Children, schools & development

I am submitting these comments to the FCC to review the impacts of RF radiation from cell towers, and other public sources. I have waited years for a proper review of health and environmental concerns that impact humans, wildlife and the environment; this is of utmost importance to be done by experts in the those fields, scientific, biological and otherwise related. With satellites, cell towers, and other manmade objects being sent up into the ionosphere, how could there not be an over bombardment of frequencies on all of us? I have experienced sudden unusual headaches while driving in areas, without prior cause. At times these areas are the same again and again with the onset of headaches. Children, pets, farm animals, wildlife must be impacted...I'm sure I can't be the only person feeling sensitive to this "bombardment" of frequencies. Please conduct a PROPER and THOROUGH STUDY to come to a conclusive determination of the application of these devices!

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 gave my son a heart condition. Because they had 5G and WiFi at his school he was forced to drop out. And he is limited where he can go. And I know of other people and children who are suffering with the same problem and worse.

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 we have seen the effects of wireless radiation through headaches, cancer, decrease in focusing abilities, and many other health related issues. 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: A dear elderly friend of mine killed herself last November after months of living with nearly constant radio-chatterfrom a nearby microwave tower, no matter what she tried, including a Faraday Cage, which helped incompletely. She was clear-headed, not mentally ill. She had lived through a lot, including metastatic breast cancer 20 years before, but this did her in. 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'm without energy, I'm so tired that my level of activity is very limited, I have chronic insomnia, my wounds take months to heal if at all. My mind is foggy and I can't concentrate. My vision has gotten worse very quickly. 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: There are many reasons that I know that RF is harmful; my own personal experience from when I have the opportunity to stay with friends that live very far from congested areas. Ear ringing goes away and headaches are less. They, the headaches and ear ringing, come back as soon as I return home to Yardley boro. Also, I’m an acupuncturist and I have many patients that tell me similar stories about decreased symptoms when they leave the area. Some patients are much more sensitive than others and some of them have moved to less congested areas specifically to get away from the cell towers. To be honest and frank; it’s really disgusting because the FCC has been getting complaints about this for quite a long time and the complaints have only increased IMO because they allow stronger RF to be emitted. And why? Because ask anybody if there reception or speed of their phone or internet connection has gotten any better and according to my experience The reception has not gotten any better. Yet the FCC in its own infinite ignorance has decided that it can allow the placement of these ugly cell towers all over the place and then try to make them look acceptable by disguising them as trees. You are destroying the health causing suffering and other debilitating and possibly deadly diseases. STOP NOW.

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 have seen the video of bees dying close to a 5G tower, and the video and story of the island of birds where the birds died off because of the proximity of cell towers. I am concerned about the birds and bees that are fundamental for our ecosystems. I suspect that the presence of 5G cell towers is affecting all the nature and wildlife in a detrimental way. This was revealed to me by a possible manifestation of God. The radio frequencies are infiltrating everywhere, into every biological body in range. They are detrimental and we need to really study the health effects in a scientific manner.

I am very sensitive to EMF radiation. I cannot be near cell phone towers, smart meters, flat screen televisions, routers, or a room full of cell phones. I believe I am the canary in the coal mine--perhaps I'm the lucky one. My headaches, chills, and discomfort around these devices doesn't mean I'm unusual, but give me a chance to try to avoid EMF radiation. All living things are effected by EMF radiation whether they are sensitive enough to consciously feel it or not. Our children have no say about EMF radiation in their schools, playgrounds, rec centers or homes. Many of them carry cell phones. The FCC appears to be captured by the wireless providers using very outdated standards to evaluate our safety. Please reevaluate this hazard. Thank-you.

Radiation has gotten out of hand. I work in the public schools as a RN. Is the FCC at all concerned about what happening to our children? Shame on you for not seeing this gross injustice to our children. Obesity, ADHD, seizures, Diabetes, just to name a few.