AI summary & topic connections
26110082072
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082072
2,415 public comments, newest first, 20 per page. Keep scrolling to load more.
26110082072
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082072
26110082071
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082071
26110082070
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082070
26110082069
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082069
26110082065
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082065
26110082059
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082059
26110082058
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082058
26110082057
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082057
It makes me extremely fatigued.
I have serious brain fog whenever I'm around it.
The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer.
Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.
This issue matters to me personally because wireless radiation negatively affects me in numerous ways, namely in that short and long term exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and other wireless sources impacts me substantially.
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.
In terms of home use, it is imperitive we keep fiber optic and copper landline technology which poses no danger whatesoever and is far more secure and reliable, especially in severe weather.
Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.
Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.
26110082056 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082056 I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because wireless radiation negatively affects me in numerous ways, namely in that short and long term exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and other wireless sources impacts me substantially. It makes me extremely fatigued. I have serious brain fog whenever I'm around it. I never get deep, restful sleep when exposed to wi-fi, 4G, or 5G radiation. My fatigue is off the charts because of it. On rare ocassions when I can escape the wireless onslught, such as in remote rural areas with no cel coverage, I sleep very well and feel rested upon awakening. Every since wireless electric utility smart meters were…
26110082055
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082055
26110082054
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082054
26110082053
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082053
26110082047
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082047
26110082045
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082045
I believe that some cognitive issues are related to that.
I am very concerned about wireless radiation, especially from my cell phone and wireless ear buds.
26110082037
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082037
I am very concerned about wireless radiation, especially from my cell phone and wireless ear buds. I believe that some cognitive issues are related to that. Manufacturers need to test and verify and take responsibility
26110082036
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082036
Though I shield my home(non-radio meters, wifi routers off, devices away from sleeping quarters), I have found my sleep disrupted more and more.
Of particular concern to me is the effect this has on my 5-year-old grandchild, who experiences hyperactivity, emotional melt-downs, and sleep disturbance while at my home.
I urge you to do the updated testing on EMF radiation technology that was ordered by the courts in 2013 and 2021 before implementing any further acceleration of cell tower placement.
Though I shield my home(non-radio meters, wifi routers off, devices away from sleeping quarters), I have found my sleep disrupted more and more.
Landscaping in the path of new cells die within a couple of years, and much of the wildlife that frequents my yard is reduced, or has unhealthy behavior.
I urge you to do the updated testing on EMF radiation technology that was ordered by the courts in 2013 and 2021 before implementing any further acceleration of cell tower placement.
I urge you to do the updated testing on EMF radiation technology that was ordered by the courts in 2013 and 2021 before implementing any further acceleration of cell tower placement.
26110082028
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082028
I urge you to do the updated testing on EMF radiation technology that was ordered by the courts in 2013 and 2021 before implementing any further acceleration of cell tower placement. The proliferation of EMF technology has created a snowball effect. Though I shield my home(non-radio meters, wifi routers off, devices away from sleeping quarters), I have found my sleep disrupted more and more. Testing meters show that I am irradiated all night by EMFs I cannot control, or afford to shield from. Of particular concern to me is the effect this has on my 5-year-old grandchild, who experiences hyperactivity, emotional melt-downs, and sleep disturbance while at my home. While I live in a small city(approx 34,000), at least 20 cell towers have been constructed near me since 2019. Additionally, there are 5G cells every few hundred feet on the street of even my quiet neighborhood. Landscaping in the path of new cells die within a couple of years, and much of the wildlife that frequents my yard is reduced, or has unhealthy behavior. While I do not know all the causes, I do know that cell tower proliferation runs alongside all of it. Hill's Criteria lists 1)Strength of association 2) Consistency 3) Specificity, 4) Temporality, and 5) Biological gradient as plausible causality. Please do the testing and be transparent. Not all progress is beneficial. Thank you for your attention.
26110082026
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082026
26110082025
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082025
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.
Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court.
26110082023
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110082023
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.
Loading more comments…