Can only use my mobile phone on 4G, 5G rapidly creates nausea, headaches and generalised substantial discomfort, disappearing quite quickly after change from 5G to 4G. Updating my mobile phone on wifi always creates a headache within a few minutes, wifi off after completion. This reflects research such as: "Rev Environ Health. 2017 Sep 26;32(3):291-299. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2017-0014. Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. Gunnar Heuser 1, Sylvia A Heuser 1" showing emf sensitivity is associated with distinct fMRI scans. "Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):245-58. doi: 10.1080/15368370601044150. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Olle Johansson 1" Where in Sweden: "In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (i.e., it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000-290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF) sources." "Int J Prev Med. 2018 Jul 20:9:61. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_70_17. eCollection 2018. Mobile Phone Distance from Head and Temperature Changes of Radio Frequency Waves on Brain Tissue Farhad Forouharmajd 1, Hossein Ebrahimi 1, Siamak Pourabdian 1" recorded tissue temperature changes from emf. and: "Environ Res. 2018 Jul:164:405-416. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035. Epub 2018 Mar 21. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Martin L Pall 1" Summarises the effects of emf on human biology. These papers are part of a growing body of research confirming the experience of many like my self who have direct experience of discomfort in emf fields. That was brought home most clearly years ago when using a laptop on wifi, on initiating a video call, it felt as though my arms were burning, an experience that subsided quite quickly after the call finished.
I have been negatively affected by wireless radiation. I had to leave my medical career due to not being able to work with all the wireless infrastructure surrounding me. Please take steps to lessen the toxic nnEMF in workplace environments, schools and neighborhoods. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
Before addressing the core matter of this submission, I must formally object to the absurd and needlessly restrictive architecture of the FCC’s public comment system. It is painfully obvious that this interface is designed to suppress public participation rather than encourage it, effectively shutting out the average citizen from participating in having their concerns heard and considered. Unlike the Department of Health and Human Services, which transparently routes public feedback through their centralized, user-friendly Regulations.gov portal, the FCC forces the public to navigate its own proprietary Electronic Comment Filing System. The FCC’s system does not even allow simple keywords and instead the user must use a highly specific numeric docket number (13-84) just to find the submission box. Unless you are actively tracking the court transcripts of current lawsuits against this agency, you will not know about this bracket number. By burying public comment portals behind an obscure and independent interface, the FCC has built a systemic barrier to entry. If a regulatory agency genuinely cares about public input, its systems should be built for the public, not just for corporate lawyers in insider litigants. But this is not merely a problem with how the FCC receives public comments. It is a problem with what happens when those comments are made and the agency fails to adequately respond to the human consequences. My complaint is real. It is personal, documented, and ongoing. As you are fully aware, the current RF exposure guidelines date back to 1996. In more than 30 years since those guidelines were established, wireless technology and the number and proximity of wireless transmitting facilities have changed dramatically. Yet the regulatory framework governing RF exposure has not kept pace with those changes. I live in Florida where state law allows communication facilities, including small wireless facilities, to be placed within public right of ways; Florida Statute 337.401. In my case, that regulatory framework resulted in a 5G small cell installation being placed on the swale adjacent to my property, 32 feet from my bedroom window. The combination of expansive telecommunications citing laws and outdated RF exposure standards has had a real consequence for my family. We have been forced to move from our home due to sickness directly related to RF exposure. I contacted the FCC directly. I explained my circumstances, documented my concerns, and provided two independent third-party reports specifically addressing the RF exposure situation at my property. I asked the agency responsible for this technology, you…the FCC, to consider what was happening to my family. I received no intervention. Looking back, you know what the court ordered you to do. The D.C. Court of Appeals found that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned conclusion that its RF exposure guidelines adequately protected the public from harmful effects. You were directed to address those deficiencies. Yet five years later, I am living with the consequences of a regulatory system that has failed to adequately account for those concerns. I am asking the FCC to recognize that this issue is no longer theoretical. Families are living in close proximity to increasingly ubiquitous wireless infrastructure, and existing regulations must account for the realities of that environment. The public should not have to sacrifice access to their homes in order to accommodate an expanding wireless infrastructure. The FCC must comply with the law, meaningfully address the scientific evidence before it, and consider human consequences of its regulatory decisions. Public safety cannot be treated as an afterthought. -Amanda Albertelli
I'm writing in regards to the FCCs lack of response to the D.C Court of Appeals remand concerning it's decades old - radio frequency (RF) radiofrequency exposure guidelines. The FCC has had more than enough time to review and address the evidence by the 9th Circuit Court win, on August 13, 2021. This has to be done! Enough lives have already been taken and ruined! This will effect the most vulnerable and already has. I've done extensive research and the ITU BDT (R-T-D) IPEC-WB-WRC-GSR- Plenipotentiary, via the Department of State has to be stopped! We have an industry and government that are both rogue. Not only is wireless harmful it DOES cause cancers! The new P25 warnings out of CA state on the new 5GHz phones "May cause reproductive harm." Since when do we test (never tested) cell phones for RF harm, using a plastic head! Now we are dealing with smart meters, smart grid, Broadband, Wi-fi, satellites, etc. 5GHz now going to over 8GHz via WRC27. Enough is enough and start doing what is right! It may be your own lives you are saving. TRUST ME...losing my son from a cell-tower/cell-phone RF has destroyed my life and I've witnessed many others being harmed. This has to be covered by disabilities. I know people that are so disabled from being exposed that they pray to make it to another day. All of this has to be reigned in. The WEF-WB are not in charge! Sincerely, Virginia Farver
Wifi radiation is horrific. Memory performance worsening, ringing in ears, and poor sleep are my main concerns. The ringing in the ears wakes me up every night and sometimes it is so intense that I am unable to go back to sleep. Please do something about it.
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.