Sleep & neurological concerns

Along with all the scientific evidence that is cited below in all the research documents. I have personal experiences which I feel relate to health and safety. My father died of cancer 5 years ago. He didn't like or use cell phones but once he had one that was smart he slept with it by his head listening to music. Talked to friends for hours with it by his head. After getting the smart cell phone he got cancer within 2 years of having teh smart phone and died within 3 months of diagnosis. He had a growth in his neck next to where he would rest his cell phone on his pillow in bed. He believed and so do I that the cancer was because of his cell phone use. I personally can not sleep when wifi is on or near me. When traveling, I have to sleep with a EMF blocking hat to sleep, otherwise my brain has the to do list running all night long. I try to make our cell phones safer by putting EMF shielding fabric in our cell phone cases but I worry about my kids and their use. They do not understand the dangers. They say everyone has their cell phones with them all the time but they are not old enough to see the evidence or experience friends dying from the shape of a tumor where they held their cell phones up to their heads. We have 3 additional friends who died of brain cancer besides my dad. If regulations were nation wide kids would understand the actual dangers. We need safer regulations! Below are cited documents research documents etc showing the findings that all the radiation is not healthy. Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., Manville, A. M., II, & Scarato, T. (2025). Flora and fauna—How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1693873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873 Melnick, R. L., Moskowitz, J. M., & International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environmental Health, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Scientific Documentation That Limits Are Inadequate Melnick, R. L., Moskowitz, J. M., & International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environmental Health, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: Implications for 5G. Environmental Health, 21(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2024). Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(3), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683 Lai, H. (2021). Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2025). Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Reviews on Environmental Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104 Lin, J. C. (2025). Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1619781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781 Golomb BA. Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation. Neural Comput. 2018 Nov;30(11):2882-2985. doi: 10.1162/neco_a_01133. Uche, U. I., & Naidenko, O. V. (2021). Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environmental Health, 20(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1 Wildlife Impacts Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022). Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1000840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2: Impacts—How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3: Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(4), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083 Manville, A. M., II, Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. C. (2024). Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—State of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1283709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 Thill, A., Cammaerts, M.-C., & Balmori, A. (2024). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(4), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., & Chrousos, G. P. (2024). Biophysical mechanism of animal magnetoreception, orientation and navigation. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 30053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77883-9 Balmori, A. (2021). Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment, 767, 144913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913 Children’s Vulnerability International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374 Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A., Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013 Soares, N. E., Bulla, G., Fernández-Rodríguez, C. E., & de Salles, A. A. A. (2025). SAR estimations in a classroom with wireless computers. Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, 24(2), e2025288526. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526 Thyroid Effects Alkayyali, T., Ochuba, O., Srivastava, K., Sandhu, J. K., Joseph, C., Ruo, S. W., Jain, A., Waqar, A., & Poudel, S. (2021). An exploration of the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile phones and extremely low frequency radiation on thyroid hormones and thyroid gland histopathology. Cureus, 13(8), e17329. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17329 Reproductive Impacts Lamzouri, O., Ahl Laamara, R., & Drissi, L. B. (2025). Impact of electromagnetic field exposure on reproductive health: An umbrella review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 30, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-025-00258-1 Vijay, S., Ibrahim, S. F., Osman, K., Zulkefli, A. F., Mat Ros, M. F., Jamaludin, N., Syed Taha, S. M. A., Hairulazam, A., & Jaffar, F. H. F. (2025). Histomorphometry and sperm quality in male rats exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi. Reproduction, 169(5), e250048. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-25-0048 Zhang, Y., Song, J. Y., & Sun, Z. G. (2025). Exploring the impact of environmental factors on male reproductive health through epigenetics. Reproductive Toxicology, 132, 108832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.108832 Bektas, H., & Dasdag, S. (2025). The effects of radiofrequency radiation on male reproductive health and potential mechanisms. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 44(3), 359–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2025.2480664 Assefa, E. M., & Abdu, S. M. (2025). Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: A systematic literature review of animal studies. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 6, 1515166. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2024.1515166 Maluin, S. M., Osman, K., Jaffar, F. H. F., & Ibrahim, S. F. (2021). Effect of radiation emitted by wireless devices on male reproductive hormones: A systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 732420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.732420 Santini, S. J., Cordone, V., Falone, S., Mijit, M., Tatone, C., Amicarelli, F., & Di Emidio, G. (2018). Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: Focus on reproductive systems. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 5076271. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5076271 Adams, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S. C., & Mathews, F. (2014). Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 70, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015 Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D. (2015). Are men talking their reproductive health away? Asian Journal of Andrology, 17(3), 433–434. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.140963 Agarwal, A., Desai, N. R., Makker, K., Varghese, A., Mouradi, R., Sabanegh, E., & Sharma, R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022 Gautam, R., & Arora, T. (2023). Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted from mobile phone and its impact on male reproductive health. EIACP: Diversity and Impact on the Environment, 28(3), 8–11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375799722_Radio_Frequency_Electromagnetic_Radiation_RF-EMR_Emitted_from_Mobile_Phone_and_its_Impact_on_Male_Reproductive_Health Summary and Review Papers Weller, S. G., McCredden, J. E., Leach, V., Chu, C., & Lam, A. K. (2025). A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: Assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1613353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353 McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 894447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.894447 Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., Yakymenko, I., & Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 59(5), 92. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Wang, M., Zhang, Y., Angley, M., Kleiman, N. J., Wang, X., & Kahe, K. (2026). A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-026-00958-4 Hu, C., Zuo, H., & Li, Y. (2021). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on neurotransmitters in the brain. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 691880. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.691880 Cell Towers Balmori, A. (2022). Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research, 214, 113851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851 Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845 Rodrigues, N. C. P., Dode, A. C., Andrade, M. K. N., O’Dwyer, G., Monteiro, D. L. M., Reis, I. N. C., Rodrigues, R. P., Frossard, V. C., & Lino, V. T. S. (2021). The effect of continuous low-intensity exposure to electromagnetic fields from radio base stations to cancer mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229 Dode, A. C., Leão, M. M. D., Tejo, F. A. F., Gomes, A. C. R., Dode, D. C., Dode, M. C., Moreira, C. W., Condessa, V. A., Albinatti, C., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), 3649–3665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051 Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. (2011). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 19, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-018 Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1179/107735210799160192 School Recommendations Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324 Collaborative for High Performance Schools. (n.d.). Low EMF best practices summary. https://healthytechhome.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/201/CEHPAC-EMF-in-HomeWi-Fi-in-School-Report.pdf Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (n.d.). Guidelines to reduce electromagnetic field radiation. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (2017). Wi-Fi in school report. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Santa Clara County Medical Association. (2023). Best practices for safe technology in schools. https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/LiveBlog/3697/SCCMA Best Practices for Safe Technology in Schools Recommendations 21423.pdf Cell Tower Health Studies Airpods and Bluetooth Genetic Impacts, DNA Damage 5G Reviews | C-Band / 3.5 GHz | Millimeter Waves | Terahertz / THz Why FCC and ICNIRP Limits are Not Protective and Conflicts of Interest in Science ELF EMF Magnetic Fields / Power Lines (for HHS only) Category: Cell Towers Tag: cell phones, cell towers, children's health, emf, FCC, health effects, policy, science

I live in Germany and used to work for IBM and Airbus Helicopters. In April 2000, I had an epileptic seizure. My Neurologist sent me to a center for Epilepsy and they found an abnormality in my brain called "Polymicrogeria": many little wrinkles. They explained that this abnormality in the brain is formed by too few Oxygen in my Mothers womb. It all made sense. Since birth I have always had a little "Hemiparesis" on the left side of my body. That was all. Beside the problems moving my hand, I was healthy. I agreed to try out anti-epileptica. After a while neurologists had found "Keppra" that kept me stable without making my extremities shake or making me sleepy. I did not have seizures until 2012. Then, seizures started again. The answer to my question: "Why?" was "Age". That was rediculous, as I was 40, not 90. I got each new medicine that was released. However, the seizures remained. The two drugs I still take (Lacosamid and Briviact) dampen the activity of neurotransmitters and receptors in my brain.Seizures remained and became worse. I started falling. In 2020 my wife said, she cannot cope with my epilepsy, so we divorced. Neurologists and a Rehabilitation clinic said that I was drug-resistant. In Europe, this led to a pension due to incapacity for work. I could stay at home. Then I sat alone at home and recalled what had happened in the years between 2000 and 2020. I started using WiFi, Cell Phone and Blue-Tooth. Could that have causes my misery? I bought devices that measure and save RF-Power densities. Computers, Excell, etc. was my profession, so I used these devices for 7x24 measurements that I compared with the date/time of my seizures. I continued these with correlation and regression analyses that for 2 years showed the same result - Days with low measured results => hardly ever sizures - Days with high measurements (high average or high peak values) => seizures were certain after a couple of seconds to 3 hours I published the results at my webpage: https://epi.frankmathieu.de Here you see the correlation between RF average per day and count of seizures during this day. The results are backed up by a regression analyses. RF-Power density in µW/m² and dbm correlate best with seizure count. This year, I got the confirmation, when I shielded the ceiling of my flat with paint from YShield against the WiFi from above that had caused drop attacks. I do not have any seizure, only if I leave my flat. The RF-Radiation 2.4GHz from above did hit me multiple times per second with power densities of up to 3000µW/m². Now it is less than 1µW/m².

A smartmeter was installed on my house in Portland, OR in April of 2019. I did not authorize the attachment of a wireless radio transmitter on my property, that information was never presented to me. Within weeks I started having serious heart palpitations which became more and more intense as time went on. I started waking up around 3 am with my heart racing, unable to get back to sleep. I found some relief by turning off the power to my house every single night. I appealed to Pacific Power with a series of certified mail letters in order to get my analog meter back, to no avail. I soon found that my tolerance for exposure to any man made radiation was diminishing, and could not continue my business which was computer based cad drafting work. My best option was to sell my house and close my business, which is what I did. I took an early retirement and live now without electricity, and have not had any heart issues since I left my house with the smartmeter in Portland.

**Re: FCC ET Docket No. 13-84 — Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields** To the Federal Communications Commission: My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap. I am a Colorado resident, a medical visualisation specialist with a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow, and an individual living with severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). I am submitting this comment to urge the FCC to reconsider its radiofrequency exposure guidelines in light of contemporary scientific research, reported health effects, and the lived experiences of people whose health and ability to participate in ordinary society are profoundly affected by their electromagnetic environments. **1. Existing RF exposure standards are inadequate** The FCC's existing exposure limits are largely based on protection against established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. These standards do not adequately resolve questions concerning potential biological effects of long-term, low-intensity, pulsed, or cumulative RF exposure. Research into oxidative stress, cellular signalling, neurological function, and other biological responses warrants continued independent investigation. The absence of scientific consensus about the clinical significance of reported non-thermal effects should not be mistaken for proof that all exposures below existing limits are harmless. **2. Electromagnetic sensitivity is a serious accessibility issue** My own experience illustrates the practical consequences of electromagnetic sensitivity. I experience severe physical symptoms that I associate with exposure to wireless infrastructure and devices, including migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, burning sensations, nausea, and significant sleep disruption. These experiences have fundamentally altered my ability to work, travel, obtain housing, access public services, and participate in community life. I have invested considerable resources in modifying my living environment, including removing wireless equipment, using wired communications, and implementing electrical and RF mitigation measures. Regardless of ongoing scientific disagreements about the causes of electromagnetic sensitivity, the functional limitations experienced by affected individuals deserve serious consideration and appropriate accommodation. **3. The public needs meaningful opportunities to reduce exposure** Wireless technology is increasingly difficult to avoid. Smart meters, cellular infrastructure, wireless routers, connected appliances, and other transmitting devices have become pervasive in residential and public environments. People who wish to minimise their exposure should have practical, affordable options, including: - Access to wired telecommunications and internet services. - Non-transmitting utility meters and alternatives to mandatory wireless equipment. - Transparent information about RF emissions and infrastructure deployment. - Consideration of residential proximity and cumulative exposure when evaluating wireless installations. - Preservation of environments where individuals can live and work with reduced RF exposure. **4. Independent research and modernised exposure assessment are essential** The FCC should support a transparent review of peer-reviewed research, including studies examining biological endpoints beyond tissue heating. Exposure assessment should consider realistic conditions involving multiple transmitters, variable signal characteristics, chronic exposure, and populations with differing health circumstances. The Commission should also meaningfully address the findings and concerns raised by independent researchers, clinicians, and affected communities rather than relying exclusively on historical exposure assumptions. **5. Requested FCC action** I respectfully request that the Commission: 1. Reassess the scientific basis of its RF exposure limits through an independent, transparent, multidisciplinary review. 2. Evaluate evidence concerning non-thermal biological effects and long-term exposure. 3. Consider cumulative and real-world exposure conditions in future regulatory decisions. 4. Protect access to wired alternatives and reasonable accommodations for individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. 5. Improve public participation, disclosure, and accountability in decisions affecting residential RF exposure. The Commission's responsibility extends beyond facilitating wireless communications. It must also give serious consideration to public health, accessibility, and the ability of Americans to make informed decisions about their environments. For individuals such as myself, this is not merely an abstract scientific debate. It concerns the ability to maintain a home, pursue a profession, obtain essential services, and live with dignity. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Morrison, Colorado

Wifi radiation is horrific. Memory performance worsening, ringing in ears, and poor sleep are my main concerns. The ringing in the ears wakes me up every night and sometimes it is so intense that I am unable to go back to sleep. Please do something about it.

I and others in my circle are very sensitive to EMFs and wireless radiation. We experience headaches, joint aches, cannot think/process clearly, dizziness - and I have read that some people have seizures when exposed to any amount of radiation. There are studies showing that cell phones emit more radiation than is allowed according to current FCC limits. This is multiplied in children, who have smaller bodies/brains (which are still developing). There are wi-fi towers EVERYWHERE, making it very difficult for those who suffer to participate for very long (or at all) in any public place, be it restaurants, libraries, public buildings, and even peoples' houses. Multiple studies show that we do NOT need 5G, as the current speed is sufficient for most needs, yet they keep making signals stronger and forcing us to use them. We are told that EVERYONE needs wi-fi in their homes, so in an apartment building you will have multiple full-strength signals on 24/7. Manufacturers make it difficult to turn routers on and off quickly. All of this radiation is impossible to get away from. EMF protective clothing is not enough. Most of us have ethernet in our homes because we are forced to have wi-fi/computers in order to do anything in life. Alternative measures such as ethernet or landlines are made so expensive that many cannot afford them. Manufacturers do not provide alternatives for sufferers like us. Many people have sued to get masts off of school buildings, as studies have shown higher rates of cancer in students attending those schools. Multiple studies show tumors or weakened bone structure directly under places where people place their phones next to their bodies. Multiple studies show lower sperm counts for men who insist on putting their phones in their pockets. It is outrageous that these studies are not being made public. We are not made aware of the dangers of keeping cell phones on and next to the body for ANY length of time. This is only stated in the VERY SMALL print in cell phone inserts, which are worded in legalese and so small that no one takes the time to read them. Manufacturers should be forced to fully disclose the dangers of cell phone and "smart" machine use to the public. "Smart" meters, TVs, appliances, etc. are another major source of cancer of which no one is aware. Utility companies also make it more expensive and more difficult to stop "smart meters" from being installed on one's property. We are literally killing ourselves by allowing this radiation in every part of our lives. If we want to have a healthy nation, we must fund scientists who can find ways to make communication healthier. Please take a long, hard look at ALL studies, who funded them, how they were set up, and who stands to gain by the outcomes. We need to get back to HONEST scientific reasoning and studies that are not driven by profit and market share. The FCC needs to work for the PUBLIC and IT'S SAFETY once again.

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

I urge the FCC to take a careful, science-based look at the potential health effects of long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to reconsider whether the current exposure limits are adequately protective. The FCC's existing limits date back to 1996, while wireless exposure has increased dramatically with cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cell towers, and newer 5G technologies. Research has raised concerns about biological effects that are not adequately addressed by limits based primarily on thermal effects, including oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, and effects on children. The scientific evidence deserves a thorough and independent review. Research has reported potential effects involving children's exposure, prenatal and developmental outcomes, oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive health, neurological function, long-term exposure, and wildlife. I ask the FCC to fully address this evidence, including potential effects from long-term and cumulative exposure and the particular vulnerability of children, before continuing to rely on exposure standards developed three decades ago. Public health protections should keep pace with the technology and the current scientific evidence. **References** 1. Gandhi, O. P., et al. (2012). *Exposure limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34–51. doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. 2. Fernández, C., et al. (2018). *Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality.* Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. 3. Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). *Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice.* Scientific Reports, 2, 312. doi:10.1038/srep00312. 4. Foerster, M., et al. (2018). *A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication.* Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(7). 5. Yakymenko, I., et al. (2016). *Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 6. Güler, G., et al. (2012). *The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits.* International Journal of Radiation Biology, 88(4), 367–373. doi:10.3109/09553002.2012.646349. 7. Zothansiama, et al. (2017). *Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.* Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 8. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2019). *Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields.* Mutation Research – Reviews in Mutation Research, 781, 53–62. 9. Adams, J. A., et al. (2014). *Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.* Environment International, 70, 106–112. 10. Houston, B., et al. (2016). *The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function.* Reproduction. 11. Altun, A., et al. (2018). *Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems.* Environmental Research, 167, 700–707. 12. Yahyazadeh, A., Deniz, Ö. G., & Kaplan, A. A. (2018). *The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system.* Environmental Research, 167, 684–693. 13. Falcioni, L., et al. (2018). *Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.* Environmental Research, 165, 496–503. 14. Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). *Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective.* Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. 15. Balmori, A. (2015). *Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.* Science of the Total Environment, 518–519, 58–60. 16. Cucurachi, S., et al. (2013). *A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).* Environment International, 51, 116–140. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009. 17. Thielens, A., et al. (2018). *Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz.* Scientific Reports, 8, 3924.

I became very ill from wireless after hooking my house up to it and eliminating hardwired devices. It took me sometime to figure out what the cause was. I suffered from neuropathy, severe brain fog, extreme fatigue, vision impairment, migraines and GI symptoms. Once I went back to hardwired those symptoms disappeared. Hardwired is superior, already in place, not hackable and does not cause all the above mentioned symptoms. It's not right to have wireless technology that harms every cell in our bodies, especially when it is measured by standards from long ago that have nothing to do with the scientific fact that they do cause severe harm to all living things.

We have our house cabled, our TV and our computers. I keep my cell phone on airplane mode unless using. I can feel the energy in the house when the Wi-Fi is turned on and I do not sleep well. We keep the Wi-Fi off. The last studies on the current standards we use ( set in 1996) were done in the 90s.. don’t you think a little has changed since then?? All these satellites?? Wireless routers and cell towers popping up everywhere? Follow the trail of illness, sleep issues, etc. over the years. The decline in pollinators, known to be sensitive to electromagnetic energy..it is no accident and needs to be seriously studied. Do your due diligence! Thank you!