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. 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 noticed I was having decrease concentration and heart palpitations while working at my desk in my home, then I realized there is a smart meter on the outside of my wall. I covered it and my heart palpitations decreased and my concentration increased. I also do a lot of gardening and I have noticed less bees every year. Human bodies and insects are not made to fend off all these radiation waves. Who knows what is really going on inside my body??? My sister lives in higher elevations and she can not keep fresh produce for more than 1-2 days, the radiation rots the food. 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.

One time I was sitting in the public library, using their WIFI, with my tablet, since I do not have WIFI at home and wanted to download something. My computer system at home is hard-wired. Driving home, I could barely stay in my lane, because my mind was so befuddled, I think because of the WIFI. I feel for the people who have to be in school, in public or in a workplace with WIFI unavoidably impinging on them. My hearing aids are some of the last models made which have FLIGHT MODE, whereby the bluetooth may be turned off. I have to turn it off each time I put them on, using a certain sequence of button presses. Until I have it properly turned off, I feel the bluetooth in my brain. It is difficult to describe the feeling of electromagnetic radiation. It is not like saying, "I have an earache" or "a tummy ache", as we would say to our mothers. It is akin to a pressure, a dark vapor, an unwelcomed presence. I feel the effects first in my head, then a tightness in the area of my heart. Of course, wireless radiation is immensly convenient and profitable, but I believe it is harmful, not just to sensitive people, and many are much more sensitive than myself, but to everyone in its proximity.

Hello, 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 it affects my family. My son has to sleep with his bed away from the wall because of the radiation being emitted by the electrical wires within the wall, and my husband can walk into a room and know if a wireless printer is turned on because his body senses it. We don't understand all the risks, especially because we can't see the radiation, but we can feel it. 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. Thank you

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. 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: Wireless radiation affects the health a vitality of children and families; causrs adverse health effects, and causes cancer; there are obvious concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; especially impacts bees, birds, pollinators, animals, wildlife, plants and 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. ALL CELL TOWERS MUST BE SHUTDOWN, REMOVED, DISMANTLED AND DESTROYED PERMANENTLY!!!

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 matters to me personally because my family (especially our son with brain-injury) has repeatedly noted the negative effects of the increasing presence of radio frequency radiation. Although my husband and I have experienced difficulty sleeping, headaches and difficulty focusing, it is our son who is most noticeably affected by these symptoms. We have observed him more symptomatic in the presence of cell towers or buildings with high levels of wi-fi and a cessation of these symptoms when vacationing in remote parts of NYS. When a smart meter was installed by our electric company, my son cried all night. I thought he was sick but walked around the house, discovering the new meter. Our power company quickly and very cooperatively replaced it with an analog meter (for which we pay a monthly reading fee) and my son's crying and sleeplessness ceased. We do all we can to minimize wireless signal in our home, but it is impossible to avoid the increasing exposure, unstudied and unregulated. 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: I can not be anywhere where there are cell towers nearby or even around people carrying cell phones. There is definitely a health affect from the radiation being emitted from all these devices. I will get headaches and migraines and feel awful in a short time and have to leave the area I am in. If I see a cell tower overlooking a main street when I am on vacation, I won't even attempt to go shopping on the street. It is ridiculous how cell towers are put right where people want to be. I have even seen them right on school grounds. There needs to be good regulations on cell towers because they are making people short tempered, giving people anxiety and all kinds of health problems that they aren't even aware of. I keep my home wi-fi free and require anyone who enters to turn their cell phone off or even wrap it in aluminum foil since they don't even seem to really shut off anymore. 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 as a private citizen regarding ET Docket No. 13-84 and the Commission's response to the D.C. Circuit's remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The court remanded for the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer, and directed it specifically to address its testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices, the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the guidelines were last updated, and environmental effects. That mandate issued in October 2021. Nearly five years passed before this record was reopened. The delay is itself part of what the Commission should account for. The scale of what is being decided. The guidelines at issue were set in 1996. In the three decades since, wireless exposure has gone from occasional and voluntary to continuous, ambient, and involuntary. Nearly every person in the country is now exposed, in every room they occupy, from birth, with no practical ability to opt out. Because FCC limits and FCC device certification shape international practice and because US-certified handsets are sold worldwide, the reasoning the Commission puts on this record does not stay domestic. The Commission is not choosing between acting and waiting. The exposure is already universal and expands by default while the question remains open. Continuing without a reasoned explanation is itself a decision, and it is the one the court found inadequate. On children, specifically. This is where the Commission's position is weakest, and where the consequences of being wrong are least recoverable. SAR compliance testing relies on a standardized head phantom derived from adult male anthropometry. Children differ in head size, skull thickness, tissue dielectric properties, and the proximity of developing tissue to the device. The Commission has not explained why a model built on adults adequately represents them. More fundamentally: a child born today will accumulate RF exposure continuously from infancy across a full lifespan. No epidemiological cohort of that kind exists, because no such population has yet lived long enough to be studied. The reassurance drawn from existing studies of adult mobile phone users does not transfer to that exposure profile — not because those studies are wrong, but because they did not examine it and could not have. The Commission should say plainly whether it is treating the absence of such evidence as evidence of adequacy. If it is, the court's remand is not satisfied. If it is not, it should state what would satisfy it, and on what timeline. On device testing procedures. Under 47 CFR § 2.1093(d)(2) and OET guidance in KDB 447498, portable devices are certified for body-worn operation at a manufacturer-specified separation distance. Actual use does not match that condition. Phones are carried in pockets, held against the body, and used in skin contact for hours daily — and by children, whose use patterns the certification regime never contemplated. Independent regulator testing, including measurements by France's Agence nationale des fréquences, has found handsets exceeding applicable limits at zero separation. This is a bounded, testable question and the court identified it first. The Commission should either justify the protocol against documented use or revise it. On institutional expertise. The Commission's 2019 order relied substantially on the Food and Drug Administration, including the April 24, 2019 letter from the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Deference to a health agency is appropriate — the Commission is not a health agency and holds no expertise in biology, toxicology, or pediatric development. But deference is not the reasoned explanation the court required. The Commission should state which specific remanded questions federal health authorities have actually evaluated, on what record, and when. Where they have not addressed a question, the Commission should say so rather than treat silence as endorsement. Given the concurrent request for information issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Commission should coordinate with HHS, incorporate its evidence assessment into this docket, and explain how that assessment informs its conclusions. Neither agency should be able to defer to the other while the exposure continues to expand. I have three children. They did not choose this exposure, they cannot avoid it, and they will carry it for a lifetime under a standard written before any of them were born and before the technology that now surrounds them existed. I am not asking the Commission to conclude that harm has been proven. I am asking it to do what the court ordered: address each of these questions on its merits, state clearly which it is answering and which it is deferring, and put its actual reasoning on the record.

Regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. This issue matters to me personally because I am negatively physically affected by RF radiation exposure and microwave radiation. I have to use my landline for communication. I will NOT give up my landline. I can't have Wi-Fi on my computer because, again, it affects my physical well-being. 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.

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: As a multispecialty board-certified physician with over 30 years of experience in the practice of medicine, I have consulted with and treated numerous patients who have reported significant health effects from exposure to RF radiation resulting from the use of cell phones or other wireless devices. These reported health effects have involved multisystem illnesses including neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and immunological. In a more personal manner, my wife has suffered serious ill health effects due to RF radiation exposure resulting from the use of a cell phone. The international scientific literature documents a clear signal regarding the potential noxious effects that exposure to RF radiation can have on human health. RF radiation exposure guidelines urgently need to be updated to reflect the current knowledge base in order to minimize the impact that the exploding wireless technology industry is inflicting on human health and the environment.