AI summary & topic connections
26110077349
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077349
2,415 public comments, newest first, 20 per page. Keep scrolling to load more.
26110077349
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077349
With all the environmental issues we are all having and no long term studies have been done we need to limit exposure to RF from towers, WiFi and cell phones, particularly phones since they are directly touching us and especially our heads.
Cell phones used to have to list their radiation output, I chose a phone with the lowest I could find at the time.
With all the environmental issues we are all having and no long term studies have been done we need to limit exposure to RF from towers, WiFi and cell phones, particularly phones since they are directly touching us and especially our heads.
26110077346
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077346
Cell phones used to have to list their radiation output, I chose a phone with the lowest I could find at the time. Now they are not publishing this information and I am assuming are not required to do so. With all the environmental issues we are all having and no long term studies have been done we need to limit exposure to RF from towers, WiFi and cell phones, particularly phones since they are directly touching us and especially our heads. This must be limited and studied for the future health of our citizens.
It gives me MAJOR headaches if it is near my head, so I always have to have it on speaker in order to avoid the pain.
Because of 5G, I can no longer use my cell phone as it is intended.
Because of 5G, I can no longer use my cell phone as it is intended.
Without proper testing?!
26110077345
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077345
Because of 5G, I can no longer use my cell phone as it is intended. It gives me MAJOR headaches if it is near my head, so I always have to have it on speaker in order to avoid the pain. This was NOT an issue prior to the 5G rollout...and now they are talking about 10G?! Without proper testing?! Yeah...no...I may have to find alternative ways to communicate.
I was having terrible pain at night over my heart, like a heart attack, and I felt like my inside was freezing cold many nights in a row.
26110077342
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077342
I was having terrible pain at night over my heart, like a heart attack, and I felt like my inside was freezing cold many nights in a row. I started using an EMF blocker and the chest pain and cold sensation would go away. I was flying and I used my EMF blocker on the way to my destination. On my way home I forgot about it and started to have pain in the right side of my neck. I grabbed my EMF blocker and within 2 minutes the pain in my neck was gone.
26110077341
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077341
About four years ago, I had a sudden onset of heart palpitations and an irregular heartbeat.
I couldn’t sleep at night and could only find relief when going outside of my house.
I researched my symptoms and discovered 5G was a cause for many people.
I checked my wifi router and saw it had been changed to a 5G signal.
I want the FCC to follow the direction of the court hearings that instructed the FCC to re-evaluate the outdated research regarding EMF radiation.
I researched my symptoms and discovered 5G was a cause for many people.
26110077338
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077338
About four years ago, I had a sudden onset of heart palpitations and an irregular heartbeat. I couldn’t sleep at night and could only find relief when going outside of my house. I could not figure out the cause of the sudden change in my until-then perfect health. My doctor was at a loss, which caused me more anxiety. I researched my symptoms and discovered 5G was a cause for many people. I checked my wifi router and saw it had been changed to a 5G signal. I called my internet provider, and they told me they had “upgraded” my signal to 5G, for free, rather than the previous 2.4. It was immediately turned off, and the company representative told me several people had complained of heartbeat problems when in the vicinity of 5G signals. Now I experience problems when I visit people with 5G routers in their homes, some of which live in neighborhoods with 5G signals everywhere. It has effectively limited my ability to interact directly with people I care about. I also am unable to stay in most hotels and motels, so most traveling is out. I want the FCC to follow the direction of the court hearings that instructed the FCC to re-evaluate the outdated research regarding EMF radiation. Numerous studies by scientists with no monetary connections to the EMF industry have been conducted, and they contradict the current findings protecting the industry.
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.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077337
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077337
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.
In addition to blood sugar rise, I have insomnia and increasing tinnitus.
In addition to blood sugar rise, I have insomnia and increasing tinnitus.
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.
It shows pre-diabetes level 5.7, whereas my diet has kept it between 5.1 and 5.4 for many years, and I have not changed my eating plan this past year.
The nutritionist showed me the current online map of cell towers and antennas within 3 miles of my Oakland home.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077334 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077334 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. My real world experience of wifi radiation impact on my health is current and ongoing; I've detailed it below. 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 was this past spring (2026) notified by my oncological nutritionist that the abrupt rise in my yearly a!C level likely is due to emf exposure. It shows pre-diabetes level 5.7, whereas my diet has kept it between 5.1 and 5.4 for many years, and I have not changed my eating plan this past year. The nutritionist showed me the current online map of cell towers and antennas within 3 miles of my Oakland home. 2300 plus antennas and about 1900 towers emit emf radiation which may be partly what's…
26110077333
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077333
It is unreasonable for the FCC to determine issues of health. The safety of any form of communication should be determined by disinterested qualified medical professionals. Otherwise we are subject to the wishes of business entities who want profit at any cost to public health.
At home, I opted out of having a smart meter because it affected my heart, causing palpitations and irregular heartbeats whenever I was in the bedroom next to the meter.
Whenever I was working at the desk, I would feel a sense of brain fog that interfered with my work.
At home, I opted out of having a smart meter because it affected my heart, causing palpitations and irregular heartbeats whenever I was in the bedroom next to the meter.
26110077332
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077332
I have had to move my office away from our college's technology help desk that I managed. Whenever I was working at the desk, I would feel a sense of brain fog that interfered with my work. I had difficulty performing my job because the brain fog interfered with my ability to concentrate. At home, I opted out of having a smart meter because it affected my heart, causing palpitations and irregular heartbeats whenever I was in the bedroom next to the meter. I have two grandsons who are very sensitive like myself, and I want to comment here in hopes of protecting them in the future from unwanted wireless EMR.
I personally get very bad headaches from this.
26110077330
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077330
Hello, We need you to provide stricter rules on these companies who are putting profit over people. We have very little control over our exposure to radiation and it can be debilitating to our health. I personally get very bad headaches from this. You need to take action. Thank you!
This issue matters to me personally because: I noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall.
This issue matters to me personally because: I noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall.
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.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077329
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077329
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 noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall. I covered it and my heart palpitations decreased and my concentration increased. I also do a lot of gardening and I have noticed less bees every year. Human bodies and insects are not made to fend off all these radiation waves. Who knows what is really going on inside my body??? My sister lives in higher elevations and she can not keep fresh produce for more than 1-2 days, the radiation rots the food. 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 feel for the people who have to be in school, in public or in a workplace with WIFI unavoidably impinging on them.
One time I was sitting in the public library, using their WIFI, with my tablet, since I do not have WIFI at home and wanted to download something.
My computer system at home is hard-wired.
26110077328
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077328
One time I was sitting in the public library, using their WIFI, with my tablet, since I do not have WIFI at home and wanted to download something. My computer system at home is hard-wired. Driving home, I could barely stay in my lane, because my mind was so befuddled, I think because of the WIFI. I feel for the people who have to be in school, in public or in a workplace with WIFI unavoidably impinging on them. My hearing aids are some of the last models made which have FLIGHT MODE, whereby the bluetooth may be turned off. I have to turn it off each time I put them on, using a certain sequence of button presses. Until I have it properly turned off, I feel the bluetooth in my brain. It is difficult to describe the feeling of electromagnetic radiation. It is not like saying, "I have an earache" or "a tummy ache", as we would say to our mothers. It is akin to a pressure, a dark vapor, an unwelcomed presence. I feel the effects first in my head, then a tightness in the area of my heart. Of course, wireless radiation is immensly convenient and profitable, but I believe it is harmful, not just to sensitive people, and many are much more sensitive than myself, but to everyone in its proximity.
My son has to sleep with his bed away from the wall because of the radiation being emitted by the electrical wires within the wall, and my husband can walk into a room and know if a wireless printer is turned on because his body senses it.
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.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077326
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077326
Hello, 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 it affects my family. My son has to sleep with his bed away from the wall because of the radiation being emitted by the electrical wires within the wall, and my husband can walk into a room and know if a wireless printer is turned on because his body senses it. We don't understand all the risks, especially because we can't see the radiation, but we can feel 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. Thank you
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.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077320
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077320
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.
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.
This issue matters to me personally because: Wireless radiation affects the health a vitality of children and families; causrs adverse health effects, and causes cancer; there are obvious concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; especially impacts bees, birds, pollinators, animals, wildlife, plants and the environment.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077316
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077316
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: Wireless radiation affects the health a vitality of children and families; causrs adverse health effects, and causes cancer; there are obvious concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; especially impacts bees, birds, pollinators, animals, wildlife, plants and the environment. 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. ALL CELL TOWERS MUST BE SHUTDOWN, REMOVED, DISMANTLED AND DESTROYED PERMANENTLY!!!
26110077315
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077315
The above list of ailments was generated from our doctors’ records during this time.
As a result, my husband and I became very injured and sickly, experiencing the following non-exhaustive list of symptoms over an 18-month period: Sleep disturbances • Insomnia • Chronic fatigue • Never feeling refreshed Mood disturbances • Depression • Sadness • Irritability • Rage Vision problems • Blurry vision • Dry eyes • Floaters • Vision loss • Eye twitching • Sensitivity to light Neurological problems • Memory loss • Brain fog • Dizziness • Feeling disoriented • Saying the wrong words • Dropping things Heart problems • Palpitations • Chest pain • High blood pressure Hearing issues • Ri
My Personal Testimony After the installation of a 5G cell tower in November 2021, constant high levels of microwave radiation began hitting my sleeping area through my bedroom window.
Joint and muscle pain • Leg cramping • Headaches • Burning and stabbing pain Hormonal issues • Hair loss • Thyroid enlargement • Thyroid nodule • Reproductive issues Metabolic issues • Weight gain • Inability to lose weight • Excessive weight loss Irregular temperature regulation • Getting overheated • Excessive sweating • Facial flushing Other • Teeth grinding • Hand tremors • Urinary issues • Aggressive nosebleeds • Trouble breathing • Coughing • Coughing up blood • Nausea • Dry heaving Based on MyChart data dating back to 2007, I went from an average of 2.5 doctor's visits per year to 22 do
pain • Leg cramping • Headaches • Burning and stabbing pain Hormonal issues • Hair loss • Thyroid enlargement • Thyroid nodule • Reproductive issues Metabolic issues • Weight gain • Inability to lose weight • Excessive weight loss Irregular temperature regulation • Getting overheated • Excessive sweating • Facial flushing Other • Teeth grinding • Hand tremors • Urinary issues • Aggressive nosebleeds • Trouble breathing • Coughing • Coughing up blood • Nausea • Dry heaving Based on MyChart data dating back to 2007, I went from an average of 2.5 doctor's visits per year to 22 doctor's visits wit
My Personal Testimony After the installation of a 5G cell tower in November 2021, constant high levels of microwave radiation began hitting my sleeping area through my bedroom window.
Since removing ourselves from this harmful environment 2 years ago, nearly all our symptoms have disappeared.
My Personal Testimony After the installation of a 5G cell tower in November 2021, constant high levels of microwave radiation began hitting my sleeping area through my bedroom window.
26110077314 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077314 My Personal Testimony After the installation of a 5G cell tower in November 2021, constant high levels of microwave radiation began hitting my sleeping area through my bedroom window. As a result, my husband and I became very injured and sickly, experiencing the following non-exhaustive list of symptoms over an 18-month period: Sleep disturbances • Insomnia • Chronic fatigue • Never feeling refreshed Mood disturbances • Depression • Sadness • Irritability • Rage Vision problems • Blurry vision • Dry eyes • Floaters • Vision loss • Eye twitching • Sensitivity to light Neurological problems • Memory loss • Brain fog • Dizziness • Feeling disoriented • Saying the wrong words • Dropping things Heart problems • Palpitations • Chest pain • High blood pressure Hearing issues • Ringing in the ears • Hearing loss Physical pain • Sharp pain in ears • Joint and muscle pain • Leg cramping • Headaches • Burning and stabbing pain Hormonal issues • Hair loss • Thyroid enlargement • Thyroid nodule • Reproductive issues Metabolic issues • Weight gain • Inability to lose weight • Excessive weight loss Irregular temperature regulation • Getting overheated • Excessive sweating • Facial flushing Other • Teeth grinding • Hand tremors • Urinary issues • Aggressive nosebleeds • Trouble breathing • Coughing • Coughing up blood • Nausea • Dry heaving Based on MyChart data dating back to 2007, I went from an average of 2.5 doctor's visits per year to 22 doctor's visits within 18 months. The above list of ailments was generated from our doctors’ records during this time. During the 18 months of pain and sickness, we thought the air quality or pollution were responsible for how terrible we felt. Then, on a whim, I ordered an RF/Microwave radiation scanner, which led us to the source of our affliction. A thorough scan revealed radiation levels so high that the scanner could not register them (the meter’s maximum reading was 20,000 microwatts per meter squared). The readings came from a cell tower about 1.5 blocks away, which emitted a direct beam of radiation into our bedroom window, exposing us nightly to continuous microwave…
I'm not sure what triggered my first attack a couple years ago, but one night I was awakened by an excruciating headache, heart palpitations, loud tinnitis, and a strong uncomfortable "buzzy" feeling throughout my body.
I opted out of Eversource's smart meter, but I hate paying a company to not harm me.
26110077312
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077312
I'm not sure what triggered my first attack a couple years ago, but one night I was awakened by an excruciating headache, heart palpitations, loud tinnitis, and a strong uncomfortable "buzzy" feeling throughout my body. It took more than a day to recover, but since then I still experience tinnitis (when it gets especially loud, I know I need to leave the area), a light buzzy feeling throughout my body, and an almost daily headache. I hired a building biologist to help me mitigate the EMR present in my home. This helped somewhat, but I experienced another attack not too long ago. I opted out of Eversource's smart meter, but I hate paying a company to not harm me.
Although my husband and I have experienced difficulty sleeping, headaches and difficulty focusing, it is our son who is most noticeably affected by these symptoms.
Although my husband and I have experienced difficulty sleeping, headaches and difficulty focusing, it is our son who is most noticeably affected by these symptoms.
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.
We have observed him more symptomatic in the presence of cell towers or buildings with high levels of wi-fi and a cessation of these symptoms when vacationing in remote parts of NYS.
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.
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.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
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.
26110077311 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077311 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 matters to me personally because my family (especially our son with brain-injury) has repeatedly noted the negative effects of the increasing presence of radio frequency radiation. Although my husband and I have experienced difficulty sleeping, headaches and difficulty focusing, it is our son who is most noticeably affected by these symptoms. We have observed him more symptomatic in the presence of cell towers or buildings with high levels of wi-fi and a cessation of these symptoms when vacationing in remote parts of NYS. When a smart meter was installed by our electric company, my son cried all night. I thought he was sick but walked around…
Loading more comments…