All FCC comments · page 114

26110077230

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077230

26110077229

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077229

Wireless comment. The change of Florida Power & Light meters to smart meters along with the smart appliances, computer WiFi and multiple cell towers has negatively impacted my sleep, focus and health. Without informed consent, 16 smart meters were installed within 8 feet of my head (when I sleep in my condo). That's when the harm began. I no longer sleep in my bedroom. Over the years the technology installations have grown exponentially. I had no health issues or sleep issues before the unregulated and untested proliferation of "smart" technology. The unwillingness of regulator agencies to protect the public from harm is egregious and criminal. The real data proves harm to all life! Operate from a place of integrity or make way for someone who will.

26110077228

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077228

26110077227

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077227

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: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants or 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.

26110077226

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077226

Insomnia has been a constant for me since the rollout of cell towers, wi-fi and the spread of EMFs on a vast scale. The studies made in the '90s based on heat have been shown not to be valid. Please review all studies that show effects of EMFs on the animal and even plant biology. Sincerely, Marie Roulleau

26110077225

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077225

Greetings FCC, I have experienced loss of equilibrium due to electromagnetic frequency bombardment and sleep interruption from the dangerous standard frequency of 2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz frequency band is a globally recognized, unlicensed spectrum range (2.400–2.4835 GHz) within the Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band, allowing devices to operate without regulatory licensing. It serves as the foundational infrastructure for ubiquitous short-range wireless technologies, most notably Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b/g/n/ax), Bluetooth, Zigbee, and cordless phones. This is a harmful frequency implemented rather than a beneficial frequency for an unknown, but likely nefarious, purpose.

26110077224

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077224

We have a 5G tower less than a mile away. My husband and I wake up with a headache every single day.

26110077223

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077223

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 disabled veteran, my years of exposure to very high EMF contributed to the cancer which is threatening my very life. As I was still on Active Duty when the cancer erupted, I didn’t have to prove causation, however the connection was very clear. 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.

26110077221

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077221

26110077220

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077220

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 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. We are now swimming in a sea of wireless radiation never seen before and it continues to ramp up (3G, 4G, 5G and soon 6G). Radiation is known to impact health and it must be regulated to protect people. This is more than just cell phone heating.

26110077219 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077219 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 the long-term exposure to this kind of technology has not been studied. So we do not know the facts, and it’s unacceptable to expose millions of people to this technology without doing studies to see if it’s safe or not. My personal experience has been that when I set up and started using my home office, my health deteriorated. I noticed that I always feel much better whenever I’m traveling and staying at a relative’s house, which is hardwired And each time I go back home and start working in my office again, my health deteriorates again. Since I live very near two large apartment buildings, I decided to…

Read the full comment →

26110077218

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077218

I have eaten at restaurants with 5G on a lightpole across the street. I end up getting dizzy and have loud ringing in my ears. I avoid stores or any place with a 5G tower within a quarter mile.

26110077217

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077217

As a mother and an educator, I am extremely concerned about the effects of a wireless radiation. Although it’s something I’m able to control within my own home, I’m unable to control it for my children, my animals or my students we need to the public and how to lower the frequencies and have commercials about the effects and national local TV instead of the constant medication/drug commercials.

26110077216

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077216

Having had radiation treatments and heavy chemotherapy years ago for stage 3 cancer I have been chemically and radio sensitive ever since. I refuse to get a smart phone and still use a 4G flip-phone. But even with that I cannot hold it near my head without my ear and whole side of my head getting uncomfortably hot and I only speak on it on speakerphone keeping it a few feet from me. I also never carry the phone in my pocket unless wrapped in a Faraday bag . We need more stringent RF radiation exposure standards in the United States, and this something I strongly support.

26110077215 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077215 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: Our family feels the impact of 5G. My husband has an ICD device installed to protect his heart and he can specifically feel the difference when using 5G vs none 5G in our apartment. This impact his health. If he can feel this radiation and signal differently it makes me certain there are effects on others in the home too. We live in Manhattan in a 15 floor apartment building. When studies have been performed, have they been done in high population density environments that have wireless radiation coming at people from above, below and sideways apartments stacked on top and next to each other? I expect…

Read the full comment →

26110077214

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077214

I bought a patio home in Delaware, OH and there were 2 smart meters right behind my bedroom wall were I sleep; one was for my home, one for the lightpost on the corner near me. I had to call and pay to have a readable meter put in that gives off less EMF waves, then buy a $1,000 'grounding mattress cover' to prevent me from getting sick! This month I buy a horse farm in GA for my rescues and I have a smart meter on the back of my bedroom wall here as well!! So I will pay 3-4 thousand to get it removed and moved to behind the garage wall where it should've been located in the first place...away from bedrooms and places where people congregate! They can cause auto-immune diseases and MANY other symptoms; PLEASE Change the Rules on Where They Can Be Placed!!!

26110077213

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077213

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: In the last 4 years there has been a minimum of approx. 45 5G micro cells installed in the suburb residential area in which i live. My neighbor to the west diagnosed with leukemia. The neighbor to the south diagnosed with dementia. Neighbors to the east diagnosed with alzheimers. My wife has been suffering from headaches, lack of sleep. My 12 year old has been more forgetful each year. I have been suffering from headaches, fatigue and lack of sleep. 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.

26110077212

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077212

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 after reading books like The Body Electric by Robert O. Becker, MD) and The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg, there appears to be ample evidence of very real issues at hand; even more now than when these books were written! 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.

26110077210

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077210

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.

26110077209

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077209

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 personally know that having my cellphone too close to my body causes me to have deep joint and muscle pain. I used to get an achy pain in my upper thigh, I wouldn't be able to even sit. I had no injuries. I decided the only thing that might cause it would be the cellphone in my pocket, so I stopped keeping my phone on me. The pain went away. Then this summer I was getting pain in my right finger, like I had sprained a knuckle joint in the finger. I realized it was triggering when I was holding my cell phone while videoing my child's basketball games. 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.