Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices

I began to suffer from extreme insomnia, chronic health issues, etc. after the installation of our WiFi router and the purchase of cell phones back in 2004. These issues went on for more than a decade until I was diagnosed with myelin issues and emf sensitivity. I moved to the country, disabled all WiFi, had the smart meter removed and installed ethernet cable for our internet. I am now able to sleep and my health issues continue to heal. Whenever I encounter a friend or family member with insomnia, I instruct them to unplug their router at night and leave their cell phone in a room far from their bedroom. This always improves their symptoms. This is real. The technology is toxic. The children are being harmed the most.

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 $$$.

Since the City of Austin installed two smart meters on our house, which back up directly to the bed wall of our bedroom, I have not been able to sleep normally, as I have all my life. I bought an EMF meter to determine the level of RF/ microwave radiation, and in our bedroom it was far higher than the level considered safe, with peaks that are orders of magnitude higher still, occurring 24-7-365. I installed faraday fabric on the wall behind our bed, and the RF/ microwave level dropped considerably, although it was still high nearest the wall. My wife and I believe this entire wireless 'revolution' is damaging to human health and well-being. We urge strong regulation of this industry to rein in industry abuse. Users have not been given the information needed to make decisions about wireless products.

I have been negatively impacted by artifical EMF's for the last decade. I can feel the impact on my body as it causes migraines, tinnutis, sensitivity to sounds, smells and vision. I also become extremely dizzy and cannot form clear thoughts. I am unable to sleep or function when surrounding by them. During COVID the power company installed a smart meter on my house without any notice. Therefore I couldn't opt out before it was installed. The 30 days it was on my home was the sickest I had ever been. I couldn't get out of bed and I couldn't form coheisive sentences or thoughts. I had a debilitating migraine for those 30 days. I had to send an official letter from an attorney to have it removed and a digital meter put on instead. There was no way for me to receive my analog, non-transmitting meter back. There is sufficient evidence of the dangers of artifical EMF however profit seems to be put over health of humans time and time again. I vehemently oppose any smart technology and the increased use of EMF we are exposed to that we cannot opt out of.

I have a friend who is allergic to fluorescent lights. This has severely limited the kinds of work she can do: she has worked outside, even in winter, for many years. I myself am allergic to smart phones. They make me feel wired, vibrating in a hyper, weird way. I got rid of my smart phone and use my stupid phone just for emergencies. Fortunately I have control over my emf exposure. What about those who don't?

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.

The FCC has been directed to explain its guidelines to protect humans from harm including crucial forms of life that support humans including food sources. , this concerning lackadaisical rules and guidelines concerning RF, EMF, cell tower placement, wifi pollution and the inability for the population to have input over the abuse of Tech to over ride any possible restrictions/studies. . The FCC should not have sole... they are not in the medical field. Only health experts who work with sick people. Since 1996 I have chronic pain, palpitations, double vision, insomnia unexplained but notably around computer/phone/near 3-5G

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.