Pregnancy & reproduction

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies Docket No. 13-84 COMMENTS OF Shirley Jackson Dated: October 22, 2026 Our youth are our future. FACT: By definition of the huge increase in EMF infrastructure during the Covid slow-down years, the exposure levels of children and pregnant mothers have skyrocketed especially since the EMF infrastructure deployment during the Covid shutdown years. FACT: the FCC has NOT completed its task to review the science pertinent to considering a change in Human Exposure Levels. On August 13, 2021, the federal district court ruled that the FCC had been arbitrary and capricious, i.e., did NOT do its job reviewing the huge number of public comments provided to them! As confirmed by email to FCC from then Environmental Health Trust's executive director Theodora Scaratto, there were no scheduled meetings calling for any of your "working groups" to properly analysis the science for indicators that a change in human exposure levels was warranted, no risk analysis. Why does this resistance to transparency and accountability go on and on; you wait 5 years (until after a major push-out of EMF infrastructure) to then say, "Oh we don't need any better regulatory guard rails or changes in human exposure limits." That makes about ten years of stalling so that corporations do not have to be accountable for a safe roll out. I love technology! I was a research project manager for the School District of Palm Beach County and I created a game-changing database that allowed us to detect when risk factors were showing up in a student's life. We designed programs for "Safe Schools" based on an astute reality of "what was happening." Decades ago, research was proposed linking various EMF exposures to people's ability to work or learn or to reproduce children. Back then the task of collecting data (time and specific device usage information) and then anonmously relating it to nationally detrimental risk factors (frequently now collected learning levels, work productivity, patterns of health challenges/absences, addiction rates/buying habits, car accidents, etc) was discounted as feasible. NOW, isn't that type of thing wireless companies do routinely? IT IS TIME THAT THE FCC STEP UP - to realizing that it CAN provide economic incentives and fair and equal access by realizing that there are sub-populations that SHOULD NOT be exposed to the current guidance. CONCLUSION Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to establish an expert working group – scientists and public health personnel to apply the priorities of citizen safety, to review the scientific evidence from the numerous studies conducted on this EMF human exposure topic and find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. Change the basic premise that you cannot expect these exposures to be safe when they are based on only ONE device, instead of real-world usage…at least 25 devices, one per student in a single room. The exposure limits should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission. Sincerely, Shirley Jackson Attached Study https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1915745/full

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to you. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. I am aware that in 2021 (and in 2026 when the Court gave the FCC 30 days to explain why they took no action on their 2021 order), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision to retain its 1996 radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines was arbitrary and capricious because the FCC failed to consider a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating serious biological harm. Over the years, there has been a growing body of scientific research raising concerns about non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation effects on human health and the environment. From what I understand, the only studies the FCC has relied on for its guidelines were those done in the1980's, which focused on the behavioral effects of animals who were exposed to heat from microwave radiation (short term study), and not on cell, DNA, etc. effects of humans/animals who were exposed to RF radiation (long-term study needed). The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its RF exposure guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of such exposure (RF radiation unrelated to cancer). My opinion on this is that since 1996 there have been massive increases in the levels of radiation exposure in the environment due to advances in the technology, and, therefore, it is incomprehensible that the 1996 radiation exposure guidelines would have any relevance in 2026. For this reason, I also believe that the FCC never should have adopted, in 7/2026, changes allowing certain mobile and portable wireless devices to transmit at a fourfold increase in power levels, without assessing the potential implications for human exposure; Specifically, the court directed the FCC to address: (1) the impacts of RF radiation on children; (2) the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation; (3) the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996; (4) the impacts of RF radiation on the environment; and (5) the adequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices. I strongly believe that in responding to the 2021 court order, the FCC should work with HHS Secretary RFK Jr. (who has expressed great interest in addressing this issue) and let his health agency take 100% of the lead in addressing each of the issues identified by the Court. HHS has the expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, for which the FCC does not (its expertise is primarily in regulating communications, communications technology, and spectrum management). Also, given HHS's expertise, and the fact that it doesn't regulate the telecommunications industry, I believe that public trust in its studies/conclusions, its responses to the Court, and its implementation of protective measures, will be greatly enhanced. I believe the following should be done, which will also encompass the issues identified by the court: (1) study the human health and environmental effects (animals, plants, etc. - court ordered this to be done) of electromagnetic radiation from all sources, such as cell phones, 5G and 6G networks, wifi routers, wifi infrastructure (cell towers, small cells, etc.) smart meters, wearable devices, wireless medical equipment, satellites, etc.; (2) review published independent, non-conflict of interest scientific studies. A compilation by researcher Henry Lai, Ph.D. includes more than 3,000 peer-reviewed studies published since 1990 that reported significant adverse effects from EMF exposure; (3) do not review any studies prepared or funded by the conflict of interest telecommunication industry unless their studies have been replicated by independent non-conflict of interest studies; (4) if the current published studies are insufficient (gaps in research) in any areas, such as real-world exposure levels, long-term consequences (court ordered this to be done – L-T exposures), and cumulative exposure, appropriate federal research priorities should be established (new studies- short term or long-term, as required). And the studies that are done should be transparent so that independent, non-conflict of interest scientists can replicate them; (5) with regard to the impacts on human health, pay particular attention to children (court order required this), but also to other vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, workers, people with implanted devices, etc.; (6) listen to the people who have become very ill from electromagnetic radiation and study them because their experiences provide important insights into potential areas of scientific investigation. Symptoms include headaches, nausea, dizziness, brain fog, anxiety, heart palpitations, insomnia, and tinnitus, and more serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardiac irregularities, neurological conditions/issues, and infertility. In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, lawyers represented residents who reported serious health effects directly following the installation and activation of a cell tower in their neighborhood; (7) listen to parents who have reported their concerns about the growing presence of wireless devices and screen-based technology in schools; (8) 330 of the studies reviewed by Henrry Lai, Ph.D listed oxidative stress and free radicals as adverse effects from electromagnetic radiation, which we know are precursors to cancer. So even though the Court did not require this information, long-term studies should be done to identify cancer issues; (9) After all the studying, investigating, analysis, etc. has been done and the results are in as to the human health and environmental (animal, plants, etc.) impacts of electromagnetic radiation, and the necessary protections to our citizenry and our environment have been proposed: (a) update the exposure guidelines and prepare any other protections that are necessary. In this vein, also answer the Court order on the ubiquity of wireless radiation and technology development since the last Guidelines update in 1996; (b) update the RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other wireless devices as the Court ordered. In updating, use adults, children, etc. and not a plastic head since it doesn't model real human tissue. Do long-term studies to measure non-thermal biological effects as well as thermal effects; (c) HHS and FFC should review all the completed data together, give meaningful consideration of the experiences and evidences before it, prepare an answer to the 2021 court order; and swiftly implement the protections to public health and the environment; (10) until all the above steps are completed, there should be a moratorium on any expansion of electromagnetic radiation technologies in our communities. I do not have a story of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation on myself, and no one I know has expressed any of these issues. However, in the last 5 years, I have listened to, and read articles by, independent non-conflict of interest scientists that say that my body (cells, DNA, etc) may be continuously affected without my awareness and eventually lead to a symptom or illness (long-term exposure). One study that speaks about this is https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). Therefore, based on the above, I am very concerned about the health and environmental impacts from the following: (1) cell towers going up at an accelerated pace, many in areas that already have sufficient broadband access, such as my community. A nearby church has a cell tower and that concerns me; (2) the smart meter on the side of my garage; (3) the increases from 5G to 6G and further, which will increase the electromagnetic radiation we are subject to; (4) the small cell towers that they will need to put on properties every 700 or so ft. in order to accommodate the 5G or up cell phones; (5) my wifi router, which sits right next to my desktop computer; and (6) my smart appliances. Thanks Janice

I am a concerned Indigenous American, Creek Nation, and a Board Director of the Community and Friends of Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. I submit these comments as an individual, not on behalf of the organization. I am a community member and advocate who is directly affected by a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower sited in a historic human and pet cemetery, and I write from firsthand experience. I have followed the permitting and legal record closely. The situation. The historic Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery est. 1950 on Kent's West Hill is located in unincorporated South King County, Kent, Washington, in a community of color, immigrants, refugees, and low-income households. Humans, pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, some as whole families. Many cultural traditions exist here. In Indigenous cultures and spiritual traditions, animals are regarded as equally important as humans, deserving of the same dignity, honor, and respect in life and death. I hold that humans and animals call for the same and equal respect in life and death. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Crown Castle installed a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower inside active Burial Block 13 with graves and mourners and 115 feet from neighboring homes in opposition to cemetery patrons, neighbors, and community members at large. It was installed in the wrong zone without a conditional use permit, in violation of King County Code and Washington State cemetery law. Additionally, Crown Castle did not disclose the human burials or the cemetery's historic significance on its permit application, and the project was pushed through the King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review without addressing them. I have opposed its placement and operation since 2019. Why this matters to the issues before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is open to public comments for Cell Phone and Wireless Radio Frequency Radiation (RF) Health Effects and other Non-ionizing Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF). I am talking about RF in this comment because that is the issue in the situation. The FCC's standards are the primary protection communities have against radio frequency radiation (RF) exposure. Under federal law, local governments generally cannot deny a cell tower based on RF health effects when it meets FCC limits. However, it is my understanding that communities can raise health concerns alongside other legitimate issues, such as zoning, permitting requirements, human remains, historic significance, etc. Our cemetery case involves all of these concerns. We should have the right to raise RF health concerns independently, without having to rely on other grounds for objection. If the FCC's standards are outdated, communities have limited recourse to protect residents, mourners, and their loved ones from potential RF exposure risks. Changes since 1996. The limits predate smartphones, small cells, etc., and constant connectivity. Towers now stand close to where people live and grieve, and people spend long periods near them. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether 1996 limits account for the ways that cell phones, cell towers, and the like are used and installed today including but not limited to chronic, daily, close-range RF exposure. Children and vulnerable people. Children live in the homes near this tower and visit the cemetery with their families. The record includes research showing children absorb more RF energy than adults (e.g., Fernández et al., 2018, Environmental Research). I ask the Commission to address children, pregnancy, and medically vulnerable people specifically. Long-term and non-cancer effects. The Commission should examine long-term, low-level exposure and non-cancer effects, including neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects, oxidative stress, and DNA damage, rather than relying on short-term heating thresholds. Animals and the environment. Pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, and wildlife lives on the grounds. The FCC has no wildlife-specific exposure limits. I ask the Commission to consider the research on effects on animals, insects, birds, and plants (e.g., Levitt, Lai & Manville, 2022, Reviews on Environmental Health, Parts 1–3). Testing and compliance. I ask the Commission to require independent, post-installation RF testing with public results that are easily accessible, so communities can verify compliance themselves at any time. There should be no barriers here. Why this is also a sacred space issue. Cemeteries are sacred regardless of a visitor's religion, meant to offer peace and tranquility, and dedicated in perpetuity to honor, remembrance, and love. A 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower this close to graves and mourners intrudes on that purpose and raises serious concerns about exposure and potential harm to people and animals. My requests: • Update RF exposure limits based on a comprehensive review of current science, including but not limited to long-term, cumulative, and non-thermal effects, with specific protections for children, pregnancy, and vulnerable people. • Establish wildlife and environmental exposure standards, make them publicly accessible, and enforce them. • Modernize compliance testing and require public, independent post-installation testing. • Require easily accessible public records of tower locations, measurements, compliance, and complaints. • Adopt protective siting policies for sensitive places such as homes, schools, and cemeteries, and require disclosure of burial grounds and historic sites when towers are proposed. • Provide free advocates for the public to use to educate and support them in fighting for RF safety when necessary. • Stop giving away local control in cell tower permitting. Allow local jurisdiction and the public to decide if a cell tower siting plan is legal and appropriate and disallow it when necessary. • Support the retraction of permits when a cell tower or antennae modification application provides false information or omits information that is required for a complete application for consideration. I am not against cell towers. I support responsible telecommunications infrastructure and advocate for the safe, lawful, legal, ethical, and appropriate placement of cell towers. Not here. Not in an active, historic cemetery. Not among our beloved dead and those who come to mourn them. Thank you.

I am the Board Secretary of the nonprofit, Community and Friends of Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. I submit these comments as an individual, not on behalf of the organization. I am a community member and advocate who is directly affected by a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower sited in a historic human and pet cemetery, and I write from firsthand experience. I have followed the permitting and legal record closely. The situation. The historic Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery est. 1950 on Kent's West Hill is located in unincorporated South King County, Kent, Washington, in a community of color, immigrants, refugees, and low-income households. Humans, pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, some as whole families. Many cultural traditions exist here. In Indigenous cultures and spiritual traditions, animals are regarded as equally important as humans, deserving of the same dignity, honor, and respect in life and death. I hold that humans and animals call for the same and equal respect in life and death. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Crown Castle installed a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower inside active Burial Block 13 with graves and mourners and 115 feet from neighboring homes in opposition to cemetery patrons, neighbors, and community members at large. It was installed in the wrong zone without a conditional use permit, in violation of King County Code and Washington State cemetery law. Additionally, Crown Castle did not disclose the human burials or the cemetery's historic significance on its permit application, and the project was pushed through the King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review without addressing them. I have opposed its placement and operation since 2019. Why this matters to the issues before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is open to public comments for Cell Phone and Wireless Radio Frequency Radiation (RF) Health Effects and other Non-ionizing Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF). I am talking about RF in this comment because that is the issue in the situation. The FCC's standards are the primary protection communities have against radio frequency radiation (RF) exposure. Under federal law, local governments generally cannot deny a cell tower based on RF health effects when it meets FCC limits. However, it is my understanding that communities can raise health concerns alongside other legitimate issues, such as zoning, permitting requirements, human remains, historic significance, etc. Our cemetery case involves all of these concerns. We should have the right to raise RF health concerns independently, without having to rely on other grounds for objection. If the FCC's standards are outdated, communities have limited recourse to protect residents, mourners, and their loved ones from potential RF exposure risks. Changes since 1996. The limits predate smartphones, small cells, etc., and constant connectivity. Towers now stand close to where people live and grieve, and people spend long periods near them. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether 1996 limits account for the ways that cell phones, cell towers, and the like are used and installed today including but not limited to chronic, daily, close-range RF exposure. Children and vulnerable people. Children live in the homes near this tower and visit the cemetery with their families. The record includes research showing children absorb more RF energy than adults (e.g., Fernández et al., 2018, Environmental Research). I ask the Commission to address children, pregnancy, and medically vulnerable people specifically. Additionally on the topic of children, as a public schools educator, board certified in special education, and again submitting this comment as an individual, I am against cell phone towers on near schools because they raise valid safety concerns for children and the staff that work with them. Research notes that children absorb more radio-frequency radiation due to their developing bodies which exposes them to long-term health problems such as cancer and neurological symptoms. (https://ehsciences.org/addressing-cell-towers-at-schools-science-based-policy-health-risks/) Long-term and non-cancer effects. The Commission should examine long-term, low-level exposure and non-cancer effects, including neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects, oxidative stress, and DNA damage, rather than relying on short-term heating thresholds. Animals and the environment. Pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, and wildlife lives on the grounds. The FCC has no wildlife-specific exposure limits. I ask the Commission to consider the research on effects on animals, insects, birds, and plants (e.g., Levitt, Lai & Manville, 2022, Reviews on Environmental Health, Parts 1–3). Testing and compliance. I ask the Commission to require independent, post-installation RF testing with public results that are easily accessible, so communities can verify compliance themselves at any time. There should be no barriers here. Why this is also a sacred space issue. Cemeteries are sacred regardless of a visitor's religion, meant to offer peace and tranquility, and dedicated in perpetuity to honor, remembrance, and love. A 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower this close to graves and mourners intrudes on that purpose and raises serious concerns about exposure and potential harm to people and animals. My requests: • Update RF exposure limits based on a comprehensive review of current science, including but not limited to long-term, cumulative, and non-thermal effects, with specific protections for children, pregnancy, and vulnerable people. • Establish wildlife and environmental exposure standards, make them publicly accessible, and enforce them. • Modernize compliance testing and require public, independent post-installation testing. • Require easily accessible public records of tower locations, measurements, compliance, and complaints. • Adopt protective siting policies for sensitive places such as homes, schools, and cemeteries, and require disclosure of burial grounds and historic sites when towers are proposed. • Provide free advocates for the public to use to educate and support them in fighting for RF safety when necessary. • Stop giving away local control in cell tower permitting. Allow local jurisdiction and the public to decide if a cell tower siting plan is legal and appropriate and disallow it when necessary. • Support the retraction of permits when a cell tower or antennae modification application provides false information or omits information that is required for a complete application for consideration. I am not against cell towers. I support responsible telecommunications infrastructure and advocate for the safe, lawful, legal, ethical, and appropriate placement of cell towers. Not here. Not in an active, historic cemetery. Not among our beloved dead and those who come to mourn them. Thank you.

I am the Board President of the nonprofit, Community and Friends of Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. I submit these comments as an individual, not on behalf of the organization. I am a community member and advocate who is directly affected by a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower sited in a historic human and pet cemetery, and I write from firsthand experience. I have followed the permitting and legal record closely. The situation. The historic Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery est. 1950 on Kent's West Hill is located in unincorporated South King County, Kent, Washington, in a community of color, immigrants, refugees, and low-income households. Humans, pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, some as whole families. Many cultural traditions exist here. In Indigenous cultures and spiritual traditions, animals are regarded as equally important as humans, deserving of the same dignity, honor, and respect in life and death. I hold that humans and animals call for the same and equal respect in life and death. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Crown Castle installed a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower inside active Burial Block 13 with graves and mourners and 115 feet from neighboring homes in opposition to cemetery patrons, neighbors, and community members at large. It was installed in the wrong zone without a conditional use permit, in violation of King County Code and Washington State cemetery law. Additionally, Crown Castle did not disclose the human burials or the cemetery's historic significance on its permit application, and the project was pushed through the King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review without addressing them. I have opposed its placement and operation since 2019. Why this matters to the issues before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is open to public comments for Cell Phone and Wireless Radio Frequency Radiation (RF) Health Effects and other Non-ionizing Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF). I am talking about RF in this comment because that is the issue in the situation. The FCC's standards are the primary protection communities have against radio frequency radiation (RF) exposure. Under federal law, local governments generally cannot deny a cell tower based on RF health effects when it meets FCC limits. However, it is my understanding that communities can raise health concerns alongside other legitimate issues, such as zoning, permitting requirements, human remains, historic significance, etc. Our cemetery case involves all of these concerns. We should have the right to raise RF health concerns independently, without having to rely on other grounds for objection. If the FCC's standards are outdated, communities have limited recourse to protect residents, mourners, and their loved ones from potential RF exposure risks. Changes since 1996. The limits predate smartphones, small cells, etc., and constant connectivity. Towers now stand close to where people live and grieve, and people spend long periods near them. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether 1996 limits account for the ways that cell phones, cell towers, and the like are used and installed today including but not limited to chronic, daily, close-range RF exposure. Children and vulnerable people. Children live in the homes near this tower and visit the cemetery with their families. The record includes research showing children absorb more RF energy than adults (e.g., Fernández et al., 2018, Environmental Research). I ask the Commission to address children, pregnancy, and medically vulnerable people specifically. Long-term and non-cancer effects. The Commission should examine long-term, low-level exposure and non-cancer effects, including neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects, oxidative stress, and DNA damage, rather than relying on short-term heating thresholds. Animals and the environment. Pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, and wildlife lives on the grounds. The FCC has no wildlife-specific exposure limits. I ask the Commission to consider the research on effects on animals, insects, birds, and plants (e.g., Levitt, Lai & Manville, 2022, Reviews on Environmental Health, Parts 1–3). Testing and compliance. I ask the Commission to require independent, post-installation RF testing with public results that are easily accessible, so communities can verify compliance themselves at any time. There should be no barriers here. Why this is also a sacred space issue. Cemeteries are sacred regardless of a visitor's religion, meant to offer peace and tranquility, and dedicated in perpetuity to honor, remembrance, and love. A 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower this close to graves and mourners intrudes on that purpose and raises serious concerns about exposure and potential harm to people and animals. My requests: • Update RF exposure limits based on a comprehensive review of current science, including but not limited to long-term, cumulative, and non-thermal effects, with specific protections for children, pregnancy, and vulnerable people. • Establish wildlife and environmental exposure standards, make them publicly accessible, and enforce them. • Modernize compliance testing and require public, independent post-installation testing. • Require easily accessible public records of tower locations, measurements, compliance, and complaints. • Adopt protective siting policies for sensitive places such as homes, schools, and cemeteries, and require disclosure of burial grounds and historic sites when towers are proposed. • Provide free advocates for the public to use to educate and support them in fighting for RF safety when necessary. • Stop giving away local control in cell tower permitting. Allow local jurisdiction and the public to decide if a cell tower siting plan is legal and appropriate and disallow it when necessary. • Support the retraction of permits when a cell tower or antennae modification application provides false information or omits information that is required for a complete application for consideration. I am not against cell towers. I support responsible telecommunications infrastructure and advocate for the safe, lawful, legal, ethical, and appropriate placement of cell towers. Not here. Not in an active, historic cemetery. Not among our beloved dead and those who come to mourn them. Thank you.

I'm suffering from the emr-syndrome (electrohypersensitivity since 2020. When exposed to man-made electromagnetic fields, I experience the following problems: headaches, extreme fatigue, a sensation of being "electrified," cognitive difficulties, speech impairments—sometimes progressing to total aphasia—short-term memory issues, tremors and spasms, and tachycardia (at times so intense that it feels like a heart attack). I also suffer from joint and mobility issues, such as complete stiffness in my legs—to the point where I am almost unable to move—after a car journey or after remaining still in an environment where electromagnetic fields are present. Other symptoms include an urgent need to urinate every 15 minutes, immune system issues, sharp, highly painful stabbing sensations in various parts of my body, and muscle pain, feelings of nervousness, anxiety, and depression—with no apparent reason. When I am in a place free from electromagnetic waves, I feel perfectly well and all my symptoms disappear. I know a great number of persons who suffer from the same symptoms. I am in touch with patient organizations all over the world, and we can see that the phenomenon is the same everywhere. Even people who do not identify as having EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) exhibit symptoms such as fatigue, insomnia, feelings of nervousness, anxiety, and depression. We can also observe that the number of children suffering from ADHD has increased at an alarming rate—as has the number of cancer cases, particularly among children, a increasing number of persons suffering from fibromyalgia, Alzheimer etc. Despite more than 50 international appeals from the independent scientific and medical community, our governments continue to push for ever-increasing wireless technology—a trend that is affecting a growing number of people. It is urgent to take measures to protect the entire population, especially the most vulnerable: those suffering from electrohypersensitivity, children, pregnant women, and the ill. The number of people with electrohypersensitivity who have died in recent years is alarming. Our lives are truly at risk; the symptoms are a form of torture, and we face a significantly higher risk of serious illnesses, including cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and immune-system disorders. There are almost no places left where we can still find refuge. The situation has become untenable for us.

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.

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, ADD/ADHD, seizures, cancer, infertility and more! It's been 30 years in the making but we now have an unprecedented short window with both the Federal Communications Commission AND Health and Human Services to build the public record and document the fallout. Regulations for the wireless radiation industry MUST be established for us and for our future generations for healthy safety and the protection of the planet. Stop the excessive diseases and conditions from the radiation. I am also being charged an extra unauthorized fee of $12.00 from NJ PSE&G energy company because I refuse to install a SmartMeter. SmartMeters release radiation that causes cancer and I have cancer. I offered to read or phone in the monthly meter readings but PSE&G refuses to remove the extra charge. They argue that they must send in a person to my district to remotely read my meter and they must spend gas money. They could send in an electric vehicle to save gas or a hybrid. There is no reason to charge me an extra $12.00 per month since I do not want a SmartMeter installed in my home. Please help me in this situation. Thank you.

My first experience with EMFs was in the year 2000 when I purchased my first cell phone it was a 2g/3g. The adverse effects I began experiencing was trouble sleeping and headaches. So, I decided to remove the cell phone from my bedroom and the problems with sleeping and waking up with headaches stopped. As an IT professional, I asked the question why and started doing some research. Distance is key to reducing exposure and learning simple convenience changes. I began studying and researching the biological effects that man-made EMF exposures have on humans and other living organisms for years. My studies and research with health care professionals, scientists, researchers, journalists , EMF Mitigation professionals and Building biologists. We are bioelectrical systems and environmental exposure to artificial EMFs interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body and all life on this planet for example the BEEs. My next major challenge was in 2011, I could no longer work in electronic environments, because of my sensitivity to all of the electro-pollution that has now filled our environments. I cannot take airplane trips, be in large crowds, and going into to town is overwhelming on my nervous system. I live in Rural area in Nature where this is little exposure to the EMF toxins. I can feel the difference when I am in a Natural harmonic environment vs the city full of electro-pollution. I am living with Electro-hypersensitivity. When I am overwhelmed, it takes days for me to recover. I have experienced the following symptoms: Trouble Sleeping Headaches and migraines difficulty concentrating dizziness irritability Heart palpitations, irregular heartbeats, fast heartrate fatigue weakness depression ringing in the ears the phone when it rings sends a painful shock through my body I now help people with EMF mitigation support, education as to source awareness, safer products, potential Health and well-being consequences, EMF mitigations and simple things they can do to reduce their health and well-being exposure. We have to consider EMFs as just one of the many possible factors in the Rising wave of chronic illness. I also provided data to this website as Citizens Scientists: https://globalemf.net/ Sources: Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27012122/ Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3780531/ Blank, M. (2014). "Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other WiFi-Age Devices." Seven Stories Press. Bijlsma N, Conduit R, Kennedy G, Cohen M. (2024). "Does radiofrequency radiation impact sleep? A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study." Frontiers in Public Health, 12. Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12179773/ Impact of electromagnetic radiation on human reproduction health: Causes, consequences, and potential therapeutic approaches https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850725007228 LIVING WITH ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY A Survival Guide http://www.weepinitiative.org/livingwithehs.html Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields cause DNA strand breaks in normal cells https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3897901/ Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7642138/ Neurophysiologic effects of radiofrequency and microwave radiation. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1807758/ Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies https://www.healthandenvironment.org/latest-research/blog/health-hazards-of-wireless-technologies Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/w/2010/wireless-tech-health-outcomes.ashx?la=fr Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355 “Dr Martin L. Pall MD, MSc, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, he points out that there are eight distinct and primary ways that man-made EMFs can cause harm, which he outlined in 5G Risk: The Scientific Perspective – Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them."

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, infertility and more! As a longtime commercial FCC licensee, I want you to know that this has got to change ASAP. For too many years, we who work in broadcast radio have been treated as unstudied guinea pigs, with our heightened unprotected exposure to man-made electromagnetic radiation. Today, the FCC is treating almost the entire population of the settled world as unstudied guinea pigs. The Federal Communications Commission already exercises regulatory power over most players in the broadcast and communications environment. It has chosen to use that power in a limited and biased way. Let's talk about changing that or at least improving it.