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. I am very concerned about the effects of EMF's on all of us. The studies that have been done to date, show drastic health impacts and impairments on both humans and animals; and I would hope that no more animals are tortured by human experimentation in the name sake of science. 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 of all of the EMF's I have so much difficulty sleeping, and it seems to be affecting many people. This has been affecting my health in a negative way. I've noticed this more and more over the last 10 years. My younger brother, who actually worked on the cell towers for many years, now has ALS and only has, maybe 6 months to live. He just turned 58. These frequencies are harmful to all, and we need to address this problem now. There has to be a better way to advance our technology without harming the people, the animals and the planet. 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 lost my brother because of emf radiation damage. He used to sit with his tablet on his lap, playing games and checking emails. He died of prostate cancer in 2018. It was a long and painful process. By the end of it he was unrecognisable. A big strong outdoors man who hunted and fished, could fix anything, drove heavy loads of steel around Scotland and was a safety officer for the gas pipeline industry. Gone from us because he didn’t know the dangers of electromagnetic radiation.

Where are all the safety studies promised from the outcome of Children's Health Defense 2021 lawsuit toward the FCC? I was on a Zoom, which RFK Jr. and the CHD attorney for the case, Daphne Tachover, were on, in August 2020 about this. God bliss them both. How come Conneticut Senator Richard Blumenthal was concerned about no studies for 5G in 2019, and then 5G was installed during the carefully coordinated covid lockdown, which representatives are too red taped to admit? https://youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4. Wish Senator Blumenthal was as concerned about the covid shots, as Senator Ron Johnson is. Also, what effects is EMF having on those injected or PCR'ed or geoengineering loads? Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea shows self-assemblying nanotechnology in people's blood. Dr. David Nixon shows self-assemblying nano technology, as well, in the covid shots, whether one wishes to believe it, or otherwise: https://DrDavidNixon.com. Here is a peer reviewed study on it: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291. People have been picked up on Bluetooth, too. https://rumble.com/v48wr4o-the-bluetruth-documentary.html. Explain. Please provide the safety studies needed for cell generations. Also, provide school district funding to educate parents and students on EMF safety equipment and financially support fiber internet. There are enough people with disabilities - EMF sensitivites to consider. And demand copper wire is available for landlines. Regarding cell phones, educate all on these, too. They get hot, and people like myself's skin breaks out when holding them. Also, a computer technician, by trade, neighbor of mine had developed brain cancer. I wonder. RIP. Please protect us all, "We the People," health is number 1. Thank you.

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 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. My real world experience of wifi radiation impact on my health is current and ongoing; I've detailed it below. 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 was this past spring (2026) notified by my oncological nutritionist that the abrupt rise in my yearly a!C level likely is due to emf exposure. It shows pre-diabetes level 5.7, whereas my diet has kept it between 5.1 and 5.4 for many years, and I have not changed my eating plan this past year. The nutritionist showed me the current online map of cell towers and antennas within 3 miles of my Oakland home. 2300 plus antennas and about 1900 towers emit emf radiation which may be partly what's causing this. However most likely she said the worse source is my home wifi. In addition to blood sugar rise, I have insomnia and increasing tinnitus. So I've taken step one: hardwired my computer and dispensed with wifi. I've felt immediate relief, especially regarding the tinnitus. Will be interested to see results of my next a1C test later this fall. I am astonished that the FCC has let this situation get to this point in which people who are severely affected by the vast increase in efm radiation must make huge changes in their lives, including having to move. To me it's clear that emf has strong biological effects (beyond thermal) on humans (and animals, insects and plants). I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence we are submitting 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 noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall. I covered it and my heart palpitations decreased and my concentration increased. I also do a lot of gardening and I have noticed less bees every year. Human bodies and insects are not made to fend off all these radiation waves. Who knows what is really going on inside my body??? My sister lives in higher elevations and she can not keep fresh produce for more than 1-2 days, the radiation rots the food. 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.

Hello, 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 it affects my family. My son has to sleep with his bed away from the wall because of the radiation being emitted by the electrical wires within the wall, and my husband can walk into a room and know if a wireless printer is turned on because his body senses it. We don't understand all the risks, especially because we can't see the radiation, but we can feel it. 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. Thank you

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 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: Wireless radiation affects the health a vitality of children and families; causrs adverse health effects, and causes cancer; there are obvious concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; especially impacts bees, birds, pollinators, animals, wildlife, plants and 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. ALL CELL TOWERS MUST BE SHUTDOWN, REMOVED, DISMANTLED AND DESTROYED PERMANENTLY!!!

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 matters to me personally because my family (especially our son with brain-injury) has repeatedly noted the negative effects of the increasing presence of radio frequency radiation. Although my husband and I have experienced difficulty sleeping, headaches and difficulty focusing, it is our son who is most noticeably affected by these symptoms. We have observed him more symptomatic in the presence of cell towers or buildings with high levels of wi-fi and a cessation of these symptoms when vacationing in remote parts of NYS. When a smart meter was installed by our electric company, my son cried all night. I thought he was sick but walked around the house, discovering the new meter. Our power company quickly and very cooperatively replaced it with an analog meter (for which we pay a monthly reading fee) and my son's crying and sleeplessness ceased. We do all we can to minimize wireless signal in our home, but it is impossible to avoid the increasing exposure, unstudied and unregulated. 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.