All FCC comments · page 120

26110077096

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077096

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 suffer heart palpitations, headaches and sleep difficulties as a result of proximity to RF emissions, wireless routers and the proximity of wireless enabled devices. Turning off and/or removing wireless technology results in dramatic improvements in my energy level and ability to sleep through the night, and it also stops my heart from beating irregularly. Thank you for your consideration.

26110077095

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077095

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 suffer from health issues that are exacerbated by forced exposure to wireless electric company meters on the wall of my house right outside my bedroom. In addition to computer routers, cell phones and neighbors smart technology, I am bombarded by radiation contributing to fatigue, brain fog, insomnia and anxiety. 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.

26110077094

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077094

My 14 year old son cannot look at an iPhone in the mornings as the light and radiation from the phone hurts his eyes and head. WiFi hurts my sons head and eyes all day long.

26110077093

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077093

Please do all you can to reduce wireless radiation as I deal with head pain everyday to the point of disability and nothing can be done. Our children deserve better as their bodies are being attacked in numerous ways and this may affect their abilities to conceive their own children!!

26110077092

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077092

Hi, I get headache if I use my cell phone too long. I also get afib from singing in front of a wifi kareoke. Thank you.

26110077091 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077091 My name is Tina Kim Noble. I live in Boise, Idaho. I am filing this comment so the Commission has a human record, not only paper studies, when it finally answers the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 order to explain whether 1996 radiofrequency limits protect people from long-term exposure. Bob was my partner. As a young adult he was a ham radio operator. He and his friend spent long hours next to towers and transmitters. He believed that early, close work beside the towers was connected to what killed him. I can tell you what happened to him, how fast it took him, and how it feels for someone who lost the love of her life. He called me right after walking on the stair climber at Fort Boise. He had tried to speak and could not. A few days later we were together in the afternoon. He looked at me and tried to say that he loved me. He mouthed the words. Only drool came out. We hoped it was a TIA. It was a tumor. They said the best surgeon was in Seattle. We went immediately. The doctor came in and told us it was inoperable. Grade 4 glioblastoma. Bob and his sister, who had flown in from Florida, sat and listened. I collapsed in tears. We got home from Seattle on September 10, 2001. On the morning of the 11th I walked into the living room and saw the plane hit the tower. Watching it fall, I thought the world was ending. It was all too much to take in at once. The doctor gave him four months without chemo and radiation, nine months with them. He started Temodar and radiation. For months we talked about miracles. He took steroids to keep the swelling down. The steroids changed him. He became paranoid and angry. He thought I was having an affair. I asked him when I would have had time—raising three children, working, and driving him to radiation. When he needed round-the-clock care, his sister came to Boise. I kept calling and visiting. He lost all speech. One day I knew something had changed. I called her. He had stopped the chemo. Shortly after he had a seizure, then a stroke, and then he died. Before he died I got to say goodbye. He could not speak, but the love was back in his eyes. He patted the bed for me to sit beside…

Read the full comment →

26110077090

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077090

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 ever since 5G rollout and towers popping up everywhere my and my loved ones' health has declined significantly. We can often feel when we're getting beamed by cell phones, routers, towers and suffer from headaches including migraines, malaise, thyroid and heart issues, cancer and overall ill health. When I measure with a milligauss detector in homes, businesses, hotels and airplanes the ratings are more often than not far beyond what is considered "safe". Very "low" levels cause leukemia in children - so no level is safe, correct? 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.

26110077089

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077089

Trees around a cell tower that I bike by are all dying. I've asked a local arborist about it and he said "it's common to see plant die off around cell towers." If thats true, what's it do to me? Well, when I go near that cell tower I feel my body tingle and vibrate as if I'm hooked up to an electrical outlet. I understand that the FCC has not updated its safety standards on RF for a long time, wonder why. Probably, because they are captured by industry capitalists. I no longer trust that my government has my best interest at hand.

26110077088

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077088

When Wi-fi was introduced to our neighborhood community by attaching the devices to the power line poles, one of the devices was in direct line to my bedroom. It was very difficult for me to sleep in any bedroom on that side of the house. Eventually moved to the couch in the den to sleep which was not in alignment with those poles. When I moved out of the house I made sure that any housing I lived in from that point on was not near a cell tower or a device attached to a power line pole so that I could sleep.

26110077087

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077087

26110077086

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077086

I have been battling EMF sensitivity ever since 2003 when I had to get my first cell phone for my work. All wireless devices cause me debilitating symptoms. It causes debilitating head pain, confusion, neurological pain, negative overstimulation, brain fog, cognition, affects my vision.. the list goes on.. Anyone in the scientific world would understand the negative effects that this wireless radiation causes on all creation. I'm begging for your mercy to stop the rollout of 6G and reverse 5G. Do not force fiber optic and wireless into everyone's home, but allow the copper lines to remain so people can have hardwired access to telephone, internet and television.. stop making all appliances smart appliances and LED lighting which is killing us with massive radiation. I appreciate your time in studying the facts and the science behind the detrimental effects of these waves that we cannot see. For the sake of humanity and creation, I'm asking that no wireless company have immunity from lawsuits related to harming our health and that we have the right as a nation and as a people to be compensated for all the damage this is causing us.. Yours in Health, Dr Shana Morris

26110077085

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077085

x

26110077084

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077084

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 no longer use a microwave; all my light bulbs are incandescent; I do not carry a cell phone on my body and when I do use it I do not hold it close to my head - I have so many friends who did/do and now have brain tumors. Indeed I carry it in a Faraday bag; all my phones and computers are hard wired. Why you may ask? Because when I did use those items in the way most people use them, I had headaches regularly. My husband had cancer, which I am fairly sure was negatively impacted by all things wire-less and partly the reason I changed away from wireless when he died. Since changing as I mentioned above, I no longer have headaches. 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.

26110077083

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077083

To whom it may concern! I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: I am tired of seeing cell phone towers at kids schools and having wireless technology forced on us without proper safety studies. 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.

26110077082

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077082

Any scientist knows all life is made of frequencies of various lengths. How could any person with that knowledge believe a frequency foreign to living life frequencies could be "Ok" for us to be bombarded with daily 24/7? There is evidence from scientists who have no bias due to financial gains that wifi, cell tower, cell phones and many other man made frequenices are not compatible with life. The cell phone companies do not want to give up the golden calf and would rather argue there is no harm to them. I am surre we could come up with tech that is less damaging to life although it may be more expensive and lower the profits. We need to pull back on this before it is too late.

26110077081

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077081

In 2018, in the ComEd room next to my apartment's front door, the 36 analog electric meters were switched to smart ones. ALL WITHOUT NOTIFYING OUR PROPERTY MANAGER. Before I realized this, I began to have inexplicable symptoms - headaches and difficulty with uninterrupted sleep. A month+ later I ran into a ComEd employee, and I invited him into my apt. to talk. HE TOO WAS GETTING SYMPTOMS but he realized that they were due to his exposure to the smart meters which were sending electronic messages back to the central office every 2 or so minutes.

26110077080 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077080 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 two children and while I can control how much RF radiation they are exposed to at home, I can not control how much RF radiation they are exposed at school and other places. I can't even control how much RF radiation our house is exposed to from the neighbors. None of us was exposed to this much RF radiation when we were children. We didn't have wifi, cell phones, even computers until we were teenagers. Young children are more vulnerable to RF radiation as their brain, nervous system, their body still grow. It's not possible to have long-term exposure studies yet as all the new wireless…

Read the full comment →

26110077079

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077079

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because I am a health practitioner employing assessment methods of epigenetic expression and bioenergetic priorities of people and their pets, and I repeatedly see high challenges relative to microwave, cell tower, cell phone and other EMF emissions. Remediation of these exposures is costly and is never as good as simply not having the exposure in the first place. 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.

26110077078

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077078

I live in rural Eastern Washington State. Approximately 8 years ago, an Internet provider from a neighboring County, erected a cell tower approximately one mile West of my property, at an elevation about 600 feet higher than my highest elevation. I can see the cell tower, from my Residence. I have noticed that the trees surrounding that tower, appear to be dying or have died. In addition, I personally installed a wireless radio transmitter, on a tree along my private road, to alert me to autos entering my road. That tree, a Western Larch, has subsequently died. I do not think these are COINCIDENCES. I believe the EMF’s that are generated caused the trees to die. This causes me concern for individual human health and the wildlife and forests.

26110077077

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110077077

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 studies on radiation have been proven to be harmful and we should not be exposed to this in our communities. Our government should care more about its people.