Exposure limits & 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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745 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: My family tries to be mindful of our exposure and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to avoid homes, schools, and businesses that are close to cell towers and other wireless sources. Our children end up spending all school day in buildings placed next door to towers, constantly exposed to radiation and there seems to be little regard for the potential impact of long-term exposure. Their school experience is on top of cell phones they may use and the radiation we are all exposed to working from laptops and being connected to the internet all day at work and home. Humans were not designed to withstand these levels of exposure, and research shows that there are real health implications here, especially for still-developing children. We have experienced sensitivity to RF first hand, and worry about the silent toll this is taking on our bodies. 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 great concern about the way wireless technology has been implemented in our country. We have plowed ahead with 3G, 4G, 5G, without ever wondering what the effects of that wireless radiation will have on animals, human beings, our natural environment, etc. Are there any safety studies? Yes, but does the FCC look at them? Are they even qualified to assess them? We are instead focused on faster, more efficient, more money, more power. The safety guidelines are out of date and inadequate. I have neurological and physical issues that cannot be traced to any known cause. It acts like an autoimmune disease but testing has indicated that I have no autoimmune activity in my body. My friend nearby cannot go anywhere near a cell tower without getting sick, and she is trapped in her home and even the neighboring wifi routers cause her trouble. The FCC has no expertise in gauging the medical effects of this radiation. They are not a medical agency. We need more studies and we need someone to listen to those who suspect ill effects from RF exposure. The federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, need to be part of the decision on how and when to approve such technologies, and the FCC needs to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. 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 wireless radiation negatively affects me in numerous ways, namely in that short and long term exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and other wireless sources impacts me substantially. It makes me extremely fatigued. I have serious brain fog whenever I'm around it. I never get deep, restful sleep when exposed to wi-fi, 4G, or 5G radiation. My fatigue is off the charts because of it. On rare ocassions when I can escape the wireless onslught, such as in remote rural areas with no cel coverage, I sleep very well and feel rested upon awakening. Every since wireless electric utility smart meters were deployed on every home and business in 2013, I haven't had a decent night's sleep in all this time. It's a VERY serious problem. In terms of home use, it is imperitive we keep fiber optic and copper landline technology which poses no danger whatesoever and is far more secure and reliable, especially in severe weather. 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 urge you to do the updated testing on EMF radiation technology that was ordered by the courts in 2013 and 2021 before implementing any further acceleration of cell tower placement. The proliferation of EMF technology has created a snowball effect. Though I shield my home(non-radio meters, wifi routers off, devices away from sleeping quarters), I have found my sleep disrupted more and more. Testing meters show that I am irradiated all night by EMFs I cannot control, or afford to shield from. Of particular concern to me is the effect this has on my 5-year-old grandchild, who experiences hyperactivity, emotional melt-downs, and sleep disturbance while at my home. While I live in a small city(approx 34,000), at least 20 cell towers have been constructed near me since 2019. Additionally, there are 5G cells every few hundred feet on the street of even my quiet neighborhood. Landscaping in the path of new cells die within a couple of years, and much of the wildlife that frequents my yard is reduced, or has unhealthy behavior. While I do not know all the causes, I do know that cell tower proliferation runs alongside all of it. Hill's Criteria lists 1)Strength of association 2) Consistency 3) Specificity, 4) Temporality, and 5) Biological gradient as plausible causality. Please do the testing and be transparent. Not all progress is beneficial. Thank you for your attention.

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 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 recently moved to a home where a cell tower operates just a few houses down the street and since moving half a year ago my sleep has been disrupted and mental health diminished. This tower is directly across the street from the high school which adds to the concern. 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. My friend lives practically, under a cell tower, and has been ill since moving there from another state. The medical establishment seems dumbfounded as to why she is ill, refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Please help to bring awareness to this growing problem of EMR toxicity.

Good Morning, 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 regulations and guidelines concerning wireless technology sorely needs updating. Considering how pervasive wireless technology is in public buildings, home use and commercial spaces, we need to be protecting citizens from RF exposure. I personally have been sensitized to RF radiation after the instillation of smart meters on the homes surrounding my home while living in a small collective community in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California, in 2009. In addition, I was heavily dosed while working at an elementary school in San Jose, CA, for 10 years, from 2006 to 2016. I became so sensitized to RF, that I couldn't sleep at night, had headaches while around Rf emitters, either smart meters, or wifi routers, and also large electrical appliances that emitted dirty electricity, such as commercial freezers in the cafeteria in the elementary school where I worked. My neighbor in the apartment next door to me had such a strong wifi router, that when he turned it on every morning at 4 am, I instantly woke up to a sharp pain directly on the top of my head, since my bedroom shared a wall with my neighbors' apartment. When all of this new tech was being wheeled out and installed, no one cared or even warned the public that this could be a health issue or that there could be health complications from this type of technology. Why don't we look into possible health implications of a technology before we actually roll out a full scale use of the new tech? We need more studies and measurements of how this affects the health of the public, and especially our children. The teachers in my school would move sensitive children out of their rooms, away from wifi routers in order for the children to be able to concentrate on their tests. The children were experiencing brain fog and confusion which is not conducive to effective learning! Please read the attached study, done this year, showing health effects of RF radiation on the human body. I appreciate you reading and considering my comments. Sincerely, Lauren Brydle McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745

When I heard about this opportunity, I had to make comment 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 said the FCC has to provide a good explanation for the fact that it determined that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. 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 needs to 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 that the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: Morgan, Kesari & Davis (2014): Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583 (Reviewed evidence that children may absorb more wireless radiation than adults due to anatomical and physiological differences, raising questions about the adequacy of existing exposure standards.) The FCC is not a health agency and it doesn't have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. However, 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 so important to me because we are surrounded by cell towers, EMF's, etc., with no choice in the matter, and I know that I feel completely different when I am around these frequencies, versus how I feel when I am out in the woods where there is no service. My girlfriend also started getting migraines as soon as we moved into an apartment near a cell tower. Also, I am concerned about the effects on children, who are more susceptible, and on nature and wildlife. I strongly believe that the FCC needs 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 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 are just two studies I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: • McCredden, McLean & Steinemann (2026): Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States – Examined the prevalence of self-reported wireless sensitivity and co-occurring health conditions in the United States, Canada, and Australia, without establishing causation. • BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – Collection of scientific research concerning neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022. 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 would like to take a different approach to hopefully helping you understand the incredible effects that RF/EMF have on basic day to day life decisions of those of us that are aware of the devastating health effects of the lack of care our government FCC agency is imposing on its citizens. 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. These comments explain what I have to go through to live in the environment of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I do everything I can to protect myself and my family from EMF radiation: We moved to the country on acreage so that I have no neighbors close which reduces our exposure. I refused the Smart Reader (which fortunately Oregon allows) and now have to pay an additional $3 per month as meter reading fee even though they do not read the meter monthly. They only read the meter once a year. My router does not have a separate WiFi on/off switch and Century Link says they do not have a router with this feature that is compatible with this capability. Therefore, I turn off my router and only turn it on when I access the internet which I do only on a hardwired laptop. I do not have a Smart TV so that it is not adding to my exposure. I watch tv with an antenna and record programs with the software on my Hauppauge tuner that is in the desktop computer attached to my TV screen. All hardwired. However, when my tv monitor goes out I understand that there are no TV’s without WiFi available anymore. I do not have any appliances with WiFi capabilities but I understand that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any appliance without WiFi which will become a problem in the future. I do not have space for a printer near my computer so I have to use WiFi. I keep that printer turned off so that it is not searching for a WiFi signal except when I need to print something. On my cell phone I keep Bluetooth, WiFi, Data and Location off at all times. Every couple days, I try to remember to turn on WiFi for a few minutes in order to receive any text messages that were sent to me by RCS. I keep my cell phone in a far corner in my house and when I am outside, I keep it away from my body. I use a stylus to text. I use Airplane mode, Farraday bag, turning my phone off as other methods to reduce EMF. I have an in-ground landline phone line to my house, and I have corded phones. I installed LED lights in my kitchen and dining area before I knew that they were not good for our health. Now, due to federal regulations I am not able to purchase new cans and incandescent bulbs. That needs to be reversed. My car is a 2008 and therefore does not have the invasive electronic features. I have not purchased a new car because, I understand that any car from 2012 to date has all the invasive electronic features. I do not know what I am going to do if my car fails and I have to replace it. Going inside any hospital or clinic is very unhealthy as you are barraged with EMF. If I require medical assistance it will need to be outside of the medical system. I am forced to pay for Medicare even though I choose not to, and cannot, use its services. I am researching to find out how I can opt out of Medicare so that I can use that money to support my health outside of the HealthCare system such as Home Care, Telehealth, etc. As you can see, this is A LOT. I am blessed to now be retired and have the money to be able to make these modifications in order to feel healthy and vibrant and protect my health. But the question is, should we be creating a world where this is necessary? I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. 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. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.