Places like France understand the harm EMF does to their babies and accordingly they do not use wifi in their childcare facilities. https://interferencetechnology.com/france-bans-wi-fi-in-childcare-centers/. IT is appalling that a first world nation has not understanding of the harm imposed and those who seek to subvert knowledge of harm are just as culpable. When those in charge do not listen to the health needs of its citizens, the people will remember those names and the time and dates of the next election. It is imperative to keep our status as a first world place and acknowledge the effects EMF. There are also devices out there to mitigate effects but this must also be incorporated accordingly. A citizen who is weak and frazzled from daily bombardment of EMF cannot perform his duties at his best level, causing a strain not only in himself and his family, but his performance at work.
The radiation from 5G and now 6 G will effect the population that have inhaled from the heavy metal chem trails, ingested foods with chemicals that will react to radiation, like graphene oxide. Knowing Bill gates and company wish to eliminate a billion people, do the right thing and take down towers and allow us to live as best we can since we already have been infected with poisons from our own govt
I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radio frequency (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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: Falcioni et al. (2018): Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radio frequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission 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 of personal health effects that I have experienced. I have deep concerns about long-term exposure to cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources. 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.
Please take seriously the concerns and wishes of those of us who care about the future of our children and grandchildren more than we care about the uses of wireless radiation. As a cancer survivor from three generations of victims of cancer, I am against anything that could potentially cause that heinous disease to affect anyone, especially the next generations.
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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States – Examined the prevalence of self-reported wireless sensitivity and co-occurring health conditions in the United States, Canada, and Australia, without establishing causation. 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: My life has been hell over the past years. I can't sleep and deal with all sorts of Healy challenge. I never consented to being immersed in the electromagnetic soup. I react strongly and there is no place for me to go. All the measures that I take to protect self and my family is not enough. This is not right that I need to keep constantly reprise to my children because they want to be as their piers whose parents not necessarily are aware of what is happening because NOONE was officially wormed or informed. This is just purely wrong. 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.
It is very important that we are informed about the effects of this. Then that gives us the information we need to decide how we proceed. Please make this available
There are so many studies that show radiation is harmful to people, animals and our environment. We the people of this United States need to stop these towers near schools, farms, businesses and homes to protect us from high radiation exposure. We know broadband communications can be delivered in a safer manor with hard cable. There are problems with this environmentally also, but it still seems better https://bioinitiative.org/updated-research-summaries/.
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.