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. This issue matters to me personally because I have seen how wireless radiation can impact my sleep and mood. 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.

Since the 5-G towers were activated here in Los Angeles city & county in May of 2019, I have experienced numerous health issues, including headachs ( I never had headaches since I was a young boy and thoses were a result of a flu infection or other common maladies! I also began to to feel fatique, irritability, short-term memory disruption, a sense of " heaviness" making basic activities more difficult! I never had those issues before the 5-G activation! I developed a neuro- muscular disorder 4 years after the activation of 5-G and experienced other immune disruptions! When I leave my home and travel to other communities that do not have such a concentration of EMF, MY SYMPTOMS DECLINE DRAMATICALLY! I have an EMF meter in my home and it shows that the radiation level is " extreme!" Sometimes, in the late evening hours, the EMF levels decline but go way up after 9:00 a.m. each day! I would move if I could, as I know a number of people who had to leave Los Angeles city because they were made ill by the EMF! From what I have read, Europe and even China have much greater restrictions on the level of EMF energy their citizens are forced to absorb! Many peer reviewed studies show a link between excessive EMF levels and human health disorders! There is Absolutly No reason why we have to endure toxic levels of EMF when other countries provide the technology to their citizens without such extreme levels of radiation!

International scientists have provided to the WHO researched proof of the multiple effects of man made EMR/EMF. This has been discounted and manipulated by those with vested interests in expanding the particular infrastructure, this to the detriment of human health. Eventually we all pay the price for ignorance.

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: I experience negative physical affects being close to 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.

I suffer from a physiological response to wireless technologies. This happens when I am in a strong wifi environment and if I stay too long near electromagnetic frequencies from standard electrical pulsations. I didn’t want to believe that my symptoms and suffering would be so clearly caused by such ubiquitous daily technologies but the facts have remained- I feel the intensity of pulsed electromagnetic waves. My symptoms are: insomnia, headache, increased and heightened tinnitus (ringing becomes more shrill), and an overall increase in anxiety. To alleviate my reactions/illness, I have learned to prepare for a specific environment. For example, when I enter a restaurant, I use an EMF meter to find the areas of least radiation. My house is hard-wired with ethernet cables providing my internet connections and I use a landline to communicate. I do own a cell phone but it is kept in airplane mode or off most of the time. My friends and family know about my condition and they do not keep their phones on around me. I can’t attend stadium concerts, games and events where I know all phones will be pulsing their signals so, I don’t go. Luckily, I own my home and I am not subject to others’ wifi signals that would occur were I living in an apartment building. What about those who can’t afford a home and are forced to live in an unsafe environment? Sadly, I have come to believe that our government does not care about people like me. They care about the profits made by Telecom and they continue to deny that my sub-group has validity. Despite the studies that show harm, the FCC has just continued to allow more transmitters at higher frequencies to be developed. These higher frequencies (4G, 5G, 6G, 10G) are currently causing damage to plants and wildlife while the Federal government just looks the other way. I urge the FCC to take me and the thousands of us (could be millions, with symptoms blamed on the wrong cause), seriously. We are disabled and are often unable to participate in general society. Today, it is hard to find a safe place where there are no EMFs. This is why many escape into a forest, living off grid and on the edge. The small cell antennas now being deployed in every conceivable location- schools, office buildings, churches (shouldn’t they be sacred and safe places?), and on people’s homes make life impossible for those suffering from EMR-S (Electro Magnetic Syndrome). Please, take action now and prevent more suffering. Thank you, Kelly Marcotulli

EMF radiation emitting towers needs to be reigned in. The health effects that we already know about are profound. Radio Frequency limits must be lowered. Of course the issue is big tech and big money and now having rolled this out in such a huge way and then say "oops", is a big lift with enormous push back. We need limits and better testing and reduction of exposure. We have been allowing the tech companies to race from 2G to 6G and beyond. NO, we need a halt to this before everyone is sick and sickly. I, for one person, have extremely disrupted sleep in the presence of towers and wifi. This technology was rolled out with no proper long term safety studies and the safety foundations are resting on antiquated numbers from long, long ago (i.e. does it raise temps) Questions: What does it do to cells, the immune system, T cells, mitochondria, a pregnant woman and the developing fetus? I have palpitations and a heart rate around 110 in the presence of towers and moderate EMF signals. Is there a significant portion of the population that has more sensitivity to this as I do? Is it causing cancers? Let us use the Precautionary Principle to protect people and the unborn and back off and lower the exposure levels. An Inconvenient Truth it may be, but do not let that stop the FCC from doing the right things for Americans and future generations. Science shows cells and life can be harmed, sleep patterns disrupted and thus Radio Frequency Limits need to be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERED.

DIGITAL technology is pulsed. Human and wildlife biology is accustomed to natural radio waves, and is not adjusted to the impact of intermittent pulses generated without relief from cell masts. Therefore, digital technology must be either superseded or used with the greatest precaution. THIS submission identifies four areas where there are gaps in necessary protection for long term public health, as follows: CELL masts capable of RF transmission are being installed in residential streets— # Without long term effects having been proven safe for human and wildlife health; and # Without reported adverse effects having been avoided or remedied; and # Without the democratic agreement of residents living within reach and sight of the technology; and # Without adequate monitoring of transmission levels. THE regulatory authorities are failing to protect human and wildlife wellbeing in those four ways. Through disregard of public wishes, the FCC is denying the public control of our own health. ISSUES of public concern regarding positioning of cell masts in residential areas: # The telecom companies are not required to remedy loss of good health, nor pay for shielding materials to avoid effects, nor compensate loss of pleasure in life. # There is no provision for the public to have rights of objection to the choice of site for a cell mast, nor rights to compensation and fair settlement. # Recourse to legal processes is beyond the means of most households. That is, the costs of shielding materials, re-designing bedrooms where children sleep, and “leaving all fair” should fall on the telecommunication companies and not on the householder.

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. I am pleased that 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. It is so important to require 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. I can remember reading the package insert of instructions when our cell phones were 2 and 3 G, and we were instructed not to keep the phone to the ear and to use an ear piece to have a conversation on the phone. I've seen my partners phone tells you when you are holding the phone too close. Obviously it is noted that wireless radiation can affect one's health. My daughter's children always had difficulty sleeping, when she lived next door to me in Long Beach, New York, her children now sleep much better at night since she moved out of New York on top of a mountain in North Carolina where the nearest tower is 3 miles away. She moved 4 years ago and her children then were 4, 7 and 10, so they were not infants when they had difficulty sleeping. I also have difficulty sleeping at night. but we have a house in the Adirondacks and I sleep great there, I hear a constant hum here in Long Beach. It is not tinnitus. I am an RN and I know the difference. The hum is not inside my head. It comes from outside and being that I also am a musician, I needed to hum to myself to match the note sound and it is an F sharp on the lower end of the piano give or take a 1/4 note. It hasn't changed the note since I've been noting it. I wired my household desk top computers to ethernet and turned off the wi- fi, to diminish the exposure while I'm on the computer, however of course I still have wifi in the house for TV and phone use. And the low hum is constant all day and night. I use a phone case with an EMF radiation barrier. I don't know how much it helps, but I know there are devices that help block the radiation. Perhaps the towers can be housed in a blocking radiation structure. I do know in the medical field we recommend not keeping cell phones close to the body or in pockets, especially for couples going through fertility treatments. So it seems it is known that EMF radiation does negatively affect the body. The big question here is how much do we let corporate greed dictate policy impacting all of humanity in a negative way. Thank you for your reaching out to Americans for their experiences and hopefully you can devise and implement ways to protect us. Lori Field, RN

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 I am concerned for the safety of my family, friends and students/coworkers at the elementary school where I am employed. I have seen the behavior and mental health of my students decline once they were assigned one-to-one wireless devices. Children are using wireless devices at school and at home for excessive hours daily. We have a student in Children's Hospital undergoing treatment for a deadly cancer that normally affects senior citizens. Our electric company Eversource is currently replacing meters with smart meter and I am concerned about the effects on students and staff being bombarded 24/7 with more RF. 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.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies ET Docket No. 13-84 COMMENTS OF JANET DAVENPORT This filing provides comments from Janet Davenport in the above-referenced proceeding. 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. SUMMARY I am filing a report for a friend who is so sick with EHS that she can't even use electricity let alone get online to comment on her condition. She is an individual consumer living in Australia. Janet had to have the wiring in her home restructured so that all other wiring was separate from it. She uses no electricity and keeps warm during winter using candles. With exposures to wi-fi, mobile phones and cell towers, within 3 minutes she suffers severe migraines and begins vomiting. It can take her weeks to recover from simple exposures so for the most part she is completely isolated with no support from anyone. As I have EHS too, we write to each other and have done for years. It helps her not to feel so alone. I know Janet would like to see awareness raised on EMF dangers and protocols set in place to protect vulnerable sensitive people like herself. ARGUMENT Janet understands the full effects that EMF can have on the human body from her personal experience. She also gets printed newsletters and magazines to keep her updated on EMF research. Some of the points she would like to illustrate on these effects include: 1. The Effects of oxidative stress on the body including cancer, free radicals, blood chemistry. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation - PubMed 2. The acute health effects caused by smartphones and antennas which have proven to cause red blood cells to rouleaux creating hypoxic conditions in the body. CONCLUSION 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. Dated: 26th September 2026 Sincerely, JANET DAVENPORT Site 14, 2 Evans Rd Canton Beach, NSW 2263 Australia