Wildlife & environment

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.

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.

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: We believe a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was negatively impacted by cell towers located outside the mobile home community where he resided. Other countries limit exposure, even China requires all pregnant women wear EMF protective clothing. 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.

Four years ago, I started having unexplained irregular heartbeats, often in the middle of the night but also during the day. I knew about the health issues arising from proximity to cell towers but didn't see any immediately around where I lived. I hired a woman who was a specialist in measuring the amount of radiation in one's home environment as well as in one's body. Her equipment was expensive and made in Germany. When she tested my bedroom and apartment, the test reflected off-the-chart numbers (we combed the neighborhood and did find a tower--mostly obscured--very nearby). But more startling, discovered how much radiation my body was absorbing! I also watched a video test of a gentleman with no heart symptoms who, when hooked up to a monitor, had significant heart abnormalities when a smart meter--in another room and out of sight to the test subject--turned on and off. I then had my room painted with a special paint and used a specialized blanket to help protect me from these heart anomalies. These things did help, but they all stopped when I moved to a semi-rural location with no 5G towers!!! Please, PLEASE put an end to these towers!!!

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: We believe a family friend, was negatively impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community, and recently died of cancer. Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women. 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 very concerned about EMF exposure on our health, animals and the environment. I am highly sensitive to it and have had health issues from it. It is not good for our health. The testing for how it affects our bodies is out of date. Please start honest testing and protect us from it. Also, data centers! Please stand up for our health against big business. That is what you are hired to 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. This issue matters to me personally. I initially became aware of the presence wireless devices when my city began installing smart meters. Soon I began felling dizzy, oozy, unsteady on my feet, and even felt like my skin was being pricked with sharp needles. The discomfort now includes cold numb hands and fingers. My body feels fatigued , reaching the point of exhaustion. I am specially concerned with the effects of short, medium and long-term exposure to wireless radiation on our children, growing under this ever present radiation. 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.