All FCC comments · page 51

26110082398

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082398

I have been sensitive to radiofrequency (RF) radiation since about the time it became widely adopted. As coverage grew, I had to limit cell phone and DECT phone usage, as these cuased headaches within minutes. Having avoided cell phones for years, I became tolerant to a degree, and after living in a remote area my symptoms went away completely and I could even tolerate some RF. However, now that I had to move back to the city for work, despite not using a cell phone, I can feel the negative effects from other people's phones and nearby towers. Research is now conclusive that it is impossible that RF is not causing some negative effects, and we can be sure they are going to be varied, and have a greater effect on children and people with underlying conditions. Studies have found that schools with RF or cell phone towers placed near them have a higher incidence of childhood cancers. Studies on cell phone radiation have shown immediate negative effects to blood viscosity, and other biological markers. The FCC's rules are very dated, and do not account for the science since the 80s, nor the experts' testimony such as that found in the Bioinitiative Report (2012). I believe the recognition of this issue is long overdue, and imperative for the health of future generations.

26110082396

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082396

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 children that are exposed the these types of radiation regularly. I want them to be protected and aware of the consequences. Thank you.

26110082394

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082394

26110082388

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082388

26110082383

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082383

I live in a small rural community with 1 cell tower, and use a Samsung android cellphone, and I have Spectrum internet wifi service in my home. Over the past decade I've experienced mitochondrial dysfunction issues with severe fatigue, and developed brain fog, memory issues, depression and anxiety. I have repeatedly communicated my concerns to my primary care physician for several years and had blood test, thyroid panels conducted etc. without any findings. I have since developed cancer, atril fibrillation and gained a significant amount of weight. Consequently, Duke Energy installed a OneWay CL209 240V 3W at my home several years ago, and there has since been a constant frequency noise in my home being emitted from this electromagnetic device that it disrupts my quality of life. I have informed Duke about my Atril fibrillation and asked for this meter to be removed due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity and to minimize any cumulative EMF radiation in my home. I want a non-communicating digital meter. I am also concerned about the effects of radiation that my pets are exposed to within my home. Duke does not acknowledge that I have a two-way communicating digital meter at my home. DUKE ENERGY STK# 147983, Serial # Z25079936675X16. Please assist us with making living in our environment safe again and stop the corporate profiteering of dirty and dangerous technology from destroying our health.

26110082376

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082376

26110082375

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082375

26110082372

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082372

When the wifi is on at my house it disrupts my sleep and the sleep of my animals as well. I can hear a humming and my tinnitus is much worse. I believe that the local 5g connections are completely toxic. Without testing no one can prove otherwise. Why wasn’t that done before it was rolled out ??

26110082371

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082371

26110082369

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082369

26110082367

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082367

26110082366 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082366 The FCC must become a proactive agency, placing Americans' health first before businesses and other objectives. Subsequently, amending current exposure limits to ensure safety is urgently needed. Independent experts concur that the 1996 RFR exposure limits remain ineffective because they were based on thermal heating of tissue, while ignoring lower frequencies. Studies based on thermal heating used a 200 lb male dummy and a water filled balloon for head exposure. Debilitating health effects occur at much lower frequency levels. Health impacts for pregnant women, babies, children and those working in fields with chronic exposures weren't included. Fast forward thirty years, and the amount of RFR emitting devices and ambient RFR levels has skyrocketed. The proliferation of cell phones, cell towers, 5G, 6G, antennas, WiFi, smart meters, and other smart products is unprecedented. No federal agency has assessed/evaluated the impacts on human health and our environment by addressing these combined multiple exposures. Major areas of concern include: impacts on children, the environment, EHS individuals and the cumulative, involuntary exposure most people encounter every day. As a grandmother, I'm extremely worried about the constant RFR exposure experienced by our children and its long term effects. Children are more susceptible to environmental harms as they are smaller physically and in the process of developing. Their skulls are thinner, allowing more radiation to penetrate. Many schools now default to wireless connectivity with no evidence of safety, subjecting our children to this invisible toxin daily. An increasing number of people experience Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity due to current excessive exposure levels. This involuntary exposure while navigating work and/or public spaces is impossible to avoid. Many individuals through repeated exposure develop hypersensitivity and must actively avoid all exposures. Personally, I find airports intolerable; I experience headaches, vision problems and brain fog that lingers for hours. My home is hard-wired with ethernet cables and I keep my cell phone on…

Read the full comment →

26110082364

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082364

26110082363

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082363

26110082362 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082362 I am an occupational therapist, a mother, and a small business owner. The health impacts from RF emissions from a "smart" electric meter installation on my office, along with daily cellphone use, and a new "super powerful" router for my office .... cumulated in an 180 degree change in my life's quality in 2018. Unregulated, unmonitored standards are killing our kids and our society. There are well researched results of the health impact of wireless devices on cellular health. Wireless frequencies have been the standard of which I now navigate my life. Unfortunately, this country that is denying the very real impact of wireless frequency bands is destroying the very base of which it depends upon for future success. FCC’s invitation claims its 1996 wireless radiation exposure limits stem from “gold-standard research” from organizations “including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), internationally recognized standard-setting organizations.” Two other such recognized groups include the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), which shared membership by Dr. James Lin, who concluded: “... RF exposure limits make allowances only to worry about heat with RF radiation. These limits are devised for restricting short-term heating by RF radiation and aim to prevent increased tissue temperatures. Thus, they are not applicable to long-term exposure at low levels. Instead of advances in science, they are predicated on assumptions using outdated exposure metrics, thus their ability to protect children, workers, and the public from exposure to the RF radiation or people with sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and systems. Furthermore, the limits are based on outdated information and circumvent important animal data. These issues are even more relevant in the case of millimeter-wave radiation from 5G mobile communications for which there are no adequate health…

Read the full comment →

26110082361

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082361

26110082360

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082360

26110082358

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082358

26110082357

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082357

26110082354

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082354