Exposure limits & testing

To the Federal Communications Commission: 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 noncancer health effects, impacts on children, long term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing concerns about wireless radiation: Wolf, R. and Wolf, D. “Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station.” International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2004, Vol. 1, No. 2. This study examined residents of Netanya, Israel, who lived within 350 meters of a cell phone transmitter station for three to seven years. Researchers reported a cancer rate among those residents several times higher than in the surrounding population and in the city overall. The study is small, but it directly addresses long term residential exposure to a base station. That is exactly the kind of exposure the Court asked the FCC to address, and it calls for larger, independent follow up research led by health agencies. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the Court. This issue matters to me personally because I lived it. While I was renting an apartment, a cell phone tower was installed directly above my unit. After the installation I began having frequent nosebleeds and recurring headaches. Over time I developed skin lesions that a medical evaluation found to be precancerous. My two cats were affected too. One of them became completely disoriented while we lived there. Soon after, I moved. My symptoms improved, and both cats recovered, including the one that had been disoriented. I can’t prove the tower caused these problems. But the timing of the onset, and the recovery once we left, is the kind of real world experience the FCC needs to take seriously. That’s especially true for long term residential exposure and for the effects on animals that the Court specifically raised. 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. Respectfully, Germann Vesterman Fruit Cove, Florida

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radio frequency (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: Falcioni 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 radio frequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission 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 of personal health effects that I have experienced. I have deep concerns about long-term exposure to cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources. 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 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 – Examined the prevalence of self-reported wireless sensitivity and co-occurring health conditions in the United States, Canada, and Australia, without establishing causation. 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 life has been hell over the past years. I can't sleep and deal with all sorts of Healy challenge. I never consented to being immersed in the electromagnetic soup. I react strongly and there is no place for me to go. All the measures that I take to protect self and my family is not enough. This is not right that I need to keep constantly reprise to my children because they want to be as their piers whose parents not necessarily are aware of what is happening because NOONE was officially wormed or informed. This is just purely wrong. 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 is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: I experienced insomnia. anxiety and serious vertigo from a 5G router and non 5G router, we then mitigated the devices and now ALL side effects have gone away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is an extremely serious problem, i know so many humans on anxiety drugs, if they only knew its from wifi RADIATION!!!!! The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: [Please add your personal story here. You may wish to describe how wireless radiation has affected you, your child or family; health effects or cancer you have experienced; concerns about long-term exposure; experiences involving cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers or other wireless sources; or impacts you have observed on animals, wildlife, plants or the environment.] I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

I am almost 40 have a 1 year old and am someone who is extremely sensitive, like my blood pressure rises from EMF, LEMF evidenced fromy OB visits where it spiked Everytime, but while checking elsewhere or at home was perfectly normal. I am forced to have a smart water meter on my home that gives off radiation. I fear for my child and my family with what all this unseen technology is doing. Knowing that testing has been done and proves positive for damage on cellular levels at levels under FCC limits. My pacemaker has lost a year off its battery since installing the meter.

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. There are many studies showing the danger/damage RF radiation has to humans and animals. The danger is also common sense. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because I have two special needs children that are electromagnetically sensitive. Their lives are complicated enough already. They don’t need RF radiation too enhancing their symptoms. 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 is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: [Please paste the study you’ve chosen to include here.] 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.

when a wireless router (starlink) was installed near my work desk, it impacted my health negatively. for 6 months i complained about my left arm feeling hot with increasing tremors. eventually my left arm gave out and my heartbeat was erratic. we then moved the router outside and my symptoms improved immediately. wireless radiation is harmful and should have increased regulation. 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.

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: Mevissen et al. (2025): Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review – Reported high-certainty evidence of increased brain gliomas and heart schwannomas in male rats under studied exposure conditions. A corrigendum was published in 2026. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: I live less than half a mile from a cell tower and am concerned for potential short and long term health effect on myself and my family. 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.

1996 limits are absolutely inadequate and those of us whose lives have been destroyed by the smart grid roll out and the towers and forced led light conversion are the evidence .there are hundreds of thousands of us that cant live anywhere since someone decided the IOT's digital ecosystems would replace our living ecosystems. Restore independent federal research programs and coordinated interagency review of the issue. All activities and funding should be publicly reported. Direct federal agencies to commission the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the health and environmental effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, including RF and ELF exposures, and issue actionable policy recommendations, research priorities, monitoring, and protection of children, workers, and ecosystems. Direct the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a comprehensive, transparent review of human, animal, and mechanistic evidence on the health effects of RF, ELF and other non-ionizing exposures, including chronic exposure and vulnerable populations. Prioritize evaluations of RF radiation and ELF magnetic fields for inclusion in the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens. Research should encompass all artificial non-ionizing frequencies, including power lines, charging systems, wireless power transfer, LED systems, satellite systems, and mmWave–THz bands associated with emerging technologies. Risk Assessment and Exposure Limits The FCC has no public health, environmental, or biological expertise and cannot perform scientific analysis. Direct relevant federal agencies with public health expertise to establish legally enforceable, science-based exposure limits for RF radiation and other non-ionizing electric and magnetic fields, addressing long-term, cumulative exposures and non-thermal effects, with protections for children, pregnant people, workers, and medically vulnerable populations, and clear monitoring and enforcement requirements. RF and EMF radiation exposure limits should be based on a comprehensive review and risk analysis of scientific research. The approach should be a public health approach of risk mitigation. Science-based safety limits for health protection need to be developed for all artificial non-ionizing frequencies, including those from electricity and electrical charging systems, wireless power transfer, LEDs and artificial light, satellite systems, and the higher THz bands associated with emerging technologies. Develop wildlife-specific exposure limits and immediate policies to mitigate wildlife exposure and environmental exposures in ecologically sensitive areas. Require regular, publicly scheduled reviews of exposure limits and regulations based on current scientific evidence, with public participation, independent scientific review, and timely revisions to address new findings, technologies, and exposure patterns. Safety Testing and Enforcement Require premarket safety testing for health effects from chronic exposure for all new wireless technologies, and for proposed electrical grid infrastructure (such as high voltage 765 kv power lines) emissions, just as is required for drugs. Modernize cell phone and wireless device compliance tests to reflect real-world use of people of all ages, including direct body contact and simultaneous exposure from multiple devices. Establish routine robust post-market RF radiation compliance testing for all cell phones, RF emitting devices, cell towers, base stations etc., with all results publicly posted and meaningful enforcement. Exposure Monitoring and Health Surveillance Implement a nationwide RF and EMF exposure measuring and monitoring program prioritizing schools, workplaces, residential areas, and sensitive wildlife habitats with 24/7 monitoring. All measurements should be publicly posted on an easy to access website with the ability to see measurements over time. Analyze data with regular updates for the public. Create a national health and environmental surveillance system to document and investigate suspected adverse effects. Consumer Information and Public Education Require clear RF radiation exposure labeling on all cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and wireless devices, packaging, and at the point of sale, including applicable separation distances for the test system (if the FCC continues to refuse to update the tests) and practical instructions to reduce exposure. Require clear EMF exposure labeling for charging cords, power adapters, appliances, and other electronics, including information on electric and magnetic field emissions and practical instructions to reduce exposure. Launch a multimedia public health education campaign for the American public on wireless and cell phone radiation, covering cell phones, Bluetooth devices, laptops, tablets, Wi-Fi routers, and other RF-emitting devices, with clear, practical guidance on reducing exposure and using wired alternatives.Ensure clear straightforward guidance and the importance of using wired alternatives. Expand public education to address electric and magnetic field exposures from charging cords, power adapters, appliances, and other electronics, with clear guidance on reducing exposure through distance, placement, and equipment use. Risk Mitigation and Exposure Reduction Mitigate RF and EMF exposures in schools and childcare settings, prioritize wired connections, and establish protective siting policies to ensure schools are not near RF or EMF emitting infrastructure. Prohibit cell towers and high-voltage power lines on or near schools. Incentivise technologies and research that eliminate and/or reduce exposure, including readily available Ethernet connections and other wired options. Require manufacturers to provide readily usable wired connection options, including plug-and-play Ethernet and cable connections instead of wireless.Require manufacturers and network developers to demonstrate that they have researched and integrated EMF reduction strategies into devices and network deployment.Consider a federal certification program for no/low EMF technologies and spaces.Issue guidance to local governments and institutions on reducing exposures through infrastructure siting, land use planning, building networks, and device selection. Accessible Public Spaces and Medical Facilities Ensure public libraries and other public accommodations provide designated areas free of intentional wireless RF emissions, with wired internet access and measures to minimize other non-ionizing EMF exposures. Ensure hospitals, medical offices, and other healthcare facilities provide designated areas and reasonable accommodations for people needing no/low EMF areas while maintaining access to necessary medical equipment and care. Establish safeguards and exposure-reduction protocols in patient rooms, waiting areas, maternity units, neonatal units, and other settings serving medically vulnerable populations. Education and Training for Medical Professionals Incorporate education on RF and other non-ionizing EMF exposures into medical, nursing, and allied health curricula. Develop independent continuing education on the scientific evidence, research gaps, exposure assessment, and practical exposure-reduction measures. Train healthcare professionals to take environmental and occupational exposure histories, including exposures from wireless devices, cell towers, power lines, and workplace equipment. Develop clinical guidance for evaluating and supporting patients reporting symptoms associated with EMF exposure, including assessment of other possible causes and appropriate referrals. Train healthcare professionals on exposure-reduction counseling for children, pregnant patients, workers, and medically vulnerable populations. Provide training on reasonable accommodations and reducing exposures in healthcare settings. Establish training on documenting and reporting suspected adverse effects to the national health surveillance system. Develop medical education materials and training programs. Consumer Information and Public Education Require all relevant federal agencies to provide clear, publicly accessible information on RF and other non-ionizing EMF exposures, acknowledging that scientific evidence exists reporting associations with adverse health effects, with links to the research and explanations of findings and uncertainties. Require the CDC, FDA, and other relevant federal health and environmental agencies to educate the public on practical ways to reduce RF and EMF exposures, including the use of wired alternatives. This should extend beyond cell phones. Require the FDA to establish and enforce clear RF and EMF radiation exposure labeling requirements for cell phones and other RF-emitting consumer devices, including information on packaging and at the point of sale, applicable testing separation distances, and practical instructions to reduce exposure. Workplace Safeguards Establish a comprehensive occupational health program for EMF safety Characterize and monitor exposure levels in a broad range of exposed occupations, from telecom, plastic industry, utilities, healthcare, military, to retail and education. Establish standardized medical surveillance with mandatory recordkeeping and reporting to track worker health and exposure incidents, including overexposures. Initiate R&D and innovation programs that prioritize low-EMF design and emission reduction in industrial and workplace technologies, focusing on minimizing unnecessary EMF exposures through improved engineering and manufacturing practices. Require machinery and equipment to incorporate engineered EMF controls, shielding, and design features that minimize worker exposure, with verified performance and routine maintenance checks. Issue comprehensive, site-specific guidance to minimize EMF exposure and mitigate risk, with special provisions for accommodating pregnant workers, medically vulnerable individuals, and persons with implants. Ensure employer/worker training and education. Restore state and local authority to consider health and environmental effects when regulating the siting of wireless infrastructure. Recommendations for Schools Recommendations for Schools to Protect Children, Teachers, and Staff from the Position Statement By The International Commission On The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields Replace all Wi-Fi networks with hardwired, shielded Ethernet internet connections. Purchase laptops and tablets with Ethernet capability, and with easy steps to disable wireless antennas so that computers connect to the internet with Ethernet only. Require that all cell phones be powered off for the entire school day and stored in a Faraday box or other shielded storage to reduce unnecessary RF exposure and minimize classroom distractions. Require that all devices and technology equipment used in schools have wireless transmitters (intentional radiators) disabled, ensuring that no wireless radiation sources operate within school buildings. Provide wired telephones for personnel in all classrooms. Educate students, staff, and families on the risks of wireless and EMF exposure and how to reduce exposure. Minimize ELF exposures by ensuring adequate grounding, use of shielded cabling, twisted wiring, and devices with low ELF emissions. Ensure students are at a distance from electrical equipment and charging stations. Prohibit cell towers/base stations and other wireless emitting antennas on or near school property as is already the policy in some countries and U.S. school districts.[i] Prohibit high-voltage power lines and electrical substations on or near school property. School boards should maintain a team that can routinely conduct transparent, independent real-time EMF measurements (including body-worn dosimeters) in classrooms, playgrounds, and sports fields to ensure the lowest possible levels are maintained. Continuously mitigate as required to ensure the above principles are adhered to Recommendations for Wildlife and the Environment from “Flora and fauna—How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations” published in Frontiers in Public Health. Here are some of the key recommendations. Download the paper here. Recognize non-ionizing EMF as a biologically active pollutant in air, ground, and water, and designate airspace as habitat. Establish an EPA research program on RF biological and ecological impacts, including long-term exposure, cumulative risks, and interactions with other environmental stressors. Determine which ICRP protections for flora and fauna can apply to non-ionizing radiation. Ensure independent science guides federal safety standards protecting public health and the environment. Fund research to close wildlife data gaps and inform updated regulations. Establish wildlife exposure standards addressing chronic, low-level EMF exposure and avoiding or minimizing take of protected species. Model species-specific, whole-body and organ-specific resonance, with laboratory and field validation. Create a species- and frequency-specific exposure database. Create an environmental surveillance/reporting program to track wildlife behavior, reproduction, population trends, and effects on plants and trees in exposed areas. Amend migratory bird “take” protections to address known or suspected EMF impacts. Include wireless radiation effects in tower permitting and migratory bird rulemaking. Implement nationwide EMF monitoring, prioritizing parks, forests, refuges, wetlands, coastal ecosystems, migratory corridors, and wilderness areas. Establish NEPA-compliant procedures assessing cumulative RF and non-ionizing EMF impacts on wildlife, insects, and flora. Include emissions estimates and exposure-reduction design alternatives in environmental impact statements Document categorically excluded facilities and publish environmental assessments and RF compliance reports. Make wildlife protection and reducing EMF exposure a priority in technology and communications network design. Require independent RF spot checks before and after construction. Subject existing and proposed satellite systems to NEPA review. Fund at least one wildlife biologist position at FCC. Require premarket testing, including cost–benefit and cumulative effects analyses. Conduct robust environmental reviews that include EMF exposure before licensing and national deployment of new technologies. Establish accessible post-market reporting systems for ecological impacts. Establish formal interagency coordination, bioelectromagnetics expertise, and regular meetings. Establish species-specific habitat protections. Implement policies to reduce exposure. Direct antenna emissions away from foraging, nesting, and denning sites.Reduce ELF exposure through transmission corridor siting and wire configurations that reduce magnetic fields.Designate low- to no-EMF zones in critical habitats, wilderness areas, parks, forests, refuges, and other sensitive areas. Prohibit higher-frequency deployments that pose heightened risks to sensitive taxa in ecologically sensitive areas. Use barriers, antenna pattern modifications, and power line configurations to reduce wildlife exposure. Prioritize non-invasive non EMFemitting wildlife tracking and assess telemetry equipment for exposures and potential effects before use. Minimize telemetry emissions, transmission times, equipment burden, and the number of tagged animals.