All comment threads

The only way to avoid radiation from these horrendous boxes that line every corner of my world...when I was looking to buy a home and finally finding one I like and can afford, I looked up....and what????? A box the size of my car directly over this country home. Well, didn't buy it and got sick to my stomach Take these things down and let's get back to why we are here on this planet. To make it better, not burn it down.

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.

It is damaging to every living thing! But the big companies are making tons of money so they will fight it! RF has made me dizzy, all the time!

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: We believe a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was negatively impacted by cell towers located outside the mobile home community where he resided. Other countries limit exposure, even China requires all pregnant women wear EMF protective clothing. 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.

Four years ago, I started having unexplained irregular heartbeats, often in the middle of the night but also during the day. I knew about the health issues arising from proximity to cell towers but didn't see any immediately around where I lived. I hired a woman who was a specialist in measuring the amount of radiation in one's home environment as well as in one's body. Her equipment was expensive and made in Germany. When she tested my bedroom and apartment, the test reflected off-the-chart numbers (we combed the neighborhood and did find a tower--mostly obscured--very nearby). But more startling, discovered how much radiation my body was absorbing! I also watched a video test of a gentleman with no heart symptoms who, when hooked up to a monitor, had significant heart abnormalities when a smart meter--in another room and out of sight to the test subject--turned on and off. I then had my room painted with a special paint and used a specialized blanket to help protect me from these heart anomalies. These things did help, but they all stopped when I moved to a semi-rural location with no 5G towers!!! Please, PLEASE put an end to these towers!!!

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: We believe a family friend, was negatively impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community, and recently died of cancer. Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women. 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.

I am concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electronic device and use air buds all the time.One has ADHD and the other has gone through some depression, which I am sure the constant radiation exposure doesn't help. I am worried about this whole younger generation and what the years of exposure, that is cumulative will do to them. Their school has 2 5or6 G towers outside it, so even playing & watch soccer games, we do not feel safe. Please do current testing, as the radiation is so much stronger now than previous test on how it affects the brain body.

I am very concerned about EMF exposure on our health, animals and the environment. I am highly sensitive to it and have had health issues from it. It is not good for our health. The testing for how it affects our bodies is out of date. Please start honest testing and protect us from it. Also, data centers! Please stand up for our health against big business. That is what you are hired to do.

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. This issue matters to me personally. I initially became aware of the presence wireless devices when my city began installing smart meters. Soon I began felling dizzy, oozy, unsteady on my feet, and even felt like my skin was being pricked with sharp needles. The discomfort now includes cold numb hands and fingers. My body feels fatigued , reaching the point of exhaustion. I am specially concerned with the effects of short, medium and long-term exposure to wireless radiation on our children, growing under this ever present radiation. 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.

Dear Sirs, Twenty years ago when living in Taiwan, I knew a girl there who was very sensitive to everything. For example, she would feel uncomfortable when walking in front of an operating microwave oven. And, she preferred Nokia to Motorola mobile phones, because the latter hurt her more when using (holding up to her head/ear). Around that time, I started carrying a mobile phone in a holster on my hip (popular to do then). After about a month, I started to feel a pain in my groin and, fearful and remembering my friend (a "canary in a coal mine"), I stopped carrying the phone there (instead putting it in the outermost pocket of my backpack). After a few days, the pain was gone and did not return. Instead of being captured by the industry (as all government agencies seem to be nowadays), you might conduct a serious, impartial, and independent investigation into the potential harms of wireless radiation (which are now even more ubiquitous in our society), and take decisive, impactful action if any harms are found.