Cancer & tumors

The FCC says it operates under a "Public Interest Mandate", however by ignoring mounting evidence that radio frequency radiation is harmful, it is not fulfilling that mandate. There are many, many scientific studies that provide evidence that this technology is harmful. FCC should have exercised the Precautionary Principle ("When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically") when cellular technology was first being introduced instead of believing the industry "experts" who were just interested in selling and expanding this technology as fast as possible. My job required that I used a cell phone as soon as they became widely available. I now have a brain tumor behind my right ear - exactly where I used to hold my cell phone to my head. The technology is dangerous and it is the job of the FCC to exercise its "Public Interest Mandate" and protect the public and not cave to the interests of corporations who just want to make a buck even if their products are harmful - sound like the tobacco industry? There are many experts in this area that can provide technical guidance and guidelines to the FCC. Some suggestions may include limiting cell tower locations, limiting the RF power of cell phones, requiring wired internet access to all homes, requiring copper wire land lines in all homes, the list can go on and on. Please have the courage to protect the citizens of the US.

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 34 year old woman whose life has been profoundly affected by a chronic, debilitating health condition, and who has spent nearly two decades searching for answers. My chronic migraines began when I was 15 years old. Around that time, a cell tower was constructed approximately 0.2 miles directly behind my family’s home. I cannot claim that this tower caused my illness, but the timing of these events has remained significant to me throughout my health journey. My symptoms quickly became so severe that I had to reduce my high school schedule. I woke up nearly every morning with debilitating migraines and vertigo, often unable to function. At one point, I missed more than 30 consecutive days of school. My family and I went from doctor to doctor, desperately searching for the underlying cause. I was prescribed countless medications in an effort to manage my symptoms, many of which came with adverse effects. My education suffered, my grades declined, and what should have been a formative, exciting period of my life became a daily struggle to get through the day. Rather than improving with age, my condition became progressively more severe. By age 26, I was experiencing symptoms that I associated with exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure. My arms would go numb while using my phone. I experienced stabbing pains in my head and stomach when people with cell phones came near me or when I was in areas near cell towers. As newer wireless technologies were introduced, I became increasingly concerned about the relationship between these exposures and my symptoms. My family went to extraordinary lengths to try to help me. We invested significant money in completely hardwiring our home and removing all wireless devices in an effort to reduce my potential exposure and find some measure of relief. This was not a casual lifestyle choice; it was a response to the debilitating reality of my daily life and our desperation to find answers. My family has had to make significant adjustments to our home and way of living because of the severity of my condition. The fact that my health concerns have required these kinds of sacrifices speaks to just how profoundly this has affected not only my life, but the lives of the people who love and support me. Also, when 5G technology was introduced in stadiums, attending sporting events became extraordinarily difficult for me because of the debilitating migraines I experienced. Travel became another challenge. Wi-Fi on airplanes, Bluetooth connections, and the wireless devices used by people around me became sources of concern as I struggled to manage my symptoms. Activities that most people take for granted; attending a game, boarding a plane, going into public spaces, or simply being around other people, became obstacles I had to weigh against the possibility of becoming severely ill. The consequences have extended far beyond physical pain. This condition has isolated me from experiences, relationships, opportunities, and the independence that most adults work toward building. I have struggled to maintain the health necessary to work consistently and support myself. Today, at 34 years old, I remain financially and physically dependent on my parents in ways I never imagined would define my adult life. I would give anything to have the freedom to attend a sporting event without fearing the consequences, travel without anticipating debilitating pain, work toward financial independence, and participate in everyday life without having to calculate the potential cost to my health. No one should have to spend nearly two decades fighting to reclaim a life they feel they have lost, while wondering whether an environmental exposure could be contributing to their suffering. People deserve answers. They deserve rigorous science, transparency, and a regulatory process willing to examine difficult questions. 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 and others in my circle are very sensitive to EMFs and wireless radiation. We experience headaches, joint aches, cannot think/process clearly, dizziness - and I have read that some people have seizures when exposed to any amount of radiation. There are studies showing that cell phones emit more radiation than is allowed according to current FCC limits. This is multiplied in children, who have smaller bodies/brains (which are still developing). There are wi-fi towers EVERYWHERE, making it very difficult for those who suffer to participate for very long (or at all) in any public place, be it restaurants, libraries, public buildings, and even peoples' houses. Multiple studies show that we do NOT need 5G, as the current speed is sufficient for most needs, yet they keep making signals stronger and forcing us to use them. We are told that EVERYONE needs wi-fi in their homes, so in an apartment building you will have multiple full-strength signals on 24/7. Manufacturers make it difficult to turn routers on and off quickly. All of this radiation is impossible to get away from. EMF protective clothing is not enough. Most of us have ethernet in our homes because we are forced to have wi-fi/computers in order to do anything in life. Alternative measures such as ethernet or landlines are made so expensive that many cannot afford them. Manufacturers do not provide alternatives for sufferers like us. Many people have sued to get masts off of school buildings, as studies have shown higher rates of cancer in students attending those schools. Multiple studies show tumors or weakened bone structure directly under places where people place their phones next to their bodies. Multiple studies show lower sperm counts for men who insist on putting their phones in their pockets. It is outrageous that these studies are not being made public. We are not made aware of the dangers of keeping cell phones on and next to the body for ANY length of time. This is only stated in the VERY SMALL print in cell phone inserts, which are worded in legalese and so small that no one takes the time to read them. Manufacturers should be forced to fully disclose the dangers of cell phone and "smart" machine use to the public. "Smart" meters, TVs, appliances, etc. are another major source of cancer of which no one is aware. Utility companies also make it more expensive and more difficult to stop "smart meters" from being installed on one's property. We are literally killing ourselves by allowing this radiation in every part of our lives. If we want to have a healthy nation, we must fund scientists who can find ways to make communication healthier. Please take a long, hard look at ALL studies, who funded them, how they were set up, and who stands to gain by the outcomes. We need to get back to HONEST scientific reasoning and studies that are not driven by profit and market share. The FCC needs to work for the PUBLIC and IT'S SAFETY once again.

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.

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: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants, or the environment.] 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: 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.

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 both myself and at least 4 other of my family members have been irreparably injured by wireless radiation. Genetic testing has shown that members of our family lack a key gene responsible for detoxification of a wide array of pollutants, including wireless radiation. When exposed, our symptoms include headaches, dizziness, rashes, tachycardia, severe chest pain, uncontrollable shaking, and even seizures. Our lives have been impacted such that we no longer are physically able to live near towns or other sites of cellular towers. We are unable to maintain most jobs within the public sector because of the prevalence of wi-fi, Bluetooth, wearable wireless devices, and cellular phones. Increasingly, we are finding it difficult or impossible to travel anywhere, to attend public events, church services, concerts, schools, and other gatherings. We are also unable to drive or ride in newer vehicles with tire pressure sensors, GPS, and other wireless components. In one frightening episode, my infant grandson stopped breathing and turned blue when his mother simply sat down with him for a moment in her sister's emergency services truck, a vehicle equipped with Bluetooth, a mobile Hotspot, GPS, and a host of other wireless technology. Thankfully, my grandson's mother immediately removed him from the vehicle, and he began breathing again. She later measured the radio frequencies within the vehicle with the HF35C detector, and they were higher than the device could register. 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.

Is the FCC actually protecting public health? In a 2021 the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, finding it failed to show proper review in regards to numerous issues related to public health and the environment. The court issued a mandate that the FCC show proper examination of evidence on its record related to non-cancer health effects (such as impacts to reproduction, brain development and the immune system), long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, and environmental impacts. If it is indeed true that this is a complex issue and that the FCC needs more time, then why hasn't the FCC stopped the roll out of wireless technology given that it is clear that it is harmful to our biology and mental health? I am citing a study, one of thousands, to remind the FCC that you are an organization that was created to protect human health, and to regulate, not stand by while humans remain vulnerable and negatively affected by the proliferation of wireless technology that invades my personal, professional and social existence. Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Thatte HS, Cho MR. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):319-29. doi: 10.1667/RR1118.1. PMID: 18302487.

The continued study and update of wireless radiation exposure limits are critical in today's saturated world. The science is already in! I have two grandchildren - most parents assume that if a cell tower is next to their child's school, it must be safe. This is not true! Just look at the average child's daily exposures: (1.) Wi-Fi in the home, (2.) smart home electric, gas and water meters, (3.) classroom white board and router, (4.) school laptop or tablet, (5.) multiple smart toys, (6.) cell towers at school and neighborhood, (7.) cell phones are now used as toys from infancy up, (8.) telecoms push in home Wi-Fi booster devices. *No wonder infertility and colon cancer is at epidemic levels in younger populations. All radiation is cumulative! Please act now to save future generations from RFR harms. "Big Wireless" relies on the media blackout. It is past time to educate and protect our children. Parents deserve to know the truth.