Children, schools & development

I urge the FCC to take a careful, science-based look at the potential health effects of long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to reconsider whether the current exposure limits are adequately protective. The FCC's existing limits date back to 1996, while wireless exposure has increased dramatically with cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cell towers, and newer 5G technologies. Research has raised concerns about biological effects that are not adequately addressed by limits based primarily on thermal effects, including oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, and effects on children. The scientific evidence deserves a thorough and independent review. Research has reported potential effects involving children's exposure, prenatal and developmental outcomes, oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive health, neurological function, long-term exposure, and wildlife. I ask the FCC to fully address this evidence, including potential effects from long-term and cumulative exposure and the particular vulnerability of children, before continuing to rely on exposure standards developed three decades ago. Public health protections should keep pace with the technology and the current scientific evidence. **References** 1. Gandhi, O. P., et al. (2012). *Exposure limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34–51. doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. 2. Fernández, C., et al. (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. 3. Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). *Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice.* Scientific Reports, 2, 312. doi:10.1038/srep00312. 4. Foerster, M., et al. (2018). *A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication.* Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(7). 5. Yakymenko, I., et al. (2016). *Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 6. Güler, G., et al. (2012). *The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits.* International Journal of Radiation Biology, 88(4), 367–373. doi:10.3109/09553002.2012.646349. 7. Zothansiama, et al. (2017). *Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 8. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2019). *Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields.* Mutation Research – Reviews in Mutation Research, 781, 53–62. 9. Adams, J. A., et al. (2014). *Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.* Environment International, 70, 106–112. 10. Houston, B., et al. (2016). *The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function.* Reproduction. 11. Altun, A., et al. (2018). *Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems.* Environmental Research, 167, 700–707. 12. Yahyazadeh, A., Deniz, Ö. G., & Kaplan, A. A. (2018). *The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system.* Environmental Research, 167, 684–693. 13. Falcioni, L., et al. (2018). *Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.* Environmental Research, 165, 496–503. 14. 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. 15. Balmori, A. (2015). *Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.* Science of the Total Environment, 518–519, 58–60. 16. Cucurachi, S., et al. (2013). *A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).* Environment International, 51, 116–140. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009. 17. Thielens, A., et al. (2018). *Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz.* Scientific Reports, 8, 3924.

I do not want to give the FCC a blank permission slip for towers everywhere & anywhere. Human health concerns are very real especially to children & elderly. A vote for blank permission is a vote against humanity.

ever since the smart meter been put in 20 years ago, my health and physical condition has been going downhill, just few years back when i talked to my PCP, he realized many of my symptoms was close to emf radiation poisoning. he asked if i might have a smart meter, which i told him yes, he aske how long at that time it was like 18 yrs (now it is 20 yrs). so he was suspicious with the symptoms: Fatigue and Exhaustion: Persistent tiredness that does not improve with rest, sometimes described as feeling drained or depleted; Cognitive Issues: Trouble concentrating, memory problems, and brain fog; Dizziness and Balance Problems: Feeling lightheaded or off-balance, sometimes reported in occupational EMF exposure cases (which my balance is now worse during the last 2 yrs); Skin Sensations: Burning, tingling, (no rashes but unexplained bruises), and prickling sensations on the skin (at times feels like biting; Tinnitus: Ringing or buzzing in the ears, more common in EMF-sensitive individuals (this started 15 yrs ago and it has been constant and right now the buzzing in right now has gotten louder as i am sitting here typing this); Nausea: Feeling unsettled or experiencing (not so mild) vomiting and riding in vehicles makes it worse, i even tried pumpkin puree with ginger, and probiotic ginger with lemon, ginger candy and ginger lozenges that cost $8 for a small back) there is no easing the nausea at all, this is worse than morning sickness; Musculoskeletal Pain: Generalized body pain, sometimes resembling fibromyalgia or what i call serious muscles spasms which are very painful (another reason of no sleep among the other symptoms); i am also one of the most calm cool person and usually nothing bothers me at but now Anxiety and Mood Changes: Heightened stress, irritability, or depression linked to EMF exposure (even when it comes to kids they seems to irritate the hell out of me, considering i have 2 kids and 4 grandkids. i tried to reduce exposure to high-EMF environments but that is a failure since the smart meter is right behind my bedroom. on top of that learned that wifi is just as bad and yes i have it in order to use my laptop and pay bills but these new box not only give off EMF radiation they are now tracking every move you make in your own home, yup found out about that. the worse part of all of this exposure for 20 yrs, since 2018 i started losing my teeth, either they fell out, or they disintegrated which makes it hard to eat the proper food. yeah lost 99% of my teeth because of the emf radiation. when i learned about this years ago and then learning that the symptoms i was dealing with is realated to the emf radiation like i said i did some digging, i learned about these special screens that are made in the USA (Smart Meter Guard) that goes over the meters blocking. i talked to the one who makes them on Sep 22, 2025, which was about year later after my first contact to the company. this is what karl told me Smart Meter Guard actually blocks about 95% of the EMF, the signal to the utility company. The 5% or so that gets out is still enough for the utility company to get their signal while shielding about 95% of the EMF you're exposed to. We have thousands of these installed all across the US and Canada and have not had a problem with a utility company not getting their sign. He is right in that if the utility company doesn't get their signal they get very upset and can fine you, however, this doesn't happen with the Smart Meter Guard installed. Hope this helps you. Thanks, Karl i responded i wish people like you would educate people like them of the truth. are you still selling them???... i know i had to measure my meter since it is the first one that came out 2006 which is smaller size he stated yes, we still do sell them but we only sell them on our web site right now. We cam up with a newer and better design and we don't to get a patent first before we put it on Amazon because everything we put on Amazon gets copied by the Chinese. The Guard actually fits on the metal ring at the base of the smart meter and not the smart meter itself. That metal ring is the same on all smart meters so the Guard would fit yours for sure. Amazon is rampant for Chinese made copies of what other people make. Yes, for sure you can send a picture of your smart meter and I can tell you for sure if the Guard will fit but there's a 99% chance it will though. Thanks, Karl then he went on gave me the website, which to this day i haven't gone to check it out but it is not up to us customers to protect ourselves from these evil bastard, they need to be made to have these USA screens be put on by the electric companies for free, we don't get charged nor the electric bill go up to cover their asses. well said my piece, i hope you take this matter seriously not just about me but the older generation and the younger ones. i mean i know you government love depopulating this country but still some of us still like to stick around longer and not deal with major health issues. sue baxter

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: [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 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: While in the military I developed migraines and vertigo that were triggered by high EMF environments. Moreover, It is well know that HF radios in fighter jets cause cancer. Please reference any fighter jet systems manual. We use to call the cone of the antenna in front of the jet the cone of cancer. There are notes, warnings and cautions pertaining to this danger. While there are different frequency ranges to the many avionics in a fighter jet some of these frequency bands reserved for the military have been released for use by the tech industry within the civilian population(Why?). There is a clear safety issue with this current technology please also reference the military studies done on radar operators in the 60's and 70's showing health concerns. It's time to FOIA all government organizations to include the military for all experiments regarding technology using any type of frequency based power. Non ionizing radiation should be looked at differently than ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is more apt to cause damage via thermal heating. Non ionizing radiation is more likely to affect the calcium channels of the body therefore showing damage later in a persons life that is not expressed by thermal damage. Because of this it also tends to affect people in different ways depending on their individual exposures and body type. We know that different types of frequency's can affect a person with more fat differently than someone with less fat. We know a millimeter wave cannot penetrate the body as deep as a longer wave frequency. Therefore more fat could potentially equal more protection against a millimeter wave reaching an organ. This is especially important with children as most do not have the body fat of an adult allowing the millimeter wave to penetrate deeper into their developing bodies. Currently the FCC only looks at ionizing radiation effects, this is pure negligence on the FCC's side as it is common knowledge among anyone that works with avionics that there are other dangers to frequency then just ionizing radiation as I explained above. This issue is going to have the most damaging effects on our children. It's time to start caring about our future generations and immediately stop any further roll out of cell towers and wireless technologies, remove all antennas from schools, remove wifi from schools and cease the use of 3g/4g/5g towers within our cities until the FCC does its job and does a complete overhaul of its safety standards to reflect measuring all the dangers that can result from this use of technology. The FCC must also ensure the Tech companies are held to the strictest 3rd party study's to ensure what they are proposing is safe. Then the FCC must remove all employees with conflicts of interest ensuring no industry employees are allowed to ever work for the FCC or vice versa. Or at least have a 5 year no compete agreement in their contracts. The FCC should also be required to work with HSS. The HSS should study the health effects and then the FCC must be required to update its standards to ensure the dangers Identified by HSS are addressed in their safety standards. 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 imperative that the safety of cell phones and use of Wi-Fi be reevaluated, especially when it comes to the well being of children. Children and unborn babies are particularly more sensitive given their bodies are still developing. With the greater use of Wi-Fi use in homes and schools, families and school administrators need to ensure children aren't being overexposed to harmful radiation and for that the FCC needs to reevaluate the standards based on today's technology, which have drastically changed. Many studies have looked at this very topic, including the 2015 study by Morris, R., et al, titled Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults.. In the study it states that children's brains are much more vulnerable to toxins because "the insulation layer of myelin, which acts to protect nerve cells, is far less developed in the child, the skull is thinner, the immune system is still developing and cells are reproducing far more rapidly than in adults". We don't allow children to have the same dosis of medication as an adult, why would we think Wi-Fi exposure would be any different?

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 both myself and at least 4 other of my family members have been irreparably injured by wireless radiation. Genetic testing has shown that members of our family lack a key gene responsible for detoxification of a wide array of pollutants, including wireless radiation. When exposed, our symptoms include headaches, dizziness, rashes, tachycardia, severe chest pain, uncontrollable shaking, and even seizures. Our lives have been impacted such that we no longer are physically able to live near towns or other sites of cellular towers. We are unable to maintain most jobs within the public sector because of the prevalence of wi-fi, Bluetooth, wearable wireless devices, and cellular phones. Increasingly, we are finding it difficult or impossible to travel anywhere, to attend public events, church services, concerts, schools, and other gatherings. We are also unable to drive or ride in newer vehicles with tire pressure sensors, GPS, and other wireless components. In one frightening episode, my infant grandson stopped breathing and turned blue when his mother simply sat down with him for a moment in her sister's emergency services truck, a vehicle equipped with Bluetooth, a mobile Hotspot, GPS, and a host of other wireless technology. Thankfully, my grandson's mother immediately removed him from the vehicle, and he began breathing again. She later measured the radio frequencies within the vehicle with the HF35C detector, and they were higher than the device could register. 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 to urge the FCC to reexamine its radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines, with particular attention to the potential impact of wireless radiation on children and developing brains. The current FCC guidelines were developed nearly three decades ago, before the widespread use of smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi-enabled classrooms, wearable devices, and the constant wireless connectivity that now defines daily life for many children. Today's children experience levels and patterns of exposure that were not contemplated when the current standards were adopted. Of particular concern is the growing body of scientific literature examining the effects of RF exposure during critical periods of brain development. For example, Aldad et al. (2012), a Yale University study published in Scientific Reports, found behavioral and neurodevelopmental changes in mice exposed to cellular telephone radiation during gestation. While no single study should dictate regulatory policy, such findings underscore the need for careful review of potential developmental impacts and should not be dismissed without meaningful consideration. Children are not simply smaller adults. They are undergoing rapid neurological development, and they may face a lifetime of cumulative exposure to wireless technologies. Yet there is little public information regarding the actual, real-world RF exposures children experience throughout the school day in increasingly wireless educational environments. Wi-Fi routers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and other connected devices are now commonplace in classrooms, but the extent and characteristics of these exposures are rarely monitored or publicly reported. The FCC has a special responsibility to ensure that its regulations adequately protect vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. At a minimum, the Commission should conduct a transparent review of the current scientific evidence regarding children's health and neurodevelopment, explain how it evaluates studies reporting biological effects at non-thermal exposure levels, and determine whether additional safety factors or updated exposure limits are warranted. The question before the Commission is not whether wireless technology provides tremendous benefits. It unquestionably does. The question is whether exposure standards developed in the 1990s continue to reflect the best available science in a world where children are surrounded by wireless devices from infancy onward. The FCC should ensure that its regulations are based on current evidence and provide an appropriate margin of safety for the nation's children. Thank you for considering these comments.

I want the schools to have these large towers removed as it is disrupting children's natural thought process. It affects their thoughts as well as learning processes. I would like them all removed from anywhere there is high traffic of people and causing ringing of the ears, thought interference, agitation within our bodies and inflamation and harms animals. These in my opinion are weapons against us the people. These towers can have the frequencies changed and harm us even more. These need to be removed... Thank you, Sharon Bertolucci

I am extremely sensitive to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and wireless radiation. I can't do Facetime on an my I-Phone, because it feels like my face is burning. I can't talk to someone on the I-Phone for very long, because I can feel the radiation. It is very uncomfortable, even when the phone is 3 feet away. I don't even have one of the newer, bigger I-Phones, because I fear it might be stronger. My husband and I pull out the router before bed every night so that we are not bathing in WiFi. We were not able to get solar for our house, because of the EMFs/energy they emit. A couple of years ago, our town of Great Barrington, MA was threatened by the telecom companies. They wanted to put 5G small cell towers into our town (every 500 ft or something like that), even in front of schools where children are the most vulnerable. Please help us (all of us) prevent anything like that ever happening. And please do your due diligence to make sure these electromagnetic frequencies are actually safe for people and animals, bees, etc. Thank you for listening! Lori Deutsch