Research, evidence & monitoring

I am submitting these comments to the FCC to review the impacts of RF radiation from cell towers, and other public sources. I have waited years for a proper review of health and environmental concerns that impact humans, wildlife and the environment; this is of utmost importance to be done by experts in the those fields, scientific, biological and otherwise related. With satellites, cell towers, and other manmade objects being sent up into the ionosphere, how could there not be an over bombardment of frequencies on all of us? I have experienced sudden unusual headaches while driving in areas, without prior cause. At times these areas are the same again and again with the onset of headaches. Children, pets, farm animals, wildlife must be impacted...I'm sure I can't be the only person feeling sensitive to this "bombardment" of frequencies. Please conduct a PROPER and THOROUGH STUDY to come to a conclusive determination of the application of these devices!

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: It gave my son a heart condition. Because they had 5G and WiFi at his school he was forced to drop out. And he is limited where he can go. And I know of other people and children who are suffering with the same problem and worse.

Here's a published, peer-reviewed research article on the effects of wireless radiation: "Effect of radiofrequency radiation from Wi-Fi devices on mercury release from amalgam restorations." Paknahad M, Mortazavi SMJ, Shahidi S, Mortazavi G, Haghani M. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 2016.

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.

My personal experience includes the need to turn off my WiFi router at night in order to sleep. This has been a problem for me ever since I obtained internet services in my home. On the other hand, the research has been quite clear since 2015 that wireless radiation is a health hazard. Here (below) is a link to an explanation that you have either missed or ignored. Please get up to speed before ruling. Thank you. https://eng.unimelb.edu.au/engage-with-us/lectures/davis-2015

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 we have seen the effects of wireless radiation through headaches, cancer, decrease in focusing abilities, and many other health related issues. 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 have followed science on EMF exposure for many years. The majority of non-industry-funded studies are showing reason for lots of concern in the matter of exposure. And increasingly, it is becoming difficult to find living locations that fall into low- or no-impact levels of EMF. And even if one finds them, there is no guarantee that locations will stay that way if there is no public input allowed. It's not out of order to state that this is already likely a significant public health problem. There should be a moratorium on any activity which increases EMF, robust unbiased study of biological effects, and more public and local oversight on proposed projects that would increase EMF.

Wireless radiation has caused me to have sleep problems over the last several years. Most recently, I have been experiencing electrical issues with my heart. I'm very sensitive to this wireless technology and have begun the process of de-smart metering my home as well as unplugging my wireless router in my home. There have NEVER been ANY safety studies for this technology, which is criminal in my opinion. At a minimum, the government should require safety studies. Tom Wheeler, former FCC chair, famously declared, "Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years writing committee reports... turning innovators loose is far more preferable than unleashing committees. He emphasized that American leadership in 5G must be an immediate national priority and that the agency would allow the technology to flourish without what he termed "needlessly prescriptive regulations". Because the FCC did not commission or require new independent medical or environmental safety studies prior to greenlighting the 5G spectrum rollout. We Americans are demanding updated radiation guidelines and testing.

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: A dear elderly friend of mine killed herself last November after months of living with nearly constant radio-chatterfrom a nearby microwave tower, no matter what she tried, including a Faraday Cage, which helped incompletely. She was clear-headed, not mentally ill. She had lived through a lot, including metastatic breast cancer 20 years before, but this did her in. 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 strongly urging the FCC to conduct a study on the health effects of wireless radiation. I experience extreme ear ringing when I am in proximity to people with cell phones, especially those with 5G. I know it is coming from the wireless radiation that bombards my body as when I took a vacation to Northern Minnesota and was on a very remote lake with very poor cell phone reception, my ear ringing went away. I also felt more energetic and clear-minded. It is time for an appropriate scientific study on the effects of wireless radiation. The American people cannot wait any longer. Please.