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: As a marketing communications professional, I must use devices daily for my work...especially my cellular phone. I sometimes feel sick after using for too many hours. I am also very concerned about my university age daughter using wireless headphones. We know these are linked to brain damage and they should be banned. She often has headaches. 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.
The number of cell towers that have gone up in Honolulu is concerning given their proximity to homes and schools. Research shows that EMF can have harmful effects on people, plants and animals. In order to be cautious there should be a reduction of cell towers compared with how many there are now. Studies showing damage related to EMF should be heeded out of a cautious approach.
For 25 years, the NPS has been monitoring scientific research and publicising it amongst the general public. In doing so, it draws the public’s attention to the negative impact revealed by more than 50,000 studies (https://www.emf-portal.org/en). The undemocratic European advisory council (ICNIRP) appears, in many respects, to be a mouthpiece for the telecoms industry. (see EU Parliament, M Rivasi. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/109055/pdf/#:~:text=ICNIRP%20has%20been%20critiqued%20in%20a%20recent,the%20composition%20of%20ICNIRP%20is%20very%20one%2Ds). The IARC, too, expressed its concerns about excessively high guidelines many years ago, as did numerous scientists in the 5G Appeal and the Bioinitiative. To date, no thorough independent risk assessment has taken place, whilst studies demonstrating adverse effects are piling up. The NPS considers a thorough review of the guidelines to be necessary – ceasing funding for the ICNIRP and sidelining this organisation in policy-making. Thirdly, the public must be informed that the use of devices that utilise transmitter radiation (smartphones, Wi-Fi, etc.) constitutes a high-risk technological application.
Wireless radiation severely affects my ability to sleep. I have hard-wired internet in my house, and the nearest wireless tower is far enough away that my meter measures at a safe level as long as I keep my cell phone on airplane mode, out of the room, or in a copper-threaded bag. But I have taken many steps to make this happen and it is not easy as all new appliances have wireless capability built in, and not always easy to turn off. When I travel I bring a sleeping bag made of material that blocks the electromagnetic radiation that keeps me awake and unable to sleep. Bottom line, if I do not take these steps I do not get a good night's sleep, and cannot function well.
I strongly feel the RF and Emf signals need to be reevaluated for safety of our children and impacts on wildlife and risks associated with the exposure!
In March of 2020, with the deployment of 5G, I was suddenly and dramatically deprived of my ability to walk and talk. It happened in less than a minute. At the time I was living in Cambridge, MA. A year later my neurologist found that my peripheral nervous system tested normal. In their professional opinion, something was keeping my brain from communicating with my body. Less than a month later, I had to go to Vermont – for my father’s funeral. With just two night’s sleep I fully regained my ability to walk and talk. As soon as I returned to Cambridge, I lost that ability to walk and talk again - in less than an hour. Thinking that reducing population density by almost 10x might be the key to restoring my health, I moved to Canton, MA. No such health effects materialized. In Canton, as in Cambridge, my symptoms are unsustainably aggravated as soon as any Wi-Fi device comes within 6 feet of me. My PCP has diagnosed me with Epidemic Vertigo, Ataxia and Dyslalia – etiologies “unknown”. Mounting evidence suggest that close proximity to neighboring EV’s charging at night, and a solar power plant less than a mile away, represent an important part of the problem. IMPORTANT CLUE: In Dave Stetzer’s professional opinion [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/dave-stetzer], the process of converting Alternating Current to Direct Current and vice versa, is a SIGNIFICANT OFFENDER. Ref: High Frequency Transients [HFT] Recent research [JAMA neurology Nov 2025] found that one out of two American’s were struggling with neurological disabilities in 2021. This is not a small problem. The mounting costs to our healthcare system have been snowballing unsustainably. AND Poorly thought-out electrical engineering may in fact also be hurting our competitive edge in the global economy.
The 1996 radiofrequency limits are long outdated, and with more and more impact studies that have been done in the past three decades proving, not suggesting, biological harm, there needs to be much tighter regulation regarding the communications industry and the increasing “electro-smog” problem and the detrimental effects of short-term and long-term exposure to these fields. We used to be able to place the responsibility (though still unfairly) on the end consumer to know the risks of the technology they partake in, but no longer are people exposed to one or two electromagnetic fields at a time – we are now entering a time where people are often exposed to ten, twenty, even more fields at a given time, and often don't escape that exposure throughout the entire day. Given the breakneck speed of technological innovation and adoption in the past three decades, and those technologies should be held to a stricter standard in order to protect the health of the people who use them. Not everyone feels WiFi or cell tower radiofrequencies, though more and more do - and others, it has a destructive impact on their lives. We have friends who have kids with brain tumors from being near cell phone towers, and we have known so-called “antenna refugees,” hypersensitive to the frequency radiation. My partner, who is hypersensitive to EMF, had to move when there was a cell tower constructed nearby and saw significant health decline at that time, fourteen years ago. We bought a property in Washington State and we paid the utility company to remove the smart meter because she couldn't sleep. We had the neighbors reduce their WiFi signal because it gave us both headaches, and now AT&T wants to install a cell tower in our neighborhood which, if they do, will force us to sell our property and move again and find a new place free of signal which, in an increasingly electrified civilization and culture, is becoming more and more difficult to find. We need much stricter regulations regarding exposure limits for the general public, especially children, women and hypersensitive people. We need a broad action plan for keeping certain areas (“white-zones”) completely pure and clean of any EMF/electrosmog, where these people can go (without going into a fight-or-flight response or nervous system going haywire), and for minimizing exposure in residential areas. We need to stop blinding ourselves about the side effects of technology for the sake of the GDP and to reconsider the health of the people. We need change.
WE need honest studies on the effects of wireless radiation - cell phones, cell towers, smart meters. Many of us, myself included, feel our energy get low when we're around cell towers, on our cell phones for more than a few minutes, etc. These devices have not been in use long enough for us to know long term results, especially on children. Already there are many studies citing extreme dangers. Please keep cell towers limited and away from homes and schools and also away from wilderness areas and parks - those are areas where we can "rehab" from EMF exposures.
The data is clear. nnEMF harms human inner mitochondrial membrane communication. Human/animal lifespan is decreasing dramatically in the west where radio frequency technology is frequent. Robert O.Becker and Andrew Marino have proven this with numerous studies. Stop the expansion now. Use light to communicate as Alexander Bell proved in the 19th century.