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 top of head is literally buzzing every morning & I have head aches - and I NEVER get head aches! It is the 5G/6G tower that sits only blocks away. This is obviously criminal imposing this on residents & needs addressing immediately
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. his issue matters to me personally because: 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.
To the Federal Communications Commission: 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 noncancer health effects, impacts on children, long term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing concerns about wireless radiation: Wolf, R. and Wolf, D. “Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station.” International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2004, Vol. 1, No. 2. This study examined residents of Netanya, Israel, who lived within 350 meters of a cell phone transmitter station for three to seven years. Researchers reported a cancer rate among those residents several times higher than in the surrounding population and in the city overall. The study is small, but it directly addresses long term residential exposure to a base station. That is exactly the kind of exposure the Court asked the FCC to address, and it calls for larger, independent follow up research led by health agencies. 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 lived it. While I was renting an apartment, a cell phone tower was installed directly above my unit. After the installation I began having frequent nosebleeds and recurring headaches. Over time I developed skin lesions that a medical evaluation found to be precancerous. My two cats were affected too. One of them became completely disoriented while we lived there. Soon after, I moved. My symptoms improved, and both cats recovered, including the one that had been disoriented. I can’t prove the tower caused these problems. But the timing of the onset, and the recovery once we left, is the kind of real world experience the FCC needs to take seriously. That’s especially true for long term residential exposure and for the effects on animals that the Court specifically raised. 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. Respectfully, Germann Vesterman Fruit Cove, Florida