Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices

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 primary healthcare provider for 44 years and after just hearing Michael Adams present a 13 chapter presentation on genetic survival, I urge each member of the CC to listen to the potential interactions that occur when mRNA spike proteins meet the wireless radiation affects. If it is a population reduction that you are interested in producing then go ahead and continue with this propagation of electromagnetic field Radiation. Reference this at geneticsurvival.com. 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. There is substantial evidence of harm from RF radiation and I myself have experienced negative effects. I sat next to a wifi router for two years and finally realized that metabolic issues and fatigue were likely due to the router which I moved. However, I find that wifi-rich environments make me tired and brain-fogged. The US Government / FCC MUST Examine the available data/studies and not just the industry-paid studies but the real studies that are done more accurately. There are many! 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: of what I mention above, as well as I know many friends who become quite ill when they are in WiFi – several of them even near a cell phone. I believe, based on their experience and the scientific evidence that their more intense cases are just more visible but the science shows that all bodies are impacted. In fact, just holding a cell phone makes the blood cells clump up! (not healthy!). When my kids were in school, it was obvious that the more WIFI became ubiquitous, the more school days they missed due to illness and the more fatigued they became. While that may not be the only factor, again the science and extensive research supports this assumption. In addition, WiFi is known to affect wildlife (and people are wildlife too!). It is insane for us to keep increasing the RF radiation, known to have negative effects. At the very least, the FCC should have independent scientific observers with no conflict of interests evaluate the science and make recommendations to the FCC. Many organizations could be of help such as the World Council For Health. 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.

In 2002 I developed a benign parotid adenoma in the deep lobe of my left parotid from extensive use of a cell phone on that side. I had it surgically resected in 2003 but the surgery left me with permanent paralysis of my left lower lip.

To whom it may concern: I periodically suffer from sensitivity to EMF frequencies, esp wireless signals from phones or towers. My range of symptoms is from palpitations when holding a phone too long to just simply touching the phone. It’s hard to find a place to go that has no cell towers molesting every corner and mile of the country. To be honest, I am very suspicious of who is actually benefitting from this technology if it is not those who would usher in a total surveillance state as is being pushed by the World Economic Forum with Agenda 2030. Peter Thiel has publicly stated he thinks technology is a ‘great alternative to politics’ since he open admits his views are in such a minority. This agency is building the infrastructure needed to accomplish Thiels ideals. I dont want to be trapped in a 15 minute ‘city’ and stripped of all my property rights. Were not concentration camps basically 15 minute cities where work makes you free? It is getting hard to justify that so many unconstitutional policies are necessary to ‘national security’ and ‘convenience’ all of which is coming at the cost of violating multiple of those pesky constitutional amendments such as free speech, free assembly, and warrantless searches. Worse, it is coming at greater and greater expense to our health. The cancer rate according to cancer.gov is 1 in every 2.5 people in the US. And of those, only 19 million ‘survive’ as defined by 5 years post diagnosis. Thats about a 13% 5 year survival. This is worse than the bubonic plague. And this agency thinks that more cell towers with less local oversight is just the thing. Only an industrial complex would desire such a thing. Crime is not going down, health is obviously not improving. I cannot even say that current policies coming out of captured agencies are simply misguided….they seem to be abjectly malevolent except to line corporate pockets and give the ruling class/oligarchy even more power….. A ruling class that seems intent to burn everything down just to rule over the ashes. All run by ivy league grads from universities sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein. Those who give up their freedoms for a little bit of safety will receive neither. -Benjamin Franklin

I have experienced extreme toxicity from exposure to my cellphone with symptoms including nausea, headaches, dizziness and brain fog. I have also developed extreme difficulty with being able to sleep since I started using the cellphone so am now looking to switch to a flip phone or other alternative type that emits lower levels of EMFs. It is clearly very toxic.

I have suffered from migraine headaches since Con Ed installed 182 radioactive smart meters directly under my floor. I have all internet cabled so that there is no wifi in my home. My roommate's is blocked by metallic fabric. I pleaded with con ed to cage the meters under my floor which is simple and prevents radiation escape but they refused. All of Europe uses smart meters that are NOT wifi. All of them are run inside fiber cables to remove the danger to humans. Your standards are 40 years behind the current knowledge. This must be ended. If not you will be sued a million times over for serious injuries and disabilities caused by small cell radiation. All of this is known. This is not a secret to anyone and has been known for decades. Please face reality,

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: My mother contracted ear cancer and had to have the top portion of her ear surgically removed. I have been having headaches almost every day since 1993. 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: Because at the time that all this wireless radiation was being rolled out in Arlington Virginia my Vitamin D started declining despite getting lots of sunshine. I became prediabetic as my blood sugar increases coincided with each subsequent decline of vitamin D as measured by tests at the doctor's office. I started taking increasing doses of vitamin D3 which helped me avoid diabetes but I eventually developed other autoimmune issues despite a healthy diet and active lifestyle. The doctors I saw were all baffled. I can't prove that EMF was the cause but I suspect that how EMF affects various minerals in the body, like magnesium and calcium, had something to do with it. 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 was living in Fayetteville AR. when cell phone towers first began going up, and there was one near my home. I am very sensitive to EMFs, and when I drove past the tower, I could feel a very toxic energy being emanated from it. I began to have panic attacks because I was becoming forgetful, and I feared I might be coming down with early onset Alzheimer's, but I also suspected it might have been due to the cell phone technology. I decided to move to a much more rural area and as soon as I did, I was fine. Sadly, there is no longer many ways to escape the dangers of cell phone tech. Since then, I have become a member of an international forum online which discusses at length the many toxins , both biological and technological, that are infesting the planet now. There has been no lack for a very long time of very credible evidence about how toxic cell phone tech is not only to humans, but to many lifeforms on Earth, including the bees which human life depends on to continue. I believe we are in the End Times, which so many prophets have warned us against, and that we all need to make sure we are ready to meet our Maker. Those who defend these dangerous technologies will have much to answer for when they do.

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.