THE LATEST SUBMISSIONS
All comment threads
2415 original comments · Newest first
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean, and Steinenmann (2026): Wireless sensitivities and comorbidities: A prevalence study of co-morbidities in Canada, Australia, and the United States Although this study does not establish causation, I believe the information gathered raises enough red flags to warrant further investigation of both the thermal and non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. These studies are crucial for studying its impact on both the human population 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. I have always been sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies. I first noticed it as a child when we would drive under high power electrical wires. I would feel “pressure” or pain in my head and chest. Decades later, as cell towers started to be constructed, I noticed increased intensity and headaches when within a certain range of cell towers. In 2012, while vacationing at a resort that was in close proximity to a cell tower, I ended up in the emergency room with chest pain. They found trace levels of troponin in my blood and a cardiac catheritization was performed. I was 44 years old and otherwise healthy. Around the same time, I started to have symptoms when near Wi-Fi and security systems, while holding a cell phone next to my head, when wearing wireless headphones, and when using Bluetooth in my car. Now, with 5G expansion, satellite technology, and increased security systems, my symptoms have increased tremendously and are often unbearable. There is frequent ringing in my ears, headaches, chest pressure, shortness of breath, and extreme fatigue. I find that it is especially bad on overcast days. 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. People should always come before profits!
Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn.
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn.
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn.
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn.
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn.
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Attachment-only filing · Wanda MacClarin
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Attachment-only filing · Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn.
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
Please address the concerns about cancer and reproductive toxicity that are raised in Melnick R and Mosko…
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
Please address the concerns about cancer and reproductive toxicity that are raised in Melnick R and Moskowitz J, Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Please take account of Mevissen et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review.
Attachment-only filing · Bald Hill Pure and Clear Skies
ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.
These are separate official submissions grouped by topic. A comment can appear in more than one board.