Children, schools & development

The FCC must become a proactive agency, placing Americans' health first before businesses and other objectives. Subsequently, amending current exposure limits to ensure safety is urgently needed. Independent experts concur that the 1996 RFR exposure limits remain ineffective because they were based on thermal heating of tissue, while ignoring lower frequencies. Studies based on thermal heating used a 200 lb male dummy and a water filled balloon for head exposure. Debilitating health effects occur at much lower frequency levels. Health impacts for pregnant women, babies, children and those working in fields with chronic exposures weren't included. Fast forward thirty years, and the amount of RFR emitting devices and ambient RFR levels has skyrocketed. The proliferation of cell phones, cell towers, 5G, 6G, antennas, WiFi, smart meters, and other smart products is unprecedented. No federal agency has assessed/evaluated the impacts on human health and our environment by addressing these combined multiple exposures. Major areas of concern include: impacts on children, the environment, EHS individuals and the cumulative, involuntary exposure most people encounter every day. As a grandmother, I'm extremely worried about the constant RFR exposure experienced by our children and its long term effects. Children are more susceptible to environmental harms as they are smaller physically and in the process of developing. Their skulls are thinner, allowing more radiation to penetrate. Many schools now default to wireless connectivity with no evidence of safety, subjecting our children to this invisible toxin daily.  An increasing number of people experience Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity due to current excessive exposure levels. This involuntary exposure while navigating work and/or public spaces is impossible to avoid.  Many individuals through repeated exposure develop hypersensitivity and must actively avoid all exposures. Personally, I find airports intolerable; I experience headaches, vision problems and brain fog that lingers for hours. My home is hard-wired with ethernet cables and I keep my cell phone on airplane mode when not in use. Additionally, unless a state has enacted a no-fee opt-out, involuntary exposures include Smart Meters, which emit continuous pulsed radiation. Independent testing of all devices should reflect real life usage. For example, cell phones are carried in pockets, next to skin, close to the face and head.  The US should implement the European Commission's new standard requiring cellphones to be tested for radiation while touching the body — which is how people actually carry and use cellphones: in a pocket or against the skin. Dr. Marc Arazi, Phonegate Alert's founder and president, stated that a recent court ruling represents an “historic victory for European consumer protection and the culmination of nearly 10 years of campaigning against cellphone radiation testing protocols that failed to reflect real-world conditions of use.”  The natural world is similarly affected. It is known that RFR radiation affects bees and migratory birds, disrupting their ability to navigate and forage effectively. Flora and fauna are known to experience die-offs in close proximity to cell towers. In 2021, Kent Chamberlin Chairman, Emeritus of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire concluded one of the key recommendations of the New Hampshire Commission to Study The Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology is that cell towers be placed no nearer than 1,640 feet from places where people live, work or recreate. This 500 meter setback should become immediate public policy. There should be an immediate moratorium on any new devices while safety studies are performed to evaluate the countless RFR emitting products already on the market.  European Union study finds children absorb more wireless radiation than adults across rangeof 5G frequencies - EHNhttps://www.ehn.org/5g-wireless-radiation-children-exposure 1 The FCC Is Supposed to Protect the Environment. It Doesn’t. https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-environment-cell- towers-failures Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture (2022) 19 https://ehtrust.org/electromagnetic-fields-impact-tree- plant-growth/ 20 https://ehtrust.org/environmental-effects-of-wireless- radiation-and-electromagetic-fields/ 21 https://ehtrust.org/published-research-adverse-effect- wireless-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-bees/ 22 https://ehtrust.org/radiofrequency-radiation-effects-on- agronomy-agricultural-crops-and-crop-yields

I am an occupational therapist, a mother, and a small business owner. The health impacts from RF emissions from a "smart" electric meter installation on my office, along with daily cellphone use, and a new "super powerful" router for my office .... cumulated in an 180 degree change in my life's quality in 2018. Unregulated, unmonitored standards are killing our kids and our society. There are well researched results of the health impact of wireless devices on cellular health. Wireless frequencies have been the standard of which I now navigate my life. Unfortunately, this country that is denying the very real impact of wireless frequency bands is destroying the very base of which it depends upon for future success. FCC’s invitation claims its 1996 wireless radiation exposure limits stem from “gold-standard research” from organizations “including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), internationally recognized standard-setting organizations.” Two other such recognized groups include the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), which shared membership by Dr. James Lin, who concluded: “... RF exposure limits make allowances only to worry about heat with RF radiation. These limits are devised for restricting short-term heating by RF radiation and aim to prevent increased tissue temperatures. Thus, they are not applicable to long-term exposure at low levels. Instead of advances in science, they are predicated on assumptions using outdated exposure metrics, thus their ability to protect children, workers, and the public from exposure to the RF radiation or people with sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and systems. Furthermore, the limits are based on outdated information and circumvent important animal data. These issues are even more relevant in the case of millimeter-wave radiation from 5G mobile communications for which there are no adequate health effects studies in the published literature. Finally, the guidelines do not adequately address conclusions from scientific organizations, such as the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Thus, many of the recommended limits are questionable from the standpoint of scientific justification for the safety and public health protection.” Society needs to know the impact of wireless devices and communications are on cellular health. Ignoring sound historical and current research and discounting debilitating impacts no longer is accepted. REAL integration of the science and regulations need to occur.

This comment is in regards to to FCC's reliance on outdated guidelines for radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. Fact: The levels of electromagnetic output, and thus, exposure have increased every year. Fact: The FCC has not studied long term effects of increased exposure in regards to humans, flora or fauna. 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. Here is one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: Levitt, Lai & Manville (2021): Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment – Examined increasing environmental electromagnetic-field exposure and research concerning potential effects on wildlife, plants, and ecosystems. 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: The life cycle of bees, in particular are crucial to our existence. The potential harm has not been measured in any meaningful way. We have anecdotal evidence of electromagnets improving the production of the hive. 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, not to mention the fact that technology is moving at an incredible pace that is impossible to keep up with potential long term hazards. We do not want this to be another "If we had only known then what we know now" scenarios with countless people suffering from the harmful effects that could have been prevented if only more care, caution, and common sense had been used before blindly jumping on board with the latest technology. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583 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 blindly 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. As a mother whose children have devices within constant reach as well as a daughter of an elderly mother whose assisted care facility relies heavily on mobile data, his issue matters to me personally 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 with the full understanding that once this is done, the damage and harm created cannot be undone even if changes are made later due to the harm already caused.

The wireless radiation must be abated. The FCC cannot enjoy immunity from placing American's in harms way and turning a blind eye. We know that silicone valley executives do NOT allow their children to use hand held devices, and we know how the blood behaves closer to wifi signals, we also know how the revolving door behaves in government. However. the tide has turned, the public servants will not continue to get away from accountability to the people.

Titre (EN) : Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: Implications for 5G Revue / Source : Environmental Health, 21(1), 92. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 Titre (EN) : Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(3), 519–529. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023 Titre (EN) : The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines Revue / Source : Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683 Titre (EN) : Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields Revue / Source : Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 264–273. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866 Titre (EN) : Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health. Publication en ligne anticipée. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104 Titre (EN) : Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation Revue / Source : Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1619781. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781 Titre (EN) : Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Revue / Source : Neural Computation, 30(11), 2882-2985. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01133 Titre (EN) : Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach Revue / Source : Environmental Health, 20(1), 84. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1 Titre (EN) : Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach Revue / Source : Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1000840. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840 Titre (EN) : Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026 Titre (EN) : Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2: Impacts—How species interact with natural and man-made EMF Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050 Titre (EN) : Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3: Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(4), 531–558. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083 Titre (EN) : Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—State of the science and best management practices Revue / Source : Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1283709. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 Titre (EN) : Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: A systematic review and meta-analysis Revue / Source : Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(4), 853–869. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072 Titre (EN) : Biophysical mechanism of animal magnetoreception, orientation and navigation Revue / Source : Scientific Reports, 14(1), 30053. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77883-9 Titre (EN) : Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects Revue / Source : Science of the Total Environment, 767, 144913. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913 Titre (EN) : Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures Revue / Source : Position statement (Prise de position officielle) Lien : https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Titre (EN) : Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks Revue / Source : Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374 Titre (EN) : Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality Revue / Source : Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013 Titre (EN) : SAR estimations in a classroom with wireless computers Revue / Source : Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, 24(2), e2025288526. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526 Titre (EN) : An exploration of the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile phones and extremely low frequency radiation on thyroid hormones and thyroid gland histopathology Revue / Source : Cureus, 13(8), e17329. Lien : https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17329 Titre (EN) : Impact of electromagnetic field exposure on reproductive health: An umbrella review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews Revue / Source : Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 30, 42. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-025-00258-1 Titre (FR) : Histomorphométrie et qualité du sperme chez des rats mâles exposés au Wi-Fi 2,45 GHz Titre (EN) : Histomorphometry and sperm quality in male rats exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi Revue / Source : Reproduction, 169(5), e250048. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-25-0048 Titre (EN) : Exploring the impact of environmental factors on male reproductive health through epigenetics Revue / Source : Reproductive Toxicology, 132, 108832. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.108832 Titre (EN) : The effects of radiofrequency radiation on male reproductive health and potential mechanisms Revue / Source : Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 44(3), 359–384. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2025.2480664 Titre (EN) : Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: A systematic literature review of animal studies Revue / Source : Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 6, 1515166. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2024.1515166 Titre (EN) : Effect of radiation emitted by wireless devices on male reproductive hormones: A systematic review Revue / Source : Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 732420. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.732420 Titre (EN) : Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: Focus on reproductive systems Revue / Source : Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 5076271. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5076271 Titre (EN) : Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis Revue / Source : Environment International, 70, 106–112. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015 Titre (EN) : Are men talking their reproductive health away? Revue / Source : Asian Journal of Andrology, 17(3), 433–434. Lien : https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.140963 Titre (EN) : Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study Revue / Source : Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022 Titre (EN) : Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted from mobile phone and its impact on male reproductive health Revue / Source : EIACP: Diversity and Impact on the Environment, 28(3), 8–11. Lien : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375799722_Radio_Frequency_Electromagnetic_Radiation_RF-EMR_Emitted_from_Mobile_Phone_and_its_Impact_on_Male_Reproductive_Health ——— Titre (EN) : A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: Assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data Revue / Source : Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1613353. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353 Titre (EN) : Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care Revue / Source : Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 894447. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.894447 Titre (EN) : Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices Revue / Source : Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 223. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223 Titre (EN) : Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective Revue / Source : Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019 Titre (EN) : Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review) Revue / Source : International Journal of Oncology, 59(5), 92. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Titre (EN) : A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes Revue / Source : Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Publication en ligne anticipée. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-026-00958-4 Titre (EN) : Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on neurotransmitters in the brain Revue / Source : Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 691880. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.691880 Titre (EN) : Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer Revue / Source : Environmental Research, 214, 113851. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851 Titre (EN) : Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers Revue / Source : Environmental Research, 181, 108845. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845 Titre (EN) : The effect of continuous low-intensity exposure to electromagnetic fields from radio base stations to cancer mortality in Brazil Revue / Source : International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1229. Lien : https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229 Titre (EN) : Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil Revue / Source : Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), 3649–3665. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051 Titre (EN) : Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays Revue / Source : Environmental Reviews, 19, 495–514. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-018 Titre (EN) : Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations Revue / Source : International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267. Lien : https://doi.org/10.1179/107735210799160192

ET Docket No. 13-84: I am writing because I have general and personal concerns and experience symptoms related to RF radiation and feel strongly regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. I understand 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. 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 wholeheartedly believe that 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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – Collection of scientific research concerning neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022. 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. This is unconscienable! I wholeheartedly 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 live near numerous cell towers and our home is increasingly being surrounded by the installations of numerous 5G, 6G, 8G local telecommunication networks, besides the smart meters of utiilty companies. I experience headaches, extreme fatigue and disorintation from even cell phone exposure for any length of time. I have gone through the trouble to purchase an EMF meter and tested areas in and around my home, our celll phone, our computer and TV to find the readings high on all counts, even after I have taken what measures I could to mitigate exposures. I suffer chronic fatigue, many and increasing allergies and a low immune system, which I believe to be in great part a result of constant EMF exposure. After living in our current home for over 30 years, I have seen a large decrease in the bird and bee populations and in the health of the backyard wildlife. I have witnessed heightened tensions, anxiety, depression and significant declining general health in the people of the neighborhood. I very strongly 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 is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. And 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. This issue matters to me personally because my health has been adversely affected by wireless radiation, particularly after a smart meter was installed on the verandah outside my bedroom. The meter was installed in 2016/17. Over the approximately two years while it was there my health gradually deteriorated. Eventually, I became more ill than I had ever been in my life. In 2018 I came down with a bug that completely wiped me out for two months, along with a secondary eye infection. I could not work. My sleep had been affected for those one and a half to two years of the smart meter presence - waking, and then taking hours to get back to sleep. I experienced fatigue during the day. There was head pressure and I began to experience 'brain fog'. These things I initially assumed might just be part of my aging process (73 years old). My blood pressure was high when I did go to the doctor for the eye infection. I had been using a shungite sphere between the smart meter transmitting aerial and my bedroom, which I had thought would protect me, however I now feel it was not enough to deal with the quite strong emr transmissions coming 24/7 from the smart meter and affecting me as I slept. It was at a local meeting about 5G in 2019 that I realised that it might not be the ageing process as I had assumed, but rather, the smart meter on my verandah, that might be causing these rather rapid declining changes to my health. I learnt at the meeting that there were ways to counter wireless radiation adverse effects in your home space. I wanted to make my home an emr safe place. I contacted the local geobiologist who had addressed the meeting, and he came to read the emr and geobiology in two sleeping spaces in my home. He found that indeed the radiation emissions from the smart meter were strong and likely affecting me, and he also made suggestions re protecting me from the effects of the electrical currents flowing through me as I slept which were from the wiring in my bedroom area. When the assessor came back with a spare piece of shielding mesh as a temporary measure, and placed it at the rear of the smart meter a week or two later, – I felt a greater ease in sleeping again and felt so grateful for the help. Realising that wireless radiation was likely the main culprit in what was happening to my health, I began to research emr on the internet and learnt that in NSW in Australia where I lived, some rulings had just come about that meant that NSW, QLD, SA, Tas and ACT electricity customers were allowed to have communications on ALREADY INSTALLED smart meters, turned off.. This was a ruling by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) that allowed metering coordinators to deactivate the communications on already-installed smart meters. The final rule allows metering coordinators, at their discretion, to deactivate the remote communications in response to customer objection. This was the information I needed to begin the process of negotiation with the electricity provider to change my meter from a 'communicating' to a 'non-communicating' meter. The whole process took a good 5 months however finally the provider removed the offending modem. Some years on, (2026), my sleep has improved a lot from where it was. My body feels great really. One unintended and unforeseen consequence of the changes I instigated back then, is a relative absence of the little stiffnesses that had begun to creep in since the installation of the smart meter. (I see from my research that the effects of wireless radiation on the body are cumulative.) On waking I noticed that my body felt good, whereas previously, since smart meter installation, it had begun to be a little stiff upon getting out of bed. I attribute this to several things - my bed was shifted so as to be away from the pathogenic earth stressors, which had been picked up by the assessor, and it was also shifted away from the wall so as to be away from the electricity fields in the wall. Additionally I currently turn the power off at night at the main switchboard, which would I imagine be eliminating electrical fields as I sleep completely. The main thing is that there has been no pulsing emr radiation impacting my body as I sleep. (I understand from my research, that emr does have impacts on our musculature as well as many other biological and neurological adverse biological impacts). However another factor in both my body's well-being, plus my brain's improved functioning would/could be coming from the supplements I have been taking to remediate my body from the adverse accumulative biological effects of exposure to the manmade emr. Mg citrate and Mg glycinate that are two of the four forms suggested by Mercola in his book "EMF'D". Mg Stearate is another form that I will take which is also suggested by him. I think the other supplement that is immensely helpful in dealing with the damaging health effects of wireless radiation transmissions in my body and brain, is the fermented pawpaw which was used by Belpomme and Irigaray with their trial subjects as in their paper "Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterised Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat and Prevent It" . They also used Gingko Biloba which I am only now just starting.. Their article is well worth reading. From their research they found that those who experience electrohypersensitivity, like myself, never come back to zero, and need to continue to minimise their exposure to wireless radiation as a preventative throughout their life. In 2023, a short film, (approx. 10 mins) on electrohypersensitivity, titled "Remembering Nearfield", won at the Cannes Film Festival in the Health Section. I feel prevention is the best route. When out in unknown wifi territory I mostly carry my emf radiation detector, so I can assess the least emr active zone to be in, and to minimise my time and presence in high emr zones. Having the emf detector is also handy if others are coming into my home with their devices. It enables me to check that there are no radiation fields being emitted unnecessarily in my home safe zone. (2025 update – I also carry my Blushield 01 scalar device when out and about and away from home.) The actual physical process of changing to a non-communicating meter simply involved a technician coming and removing the modem (for communicating), from the meter box, in my case. They left the aerial there, however it is not active without the modem. Having the emf radiation detector I find helpful for peace of mind to know that, for example, the modem HAD been removed and to confirm that indeed it was not transmitting . When taking readings from a smart meter with a wifi detector, it is important to know that you need to be reading the detector ongoing for at least 5 minutes, since the peak pulse of the smart meter occurs around every 5 minutes, 24/7, that is every 5 minutes. There are multitudinous lesser pulses actually many times a minute. I understand that there are almost 10,000 radiation pulses coming out of smart meters 24/7. (If you set the radiation measuring meter to also make sound you will then HEAR should there be a strong transmission, when, and if, your gaze is averted from the measuring meter.) (See "Biological and Health Effects of Radio Frequency Transmission: A Review of the Research Literature" ; A Report to the Staff and Directors of the Eugene Water and Electricity Board: June 2013, they served a court order to PG&E to provide clear documentation of what the smartmeters were actually doing.) I currently don't have a mobile phone at all which works for me. I experience unpleasant sensations in my arm when holding such devices. I have a landline, NBN, and wired ethernet cables for internet. The modem provided me by my server did not have a button to turn off the wifi, so I had to request for them, the server, to disable or turn off the wifi at their end. This means there is no wifi in my home. I have no other wified things, and that meant deliberately shopping for a no wifi tv, for example. For me, my home feels energetically safe and quiet again. I feel some balance is returning, however I still feel myself at some threat from escalation of 3G, 4G, 5G and the proliferation of wifi and emr in public buildings, schools of learning, and other public spaces. I used to enjoy visiting my library to read, however now because of so much wifi in the library, I avoid it. Becuase of the remediation measures that I have undertaken in my home, I have a safe , natural emr free space to return to and to recuperate. Travelling is somewhat limited for me as I need to have that emr free space in which to sleep and recuperate. I am still able to undertake short plane flights occasionally and wear an emr shielding singlet for the plane trip (I have to take it off while going through the metal detector though, as it is threaded with silver and copper). I need to wrap an emr shielding scarf around my whole head, face and shoulders when the wifi is turned on in the plane carriage. With my detector I can measure the radiation level outside the scarf and inside the scarf. The scarf wrapping noticeably decreases the level of radiation impacting my head and upper torso region. Without the shielding I experience unpleasant head pressure in a wified plane carriage. Because there is still a relative ignorance of the health hazards of wireless radiation, so far people/individuals affected by it, like me, have to find their own solutions for themselves. I feel a deep concern for my grandchildren and the next generations, and the impact on nature and the bird, animal and insect life with whom we share and enjoy this planet. Two of my grandchildren used to attend Primary Schools where there was an emr impact from either existing or proposed towers and one was in a school with a wifi system that could not be turned off because the switch was installed on the roof. This is of extreme concern to me. The other resource from the 5G meeting was connection with a group of people who were feeling similar concerns regarding the impact of emr for our own and society's future. There is some solace and comfort in knowing that, and in being able to join with others, and too, in learning and knowing of the existence of paths forward being taken by other groups and individuals. I appreciate and find hope, in that some countries, regions and cities are looking at, examining and accepting, the debilitating health experiences of many people who have been exposed to toxic emr environments and they are also examining available independent scientific research proving biological effects from emr, and they are saying 'no', or else, caution is needed here, to the escalation of emr in areas under their jurisdiction.. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. 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. Your sincerely, Marian (Porter) Australia

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: My son is diagnosed with Level III Autism. He is nonverbal and in diapers at 18 years old. He spends his entire day and often night spinning and howling. We live in the city surrounded by more and more towers. However, when I take my son out of the city where there are few to no towers within many miles, he is a different child. The spinning and howling stops. He sleeps soundly through the night. He is so happy. When we return home the spinning starts again. The sleepless nights continue. I've tested this now dozens of times. His brain is completely scrambled in the city but his body feels peace and calm far from the technology. He is my canary. Everyone who sees it knows what is happening to him and to the rest of us, even though we cannot feel what he feels. 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.

Testimony to FCC ET Docket No. 13-84 submitted 10/19/26 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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ 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: For years now I have been hunkering down in my home, and trying to mitigate EMF effects with varying degrees of effectiveness, in order to avoid massive exposure to everyone’s cell phones and the smart meters that have been forced on all of us, despite fighting for years to avoid this for numerous reasons, mostly health reasons. I get nasty frontal lobe headaches usually about 6-8 hours after being subjected to hundreds of phones in ANY event I try to attend. I have not yet figured out how to treat these horrible headaches when they happen, usually in the dead of night! All of my electronics are WIRED directly into the wall, as well as one whole room covered with aluminum screen door screening between myself and the next door neighbors who have Wi-Fi on the other side of the wall.Thank god we have not seen too many of the 5G poles going up around town and in our neighborhoods!!! One of my banks has a wall of shrubbery along the parking lot with numerous SMART Meters behind it. The shrubbery is deformed and burnt looking where it is close to that wall! If I lived close to a Cell Tower, I would probably move away! 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.