Commission’s 1996 limits treat the body as safe if it does not heat. They were not written for a man who worked in a building next to towers for years, or for a family that later watched speech, personality, and then life leave in a few months. The court already told you to address long-term exposure, people close to sources, and whether those old testing rules still protect anyone. Please do that work. Do not close this record with another sentence that a certified device is fine if it does not cook tissue. I am asking you to stop pretending a 1996 thermal number is a complete answer to a grade 4 glioblastoma in a man who spent heavy time next to transmitters. Respectfully submitted, Tina K Noble, 208-629-9415

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 ever since 5G rollout and towers popping up everywhere my and my loved ones' health has declined significantly. We can often feel when we're getting beamed by cell phones, routers, towers and suffer from headaches including migraines, malaise, thyroid and heart issues, cancer and overall ill health. When I measure with a milligauss detector in homes, businesses, hotels and airplanes the ratings are more often than not far beyond what is considered "safe". Very "low" levels cause leukemia in children - so no level is safe, correct? 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.

Trees around a cell tower that I bike by are all dying. I've asked a local arborist about it and he said "it's common to see plant die off around cell towers." If thats true, what's it do to me? Well, when I go near that cell tower I feel my body tingle and vibrate as if I'm hooked up to an electrical outlet. I understand that the FCC has not updated its safety standards on RF for a long time, wonder why. Probably, because they are captured by industry capitalists. I no longer trust that my government has my best interest at hand.