Court remand & agency accountability

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

The Telecommunucations Act paralleled The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) signed into United States federal law signed into law on August 21, 1996, the FCC may be liable for data trafficking—especially given high-end corporate and small business users which are coerced into private electronic health records, of little import to the original substance to their electronic data securities, transfers! Also see HIGHTEC ACT, 2009. As well, since frequency ranges of small digital devices parallel DEW-frequency ranges, there is a seemingly deliberate phishing for terorrists. FCC could also experience blowback, for lackadaisical bandwidth wars. Scrutinize your DOD criminal codes, if FCC enmeshes mass with corporate markets. Finally, Public Health Emergencies of International Concern appears to underwrite model laws for universal model laws such as, for example, Arizona Title 36-543, Annual review of a patient with a grave (literally?), or persistent (shouldn’t the purported medication mitigate whatever target), or acute (-ly dehydrated! and shouldn’t UPC have already mitigated this level of concern?) disability.. notice.. court-order for continued treatment (inevitable?) ..rules (legal fiction does NOT apply to living beings)   ..immunity (from liability for iatrogenic cause of death) displays anticipatory rhetoric, reiterates a constructive and lucrative, fraud which gives rise to unlawful conversion of living beings to chattel for enslavement by willful international cohorts.

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

AI ENTRAPMENT / CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY / HABEAS CORPUS The myth that poison cures is as big and global as is the belief in Saint-A-Clause. Currently(!) trending is both, the FCC and HHS soliciting comments for impacts of electromagnetic frequencies, which I may copy/paste from herein: FIRST, this disclosure is part of an affidavit to give notice, prosecute whom have unlawfully breached their service contracts, whom terrorize innocent civilians! by usurping authority where it is unnecessary, useless. Would it not be for the high voltage power lines (Silicon Valley Reports EMFs next to /Impacts, 49’ers, October 4, 2026, https://substack.com/@peteranthonycowan/note/p-218733240?r=18kt0y&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action; January 19, 2026, https://peteranthonycowan.substack.com/p/when-levis-stadium-opened-the-substation?r=18kt0y&utm_medium=ios) attached to our place of residence within only two - five (varying per intermittent re-arrangements) feet from where my daughter, Amina Shahdah Bennekaa rested her head, from approximately 2013-2025, children’s biology being more absorptive https://neilcherry.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/90_e1_EMR-ELF_health_effects_09-02.pdf , she may not, today, be enslaved to useless court-ordered (EUA covered counter-) measures, forced (“like-Covid” [? my suspicion] waxed, administering MD), monthly injections of an anti-psychotic soup (despite, having the side effect warnings of epileptic seizures, death)—a death sentence—an extremely disproportionate punishment for a misdemeanor, which has subsequently been dismissed. “BUT,” rallied Dr. Kendal L. Smith, “those (side effects) only occur with sick people; you are healthy”, to further assuage the already draconian coercion (from prior stakeholding cohortZ!) toward their end-game: Amina’s “compliance” with something that does not benefit her—and, OH? REALLY? if Amina is healthy, WHY? a deadly prescription? NO MATTER how thick/thin is the money trail from brokers of life force annuitieZ!, to other fraudulent securitieZ! derived in trafficking personal health data—or any other morbidity markerZ!: puny social scoreZ! for impersonating and rendering incompetent services, legal, medical, or otherwiseZ!e. THAAT said was not to obfuscate how the incestuous relationship between the pHARM-A-SUIT-TO-KILL industry and medical infrastructure is a VERITABLE AND VERIFIABLE MURDER MACHINE—and NOT centralized, anymore. TODAY “community”(industry-stakeholderZ!) promote pin-up survivorZ!, their toxic regimeZ!, to serve on their special health district “boredZ!”as eminent domain to de-population agendaZ! We have incumbent upon us to attend an “open meeting”; bring stun gun, cuffs and serve them notice of their war crimes. Your hubris ends here, now. Dissolve the central banks, your certificateZ! QUASH! July 2, 2026 Maricopa County Behaviour Health Court order by Judge Geoffrey Fish for Anti-Psychotic medication—and VOID any other bindings against Amina Shahadah Bennekaa—or stand liable for remedies of crimes against humanity. Thus, after four weeks’ observation failed to evidence Amina’s danger to herself, or to else—and OMITTED any note regarding Amina’s NON substance dependent status—Maricopa County Judge Geoffrey Fish’s July 2, 2026 baseless Court Order and UPC, 602-246-7600; Valleywise Maryvale, 480-344-2000; and Valle del Sol’s, 602-258-6796, medical fraud, and unconscionable coercion to any other binding contracts upon Amina S. Bennekaa, dob, May 9, 2002, must be DISSOLVED /QUASHED / VOIDED—or stand liable to remedies for crimes against humanity. Thus, after four weeks’ observation failed to evidence Amina’s danger to herself, or to else—and OMITTED any note regarding Amina’s NON substance dependent status—Maricopa County Judge Geoffrey Fish’s July 2, 2026 baseless Court Order and UPC, 602-246-7600; Valleywise Maryvale, 480-344-2000; and Valle del Sol’s, 602-258-6796, medical fraud, and unconscionable coercion to any other binding contracts upon Amina S. Bennekaa, dob, May 9, 2002, must be DISSOLVED /QUASHED / VOIDED—or stand liable to remedies for crimes against humanity. Thus, after four weeks’ observation failed to evidence Amina’s danger to herself, or to else—and OMITTED any note regarding Amina’s NON substance dependent status—Maricopa County Judge Geoffrey Fish’s July 2, 2026 baseless Court Order and UPC, 602-246-7600; Valleywise Maryvale, 480-344-2000; and Valle del Sol’s, 602-258-6796, medical fraud, and unconscionable coercion to any other binding contracts upon Amina S. Bennekaa, dob, May 9, 2002, must be DISSOLVED /QUASHED / VOIDED—or stand liable to remedies for crimes against humanity.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS): Research, Disability Accommodation, and Public Health Concerns Submitted by Sheena Symington, B.Sc., MA, sheena@electrosensitivesociety.com Director, Electrosensitive Society Inc. www.electrosensitivesociety.com Background and Experience My name is Sheena Symington, and I am the Director of the Electrosensitive Society. For more than 20 years, I have studied the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) while supporting individuals affected by electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), also referred to as electromagnetic injury. My work includes educating the public about electromagnetic hygiene, providing individual support, and advocating for accommodations that allow people with EHS to access safe housing, workplaces, schools, medical facilities, hospitals, and public spaces. I have worked with more than 14 hospitals to reduce and contain electromagnetic exposure so that patients with EHS can access medical care. Containing wireless radiation within designated areas is an important accommodation, comparable to managing other forms of environmental pollution. https://www.electrosensitivesociety.com/how-hospitals-can-accommodate-patients-who-have-ehs/ A growing number of physicians are diagnosing this environmentally induced disability, while specialists in EMF and RFR remediation are helping affected individuals reduce their exposure. EHS as a Disability and Barriers to Accommodation EHS can be debilitating, isolating, and life-altering. Symptoms vary considerably, ranging from mild discomfort to severe impairment that prevents individuals from working or participating in everyday activities. For some, electromagnetic exposure affects cardiovascular and neurological function, including the heart and brain. Symptoms may improve substantially or resolve when exposure is eliminated. The widespread use of wireless technologies, including cell phones, Wi-Fi, and cellular antennas, makes it increasingly difficult for affected individuals to access medical care, maintain employment, or secure suitable housing. Access to affordable housing with low electromagnetic exposure is particularly urgent. Such environments are becoming increasingly difficult to find in both urban and rural areas. Some individuals have been displaced or become homeless because they cannot find housing that accommodates their environmental sensitivities. In Canada, individuals with environmentally induced disabilities have applied for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) because of their inability to secure suitable living environments. This underscores the importance of developing affordable, low-exposure housing for people with environmental sensitivities. Progress in Medical Education, Accessibility, and Legal Recognition Several developments demonstrate growing attention to EHS and the need for appropriate accommodations. Information for Doctors on how to prevent electromagnetic injury: https://www.electrosensitivesociety.com/information-for-health-care-professionals/ Medical education: Two EMF medical conferences offering Continuing Medical Education (CME) accreditation were held in California in 2019 and online in January 2021. The latter remains available to physicians. EMF Medical Conference 2021 National Council on Disability: In May 2022, I was invited to present to the U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) on accommodating individuals with EHS in hospital settings. Electrosensitive Society – NCD Presentation, May 12, 2022 Legal recognition and accommodation: In June and August 2022, Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHiRE), based in the United Kingdom, reported successful legal action securing full accommodation for EHS in a public school. PHiRE also reported that a woman received Early Ill-health Retirement and Employment Support Allowance on the basis of EHS. PHiRE – News   Reducing Electromagnetic Exposure Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with wireless technologies have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 2B: Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans, a category that also includes lead and DDT. We should consider examples from European schools and hospitals that have reduced or removed Wi-Fi to limit unnecessary exposure. Relevant examples include: • Cyprus Hospital Removes Wi-Fi to Protect Children • Schools Worldwide Removing Wi-Fi and Reducing Exposure Practical measures to reduce exposure and accommodate individuals with EHS include: • Locating cellular towers away from residential areas, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations. • Establishing areas free from cellular towers and unnecessary wireless transmissions. • Turning off wireless devices wherever possible. • Replacing Wi-Fi with shielded Ethernet cabling and fibre-optic connections without wireless components. • Providing wired internet access in homes, workplaces, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities. These measures would help create accessible environments while maintaining high-quality internet connectivity. Additional guidance on electromagnetic hygiene and accommodations is available through the Electrosensitive Society. Research on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Exposure Through our work at The ROSE Lab (www.theroselab.com), we investigate and document biological responses to electromagnetic fields and radiation. EHS is frequently interpreted as a psychological rather than physiological condition. Our research examines measurable biological responses that may help distinguish these explanations. Studies conducted by our research group including double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations, have reported the following findings:   1. Cardiovascular and autonomic nervous system responses Some individuals exposed to RFR experience tachycardia (rapid heart rate), increased sympathetic nervous system activity, and reduced parasympathetic activity. These responses have been documented during controlled exposure studies. 2. Blood glucose regulation Dr. Magda Havas has documented changes in blood glucose among individuals with diabetes and EHS. Blood glucose increased during RFR exposure and decreased in electromagnetically cleaner environments, with changes observed within approximately 20–30 minutes. 3. Multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms Observations involving individuals with MS and EHS have reported reduced tremors in environments with lower electromagnetic exposure. 4. Blood viscosity and circulation Research has reported changes in blood characteristics associated with electromagnetic exposure, including increased viscosity and reduced blood flow. These findings raise concerns about potential cardiovascular implications, including heart attack and stroke risk. 5. Effects on plants We have also investigated the effects of Wi-Fi exposure on seed germination and plant growth, including broccoli, peas, red clover, and garden cress. These studies contribute to our understanding of biological responses to electromagnetic exposure and the importance of further research and appropriate accommodations. Research References Diabetes and electromagnetic exposure PubMed – PMID 18568931 Multiple sclerosis and electromagnetic exposure PubMed – PMID 17178585 Tachycardia and autonomic nervous system responses Havas – DECT Phones Affect the Heart Blood viscosity PubMed – PMID 24192494 Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Germination and Growth of Broccoli, Pea, Red Clover and Garden Cress Seedlings: A Partial Replication Study ResearchGate – Study Conclusion Individuals with EHS face significant challenges in accessing healthcare, housing, employment, education, and public spaces. Greater recognition of their accommodation needs, together with practical measures to reduce electromagnetic exposure, is essential to improving accessibility and quality of life. The Electrosensitive Society provides one-on-one assistance to affected individuals and their families, while The ROSE Lab continues to investigate biological responses to electromagnetic exposure. I welcome the opportunity to share our research, experience, and practical approaches to accommodating individuals disabled by electromagnetic exposure. Please confirm receipt of this submission and contact me if further information or assistance would be helpful. Sincerely, Sheena Symington, B.Sc., MA Director, Electrosensitive Society Inc. The ROSE Lab Email: sheena@electrosensitivesociety.com Website: www.electrosensitivesociety.com Research: www.theroselab.com

Biological health and safety must be accounted for when placing cell towers- currently it is not. The FCC is not a health and safety agency, nor are they versed in biological harms from exposure to RF EMF from wireless base stations and devices. I have been injured and have a medical diagnosis of injury and disability from exposure from RF EMF from a cell tower base station, and it has upended my life, given me migraine like blinding ice pick headaches, nausea, dizziness, palpitations, insomnia and forced me from my home, having to sleep in my car and in makeshift accommodation to avoid exposure to let my body recover. Those injured by cell towers and smart meters should not be considered "collateral damage" and "the cost of doing business" as we were called. Health and safety cannot be guaranteed, and this docket shows the science and mechanism of harm. Those sharing their stories are the evidence of this harm and we deserve to be protected, assisted and made whole. The FCC does not track those injured by wireless. There is no registry, no avenue for redress or avenue to be made whole. In our case, our home was rendered uninhabitable by our Board of Health due to the nuisance, toxin and hazard emitted from the wireless transmitting facility built at the top of our neighborhood. We have been in litigation for over six years, more recently in the Supreme Judicial Court, who less than three months ago ruled that a uniform network is more important than the health and safety of those living in communities with wireless base stations- despite the science, the testimony of our doctors and subject matter experts and our lived experiences of injury and harm. The FCC prevents health and safety from being considered when siting a tower- but what is worse is those injured once the tower starts transmitting have no recourse. In my neighborhood, a resident commented that when she learned about the tower she had no feelings either way, but started developing insomnia and headaches once it started transmitting. She spent time at her boyfriend's house not near a base station and the insomnia and headache resolved. She returned home and so did her symptoms. This was the story of so many of our neighbors who testified to our City Council, Board of Health and our legislators. Soon we learned this was the story of many communities and individuals who had a wireless facility constructed near them or on their apartment buildings or school. This is backed up by studies of symptoms near cell towers, which return to normal baseline levels of illness at around 1640 feet. The FCC has all of these studies on file and have had them for years and years. Yet no action has been taken. Yet the FCC argues this is safe because the levels measured in my neighborhood are a small percentage of the FCC's antiquated 1996 exposure standards based on 80's science before the smartphone was invented and before towers were widespread. We have literally testified next to wireless representatives that towers were meant to built on the sides of highways and mountain tops. Now they are being built 100 feet from our children's bedroom windows and our babies are sleeping with vomit buckets because they are being sick in the middle of the night, experiences rashes, headaches, insomnia and dizziness to the point they are walking into the wall- so ill that their teachers are commenting they can't focus or stay awake in class, that they are passing out when sitting under a wireless access point, that 911 is being called to take them to the hospital when exposed to the wireless after it was "turned up" to accomodate more devices. This is inexcusable that our lives, our children and seniors lives are being upended because of being made ill from wireless exposure. Those who are suffering are not invisible. The FCC needs to work with our physicians whose goal is to protect our health. Literally our doctors wrote that they swore an oath to protect health, and with these exposures they simply cannot do their jobs because constant, 24/7 ongoing exposure is in direct conflict with the precautionary principle. And we have moved far beyond precaution. When a tower is placed in your neighborhood and 17 people come forward formally and publicly, and several more come forward informally and everyone agrees that the harm is from the cell tower, but no one knows how to help because of the FCC's rules and standards, there is no recourse, no action, no accountability and no help for those sick, displaced, suffering and now disabled due to their exposure. Our only medical remedy and recourse is to reduce exposure, but when we live next to a tower that is transmitting 24/7, and the source of the injury, the only option we have is to move. Many of those retired, on a fixed income, low income, or families simply in this economy cannot move. The choice is our homes or our health. If we pick health, we have to find somewhere else to go without wireless. Our Boards of Health have advised not to mistake ubiquity with safety. Many of us injured must constantly advocate for disability accommodations both in school, in the workplace and in our community buildings like the library or City Hall. We must hire attorneys, provide medical documentation and go through the test of if the accommodation to have a low RF environment is reasonable or not. Not everyone can afford to do this process, and those who try are told the FCC binds their hands. We should not have to fight for safety in our own homes. Our houses should be safe. We should be able to follow our doctor's orders in our own homes. If someone is disabled and installs a ramp to access their home, no one should remove the ramp. Yet when a tower is placed next to our homes, the RF is trespassing onto our properties and into our bedrooms and creating an environment that triggers life altering symptoms and our homes are no longer healthy or safe. The wireless company has essentially removed our ramp and now we must struggle to access and function within our homes. RF EMF is a hazard, carcinogen, nuisance and toxin- and we do not consent to ourselves or our children or our neighbors being involuntarily exposed. Unlike other sources of wireless, we cannot turn this off, limit our exposure or put it on a timer. We have no power, no control, no say and no recourse and this must change. The FCC's goal is to roll out telecommunications infrastructure to ensure everyone has connectivity, but this should not continue to be done at the expense of everyday Americans' health, safety, homes, families, neighborhoods, communities or our well being. We love, use and depend on our technology. We've learned that to be healthy, we need to do this safely so we are not sick. Cell towers near homes, exposing children, seniors and vulnerable populations is simply not safe. The FCC needs to revisit section 704 of the Telecommunications Act to ensure health and safety is considered when siting towers, and that there is a accountability and action for those sick, displaced and suffering. Given everyone agrees the 877 South Street Pittsfield Verizon cell tower should be moved, and land owners have offered alternative locations, perhaps the FCC should have a fund for communities to relocate injurious towers to safer locations, or a program where the FCC intervenes when people are injured. All I know is that the more we share our story, the more people reach out to us with stories of their own of wireless harm. Every state has a group or an organization. Every community knows of someone impacted. We will keep asking for help until we can live safely, full time in our homes without symptoms of wireless exposure. Thank you for your attention and your timely action in creating remedies for those harmed, and preventing others from being harmed through updating the TCA to reflect the lived experiences of those injured, the science, medicine and NH Commision Report recommendations for cell tower and wireless safety. The work has been done and the solutions have been proposed. Please listen to these experts. With gratitude, Courtney

This issue matters to me personally: The most safe eletromagnetic radiation (EMR) is 1.0 uw/m2 according to the Building Biology Institute (BBI) but can be workable in the day time only up to 10.0 uw/m2 maximum. Therefore, anything beyond is a detriment to thriving and wellness. Of the 4 EMR frequencies I am only speaking of the radio frequency (RF) today. I had an event where I had to sit on my analog water meter out in the hot FL sun to preserve it or get regularly radiated my a nearby cell tower of 1K uw/m2, which could be inappropriately changed without notice. It was totally detrimental and unsafe for me. The whole event was very scary with 3 men towering over me, while I was on the ground, including a sheriff that I said to all do not touch me being a small, slight woman. It was very stressful, disturbing and fortunately being informed ahead of time I was at home. They attempted to talk me into moving but I did not and they eventually left. Gratefully I still have that analog meter, which the water company physically reads and bills as usual. I am asking: 1.That these EMR responsibilities be taken over my appropriate departments, such as the U.S Deptment of Health and Human Services, which contain doctors, health practitioners, building biologists, electrical engineers and the like who have expertise in these areas without prejudice and are regularly audited. 2.That with decades of evidence of harm it very overdue to upgrade the carcinogenic grade level of EMR to Definitely Carcinogenic or may be even worse than that. 3.That everyone needs to be educated, trained and simply explained with proof to turn off RF at night, keep devices off your body and hard wire all devices at a minimum. 4.That with the RF boundary-less invasion through over densification of cell tower RF and surveillance that need to be re-purposed to emit healthful, rejuvenating output. Here is one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: Panagopoulos et al. (2021): Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage – Reviewed evidence and proposed mechanisms linking human-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. 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.

Re: 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 writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. This is my second comment and the next several paragraph's are the same as yesterday's. The Court directed the FCC to explain its determination that FCC 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 using wireless devices and technological developments, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence from those of us who have suffered harm from the accumulative effects of RF radiation along with the 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. I believe the FCC should review the following study to address the concerns regarding wireless radiation because my sibling and I both suffer from neurological effects, oxidative stress, probably DNA damage if we can get tested and electromagnetic sensitivity and I have witnessed many of the same symptoms in other families in my community who suffer from EMR Syndrome: BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – Collection of scientific research concerning neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022. Updated Research Summaries Updated Research Summaries 2022 Updated Research Summaries (May 2022) These are invaluable sets of abstracts and tables covering the RFR... MY STORY CONTINUED: Another expense I will now incur is restating my Living Trust and specifically my Special Needs Trust for my sibling. I am now sailing into unchartered waters as I navigate options, along with an attorney, that should something happen to me, my sibling needs to remain in my shielded home and shielded car. I need to be able to sleep at night knowing she will be protected because there are no words to describe how devastating the ill-effects of RF radiation on the body really are. Even though my older car has RF blocking window film on it and although the RF signal is lower inside my car going from "extreme" on the outside of the vehicle to "high" on the inside of the vehicle in my driveway which, then of course the signal fluctuates driving through different neighborhoods, I still have a high magnetic field inside my car confirmed by my building biologist with his specialized and more sensitive meters. As an amateur, I detect the magnetic field using my TriField EMF meter TF2. Approximately three weeks ago, I realized the roof of my mouth was throbbing every time I was driving but then realized the throbbing stopped every time I got out of my vehicle so we are still being effected by RF radiation even with RF window film shielding. This might explain the excessive bony overgrowth in my upper mouth and a possible link with tooth crowns that I will be researching next and am out of time today. Wanted to mention for others to consider. Prior to the roll-out of 5G my sibling was beaming from ear to ear on a daily basis and couldn't wait to get out of bed daily as we both were living life to the fullest with a huge support system. Daily, she would ask where we were going and what would we be doing that day. Now daily she asks what we're going to watch on TV all day long. My sibling just started in-home PT because she hasn't been to the gym in almost 2.5 years and her body is very stiff but there is a limit on the number of covered home visits. An at home, personal trainer is too expensive and not covered by insurance. It's too hard for me to train her. We don't even get to use our Medicare Advantage plans free gym membership(s) anymore when we need it the most. How are we expected to go to the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) in person when or if required, social security office if needed, nursing homes (hard time visiting our mom in 2023 before she died) with RF radiation, smart TV's and staff cell phones, i-watches, riding with a tow truck driver should our car need towing, could possibly drive somewhere for a day outing but can't stay in hotel or motel, I could camp or ideally backpack but my sister can't, financial institutions and most importantly, health care settings especially hospitals? We need solutions. We are equally as important as anybody else. Questions/Comments: 1. I was able to opt-out of both electric and gas RF radiation smart meters that humans are getting sick from. I would like the FCC to provide a way for those affected, to "opt-out" of 5G, RF radiation that's making us sick. 2. Why would I spend approximately $100,000,00 from my retirement IRA instead of "paying off my mortgage" if RF radiation wasn't making me too sick to live inside my own home? 3. Why are there over approximately 100 non-profits challenging and/or bringing awareness to 5G radiation if it wasn't a danger to human health and probably all living species' health? 4. I used to have an abundance of bees on my property. Now I don't. Why? 5. Why are so there so many excellent and reputable companies selling EMF protection to shield your house and body from 5G, RF radiation if it wasn't a danger to human health? Thank you excellent companies. 6. On the flip side, why are there so many "online predators" taking advantage of those of us with EMR Syndrome claiming their products will protect us from RF radiation? I was forced to spend approximately $100,000.00 incrementally, over the last many years to protect my families health because the FCC failed to protect me and my sibling's health from the harmful effects of RF radiation. As a "non-licensed" agency in regards to medicine, biology and public health, the FCC must not assert authority over RF exposure standards. 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 consider the real-life experts which are those of us suffering from bodily and financial harm from RF radiation and to completely address ALL issues identified by the courts. The evidence is clear that the FCC needs to change it's rules and protect human health. Our lives matter and so do your lives and your families lives. Thank you.

Re: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC - ET Docket No. 13-84 The FCC's limits were set 30 years ago, amidst a very different environment and lifestyle and there has been no scientific review since. And even with all the existing science, the United States still has no radio-frequency exposure guidelines that address long term, chronic, non-heating exposures. Therefore I request that the FCC update and correct their guidelines in line with all of the research that was presented in the original court case, EHT/CHD vs FCC . Declaration of Toby Stover Toby Stover declares under penalty of perjury the following: 1. I live in Ulster County, New York. 2. I never gave consent, nor do I consent today, to continuous, involuntary exposure of pulsed modulated, biologically active electrical and radio frequency / microwave (RF/MW) radiation emitted into my home or on my property. 3. I was perfectly healthy, living in my home for many years with an analog electric utility meter but was made ill by the electrical and pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation coming from a “smart” digital electric utility meter which was installed on my property without my consent. 4. After having a grid-tied solar system installed on my home, Central Hudson Electric Company switched my mechanical analog meter to a “smart” electric utility meter without my knowledge. A number of weeks later, I became extremely ill and discovered that the company had switched out my meter. I contacted the electric company demanding that they remove the “smart” meter and return an analog meter. I was told by Central Hudson that the solar array would not work without a “smart” utility meter. After researching this, I discovered that solar arrays work perfectly well with analog meters but Central Hudson still refused to remove the “smart” meter. Since I was unable to live with the continuous pulsation of the smart meter I was left with the decision to either have to leave my home of 35 years or cut the electric line to the smart meter. I chose to cut the wire rather than be sickened in my home as I had no means to move. As a single woman in her 60’s, I was living without electricity for 9 months through the winter, using a wood cook stove and candles. I had to store food in a cooler and buy ice to keep it fresh. Finally I hired an electrician to disconnect my wiring to the “smart” meter & re-connect my home wiring to an analog meter which was on my barn. I was then able to use electricity in my home again. 5. However, having been injured by weeks of exposure to RF/MW pulsed radiation, many years later, I am still unable to go into buildings that are using smart meters or wifi. I cannot tolerate the radiation for more than a few minutes without becoming ill and must leave the area as I now have Eletromagnetic Radiation Syndrome, known as EMR Syndrome. This has made it difficult for me to travel as I cannot stay in hotels, motels or shop at stores where there is microwave radiation. As a professional musician, I am often hired to go into public buildings or play music for school shows. It is a frequent occurrence that today I can no longer spend much time in these buildings without my symptoms returning. I consider this a grave personal injury that has made my life much more difficult. 6. When I am exposed to RF/MW radiation, I experience severe pain and pressure in my head, especially in the forehead. I also feel tingling sensations on my skin as well as tightness in the chest, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating and insomnia. I simply must leave the area as I feel sick around the microwave radiation. 7. Since I have been injured by “smart” meter radiation, I have become a member on the board of New York Safe Utility Meter Association, (NYSUMA). This organization has been working for years in the effort to legislate a safe utility meter choice to anyone who chooses to have returned, or to retain an analog utility meter. Analog utility meters have been used safely and successfully for many years. All utility companies should be required by law to provide analog meters to all consumers who choose to have them. Analog meters work perfectly well and are safe. No one should be forced to accept a device on their property that is a known health hazard. The FCC must update their exposure guidelines for MW/RF radio-frequency radiation exposures from "smart" meters and cell towers and all other wireless devices. 8. References: https://virginiansforsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Balmori-Cell-Tower-Radiation-2022-Review-.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512601371X https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/ 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11672739 https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Preliminary-Clinical-Guidelines-for-EHS.pdf https://journal.fcrisk.ru/eng/2021/3/4 https://smartmeterharm.org/2025/04/26/victory-against-enedis-the-court-rules-against-the-forced-installation-of-linky-meters/ 9. According to Public Law 90-602, October 18, 1968, AN ACT to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public heath from radiation emissions from electronic products. “Subpart 3 - Electronic Product Radiation Control “DECLARATION OF PURPOSE “ Sec. 354.The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electric product radiation”. I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. 10/22/26 Toby Stover

Comments of Erin Finegold ET Docket No. 13-84, DA 26-997 Remand Issue: Testing Procedures for Cell Phones and Other Portable Devices I write in support of compliance testing that measures portable devices as they are carried and used. I am the founder and CEO of StingRay Shields Corporation, which develops patented passive RF technology, including Shield Antenna. I request no endorsement of any product and submit no proprietary information. This comment rests on the Commission’s own record. The question on remand is narrow. The court did not resolve the scientific debate and did not find the Commission’s procedures technically invalid. It held that the Commission had not reasonably explained its decision to retain them. Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), slip op. at 19–20, 31. A reasoned explanation must address three points. First, the Commission cannot merely repeat its safety-margin rationale without curing the explanatory deficiency identified by the court. In paragraph 14 of FCC 19-126 the Commission gave four reasons for declining zero-spacing body testing: head testing with no separation, maximum-power testing, actual test distances that tended to be less than 2.5 centimeters (with a maximum of 1 centimeter for hotspot testing), and the “large safety margin” in the limits. The court held that the safety-margin explanation depended on an inadequately explained premise: that RF exposure below the existing limits does not cause harmful non-cancer effects. The court concluded that this explanatory defect also undermined the justification for retaining the testing procedures, noting that footnote 49 of the order linked challenges to testing with challenges to the exposure limits. On remand the Commission should state whether the first three reasons independently justify retaining the procedures, and on what record basis. Second, the Commission should separate two questions it merged in 2019: whether a certified device stays within the numerical limits in ordinary body-contact use, and whether those limits protect health. The first is a measurement question. The Commission should explain, with record support, whether a device certified at the distances described in paragraph 14 can exceed the applicable SAR limit at zero spacing and, if it can, why the procedure remains adequate. Third, footnote 47 relies on proximity sensors that reduce power near the body and on manufacturers’ antenna design changes. The Commission should identify the certification procedures that apply to those features, explain how they are verified, and describe how test configuration, separation distance, and power-control behavior are documented so that results are reproducible. If the Commission cannot make these showings on the record, it should revise the procedures to test devices in the configurations in which they are used. The Commission’s own footnote recognizes that design, including antenna design, affects exposure. A procedure that measures the device as sold would allow any design remedy to be judged on demonstrated performance in that device rather than on assumed benefit. The Commission should answer the deficiency the court identified directly rather than restate its 2019 assurances. References: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, Public Notice, DA 26-997, ET Docket No. 13-84 (OET rel. Sept. 17, 2026), 91 FR 60128 (Sept. 22, 2026). Resolution of Notice of Inquiry, Second Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 19-126, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, ¶ 14 and nn.46–49 (2019). Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), No. 20-1025 (consolidated with No. 20-1138), slip op. at 19–20, 30–31.