Research, evidence & monitoring

I urge the FCC to take a careful, science-based look at the potential health effects of long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to reconsider whether the current exposure limits are adequately protective. The FCC's existing limits date back to 1996, while wireless exposure has increased dramatically with cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cell towers, and newer 5G technologies. Research has raised concerns about biological effects that are not adequately addressed by limits based primarily on thermal effects, including oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, and effects on children. The scientific evidence deserves a thorough and independent review. Research has reported potential effects involving children's exposure, prenatal and developmental outcomes, oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive health, neurological function, long-term exposure, and wildlife. I ask the FCC to fully address this evidence, including potential effects from long-term and cumulative exposure and the particular vulnerability of children, before continuing to rely on exposure standards developed three decades ago. Public health protections should keep pace with the technology and the current scientific evidence. **References** 1. Gandhi, O. P., et al. (2012). *Exposure limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34–51. doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. 2. Fernández, C., et al. (2018). *Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality.* Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. 3. Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). *Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice.* Scientific Reports, 2, 312. doi:10.1038/srep00312. 4. Foerster, M., et al. (2018). *A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication.* Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(7). 5. Yakymenko, I., et al. (2016). *Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 6. Güler, G., et al. (2012). *The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits.* International Journal of Radiation Biology, 88(4), 367–373. doi:10.3109/09553002.2012.646349. 7. Zothansiama, et al. (2017). *Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 8. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2019). *Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields.* Mutation Research – Reviews in Mutation Research, 781, 53–62. 9. Adams, J. A., et al. (2014). *Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.* Environment International, 70, 106–112. 10. Houston, B., et al. (2016). *The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function.* Reproduction. 11. Altun, A., et al. (2018). *Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems.* Environmental Research, 167, 700–707. 12. Yahyazadeh, A., Deniz, Ö. G., & Kaplan, A. A. (2018). *The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system.* Environmental Research, 167, 684–693. 13. Falcioni, L., 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 radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.* Environmental Research, 165, 496–503. 14. Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). *Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective.* Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. 15. Balmori, A. (2015). *Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.* Science of the Total Environment, 518–519, 58–60. 16. Cucurachi, S., et al. (2013). *A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).* Environment International, 51, 116–140. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009. 17. Thielens, A., et al. (2018). *Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz.* Scientific Reports, 8, 3924.

I became very ill from wireless after hooking my house up to it and eliminating hardwired devices. It took me sometime to figure out what the cause was. I suffered from neuropathy, severe brain fog, extreme fatigue, vision impairment, migraines and GI symptoms. Once I went back to hardwired those symptoms disappeared. Hardwired is superior, already in place, not hackable and does not cause all the above mentioned symptoms. It's not right to have wireless technology that harms every cell in our bodies, especially when it is measured by standards from long ago that have nothing to do with the scientific fact that they do cause severe harm to all living things.

We have our house cabled, our TV and our computers. I keep my cell phone on airplane mode unless using. I can feel the energy in the house when the Wi-Fi is turned on and I do not sleep well. We keep the Wi-Fi off. The last studies on the current standards we use ( set in 1996) were done in the 90s.. don’t you think a little has changed since then?? All these satellites?? Wireless routers and cell towers popping up everywhere? Follow the trail of illness, sleep issues, etc. over the years. The decline in pollinators, known to be sensitive to electromagnetic energy..it is no accident and needs to be seriously studied. Do your due diligence! Thank you!

I am an eighty five year old retired female living in a retirement community in Northern California, since October 1013. After living here for about six months, I began having strange physical symptoms - heart palpations, dizziness, nausea and tinnitus. I started investigating the cause of these symptoms, and found six electric smart (wireless) meters on the outside bedroom wall close to where I sleep. They are pulsating high levels of radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day. I discontinued sleeping in that bedroom and the symptoms disappeared, except for the tinnitus. When I stayed at my nephews house in the country which has low EMFs, the tinnitus subsided. This scenario is a classic of someone suffering from electro hypersensitivity (EHS). I urge the FCC to reevaluate the upper limits of radio frequency radiation that are safe for humans and wildlife. In the many years since you set these limits, there have been many scientific studies showing that these limits are entirely too high. Many people like myself have suffered from wifi and 5G exposure. It is time for you to make changes.

I am deeply concern about the negative health effects of wireless radiation. These health effects need to be studied. I am also against the placing of cell towers near people's homes. Please instead concentrate on expanding wired connections to computers and phones, which don't have the same health concerns.

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.

It is imperative that the safety of cell phones and use of Wi-Fi be reevaluated, especially when it comes to the well being of children. Children and unborn babies are particularly more sensitive given their bodies are still developing. With the greater use of Wi-Fi use in homes and schools, families and school administrators need to ensure children aren't being overexposed to harmful radiation and for that the FCC needs to reevaluate the standards based on today's technology, which have drastically changed. Many studies have looked at this very topic, including the 2015 study by Morris, R., et al, titled Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults.. In the study it states that children's brains are much more vulnerable to toxins because "the insulation layer of myelin, which acts to protect nerve cells, is far less developed in the child, the skull is thinner, the immune system is still developing and cells are reproducing far more rapidly than in adults". We don't allow children to have the same dosis of medication as an adult, why would we think Wi-Fi exposure would be any different?

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.

I am writing to urge the FCC to reexamine its radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines, with particular attention to the potential impact of wireless radiation on children and developing brains. The current FCC guidelines were developed nearly three decades ago, before the widespread use of smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi-enabled classrooms, wearable devices, and the constant wireless connectivity that now defines daily life for many children. Today's children experience levels and patterns of exposure that were not contemplated when the current standards were adopted. Of particular concern is the growing body of scientific literature examining the effects of RF exposure during critical periods of brain development. For example, Aldad et al. (2012), a Yale University study published in Scientific Reports, found behavioral and neurodevelopmental changes in mice exposed to cellular telephone radiation during gestation. While no single study should dictate regulatory policy, such findings underscore the need for careful review of potential developmental impacts and should not be dismissed without meaningful consideration. Children are not simply smaller adults. They are undergoing rapid neurological development, and they may face a lifetime of cumulative exposure to wireless technologies. Yet there is little public information regarding the actual, real-world RF exposures children experience throughout the school day in increasingly wireless educational environments. Wi-Fi routers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and other connected devices are now commonplace in classrooms, but the extent and characteristics of these exposures are rarely monitored or publicly reported. The FCC has a special responsibility to ensure that its regulations adequately protect vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. At a minimum, the Commission should conduct a transparent review of the current scientific evidence regarding children's health and neurodevelopment, explain how it evaluates studies reporting biological effects at non-thermal exposure levels, and determine whether additional safety factors or updated exposure limits are warranted. The question before the Commission is not whether wireless technology provides tremendous benefits. It unquestionably does. The question is whether exposure standards developed in the 1990s continue to reflect the best available science in a world where children are surrounded by wireless devices from infancy onward. The FCC should ensure that its regulations are based on current evidence and provide an appropriate margin of safety for the nation's children. Thank you for considering these comments.