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 am concerned about myself and my living environment. I need for you to currently test for all impacts to humans, animals, and our environments. Health impacts need to be heard when licenses/applications are being reviewed in public hearings. "We the people" need an agency set up to protect the people, such as the FCC, to gather the objective scientific data for the health agencies to know the impacts to and protect the people's safety and health. Objective, repeatable data not influenced by corporate financial gain. 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 has been directed to explain its guidelines to protect humans from harm including crucial forms of life that support humans including food sources. , this concerning lackadaisical rules and guidelines concerning RF, EMF, cell tower placement, wifi pollution and the inability for the population to have input over the abuse of Tech to over ride any possible restrictions/studies. . The FCC should not have sole... they are not in the medical field. Only health experts who work with sick people. Since 1996 I have chronic pain, palpitations, double vision, insomnia unexplained but notably around computer/phone/near 3-5G

This email is a reply to 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. It’s shameful that the FCC is not fully considering 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 must recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because ever since the summer of 2020, when 5G became ubiquitous without any testing or even discussion of its health impacts, I suddenly had EMF intolerance and tinnitus. Neither of these conditions normally appear suddenly, but huge numbers of people had the same experience that I did in 2020. The FCC’s job, among other things, is to protect people from harmful radiation. It is currently failing at this important duty. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it. To do less than this is to continue in its complete dereliction of duty.

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 know when the cell towers went to 5 G, the children and families in the area of the tower all got sick. This was like having the flu, body aches, headaches. When the cell tower went in the farmers in the area had cows abort their calves and then you also had the uterine prolapse, which takes a cow out of production. Cornell did a study, never saw the results. It time to end the addition of towers, and upping the level.

I lost my husband to cancer 5 months ago. If you ever saw a loved one die of this disease, its unbearable. Studies have been done on the effects of wireless radiation. I fear for all of us on this planet!

I have definitely noticed pain and a tingling sensation in my hands when using certain cell phones (so I use them less often now. I think we should conduct studies to try and understand some of the risks, and hopefully try to make wireless technologies safer to use.

I've personally been impacted by wireless radiation through devices at home and work. From headaches, sleeplessness, and inability to concentrate, wireless radiation has significantly impacted my life, as I've had to spend money i don't have on airtube headphones and expensive EMF blockers that I must carry everywhere to stay in my protected bubble. This has helped, but I don't know what the next generation phones and other technology may bring that I'll have to research ways to mitigate just so I can function. It's egregious that the FCC has allowed unbridled rollout of all of this wireless radiation without simple safety testing. Go to those in the EMF blocking industry. They can help, quickly. Stop harming generations of people.

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 live in a condominium complex and my building has five attached units. Five out of the five units have residents who have been diagnosed with cancer, four with bladder cancer and one with lymphoma. We have had the water tested by the State DEP and the result shows no reason for concern. There are seven cell towers within three miles of our building, two of which are within less than one-half mile. 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: [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.