Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices

Greetings FCC, I have experienced loss of equilibrium due to electromagnetic frequency bombardment and sleep interruption from the dangerous standard frequency of 2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz frequency band is a globally recognized, unlicensed spectrum range (2.400–2.4835 GHz) within the Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band, allowing devices to operate without regulatory licensing. It serves as the foundational infrastructure for ubiquitous short-range wireless technologies, most notably Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b/g/n/ax), Bluetooth, Zigbee, and cordless phones. This is a harmful frequency implemented rather than a beneficial frequency for an unknown, but likely nefarious, purpose.

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 disabled veteran, my years of exposure to very high EMF contributed to the cancer which is threatening my very life. As I was still on Active Duty when the cancer erupted, I didn’t have to prove causation, however the connection was very clear. 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. 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. We are now swimming in a sea of wireless radiation never seen before and it continues to ramp up (3G, 4G, 5G and soon 6G). Radiation is known to impact health and it must be regulated to protect people. This is more than just cell phone heating.

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 the long-term exposure to this kind of technology has not been studied. So we do not know the facts, and it’s unacceptable to expose millions of people to this technology without doing studies to see if it’s safe or not. My personal experience has been that when I set up and started using my home office, my health deteriorated. I noticed that I always feel much better whenever I’m traveling and staying at a relative’s house, which is hardwired And each time I go back home and start working in my office again, my health deteriorates again. Since I live very near two large apartment buildings, I decided to check and see how many wifi networks reached my office. The most recent reading showed more than 25 networks can be accessed at the area where I am working much of each day. Since there are currently no studies that show whether this is safe or not, it is unnerving. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the iss idueentified by the court.

Having had radiation treatments and heavy chemotherapy years ago for stage 3 cancer I have been chemically and radio sensitive ever since. I refuse to get a smart phone and still use a 4G flip-phone. But even with that I cannot hold it near my head without my ear and whole side of my head getting uncomfortably hot and I only speak on it on speakerphone keeping it a few feet from me. I also never carry the phone in my pocket unless wrapped in a Faraday bag . We need more stringent RF radiation exposure standards in the United States, and this something I strongly support.

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: Our family feels the impact of 5G. My husband has an ICD device installed to protect his heart and he can specifically feel the difference when using 5G vs none 5G in our apartment. This impact his health. If he can feel this radiation and signal differently it makes me certain there are effects on others in the home too. We live in Manhattan in a 15 floor apartment building. When studies have been performed, have they been done in high population density environments that have wireless radiation coming at people from above, below and sideways apartments stacked on top and next to each other? I expect our nation's government representatives to make the research and testing of wireless signals a high priority as these signals go inside the body of its people and the government is supposed to protect the people.

I bought a patio home in Delaware, OH and there were 2 smart meters right behind my bedroom wall were I sleep; one was for my home, one for the lightpost on the corner near me. I had to call and pay to have a readable meter put in that gives off less EMF waves, then buy a $1,000 'grounding mattress cover' to prevent me from getting sick! This month I buy a horse farm in GA for my rescues and I have a smart meter on the back of my bedroom wall here as well!! So I will pay 3-4 thousand to get it removed and moved to behind the garage wall where it should've been located in the first place...away from bedrooms and places where people congregate! They can cause auto-immune diseases and MANY other symptoms; PLEASE Change the Rules on Where They Can Be Placed!!!

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: In the last 4 years there has been a minimum of approx. 45 5G micro cells installed in the suburb residential area in which i live. My neighbor to the west diagnosed with leukemia. The neighbor to the south diagnosed with dementia. Neighbors to the east diagnosed with alzheimers. My wife has been suffering from headaches, lack of sleep. My 12 year old has been more forgetful each year. I have been suffering from headaches, fatigue and lack of sleep. 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 after reading books like The Body Electric by Robert O. Becker, MD) and The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg, there appears to be ample evidence of very real issues at hand; even more now than when these books were written! 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. 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.