All comment threads

I was diagnosed with extreme EMR sensitivity at work when they moved my office in front of largeadjacent computer and phone database space. Within minutes of being in my new office, my heart rate was over 120 BPM I was nauseous and felt faint so I called OSHA RR in company and was sent to ER where my BP was 210/110 and they wanted to admit me to hospital - i refused, recd therapy and stayed there all day for observation When I was released they told me I had severe sensitivity to EMR, and needed to watch my environment To militate it/ I have trouble staying at any hotel, can’t work in many spaces with excessive wireless. Have severe sleeping issues unless I Use expensive tools to mitigate exposure. I was doing oat home until Xcel Emergy and WI refused to give me health consideration for a smart meter outside and below my BR. I have spent $1K + To mitigate so I can sleep but still have major medical issues. I carry my phone in a radiation bag and avoid all sources of this radiation in my environment. It severely limits my life, and it’s inconceivable that the State of WI and Xcel Energy cannot grant health exceptions to smart meters etc with diagnosed health issues. We plead for help to assist us and remove this health threat. We should be able to have a safe nontoxic home that does not threaten our health since we pay taxes to live in it.

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

Radiation has gotten out of hand. I work in the public schools as a RN. Is the FCC at all concerned about what happening to our children? Shame on you for not seeing this gross injustice to our children. Obesity, ADHD, seizures, Diabetes, just to name a few.

We are 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. We 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. We 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.

I was occupationally exposed and became sensitized to electromagnetic radiation in 2003. My neurologist of over 30 years has acknowledged in writing that I am sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. I am now forced to live in an exponentially increasing amount of RF radiation which greatly exacerbates migraine headaches and results in extreme insomnia if I am not protected (which is everywhere outside of my home, including medical offices, hospitals, etc.). I have spent years studying this and untold thousands of dollars on mitigation including wired only connections for phone* and internet such as coaxial cable and ethernet, health strategies and metering, metal roof and special fabric (mostly silver) for bed canopy and windows. I do not use a cell phone (*but have one only in case of emergency as there are no longer any alternatives and it is contained in a metal box and always off because even on airplane mode phones can "leak" which I have detected and measured). I have contacted state and federal representatives and agencies, some of which include innumerable congressional representatives, Florida Public Service Commission which was compelled by some of us to hold a hearing on smart meters to ultimately be told that no one has any authority over health effects other than the FCC, Brevard County Commission, former Governor Scott, Attorney General of the State of Florida, the FCC-numerous times, FDA, etc., basically to no avail, partly because the FCC is a captured agency which has thus far refused to acknowledge the now hundreds if not thousands of studies demonstrating BIOLOGICAL effects (not thermal) of RF radiation at very low levels or to perform required NEPA studies for small cells despite a federal appellate court ruling! I apparently have NO protection under the ADA due to the FCC's blatant negligence and loyalty to the telecoms rather than the American public. After suffering for over 2 decades I am no longer mincing words and have lost all faith in US government agencies. The US has among the worst EMR standards in the world and seemingly does not care at all for the fate of its children who are being exposed 24-7 (INCLUDING FROM SPACE) and are more vulnerable to the health effects than adults. The Dept. of the interior put the FCC on notice many years ago that bird populations were being adversely affected by RF radiation...if only there were an agency concerned about also protecting people! The FCC is derelict in its duty to protect us - there is no longer any doubt or argument that can rationally be made about this.

I am writing today 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 deeply to me personally as someone who has experienced unexplainable, chronic headaches that started, coincidentally, around the time our house was 'upgraded' to wireless electric usage transmission. I would like proper scientific studies that investigate the effects of wireless signals on our brains. It is particularly concerning to me because I am an adult who is, perhaps, more sensitive than other adults--what about the effects on children's developing brains? What about migratory wildlife that utilize magnetic fields to guide their journey? We are energetic beings, and to reject out of hand that RF radiation and electromagnetic currents could interfere with biological processes is both myopic and foolhardy. The FCC MUST give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it in order to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you for all you can do to leave no stone unturned in our endeavor to safeguard life from technology that could potentially interfere with our health.

Unseen radiation affects the cells in the body. Many instances have been reported of tumors started right behind the ear, where the cell phone is held. People who live near cell phone towers develop serious cancers. Unseen radiation of any kind impacts the human body. It must be taken into consideration, before permitting more radiation to be loosed on humanity. Americans are among the unhealthiest in the world and spend more on drugs and medical treatments, because of our government's promotion of money-making industries at the expense of the mental and physical health of the American people...This will eventually take down America.

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 primary healthcare provider for 44 years and after just hearing Michael Adams present a 13 chapter presentation on genetic survival, I urge each member of the CC to listen to the potential interactions that occur when mRNA spike proteins meet the wireless radiation affects. If it is a population reduction that you are interested in producing then go ahead and continue with this propagation of electromagnetic field Radiation. Reference this at geneticsurvival.com. 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.

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

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. There is substantial evidence of harm from RF radiation and I myself have experienced negative effects. I sat next to a wifi router for two years and finally realized that metabolic issues and fatigue were likely due to the router which I moved. However, I find that wifi-rich environments make me tired and brain-fogged. The US Government / FCC MUST Examine the available data/studies and not just the industry-paid studies but the real studies that are done more accurately. There are many! 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 what I mention above, as well as I know many friends who become quite ill when they are in WiFi – several of them even near a cell phone. I believe, based on their experience and the scientific evidence that their more intense cases are just more visible but the science shows that all bodies are impacted. In fact, just holding a cell phone makes the blood cells clump up! (not healthy!). When my kids were in school, it was obvious that the more WIFI became ubiquitous, the more school days they missed due to illness and the more fatigued they became. While that may not be the only factor, again the science and extensive research supports this assumption. In addition, WiFi is known to affect wildlife (and people are wildlife too!). It is insane for us to keep increasing the RF radiation, known to have negative effects. At the very least, the FCC should have independent scientific observers with no conflict of interests evaluate the science and make recommendations to the FCC. Many organizations could be of help such as the World Council For Health. 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.