Research, evidence & monitoring

You MUST address the impacts on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, environmental impacts, and testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.

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: Tho I have no scientific study at hand, it has been an observation over years that "invisible" toxicities that eiminate from cell towers, and other concentrations of communication operations have visibly negatively affected all living things around their locations. That observation alone is grounds to be very suspicious of these technologies and to halt them before more actual "unbiased" studies are done.

I’m so concerned about all the electronic radiation we are forced to encounter in our daily lives, without any reassurance that the health ramifications have been thoroughly studied. For the future health of every living creature on this planet, we beg you to honestly and completely study this issue! I feel strongly that it’s like the cigarettes of the 50s: we’ll all find out how bad EMF’s are and have to dial back our exposure immediately before any additional cells of our body are damaged!

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. Please protect the health and wellbeing of our children.

The evidence of harm from wireless radiation has now grown massive. It has become the undeniable elephant in the room. In my own practice as a physician I have seen countless patients who reported a variety of illness symptoms when exposed to wireless radiation. Debra Davis, Magda Havas, Arthur Firstenberg, Martin Pall, Martin Blank, and Joel Moskowitz are just some of the researchers have extensively documented the harms of this technology and the thousands of research studies attesting to its harmfulness. Ignoring this research is completely irresponsible. Even if one disagrees with the research, or questions the methodology the LEAST a responsible regulator could do is to stop the spread of this technology until regulators have determined that the technology is WITHOUT QUESTION safe for human exposure. We are certainly a long way away from that conclusion, which is basic to the precautionary principle - and which should serve as guidance for all regulators. Please STOP the expansion of this technology, roll back its most dangerous applications, and insist on higher standards if you have any sense of right and wrong in your hearts. There is simply NO JUSTIFICATION for maintaining or expanding a technology which has so many already demonstrated harms, and many which are simply not properly researched. I urge you to not repeat the mistakes of COVID, where young people were exposed to the vaccine because reckless and irresponsible regulators were misled in approving the COVID vaccine for children by nonsensical guidelines like, “We’ll never know how harmful it is unless we approve it.” In no universe aligned with ethical principles can this guidance possibly be acceptable. Do your duty, and regulate dangerous technology as it ought to be regulated.

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. Below are sited studies from source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781 These studies found increases in cancer and other health problems in humans living around antennas (e.g. Santini et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2003; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Shinjyo and Shinjyo, 2014; Gandhi et al., 2015; López et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). There is a specific symptomatology linked to radar and RF exposure at low levels, characterized by functional disturbances of the central nervous system (headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, difficulty in concentration, dizziness, etc.), that has been termed ‘RF sickness’ (Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998; Navarro et al., 2003). "In the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals (Blank et al., 2015; Hardell and Nyberg, 2020). However, the media, the responsible organizations (World Health Organization, 2015) and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population, who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis." 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. These ill affects are being seen in Vermont and elsewhere across the country. I have a dear friend that suffers from ‘RF sickness’ . I have seen the rise of cancers of many friends and family members. I have also personally witnessed a rapid and alarming decrease in birds, bees and other pollinators in Vermont and NH. 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. It is time to make an update of standards given the new evidence set before you now.

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. Here is just 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. My family experience with wireless radiation when sleeping, as our ears significantly ringing and experience insomnia and heart palpitations until we remove the cell phones and shut off the home wireless router, it helps but not all the time, this has gotten worse since the install of the "smart" meters on our house. I believe over time we are being negatively impacted by wireless radiation. 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. Thank you! J Thomas

In my reading of the FCC rules regarding 5G towers, they are allowed to be placed anywhere -- next to schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Surely an investigation into the radiation given off by these towers needs to be conducted to determine the long-term effects on human biology. I have seen 5G mini-towers on top of water towers! Please reconsider these FCC rules regarding 5G (or 6G) towers and ban them from neighborhoods and other senstive populated areas. Allow states to determine the placement of these towers, NOT telecommunication companies interested only in their balance sheets, or a federal bureaucracy.

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: [Please paste the study you’ve chosen to include here.] The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: it causes insomnia. 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.