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. 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: While in the military I developed migraines and vertigo that were triggered by high EMF environments. Moreover, It is well know that HF radios in fighter jets cause cancer. Please reference any fighter jet systems manual. We use to call the cone of the antenna in front of the jet the cone of cancer. There are notes, warnings and cautions pertaining to this danger. While there are different frequency ranges to the many avionics in a fighter jet some of these frequency bands reserved for the military have been released for use by the tech industry within the civilian population(Why?). There is a clear safety issue with this current technology please also reference the military studies done on radar operators in the 60's and 70's showing health concerns. It's time to FOIA all government organizations to include the military for all experiments regarding technology using any type of frequency based power. Non ionizing radiation should be looked at differently than ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is more apt to cause damage via thermal heating. Non ionizing radiation is more likely to affect the calcium channels of the body therefore showing damage later in a persons life that is not expressed by thermal damage. Because of this it also tends to affect people in different ways depending on their individual exposures and body type. We know that different types of frequency's can affect a person with more fat differently than someone with less fat. We know a millimeter wave cannot penetrate the body as deep as a longer wave frequency. Therefore more fat could potentially equal more protection against a millimeter wave reaching an organ. This is especially important with children as most do not have the body fat of an adult allowing the millimeter wave to penetrate deeper into their developing bodies. Currently the FCC only looks at ionizing radiation effects, this is pure negligence on the FCC's side as it is common knowledge among anyone that works with avionics that there are other dangers to frequency then just ionizing radiation as I explained above. This issue is going to have the most damaging effects on our children. It's time to start caring about our future generations and immediately stop any further roll out of cell towers and wireless technologies, remove all antennas from schools, remove wifi from schools and cease the use of 3g/4g/5g towers within our cities until the FCC does its job and does a complete overhaul of its safety standards to reflect measuring all the dangers that can result from this use of technology. The FCC must also ensure the Tech companies are held to the strictest 3rd party study's to ensure what they are proposing is safe. Then the FCC must remove all employees with conflicts of interest ensuring no industry employees are allowed to ever work for the FCC or vice versa. Or at least have a 5 year no compete agreement in their contracts. The FCC should also be required to work with HSS. The HSS should study the health effects and then the FCC must be required to update its standards to ensure the dangers Identified by HSS are addressed in their safety standards. 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.

Review of the adverse health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation is long overdue. The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s.

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 both myself and at least 4 other of my family members have been irreparably injured by wireless radiation. Genetic testing has shown that members of our family lack a key gene responsible for detoxification of a wide array of pollutants, including wireless radiation. When exposed, our symptoms include headaches, dizziness, rashes, tachycardia, severe chest pain, uncontrollable shaking, and even seizures. Our lives have been impacted such that we no longer are physically able to live near towns or other sites of cellular towers. We are unable to maintain most jobs within the public sector because of the prevalence of wi-fi, Bluetooth, wearable wireless devices, and cellular phones. Increasingly, we are finding it difficult or impossible to travel anywhere, to attend public events, church services, concerts, schools, and other gatherings. We are also unable to drive or ride in newer vehicles with tire pressure sensors, GPS, and other wireless components. In one frightening episode, my infant grandson stopped breathing and turned blue when his mother simply sat down with him for a moment in her sister's emergency services truck, a vehicle equipped with Bluetooth, a mobile Hotspot, GPS, and a host of other wireless technology. Thankfully, my grandson's mother immediately removed him from the vehicle, and he began breathing again. She later measured the radio frequencies within the vehicle with the HF35C detector, and they were higher than the device could register. 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 to urge the FCC to reexamine its radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines, with particular attention to the potential impact of wireless radiation on children and developing brains. The current FCC guidelines were developed nearly three decades ago, before the widespread use of smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi-enabled classrooms, wearable devices, and the constant wireless connectivity that now defines daily life for many children. Today's children experience levels and patterns of exposure that were not contemplated when the current standards were adopted. Of particular concern is the growing body of scientific literature examining the effects of RF exposure during critical periods of brain development. For example, Aldad et al. (2012), a Yale University study published in Scientific Reports, found behavioral and neurodevelopmental changes in mice exposed to cellular telephone radiation during gestation. While no single study should dictate regulatory policy, such findings underscore the need for careful review of potential developmental impacts and should not be dismissed without meaningful consideration. Children are not simply smaller adults. They are undergoing rapid neurological development, and they may face a lifetime of cumulative exposure to wireless technologies. Yet there is little public information regarding the actual, real-world RF exposures children experience throughout the school day in increasingly wireless educational environments. Wi-Fi routers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and other connected devices are now commonplace in classrooms, but the extent and characteristics of these exposures are rarely monitored or publicly reported. The FCC has a special responsibility to ensure that its regulations adequately protect vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. At a minimum, the Commission should conduct a transparent review of the current scientific evidence regarding children's health and neurodevelopment, explain how it evaluates studies reporting biological effects at non-thermal exposure levels, and determine whether additional safety factors or updated exposure limits are warranted. The question before the Commission is not whether wireless technology provides tremendous benefits. It unquestionably does. The question is whether exposure standards developed in the 1990s continue to reflect the best available science in a world where children are surrounded by wireless devices from infancy onward. The FCC should ensure that its regulations are based on current evidence and provide an appropriate margin of safety for the nation's children. Thank you for considering these comments.

Since the mandated installation of smart meters electric bills have skyrocketed and we have seen none of the promised savings or control over our electric usage. At this rate electricity will be a completely unaffordable luxury fit the next generation. Even now families of four making less than $133,609 are given subsides from the electric company paid for by the higher bills put on us all. This new smart system is only designed for failure as the meter life and replacement costs are unsustainable. Finally these meters were mandated with no safety testing to show the health effects on structure occupants and greater risk of fire. The only benefit is to the electric company who can now easily disconnect your power. That is not something we should be paying a premium for. Please return the safe, economical and trusted analog meters.

Is the FCC actually protecting public health? In a 2021 the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, finding it failed to show proper review in regards to numerous issues related to public health and the environment. The court issued a mandate that the FCC show proper examination of evidence on its record related to non-cancer health effects (such as impacts to reproduction, brain development and the immune system), long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, and environmental impacts. If it is indeed true that this is a complex issue and that the FCC needs more time, then why hasn't the FCC stopped the roll out of wireless technology given that it is clear that it is harmful to our biology and mental health? I am citing a study, one of thousands, to remind the FCC that you are an organization that was created to protect human health, and to regulate, not stand by while humans remain vulnerable and negatively affected by the proliferation of wireless technology that invades my personal, professional and social existence. Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Thatte HS, Cho MR. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):319-29. doi: 10.1667/RR1118.1. PMID: 18302487.

We are only on this earth for a short time, and given the population on the planet, it is imperative that we work together to mitigate the negative causes of disease, both mentally and physically. I am hypersensitive to electromagnetic radiation because of how much emr is present in our environment. The human exposure guidelines that were created long ago are outdated. It is scientifically evident that wireless technology has adverse health effects, and those of us whose health is teetering because there is literally no place to go to get away from wireless radiation, it is exponentially detrimental, as it continues to increase on our planet. How can it be that the FCC has not responded to the courts ruling to investigate and take into account hundreds if not thousands of studies proving harm. My life has been altered because I cannot go to certain establishments, drive on certain roads, or go to certain outdoor areas because of 5G towers. When will the health and well being of humans take precidence over profits? Our communication needs can be met with wired technology for the most part, and cellular towers for other things. Wifi is dangerous, 5G is dangerous. I have experienced being in a stupor when I was unknowingly parked too close to a 5G tower.

The continued study and update of wireless radiation exposure limits are critical in today's saturated world. The science is already in! I have two grandchildren - most parents assume that if a cell tower is next to their child's school, it must be safe. This is not true! Just look at the average child's daily exposures: (1.) Wi-Fi in the home, (2.) smart home electric, gas and water meters, (3.) classroom white board and router, (4.) school laptop or tablet, (5.) multiple smart toys, (6.) cell towers at school and neighborhood, (7.) cell phones are now used as toys from infancy up, (8.) telecoms push in home Wi-Fi booster devices. *No wonder infertility and colon cancer is at epidemic levels in younger populations. All radiation is cumulative! Please act now to save future generations from RFR harms. "Big Wireless" relies on the media blackout. It is past time to educate and protect our children. Parents deserve to know the truth.

Please update the human exposure guidelines for radio frequency exposure. Many studies identify the health risks such as Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell, L., et al. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).

The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of Radiofrequency (RF radiation). EMR Syndrome (Electromagnetic Sensitivity) Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40:188-200. (2019). Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. et al. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299. (2017). “Hot Nano Spots” as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, H. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69. (2016). Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, S., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(3):ZC82-ZC85. (2016). Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros, L., et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104. (2016). Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, M. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 7(Part B):43-51. (2016). Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross-Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, C., et al. BMJ Open 3(12). (2013). Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, N., et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686. (2012). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius, S. et al. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112. (2012). Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al. Neurotoxicology 28(2):434-440. (2007). Electrohypersensitivity: Sate-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258. (2006). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268. (2006). Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170. (2006). Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature. Levallois, P. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8. (2002). Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysiological Effects of Cellular Phones – Facts of Needless Anxiety. Harma, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86. (2000). Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal. 53(3):236-238 (1998).