Exposure limits & testing

Re: ET Docket No. 13-84, RF Exposure Issues on Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (DA 26-997) I am a citizen. Your notice says the Commission will give little weight to "unverifiable or repetitive testimonial submissions." That is offensive. Citizens are doing their best to connect the Commission's understanding of reality with the reality we actually live. Those reports are verifiable only if someone funds the work to verify them, and that is your job, not ours. You also ask commenters to "clearly describe their specialized experience and subject-matter expertise." Living with this technology every day is experience. Citizens do not need credentials to be heard by their government. The people are supreme here. Companies, CEOs, and their lawyers come and go, and studies paid for by the interests being judged deserve the skepticism you reserve for us. I ask the Commission to: 1. Hand safety to health experts. A spectrum regulator that promotes 5G and 6G should not grade its own safety homework. Set exposure limits with independent federal health agencies, and say so in your remand answer. 2. Update the limits. They are rooted in 1996 rules. The 2019 finding that "no changes are warranted" ignores the court's concern about how wireless has changed since then: near-universal phones, dense small-cell networks, and constant exposure. Reopen the limits instead of re-defending them. The court told you to address "technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines." You cannot do that by looking only at a record that closed in 2019. 3. Protect children first. Test devices the way people use them, against the head and body and in pockets, and measure children's exposure separately with a protective margin. 4. Fund the studies. Missing research is not evidence of safety. Interior said in 2014 that no independent field studies of towers and birds exist. Fund long-term, independent human, wildlife, and environmental studies with no industry money, and treat citizen reports as a reason to study, not a reason to dismiss. 5. Push for lower-power devices. Set efficiency targets so phones need less power to connect, including through satellite links, as one of the technology changes the court told you to consider. Answer to the people, not the industry. We will still be here when the companies are gone. Alec Snelling California This comment was crafted with super intelligence (SI) support.

I urge the FCC to re-examine your radio frequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines required but the Court. The Court has directed the FCC to provide an explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, and its impacts on the environment, especially given the ubiquity of wireless devices, cell phones and other technological developments that use RF radiation. Please comply with the Court. A disturbing study in the EU in "Physics in Medicine & Biology" used 550 computer simulations to compare wireless radiation absorption rates in child and adult body models across 15 frequencies spanning 5G and coming 6G wireless technologies, finding higher whole-body absorption rates in child models below 6 GHz. 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. Wireless radiation has affected me and my neighbors immensely and their children. 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.

There are so many utilities, appliances and communication devices that surround us which bombard our bodies with emf radiation. Each utility, each appliance, each device, router, etc. emits a "safe" amount of this emf radiation.... but when added together, there's no way to know if the ever increasing amount of emf radiontion that we are swimming in will drown us. Humans need water, but ingesting too much of it can actually kill.... The same goes for emf radiation.... The only difference is that no one has look to see how much is too much. We need this information immediately and are entitled to know how much the cumulative effect of all these purportedly "small", "safe" doses, are really harming us.

We need more stringent RF radiation exposure standards in the United States. The research and science have been insufficient to identify and address the risks in vulnerable populations. Our rural population came under a Wide Area Network Advanced Metering Infrastructure, and there was no FCC standard to protect our citizens from public utility overreach decisions. As a health practitioner in a small clinic, I witnessed an acceleration in existing cancers near transmitters and subsequent death within months of new exposure to wireless RF. There have also been new cancers and a brain tumor where the mesh network transmission is more concentrated due to housing density. There is an exponential rise in vertigo and tinnitus, headaches, and insomnia. I witnessed sudden death of pets, including elderly cats, dogs, and an aquarium pet within weeks of AMI install. All patients and clients benefit from bioavailable magnesium to offset the magnesium depletion with the voltage-gated calcium channel dysfunction. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Children have had seizures at school where the Wireless RF is more intense with antennas, WiFi and devices in the classroom. The Science and oversight protection for RF impact on our children is grossly lacking.

I have been personally affected by my cell phone, computer and wireless radiation since January of 2019 when I had an “electrical accident” in my home office. Since then, when I touch my cell phone or use my laptop, I get these symptoms: tingling on the tip of my tongue that spreads further back toward my throat, my lips swell, nausea, swelling in my joints, ...until I stop using the device. The cell phone impacts me extremely quickly, just by touching the front of it, and I often get a pulse through my arm. Awhile back, I began to get a lump in my breast. It was right where I could feel the signal from my fingers on the cellphone to my breast. This lump kept increasing in size until I went to the doctor and showed her. It felt important that a medical person see the lump and record it in my health records. Realizing the cell phone seemed to be causing the lump, I stopped using it for 4 days until the limp went away. I can only use a computer for a short time before these reactions occur and nausea sets in. I have friends for whom the reaction is a lightning bolt headache that lasts many days, burning skin and worse. I have also had tinnitus since this occurred. It is loud and affecting my hearing. Hearing aids will be necessary, and you know what they cost, but I can’t have wireless hearing aids which are now wireless or have a battery, something I also can’t tolerate at close range. In the "electrical accident," I was using my computer with the wireless on and charging my cellphone in the same unit of 4 outlets. I was back and forth using the computer and the cell phone when I needed to text/make/take a phone call. Suddenly, tingling began on my tongue, and my lips swelled. I have been told that my hands on both the keyboard and the cell phone at the same time completed something like a closed circuit, charging my body. Since that time, I have had this sensitivity. My doctor and my chiropractor both diagnosed it as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. My MD says I am something of an antenna now, possibly exacerbated because we all have metals in our bodies from environmental pollutants. There are costs associated with being electrically sensitive. I cannot have wireless on in my home and must hardwire my laptop. Wireless is free, and cell data, which I am forced to use, is expensive. I purchased a good meter, between $350 and $800. My RF/EMF meter told me there is no place is my home that is really safe enough to sleep on a regular basis and I had to invest in some very expensive shielding material ($1500.00) that shuts out radiowaves in my bedroom. I need to hire a Building Biologist to determine what about my home makes the sensitivity worse. This hire is expensive ($800-1000.00) as well as costs for anything that person determines I must do to mitigate my exposure. I have great concerns (terrified, really) about 5G and all that will come in the future. Smart meters aren't local yet, but we have gotten the dreaded letter saying they are putting them on houses now. These must be studied as they emit huge amounts of strong radiation and will be installed right on our homes. They also put dirty electricity into our wiring, and I and some others react to that. I actually have to turn off the circuit to my bedroom when I sleep so I don’t get a killer headache. What else is forced on us this way? Please let us have free meters on our homes for water, electricity and gas. The more radiation we add to the environment, the more people will be negatively affected. Please study the effects of the enormous amount of cumulative radiation in the air in towns with strong wireless infrastructure and those with little. We have seen huge differences. Please study the effect on children, wildlife, the elderly and immuno-compromised. Our lives are in your hands. Please protect us and keep services people-centered not profit driven. Thank you so much! ~LWodin, Upton, MA

Independent research (not funded by telecommunications companies) has shown a clear link between RF radiation and serious health issues in children, adults and flora/fauna.The FCC should follow the guidelines of BioInitiative Report 2012 unless clear scientific evidence shows that a different level of rf exposure is safe. Below are the links to research documenting the need for stronger limits on rf exposure: Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromag... The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine: Vol 41 , No 2 - Get Access Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine: Vol 40 , No 2 - Get Access

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 of what I have witnessed change in the environment since the increase of wireless communications and electro magnetic frequencies. The incidence of all cause cancers seems to be on the rise. Public anxiety is more evident. Lives are disrupted by the continual bombardment of information from cell phone and computer use. Driving and bike riding are more dangerous with the increased use of cell phones. The level of surveillance has become an invasion of privacy. 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. 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 children that are exposed the these types of radiation regularly. I want them to be protected and aware of the consequences. Thank you.

I live in a small rural community with 1 cell tower, and use a Samsung android cellphone, and I have Spectrum internet wifi service in my home. Over the past decade I've experienced mitochondrial dysfunction issues with severe fatigue, and developed brain fog, memory issues, depression and anxiety. I have repeatedly communicated my concerns to my primary care physician for several years and had blood test, thyroid panels conducted etc. without any findings. I have since developed cancer, atril fibrillation and gained a significant amount of weight. Consequently, Duke Energy installed a OneWay CL209 240V 3W at my home several years ago, and there has since been a constant frequency noise in my home being emitted from this electromagnetic device that it disrupts my quality of life. I have informed Duke about my Atril fibrillation and asked for this meter to be removed due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity and to minimize any cumulative EMF radiation in my home. I want a non-communicating digital meter. I am also concerned about the effects of radiation that my pets are exposed to within my home. Duke does not acknowledge that I have a two-way communicating digital meter at my home. DUKE ENERGY STK# 147983, Serial # Z25079936675X16. Please assist us with making living in our environment safe again and stop the corporate profiteering of dirty and dangerous technology from destroying our health.

When the wifi is on at my house it disrupts my sleep and the sleep of my animals as well. I can hear a humming and my tinnitus is much worse. I believe that the local 5g connections are completely toxic. Without testing no one can prove otherwise. Why wasn’t that done before it was rolled out ??