Research, evidence & monitoring

PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND ON RF RADIATION EXPOSURE GUIDELINES I am submitting this comment in direct response to the remand ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which mandated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provide a reasoned explanation for maintaining its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court made it abundantly clear that the FCC failed to establish that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect against non-cancer health effects, cumulative long-term exposures, vulnerability in developing children, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. As a communications regulator rather than a biomedical or health agency, the FCC cannot continue to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific evidence and real-world human experience while clinging to obsolete, thermal-only models. Why This Issue Matters Personally In my day-to-day work and personal life, I regularly interact with individuals, families, and chronically ill patients who report debilitating sensitivities and symptom flares when exposed to ambient, near-field, and cumulative wireless radiation. From headaches, brain fog, and severe sleep disruptions to heightened biological stress responses, these experiences are real, observable, and disruptive to daily living. Modern life has created an unprecedented environmental shift: citizens no longer experience single, isolated RF exposures. Instead, we are subjected to a continuous, overlapping blanket of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from modern cell phones held directly against the body, high-output Wi-Fi routers operating 24/7 in homes and schools, smart utility meters, and an accelerating density of small-cell infrastructure placed within feet of bedroom windows. To achieve even a baseline level of comfort and restorative sleep, an increasing number of people are forced to take extraordinary measures—relying on RF shielding fabrics, hardwired Ethernet connections, and physical barriers just to reduce ambient field exposure in their own living spaces. When individuals consistently experience tangible relief and improved well-being simply by eliminating or attenuating these fields, the agency's insistence that "no non-thermal biological effects exist" is directly contradicted by everyday reality. Furthermore, testing protocols that rely on large plastic mannequins (such as the legacy SAM phantom) filled with liquid do not reflect real-world device usage. Real people—and specifically children with thinner skulls, developing central nervous systems, and smaller body geometries—absorb proportionally higher rates of radiation from devices used directly against the head and lap. Direct Actions Requested of the Commission In accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s mandate, the FCC must: Defer to Legitimate Health Authorities: Re-engage with independent biomedical researchers, toxicologists, and relevant federal health agencies—including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)—rather than relying on decades-old industry assumptions. Update Testing Procedures for Modern Devices: Overhaul device compliance testing so that cell phones, tablets, and wearable tech are evaluated in direct contact with biological tissue at maximum power output, eliminating artificial separation distances. Establish Biologically Based Standards: Transition away from an outdated thermal-only standard to an exposure model that accounts for chronic, low-level, non-thermal biological impacts, pulsed wave modulations, and cumulative lifetime exposures. Evaluate Environmental and Wildlife Impacts: Give substantive, non-dismissive consideration to the documented impacts of radiofrequency radiation on plant biology, pollinator behavior, and avian populations. The public record must reflect that the public demands accountability, scientific integrity, and public health safeguards over unchecked commercial deployment. I urge the Commission to address each deficiency identified by the federal court completely, transparently, and rigorously. Respectfully submitted, James Concerned Citizen & Clean Environment Advocate

We urge the FCC to comprehensively study and report on the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation (especially on children) and we OPPOSE wireless towers and hotspots being constructed/ installed in residential areas. 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. 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 highly concerned about the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The FCC has no authority or expertise in biology or public health nor have they studied RF radiation affects on public health, but the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards. RF radiation DOES affect public health and DOES cause biological harm. This issue matters to me personally because I am sensitive to ALL wireless devices, including cell towers, cell phones, and smart meters. I became sensitive seven years ago after driving a newer car equipped with bluetooth devices. After researching the internet to understand my condition, I sold that car and removed all wireless devices from our house, because they cause me to have hours of painful headaches which nothing, except 10-24 hours of staying at home, will remove; our house is now wired with ethernet. Where I frequently drive, there are six cell towers within ten miles of my house. These wireless devices are dangerous to human and animal health. More wireless will cause chronic illness to continue rising and even death for millions of people. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence of others 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. This issue matters to me personally because I am aware of sufficient amounts of evidence and studies that show the great harm EMF's cause, like causing fertility issues and illnesses that can result in death. 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 I have seen the effects the towers have on birds. They swarm them and act neurotic. This is a tower that is feet from an elementary school. One person could very well see that if this tower is effecting wildlife, it has to cause some type of reaction in children or humans in general. Electro magnetic frequencies (EMF) are dispersed from devices, why wouldn’t a tower disperse the same? Continuing with new construction would almost be like a legal form of murder. The environmental signs are there and we need to stop ignoring them. 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.

The FCC is not an expert in health and biology and physiology, yet it ignores court orders to consider these things. I lived next to a cell phone tower when my wife was pregnant and had our first and second child. They like many people have different issues that reveal themselves over time. How do we know that none of them were because of the close proximity to that intense radiation exposure? We don’t know because there has not been adequate testing to determine this. Yet the FCC plows ahead without any serious consideration or scientific review. There is plenty of evidence to show the possibility of harm to my children. Worth some more deep research into these health concerns. The determination can be made with the right kind of research. Lets do that adequately and then we will know. And true progress can be made. Either to allow rapid deployment of useful technology, or to help provide the evidence which redirects the industry to the technology that will not harm humans nor biology. Health is cared for and progress is made. This is the responsible sustainable route. The prior route has been only to further corporate interest at the flagrant risk to human and environmental health. Please do the right thing!

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 feel the effects of the humongous two-tier cell tower that is within hundreds of feet from my home. Not only has it lowered home values in my area, but more importantly I feel what it emits in every cell of my body. I feel in my body, the constant bombardment of waves coming from these towers, cellphones, WiFi, repeaters, and satellites pumping out toxic waveforms. How much more evidence do you need that this bombardment is responsible for 20th-21st century epidemics of chronic insomnia, anxiety, depression, agitation, and gut-brain health issues. And probably cancer. There used to be tons of wildlife where I live, but even birds and bees have seemingly lost their way from this onslaught. Let's face it, we know that lobbyists and conflicts of interest have full control of government agencies, and have for a very long time. It is time for people like me and my family to matter--integrity, ethical concerns... instead of greed and a desire to hurt-torture-kill human beings in the name of 'saving the planet.' Money is a narrative created by those who created it and propagandized it into 'reality.' A Monopoly game is as real as the system we are all subject to. PLEASE, wake up and do what people hired you to do before we didn't matter anymore. That said, 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 and things identified by constituents.

Hello. I am writing concerning 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, much of which is unknown due to lack of safety testing. The health and wellbeing of humans should take precedence over the wealth of the cellular and internet industries. 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 is unacceptable. They seem to be only concerned with money, not human health. 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. Wireless radiation poses a threat to all life. Some people, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN, are more susceptible to the health risks associated with wireless radiation and it's the job of the ADULTS to protect them, not the profits of those who incentivize with $$$.

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 was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer at the age of 41 and given 3 months to live by my doctors. My husband and I had 4 year old twin daughters at the time. We were devastated. We had an environmental assessment done at our home and discovered that the wireless phone base station we had placed next to my desk to the right of my computer screen was putting off radiation that was off the charts. And my tumor was one my right side just a foot or two from the base station. Before cancer, we were unaware of the harms of RF radiation. We assumed as most people do that our government would not allow devices that caused serious harms. Fortunately I survived my cancer that would otherwise have devastated my children and husband. It’s imperative that the FCC take extreme care in allowing 5G and other devices to be placed near people’s homes and properly test devices we all use to make sure they do not cause cancer and other serious harms. 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.