All comment threads

I have been battling EMF sensitivity ever since 2003 when I had to get my first cell phone for my work. All wireless devices cause me debilitating symptoms. It causes debilitating head pain, confusion, neurological pain, negative overstimulation, brain fog, cognition, affects my vision.. the list goes on.. Anyone in the scientific world would understand the negative effects that this wireless radiation causes on all creation. I'm begging for your mercy to stop the rollout of 6G and reverse 5G. Do not force fiber optic and wireless into everyone's home, but allow the copper lines to remain so people can have hardwired access to telephone, internet and television.. stop making all appliances smart appliances and LED lighting which is killing us with massive radiation. I appreciate your time in studying the facts and the science behind the detrimental effects of these waves that we cannot see. For the sake of humanity and creation, I'm asking that no wireless company have immunity from lawsuits related to harming our health and that we have the right as a nation and as a people to be compensated for all the damage this is causing us.. Yours in Health, Dr Shana Morris

x

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: I no longer use a microwave; all my light bulbs are incandescent; I do not carry a cell phone on my body and when I do use it I do not hold it close to my head - I have so many friends who did/do and now have brain tumors. Indeed I carry it in a Faraday bag; all my phones and computers are hard wired. Why you may ask? Because when I did use those items in the way most people use them, I had headaches regularly. My husband had cancer, which I am fairly sure was negatively impacted by all things wire-less and partly the reason I changed away from wireless when he died. Since changing as I mentioned above, I no longer have 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.

To whom it may concern! 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: I am tired of seeing cell phone towers at kids schools and having wireless technology forced on us without proper safety studies. 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.

Any scientist knows all life is made of frequencies of various lengths. How could any person with that knowledge believe a frequency foreign to living life frequencies could be "Ok" for us to be bombarded with daily 24/7? There is evidence from scientists who have no bias due to financial gains that wifi, cell tower, cell phones and many other man made frequenices are not compatible with life. The cell phone companies do not want to give up the golden calf and would rather argue there is no harm to them. I am surre we could come up with tech that is less damaging to life although it may be more expensive and lower the profits. We need to pull back on this before it is too late.

In 2018, in the ComEd room next to my apartment's front door, the 36 analog electric meters were switched to smart ones. ALL WITHOUT NOTIFYING OUR PROPERTY MANAGER. Before I realized this, I began to have inexplicable symptoms - headaches and difficulty with uninterrupted sleep. A month+ later I ran into a ComEd employee, and I invited him into my apt. to talk. HE TOO WAS GETTING SYMPTOMS but he realized that they were due to his exposure to the smart meters which were sending electronic messages back to the central office every 2 or so minutes.

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 I have two children and while I can control how much RF radiation they are exposed to at home, I can not control how much RF radiation they are exposed at school and other places. I can't even control how much RF radiation our house is exposed to from the neighbors. None of us was exposed to this much RF radiation when we were children. We didn't have wifi, cell phones, even computers until we were teenagers. Young children are more vulnerable to RF radiation as their brain, nervous system, their body still grow. It's not possible to have long-term exposure studies yet as all the new wireless technologies are new and no one who is in their retirement age has been exposed to these technologies since birth. Now our children are under experiment! I strongly don't want my own children to be experimental rats to see if they are going to develop cancer or some other health conditions by the end of their life because of their constant exposure to RF radiation in school and other places! 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 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 I am a health practitioner employing assessment methods of epigenetic expression and bioenergetic priorities of people and their pets, and I repeatedly see high challenges relative to microwave, cell tower, cell phone and other EMF emissions. Remediation of these exposures is costly and is never as good as simply not having the exposure in the first place. 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 live in rural Eastern Washington State. Approximately 8 years ago, an Internet provider from a neighboring County, erected a cell tower approximately one mile West of my property, at an elevation about 600 feet higher than my highest elevation. I can see the cell tower, from my Residence. I have noticed that the trees surrounding that tower, appear to be dying or have died. In addition, I personally installed a wireless radio transmitter, on a tree along my private road, to alert me to autos entering my road. That tree, a Western Larch, has subsequently died. I do not think these are COINCIDENCES. I believe the EMF’s that are generated caused the trees to die. This causes me concern for individual human health and the wildlife and forests.

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 the studies on radiation have been proven to be harmful and we should not be exposed to this in our communities. Our government should care more about its people.