Research, evidence & monitoring

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. his issue matters to me personally because: 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.

To the Federal Communications Commission: 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 noncancer health effects, impacts on children, long term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing concerns about wireless radiation: Wolf, R. and Wolf, D. “Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station.” International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2004, Vol. 1, No. 2. This study examined residents of Netanya, Israel, who lived within 350 meters of a cell phone transmitter station for three to seven years. Researchers reported a cancer rate among those residents several times higher than in the surrounding population and in the city overall. The study is small, but it directly addresses long term residential exposure to a base station. That is exactly the kind of exposure the Court asked the FCC to address, and it calls for larger, independent follow up research led by health agencies. 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 I lived it. While I was renting an apartment, a cell phone tower was installed directly above my unit. After the installation I began having frequent nosebleeds and recurring headaches. Over time I developed skin lesions that a medical evaluation found to be precancerous. My two cats were affected too. One of them became completely disoriented while we lived there. Soon after, I moved. My symptoms improved, and both cats recovered, including the one that had been disoriented. I can’t prove the tower caused these problems. But the timing of the onset, and the recovery once we left, is the kind of real world experience the FCC needs to take seriously. That’s especially true for long term residential exposure and for the effects on animals that the Court specifically raised. 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. Respectfully, Germann Vesterman Fruit Cove, Florida

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radio frequency (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: Falcioni et al. (2018): Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radio frequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission 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 personal health effects that I have experienced. I have deep concerns about long-term exposure to cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources. 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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States – Examined the prevalence of self-reported wireless sensitivity and co-occurring health conditions in the United States, Canada, and Australia, without establishing causation. 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: My life has been hell over the past years. I can't sleep and deal with all sorts of Healy challenge. I never consented to being immersed in the electromagnetic soup. I react strongly and there is no place for me to go. All the measures that I take to protect self and my family is not enough. This is not right that I need to keep constantly reprise to my children because they want to be as their piers whose parents not necessarily are aware of what is happening because NOONE was officially wormed or informed. This is just purely wrong. 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.

There are so many studies that show radiation is harmful to people, animals and our environment. We the people of this United States need to stop these towers near schools, farms, businesses and homes to protect us from high radiation exposure. We know broadband communications can be delivered in a safer manor with hard cable. There are problems with this environmentally also, but it still seems better https://bioinitiative.org/updated-research-summaries/.

To FCC This issue deserves further study and consideration. It must be impartial (no corporation should pay or insensitive this study), the public deserves to learn if this is a fact of fiction once and for all Thank you

Impacts of 5G have been studied by our military and by scientists around the world. It is exponentially worse than 4G, which was exponentially worse than 3G and below. The FCC allows radiation to be blasted into apartments and schools through these towers and it’s making people sick. It’s exposing our children to a radiation levels that are causing higher levels of cancer and higher levels of cognitive dysfunction. I assume you have access to the military studies, which I do not have access to. I have read when they’ve been posted online, but I didn’t save them because it’s not my responsibility. It’s yours. What have I noticed since the rollout of 5G? Animals and children and adult adults have changed their behavior for the worst. The honeybees are disappearing, birds are disappearing and confused. In my own household, we sleep better when we turn the 5G off, which we have no choice through our Internet carrier, they don’t even allow us a lower radiation level. So now I have to look for a different Internet carrier and I’m trying to make our house wireless so that we are protected from the dangers that you refuse to look at. I am so tired of government not protecting the American people and lining their own pockets while spending more money than you have. And even the bigger concern is 6G which is going to cause mass illness. I did know that 5G rolled out with the pandemic. My assumption is that the amount of sickness 6G will cause will mean you will have to have or manufacture another pandemic to roll out 6G. Please read the documents concerning 5G and consider the birds and the bees and all of us that are being microwaved 24 seven because you don’t do your job.

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: I experienced insomnia. anxiety and serious vertigo from a 5G router and non 5G router, we then mitigated the devices and now ALL side effects have gone away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is an extremely serious problem, i know so many humans on anxiety drugs, if they only knew its from wifi RADIATION!!!!! 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.

You have received numerous studies and have been shown direct evidence of the harm, sometimes severe that has been caused by WIRELESS RADIATION. The developers have been allowed by you the FCC to go further and further into this technology releasing more and more dangerous strengths of radiation. FOR WHAT REASON??? The FCC MUST REIGN IN AND CONTROL WIRELESS RADIATION NOW.

5G has not been tested for long term cell disruption and should be studied more before rolling it or any new wireless technology that adds to our bodies already over burdened EMF exposure.