Research, evidence & monitoring

Thank you for your consideration. The basis of my proposal starts with an acknowledgement the panel faces of the challenges getting good studies in today's system. The docket summary shows people are concerned but that it is difficult getting good clear actionable information. I could point out studies here or elsewhere but the usual issues would be sited that the study does not represent our society or that there are other contributing factors to any harms. On the other hand, the same could be said when relying on an Australian study to state that there are no biological harms. Australia is different than the US. Their average exposures are less than the US; 1.06V/m versus 1.44V/m. I expect the panel's own frustrations at getting good studies would be a driver for my proposal. My proposal is that for any new technology that changes exposures, select a distributed random subset of states to roll it out to first. Conduct a health survey with concerned health and industry experts in those and neighboring states before and after introduction. Passing this rule could motivate states to get good health and environmental records to be able to be a part of a new innovation rollout. I expect that industry and states will be against it. However, an economic study using forecast computer models would be interesting. It would help distribute technology through the country rather than having central points of innovation. Without a plan, the alternative is to continue innovating at a blind, break neck speed. Why chance breaking the nation's neck? This is not stopping innovation, but planned implementation. I expect an argument against the proposal to be why make an update when there are no known harms. The 'no known' part is the reason to implement. Ruben et al 2010 states no findings of harms, but noted 2% of the population could detect fields. Studies in plants and animals note biological impacts, but often are argued that the test isn't representative. If there are biological impacts on plants and animals I expect people also have those impacts and we expose ourselves to worse conditions more similar to how the animals are tested. Is RF causing reproductive harms? We can't know because there are pesticides, pollution, and other factors. We could know if there was planned implementation.

The FCC has had the five years following its CHD/EHT District Court mandate to cull through the hundreds of pages documenting thousands of international expert studies of RF effects (as well as 200 documented testimonies from RF-harmed individuals). The FCC complaint to the same high court’s recent mandamus for a response was that it hadn’t had time. So, it apparently spent zero time on this task thus far, a thumb to its nose at the force of law. Now, as its passive desire to demonstrate effort on the grievously neglected court mandate, it asks the public to once again send it evidence from all those studies it certainly still possesses references for in the court documents. Environmental Health Trust, in the interim after the winning 2022 lawsuit, conveyed to the FCC another copious list of references showing further confirmation of many harms from RF radiation that is below the antiquated elevated strength limits of the FCC. All this new “request for information” is a non-convincing pinky promise that it will do something with this information, but what exactly is it?

It is astonishing that here we are in 2026 and the FCC has not considered any of the studies for wireless radiation and no updated, acknowledged guidelines have occurred since 1996. How is that even possible? Radiofrequency radiation surrounds us every minute of every day. You hold our health in your hands. Industry continues to push for thousands of new antenna installations near our homes. There must be a deliberate and meaningful policy change in our world, it is all we have. Please protect it and all of us in it. The concern for people appears to be a thing of the past. All of our futures are in your hands. Please review the facts and help all of us.

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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean, and Steinenmann (2026): Wireless sensitivities and comorbidities: A prevalence study of co-morbidities in Canada, Australia, and the United States Although this study does not establish causation, I believe the information gathered raises enough red flags to warrant further investigation of both the thermal and non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. These studies are crucial for studying its impact on both the human population 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. I have always been sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies. I first noticed it as a child when we would drive under high power electrical wires. I would feel “pressure” or pain in my head and chest. Decades later, as cell towers started to be constructed, I noticed increased intensity and headaches when within a certain range of cell towers. In 2012, while vacationing at a resort that was in close proximity to a cell tower, I ended up in the emergency room with chest pain. They found trace levels of troponin in my blood and a cardiac catheritization was performed. I was 44 years old and otherwise healthy. Around the same time, I started to have symptoms when near Wi-Fi and security systems, while holding a cell phone next to my head, when wearing wireless headphones, and when using Bluetooth in my car. Now, with 5G expansion, satellite technology, and increased security systems, my symptoms have increased tremendously and are often unbearable. There is frequent ringing in my ears, headaches, chest pressure, shortness of breath, and extreme fatigue. I find that it is especially bad on overcast days. 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. People should always come before profits!

Please address the concerns about cancer and reproductive toxicity that are raised in Melnick R and Moskowitz J, Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Please take account of Mevissen et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review.

(Relating to earlier comment) A brief historical summary of those involved with passing the previously mentioned Oregon Senate Bill 283 Prof. Paul Héroux, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism at the McGill University flew to Portland from Montreal to testify on behalf of SB 283, only to return to Monreal the following day. Prof. Héroux developed a Unified Theory of Weak Magnetic Field Action that proposes A radical new outlook. Dr. Paul Dart, an Environmental Physician of Eugene, Oregon, makes invisible electromagnetic radiation visible, using his instrument, as he testifies at the Senate. The term Electromagnetic Medicine has, over the years, meant researchers in laboratories looking to use electromagnetic radiation to treat diseases. Dr. Dart gives it a new, clinical meaning, in the protection of Lucia, 14 years old, who testified below. L---a (a minor) attended school while positioned just below a WiFi router. At 9 years old, she became ill with nausea and rashes, and for over a year saw 7 doctors before her family realized that she was made sick by the WiFi radiation. Her mother switched her to the only school available that did not have WiFi, and she recovered. Graduating from her current school, she is now looking to continue her studies in an environment that will not make her sick. Senator Laurie Monnes-Anderson introduced the bill as a legislator and retired public health nurse. Monnes-Anderson is also a former school board member and the mother of two children who attended Oregon public schools.  She understands the strengths and weaknesses of our public education system and has become well versed in the potential risks of long term exposure to microwave radiation in the classroom environment and made a special appearance at the hearing to speak in support of the bill.

In 2019 I facilitated the passage, in Oregon, of SB283 which was to review science to determine whether children in schools are safe being exposed to high power wi-fi routers and other wireless devices in the classroom. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House. While lobbying the bill and gathering information I interviewed 2 children who had to leave school due to microwave sickness caused by RF in the school. I also met 2 teachers, one in Los Angeles with the same condition. The teacher in L.A. sued the school and won the lawsuit. The results of the science review by the Oregon Health Authority, quoting the first draft: "All studies showed worse health outcomes, all studies showed harm to reproductive organs..." The draft was withheld from a FOIA request and later obtained by journalist, Dan Forbes, who wrote a lengthy article about the corrupt handling and the crime committed by OHA in withholding from a FOIA request. In addition, commercial insurance companies will no longer insure for "harm from exposure to electromagnetic frequencies" This is an industry wide practice that has taken affect years ago. Cell telephone advertising shows people with the phone against their heads yet companies warn to keep the phone an inch from the body. I always wonder if legislators or others in high profile agencies and organizations that are compromised by industry money ever consider they are doing harm by defrauding science, writing phony reports, and controlling the narrative in deceiving the public that they are safe. You have blood on your hands, perhaps accessory to murder and should be protecting the public rather than corporate profits

I believe that it is time to seriously address the negative effects of 5G radiation on human health, especially that of children. I will cite two scientific studies, of many, that describe the deleterious effects of 5G radiation. Any reasonable conclusion would be that to continue to use this format for our basic internet communications would require adequate shielding from the radiation. Without that, we are risking our future - and not just of homo sapiens. Please look at the depth and breadth of studies of this subject. It will not just 'go away' because powerful interests say it's absolutely necessary. We know that is not true. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and the research papers I cited separately.

PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET Docket No. 13-84 Submitted by: Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc. Date: October 20, 2026** 1. Introduction Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc. sincerely thanks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for inviting public participation in its review of radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards, testing procedures, and potential health effects. Incorporated in 2021, our organization provides advocacy, education, and incident-documentation services for civilians reporting unexplained physical and neurological symptoms they believe may involve directed-energy, radiofrequency, electromagnetic, or acoustic energy exposure or assault. We support technological innovation while believing that public safety protections must advance alongside wireless technology. 2. Our Experience Our organization began receiving civilian incident reports because people repeatedly told us they could not find an agency willing to document their experiences. We could not stand by while Americans were suffering and feeling that their country did not care. Despite limited resources and no permanent physical investigation facility, we established procedures to receive complaints, conduct case reviews, and prepare incident reports. Approximately 1,000 civilians throughout the United States have submitted incident reports to our organization. Complainants describe unexplained pain, burning sensations, vibrations, pressure, sleep disturbances, unusual sounds, and other physical and neurological symptoms. Complainants stated in their reports that they have no mental health conditions and that their injuries are often misdiagnosed. Some believe remotely operated, wall-penetrating energy technologies are responsible for their experiences. Others report electronic intrusion, unwanted communications, and possible technology-assisted harassment. These reports do not independently establish RF exposure, identify particular devices, or confirm the cause of symptoms. However, they highlight concerns deserving appropriate scientific and medical evaluation. We have contacted federal security and investigative agencies requesting assistance with these reports but have not received a substantive response. 3. RF Exposure Standards and Testing We encourage the FCC to carefully review whether existing RF exposure limits and testing procedures adequately address today's wireless environment. This includes widespread mobile-device use, multiple sources of RF exposure, emerging wireless technologies, and potential health effects associated with long-term exposure. Special consideration should be given to children, who may experience many years of wireless technology use beginning at an early age. We encourage the FCC to examine reliable scientific research concerning possible non-cancer health effects and determine whether existing testing procedures adequately protect the public. We ask that conclusions be based on reproducible scientific evidence, with clear explanations of the strengths and limitations of available research. 4. Public Safety and Consumer Protection The advancement of wireless communications makes public safety, accountability, and consumer protection increasingly important. We encourage clear federal guidance on RF exposure standards, compliance requirements, and safe wireless-device operation. Our organization has also received reports from civilians who describe hearing external sounds, voices, or communications without being able to identify their direction or source. Directional speakers and Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) demonstrate that sound can be projected toward particular areas or listeners over distances. These reports do not establish that acoustic devices caused the experiences described. However, they raise concerns about the need for appropriate technical and medical evaluations. An unexplained auditory experience should not automatically be classified as either a mental health condition or evidence of technological harassment. We encourage appropriate federal agencies to examine safeguards against the intentional misuse of acoustic technologies to threaten, intimidate, or harm men, women, or children. 5. Recommendations We respectfully request that the FCC: 1. Review existing RF exposure limits and portable-device testing procedures using reliable scientific evidence. 2. Evaluate scientific findings concerning potential non-cancer health effects and long-term RF exposure, particularly involving children. 3. Consider whether current testing procedures adequately reflect widespread wireless-device use and technological advancements. 4. Strengthen public education concerning RF exposure standards, regulatory compliance, and consumer protection. 5. Coordinate with HHS and appropriate federal agencies regarding RF exposure research, public health concerns, and safety standards. 6. Provide clear procedures for reporting suspected violations of FCC regulations and referring matters outside the Commission's authority to appropriate agencies. 6. Closing Statement The United States is a world leader in wireless technology. We believe it should also lead in public safety, responsible regulation, and consumer protection. People are asking for answers. They deserve credible scientific information, appropriate medical attention, and meaningful consideration of their reported experiences. We encourage the federal government to examine whether existing criminal laws adequately address the intentional misuse of emerging technologies to harm, threaten, or harass individuals. DEW Agency welcomes opportunities to collaborate with appropriate federal agencies and provide civilian triage services, including receiving complaints, documenting incidents, identifying urgent needs, and referring individuals to qualified authorities. We respectfully request consideration of our organization's experience and willingness to assist with civilian reporting and referral efforts. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to an important national public safety discussion. Respectfully submitted, Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc Ms. Mechael Wright-Hodges, Founder and Executive Director Website: www.DEWAgency.org Telephone: 781-561-8753 Email: info@dewagency.org

I hereby object to the Federal Communications Commission’s continued reliance on RF radiation exposure limits that have not been adequately updated to reflect current scientific evidence, modern wireless technologies, cumulative and long-term exposure, and the potential for non-thermal biological effects. The public deserves safety standards based on current, independent scientific research, transparent risk assessment, and the precautionary consideration of potential harm to human health. Regulatory standards must be periodically reassessed as new evidence emerges, rather than presumed adequate simply because they were adopted decades ago. I respectfully request that this objection be entered into the official record and that the FCC undertake a comprehensive, independent review of its RF radiation exposure standards, including their scientific basis, adequacy for contemporary technologies, and protection of residents, workers, and other potentially exposed populations. From my personal experience: I have been overexposed to EMF and RF radiation from unpermitted 5G wireless base station installed right above our living quarters. This cluster of transmitters were operated under FCC Experimental Radio License utilizing untested, unauthorized prototype equipment without any prior testing for RF/EMF emission compliance. Our family started to feel ill effects right after the activation of these devices and the symptoms got worst with each passing day. It got so bad that we ultimately had no other choice then to relocate to a new apartment to get away from this constant exposure. My mother now suffers from EHS and other symptoms which greatly affected quality of her life. Despite the many complaint we reported to FCC of the nature of the antennas, being used for experimentation and testing and the site not being registered and so forth, FCC's response was that the equipment is operating within the FCC limits even though they could not provide such verification themselves for such unregistered prototype. I urge you to update your safety standards based on recent studies provided to you by many scientist from all over the world so general public has a chance for better protection and that people do not have to go through similar experience of loosing their home or health. Sincerely, Phillip Kabilka