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 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. This issue matters to me personally because of the increase in the usage of cell phones, microwaves, and other developing technology. Non-thermal effects of radio frequencies lead to concerns such as cellular stress and DNA damage. Some studies suggest exposure to RF radiation could potentially affect the blood-brain barrier. This barrier is crucial for protecting the brain from harmful substances. Other effects that are reported include headaches and memory loss. Outdated guidelines need revamping. I am all for the FCC looking at the damage radio frequencies can do to humans, flora and fauna, using the up-to-date amounts of radiation exposure taken in by the most ardent users of radio frequency technology!

In 2012 I was exposed to high levels of pulsed microwave radiation from two digital utility meters outside my recently acquired apartment bedroom wall. I experienced a host of symptoms which included: brain fog, fatigue, dizziness, difficulty sleeping and headaches. To this day I am sensitive to exposure from wireless radiation at certain levels. This has greatly limited my ability to work in many environments and is limiting in my families options for many modern conveniences and functional technology. I have a wife and an eight year old and 4 month old daughter. We use hardwired connection in our home and use cell phones conservatively. I am asking you to consider the scientific literature in order to move forward with any policies and decisions regarding the safety of this technology. It isn't fair that some people have to struggle to navigate the world because of this technology. Everyone is affected but some people are acutely affected and aware of the harms regarding this technology. Thank you

I am sensitive to Radio Frequencies, My head hurts, my arm gets a deep irritation, and my ears ring loud when I am in an area that has cell phones, routers, blue tooth or cell towers. I have to prevent such things from operating in my home which is getting harder to do with so many products equipped with RF antennas. I am greatly limited because most product come with high frequency Radio Frequency signals that pulsate even when products are turned off. I would ask that the FCC adhere to the courts ruling to do extensive reporting on the following as ordered by the court: The harmful impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation which has been shown in the NTP study on Radio Frequency in 2016 showing strong correlation to the harmful effects from low RF exposure. The invasive and unavoidable exposure of RF from wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996 which avoided the science on non-particle radiation. The impacts of RF radiation on the environment. To correct the inadequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices. And to require all devices equipped with an antenna to emit a RF or to receive a wireless signal also be equipped with a physical switch to turn the antenna off so antennas are prevented from emitting or receiving or searching for a RF signal so that the owner or operator may have the personal choice as to when and how often they may be exposed to the Radio Frequency. These switches would make buying a new car possible, as well as staying in a hotel where smart products occupy each room and allow for having more modern products in the home or class rooms that do not exposure families and children to this harmful radiation. Thank you

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 very concerned about the effects of EMF's on all of us. The studies that have been done to date, show drastic health impacts and impairments on both humans and animals; and I would hope that no more animals are tortured by human experimentation in the name sake of science. 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 of all of the EMF's I have so much difficulty sleeping, and it seems to be affecting many people. This has been affecting my health in a negative way. I've noticed this more and more over the last 10 years. My younger brother, who actually worked on the cell towers for many years, now has ALS and only has, maybe 6 months to live. He just turned 58. These frequencies are harmful to all, and we need to address this problem now. There has to be a better way to advance our technology without harming the people, the animals and the planet. 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.

Living organisms are full of delicately balanced electric potentials and moving electric charges which could be readily influenced by the levels of artificial microwave exposure that have become standard in modern life. Legislation based on the idea that non-ionising radiation can only interfere with biological processes when of sufficient intensity to heat the tissue, which is the basis of current legislation, is dangerously ignorant in its understanding of biophysics. One of the greatest tragedies in human history has been unfolding over the last few decades in the form of the destruction of the health of the population, particularly in children. Thorough research is desperately needed into the impact of electromagnetic radiation on living organisms, and it is needed thirty years ago.

Where are all the safety studies promised from the outcome of Children's Health Defense 2021 lawsuit toward the FCC? I was on a Zoom, which RFK Jr. and the CHD attorney for the case, Daphne Tachover, were on, in August 2020 about this. God bliss them both. How come Conneticut Senator Richard Blumenthal was concerned about no studies for 5G in 2019, and then 5G was installed during the carefully coordinated covid lockdown, which representatives are too red taped to admit? https://youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4. Wish Senator Blumenthal was as concerned about the covid shots, as Senator Ron Johnson is. Also, what effects is EMF having on those injected or PCR'ed or geoengineering loads? Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea shows self-assemblying nanotechnology in people's blood. Dr. David Nixon shows self-assemblying nano technology, as well, in the covid shots, whether one wishes to believe it, or otherwise: https://DrDavidNixon.com. Here is a peer reviewed study on it: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291. People have been picked up on Bluetooth, too. https://rumble.com/v48wr4o-the-bluetruth-documentary.html. Explain. Please provide the safety studies needed for cell generations. Also, provide school district funding to educate parents and students on EMF safety equipment and financially support fiber internet. There are enough people with disabilities - EMF sensitivites to consider. And demand copper wire is available for landlines. Regarding cell phones, educate all on these, too. They get hot, and people like myself's skin breaks out when holding them. Also, a computer technician, by trade, neighbor of mine had developed brain cancer. I wonder. RIP. Please protect us all, "We the People," health is number 1. Thank you.

Cell phones used to have to list their radiation output, I chose a phone with the lowest I could find at the time. Now they are not publishing this information and I am assuming are not required to do so. With all the environmental issues we are all having and no long term studies have been done we need to limit exposure to RF from towers, WiFi and cell phones, particularly phones since they are directly touching us and especially our heads. This must be limited and studied for the future health of our citizens.

About four years ago, I had a sudden onset of heart palpitations and an irregular heartbeat. I couldn’t sleep at night and could only find relief when going outside of my house. I could not figure out the cause of the sudden change in my until-then perfect health. My doctor was at a loss, which caused me more anxiety. I researched my symptoms and discovered 5G was a cause for many people. I checked my wifi router and saw it had been changed to a 5G signal. I called my internet provider, and they told me they had “upgraded” my signal to 5G, for free, rather than the previous 2.4. It was immediately turned off, and the company representative told me several people had complained of heartbeat problems when in the vicinity of 5G signals. Now I experience problems when I visit people with 5G routers in their homes, some of which live in neighborhoods with 5G signals everywhere. It has effectively limited my ability to interact directly with people I care about. I also am unable to stay in most hotels and motels, so most traveling is out. I want the FCC to follow the direction of the court hearings that instructed the FCC to re-evaluate the outdated research regarding EMF radiation. Numerous studies by scientists with no monetary connections to the EMF industry have been conducted, and they contradict the current findings protecting the industry.

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. 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. My real world experience of wifi radiation impact on my health is current and ongoing; I've detailed it below. 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 was this past spring (2026) notified by my oncological nutritionist that the abrupt rise in my yearly a!C level likely is due to emf exposure. It shows pre-diabetes level 5.7, whereas my diet has kept it between 5.1 and 5.4 for many years, and I have not changed my eating plan this past year. The nutritionist showed me the current online map of cell towers and antennas within 3 miles of my Oakland home. 2300 plus antennas and about 1900 towers emit emf radiation which may be partly what's causing this. However most likely she said the worse source is my home wifi. In addition to blood sugar rise, I have insomnia and increasing tinnitus. So I've taken step one: hardwired my computer and dispensed with wifi. I've felt immediate relief, especially regarding the tinnitus. Will be interested to see results of my next a1C test later this fall. I am astonished that the FCC has let this situation get to this point in which people who are severely affected by the vast increase in efm radiation must make huge changes in their lives, including having to move. To me it's clear that emf has strong biological effects (beyond thermal) on humans (and animals, insects and plants). I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence we are submitting before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.