Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices

I get rashes, break outs, immune crashes, anxiety, panic attacks,... all while being a teacher with WIFI in my room. Most of it went away when I unplugged it. Now, I have my home WIFI router on a timer to turn off at night as it disrupts my sleep otherwise.

I want the FCC to investigate further regarding the harmful effects of radio frequencies associated with cell towers, cell phones and other devices.

I think all of us should be wary of the radiation emitted by cell towers, smart meters, WiFi Routers, and similar contraptions. My personal experience with Wi-Fi in the home is that after placing a radiation holding "bag" over the Router to ameliorate any harmful effects, when I remove the bag, it is red-hot. Similarly, I cannot speak with my cellphone next to my head for I feel it disturbs or disrupts my brain: there is a palpable sensation of heat generated by the phone. I could talk for hours using the old analog phones which were directly wired to a jack in the wall. Now, I can speak on a cellphone next to my ear for a maximum of 3-5 minutes; after that period, I then become aware of heat and who knows what damage the frequencies are doing to my brain cells. This is subjective, but I also feel great discomfort with the WiFi on; cannot sleep properly; I have also noticed an increase of rheumatic pain, unusual agitation in domestic animals, and so forth. Therefore it is almost always off, but I need it on for a couple hours each day for computer use and cellphone data use. I think it is impossible to escape these radionic frequencies nowadays; but something probably can be developed to mitigate their deleterious impacts on biological life: plants, animals, humans. But that would cost money. I need not add that there is an increase in discomfort and most probably, multi-cellular damage, with the increase of 4G to 5G, and I can only imagine the horrors if 6G is introduced.

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: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants or the environment.] 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 believe I have been affected by electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) for a number of years. I have had surgery to treat atrial fibrillation which I think was caused by increasing cellular phone usage and the mandatory deployment of smart meters all over the state of Pennsylvania. There is a connection between the increased EMF signals bombarding the population and a higher rate of diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, probably not as noticeable in younger adults, but underlying future development.

I am highly concerned about the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The FCC has no authority or expertise in biology or public health nor have they studied RF radiation affects on public health, but the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards. RF radiation DOES affect public health and DOES cause biological harm. This issue matters to me personally because I am sensitive to ALL wireless devices, including cell towers, cell phones, and smart meters. I became sensitive seven years ago after driving a newer car equipped with bluetooth devices. After researching the internet to understand my condition, I sold that car and removed all wireless devices from our house, because they cause me to have hours of painful headaches which nothing, except 10-24 hours of staying at home, will remove; our house is now wired with ethernet. Where I frequently drive, there are six cell towers within ten miles of my house. These wireless devices are dangerous to human and animal health. More wireless will cause chronic illness to continue rising and even death for millions of people. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence of others 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. 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.

My being exposed to wifi, cell phones, smart meters, etc has caused me much discomfort and pain due to the microwaves created and received by these devices. Man creates his artificial environment, and then that created environment recreates man. The nature of electromagnetic fields problem (unlike cigarette smoke which is harmful) is that you can't see it or feel it. But the damage is being done non-stop. The engineers who created this technology hid behind the fallacy that if these emf could not raise the temperature of a person's skin, it was totally harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some call this emf man made pollution: dirty electricity found on the electrical wires in a house. Using an ociloscope will show radio and microwave activity associated with power switch mode transformers that convert 110 volt alternating current fields (aka ELF extremely low fields) into pulsing direct current fields. These energy saving devices were forced on manufacturers to save energy, but create micro sparks or arcs that resonate with the integrity of human cells. In fact the arcing makes the cell membranes leaky. With leaky cell walls you now compromise the integrity of the body junctions that serve as barriers to prevent unwanted toxins to enter. These junctions include the skin barrier, the gut barrier and the brain barrier. Hence cell phones, wifi, smart meters and smart devices cause human beings much damage to their body's primary defense barriers. So now due to cell phones, wifi, smart meters, etc people now have compromised immune function due to leaky skin, leaky gut barrier and leaky brain barrier. The FCC and FDA are asleep at the switch and not protecting people from the damage done when people are exposed to radio and microwaves produced by smart devices including cell phones, wifi, personal computers, etc. Government has a duty to regulate commerce that causes harm to the planet, the people, the livestock, the bugs, the fish, the most fragile living forms on this planet.

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!