Court remand & agency accountability

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants, or the environment.] I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: While in the military I developed migraines and vertigo that were triggered by high EMF environments. Moreover, It is well know that HF radios in fighter jets cause cancer. Please reference any fighter jet systems manual. We use to call the cone of the antenna in front of the jet the cone of cancer. There are notes, warnings and cautions pertaining to this danger. While there are different frequency ranges to the many avionics in a fighter jet some of these frequency bands reserved for the military have been released for use by the tech industry within the civilian population(Why?). There is a clear safety issue with this current technology please also reference the military studies done on radar operators in the 60's and 70's showing health concerns. It's time to FOIA all government organizations to include the military for all experiments regarding technology using any type of frequency based power. Non ionizing radiation should be looked at differently than ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is more apt to cause damage via thermal heating. Non ionizing radiation is more likely to affect the calcium channels of the body therefore showing damage later in a persons life that is not expressed by thermal damage. Because of this it also tends to affect people in different ways depending on their individual exposures and body type. We know that different types of frequency's can affect a person with more fat differently than someone with less fat. We know a millimeter wave cannot penetrate the body as deep as a longer wave frequency. Therefore more fat could potentially equal more protection against a millimeter wave reaching an organ. This is especially important with children as most do not have the body fat of an adult allowing the millimeter wave to penetrate deeper into their developing bodies. Currently the FCC only looks at ionizing radiation effects, this is pure negligence on the FCC's side as it is common knowledge among anyone that works with avionics that there are other dangers to frequency then just ionizing radiation as I explained above. This issue is going to have the most damaging effects on our children. It's time to start caring about our future generations and immediately stop any further roll out of cell towers and wireless technologies, remove all antennas from schools, remove wifi from schools and cease the use of 3g/4g/5g towers within our cities until the FCC does its job and does a complete overhaul of its safety standards to reflect measuring all the dangers that can result from this use of technology. The FCC must also ensure the Tech companies are held to the strictest 3rd party study's to ensure what they are proposing is safe. Then the FCC must remove all employees with conflicts of interest ensuring no industry employees are allowed to ever work for the FCC or vice versa. Or at least have a 5 year no compete agreement in their contracts. The FCC should also be required to work with HSS. The HSS should study the health effects and then the FCC must be required to update its standards to ensure the dangers Identified by HSS are addressed in their safety standards. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because both myself and at least 4 other of my family members have been irreparably injured by wireless radiation. Genetic testing has shown that members of our family lack a key gene responsible for detoxification of a wide array of pollutants, including wireless radiation. When exposed, our symptoms include headaches, dizziness, rashes, tachycardia, severe chest pain, uncontrollable shaking, and even seizures. Our lives have been impacted such that we no longer are physically able to live near towns or other sites of cellular towers. We are unable to maintain most jobs within the public sector because of the prevalence of wi-fi, Bluetooth, wearable wireless devices, and cellular phones. Increasingly, we are finding it difficult or impossible to travel anywhere, to attend public events, church services, concerts, schools, and other gatherings. We are also unable to drive or ride in newer vehicles with tire pressure sensors, GPS, and other wireless components. In one frightening episode, my infant grandson stopped breathing and turned blue when his mother simply sat down with him for a moment in her sister's emergency services truck, a vehicle equipped with Bluetooth, a mobile Hotspot, GPS, and a host of other wireless technology. Thankfully, my grandson's mother immediately removed him from the vehicle, and he began breathing again. She later measured the radio frequencies within the vehicle with the HF35C detector, and they were higher than the device could register. 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.

Current regulations are archaic and are based on little fact or knowledge, designed by telecom companies for their profit! In 1996 cell phones were called "car phones " and were novelties! Current health related issues have been squelched by the telecom industry's greed. It is time for new laws which protect the public!

Is the FCC actually protecting public health? In a 2021 the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, finding it failed to show proper review in regards to numerous issues related to public health and the environment. The court issued a mandate that the FCC show proper examination of evidence on its record related to non-cancer health effects (such as impacts to reproduction, brain development and the immune system), long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, and environmental impacts. If it is indeed true that this is a complex issue and that the FCC needs more time, then why hasn't the FCC stopped the roll out of wireless technology given that it is clear that it is harmful to our biology and mental health? I am citing a study, one of thousands, to remind the FCC that you are an organization that was created to protect human health, and to regulate, not stand by while humans remain vulnerable and negatively affected by the proliferation of wireless technology that invades my personal, professional and social existence. Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Thatte HS, Cho MR. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):319-29. doi: 10.1667/RR1118.1. PMID: 18302487.

We are only on this earth for a short time, and given the population on the planet, it is imperative that we work together to mitigate the negative causes of disease, both mentally and physically. I am hypersensitive to electromagnetic radiation because of how much emr is present in our environment. The human exposure guidelines that were created long ago are outdated. It is scientifically evident that wireless technology has adverse health effects, and those of us whose health is teetering because there is literally no place to go to get away from wireless radiation, it is exponentially detrimental, as it continues to increase on our planet. How can it be that the FCC has not responded to the courts ruling to investigate and take into account hundreds if not thousands of studies proving harm. My life has been altered because I cannot go to certain establishments, drive on certain roads, or go to certain outdoor areas because of 5G towers. When will the health and well being of humans take precidence over profits? Our communication needs can be met with wired technology for the most part, and cellular towers for other things. Wifi is dangerous, 5G is dangerous. I have experienced being in a stupor when I was unknowingly parked too close to a 5G tower.

The evidence of the negative effects on the human body because of wireless radiation is substantial. For years it has been ignored and suppressed. It’s time to actually do something about it.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because of cell tower proximity to my home, as well as a smart meter that is located near my home's bedrooms. My wife has had numerous health issues the past 7 years and I am concerned she may be sensitive to RF radiation.

I have been haunted by Tinnitus, dizziness, and heart arrhythmia whenever over exposed to the electromagnetic radiation, you as the supposed regulatiory agency continue to promote and authorize the proliferation of. It is widely perceived that You are operating without regard for impact to the health and well being of not only the citizenry but of all living beings within our country and beyond. The examination of public exposure levels and considering the real science in setting new regulations/guidelines is way overdue and should be considered a opportunity to meet the mission of the FCC and begin regaining the trust and respect of the populace and world. Transparency in the process will go a long way in effectively meeting your Court ordered task. FCC should request enhanced non partisan oversight from both subcommittees of the Senate and House and the GAO. Full routine reporting, open records of communications and meetings including voluntary Hearings on and throughout the process will in fact help accomplish the task. NEPA should be performed at levels that suite the biological, scientific and true impacts to the disabled and those suffering from Electrom-Magnetic-Radiation Syndrome. EMRS. This is your opportunity to shine, don't blow it or trade it away.

The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. Please read this report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583 A court ruling has determined that the FCC did not properly consider the scientific evidence available when it made its decision NOT to update its human exposure guidelines. It is inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. Please consider the evidence regarding the ongoing dangers of wifi use in school classrooms. Thank you, Thom Speidel