FCC EMFTHE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM
The people. The questions. The public record.An independent RF Safe project
Forum index › All threadsLatest posting day

THE LATEST SUBMISSIONS

All comment threads

2415 original comments · Newest first

Browse topics
Read full comments below. More load as you scroll.
Posted 2026-10-19#26110082398 · Permanent link ↗

I have been sensitive to radiofrequency (RF) radiation since about the time it became widely adopted. As …

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-19#26110082396 · Permanent link ↗

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its dec…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-19#26110082394 · Permanent link ↗

Attachment-only filing · Charles Frohman

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Official attachments · 1

Opens the original FCC-hosted document. Document contents are not included in topic matching.

Posted 2026-10-19#26110082388 · Permanent link ↗

Attachment-only filing · Charyl Zehfus

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Official attachments · 9

Opens the original FCC-hosted document. Document contents are not included in topic matching.

Posted 2026-10-19#26110082383 · Permanent link ↗

I live in a small rural community with 1 cell tower, and use a Samsung android cellphone, and I have Spec…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-19#26110082376 · Permanent link ↗

Attachment-only filing · Nancy Celeste Henderson

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Official attachments · 32

Opens the original FCC-hosted document. Document contents are not included in topic matching.

Posted 2026-10-19#26110082375 · Permanent link ↗

Attachment-only filing · Mary Maio

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Official attachments · 5

Opens the original FCC-hosted document. Document contents are not included in topic matching.

Posted 2026-10-19#26110082372 · Permanent link ↗

When the wifi is on at my house it disrupts my sleep and the sleep of my animals as well. I can hear a hu…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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 ??
Posted 2026-10-19#26110082371 · Permanent link ↗

Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director at California Brain Tumor Association

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Official attachments · 4

Opens the original FCC-hosted document. Document contents are not included in topic matching.

Posted 2026-10-19#26110082369 · Permanent link ↗

Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director at California Brain Tumor Association

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

Official attachments · 4

Opens the original FCC-hosted document. Document contents are not included in topic matching.

10 comments displayed. More load as you scroll.

These are separate official submissions grouped by topic. A comment can appear in more than one board.