Research, evidence & monitoring

When very overweight and no longer losing weight, my nutritionist recommended that I consider turning off all my computer and bedroom power every night, making my landlines corded instead of wireless, (I didn't have a smart phone), and make all computer technology corded with EMF protected cords from Less EMF. In other words, he suspected my high EMF environment (like most Americans) was causing weight gain. I was eating a diet that normally allowed me to lose weight fast, but it had stalled. After 3 weeks of dramatically reducing home EMFs, my daily weight loss restarted and continued when the only thing I changed was emf exposure-not diet or exercise. At that point, I spent the money and bought expensive meters and studied EMFs.

See paper, "Safety of Wireless Technologies--The Scientific View", which explains the connection between wireless exposures and chronic illnesses identified by the U.S. Navy Office of Medical Research in 1971, also explaining the umbrella mechanism of action that can explain the diverse biological and health effects. https://manhattanneighbors.org/safety-of-wireless-technologies-the-scientific-view/

I have a good friend who must live with shielding from emf fabric due to being so sick that she cannot function. Exposure to emfs must be thoroughly investigated through research done not by technology funded research but by scientists with no conflict of interest. Our children and our lives must be protected from this reckless exposure. With cell towers (large or small cells) near homes and in neighborhoods and schools, our children are in danger. Exposure to emf's also is proven to affect our children's concentration, wildlife, and even bees ability to return to their hives. Do you want a cell tower near your child's window where they sleep and in neighborhoods where children walk and play? Please be wise halt this madness and provide research that is done with integrity and that is not funded by the tech companies who profit from additional cell towers being installed. Thank you,

I strongly oppose cell towers within 100 miles of any population. I also oppose smart meters. We live in a townhouse that has 6 smart meters within 6 feet of our bedroom. Since the meters have been installed, we have suffered significant health issues that have disappeared when we stay overnight somewhere else. Several studies done in several countries have all concluded using cell phones increases the risk of cancer. Several people have reported ill effects from living close to a cell tower. Cell towers disrupt other living organisms, particularly bees, by decreasing their populations and disrupting their form of communication and flying patterns. I do not consent to cell towers being anywhere near where people inhabit.

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 my son and I often have tinniutus and head pressure/migraines from the wireless technologies that plague our home. We turn off our wireless at night, which has helped to a point, but are still surrounded by many neighbors who leave theirs on 24/7. We often do not feel well the longer we are on our cell phones and laptop because of such direct exposure of wireless frequencies. We can literally feel the uncomfortable frequencies driving past the cell towers or being near a smart meter. The wireless frequencies are disturbing the cells within our bodies because we are made of frequencies as well. It feels as if we have been guinea pigs/research subjects for so many experiments, and it's about time someone is putting a spotlight on wireless radio frequencies and its harmful consequences, so that we can do something meaningful about it. Overall, I believe that 1) homes and workplaces would have more reliable connections with wired services for phone, TV, computers, equipment than what wireless can provide. 2) There is also more security from being hacked with wired services. 3) There needs to be ethical longitudinal studies into wireless frequency and how it affects not just humans but also wildlife--animals, plants, soil, water, air, environment as a whole. 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 long past time to make sure that we are all protected from electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation. Many studies have been done that show the damage can be severe, especially for higher radiation levels such as 5G. The next generation that is being proposed, 6 G and higher, will be even worse. Some people are more seriously affected than others, but already it is hard for those most affected to find places where they can be comfortable. I have several friends who are immediately affected by the presence of cell towers and other emitting devices. However, even those who are not aware of it are being affected. All these forms of radiation damage not only humans, but also domestic animals, wildlife, and even plants. It would be nice if industry was more capable of restraining itself or if education about the dangers wasn’t being smothered by monetary influences, but since that is not proving to be the case, we need laws and regulations to stop the increasing prevalence of radiation before we do further damage to ourselves and our planet.

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 over the last several years, I’ve noticed trees dying, all my roses have died. My personal health has changed by lower energy, hair suddenly becoming thinner and low energy and brain feeling like it’s being zapped. Many salon owners say clients hair and symptoms similar. As an adult our bodies are feeling it, imagine children. It’s changing their minds and altering their behaviors and energy levels. Now all the nano particles in air, water, foods which we have no idea, then metals in them react to radiation. It’s logical. Even our animals are sensing it with lethargy waking at night (just like humans). Society wants to chalk it up as hormones, or adults getting older etc. That doesn’t fly anymore. We know the networks of corporate medical and energy industrial complexes. We are NOT buying the narrative they have repeated over and over. Nature to nature heals. Not nature with radiation, chemicals and greedy networks overriding public health and safety. The jig is up. Plain and simple. We want smart meters removed from ALL schools, hospitals, homes, etc. They shoved this tech down our throats for their greed and progressive soul ending “energy.” There are much better ways to power. Energy is free actually and we shouldn’t need to pay for harming people anymore. CHANGE IT NOW. Protect our CHILDREN, HUMANITY AND OUR PETS from this harm. With that being said 29072 has over 62 cell towers of all kinds within a three mile radius. Why? And cancer has increased in people, especially prostate and breast cancer. Kids have incredible add:adhd:addictions etc. I’m here 16 years and it’s ridiculous to amount of towers just popping up overnight in areas. The public is kept from knowing anything about it. You will see how much the medical system has increased patients. Maybe we need to audit the tower companies, medical centers locally, schools with WiFi. I’m sure it will open your eyes. Thank you for hearing my voice. I’m definitely feeling affects and hair thinning by this. I would move tomorrow if could but the network banks have us trapped in by interest rates. Another rabbit hole for you dig into. This says so much. You can see for yourselves. https://www.celltowermaps.com/cell-towers/near/zip-code/29072 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's a well documented scientific fact that wireless radiation of all kinds is dangerous for a myriad of reasons and hasn't been held to the scrutiny it should, considering it's impact on all adults and especially children with growing brains and bodies. There hasn't been adequate safety testing or accountability by those who push it's unlimited use. This is unbelievable in 2026, since it's dangers have been well known for years, falling on mainly deaf ears. Please do something before more harm is done!

I am a member of the public concerned with the unaddressed potential health and environmental risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices. I have been reactive to wireless radiation and I urge you to review the scientific evidence in full. Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission.

As a concerned parent , 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.