Cancer & tumors

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 over the last several years, I’ve noticed trees dying, all my roses have died. My personal health has changed by lower energy, hair suddenly becoming thinner and low energy and brain feeling like it’s being zapped. Many salon owners say clients hair and symptoms similar. As an adult our bodies are feeling it, imagine children. It’s changing their minds and altering their behaviors and energy levels. Now all the nano particles in air, water, foods which we have no idea, then metals in them react to radiation. It’s logical. Even our animals are sensing it with lethargy waking at night (just like humans). Society wants to chalk it up as hormones, or adults getting older etc. That doesn’t fly anymore. We know the networks of corporate medical and energy industrial complexes. We are NOT buying the narrative they have repeated over and over. Nature to nature heals. Not nature with radiation, chemicals and greedy networks overriding public health and safety. The jig is up. Plain and simple. We want smart meters removed from ALL schools, hospitals, homes, etc. They shoved this tech down our throats for their greed and progressive soul ending “energy.” There are much better ways to power. Energy is free actually and we shouldn’t need to pay for harming people anymore. CHANGE IT NOW. Protect our CHILDREN, HUMANITY AND OUR PETS from this harm. With that being said 29072 has over 62 cell towers of all kinds within a three mile radius. Why? And cancer has increased in people, especially prostate and breast cancer. Kids have incredible add:adhd:addictions etc. I’m here 16 years and it’s ridiculous to amount of towers just popping up overnight in areas. The public is kept from knowing anything about it. You will see how much the medical system has increased patients. Maybe we need to audit the tower companies, medical centers locally, schools with WiFi. I’m sure it will open your eyes. Thank you for hearing my voice. I’m definitely feeling affects and hair thinning by this. I would move tomorrow if could but the network banks have us trapped in by interest rates. Another rabbit hole for you dig into. This says so much. You can see for yourselves. https://www.celltowermaps.com/cell-towers/near/zip-code/29072 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.

As a concerned parent , 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.

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 seen how wireless radiation can impact my sleep and mood. 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 experience negative physical affects being close to wireless radiation. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

I am the father of two children: Joel, seven and Bresly 12 years old. My wife and I didn't know any better at the time and left our kids use their wireless devices as they wished, as a result: Joel suffers from a constellation of symptoms from difficulty to concentrate to nose-bleeding ....and when we bring him to doctors they don't know how to diagnose or treat him. Bresly, at her young age is almost blind because her excessive use of wireless screens/devices. And we are "lucky" because our neighbor has cancer. We live within 110 meters of two cell towers and the vegetation here keeps dying and birds don't come to nest as before. In my opinion wireless technologies and devices should come with big radiation warnings.

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. I am pleased that 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. It is so important to require 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. I can remember reading the package insert of instructions when our cell phones were 2 and 3 G, and we were instructed not to keep the phone to the ear and to use an ear piece to have a conversation on the phone. I've seen my partners phone tells you when you are holding the phone too close. Obviously it is noted that wireless radiation can affect one's health. My daughter's children always had difficulty sleeping, when she lived next door to me in Long Beach, New York, her children now sleep much better at night since she moved out of New York on top of a mountain in North Carolina where the nearest tower is 3 miles away. She moved 4 years ago and her children then were 4, 7 and 10, so they were not infants when they had difficulty sleeping. I also have difficulty sleeping at night. but we have a house in the Adirondacks and I sleep great there, I hear a constant hum here in Long Beach. It is not tinnitus. I am an RN and I know the difference. The hum is not inside my head. It comes from outside and being that I also am a musician, I needed to hum to myself to match the note sound and it is an F sharp on the lower end of the piano give or take a 1/4 note. It hasn't changed the note since I've been noting it. I wired my household desk top computers to ethernet and turned off the wi- fi, to diminish the exposure while I'm on the computer, however of course I still have wifi in the house for TV and phone use. And the low hum is constant all day and night. I use a phone case with an EMF radiation barrier. I don't know how much it helps, but I know there are devices that help block the radiation. Perhaps the towers can be housed in a blocking radiation structure. I do know in the medical field we recommend not keeping cell phones close to the body or in pockets, especially for couples going through fertility treatments. So it seems it is known that EMF radiation does negatively affect the body. The big question here is how much do we let corporate greed dictate policy impacting all of humanity in a negative way. Thank you for your reaching out to Americans for their experiences and hopefully you can devise and implement ways to protect us. Lori Field, RN

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 concerned for the safety of my family, friends and students/coworkers at the elementary school where I am employed. I have seen the behavior and mental health of my students decline once they were assigned one-to-one wireless devices. Children are using wireless devices at school and at home for excessive hours daily. We have a student in Children's Hospital undergoing treatment for a deadly cancer that normally affects senior citizens. Our electric company Eversource is currently replacing meters with smart meter and I am concerned about the effects on students and staff being bombarded 24/7 with more RF. 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.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies ET Docket No. 13-84 COMMENTS OF JANET DAVENPORT This filing provides comments from Janet Davenport in the above-referenced proceeding. I am a member of the public concerned with the unaddressed potential health and environmental risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices. SUMMARY I am filing a report for a friend who is so sick with EHS that she can't even use electricity let alone get online to comment on her condition. She is an individual consumer living in Australia. Janet had to have the wiring in her home restructured so that all other wiring was separate from it. She uses no electricity and keeps warm during winter using candles. With exposures to wi-fi, mobile phones and cell towers, within 3 minutes she suffers severe migraines and begins vomiting. It can take her weeks to recover from simple exposures so for the most part she is completely isolated with no support from anyone. As I have EHS too, we write to each other and have done for years. It helps her not to feel so alone. I know Janet would like to see awareness raised on EMF dangers and protocols set in place to protect vulnerable sensitive people like herself. ARGUMENT Janet understands the full effects that EMF can have on the human body from her personal experience. She also gets printed newsletters and magazines to keep her updated on EMF research. Some of the points she would like to illustrate on these effects include: 1. The Effects of oxidative stress on the body including cancer, free radicals, blood chemistry. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation - PubMed 2. The acute health effects caused by smartphones and antennas which have proven to cause red blood cells to rouleaux creating hypoxic conditions in the body. CONCLUSION Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission. Dated: 26th September 2026 Sincerely, JANET DAVENPORT Site 14, 2 Evans Rd Canton Beach, NSW 2263 Australia

Please create meaningful EMF standards. Good effects will redound in human health and our beloved natural world, and will stimulate our economy. Of course you are familiar with the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 2018 “most extensive study to date,” determining that cell phone emissions cause tumors in male rats and DNA damage. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campaign=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone Immediately addressing the exposure of our school children seems a natural priority. My own story: Awareness of EMF sensitivity came to me after 54 years of age. Perhaps that’s when SmartMeters and a nearby Verison hotspot came in, or — as effects are cumulative — maybe that’s when my bucket overflowed, so to speak. My sensitivity spiked on a single day, after a medical test that day. Thereafter, there was no place in my house I could sleep before purchasing a sleep canopy — which is fragile, difficult to maintain, and does not stop all EMFs. And I continued to lose health from daytime exposure. I had a breast cancer operation in 2008, and was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s disease thereafter. I sold that house and moved. As you doubtless know, there are many, many symptoms which vary per human body and source, focus, direction, timing, and power of signal or flow. I seem sensitive to all three types of EMFs. Inability to sleep and feeling unwell are perhaps the words to describe my most abiding symptoms. Before selling my unhealthy house, from which I couldn’t move before finding a healthy place, I got down to 88 pounds (height 5’5”) despite eating 5000-6000 calories a day. After four years of recovery in a healthy-EMFwise location, seldom venturing into the world, I’m back at 120 pounds and feeling good. Hashimotos disease has disappeared. But my EMF sensitivity continues to grow, despite my seeking medical and energetic cures. I am unable to withstand exposure in work places, so I can’t work; a doctor exempted me from jury duty; I am grateful for protective film in my car windows. I laugh: I am one of the few to benefit from Covid precautions; six feet of distance in checkout lines makes others’ cell phones easier to bear. Monetary costs are of course significant: selling and buying houses, cancer treatment, seeking medical remedies to EMF harms, being unemployed. One knows that my new house may become untenable too, since the telecommunications industry calls the shots. I know others who are EMF sensitive. One is housebound at 50. Others don’t want it known that they are sensitive or feeling unwell, beset, pained. One of my silent EHS friends is an M.D. Another is a school official. I imagine that these standards would limit most stringently the harmful frequencies currently in common use (frequencies originally used, as I hear, in military weapons research). If I were in your position, I would favor the building biology guidelines for dwellings and places where children or the sick congregate. Knowing that those limits will be exceeded many places, work toward safety would be done in stages, first with no new installation or upgrades permitted in impacted areas; second with phased reductions in permitted output of damaging EMFs. Much more healthful frequencies exist, and technological improvements to favor health can offer great economic opportunities and environmental improvement. Some healthier options are already available, but cannot compete against the entrenched practices while those are allowed to set the standard. I wish courage, far-sightedness, and compassion to attend you in your considerations.

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: As a beekeeper, I have personally seen the effects of 5g wireless radiation on our pollinators. We had a 5g tower installed less than 5 miles away several years ago. After the towers installation, I began to have excessive bee colony deaths over the winter. This had not been an issue with my colonies prior to the towers installation. In addition, to the bee losses, I began to experience an increase in headaches when at home. As a nurse, I began to do research and learned there is emerging evidence of the health implications for both animals and humans from 5G technology. I was appalled at how communicatuons companies and the FCC have failed to conduct any independent research on the effects of their technology! This is unacceptable! Further, the towers are unsightly and decrease property values and are bypassing any resident input on their placement. 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.