Towers, antennas & siting

Cell towers and other wireless radiation has been causing havic in my life for over 20 years. Non stop ringing in my head. I feel like my skin is burning. Holding my cell phone I have to go poo immediately. Brain fog and body fatigue plague me. None of you care, because you all profit at regular people expense

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.

My sister has had terrible headaches after a large cell tower went in not far from her home. She nearly had to move because of her pain. She had a special kind of paint applied to the walls and a special film over the windows and it is now manageable for her but this was very expensive, and most people likely can't afford this kind of mitigation at their own expense due to the damage created from this type of radiation.

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.

Anytime I am within a hundred feet of one of these towers I get headaches and dizziness almost immediately. I've also noticed a decline of birds bees and insects near the towers as well. This cannot be good for any creature including humans!

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: Tho I have no scientific study at hand, it has been an observation over years that "invisible" toxicities that eiminate from cell towers, and other concentrations of communication operations have visibly negatively affected all living things around their locations. That observation alone is grounds to be very suspicious of these technologies and to halt them before more actual "unbiased" studies are done.

My wife suffers severe brain fog and headaches whenever we go into town. We deal with a few businesses located proximate to a 5G tower and it ALWAYS affects her. When we only need to go to the other end of town, she fares much better. The public desperately needs industry and health agencies to reassess EMF exposure effects and focus on safeguards and changes necessary to ensure healthier outcomes.

I live within 100 meters of a cell tower in downtown Kalamazoo rand despite all attempts at stopping the installation of those massive towers in a residential area, was not allowed to even testify and be heard. I have no choice in that continual exposure or even a right to have those well-documented health concerns taken into consideration which are clearly real. I noticed this most when we had a breakdown of the power grid in Kalamazoo after a windstorm took down many large trees, transformers and power-lines in my area of the city. For several days everything was dark after sunset. The point I wish to make is that I suddenly slept better and the subtle degrees of continual stress that are everyday life in a city fell blessedly away revealing what we live with. Gone were the arguments among people and nervous states about small things that continually disturb us and we hardly know about. As a lifelong meditator I am trained to recognize such changes of states of mind and they are real. We should not have to live with this. What we have is the opposite of informed consent.

To whom it may concern: I have recurrent corneal tears. I recently bought a 17E iPhone. This phone very notably affects my eyes, especially the left eye, and even more especially when I am incapacitated with a debilitating, painful tear. The closer the phone gets to me, the more physical grief I feel in my eye, which then affects the other eye and the rest of my body. It’s a very real thing. I also get regular headaches and eye discomfort with normal use of my phone. I needed a new phone, but the 5G is seriously detrimental. This harmful energy must stop, especially around schools and homes. Sincerely, Karen Lummus.

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. Below are sited studies from source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781 These studies found increases in cancer and other health problems in humans living around antennas (e.g. Santini et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2003; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Shinjyo and Shinjyo, 2014; Gandhi et al., 2015; López et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). There is a specific symptomatology linked to radar and RF exposure at low levels, characterized by functional disturbances of the central nervous system (headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, difficulty in concentration, dizziness, etc.), that has been termed ‘RF sickness’ (Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998; Navarro et al., 2003). "In the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals (Blank et al., 2015; Hardell and Nyberg, 2020). However, the media, the responsible organizations (World Health Organization, 2015) and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population, who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis." 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. These ill affects are being seen in Vermont and elsewhere across the country. I have a dear friend that suffers from ‘RF sickness’ . I have seen the rise of cancers of many friends and family members. I have also personally witnessed a rapid and alarming decrease in birds, bees and other pollinators in Vermont and NH. 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. It is time to make an update of standards given the new evidence set before you now.