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. 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 over the last several years, I’ve noticed trees dying, all my roses have died. My personal health has changed by lower energy, hair suddenly becoming thinner and low energy and brain feeling like it’s being zapped. Many salon owners say clients hair and symptoms similar. As an adult our bodies are feeling it, imagine children. It’s changing their minds and altering their behaviors and energy levels. Now all the nano particles in air, water, foods which we have no idea, then metals in them react to radiation. It’s logical. Even our animals are sensing it with lethargy waking at night (just like humans). Society wants to chalk it up as hormones, or adults getting older etc. That doesn’t fly anymore. We know the networks of corporate medical and energy industrial complexes. We are NOT buying the narrative they have repeated over and over. Nature to nature heals. Not nature with radiation, chemicals and greedy networks overriding public health and safety. The jig is up. Plain and simple. We want smart meters removed from ALL schools, hospitals, homes, etc. They shoved this tech down our throats for their greed and progressive soul ending “energy.” There are much better ways to power. Energy is free actually and we shouldn’t need to pay for harming people anymore. CHANGE IT NOW. Protect our CHILDREN, HUMANITY AND OUR PETS from this harm. With that being said 29072 has over 62 cell towers of all kinds within a three mile radius. Why? And cancer has increased in people, especially prostate and breast cancer. Kids have incredible add:adhd:addictions etc. I’m here 16 years and it’s ridiculous to amount of towers just popping up overnight in areas. The public is kept from knowing anything about it. You will see how much the medical system has increased patients. Maybe we need to audit the tower companies, medical centers locally, schools with WiFi. I’m sure it will open your eyes. Thank you for hearing my voice. I’m definitely feeling affects and hair thinning by this. I would move tomorrow if could but the network banks have us trapped in by interest rates. Another rabbit hole for you dig into. This says so much. You can see for yourselves. https://www.celltowermaps.com/cell-towers/near/zip-code/29072 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 a member of the public concerned with the unaddressed potential health and environmental risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices. I have been reactive to wireless radiation and I urge you to review the scientific evidence in full. Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission.

As a concerned parent , 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 I have seen how wireless radiation can impact my sleep and mood. 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 experience negative physical affects being close to wireless 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.

I am the father of two children: Joel, seven and Bresly 12 years old. My wife and I didn't know any better at the time and left our kids use their wireless devices as they wished, as a result: Joel suffers from a constellation of symptoms from difficulty to concentrate to nose-bleeding ....and when we bring him to doctors they don't know how to diagnose or treat him. Bresly, at her young age is almost blind because her excessive use of wireless screens/devices. And we are "lucky" because our neighbor has cancer. We live within 110 meters of two cell towers and the vegetation here keeps dying and birds don't come to nest as before. In my opinion wireless technologies and devices should come with big radiation warnings.

I suffer from a physiological response to wireless technologies. This happens when I am in a strong wifi environment and if I stay too long near electromagnetic frequencies from standard electrical pulsations. I didn’t want to believe that my symptoms and suffering would be so clearly caused by such ubiquitous daily technologies but the facts have remained- I feel the intensity of pulsed electromagnetic waves. My symptoms are: insomnia, headache, increased and heightened tinnitus (ringing becomes more shrill), and an overall increase in anxiety. To alleviate my reactions/illness, I have learned to prepare for a specific environment. For example, when I enter a restaurant, I use an EMF meter to find the areas of least radiation. My house is hard-wired with ethernet cables providing my internet connections and I use a landline to communicate. I do own a cell phone but it is kept in airplane mode or off most of the time. My friends and family know about my condition and they do not keep their phones on around me. I can’t attend stadium concerts, games and events where I know all phones will be pulsing their signals so, I don’t go. Luckily, I own my home and I am not subject to others’ wifi signals that would occur were I living in an apartment building. What about those who can’t afford a home and are forced to live in an unsafe environment? Sadly, I have come to believe that our government does not care about people like me. They care about the profits made by Telecom and they continue to deny that my sub-group has validity. Despite the studies that show harm, the FCC has just continued to allow more transmitters at higher frequencies to be developed. These higher frequencies (4G, 5G, 6G, 10G) are currently causing damage to plants and wildlife while the Federal government just looks the other way. I urge the FCC to take me and the thousands of us (could be millions, with symptoms blamed on the wrong cause), seriously. We are disabled and are often unable to participate in general society. Today, it is hard to find a safe place where there are no EMFs. This is why many escape into a forest, living off grid and on the edge. The small cell antennas now being deployed in every conceivable location- schools, office buildings, churches (shouldn’t they be sacred and safe places?), and on people’s homes make life impossible for those suffering from EMR-S (Electro Magnetic Syndrome). Please, take action now and prevent more suffering. Thank you, Kelly Marcotulli

DIGITAL technology is pulsed. Human and wildlife biology is accustomed to natural radio waves, and is not adjusted to the impact of intermittent pulses generated without relief from cell masts. Therefore, digital technology must be either superseded or used with the greatest precaution. THIS submission identifies four areas where there are gaps in necessary protection for long term public health, as follows: CELL masts capable of RF transmission are being installed in residential streets— # Without long term effects having been proven safe for human and wildlife health; and # Without reported adverse effects having been avoided or remedied; and # Without the democratic agreement of residents living within reach and sight of the technology; and # Without adequate monitoring of transmission levels. THE regulatory authorities are failing to protect human and wildlife wellbeing in those four ways. Through disregard of public wishes, the FCC is denying the public control of our own health. ISSUES of public concern regarding positioning of cell masts in residential areas: # The telecom companies are not required to remedy loss of good health, nor pay for shielding materials to avoid effects, nor compensate loss of pleasure in life. # There is no provision for the public to have rights of objection to the choice of site for a cell mast, nor rights to compensation and fair settlement. # Recourse to legal processes is beyond the means of most households. That is, the costs of shielding materials, re-designing bedrooms where children sleep, and “leaving all fair” should fall on the telecommunication companies and not on the householder.

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 am pleased that 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. It is so important to require 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. I can remember reading the package insert of instructions when our cell phones were 2 and 3 G, and we were instructed not to keep the phone to the ear and to use an ear piece to have a conversation on the phone. I've seen my partners phone tells you when you are holding the phone too close. Obviously it is noted that wireless radiation can affect one's health. My daughter's children always had difficulty sleeping, when she lived next door to me in Long Beach, New York, her children now sleep much better at night since she moved out of New York on top of a mountain in North Carolina where the nearest tower is 3 miles away. She moved 4 years ago and her children then were 4, 7 and 10, so they were not infants when they had difficulty sleeping. I also have difficulty sleeping at night. but we have a house in the Adirondacks and I sleep great there, I hear a constant hum here in Long Beach. It is not tinnitus. I am an RN and I know the difference. The hum is not inside my head. It comes from outside and being that I also am a musician, I needed to hum to myself to match the note sound and it is an F sharp on the lower end of the piano give or take a 1/4 note. It hasn't changed the note since I've been noting it. I wired my household desk top computers to ethernet and turned off the wi- fi, to diminish the exposure while I'm on the computer, however of course I still have wifi in the house for TV and phone use. And the low hum is constant all day and night. I use a phone case with an EMF radiation barrier. I don't know how much it helps, but I know there are devices that help block the radiation. Perhaps the towers can be housed in a blocking radiation structure. I do know in the medical field we recommend not keeping cell phones close to the body or in pockets, especially for couples going through fertility treatments. So it seems it is known that EMF radiation does negatively affect the body. The big question here is how much do we let corporate greed dictate policy impacting all of humanity in a negative way. Thank you for your reaching out to Americans for their experiences and hopefully you can devise and implement ways to protect us. Lori Field, RN

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 for the safety of my family, friends and students/coworkers at the elementary school where I am employed. I have seen the behavior and mental health of my students decline once they were assigned one-to-one wireless devices. Children are using wireless devices at school and at home for excessive hours daily. We have a student in Children's Hospital undergoing treatment for a deadly cancer that normally affects senior citizens. Our electric company Eversource is currently replacing meters with smart meter and I am concerned about the effects on students and staff being bombarded 24/7 with more RF. 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.