Children, schools & development

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 are just two studies I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: • McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States – Examined the prevalence of self-reported wireless sensitivity and co-occurring health conditions in the United States, Canada, and Australia, without establishing causation. • 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. I would like to take a different approach to hopefully helping you understand the incredible effects that RF/EMF have on basic day to day life decisions of those of us that are aware of the devastating health effects of the lack of care our government FCC agency is imposing on its citizens. 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. These comments explain what I have to go through to live in the environment of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I do everything I can to protect myself and my family from EMF radiation: We moved to the country on acreage so that I have no neighbors close which reduces our exposure. I refused the Smart Reader (which fortunately Oregon allows) and now have to pay an additional $3 per month as meter reading fee even though they do not read the meter monthly. They only read the meter once a year. My router does not have a separate WiFi on/off switch and Century Link says they do not have a router with this feature that is compatible with this capability. Therefore, I turn off my router and only turn it on when I access the internet which I do only on a hardwired laptop. I do not have a Smart TV so that it is not adding to my exposure. I watch tv with an antenna and record programs with the software on my Hauppauge tuner that is in the desktop computer attached to my TV screen. All hardwired. However, when my tv monitor goes out I understand that there are no TV’s without WiFi available anymore. I do not have any appliances with WiFi capabilities but I understand that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any appliance without WiFi which will become a problem in the future. I do not have space for a printer near my computer so I have to use WiFi. I keep that printer turned off so that it is not searching for a WiFi signal except when I need to print something. On my cell phone I keep Bluetooth, WiFi, Data and Location off at all times. Every couple days, I try to remember to turn on WiFi for a few minutes in order to receive any text messages that were sent to me by RCS. I keep my cell phone in a far corner in my house and when I am outside, I keep it away from my body. I use a stylus to text. I use Airplane mode, Farraday bag, turning my phone off as other methods to reduce EMF. I have an in-ground landline phone line to my house, and I have corded phones. I installed LED lights in my kitchen and dining area before I knew that they were not good for our health. Now, due to federal regulations I am not able to purchase new cans and incandescent bulbs. That needs to be reversed. My car is a 2008 and therefore does not have the invasive electronic features. I have not purchased a new car because, I understand that any car from 2012 to date has all the invasive electronic features. I do not know what I am going to do if my car fails and I have to replace it. Going inside any hospital or clinic is very unhealthy as you are barraged with EMF. If I require medical assistance it will need to be outside of the medical system. I am forced to pay for Medicare even though I choose not to, and cannot, use its services. I am researching to find out how I can opt out of Medicare so that I can use that money to support my health outside of the HealthCare system such as Home Care, Telehealth, etc. As you can see, this is A LOT. I am blessed to now be retired and have the money to be able to make these modifications in order to feel healthy and vibrant and protect my health. But the question is, should we be creating a world where this is necessary? I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. 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. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

To FCC's Directors and Leadership Supervisory Commitees, 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 a couple of studies that I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: 1. Morgan, Kesari & Davis (2014): Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences – Reviewed evidence that children may absorb more wireless radiation than adults due to anatomical and physiological differences, raising questions about the adequacy of existing exposure standards. 2. 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. 3. Panagopoulos et al. (2021): Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage – Reviewed evidence and proposed mechanisms linking human-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. 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. Please give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence, aforehand mentioned, and fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you. Sincerely, Mendie Moranville Ovi Poptean cc: family members, neighbors, friends, fellow citizens of the United States of America.

You MUST address the impacts on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, environmental impacts, and testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.

To whom it may concern: I have recurrent corneal tears. I recently bought a 17E iPhone. This phone very notably affects my eyes, especially the left eye, and even more especially when I am incapacitated with a debilitating, painful tear. The closer the phone gets to me, the more physical grief I feel in my eye, which then affects the other eye and the rest of my body. It’s a very real thing. I also get regular headaches and eye discomfort with normal use of my phone. I needed a new phone, but the 5G is seriously detrimental. This harmful energy must stop, especially around schools and homes. Sincerely, Karen Lummus.

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. Please protect the health and wellbeing of our children.

The evidence of harm from wireless radiation has now grown massive. It has become the undeniable elephant in the room. In my own practice as a physician I have seen countless patients who reported a variety of illness symptoms when exposed to wireless radiation. Debra Davis, Magda Havas, Arthur Firstenberg, Martin Pall, Martin Blank, and Joel Moskowitz are just some of the researchers have extensively documented the harms of this technology and the thousands of research studies attesting to its harmfulness. Ignoring this research is completely irresponsible. Even if one disagrees with the research, or questions the methodology the LEAST a responsible regulator could do is to stop the spread of this technology until regulators have determined that the technology is WITHOUT QUESTION safe for human exposure. We are certainly a long way away from that conclusion, which is basic to the precautionary principle - and which should serve as guidance for all regulators. Please STOP the expansion of this technology, roll back its most dangerous applications, and insist on higher standards if you have any sense of right and wrong in your hearts. There is simply NO JUSTIFICATION for maintaining or expanding a technology which has so many already demonstrated harms, and many which are simply not properly researched. I urge you to not repeat the mistakes of COVID, where young people were exposed to the vaccine because reckless and irresponsible regulators were misled in approving the COVID vaccine for children by nonsensical guidelines like, “We’ll never know how harmful it is unless we approve it.” In no universe aligned with ethical principles can this guidance possibly be acceptable. Do your duty, and regulate dangerous technology as it ought to be regulated.

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. Below are sited studies from source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781 These studies found increases in cancer and other health problems in humans living around antennas (e.g. Santini et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2003; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Shinjyo and Shinjyo, 2014; Gandhi et al., 2015; López et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). There is a specific symptomatology linked to radar and RF exposure at low levels, characterized by functional disturbances of the central nervous system (headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, difficulty in concentration, dizziness, etc.), that has been termed ‘RF sickness’ (Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998; Navarro et al., 2003). "In the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals (Blank et al., 2015; Hardell and Nyberg, 2020). However, the media, the responsible organizations (World Health Organization, 2015) and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population, who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis." 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. These ill affects are being seen in Vermont and elsewhere across the country. I have a dear friend that suffers from ‘RF sickness’ . I have seen the rise of cancers of many friends and family members. I have also personally witnessed a rapid and alarming decrease in birds, bees and other pollinators in Vermont and NH. 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. It is time to make an update of standards given the new evidence set before you now.

It is a nightmare living near a 5g tower. I can't sleep, have headaches every day. Sometimes I feel dizzy. In Portugal and Italy, 5g towers are banned from being placed near homes and schools. Why are you guys doing this? If people don't get enough sleep, they won't have the energy to get much done.

In my reading of the FCC rules regarding 5G towers, they are allowed to be placed anywhere -- next to schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Surely an investigation into the radiation given off by these towers needs to be conducted to determine the long-term effects on human biology. I have seen 5G mini-towers on top of water towers! Please reconsider these FCC rules regarding 5G (or 6G) towers and ban them from neighborhoods and other senstive populated areas. Allow states to determine the placement of these towers, NOT telecommunication companies interested only in their balance sheets, or a federal bureaucracy.

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: [Please paste the study you’ve chosen to include here.] 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 causes insomnia. 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.