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. This issue matters to me personally because I am aware of sufficient amounts of evidence and studies that show the great harm EMF's cause, like causing fertility issues and illnesses that can result in death. 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 I have seen the effects the towers have on birds. They swarm them and act neurotic. This is a tower that is feet from an elementary school. One person could very well see that if this tower is effecting wildlife, it has to cause some type of reaction in children or humans in general. Electro magnetic frequencies (EMF) are dispersed from devices, why wouldn’t a tower disperse the same? Continuing with new construction would almost be like a legal form of murder. The environmental signs are there and we need to stop ignoring them. 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.

The FCC is not an expert in health and biology and physiology, yet it ignores court orders to consider these things. I lived next to a cell phone tower when my wife was pregnant and had our first and second child. They like many people have different issues that reveal themselves over time. How do we know that none of them were because of the close proximity to that intense radiation exposure? We don’t know because there has not been adequate testing to determine this. Yet the FCC plows ahead without any serious consideration or scientific review. There is plenty of evidence to show the possibility of harm to my children. Worth some more deep research into these health concerns. The determination can be made with the right kind of research. Lets do that adequately and then we will know. And true progress can be made. Either to allow rapid deployment of useful technology, or to help provide the evidence which redirects the industry to the technology that will not harm humans nor biology. Health is cared for and progress is made. This is the responsible sustainable route. The prior route has been only to further corporate interest at the flagrant risk to human and environmental health. Please do the right thing!

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 feel the effects of the humongous two-tier cell tower that is within hundreds of feet from my home. Not only has it lowered home values in my area, but more importantly I feel what it emits in every cell of my body. I feel in my body, the constant bombardment of waves coming from these towers, cellphones, WiFi, repeaters, and satellites pumping out toxic waveforms. How much more evidence do you need that this bombardment is responsible for 20th-21st century epidemics of chronic insomnia, anxiety, depression, agitation, and gut-brain health issues. And probably cancer. There used to be tons of wildlife where I live, but even birds and bees have seemingly lost their way from this onslaught. Let's face it, we know that lobbyists and conflicts of interest have full control of government agencies, and have for a very long time. It is time for people like me and my family to matter--integrity, ethical concerns... instead of greed and a desire to hurt-torture-kill human beings in the name of 'saving the planet.' Money is a narrative created by those who created it and propagandized it into 'reality.' A Monopoly game is as real as the system we are all subject to. PLEASE, wake up and do what people hired you to do before we didn't matter anymore. That said, 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 and things identified by constituents.

Hello. I am writing concerning 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, much of which is unknown due to lack of safety testing. The health and wellbeing of humans should take precedence over the wealth of the cellular and internet industries. 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 is unacceptable. They seem to be only concerned with money, not human health. 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. Wireless radiation poses a threat to all life. Some people, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN, are more susceptible to the health risks associated with wireless radiation and it's the job of the ADULTS to protect them, not the profits of those who incentivize with $$$.

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 was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer at the age of 41 and given 3 months to live by my doctors. My husband and I had 4 year old twin daughters at the time. We were devastated. We had an environmental assessment done at our home and discovered that the wireless phone base station we had placed next to my desk to the right of my computer screen was putting off radiation that was off the charts. And my tumor was one my right side just a foot or two from the base station. Before cancer, we were unaware of the harms of RF radiation. We assumed as most people do that our government would not allow devices that caused serious harms. Fortunately I survived my cancer that would otherwise have devastated my children and husband. It’s imperative that the FCC take extreme care in allowing 5G and other devices to be placed near people’s homes and properly test devices we all use to make sure they do not cause cancer and other serious harms. 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 I am concerned about myself and my living environment. I need for you to currently test for all impacts to humans, animals, and our environments. Health impacts need to be heard when licenses/applications are being reviewed in public hearings. "We the people" need an agency set up to protect the people, such as the FCC, to gather the objective scientific data for the health agencies to know the impacts to and protect the people's safety and health. Objective, repeatable data not influenced by corporate financial gain. 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 email is a reply to 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. It’s shameful that the FCC is not fully considering 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 must recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because ever since the summer of 2020, when 5G became ubiquitous without any testing or even discussion of its health impacts, I suddenly had EMF intolerance and tinnitus. Neither of these conditions normally appear suddenly, but huge numbers of people had the same experience that I did in 2020. The FCC’s job, among other things, is to protect people from harmful radiation. It is currently failing at this important duty. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it. To do less than this is to continue in its complete dereliction of duty.

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.

To whom it concerns, Wireless radiation has not been properly tested for safety. I urge the FCC to ensure this is done. Please due the proper testing. Lawrence Kochert