Cancer & tumors

Posting for a Friend that wishes to remain anonymous. We'll call the person Jade. Here is Jade's Story: I was comfortable and healthy. In 2010, when my area switched from analog to radio utility meters (aka "SMART" meters), and T.V.s were switched form analog to digital, I went from feeling comfortable in my bedroom and in the world, to very uncomfortable. It took a while to figure out what was going on. I met others that were suffering and felt great dis-ease with this technology. Also more towers and antennas were added to the hill outside my bedroom window. I learned that by turning off or unplugging electronics, I felt well again. Also re moving myself to a healthy location, I immediately felt well again. This horror/toxic trespass has changed my life. Can you imagine how difficult it can be to find a safe and healthy place to live and to work? I did a count of 100 people in my everyday life. It turns out 20% of them felt ill around this technology, ie. man-made, toxic non-ionizing radiation. I figured that probably about 2x as many (40%) are not feeling well around it. They were just not aware of the symptoms of radio poisoning. Not connecting the dots. I later read that scientists that had studied the matter came up with the same results (40% of the population suffering in an obvious way)! We have over 50,000 published peer-reviewed studies showing harm from these non-native emfs, including pollinator collapse, childhood leukemia, and cancerous tumors, ill health of insects and animals and plants, problems affecting the brain, the heart, the blood, the DNA, due to this technology. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people. A Swedish oncologist, in the early 1900's, wisely said that Anything that is harmful to one living cell is harmful to all living cells. I think this is true. Never put tracking devices on insects or animals! These days my symptoms around too much radio/microwave frequency include: stress, fatigue, pain in the ears and head, feeling frazzled, heart palpitations, and general discomfort. How many are feeling ill and not connecting the dots? How many doctors are not connecting the dots? We must take an honest look at this non-native and harmful technology now. We must protect life on Planet earth for all to thrive.Landlines, ethernet, cable and wired technology are much safer than wireless. Let's use and encourage wired tech as much as possible. If not now, when will you take your fiduciary responsibilty seriously, and mindfully curb and regulate this technology, so that life may thrive once again? Thank you for hearing us, Anonymous Jade

Public Comment to the Federal Communications Commission Re: ET Docket No. 13-84 — Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies I am submitting this comment as a concerned resident and parent regarding the serious imbalance between federal telecommunications policy, public health protections, and the rights of local communities to determine whether wireless telecommunications infrastructure should be constructed near their homes and schools. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 fundamentally altered the ability of local governments to protect their communities from unwanted wireless infrastructure. Under Section 704, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), local governments are prohibited from regulating the placement, construction, or modification of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions when those facilities comply with FCC regulations. For nearly three decades, this restriction has placed residential communities in an extraordinarily difficult position. Residents may express concerns about long-term RF exposure, proximity to children, cumulative exposure from multiple installations, or the adequacy of existing safety standards, yet their elected local officials are severely restricted in their ability to consider those concerns when deciding whether to approve a tower. In practical terms, federal law has deprived communities of meaningful local authority over one of the very issues that matters most to them: whether continuous, involuntary RF exposure near their homes and schools presents an acceptable risk. As a resident in a suburban neighborhood marketed to buyers as a "healthy living" community, I have seen the number of cell towers near my home grow from approximately 40 towers four years ago, to over 100 towers currently. This includes three currently in progress, which were forced through administrative approvals without opportunity for public notifications and public hearing. Wireless communications development companies are abusing the liberal policies established under the Federal Telecommunications Act, forcing tower construction upon residential neighborhoods, against the will of the local community. Not only does this deprive the community of an opportunity to voice opposition, but it also takes away freedom of choice for exposure to something that the American Cancer Society cannot definitively declare "safe" or that it does not cause cancer, due to lack of long term studies to substantiate that it does not cause cancer. Further, the limited studies that exist, are based upon estimated exposure levels and not actual exposure levels, and are limited to exposure from one towers RF emissions, rather than considering the collective level of exposure from all sources. If someone already has 5 towers within 1,000 yards from their home, adding an additional tower is not necessarily within tolerable safety limits because the estimated exposure from the new tower does not consider the cumulative levels emitted from all towers and sources. Because populated areas have limited spaces to erect these towers, the wireless communication companies are aggressively targeting unincorporated areas, public utility easements, and even school grounds. Many school districts in Austin TX are entering into lease agreements with wireless communications companies, erecting towers on top of schools, which poses a risk to student health. My own children have a cell tower right on top of their middle school. I personally have a BRCA mutation and I am more susceptible to DNA damage from RF. I may have passed my gene to my children. It is wrong that there is RF exposure continually forced upon us in our own backyard, and we should have the right to refuse. There should be a moratorium on new cell tower construction in residential areas and school zones until such time that there is long term safety data definitively proving that it is completely safe with no risk. I recognize that reliable wireless communication is important. However, the public's need for connectivity should not automatically outweigh the rights of residents, parents, and communities to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their immediate living environments. I am particularly concerned about the placement of wireless infrastructure on or near school properties. Schools should be places where children's health, safety, and welfare are the foremost considerations. Yet school districts and telecommunications companies may enter into arrangements allowing wireless infrastructure on educational property, potentially generating revenue while exposing surrounding families and students to an installation they may have little practical ability to oppose on RF health grounds. The fact that a telecommunications facility complies with existing FCC exposure limits should not automatically end the public health discussion, especially when those limits themselves are the subject of ongoing scientific and regulatory scrutiny. The 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC illustrates why public confidence cannot rest solely on the assertion that existing standards are adequate. The court found deficiencies in the FCC's explanation for retaining its RF exposure limits in light of issues raised in the administrative record, including noncancer health effects, children's health, and long-term exposure. Communities should not be legally prevented from considering potential RF health impacts while the federal agency responsible for establishing the governing exposure limits is still addressing questions concerning the adequacy of those standards. This creates a fundamental accountability problem: federal law restricts local governments from considering RF health concerns, while residents must rely on federal standards that they have no meaningful ability to challenge through the local tower approval process. I urge the FCC to take the following actions: Conduct a comprehensive, transparent, and independent reassessment of RF exposure standards, including long-term exposure, potential nonthermal biological effects, children's health, and cumulative exposure from multiple wireless installations. Give particular consideration to wireless facilities located near residences, schools, childcare facilities, and other locations where children and families spend substantial amounts of time. Require meaningful public disclosure of proposed antenna configurations, operating frequencies, projected RF exposure, and cumulative exposure from existing nearby facilities before new installations are approved. Establish stronger public participation and independent exposure-assessment procedures for wireless infrastructure proposed near residential neighborhoods and schools. Recommend that Congress revisit the preemption provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that local governments can meaningfully consider RF exposure and public health concerns when evaluating proposed wireless facilities. Ensure that the burden of demonstrating compliance with scientifically justified safety standards rests with wireless infrastructure operators, rather than requiring individual residents to prove harm after a facility has already been constructed. I am not advocating for the elimination of wireless communication. I am advocating for a regulatory framework that recognizes that technological advancement and public health protections are not mutually exclusive. The wireless infrastructure landscape has changed dramatically since 1996. The number, density, configuration, and proximity of wireless installations to homes and schools have evolved, and federal oversight must account for those changes. No community should be forced to accept a wireless installation near its homes or schools without meaningful consideration of health and safety concerns simply because federal law prevents local officials from evaluating those concerns. The FCC has an obligation to ensure that the standards relied upon to override local decision-making are supported by a thorough, transparent, and current scientific assessment. I respectfully urge the Commission to address these concerns and to recognize the consequences that federal preemption has had on residential communities and families across the country. Thank you for considering my comment.

Posting for a Friend that wishes to remain anonymous. We'll call the person Jade. Here is Jade's Story: I was comfortable and healthy. In 2010, when my area switched from analog to radio utility meters (aka "SMART" meters), and T.V.s were switched form analog to digital, I went from feeling comfortable in my bedroom and in the world, to very uncomfortable. It took a while to figure out what was going on. I met others that were suffering and felt great dis-ease with this technology. Also more towers and antennas were added to the hill outside my bedroom window. I learned that by turning off or unplugging electronics, I felt well again. Also re moving myself to a healthy location, I immediately felt well again. This horror/toxic trespass has changed my life. Can you imagine how difficult it can be to find a safe and healthy place to live and to work? I did a count of 100 people in my everyday life. It turns out 20% of them felt ill around this technology, ie. man-made, toxic non-ionizing radiation. I figured that probably about 2x as many (40%) are not feeling well around it. They were just not aware of the symptoms of radio poisoning. Not connecting the dots. I later read that scientists that had studied the matter came up with the same results (40% of the population suffering in an obvious way)! We have over 50,000 published peer-reviewed studies showing harm from these non-native emfs, including pollinator collapse, childhood leukemia, and cancerous tumors, ill health of insects and animals and plants, problems affecting the brain, the heart, the blood, the DNA, due to this technology. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people. A Swedish oncologist, in the early 1900's, wisely said that Anything that is harmful to one living cell is harmful to all living cells. I think this is true. Never put tracking devices on insects or animals! These days my symptoms around too much radio/microwave frequency include: stress, fatigue, pain in the ears and head, feeling frazzled, heart palpitations, and general discomfort. How many are feeling ill and not connecting the dots? How many doctors are not connecting the dots? We must take an honest look at this non-native and harmful technology now. We must protect life on Planet earth for all to thrive.Landlines, ethernet, cable and wired technology are much safer than wireless. Let's use and encourage wired tech as much as possible. If not now, when will you take your fiduciary responsibilty seriously, and mindfully curb and regulate this technology, so that life may thrive once again? Thank you for hearing us, Anonymous Jade

Hi. I suffer from Electro Hypersensitivity, which has limited my life drastically, caused the end of my marriage, and caused me 3-4 decades of illnesses no one had any diagnosis for. I now know what it is caused by. After seeing ear specialists, due to the unrelenting tinnitus, and neurologist for the malignant insomnia and migraines, and no one could find anything wrong with me. I had to begin to look out of the box for other explanations. I found this is more common than I had any idea, and millions like me are suffering from this sensitivity and are simply canaries in the coal mine. We are showing how harmful this out of control ubiquitous RFR is. I live in a shielded home and use only wired communications. It took me over 10 yrs to learn how to remediate my environment to get as well as I seem to be able to get. I have lost my freedom to travel or even go to visit a friend at their home. I fear needing to go into a hospital with WIFI, as it makes me instantly very sick. I feel there needs to be a total new perspective on the well know adverse health effects of Manmade Radiofrequency Radiation or RFR, and a complete revamping of our safety standards. Our old standards set in 1996 are BEYOND outdate and totally wrong. The declassified Naval Military Research documents easily available on the internet, on the subject of how man made radiation affect the human body, are from the 50's and again in the 1970's clearly showing evidence of damage to every system of our bodies from this radiation. Also the study done a few years ago by the National Toxicology Institute shows clear evidence of RFR causing cancer in rats. There are thousands of studies showing this is harmful, and most other first world countries have much more rigid standards. The toxic nature of these emissions and devices needs to be told to the population so they can make informed decision about wiring their homes and using wired communications, if we want to see cancer and a host of thousands of other illness on the rise start to decline. We also need to make safe hospital and doctors offices ASAP so those of us who already are suffering this dis -ease, have a safe place to go for health care. We urgently need to listen to the research that shows carcinogenicity and cellular damage WAY below current standards of heating!! We need to start to regulate and educate about this horrific global poisoning, proliferating at lightening speed out of control and causing skyrocketing suffering, diseases, and deaths. If our doctors and our public are kept from this info, our regulatory agencies are essentially killing our population. There are thousands of valid studies showing harm from RFR. http:bioinitiative.org , https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones , "Zapped" By Ann Gittelman (book) and many more. Please work to change legislation so that our populations are protected. You are the people who can and must work to reverse the skyrocketing diseases that are directly related to the installations of cell towers near homes and schools and hospitals, and our fire stations which are hotbeds of cancer! We need updated safety regulations to protect and educate folks on not carrying these devices on one's body and choosing wired communications being healthier than wireless. It is not until our governments stand up for us and protect us from this that most of the population will listen sadly. We need this as cancer and all kinds of neurological disorders ect are on the rise due to this ubiquitous toxin escalating daily our of control in our world. Debby L. Baskin D.C. Sent from my Wired Computer.

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. I hope the FCC will 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 intense physical symptoms when I am in areas with a lot of wi-fi signals and cellular phones. I get very dizzy, have intense ringing in my ears, headaches, nausea, and experience visual problems when I go into an airport, a large discount box store like Costco, or into a a building that has over 10 wi-fi signals from multiple apartments or offices. I've also had friends and co-workers who have ended up with cancerous tumors where they kept their cell phone on their body or against their ear i.e. a brain tumor behind the ear used with phone and cancer in the hip bone where a friend kept their phone hooked to their belt all the time. 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’ve been suffering from EMR Syndrome for 5 years. Whenever there’s a cell phone turned on near me—or Wi-Fi, a DECT phone, a cordless device, or an antenna nearby—I get headaches, pain all over my body, and brain fog. I become aggressive, and if it goes on for too long, I end up with burnout or depression... I’m a musician and flute teacher. I’ve not been able to play in concert the late 2 years. I can still teach, but it’s become very difficult. If I'm in my classroom and there's a cell phone turned on in the hallway, I can't see it, but I can sense it! I have to wear protective clothing—it's very expensive, but it's not enough—and it's very hard to live like this. I’m OK when there is less than 0,020 V/m (HF). I can support with the shielding clothes until 0,2 V/m during one or maybe 2 hours. If it is 1V/m or more, that’s not possible for me, and I’ll be very ill during at least 2 weeks. It’s not possible to travel, nor to go at restaurant, cinema, concert, etc. 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.

PUBLIC COMMENT — HHS DOCKET HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Submitted by: Slowphone Brasil Slowphone Brasil advocates for healthier and safer use of technology. We urge the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards, consider the scientific evidence already available, and prioritize public health and the protection of life over commercial interests. 1. REASSESS EXPOSURE LIMITS Current radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards should be independently reassessed in light of peer-reviewed research reporting biological effects and potential health concerns below existing guidelines. The review should address voltage-gated calcium channels, oxidative stress and peroxynitrite pathways, blood-brain barrier permeability, and tumors, including gliomas and schwannomas. HHS should evaluate the US National Toxicology Program studies and the Ramazzini Institute's 2018 findings alongside epidemiological research, systematic reviews and subsequent evidence. Animal findings and proposed mechanisms should be distinguished from proven human causation, without dismissing relevant evidence because scientific uncertainty remains. 2. ENSURE SCIENTIFIC INDEPENDENCE HHS should examine conflicts of interest, funding sources, professional affiliations and evidence-selection methods in organizations whose recommendations inform exposure standards, including ICNIRP. Relevant concerns should be assessed through verifiable documents, declarations of interest and transparent review procedures. Independent experts should evaluate the full body of evidence, including findings that challenge existing assumptions. 3. ADOPT MORE PROTECTIVE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS We propose an international outdoor RF reference level of 100,000 µW/m² (0.1 W/m²) for consideration and scientific evaluation. HHS should compare US standards with current regulations in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Poland, Italy and Israel, identifying more protective approaches and the rationale behind them. Comparisons must specify frequency, averaging periods, measurement conditions and whether values are binding limits or precautionary targets. 4. REDUCE EXPOSURE AT SOURCE HHS should promote a comprehensive strategy to reduce unnecessary exposure while maintaining essential communications. Wireless routers should provide effective low-emission modes, adjustable transmission power and automatic reduction of unnecessary transmissions. JRS ECO technology may serve as a technical reference, subject to independent testing. Public institutions, schools, hospitals, childcare facilities and workplaces should prioritize wired Ethernet connections where practical, reducing dependence on Wi-Fi in locations occupied for long periods. Wireless networks should be deployed only where needed, with access points configured to avoid unnecessary transmission power. Consumers should have access to mobile phones with low specific absorption rates (SAR), transparent and comparable exposure information, and easy-to-use settings that reduce unnecessary transmissions. Hands-free use, speakerphone use and keeping active devices away from the body when practical should be encouraged. HHS should also evaluate exposure from cellular infrastructure, small cells, Internet of Things devices, wearables, smart meters and emerging wireless technologies. Infrastructure planning should consider exposure in homes, schools and other sensitive locations. 5. PROTECT CHILDREN AND SENSITIVE SETTINGS Public-health guidance should give particular attention to children, pregnancy and fetal development. Schools and childcare facilities should favor wired connections where feasible and adopt practical exposure-reduction measures. Public procurement policies should consider low-emission connectivity options and transparent technical specifications. 6. ADDRESS DIRTY ELECTRICITY HHS should support independent, reproducible research on high-frequency electrical noise conducted through wiring, sometimes called dirty electricity. Proposed filters should be assessed through standardized measurements before and after installation; health benefits should not be presumed without reliable evidence. Measurement methods and units must be clearly defined. 7. WARN AND INFORM THE PUBLIC HHS should consider prominent graphical health-information labels on RF-emitting devices and products, inspired by tobacco warnings. Labels should explain that exposure and scientific uncertainty exist and provide practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. A broad public-awareness campaign, drawing on documented initiatives in Cyprus, should explain exposure sources, research findings, uncertainties and preventive options. Environmental measurements should be publicly accessible and report RF in µW/m², electric-field strength in V/m, and magnetic-field strength in nT. Dirty electricity requires separate, clearly defined measurement methods. 8. GLOBAL ACTION AND TRANSPARENCY The United States should encourage international cooperation on independent research, standardized environmental monitoring, public disclosure of measurement results and periodic reassessment of exposure limits. Publicly funded research should disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources, publish results regardless of outcome, and enable independent verification. OUR PRINCIPAL REQUESTS 1. Reassess existing RF exposure limits and evaluate an international outdoor reference level of 100,000 µW/m². 2. Implement a broad public-awareness campaign and promote practical exposure-reduction measures worldwide. 3. Introduce prominent graphical warnings on RF-emitting products and strengthen protections in schools and other sensitive settings. Public health and the protection of life must take precedence over commercial interests. HHS should act on existing evidence, improve scientific transparency and advance proportionate preventive measures without waiting for every uncertainty to be resolved. REFERENCES IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Monographs, Volume 102 (2013). https://publications.iarc.who.int/126 US National Toxicology Program. Technical Reports 595 and 596 (2018). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/apptoxres/cartox Italy. Law No. 36 of 22 February 2001. https://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/01036l.htm

There is not adequate research done for us to proceed. Please review and hold! 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

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 infants and 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 support only human and non-animals studies. 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 a healthcare professional. I have seen substantial scientific evidence that has been collected for some time about how wireless radiation has deleterious effects on the public, especially on infants and children, whose cells are turning over rapidly, causing a chain reaction of negative effects on their development. The damage also occurs in adults, animals, wildlife and plants. Some countries have already heeded this information to put into place safety regulations to protect them. 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 FCC needs to revise radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. Wireless radiation is a toxin that affects many people (and other organisms) in many different ways. I, for example, experience pulsatile tinnitus that is made worse with increased WiFi and other wireless radiation from smartphones and other wireless tech. Multiple MD/ENT visits and a brain MRI could not reveal any info on this or address any cause, as the medical establishment generally remains ignorant of wireless radiation issues, which is in part caused by failure of the FCC, as a national regulatory body, to properly study and establish safety regulations that actually keep people and the environment safe. I’ve deduced that radiation affects ion channel function in my ear, as it’s like my inner ear is spasming when the pulsatile tinnitus occurs. I also developed “trigger thumb” at exactly the spot where I used to hold my phone all the time. After getting a meter, I saw that the highest radiation in my phone is right where I used to hold it. Needless to say, I no longer hold my phone that way- in fact, I try to touch my phone as little as possible. There are also concerns from radiation that is clearly present even feet away from the phone (which I can measure with the meter!). There is actually a lot of research from around the world, but the two studies below are examples that explain potential mechanisms for the issues I’ve personally experienced from emf/communications radiation: BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): https://bioinitiative.org/updated-research-summaries/ Panagopoulos et al. (2021): https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 The FCC has not addressed 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 also 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.