Children, schools & development

There are so many studies that show radiation is harmful to people, animals and our environment. We the people of this United States need to stop these towers near schools, farms, businesses and homes to protect us from high radiation exposure. We know broadband communications can be delivered in a safer manor with hard cable. There are problems with this environmentally also, but it still seems better https://bioinitiative.org/updated-research-summaries/.

Impacts of 5G have been studied by our military and by scientists around the world. It is exponentially worse than 4G, which was exponentially worse than 3G and below. The FCC allows radiation to be blasted into apartments and schools through these towers and it’s making people sick. It’s exposing our children to a radiation levels that are causing higher levels of cancer and higher levels of cognitive dysfunction. I assume you have access to the military studies, which I do not have access to. I have read when they’ve been posted online, but I didn’t save them because it’s not my responsibility. It’s yours. What have I noticed since the rollout of 5G? Animals and children and adult adults have changed their behavior for the worst. The honeybees are disappearing, birds are disappearing and confused. In my own household, we sleep better when we turn the 5G off, which we have no choice through our Internet carrier, they don’t even allow us a lower radiation level. So now I have to look for a different Internet carrier and I’m trying to make our house wireless so that we are protected from the dangers that you refuse to look at. I am so tired of government not protecting the American people and lining their own pockets while spending more money than you have. And even the bigger concern is 6G which is going to cause mass illness. I did know that 5G rolled out with the pandemic. My assumption is that the amount of sickness 6G will cause will mean you will have to have or manufacture another pandemic to roll out 6G. Please read the documents concerning 5G and consider the birds and the bees and all of us that are being microwaved 24 seven because you don’t do your job.

For years I got horrible migraines before figuring out that I have EMF sensitivity. I have had to move to a home away from neighbors in order to avoid all of the cell tower and Wi-Fi radiation. I still get headaches at work and in other public places. I would love to be able to go in public without this issue. I would love to be able to trust out government to protect our health and safety from corporate greed, because it is not just me or the many people with EMF sensitivity. Radiation is a known health hazard to everyone. Please do the right thing and protect our children and our community.

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: I experienced insomnia. anxiety and serious vertigo from a 5G router and non 5G router, we then mitigated the devices and now ALL side effects have gone away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is an extremely serious problem, i know so many humans on anxiety drugs, if they only knew its from wifi RADIATION!!!!! 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: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants or the environment.] I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

I am almost 40 have a 1 year old and am someone who is extremely sensitive, like my blood pressure rises from EMF, LEMF evidenced fromy OB visits where it spiked Everytime, but while checking elsewhere or at home was perfectly normal. I am forced to have a smart water meter on my home that gives off radiation. I fear for my child and my family with what all this unseen technology is doing. Knowing that testing has been done and proves positive for damage on cellular levels at levels under FCC limits. My pacemaker has lost a year off its battery since installing the meter.

5G towers went up in my neighborhood during the Covid pandemic. They are located near schools and community centers. They went up without public discussion and without safety research. The public deserves to have a say on this.

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. There are many studies showing the danger/damage RF radiation has to humans and animals. The danger is also common sense. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because I have two special needs children that are electromagnetically sensitive. Their lives are complicated enough already. They don’t need RF radiation too enhancing their symptoms. 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. 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.

when a wireless router (starlink) was installed near my work desk, it impacted my health negatively. for 6 months i complained about my left arm feeling hot with increasing tremors. eventually my left arm gave out and my heartbeat was erratic. we then moved the router outside and my symptoms improved immediately. wireless radiation is harmful and should have increased regulation. 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.

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: Mevissen et al. (2025): Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review – Reported high-certainty evidence of increased brain gliomas and heart schwannomas in male rats under studied exposure conditions. A corrigendum was published in 2026. 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 live less than half a mile from a cell tower and am concerned for potential short and long term health effect on myself and my family. 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.