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. I am pleased that 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. It is so important to require 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. I can remember reading the package insert of instructions when our cell phones were 2 and 3 G, and we were instructed not to keep the phone to the ear and to use an ear piece to have a conversation on the phone. I've seen my partners phone tells you when you are holding the phone too close. Obviously it is noted that wireless radiation can affect one's health. My daughter's children always had difficulty sleeping, when she lived next door to me in Long Beach, New York, her children now sleep much better at night since she moved out of New York on top of a mountain in North Carolina where the nearest tower is 3 miles away. She moved 4 years ago and her children then were 4, 7 and 10, so they were not infants when they had difficulty sleeping. I also have difficulty sleeping at night. but we have a house in the Adirondacks and I sleep great there, I hear a constant hum here in Long Beach. It is not tinnitus. I am an RN and I know the difference. The hum is not inside my head. It comes from outside and being that I also am a musician, I needed to hum to myself to match the note sound and it is an F sharp on the lower end of the piano give or take a 1/4 note. It hasn't changed the note since I've been noting it. I wired my household desk top computers to ethernet and turned off the wi- fi, to diminish the exposure while I'm on the computer, however of course I still have wifi in the house for TV and phone use. And the low hum is constant all day and night. I use a phone case with an EMF radiation barrier. I don't know how much it helps, but I know there are devices that help block the radiation. Perhaps the towers can be housed in a blocking radiation structure. I do know in the medical field we recommend not keeping cell phones close to the body or in pockets, especially for couples going through fertility treatments. So it seems it is known that EMF radiation does negatively affect the body. The big question here is how much do we let corporate greed dictate policy impacting all of humanity in a negative way. Thank you for your reaching out to Americans for their experiences and hopefully you can devise and implement ways to protect us. Lori Field, RN

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 am concerned for the safety of my family, friends and students/coworkers at the elementary school where I am employed. I have seen the behavior and mental health of my students decline once they were assigned one-to-one wireless devices. Children are using wireless devices at school and at home for excessive hours daily. We have a student in Children's Hospital undergoing treatment for a deadly cancer that normally affects senior citizens. Our electric company Eversource is currently replacing meters with smart meter and I am concerned about the effects on students and staff being bombarded 24/7 with more RF. 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.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies ET Docket No. 13-84 COMMENTS OF JANET DAVENPORT This filing provides comments from Janet Davenport in the above-referenced proceeding. I am a member of the public concerned with the unaddressed potential health and environmental risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices. SUMMARY I am filing a report for a friend who is so sick with EHS that she can't even use electricity let alone get online to comment on her condition. She is an individual consumer living in Australia. Janet had to have the wiring in her home restructured so that all other wiring was separate from it. She uses no electricity and keeps warm during winter using candles. With exposures to wi-fi, mobile phones and cell towers, within 3 minutes she suffers severe migraines and begins vomiting. It can take her weeks to recover from simple exposures so for the most part she is completely isolated with no support from anyone. As I have EHS too, we write to each other and have done for years. It helps her not to feel so alone. I know Janet would like to see awareness raised on EMF dangers and protocols set in place to protect vulnerable sensitive people like herself. ARGUMENT Janet understands the full effects that EMF can have on the human body from her personal experience. She also gets printed newsletters and magazines to keep her updated on EMF research. Some of the points she would like to illustrate on these effects include: 1. The Effects of oxidative stress on the body including cancer, free radicals, blood chemistry. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation - PubMed 2. The acute health effects caused by smartphones and antennas which have proven to cause red blood cells to rouleaux creating hypoxic conditions in the body. CONCLUSION Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission. Dated: 26th September 2026 Sincerely, JANET DAVENPORT Site 14, 2 Evans Rd Canton Beach, NSW 2263 Australia

Please create meaningful EMF standards. Good effects will redound in human health and our beloved natural world, and will stimulate our economy. Of course you are familiar with the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 2018 “most extensive study to date,” determining that cell phone emissions cause tumors in male rats and DNA damage. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campaign=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone Immediately addressing the exposure of our school children seems a natural priority. My own story: Awareness of EMF sensitivity came to me after 54 years of age. Perhaps that’s when SmartMeters and a nearby Verison hotspot came in, or — as effects are cumulative — maybe that’s when my bucket overflowed, so to speak. My sensitivity spiked on a single day, after a medical test that day. Thereafter, there was no place in my house I could sleep before purchasing a sleep canopy — which is fragile, difficult to maintain, and does not stop all EMFs. And I continued to lose health from daytime exposure. I had a breast cancer operation in 2008, and was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s disease thereafter. I sold that house and moved. As you doubtless know, there are many, many symptoms which vary per human body and source, focus, direction, timing, and power of signal or flow. I seem sensitive to all three types of EMFs. Inability to sleep and feeling unwell are perhaps the words to describe my most abiding symptoms. Before selling my unhealthy house, from which I couldn’t move before finding a healthy place, I got down to 88 pounds (height 5’5”) despite eating 5000-6000 calories a day. After four years of recovery in a healthy-EMFwise location, seldom venturing into the world, I’m back at 120 pounds and feeling good. Hashimotos disease has disappeared. But my EMF sensitivity continues to grow, despite my seeking medical and energetic cures. I am unable to withstand exposure in work places, so I can’t work; a doctor exempted me from jury duty; I am grateful for protective film in my car windows. I laugh: I am one of the few to benefit from Covid precautions; six feet of distance in checkout lines makes others’ cell phones easier to bear. Monetary costs are of course significant: selling and buying houses, cancer treatment, seeking medical remedies to EMF harms, being unemployed. One knows that my new house may become untenable too, since the telecommunications industry calls the shots. I know others who are EMF sensitive. One is housebound at 50. Others don’t want it known that they are sensitive or feeling unwell, beset, pained. One of my silent EHS friends is an M.D. Another is a school official. I imagine that these standards would limit most stringently the harmful frequencies currently in common use (frequencies originally used, as I hear, in military weapons research). If I were in your position, I would favor the building biology guidelines for dwellings and places where children or the sick congregate. Knowing that those limits will be exceeded many places, work toward safety would be done in stages, first with no new installation or upgrades permitted in impacted areas; second with phased reductions in permitted output of damaging EMFs. Much more healthful frequencies exist, and technological improvements to favor health can offer great economic opportunities and environmental improvement. Some healthier options are already available, but cannot compete against the entrenched practices while those are allowed to set the standard. I wish courage, far-sightedness, and compassion to attend you in your considerations.

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 beekeeper, I have personally seen the effects of 5g wireless radiation on our pollinators. We had a 5g tower installed less than 5 miles away several years ago. After the towers installation, I began to have excessive bee colony deaths over the winter. This had not been an issue with my colonies prior to the towers installation. In addition, to the bee losses, I began to experience an increase in headaches when at home. As a nurse, I began to do research and learned there is emerging evidence of the health implications for both animals and humans from 5G technology. I was appalled at how communicatuons companies and the FCC have failed to conduct any independent research on the effects of their technology! This is unacceptable! Further, the towers are unsightly and decrease property values and are bypassing any resident input on their placement. 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.

Besides tinnitus proliferation and NEPA requests last decade to FCC for studies showing EMF safety, which both "bought" parties blew off for profit..... re Cell phone EMF’s (ElectroMagnetic Frequencies) and their serious impacts I sort of jokingly initially referred to the problems of isolation, narcissism, "anti-"social media vs actual direct communication, general dumb-downing, etc., initiated primarily by intro of common cell use in the early 2000's, by referencing the owners’ "addicting" cell phones ( which I call StupidPhones or ViewBlockers and do not use, while I do LOVE safe hardwired fiber optics and internet). It was only a few months ago now that I changed my own thinking about that somewhat meant to be a "teasing " term, "addictive". This is when I fully realized that these people are truly ADDICTED, and denial is one of the MAIN signs of addiction. Hence the question I have been too often asked, "How can you possibly live without one???" is not a casual sort of joke, but an honest but unacknowledged admission of genuine addiction. I have shared the following info with c 150+ different individuals and organizations and only 2 have ever brought the subject back up to me, one a lawyer friend, now convinced, who has argued in front of the Supreme Court in the past, and another, a nationally renowned ornithologist who said he would now add this threat to insects, in particular, outlined below to his already existing list of 1) habitat loss , 2) overuse of herbi-pesticides (which I have battled against alone and with my students for decades), and 3) climate change (a pathetically self-exculpatory abstracted term for those in our world-exploiting “consumer culture”) From a recent search "EMF harms to Insects" PLENTY to look at..... if one looks Here are a first few This first one below reiterates the dearth of focused newer studies ( due to unwillingness of cell addicts, + Telecom influence to obfuscate and squelch). My "anecdotal" evidence of YEARS (2009 until 5G arrival in early '23) of ALWAYS seeing probably hundreds of honey and other bees, + other insects, EVERY time I would go on a run through our burbs on all the yr round flowering plants or other insects around lights at night here is, in our poor at self-examination anthronarcissistic culture, unfortunately worth little. These days since early '23, I sometimes see ZERO insects on say a similar to the past heavily flowered 9 mile jaunt. Now I revel if I see 1 dragonfly or butterfly or one bat or maybe YAY even a few honeybees, usually only on one out of many nearby blooming plants, such as an in bloom Texas Ranger, which since my arrival here in 2001 always were formerly adorned with happily foraging bees. Much referenced in this article, that sounds horrible to me already, uses phrases such as "deserves further research of such and such type ". Denial and addiction hahah ! Even the "old" and "not focused" or dismissed as 'irrelevant' studies are so troubling to me that I can SO easily see how the cell industry has capitalized on human's fascination with and addiction to these devices as OVERWHELMINGLY and quickly as possible, while practicing what I call omitformation... just like with tobacco, the covid mRNA shots, or Roundup, or petro and global warming etc Don't LIE, OMIT just leave out and obfuscate anything that might deter profit. And with those amounts of $, one can buy all sorts of elections, legislation, appointees, rules, permits, loopholes, subsidies, etc. while ignoring any adverse science and ramming through basically untested tech. Take the $ and run before you have to (maybe) pay up later when the truth emerges ( eg Bayer Monsanto and current glyphosate settlements) The worst examples of fox guarding the hen house. The Telecom bought and dominated FCC rammed through 5G with virtually ZERO safety testing. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis and https://ehtrust.org/new-scientific-review-insects-threatened-by-emfs-including-5g-and-cell-tower-and-wireless-radiation/ and I do not always agree with all Mercola puts out, but value the work he does to collate and reference his sources This also, I think, talks about often poohpoohed EMF sensitivity in humans? https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/14/health-risks-of-5g.aspx?ui=93a5ed18b3438ac769725b337148474558c3bc7313758107668f5eef905cd1e6&sd=20170417&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20240414_HL2&foDate=false&mid=DM1557196 here are the links to the beekeeper association's' related studies I shared out a few yrs ago, now 3 yrs old https://www.beeculture.com/electromagnetic-radiation-part-1/ https://www.beeculture.com/electromagnetic-radiation-part-2/ Not sure exactly where I have also read about re cell radiation links to ADHD ( finally ! as I watched my students dumb down and lose focus since cell proliferation, even the very brightest we might send off to Exeter et similis), to hormone disruption in all animals, interference with plant cycles, various cancers from extra close regular exposure ( a small but well done study of Israeli electrical workers) etc etc .. NO PROBLEM HERE !!! just Scroll away and ignore wherever you are and whomever you might be with and your impact on the planet ! (why I call them ViewBlockers) $$$$$$$$$$ "normal" see... we "All" do it ! As I have mentioned to many before I believe, although I'd be happiest with close to zero cell EMF bombardment, the bees etc "seemed" OK with yrs of just 3 and 4 G and the same stupid overuse of herbicides and pesticides I have battled against for years that has not changed significantly since 5 G arrival. .......and more "anecdotal" evidence. when far enough away from urban sub-urban 5G's limited range of blanketing , say out at Corn Creek DNWR HQ miles from the expanding burbs (still !) or out in the wilderness desert and mts near me, I still see more insects. ( hard to believe but supposedly there are over 700 species of bees native to our Clark County !!!! must be some awesome specialization) PLENTY to see ......If one wants to look into all this, which virtually "NO ONE" seems willing to do, " Enough bad news already ?? vs learning anything negative about my "convenient" cell phone security blanket ?" Thanks Scott PS Although THEY will not tell you this , apparently your own cell phone emits its most dangerous EMF radiation levels when you have lowest bars as it is not receiving enough EMF's from elsewhere to connect.....please use speaker phone especially then ! Be well !

The FCC should admit that it has caused severe health consequences to millions of Americans. Some of these consequences are due to the Smart Grid, which pulses astronomical levels of radiation into people's homes. Please see documents submitted under comments number 202609253096515102 and 20260924206082875. 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. The FCC has no mandate to protect the public health and should not be doing this. 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. The FCC should hand off the duty to protect the public health to agencies that are mandated to do so.

I bought my first cell phone in 1993 and from that day to this, I cannot use the phone for anything except text messaging. The reason for this is because text messages take only a second to transmit while calls require transmission signaling continuously. If anyone called me, in less than a minute, my head would be feeling like it was about to explode. Clearly, that was my body telling me that it did not want to be anywhere near signaling for phone calls that, while invisible, certainly impacted my body! I support doing more research on the health and safety impacts of cell phone radiation and I understand that such testing is currently done with plastic dummies, rather than on humans. In addition, the radiation levels allowed in the United States seem to be in excess of those in other countries. Finally, technology has evolved so much since cell phones were initially released and standards most definitely need to be updated to acknowledge that we have gone from 2G to 3G to 4G to 5G and I hear 6G will be released soon as well. Given that I have had such issues for so long, it seems wise to operate from the precautionary principle and err on the side of safety, especially since technology has changed so much over these years as well. Thank you for your consideration and for representing the health & safety of Americans! Sincerely,

The introduction of global Wireless technology has not been adequately studied for its potential non-ionizing effects; although these were being studied some time ago and ceased for the most part when the science was taken hold of by various interested parties such as corporations, government, intelligence, and military. The long history of wireless use testing is also withheld from the public because it was entirely in the hands of the interested parties for decades who were the ones studying it, and using it for testing of many dual purposes. Initial studies in Russia and other countries indicated all over body effects observed in both animal and human studies. We are now seeing on a mass scale, widespread effects when combined with other environmental factors such as heavy metals, pesticides, and harmful plastics in the air, food, soil, and water and now including nanotechnology that is being found in many products that we use and consume that are not in any way being ceased, regulated, or really even studied properly in ways that would benefit the consumer or the public at large, most of what is being published publicly is to promote its use in key industries. What are the regulatory bodies created to do if they are not supposed to regulate and hold to account predatory entities with products that may cause significant which are actively using the above in order that things like wireless technologies can be more effectively used for a host of many dual uses for their potential profit at the expense of the public at large? The Internet of Things is the Internet of Everything and has not been regulated for safety, it is being advanced without human consent in many ways though much of this has been presented in such a way as to manufacture collective consent, the only reason this could be possible would have to be because of the above interested parties largely having full control due to unbridled lobby access and using this for so called national security interests, global international agreements along the same lines, and corporate malfeasance. The public was lured into widespread use of a technology that was owned exclusively by the corporate military services which is also largely working in tandem with the government and its contractors, its organizations that spread into these academic and public health arenas taking hold and using the policies those entities use in which to keep the full extant of things hidden from the public such as national security, proprietary, GRAS, or some other type of non disclosure protection procedure being used in order to withhold important and life saving information from the public.

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.