RF Safe

All FCC comments · page 117

2,415 public comments, newest first, 20 per page. Keep scrolling to load more.

#2321The only way to avoid radiation from these horrendous boxes that line every corner of my world...when I w…by Kim Sojak » 2026-09-21
Other public filings
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077161

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077161

The only way to avoid radiation from these horrendous boxes that line every corner of my world...when I was looking to buy a home and finally finding one I like and can afford, I looked up....and what????? A box the size of my car directly over this country home. Well, didn't buy it and got sick to my stomach Take these things down and let's get back to why we are here on this planet. To make it better, not burn it down.

#2322I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by Nina Kelly » 2026-09-21
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077160

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077160

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.

#2323It is damaging to every living thing! But the big companies are making tons of money so they will fight i…by Gai Lawsen » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiences
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077159

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077159

It is damaging to every living thing! But the big companies are making tons of money so they will fight it! RF has made me dizzy, all the time!

#2324I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by John Harrelson » 2026-09-21
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentPregnancy & reproductionTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Pregnancy & reproduction: Other countries limit exposure, even China requires all pregnant women wear EMF protective clothing.
  • Towers, antennas & siting: 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.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077157

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077157

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.

#2325Four years ago, I started having unexplained irregular heartbeats, often in the middle of the night but a…by Tanii Carr » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiencesTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environment
AI summary & topic connections
  • Sensitivity & health experiences: 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.
  • Towers, antennas & siting: I knew about the health issues arising from proximity to cell towers but didn't see any immediately around where I lived.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices: 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.
  • Wildlife & environment: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077156

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077156

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!!!

#2326I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by Jacob Harrelson » 2026-09-21
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentPregnancy & reproductionTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Pregnancy & reproduction: Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women.
  • Towers, antennas & siting: 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.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077155

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077155

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.

#2327I am concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electron…by Joanne Scott » 2026-09-21
Children, schools & developmentTowers, antennas & sitingExposure limits & testing
AI summary & topic connections
  • Children, schools & development: I am concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electronic device and use air buds all the time.One has ADHD and the other has gone through some depression, which I am sure the constant radiation exposure doesn't help.
  • Towers, antennas & siting: Their school has 2 5or6 G towers outside it, so even playing & watch soccer games, we do not feel safe.
  • Exposure limits & testing: I am worried about this whole younger generation and what the years of exposure, that is cumulative will do to them.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077154

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077154

I am concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electronic device and use air buds all the time.One has ADHD and the other has gone through some depression, which I am sure the constant radiation exposure doesn't help. I am worried about this whole younger generation and what the years of exposure, that is cumulative will do to them. Their school has 2 5or6 G towers outside it, so even playing & watch soccer games, we do not feel safe. Please do current testing, as the radiation is so much stronger now than previous test on how it affects the brain body.

#2328I am very concerned about EMF exposure on our health, animals and the environment. I am highly sensitive …by Yvonne Perkins » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiencesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testing
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077153

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077153

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.

#2329I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by Maria Howard » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiencesCancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Sensitivity & health experiences: Soon I began felling dizzy, oozy, unsteady on my feet, and even felt like my skin was being pricked with sharp needles.
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077152

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077152

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.

#2330Dear Sirs, Twenty years ago when living in Taiwan, I knew a girl there who was very sensitive to everythi…by David Hinkle » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiencesWi-Fi, meters & wireless devices
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077151

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077151

Dear Sirs, Twenty years ago when living in Taiwan, I knew a girl there who was very sensitive to everything. For example, she would feel uncomfortable when walking in front of an operating microwave oven. And, she preferred Nokia to Motorola mobile phones, because the latter hurt her more when using (holding up to her head/ear). Around that time, I started carrying a mobile phone in a holster on my hip (popular to do then). After about a month, I started to feel a pain in my groin and, fearful and remembering my friend (a "canary in a coal mine"), I stopped carrying the phone there (instead putting it in the outermost pocket of my backpack). After a few days, the pain was gone and did not return. Instead of being captured by the industry (as all government agencies seem to be nowadays), you might conduct a serious, impartial, and independent investigation into the potential harms of wireless radiation (which are now even more ubiquitous in our society), and take decisive, impactful action if any harms are found.

#2331I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by Lisa Harrelson » 2026-09-21
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentPregnancy & reproductionTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Pregnancy & reproduction: We know other countries limit exposure, even China requires pregnant women to wear EMF protective clothing.
  • Towers, antennas & siting: This issue matters to me personally because: We believe, a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was directly adversely impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community in where he resided.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077150

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077150

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 directly adversely impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community in where he resided. We know other countries limit exposure, even China requires pregnant women to 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.

#2332I am a biostatistician. There is no data on long-term biological effects of RF exposure, and precious lit…by Josh Mitteldorf » 2026-09-21
Towers, antennas & sitingResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Towers, antennas & siting: Even if we accept that wireless communications are a part of our society and our economy, here to stay, there are policy decisions to be made about transmission protocols, tower placements, and power limits.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: There is no data on long-term biological effects of RF exposure, and precious little data on acute effects.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077149

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077149

I am a biostatistician. There is no data on long-term biological effects of RF exposure, and precious little data on acute effects. This is completely unacceptable. Even if we accept that wireless communications are a part of our society and our economy, here to stay, there are policy decisions to be made about transmission protocols, tower placements, and power limits. These should depend on frequency and on modulation, and we don't have the information we need to minimize health impacts. Let's begin now a massive program of information gathering.

#2333I experienced serious vertigo from a 5G cellphone. I experienced insonmia from sleeping near a wifi route…by jessica mcgovern » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiencesSleep & neurological concernsTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devices
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077148

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077148

I experienced serious vertigo from a 5G cellphone. I experienced insonmia from sleeping near a wifi router. I experienced anziety from sleeping near a wifi router. I have now mitigated the wifi radiation emitting devices with faraday cages. and my symptoms have gone away. Im very sensitive to wifi radiation.

#2334It is time to review:The impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposu…by Frank Rendo » 2026-09-21
Children, schools & developmentWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077147

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077147

It is time to review:The impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation. The ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996. The impacts of RF radiation on the environment. The adequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices.

#2335I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by Sumayya Abdul Khadar » 2026-09-21
Sleep & neurological concernsCancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Sleep & neurological concerns: This issue matters to me personally because: My autistic son continued to have seizures and medications did not stop his seizure.
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077146

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077146

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 autistic son continued to have seizures and medications did not stop his seizure. The wireless router about 6 meters away from him got damaged and it was replaced with another one further away from him. Within 3 months his seizures stopped! He did not have seizures for 2 years and he got another seizure after he used a phone for several hours for an activity. 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

#2336I am a medical doctor, board certified in both family practice and environmental medicine. I have seen co…by Erica M Elliott » 2026-09-21
Sensitivity & health experiences
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077145

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077145

I am a medical doctor, board certified in both family practice and environmental medicine. I have seen countless patients who were sickened by wireless radiation. Some were permanently damaged from the prolonged exposure. Others had to leave their home and live in remote areas of the country in order to regain their health. The amount of radiation that we are being exposed to is starting to play a major role in destroying the health of our population.

#2337In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the …by Lynn Berghs » 2026-09-21
Cancer & tumorsTowers, antennas & sitingWi-Fi, meters & wireless devices
AI summary & topic connections
  • Cancer & tumors: In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the router because the radiation was burning my ear and causing skin cancer.
  • Towers, antennas & siting: In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the router because the radiation was burning my ear and causing skin cancer.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices: In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the router because the radiation was burning my ear and causing skin cancer.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077144

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077144

In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the router because the radiation was burning my ear and causing skin cancer. My doctor had a couple of options for me: chemo and/or radiation, or lop off my ear. Neither of those were palatable to me, so I found a holistic salve that killed the cancer. My ear is permanently disfigured, but at least it's still there to support my eyeglasses. This madness needs to stop! If I'm that sensitive to 3G, I can't imagine what 5G or 6G will do to me! It's terrifying!

#2338I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…by Angela Holcomb » 2026-09-21
Cancer & tumorsChildren, schools & developmentWi-Fi, meters & wireless devicesWildlife & environmentExposure limits & testingCourt remand & agency accountabilityResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Cancer & tumors: 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.
  • Children, schools & development: 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.
  • Wi-Fi, meters & wireless 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.
  • Wildlife & 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.
  • Exposure limits & testing: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Court remand & agency accountability: Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: 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.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077143 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077143 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 been severely and adversely affected by wireless radiation. My health and career have been severely hampered by the exposures, and I have suffered immensely as a result. I have also been bullied by many people in my life because of my intolerance for exposure to wireless radiation. I live in constant fear of a wireless transmitter being installed near or on my home and the debility that would result. I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to remediate my home and purchase protective clothing and other equipment that allows me to leave the safety of my home for short periods. This needs…

Read the full comment →

#2339Please tell me the level of RF radiation I'm experiencing.by Michael Bilski » 2026-09-21
Other public filings
AI summary & topic connections

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077142

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077142

Please tell me the level of RF radiation I'm experiencing.

#2340The FCC is not a health agency and is not taking into consideration the scientific evidence showing the v…by Robert Petrosino » 2026-09-21
Wildlife & environmentResearch, evidence & monitoring
AI summary & topic connections
  • Wildlife & environment: Recent decisions need reconsideration to protect human health and the environment.
  • Research, evidence & monitoring: The FCC is not a health agency and is not taking into consideration the scientific evidence showing the very harmful effects of RF radiation on humans and animals.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

26110077141

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077141

The FCC is not a health agency and is not taking into consideration the scientific evidence showing the very harmful effects of RF radiation on humans and animals. Recent decisions need reconsideration to protect human health and the environment.