Four years ago, I started having unexplained irregular heartbeats, often in the middle of the night but also during the day. I knew about the health issues arising from proximity to cell towers but didn't see any immediately around where I lived. I hired a woman who was a specialist in measuring the amount of radiation in one's home environment as well as in one's body. Her equipment was expensive and made in Germany. When she tested my bedroom and apartment, the test reflected off-the-chart numbers (we combed the neighborhood and did find a tower--mostly obscured--very nearby). But more startling, discovered how much radiation my body was absorbing! I also watched a video test of a gentleman with no heart symptoms who, when hooked up to a monitor, had significant heart abnormalities when a smart meter--in another room and out of sight to the test subject--turned on and off. I then had my room painted with a special paint and used a specialized blanket to help protect me from these heart anomalies. These things did help, but they all stopped when I moved to a semi-rural location with no 5G towers!!! Please, PLEASE put an end to these towers!!!
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 believe a family friend, was negatively impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community, and recently died of cancer. Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women. 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 concerned because I have 2 grandsons who are teenagers, and they are always on some kind of electronic device and use air buds all the time.One has ADHD and the other has gone through some depression, which I am sure the constant radiation exposure doesn't help. I am worried about this whole younger generation and what the years of exposure, that is cumulative will do to them. Their school has 2 5or6 G towers outside it, so even playing & watch soccer games, we do not feel safe. Please do current testing, as the radiation is so much stronger now than previous test on how it affects the brain body.
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 believe, a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was directly adversely impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community in where he resided. We know other countries limit exposure, even China requires pregnant women to wear EMF protective clothing. 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 a biostatistician. There is no data on long-term biological effects of RF exposure, and precious little data on acute effects. This is completely unacceptable. Even if we accept that wireless communications are a part of our society and our economy, here to stay, there are policy decisions to be made about transmission protocols, tower placements, and power limits. These should depend on frequency and on modulation, and we don't have the information we need to minimize health impacts. Let's begin now a massive program of information gathering.
I experienced serious vertigo from a 5G cellphone. I experienced insonmia from sleeping near a wifi router. I experienced anziety from sleeping near a wifi router. I have now mitigated the wifi radiation emitting devices with faraday cages. and my symptoms have gone away. Im very sensitive to wifi radiation.
In our home, with just 3G (NOT 5G or 6G), I had to turn off ALL wifi (printer and computer) and move the router because the radiation was burning my ear and causing skin cancer. My doctor had a couple of options for me: chemo and/or radiation, or lop off my ear. Neither of those were palatable to me, so I found a holistic salve that killed the cancer. My ear is permanently disfigured, but at least it's still there to support my eyeglasses. This madness needs to stop! If I'm that sensitive to 3G, I can't imagine what 5G or 6G will do to me! It's terrifying!
At the congressional hearing on 5G several years ago, Sen. Blumenthal asked the FCC representatives, "Has there been any safety testing on humans for 5G?" The answer was "No." Is there funding set aside for safety testing of 5G on humans?" The answer was "No." Appalling! This is egregious that you are experimenting on us and our children with your only concern - profit and how fast you can download a movie. Please show some sense of ethics and listen to the science. Remember to exercise the precautionary principle.
When my wife and I are physically close to a cell tower we experienced sensations of mental disruption and confusion. We particularly object to the fact that the FCC has failed to assess the impact on humans defying court orders, and relies on outdated data that is over 30 years old that does not take modern medical understandings into account. We object to the FCC’s position that local governments cannot reject cell tower locations.