Biological mechanisms & metabolism

I am sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) and radio frequencies (RFs) caused by cell phones, electricity, WiFi, cell towers, and other wireless and electronic devices. To say that the discovery of my sensitivity greatly impacted my life, is an understatement. It nearly RUINED me, I had thoughts of ending my life. It has certainly ruined my career as a public school teacher. I can no longer teach in person because I cannot tolerate being around antennas, cell phones, smart meters, and all of the other miscellaneous wireless devices. I am forced to work from home and do not make nearly the amount of money that I used to make. I began having health issues in 2016. My symptoms included leg numbness, brain fog, balance issues, gastrointestinal issues, heart issues, and list goes on. I had never had any health issues prior, at that time I was in my mid 40s. That year, in 2016 was the first year they put WiFi on the ceiling of my classroom. Additionally, I was in a classroom with several iPads and cell phones. Through my health insurance, I had several tests done. The doctors told me it might be MS or a brain tumor. Over a 4 year period, I had blood tests, MRIs, nerve tests, endoscopy, colonoscopy, ekg, and several visits to address the many symptoms that I was experiencing. In the spring of 2020, 5g towers were being deployed all over my city and around my neighborhood. I started developing ear infections, heart issues, and my body felt like it was vibrating all the time. I knew that I hit the end of the road with Western Medicine, all the tests were inconclusive and there was nothing they could do for me. So, I decided to take matters into my own hands. I got rid of my WIFI and cell phone, I fully wired my home and began sleeping with the electricity off in my bedroom at night. I was still living in a housing tract and was surrounded by cell towers, so my symptoms did not completely go away, but they were greatly reduced by the changes I made. Today, I live with a lot of land separating me from my neighbors. I have a shield on my smart meter, as my electric company will not entertain an analog meter and I am 3 miles from the nearest cell tower. I do not allow cell phones or other wireless devices in my home. I now live a relatively comfortable life with minimal symptoms as long as I stay home. When going out to run errands or traveling I often experience the following: headaches, watery eyes with head pressure, trouble focusing, brain fog, inability to think clearly, balance issues and many other health symptoms depending on the type of EMF or RF and the concentration. I cannot be comfortable out in public, my trips are usually very short. There is plenty of research out there that shows the dangers of wireless radiation. In 1971, the Naval Medical Research Institute in Maryland researched the biological effects and clinical manifestations attributed to radio frequency and microwave radiation. I highlighted the symptoms that I have personally experienced as a result of wireless radiation. In the Naval Medical Research Institute report, they found that the radiation caused all of the following and more: heating of organs, corneal damage, altered menstruation, altered fetal development, liver enlargement, decreased lactation in nursing mothers, altered renal function, changes in the oxidative processes in skin and organs, altered blood flow rate, electrocardiographic changes, myocardial necrosis, dehydration, death, headaches, insomnia, cranial nerve disorders, seizures, convulsions, altered heart rhythm, structural alterations in synapses of vagus nerve, stimulation of parasympathetic nervous system and inhibition of sympathetic nervous system, depression, impotence, anxiety, lack of concentration, tremors, dizziness, scalp sensations, chest pain, increased irritability, blood disorders, vascular disorders, biochemical changes, metabolic disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, endocrine gland changes, and genetic and chromosomal changes. (Navy-Microwave-and-RF-Effects-Brief-1971.pdf)

Along with all the scientific evidence that is cited below in all the research documents. I have personal experiences which I feel relate to health and safety. My father died of cancer 5 years ago. He didn't like or use cell phones but once he had one that was smart he slept with it by his head listening to music. Talked to friends for hours with it by his head. After getting the smart cell phone he got cancer within 2 years of having teh smart phone and died within 3 months of diagnosis. He had a growth in his neck next to where he would rest his cell phone on his pillow in bed. He believed and so do I that the cancer was because of his cell phone use. I personally can not sleep when wifi is on or near me. When traveling, I have to sleep with a EMF blocking hat to sleep, otherwise my brain has the to do list running all night long. I try to make our cell phones safer by putting EMF shielding fabric in our cell phone cases but I worry about my kids and their use. They do not understand the dangers. They say everyone has their cell phones with them all the time but they are not old enough to see the evidence or experience friends dying from the shape of a tumor where they held their cell phones up to their heads. We have 3 additional friends who died of brain cancer besides my dad. If regulations were nation wide kids would understand the actual dangers. We need safer regulations! Below are cited documents research documents etc showing the findings that all the radiation is not healthy. Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., Manville, A. M., II, & Scarato, T. (2025). Flora and fauna—How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1693873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873 Melnick, R. L., Moskowitz, J. M., & International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environmental Health, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Scientific Documentation That Limits Are Inadequate Melnick, R. L., Moskowitz, J. M., & International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environmental Health, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: Implications for 5G. Environmental Health, 21(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2024). Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(3), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683 Lai, H. (2021). Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2025). Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Reviews on Environmental Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104 Lin, J. C. (2025). Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1619781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781 Golomb BA. Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation. Neural Comput. 2018 Nov;30(11):2882-2985. doi: 10.1162/neco_a_01133. Uche, U. I., & Naidenko, O. V. (2021). Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environmental Health, 20(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1 Wildlife Impacts Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022). Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1000840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2: Impacts—How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3: Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(4), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083 Manville, A. M., II, Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. C. (2024). Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—State of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1283709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 Thill, A., Cammaerts, M.-C., & Balmori, A. (2024). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(4), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., & Chrousos, G. P. (2024). Biophysical mechanism of animal magnetoreception, orientation and navigation. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 30053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77883-9 Balmori, A. (2021). Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment, 767, 144913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913 Children’s Vulnerability International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374 Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A., Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013 Soares, N. E., Bulla, G., Fernández-Rodríguez, C. E., & de Salles, A. A. A. (2025). SAR estimations in a classroom with wireless computers. Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, 24(2), e2025288526. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526 Thyroid Effects Alkayyali, T., Ochuba, O., Srivastava, K., Sandhu, J. K., Joseph, C., Ruo, S. W., Jain, A., Waqar, A., & Poudel, S. (2021). An exploration of the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile phones and extremely low frequency radiation on thyroid hormones and thyroid gland histopathology. Cureus, 13(8), e17329. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17329 Reproductive Impacts Lamzouri, O., Ahl Laamara, R., & Drissi, L. B. (2025). Impact of electromagnetic field exposure on reproductive health: An umbrella review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 30, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-025-00258-1 Vijay, S., Ibrahim, S. F., Osman, K., Zulkefli, A. F., Mat Ros, M. F., Jamaludin, N., Syed Taha, S. M. A., Hairulazam, A., & Jaffar, F. H. F. (2025). Histomorphometry and sperm quality in male rats exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi. Reproduction, 169(5), e250048. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-25-0048 Zhang, Y., Song, J. Y., & Sun, Z. G. (2025). Exploring the impact of environmental factors on male reproductive health through epigenetics. Reproductive Toxicology, 132, 108832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.108832 Bektas, H., & Dasdag, S. (2025). The effects of radiofrequency radiation on male reproductive health and potential mechanisms. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 44(3), 359–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2025.2480664 Assefa, E. M., & Abdu, S. M. (2025). Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: A systematic literature review of animal studies. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 6, 1515166. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2024.1515166 Maluin, S. M., Osman, K., Jaffar, F. H. F., & Ibrahim, S. F. (2021). Effect of radiation emitted by wireless devices on male reproductive hormones: A systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 732420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.732420 Santini, S. J., Cordone, V., Falone, S., Mijit, M., Tatone, C., Amicarelli, F., & Di Emidio, G. (2018). Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: Focus on reproductive systems. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 5076271. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5076271 Adams, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S. C., & Mathews, F. (2014). Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 70, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015 Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D. (2015). Are men talking their reproductive health away? Asian Journal of Andrology, 17(3), 433–434. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.140963 Agarwal, A., Desai, N. R., Makker, K., Varghese, A., Mouradi, R., Sabanegh, E., & Sharma, R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022 Gautam, R., & Arora, T. (2023). Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted from mobile phone and its impact on male reproductive health. EIACP: Diversity and Impact on the Environment, 28(3), 8–11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375799722_Radio_Frequency_Electromagnetic_Radiation_RF-EMR_Emitted_from_Mobile_Phone_and_its_Impact_on_Male_Reproductive_Health Summary and Review Papers Weller, S. G., McCredden, J. E., Leach, V., Chu, C., & Lam, A. K. (2025). A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: Assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1613353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353 McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 894447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.894447 Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., Yakymenko, I., & Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 59(5), 92. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Wang, M., Zhang, Y., Angley, M., Kleiman, N. J., Wang, X., & Kahe, K. (2026). A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-026-00958-4 Hu, C., Zuo, H., & Li, Y. (2021). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on neurotransmitters in the brain. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 691880. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.691880 Cell Towers Balmori, A. (2022). Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research, 214, 113851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851 Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845 Rodrigues, N. C. P., Dode, A. C., Andrade, M. K. N., O’Dwyer, G., Monteiro, D. L. M., Reis, I. N. C., Rodrigues, R. P., Frossard, V. C., & Lino, V. T. S. (2021). The effect of continuous low-intensity exposure to electromagnetic fields from radio base stations to cancer mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229 Dode, A. C., Leão, M. M. D., Tejo, F. A. F., Gomes, A. C. R., Dode, D. C., Dode, M. C., Moreira, C. W., Condessa, V. A., Albinatti, C., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), 3649–3665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051 Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. (2011). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 19, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-018 Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1179/107735210799160192 School Recommendations Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324 Collaborative for High Performance Schools. (n.d.). Low EMF best practices summary. https://healthytechhome.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/201/CEHPAC-EMF-in-HomeWi-Fi-in-School-Report.pdf Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (n.d.). Guidelines to reduce electromagnetic field radiation. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (2017). Wi-Fi in school report. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Santa Clara County Medical Association. (2023). Best practices for safe technology in schools. https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/LiveBlog/3697/SCCMA Best Practices for Safe Technology in Schools Recommendations 21423.pdf Cell Tower Health Studies Airpods and Bluetooth Genetic Impacts, DNA Damage 5G Reviews | C-Band / 3.5 GHz | Millimeter Waves | Terahertz / THz Why FCC and ICNIRP Limits are Not Protective and Conflicts of Interest in Science ELF EMF Magnetic Fields / Power Lines (for HHS only) Category: Cell Towers Tag: cell phones, cell towers, children's health, emf, FCC, health effects, policy, science

**Re: FCC ET Docket No. 13-84 — Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields** To the Federal Communications Commission: My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap. I am a Colorado resident, a medical visualisation specialist with a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow, and an individual living with severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). I am submitting this comment to urge the FCC to reconsider its radiofrequency exposure guidelines in light of contemporary scientific research, reported health effects, and the lived experiences of people whose health and ability to participate in ordinary society are profoundly affected by their electromagnetic environments. **1. Existing RF exposure standards are inadequate** The FCC's existing exposure limits are largely based on protection against established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. These standards do not adequately resolve questions concerning potential biological effects of long-term, low-intensity, pulsed, or cumulative RF exposure. Research into oxidative stress, cellular signalling, neurological function, and other biological responses warrants continued independent investigation. The absence of scientific consensus about the clinical significance of reported non-thermal effects should not be mistaken for proof that all exposures below existing limits are harmless. **2. Electromagnetic sensitivity is a serious accessibility issue** My own experience illustrates the practical consequences of electromagnetic sensitivity. I experience severe physical symptoms that I associate with exposure to wireless infrastructure and devices, including migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, burning sensations, nausea, and significant sleep disruption. These experiences have fundamentally altered my ability to work, travel, obtain housing, access public services, and participate in community life. I have invested considerable resources in modifying my living environment, including removing wireless equipment, using wired communications, and implementing electrical and RF mitigation measures. Regardless of ongoing scientific disagreements about the causes of electromagnetic sensitivity, the functional limitations experienced by affected individuals deserve serious consideration and appropriate accommodation. **3. The public needs meaningful opportunities to reduce exposure** Wireless technology is increasingly difficult to avoid. Smart meters, cellular infrastructure, wireless routers, connected appliances, and other transmitting devices have become pervasive in residential and public environments. People who wish to minimise their exposure should have practical, affordable options, including: - Access to wired telecommunications and internet services. - Non-transmitting utility meters and alternatives to mandatory wireless equipment. - Transparent information about RF emissions and infrastructure deployment. - Consideration of residential proximity and cumulative exposure when evaluating wireless installations. - Preservation of environments where individuals can live and work with reduced RF exposure. **4. Independent research and modernised exposure assessment are essential** The FCC should support a transparent review of peer-reviewed research, including studies examining biological endpoints beyond tissue heating. Exposure assessment should consider realistic conditions involving multiple transmitters, variable signal characteristics, chronic exposure, and populations with differing health circumstances. The Commission should also meaningfully address the findings and concerns raised by independent researchers, clinicians, and affected communities rather than relying exclusively on historical exposure assumptions. **5. Requested FCC action** I respectfully request that the Commission: 1. Reassess the scientific basis of its RF exposure limits through an independent, transparent, multidisciplinary review. 2. Evaluate evidence concerning non-thermal biological effects and long-term exposure. 3. Consider cumulative and real-world exposure conditions in future regulatory decisions. 4. Protect access to wired alternatives and reasonable accommodations for individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. 5. Improve public participation, disclosure, and accountability in decisions affecting residential RF exposure. The Commission's responsibility extends beyond facilitating wireless communications. It must also give serious consideration to public health, accessibility, and the ability of Americans to make informed decisions about their environments. For individuals such as myself, this is not merely an abstract scientific debate. It concerns the ability to maintain a home, pursue a profession, obtain essential services, and live with dignity. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Morrison, Colorado

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

I urge the FCC to take a careful, science-based look at the potential health effects of long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to reconsider whether the current exposure limits are adequately protective. The FCC's existing limits date back to 1996, while wireless exposure has increased dramatically with cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cell towers, and newer 5G technologies. Research has raised concerns about biological effects that are not adequately addressed by limits based primarily on thermal effects, including oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, and effects on children. The scientific evidence deserves a thorough and independent review. Research has reported potential effects involving children's exposure, prenatal and developmental outcomes, oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive health, neurological function, long-term exposure, and wildlife. I ask the FCC to fully address this evidence, including potential effects from long-term and cumulative exposure and the particular vulnerability of children, before continuing to rely on exposure standards developed three decades ago. Public health protections should keep pace with the technology and the current scientific evidence. **References** 1. Gandhi, O. P., et al. (2012). *Exposure limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34–51. doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. 2. Fernández, C., et al. (2018). *Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality.* Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. 3. Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). *Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice.* Scientific Reports, 2, 312. doi:10.1038/srep00312. 4. Foerster, M., et al. (2018). *A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication.* Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(7). 5. Yakymenko, I., et al. (2016). *Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 6. Güler, G., et al. (2012). *The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits.* International Journal of Radiation Biology, 88(4), 367–373. doi:10.3109/09553002.2012.646349. 7. Zothansiama, et al. (2017). *Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 8. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2019). *Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields.* Mutation Research – Reviews in Mutation Research, 781, 53–62. 9. Adams, J. A., et al. (2014). *Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.* Environment International, 70, 106–112. 10. Houston, B., et al. (2016). *The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function.* Reproduction. 11. Altun, A., et al. (2018). *Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems.* Environmental Research, 167, 700–707. 12. Yahyazadeh, A., Deniz, Ö. G., & Kaplan, A. A. (2018). *The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system.* Environmental Research, 167, 684–693. 13. Falcioni, L., et al. (2018). *Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.* Environmental Research, 165, 496–503. 14. Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). *Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective.* Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. 15. Balmori, A. (2015). *Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.* Science of the Total Environment, 518–519, 58–60. 16. Cucurachi, S., et al. (2013). *A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).* Environment International, 51, 116–140. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009. 17. Thielens, A., et al. (2018). *Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz.* Scientific Reports, 8, 3924.

CHRONIC TELOGEN EFFLUVIUM, EAR RINGING, INSOMNIA I now wear a wig due to wireless radiation. Literally within 24 hours after I brought home my first wireless computer and router to for setup, I could feel the hairs falling from my head hit my arms. Within a couple of months, there were blonde hair tumbleweeds in the recesses of my tiled floor. 5G intensified ear ringing, and chronic insomnia. If you radiate the body 24/7, there will be cellular/mitochondrial damage. It is a blight to the natural world. Fiber optics!

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: While in the military I developed migraines and vertigo that were triggered by high EMF environments. Moreover, It is well know that HF radios in fighter jets cause cancer. Please reference any fighter jet systems manual. We use to call the cone of the antenna in front of the jet the cone of cancer. There are notes, warnings and cautions pertaining to this danger. While there are different frequency ranges to the many avionics in a fighter jet some of these frequency bands reserved for the military have been released for use by the tech industry within the civilian population(Why?). There is a clear safety issue with this current technology please also reference the military studies done on radar operators in the 60's and 70's showing health concerns. It's time to FOIA all government organizations to include the military for all experiments regarding technology using any type of frequency based power. Non ionizing radiation should be looked at differently than ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is more apt to cause damage via thermal heating. Non ionizing radiation is more likely to affect the calcium channels of the body therefore showing damage later in a persons life that is not expressed by thermal damage. Because of this it also tends to affect people in different ways depending on their individual exposures and body type. We know that different types of frequency's can affect a person with more fat differently than someone with less fat. We know a millimeter wave cannot penetrate the body as deep as a longer wave frequency. Therefore more fat could potentially equal more protection against a millimeter wave reaching an organ. This is especially important with children as most do not have the body fat of an adult allowing the millimeter wave to penetrate deeper into their developing bodies. Currently the FCC only looks at ionizing radiation effects, this is pure negligence on the FCC's side as it is common knowledge among anyone that works with avionics that there are other dangers to frequency then just ionizing radiation as I explained above. This issue is going to have the most damaging effects on our children. It's time to start caring about our future generations and immediately stop any further roll out of cell towers and wireless technologies, remove all antennas from schools, remove wifi from schools and cease the use of 3g/4g/5g towers within our cities until the FCC does its job and does a complete overhaul of its safety standards to reflect measuring all the dangers that can result from this use of technology. The FCC must also ensure the Tech companies are held to the strictest 3rd party study's to ensure what they are proposing is safe. Then the FCC must remove all employees with conflicts of interest ensuring no industry employees are allowed to ever work for the FCC or vice versa. Or at least have a 5 year no compete agreement in their contracts. The FCC should also be required to work with HSS. The HSS should study the health effects and then the FCC must be required to update its standards to ensure the dangers Identified by HSS are addressed in their safety standards. 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 world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of Radiofrequency (RF radiation). EMR Syndrome (Electromagnetic Sensitivity) Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40:188-200. (2019). Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. et al. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299. (2017). “Hot Nano Spots” as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, H. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69. (2016). Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, S., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(3):ZC82-ZC85. (2016). Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros, L., et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104. (2016). Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, M. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 7(Part B):43-51. (2016). Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross-Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, C., et al. BMJ Open 3(12). (2013). Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, N., et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686. (2012). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius, S. et al. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112. (2012). Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al. Neurotoxicology 28(2):434-440. (2007). Electrohypersensitivity: Sate-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258. (2006). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268. (2006). Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170. (2006). Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature. Levallois, P. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8. (2002). Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysiological Effects of Cellular Phones – Facts of Needless Anxiety. Harma, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86. (2000). Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal. 53(3):236-238 (1998).

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

Hi, our world has changed dramatically since 1996 when the FCC adopted it's guidelines exposures based on the science based from the 1980's. We have computers, ipads, tablets, flock cameras, cell towers all over our cities and by schools and hospitals(which is the absolute worst for their brains and people giving birth and having surgeries). Digital ID and the airports have so much EMF exposure. Our bodies and DNA, atoms, cells were not meant to deal with all this input and it effects the Function of the Brain of every human and life form on this beautiful planet. If we destroy the atoms and cells and cause them to mutate and loose their function what good is all the technology. Not to mention the DATA Centers going up all over and that EMF output. People are getting sick all over. Memphis, TN is just one example. GA is another. Our brain's can not take the HZ that is being put out and people are having mental, physical and some life threatening occurrences in their lives. Some can not function at their jobs or within their family units. In June, 2019 Science Direct pages 76 to 83 Volume 127 Medical Hypothesis by Elsevier. In this writing the question posed is : Are rises in Electro-Magnetic Field in the human environment, interacting with multiple environmental pollutions, the tipping point for increases in neurological deaths in the Western World? There are so many pollutants in our environment Please address and make new healthy guidelines to bring Accountability to all these companies who want MONEY and Control over humanity. Thank you for your time.