Children, schools & development

I am deeply concerned about all the radiation in our environment. I know many people who have been deeply affected. The FCC did not properly consider the scientific evidence on how this relates to human beings exposed to radiation on a constant basis. I am concerned about all the illnesses that are caused by the toxic environment. There are many side effects that have been associated that affect human behavior on all levels. This affects humans on a cellular level and I am concerned for my kids and grandchildren. The levels of Cancer, Alzheimer's, mental health, suicide and autism are never considered by the FCC. It is clear that these frequencies are dangerous to humans and the truth must be revealed.

Please consider people, children and animals who are sensitive to these radio frequencies. I am highly EMF sensitive, and we understand these frequencies are causing problems. Time to make some informed changes, respecting light of the recent research on children’s brains and these devices we use every day. Please protect us from the harms and the honeybees too, who don’t t like to live near Smart Meters!

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. There is published, peer-reviewed data which shows clear evidence of harm from RF radiation that the FCC should be sure to consider carefully and diligently. BioInitiative 2012 has amalgamated many studies, although there are far more available. https://bioinitiative.org In particular, these studies are valuable: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec09_2012_Evidence_Effects_Neurology_behavior.pdf https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec08_2007_Evidence_%20Effects_%20Immune_System.pdf https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec07_2007_Evidence_for_Stress_Response.pdf I have personal experience in this area. Prolonged exposure to RF radiation can give me headache, brain fog, heart palpitations, sweating, and a feeling of internal heat. The microwave sources that cause these symptoms include cell towers, cell phones, wifi routers, and cordless phones.

I have a friend who is sensitive to wireless, she can feel it, and is unable to sleep near any RF like cell towers, wifi routers, cellphones, and more. I have seen this have a huge negative impact on her life and health, and she is unable to travel much and often has to drive distances to do normal activities. I am very concerned for the lack of science, studies and protocols to protect the public’s health, and that no real third party testing, science or disclosure about health has been done or shared for over 30 years. It’s hard to believe that we have been in the dark about safety, health and wireless exposure all this time, and that needs to change right now. There are people who are at risk most for health issues including children, and more research and transparency is needed now. Please make current testing, funding and appropriate scientific research required starting now, and public health conversations mandatory and mainstream. Corporations shouldn’t decide what’s safe for us, science and health should be the main focus, and the public process should be the priority. We need to closely examine non-ionizing wireless radiation and all RF. European and Scandinavian countries have done this- they prohibit cell towers near schools and homes for a reason. We need to follow their example. Put science and safety first before profit. Thank you. I am attaching relevant articles and studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1499499/full https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ ttps://www.techsafeschools.org/science https://www.babysafeproject.org/science https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-EMREMF/

I am writing to urge the FCC to fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health impacts of radiofrequency (RF) radiation on children and adults, as well as the impacts of long-term and cumulative exposure on wildlife and the environment. To date, the FCC has failed to review available studies and the experiences of actual people to make meaningful and appropriate impact assessments. This failure is a violation of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old 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 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. This issue matters to me personally because of the proliferation of cell towers, 5G installations, and wireless devices everywhere which we cannot get away from. I've experienced increased sensitivities to RF exposure which has caused vertigo, brain fog, insomnia and other negative health consequences for me and my family members. The FCC must give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

After suffering from a brain injury as flight crew in 2017 I began experiencing reactions around wireless technology. Since then it is impossible for me to leave my home without suffering from symptoms of migraine, vertigo, latent sleep disorder, and even at times seizures. Thankfully I can function on my own property without wi-fi as I was able to switch to wired internet. Sadly though, every year it seems the intensity of my neighbor’s wireless networks increases, causing me to suffer mild symptoms on a round the clock basis. If I am so affected by these frequencies, what might they be doing to the developing child’s brains or to our pets and wildlife? After deep diving into published research, it is clear that the literature shows wireless technologies are neuro-toxic to biology via neurotransmitter changes and Voltage Gated Calcium Channel dysfunction. With our current uptick in maladies such as cancers of all kinds, infertility, neuro-degeneration, Cardiovascular Disease, ASD, Hoshimoto’s Thyroiditis, Type 2 Diabetes, and more, we should be asking why this is happening exponentially as we increase the rate of our wireless radiation exposures. On top of the physiological effects, our population's mental health is also suffering. It appears from psychological studies this is largely due to the overload of communications and information. Our governing bodies have not performed their due diligence in investigating potential harms from wireless technology. Focusing on the thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation does not suffice in assuring the public you are required to protect that these technologies are safe. At the very minimum, while we continue to perform long-term studies on the non thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation exposures on humans and the environment, I propose that we: .Re-introduce wired phone lines and ethernet connections in homes, businesses, and public places. . Require all wireless technologies sold in the US to have an “offline mode” which completely disables all wireless functions. . That all wireless functions of all devices be required to be in their offline mode at our schools, parks, public buildings, places of gathering, hospitals, public transportation, and the like. . That cell phone towers, power stations, and other facilities or antenna that emit ELF, EMF, or RF be required to be positioned a mile or more away from buildings, public spaces, and areas of residence OR require informed consent from all potentially affected parties as to the exposures and their unknown possible effects. . That public warnings be instituted regarding the unknown or possible harms of using wireless devices. . That our governing bodies and manufacturers be held responsible for any adverse effects from their approved devices, products, or the infrastructure of wireless technologies.

DA 26-997 Released: September 17, 2026: FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON RF EXPOSURE ISSUES SUBJECT TO D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST V. FCC, ET Docket No. 13-84. I am Robert J. Berg, the founder and principal of the Law Office of Robert J. Berg PLLC. My law firm specializes in wireless telecommunications law. My firm is one of the very few law firms which primarily represents the interests of residents of communities where wireless carriers are seeking permits to install and operate personal wireless communications infrastructure. My firm also represents local governments which seek expert counsel as they consider applications for such wireless facilities. I, personally, have been practicing law for 43 years. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, receiving my JD and MBA degrees in 1983. For most of my career, I have litigated complex multi-party litigations, and specialized in complex class action litigation in the federal and state courts nationwide. Over the past several years, however, I have focused my practice nearly exclusively on wireless matters. I am fully familiar with the Environmental Health Trust v. FCC action in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and I have represented Environmental Health Trust on certain filings following the Court of Appeals decision in 2021. I am submitting this Public Comment in response to the FCC’s DA 26-997 Released: September 17, 2026: FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON RF EXPOSURE ISSUES SUBJECT TO D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST V. FCC, ET Docket No. 13-84. In my experience, the FCC has a long and ignoble history of disserving the American people as a captured agency beholden to the industry it is supposed to regulate in the public interest. The agency has been captured for decades – under both Republican and Democratic administrations. But under the leadership of corrupt and conniving Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC has reached a new nadir. The instant disingenuous Request for Public Comment represents a pathetic response to the Order of the DC Circuit requiring the FCC to respond to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense with the DC Circuit this past Spring. Petitioners filed for writ of mandamus after the FCC contemptuously ignored for 4 ½ years the mandate from the DC Circuit to reconsider most of the FCC’s unreasoned and arbitrary 2019 ruling refusing to conduct a rule-making procedure to update its 1996 RF exposure guidelines. The DC Circuit’s landmark decision in EHT v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), dealt a humiliating blow to the FCC. The panel eviscerated the FCC for its utter lack of reasoned decision-making on all the significant health and environmental issues raised, except for cancer, which the panel found that the FCC at least set forth a reasoned basis – without opining on the merits of the FCC’s reasoning. The DC Circuit excoriated the FCC for relying on the utterly conclusory and unreasoned statement of FDA Dr. Jeffrey Shuren that scientific studies do not show health risks from exposure to low level RF radiation. The DC Circuit held that Dr. Shuren’s statements were so conclusory and lacking in substantiation that reliance thereon is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious as a matter of law. The FCC, which lacks any scientific expertise of its own with respect to the human health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation exposure, necessarily must consult with and rely upon other agencies having such expertise, ruled the DC Circuit. Instead, by relying on Dr. Shuren’s unsubstantiated conclusory assertion of no health impact, the FCC acted as arbitrarily and capriciously as Dr. Shuren, and the DC Circuit held that two wrongs don’t make a right. After the DC Circuit issued its opinion, the NY Times later revealed that Dr. Shoren handled numerous matters at the FDA involving clients represented by his wife, an attorney, matters from which the law and FDA rules required him to recuse himself from considering. Dr. Shuren retired from the FDA before formal ethics investigations into his conduct were instituted. Given the FCC’s sordid ethical standards, it’s no surprise that the FCC would rely extensively on conclusory, unsupported statements of an unethical scoundrel like Dr. Shuren to justify maintaining archaic RF exposure guidelines that are not protective of human health and fail to reflect current independent scientific research untainted by industry money and influence. Yet, even in the present Notice for Public Comment, the FCC is unbowed by its public humiliation by the DC Circuit. Instead, this Notice blithely misstates the DC Circuit opinion, and intentionally solicits public comment based on its wrong and constricted interpretation of the EHT decision. The EHT mandate is about assuring that the FCC’s 1996 RF emissions guidelines adequately safeguard the health of the public today – thirty years later. The 1996 FCC guidelines were issued in a rush at the dawn of the wireless age when hardly any cell phones, no less a plethora of wireless devices, existed, and the number of cell towers and other wireless communications facilities around the country were minimal. Today, there are approximately 500,000 cell towers and other wireless communications facilities in the US, all transmitting RF radiation 24/7. Meanwhile, virtually every person in the country possesses a cell phone and/or other wireless devices. Human exposure to wireless radiation is ubiquitous and constant. In 1996, the telecommunications industry effectively lobbied (bribed) Congress to pass Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits State and local governments from denying wireless carriers permits to construct and operate wireless facilities on the basis of the health risks of wireless radiation exposure. But there’s an important caveat to this provision – the federal preemption applies so long as the wireless facility at issue transmits at levels within the FCC’s RF guidelines. Thus, Congress has circumscribed State and local governments’ traditional zoning powers with respect to health in reliance on the FCC’s assurance that the FCC’s wireless emissions guidelines protect human health. Congress also mandates that the FCC guidelines protect against other environmental concerns, which means that wireless radiation exposure should not negatively impact flora and fauna. The 1996 guidelines were weak and seriously flawed from the outset. But now, 30 years later, they are a laughingstock to serious independent scientists who are not on the industry payroll. Literally thousands of peer reviewed published studies demonstrate statistically significant linkages between exposure to wireless radiation from wireless devices and wireless transmission facilities and serious negative health impacts to humans. While the exact etiology has not definitively been determined for all diseases and negative health impacts, persistent wireless radiation exposure appears to lead to oxidative stress which is well known to precipitate a cascade of negative human health conditions. Similarly, serious scientific studies of the impact of wireless radiation exposure on flora and fauna are ongoing, and already numerous studies show negative impacts on birds, bats, bees, and flora. Fortunately, in response to this request for public comments, many of these contemporary studies are being introduced into the administrative record for the FCC’s consideration. The problem is that under Chairman Carr’s reign, the agency takes a wholly dismissive view of the dangers of wireless radiation exposure to both humans and flora and fauna. Even under his Democratic predecessor, the FCC failed to take the DC Circuit’s mandate seriously. It has done nothing at all for 4 ½ years. The panel should find the FCC in contempt of court. That deserved outcome is unlikely. Equally unlikely is the FCC giving the submitted evidence herein an objective review and a fair shake. However, what’s new and what gives practitioners like me some hope is that HHS has also opened a proceeding requesting public comment on essentially the same issue. HHS actually has expertise in examining the health impacts of wireless radiation exposure to humans – or at least in studying the issue and coming up with informed conclusions and recommendations. I understand that HHS will study the issue – and hopefully issue well-informed recommendations which the FCC will have to follow inasmuch as the FCC has no internal expertise. My experience in dealing with the FCC on various cell tower matters is that the FCC has operated entirely against the public interest. Its rulings in the matters in which I have been involved have always been conclusory and are sloppy and usually contain seriously errors of fact. Most federal agencies in my experience are filled with people trying to do good for the public at large. The FCC is interested only in protecting the revolving door between the industry and the agency and thus, protects only the industry’s interests. Respectfully, Robert J. Berg

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 several friends and family members have been affected by cancer and NO ONE KNOWS WHY. 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: • McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States – Examined the prevalence of self-reported wireless sensitivity and co-occurring health conditions in the United States, Canada, and Australia, without establishing causation. 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 writing to express my deep concern about the potential health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell towers and to ask that the FCC take a more serious, proactive role in investigating the experiences of individuals and families who believe their health has been affected by exposure to these emissions. In 2007, a cell tower was erected near our home. Following its installation, my daughter began experiencing a series of serious and debilitating health problems that dramatically altered the course of her life. The timing of these symptoms and the profound impact they have had on her life have left our family deeply concerned about the possible relationship between her health and her exposure to RF radiation. Her symptoms were so severe that her school attendance became extremely poor, and she was on the verge of being forced into homeschooling. As parents, we were desperate to understand what was happening to our daughter and to find answers that would allow her to live a normal, healthy life. We pursued extensive medical care, including multiple appointments with specialists in cardiology, neurology, and other practitioners, including neurological chiropractors. We even spent ten days at the Carrick Brain Center trying to determine the cause of her debilitating symptoms. Among other problems, she experienced stabbing abdominal pains, chronic migraines, and numbness in her arm when she used a cell phone. These were not minor inconveniences; they interfered with her ability to attend school, participate in everyday activities, and enjoy the quality of life every young person deserves. She was eventually diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder, electrosensitivity, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Despite years of effort to understand and manage her conditions, the consequences have been devastating. My daughter is now 34 years old and remains unable to work outside the home. Our family has gone to extraordinary lengths to investigate and reduce potential environmental exposures in our home. We have had the house thoroughly checked for electrical wiring problems. She sleeps in a specially tented bed surrounded by silver-lined material intended to block wireless signals. We have eliminated Wi-Fi from our home and turn off the electrical power to the rooms surrounding her bedroom every night. These are not steps a family takes lightly. They reflect years of concern, searching for answers, and trying to give our daughter the best possible chance of improving her health. I recognize that the timing of an exposure and the onset of symptoms do not, by themselves, establish medical causation. However, the fact that her symptoms began after the cell tower was erected, followed by years of serious illness and disability, raises questions that deserve careful, independent scientific investigation rather than dismissal. Meanwhile, more cell towers and wireless infrastructure continue to be added to our surrounding area. For families who are concerned about RF exposure, it increasingly feels as though there is nowhere to go to escape it. We need reliable research, transparent information, and meaningful consideration of the people who report serious health problems and whose lives have been profoundly affected. I respectfully urge the FCC to: 1. Support and facilitate independent, long-term research into the potential health effects of RF exposure, including the effects of chronic exposure from multiple wireless sources over time. 2. Ensure that research examines a broad range of reported health concerns, including neurological symptoms, migraines, autonomic dysfunction, and other chronic conditions, while using rigorous scientific methods to establish what relationships, if any, exist. 3. Reevaluate existing exposure standards as new evidence emerges, with transparent scientific review and appropriate consideration of uncertainty, vulnerable populations, and cumulative environmental exposure. 4. Improve transparency and public access to information about cell tower locations, emissions, compliance measurements, and the scientific evidence used to establish safety standards. 5. Create a meaningful process for documenting and investigating reported health concerns from individuals and families who believe their symptoms began or worsened following the installation of nearby wireless infrastructure. 6. Consider precautionary measures and appropriate policy changes if credible evidence identifies risks that current standards do not adequately address. My family has spent years trying to understand why our daughter became so ill and why, at 34, she still cannot work outside the home. We cannot go back and change what happened, but we can ask that our experience contribute to a more thorough examination of a public health question that deserves attention. This is not simply an argument about technology. It is about people, families, and the responsibility to investigate legitimate concerns with openness, scientific rigor, and compassion. Wireless technology continues to expand rapidly, and the public deserves confidence that its safety standards are based on the best available evidence and are revisited when warranted. I ask the FCC to take these concerns seriously, to encourage independent research, and to consider what changes may be necessary to better protect public health. Families should not have to spend decades searching for answers while watching a loved one struggle with chronic illness and disability. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I hope the FCC will give serious consideration to the experiences of families like ours and take meaningful steps toward obtaining the answers that are still needed. Sincerely, Beth Osborn Carmel, IN 46032

As a mother I advocate for safer tech habits, including using speakerphone and wired headphones, keeping wireless devices away from one self and my children's bodies when practical, turning Wi-fi off when not in use and utilizing direct hard wire connection when feasible. Therefore I believe there should be more regulations and studies to limit this radio frequency exposure, mothers should not have to choose between benefits of modernized tech and the health of ones family.