HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6529
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6529

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.
Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation:

* Panagopoulos et al. (2021):Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage – Reviewed evidence and proposed mechanisms linking human-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction.  https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272

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 been aware of negative effects of electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation for over a decade. As an engineer in the automotive industry, I worked in an office where within an hour of my arrival, I developed headaches, brain fog, sinus congestion, dizziness and nausea. People who came into my office for meetings would also develop similar symptoms. I quickly realized that something environmental was having an impact so I called Plant Engineering and asked them to come and measure the electromagnetic fields and radiation in the office. While the engineer determined that the readings were within OSHA guidelines, he explained they were high and due to a power closet next door a bank of backup batteries under the floor and an abundance of wireless routers in the area. I went to my Director, presented the information and asked to move to another office where the Plant Engineer verified the measurements were near zero. Once I moved offices, my symptoms disappeared. 

Since then, I am as careful as I can be about exposing myself to these invisible and invasive pollutants. I had to purchase a phone case with radiation protection to mitigate cell phone radiation that caused my hand to numb and tingle. 

Also, I had a substantial decline in my health since the rollout of 5G. I experienced a rapid increase in the frequency of migraines, respiratory illness, brain fog, and insomnia. I have seen a rapid increase in mold on food and outdoor plants and in my home. My research has indicated these are all side effects of cell tower and other radiation. I have done things in my home and with my health care regimen to offset this at great expense.  I am very concerned about the unfettered rollout and long term consequences to not only human health but health of the planet. 

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.