All comment threads

Please update the human exposure guidelines for radio frequency exposure. Many studies identify the health risks such as Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell, L., et al. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).

The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of Radiofrequency (RF radiation). EMR Syndrome (Electromagnetic Sensitivity) Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40:188-200. (2019). Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. et al. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299. (2017). “Hot Nano Spots” as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, H. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69. (2016). Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, S., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(3):ZC82-ZC85. (2016). Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros, L., et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104. (2016). Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, M. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 7(Part B):43-51. (2016). Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross-Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, C., et al. BMJ Open 3(12). (2013). Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, N., et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686. (2012). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius, S. et al. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112. (2012). Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al. Neurotoxicology 28(2):434-440. (2007). Electrohypersensitivity: Sate-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258. (2006). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268. (2006). Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170. (2006). Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature. Levallois, P. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8. (2002). Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysiological Effects of Cellular Phones – Facts of Needless Anxiety. Harma, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86. (2000). Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal. 53(3):236-238 (1998).

Soy EHS desde hace mas de 5 años, y tengo mucha dificultad para trabajar con mis síntomas. En mi país, España, no se me reconoce la discapacidad, cosa que limita mis derechos fundamentales.

There should be more regulations on this type of technology. Other countries have taken these down do to harmful effects. Protect the people.

There is an overwhelming amount of electro magnetic radiation in our world today and it has increased substantially since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, which was then based on science from the 1980s, which is quite outdated now. I am personally aware how exposure to routers, towers, smart meters, etc., negatively affects life because the negative effect all of this is having on my life. If this technology was actually safe, I wouldn’t experience heat flushing through my body so much so that I sweat, prickly feelings on my skin, ringing in my ears, the inability to sleep if a router is left on and negative thoughts when in a home that has a router or if I am knowingly or unknowingly in close enough proximity to a tower. My understanding is that the Federal Communications Commission was created to protect public health. The body of scientific evidence showing that there is definite biological, neurological and mental health harm from wireless technology has grown. One cannot go to a movie theatre without being exposed to electro magnetic radiation because many theaters mounted 5G technology onto their buildings. Churches were paid to allow 5G technology to be encased within a new structure that makes it look like it was a part of the church all along. There are 5G structures mounted on local streets where I used to shop. When I drive on the highways in California, it is impossible not to drive close to a 5G tower and I feel the negative effects. The FCC was created to be a regulatory agency to protect human health. It is unconscionable that an agency of the American government would turn its back on the very people it serves. I am citing the following study: Lai, H. (1994). Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. In: Lin, J.C. (eds) Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2542-4_2

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

It's inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. A review and change to the policy is indeed warranted. Please note that EMFs do have an effect on humans, especially children, bees etc. It's time to revise the standards towards much safer shields and less radiation. Thank you.

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 of cell tower proximity to my home, as well as a smart meter that is located near my home's bedrooms. My wife has had numerous health issues the past 7 years and I am concerned she may be sensitive to RF radiation.