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 infants and 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. I support only human and non-animals studies. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. I am a healthcare professional. I have seen substantial scientific evidence that has been collected for some time about how wireless radiation has deleterious effects on the public, especially on infants and children, whose cells are turning over rapidly, causing a chain reaction of negative effects on their development. The damage also occurs in adults, animals, wildlife and plants. Some countries have already heeded this information to put into place safety regulations to protect them. 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.

The FCC needs to revise radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. Wireless radiation is a toxin that affects many people (and other organisms) in many different ways. I, for example, experience pulsatile tinnitus that is made worse with increased WiFi and other wireless radiation from smartphones and other wireless tech. Multiple MD/ENT visits and a brain MRI could not reveal any info on this or address any cause, as the medical establishment generally remains ignorant of wireless radiation issues, which is in part caused by failure of the FCC, as a national regulatory body, to properly study and establish safety regulations that actually keep people and the environment safe. I’ve deduced that radiation affects ion channel function in my ear, as it’s like my inner ear is spasming when the pulsatile tinnitus occurs. I also developed “trigger thumb” at exactly the spot where I used to hold my phone all the time. After getting a meter, I saw that the highest radiation in my phone is right where I used to hold it. Needless to say, I no longer hold my phone that way- in fact, I try to touch my phone as little as possible. There are also concerns from radiation that is clearly present even feet away from the phone (which I can measure with the meter!). There is actually a lot of research from around the world, but the two studies below are examples that explain potential mechanisms for the issues I’ve personally experienced from emf/communications radiation: BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): https://bioinitiative.org/updated-research-summaries/ Panagopoulos et al. (2021): https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 The FCC has not addressed the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. I also 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.

Children's schools should not be located near mobile phone towers or TV towers or electrical transmission power lines. And the powerful Wi-Fi routers often used in schools should not be near any children's desks. California officially issued guidelines advising of mobile phone dangers, warning of increased risk of brain cancer and other health problems, and that children’s developing brains could be at greater risk. The biggest source of RF exposure for most people is using a mobile phone next to the head. You can reduce RF exposure a lot by using the phone's speaker and holding the phone farther away from your head, or using wired headphones say neuro-oncologists & public heath experts. The city council in Berkeley California passed a law that requires retailers to tell consumers how far away their phone should be held. The European Union recommends wired Internet rather than wireless in schools. France also banned WiFi routers in nursery and daycare centers, and restricted elementary school WiFi to only when in use for education. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) states in an open letter to school superintendents, “There is a consistent, emerging science that shows people, especially children who are more vulnerable due to developing brains and thinner skulls, are being affected by the increasing exposure to wireless radiation.” In 2021 a New Hampshire report outlined health risks of cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods. Scientific American reported a study of mobile phone exposure and cancer in rats: www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/ According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz (UC/Berkeley), "The study's results reinforce the need for more stringent regulation of radiofrequency radiation and better disclosure of the health risks associated with wireless technologies." Dr. Martha Herbert, a Harvard Pediatrician, wrote in this letter to Montgomery County Schools "there are thousands of papers...that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR"..."Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function"..."Powerful industrial entities have a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR, which we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true". The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 requested a review of EMF radiation emissions from technology devices, citing impact on children. Some schools have reduced WiFi exposure of children: https://ehtrust.org/tag/wifi-in-schools/ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/school-wifi-networks-could-put-12602188 In 2011 the World Health Organization classified cell phones (and other wireless devices) as a possible carcinogen due to RF emissions. In 2013 Dr. Anthony Miller from University of Toronto School of Public Health recommended that based on new research, radio frequency (RF) exposure should be reclassified as a probable carcinogen. Regarding power lines: Researchers have found health effects, including a doubling of leukemia rates associated with living in AC magnetic field strengths greater than 4.0 mG. www.emfs.info/health/leukaemia/ www.powerwatch.org.uk/elf/overview.asp www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10944614 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20877339 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11055621 The Swedish National Energy Department issued an advisory warning that schools, playgrounds, and day-care centers should not be sited near power lines, and that children should not be subjected for long periods every day to AC magnetic fields over 3.0 mG.

Public Comment to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
ET Docket No. 13-84: Reassessment of RF Exposure Limits I urge the FCC to open a new proceeding to reassess its radio frequency (RF) exposure limits and work directly with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure that those limits reflect current scientific evidence, including potential biological effects beyond tissue heating. Wireless infrastructure has expanded dramatically, with antennas and cell towers appearing on schools, apartment buildings, and near people's homes. Wi-Fi, smart meters, and wireless devices are now widespread, often with limited public discussion about potential health and environmental impacts or the availability of alternatives. I have personally experienced headaches, nausea, feeling unwell, neck and chest tightness, ringing in my ears, and a hot, tingling sensation in my hand when holding a cell phone. I have noticed differences in how I feel under certain wireless conditions, including when using Wi-Fi compared with a wired Ethernet connection. I recognize these experiences do not establish causation, but I believe they warrant serious consideration and further independent research. The FCC should not rely solely on protection against excessive tissue heating without transparently evaluating the broader scientific evidence concerning possible biological effects. I ask the Commission to: 1. Open a new proceeding to review and update its RF exposure limits. 2. Work with HHS and independent researchers to evaluate the latest evidence on potential biological effects, including effects not explained by heating. 3. Improve public access to exposure measurements, the scientific basis for safety standards, and any remaining uncertainties. 4. Consider practical alternatives, including wired technologies, and the environmental and community impacts of expanding wireless infrastructure. 5. Provide meaningful opportunities for public participation before finalizing revised standards. I am also concerned about who benefits financially from the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure and whether commercial interests are receiving greater consideration than public health, environmental protection, and informed public choice. I urge the FCC to take concrete action, commission a transparent review, and work with HHS to ensure that its standards are informed by the full body of credible scientific evidence. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and a meaningful voice in decisions that affect our homes and communities. Thank you for considering my comments.

Because of radiofrequency pollution, I can no longer work. Because of radiofrequency pollution, I can no longer work. I no longer have access to stores, government offices (including courts), hospitals, retirement homes, trains, or vehicles (which have too much electronics), places of learning and culture, etc. In fact, this disability cuts me off from everything, even help from my family and loved ones. I am far from being the only one affected by this. Unlike many people, however, I am aware of it. Artificial radiofrequency pollution—which is becoming increasingly widespread and causes mutual interference—poses a threat to life and all living things (both animals and plants). It is urgent that we reduce these levels. Translated with DeepL.com A cause des pollutions par les radiofréquences, je ne peux plus travailler. Je n'ai plus accès aux magasins, aux administrations (tribunaux compris), aux hôpitaux, aux maisons de retraites, à l'accès aux trains comme aux véhicules ( qui ont trop d'électronique), aux lieux d'étude et de culture, etc. En fait, cet handicape me ferme la porte à tout, même à l'aide de ma famille et de mes proches. Je suis loin d'être la seule à en être malade. A la différence de beaucoup de gens, moi, je le sais. Les pollutions par les radiofréquences artificielles, de plus en plus nombreuses et qui s'interfèrent entre elles, représentent un danger pour la vie, toute le vivant (animal comme végétal). Il est urgent de baisser les niveaux. Because of radiofrequency pollution, I can no longer work. Because of radiofrequency pollution, I can no longer work.

The FCC has had the five years following its CHD/EHT District Court mandate to cull through the hundreds of pages documenting thousands of international expert studies of RF effects (as well as 200 documented testimonies from RF-harmed individuals). The FCC complaint to the same high court’s recent mandamus for a response was that it hadn’t had time. So, it apparently spent zero time on this task thus far, a thumb to its nose at the force of law. Now, as its passive desire to demonstrate effort on the grievously neglected court mandate, it asks the public to once again send it evidence from all those studies it certainly still possesses references for in the court documents. Environmental Health Trust, in the interim after the winning 2022 lawsuit, conveyed to the FCC another copious list of references showing further confirmation of many harms from RF radiation that is below the antiquated elevated strength limits of the FCC. All this new “request for information” is a non-convincing pinky promise that it will do something with this information, but what exactly is 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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean, and Steinenmann (2026): Wireless sensitivities and comorbidities: A prevalence study of co-morbidities in Canada, Australia, and the United States Although this study does not establish causation, I believe the information gathered raises enough red flags to warrant further investigation of both the thermal and non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. These studies are crucial for studying its impact on both the human population 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. I have always been sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies. I first noticed it as a child when we would drive under high power electrical wires. I would feel “pressure” or pain in my head and chest. Decades later, as cell towers started to be constructed, I noticed increased intensity and headaches when within a certain range of cell towers. In 2012, while vacationing at a resort that was in close proximity to a cell tower, I ended up in the emergency room with chest pain. They found trace levels of troponin in my blood and a cardiac catheritization was performed. I was 44 years old and otherwise healthy. Around the same time, I started to have symptoms when near Wi-Fi and security systems, while holding a cell phone next to my head, when wearing wireless headphones, and when using Bluetooth in my car. Now, with 5G expansion, satellite technology, and increased security systems, my symptoms have increased tremendously and are often unbearable. There is frequent ringing in my ears, headaches, chest pressure, shortness of breath, and extreme fatigue. I find that it is especially bad on overcast days. 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. People should always come before profits!

PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET Docket No. 13-84 Submitted by: Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc. Date: October 20, 2026** 1. Introduction Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc. sincerely thanks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for inviting public participation in its review of radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards, testing procedures, and potential health effects. Incorporated in 2021, our organization provides advocacy, education, and incident-documentation services for civilians reporting unexplained physical and neurological symptoms they believe may involve directed-energy, radiofrequency, electromagnetic, or acoustic energy exposure or assault. We support technological innovation while believing that public safety protections must advance alongside wireless technology. 2. Our Experience Our organization began receiving civilian incident reports because people repeatedly told us they could not find an agency willing to document their experiences. We could not stand by while Americans were suffering and feeling that their country did not care. Despite limited resources and no permanent physical investigation facility, we established procedures to receive complaints, conduct case reviews, and prepare incident reports. Approximately 1,000 civilians throughout the United States have submitted incident reports to our organization. Complainants describe unexplained pain, burning sensations, vibrations, pressure, sleep disturbances, unusual sounds, and other physical and neurological symptoms. Complainants stated in their reports that they have no mental health conditions and that their injuries are often misdiagnosed. Some believe remotely operated, wall-penetrating energy technologies are responsible for their experiences. Others report electronic intrusion, unwanted communications, and possible technology-assisted harassment. These reports do not independently establish RF exposure, identify particular devices, or confirm the cause of symptoms. However, they highlight concerns deserving appropriate scientific and medical evaluation. We have contacted federal security and investigative agencies requesting assistance with these reports but have not received a substantive response. 3. RF Exposure Standards and Testing We encourage the FCC to carefully review whether existing RF exposure limits and testing procedures adequately address today's wireless environment. This includes widespread mobile-device use, multiple sources of RF exposure, emerging wireless technologies, and potential health effects associated with long-term exposure. Special consideration should be given to children, who may experience many years of wireless technology use beginning at an early age. We encourage the FCC to examine reliable scientific research concerning possible non-cancer health effects and determine whether existing testing procedures adequately protect the public. We ask that conclusions be based on reproducible scientific evidence, with clear explanations of the strengths and limitations of available research. 4. Public Safety and Consumer Protection The advancement of wireless communications makes public safety, accountability, and consumer protection increasingly important. We encourage clear federal guidance on RF exposure standards, compliance requirements, and safe wireless-device operation. Our organization has also received reports from civilians who describe hearing external sounds, voices, or communications without being able to identify their direction or source. Directional speakers and Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) demonstrate that sound can be projected toward particular areas or listeners over distances. These reports do not establish that acoustic devices caused the experiences described. However, they raise concerns about the need for appropriate technical and medical evaluations. An unexplained auditory experience should not automatically be classified as either a mental health condition or evidence of technological harassment. We encourage appropriate federal agencies to examine safeguards against the intentional misuse of acoustic technologies to threaten, intimidate, or harm men, women, or children. 5. Recommendations We respectfully request that the FCC: 1. Review existing RF exposure limits and portable-device testing procedures using reliable scientific evidence. 2. Evaluate scientific findings concerning potential non-cancer health effects and long-term RF exposure, particularly involving children. 3. Consider whether current testing procedures adequately reflect widespread wireless-device use and technological advancements. 4. Strengthen public education concerning RF exposure standards, regulatory compliance, and consumer protection. 5. Coordinate with HHS and appropriate federal agencies regarding RF exposure research, public health concerns, and safety standards. 6. Provide clear procedures for reporting suspected violations of FCC regulations and referring matters outside the Commission's authority to appropriate agencies. 6. Closing Statement The United States is a world leader in wireless technology. We believe it should also lead in public safety, responsible regulation, and consumer protection. People are asking for answers. They deserve credible scientific information, appropriate medical attention, and meaningful consideration of their reported experiences. We encourage the federal government to examine whether existing criminal laws adequately address the intentional misuse of emerging technologies to harm, threaten, or harass individuals. DEW Agency welcomes opportunities to collaborate with appropriate federal agencies and provide civilian triage services, including receiving complaints, documenting incidents, identifying urgent needs, and referring individuals to qualified authorities. We respectfully request consideration of our organization's experience and willingness to assist with civilian reporting and referral efforts. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to an important national public safety discussion. Respectfully submitted, Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc Ms. Mechael Wright-Hodges, Founder and Executive Director Website: www.DEWAgency.org Telephone: 781-561-8753 Email: info@dewagency.org

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Public Comment on Reopened Docket Regarding Wireless Radiation Safety Limits Dear Commissioners, As a deeply concerned citizen who values both technological innovation and the health of my family, I am writing to urge the FCC to completely overhaul its outdated radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The current standards, established decades ago, rely exclusively on preventing thermal (heating) harm. However, as an everyday user watching our children grow up surrounded by a 24/7 blanket of Wi-Fi, cell towers, and smart infrastructure, I know that our constant, real-world exposure looks nothing like the brief laboratory simulations used to set these guidelines. In my own home, I have taken steps to hardwire our internet connection to protect our sleep and focus, but we cannot escape the dense web of neighborhood cell towers outside our home and when visiting the towns and cities. The D.C. Circuit Court correctly ruled in 2021 that the FCC failed to address severe gaps in its safety logic. I urge you to look at the independent, peer-reviewed data disproving the assumption that non-thermal radiation is harmless: • Definitive Evidence of DNA Damage: The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) comprehensive $25 million study proved that chronic exposure to cell phone radiation causes significant, measurable DNA damage—specifically in the frontal cortex and hippocampus—as well as clear evidence of rare malignant tumors. DNA damage occurs without any tissue heating, directly undermining the FCC's regulatory foundation. • Unique Vulnerabilities of Children: Our children's skulls are thinner, and their nervous systems are still dynamically developing. Millions of students sit directly under powerful industrial Wi-Fi routers all day. Compiled data from the BioInitiative Report establishes that low-intensity, non-thermal RF radiation alters gene expression and triggers neurological impacts at levels far below current FCC limits. • Environmental and Wildlife Disruption: Our ecosystem is suffering the collateral damage of unchecked wireless infrastructure. Multi-author analyses show that continuous RF radiation alters biological rhythms, disrupts the navigation patterns of crucial pollinators like bees, and inflicts oxidative stress on local flora and fauna. The FCC must stop deferring to industrial convenience and prioritize living biology. I ask that you adopt protective, biologically-based exposure standards that reflect the independent science of today. Sincerely, Marcia Keizer Yelm Washington

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: Morgan, Kesari & Davis (2014): Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences – Reviewed evidence that children may absorb more wireless radiation than adults due to anatomical and physiological differences, raising questions about the adequacy of existing exposure standards. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.