Children, schools & development

Along with all the scientific evidence that is cited below in all the research documents. I have personal experiences which I feel relate to health and safety. My father died of cancer 5 years ago. He didn't like or use cell phones but once he had one that was smart he slept with it by his head listening to music. Talked to friends for hours with it by his head. After getting the smart cell phone he got cancer within 2 years of having teh smart phone and died within 3 months of diagnosis. He had a growth in his neck next to where he would rest his cell phone on his pillow in bed. He believed and so do I that the cancer was because of his cell phone use. I personally can not sleep when wifi is on or near me. When traveling, I have to sleep with a EMF blocking hat to sleep, otherwise my brain has the to do list running all night long. I try to make our cell phones safer by putting EMF shielding fabric in our cell phone cases but I worry about my kids and their use. They do not understand the dangers. They say everyone has their cell phones with them all the time but they are not old enough to see the evidence or experience friends dying from the shape of a tumor where they held their cell phones up to their heads. We have 3 additional friends who died of brain cancer besides my dad. If regulations were nation wide kids would understand the actual dangers. We need safer regulations! Below are cited documents research documents etc showing the findings that all the radiation is not healthy. Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., Manville, A. M., II, & Scarato, T. (2025). Flora and fauna—How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1693873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873 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). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Scientific Documentation That Limits Are Inadequate 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 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2024). Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(3), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683 Lai, H. (2021). Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2025). Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Reviews on Environmental Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104 Lin, J. C. (2025). Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1619781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781 Golomb BA. Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation. Neural Comput. 2018 Nov;30(11):2882-2985. doi: 10.1162/neco_a_01133. Uche, U. I., & Naidenko, O. V. (2021). Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environmental Health, 20(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1 Wildlife Impacts Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022). Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1000840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2: Impacts—How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3: Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(4), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083 Manville, A. M., II, Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. C. (2024). Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—State of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1283709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 Thill, A., Cammaerts, M.-C., & Balmori, A. (2024). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(4), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., & Chrousos, G. P. (2024). Biophysical mechanism of animal magnetoreception, orientation and navigation. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 30053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77883-9 Balmori, A. (2021). Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment, 767, 144913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913 Children’s Vulnerability International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374 Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A., Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013 Soares, N. E., Bulla, G., Fernández-Rodríguez, C. E., & de Salles, A. A. A. (2025). SAR estimations in a classroom with wireless computers. Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, 24(2), e2025288526. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526 Thyroid Effects Alkayyali, T., Ochuba, O., Srivastava, K., Sandhu, J. K., Joseph, C., Ruo, S. W., Jain, A., Waqar, A., & Poudel, S. (2021). An exploration of the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile phones and extremely low frequency radiation on thyroid hormones and thyroid gland histopathology. Cureus, 13(8), e17329. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17329 Reproductive Impacts Lamzouri, O., Ahl Laamara, R., & Drissi, L. B. (2025). Impact of electromagnetic field exposure on reproductive health: An umbrella review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 30, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-025-00258-1 Vijay, S., Ibrahim, S. F., Osman, K., Zulkefli, A. F., Mat Ros, M. F., Jamaludin, N., Syed Taha, S. M. A., Hairulazam, A., & Jaffar, F. H. F. (2025). Histomorphometry and sperm quality in male rats exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi. Reproduction, 169(5), e250048. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-25-0048 Zhang, Y., Song, J. Y., & Sun, Z. G. (2025). Exploring the impact of environmental factors on male reproductive health through epigenetics. Reproductive Toxicology, 132, 108832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.108832 Bektas, H., & Dasdag, S. (2025). The effects of radiofrequency radiation on male reproductive health and potential mechanisms. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 44(3), 359–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2025.2480664 Assefa, E. M., & Abdu, S. M. (2025). Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: A systematic literature review of animal studies. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 6, 1515166. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2024.1515166 Maluin, S. M., Osman, K., Jaffar, F. H. F., & Ibrahim, S. F. (2021). Effect of radiation emitted by wireless devices on male reproductive hormones: A systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 732420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.732420 Santini, S. J., Cordone, V., Falone, S., Mijit, M., Tatone, C., Amicarelli, F., & Di Emidio, G. (2018). Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: Focus on reproductive systems. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 5076271. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5076271 Adams, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S. C., & Mathews, F. (2014). Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 70, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015 Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D. (2015). Are men talking their reproductive health away? Asian Journal of Andrology, 17(3), 433–434. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.140963 Agarwal, A., Desai, N. R., Makker, K., Varghese, A., Mouradi, R., Sabanegh, E., & Sharma, R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022 Gautam, R., & Arora, T. (2023). Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted from mobile phone and its impact on male reproductive health. EIACP: Diversity and Impact on the Environment, 28(3), 8–11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375799722_Radio_Frequency_Electromagnetic_Radiation_RF-EMR_Emitted_from_Mobile_Phone_and_its_Impact_on_Male_Reproductive_Health Summary and Review Papers Weller, S. G., McCredden, J. E., Leach, V., Chu, C., & Lam, A. K. (2025). A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: Assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1613353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353 McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 894447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.894447 Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., Yakymenko, I., & Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 59(5), 92. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Wang, M., Zhang, Y., Angley, M., Kleiman, N. J., Wang, X., & Kahe, K. (2026). A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-026-00958-4 Hu, C., Zuo, H., & Li, Y. (2021). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on neurotransmitters in the brain. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 691880. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.691880 Cell Towers Balmori, A. (2022). Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research, 214, 113851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851 Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845 Rodrigues, N. C. P., Dode, A. C., Andrade, M. K. N., O’Dwyer, G., Monteiro, D. L. M., Reis, I. N. C., Rodrigues, R. P., Frossard, V. C., & Lino, V. T. S. (2021). The effect of continuous low-intensity exposure to electromagnetic fields from radio base stations to cancer mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229 Dode, A. C., Leão, M. M. D., Tejo, F. A. F., Gomes, A. C. R., Dode, D. C., Dode, M. C., Moreira, C. W., Condessa, V. A., Albinatti, C., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), 3649–3665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051 Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. (2011). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 19, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-018 Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1179/107735210799160192 School Recommendations Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324 Collaborative for High Performance Schools. (n.d.). Low EMF best practices summary. https://healthytechhome.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/201/CEHPAC-EMF-in-HomeWi-Fi-in-School-Report.pdf Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (n.d.). Guidelines to reduce electromagnetic field radiation. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (2017). Wi-Fi in school report. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Santa Clara County Medical Association. (2023). Best practices for safe technology in schools. https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/LiveBlog/3697/SCCMA Best Practices for Safe Technology in Schools Recommendations 21423.pdf Cell Tower Health Studies Airpods and Bluetooth Genetic Impacts, DNA Damage 5G Reviews | C-Band / 3.5 GHz | Millimeter Waves | Terahertz / THz Why FCC and ICNIRP Limits are Not Protective and Conflicts of Interest in Science ELF EMF Magnetic Fields / Power Lines (for HHS only) Category: Cell Towers Tag: cell phones, cell towers, children's health, emf, FCC, health effects, policy, science

I do not believe most are considering the cumulative effects of emf radiation. You cannot escape it. I have personally been involved in fighting against cel towers placed in 1st a residential neighborhood back yard! & 2ndly in a small neighborhood park in a picnic area that both Verizon & the City of San Diego felt was just fine to have a picnic with a cel tower overhead! Honestly we should be able to use health issues to fight these towers or 5g on street lights in our neighborhoods in our parks and schools. It is getting out of hand and from my personal experience the powers that be will erect and or place these towers and or cells without regard to human safety. Thank you

Re Docket 25-276, “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” I’m a mother and a pediatric functional nutrition practitioner. I’m asking the FCC to protect meaningful local oversight, public participation, and health considerations in decisions about wireless infrastructure. Parents deserve to know what is being installed near our homes, schools, and playgrounds. We deserve clear notice, accessible information, and a real opportunity to raise concerns before decisions are finalized. Our ability to participate needs to carry actual weight. I’m particularly concerned about how exposure guidelines account for children, pregnant women, and people with complex medical conditions. Please explain how the FCC evaluates long-term exposure, exposure from multiple sources, and the needs of medically vulnerable people. Families deserve transparent answers about the evidence, its limitations, and the questions that remain. I ask the FCC to require independent verification of compliance, make those results publicly accessible, and provide a clear process for investigating residents’ concerns. Communities also need authority to consider placement near homes, schools, and childcare centers. Once infrastructure is installed near a family’s home, that family has limited control over its exposure. Moving is financially impossible for many parents. That makes public participation and careful review essential. Please reject provisions that weaken meaningful community input or local oversight. Explain how public health concerns will be evaluated and addressed before expanding wireless deployment. Our children deserve a voice in these decisions, and their parents deserve to be heard.

The SAR scam states the safety level of wireless radiation is 1.6 Watts per kilogram of weight. In 1951, as Dr. Andrew Marino states, the newly-invented FDA microwave ovens ( then called 'radar ranges' ) needed a label on cooking times for certain recipes. So they experimented on animals, mostly dogs, with the radar first and this caused blindness and some testicular degeneration. then the report stated 'the animals were not tested while they were dying'', and they then dissected the dog into separate kilograms of skin, muscle, oragn, and found the rare to med rare dog meat would be the safety level the FDA handed to the FCC to use as a safety level. There is no safe level of microwave irradiation, as Dr. Marino states- the two cases are irrelevant. Scientist Dr. Olle Johansson states a cosmic storm is the only safe level ( .0000000001 mW/M2 to .0000000000001 mW/M2 ). Scientist Barrie Trower's interview with Deb Tavares says it all: 'The Cooking of Humanity", exactly what this is- WIFI must be removed from schools and all public places, and cell just used for emergencies. Thank you.

To the Federal Communications Commission: Re: ET Docket No. 13-84 I am submitting this comment as a concerned citizen regarding the FCC’s review of radiofrequency radiation exposure standards and the potential long-term health effects of wireless technology. Wireless technology has become an unavoidable part of everyday life. As wireless infrastructure continues to expand, I believe it is important that federal safety standards reflect a thorough, transparent, and independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence. I respectfully request that the FCC give careful consideration to research addressing long-term and cumulative exposure, potential biological effects beyond tissue heating, and the possible vulnerability of children and other sensitive populations. I also encourage the Commission to examine whether existing exposure standards adequately reflect real-world conditions, including simultaneous exposure to multiple wireless devices and sources of radiofrequency radiation. Where scientific uncertainty remains, I believe additional independent research, transparent public communication, and reasonable precautionary measures deserve serious consideration. The public should be able to trust that safety standards are based on comprehensive scientific evaluations and are regularly reassessed as new evidence becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important public health discussion.

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 am a 34 year old woman whose life has been profoundly affected by a chronic, debilitating health condition, and who has spent nearly two decades searching for answers. My chronic migraines began when I was 15 years old. Around that time, a cell tower was constructed approximately 0.2 miles directly behind my family’s home. I cannot claim that this tower caused my illness, but the timing of these events has remained significant to me throughout my health journey. My symptoms quickly became so severe that I had to reduce my high school schedule. I woke up nearly every morning with debilitating migraines and vertigo, often unable to function. At one point, I missed more than 30 consecutive days of school. My family and I went from doctor to doctor, desperately searching for the underlying cause. I was prescribed countless medications in an effort to manage my symptoms, many of which came with adverse effects. My education suffered, my grades declined, and what should have been a formative, exciting period of my life became a daily struggle to get through the day. Rather than improving with age, my condition became progressively more severe. By age 26, I was experiencing symptoms that I associated with exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure. My arms would go numb while using my phone. I experienced stabbing pains in my head and stomach when people with cell phones came near me or when I was in areas near cell towers. As newer wireless technologies were introduced, I became increasingly concerned about the relationship between these exposures and my symptoms. My family went to extraordinary lengths to try to help me. We invested significant money in completely hardwiring our home and removing all wireless devices in an effort to reduce my potential exposure and find some measure of relief. This was not a casual lifestyle choice; it was a response to the debilitating reality of my daily life and our desperation to find answers. My family has had to make significant adjustments to our home and way of living because of the severity of my condition. The fact that my health concerns have required these kinds of sacrifices speaks to just how profoundly this has affected not only my life, but the lives of the people who love and support me. Also, when 5G technology was introduced in stadiums, attending sporting events became extraordinarily difficult for me because of the debilitating migraines I experienced. Travel became another challenge. Wi-Fi on airplanes, Bluetooth connections, and the wireless devices used by people around me became sources of concern as I struggled to manage my symptoms. Activities that most people take for granted; attending a game, boarding a plane, going into public spaces, or simply being around other people, became obstacles I had to weigh against the possibility of becoming severely ill. The consequences have extended far beyond physical pain. This condition has isolated me from experiences, relationships, opportunities, and the independence that most adults work toward building. I have struggled to maintain the health necessary to work consistently and support myself. Today, at 34 years old, I remain financially and physically dependent on my parents in ways I never imagined would define my adult life. I would give anything to have the freedom to attend a sporting event without fearing the consequences, travel without anticipating debilitating pain, work toward financial independence, and participate in everyday life without having to calculate the potential cost to my health. No one should have to spend nearly two decades fighting to reclaim a life they feel they have lost, while wondering whether an environmental exposure could be contributing to their suffering. People deserve answers. They deserve rigorous science, transparency, and a regulatory process willing to examine difficult questions. 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 have been negatively affected by wireless radiation. I had to leave my medical career due to not being able to work with all the wireless infrastructure surrounding me. Please take steps to lessen the toxic nnEMF in workplace environments, schools and neighborhoods. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.

I'm writing in regards to the FCCs lack of response to the D.C Court of Appeals remand concerning it's decades old - radio frequency (RF) radiofrequency exposure guidelines. The FCC has had more than enough time to review and address the evidence by the 9th Circuit Court win, on August 13, 2021. This has to be done! Enough lives have already been taken and ruined! This will effect the most vulnerable and already has. I've done extensive research and the ITU BDT (R-T-D) IPEC-WB-WRC-GSR- Plenipotentiary, via the Department of State has to be stopped! We have an industry and government that are both rogue. Not only is wireless harmful it DOES cause cancers! The new P25 warnings out of CA state on the new 5GHz phones "May cause reproductive harm." Since when do we test (never tested) cell phones for RF harm, using a plastic head! Now we are dealing with smart meters, smart grid, Broadband, Wi-fi, satellites, etc. 5GHz now going to over 8GHz via WRC27. Enough is enough and start doing what is right! It may be your own lives you are saving. TRUST ME...losing my son from a cell-tower/cell-phone RF has destroyed my life and I've witnessed many others being harmed. This has to be covered by disabilities. I know people that are so disabled from being exposed that they pray to make it to another day. All of this has to be reigned in. The WEF-WB are not in charge! Sincerely, Virginia Farver

I and others in my circle are very sensitive to EMFs and wireless radiation. We experience headaches, joint aches, cannot think/process clearly, dizziness - and I have read that some people have seizures when exposed to any amount of radiation. There are studies showing that cell phones emit more radiation than is allowed according to current FCC limits. This is multiplied in children, who have smaller bodies/brains (which are still developing). There are wi-fi towers EVERYWHERE, making it very difficult for those who suffer to participate for very long (or at all) in any public place, be it restaurants, libraries, public buildings, and even peoples' houses. Multiple studies show that we do NOT need 5G, as the current speed is sufficient for most needs, yet they keep making signals stronger and forcing us to use them. We are told that EVERYONE needs wi-fi in their homes, so in an apartment building you will have multiple full-strength signals on 24/7. Manufacturers make it difficult to turn routers on and off quickly. All of this radiation is impossible to get away from. EMF protective clothing is not enough. Most of us have ethernet in our homes because we are forced to have wi-fi/computers in order to do anything in life. Alternative measures such as ethernet or landlines are made so expensive that many cannot afford them. Manufacturers do not provide alternatives for sufferers like us. Many people have sued to get masts off of school buildings, as studies have shown higher rates of cancer in students attending those schools. Multiple studies show tumors or weakened bone structure directly under places where people place their phones next to their bodies. Multiple studies show lower sperm counts for men who insist on putting their phones in their pockets. It is outrageous that these studies are not being made public. We are not made aware of the dangers of keeping cell phones on and next to the body for ANY length of time. This is only stated in the VERY SMALL print in cell phone inserts, which are worded in legalese and so small that no one takes the time to read them. Manufacturers should be forced to fully disclose the dangers of cell phone and "smart" machine use to the public. "Smart" meters, TVs, appliances, etc. are another major source of cancer of which no one is aware. Utility companies also make it more expensive and more difficult to stop "smart meters" from being installed on one's property. We are literally killing ourselves by allowing this radiation in every part of our lives. If we want to have a healthy nation, we must fund scientists who can find ways to make communication healthier. Please take a long, hard look at ALL studies, who funded them, how they were set up, and who stands to gain by the outcomes. We need to get back to HONEST scientific reasoning and studies that are not driven by profit and market share. The FCC needs to work for the PUBLIC and IT'S SAFETY once again.

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.