Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices

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. his issue matters to me personally because: 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.

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

Places like France understand the harm EMF does to their babies and accordingly they do not use wifi in their childcare facilities. https://interferencetechnology.com/france-bans-wi-fi-in-childcare-centers/. IT is appalling that a first world nation has not understanding of the harm imposed and those who seek to subvert knowledge of harm are just as culpable. When those in charge do not listen to the health needs of its citizens, the people will remember those names and the time and dates of the next election. It is imperative to keep our status as a first world place and acknowledge the effects EMF. There are also devices out there to mitigate effects but this must also be incorporated accordingly. A citizen who is weak and frazzled from daily bombardment of EMF cannot perform his duties at his best level, causing a strain not only in himself and his family, but his performance at work.

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.

For years I got horrible migraines before figuring out that I have EMF sensitivity. I have had to move to a home away from neighbors in order to avoid all of the cell tower and Wi-Fi radiation. I still get headaches at work and in other public places. I would love to be able to go in public without this issue. I would love to be able to trust out government to protect our health and safety from corporate greed, because it is not just me or the many people with EMF sensitivity. Radiation is a known health hazard to everyone. Please do the right thing and protect our children and our community.

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 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.

We can see a cell tower from our home. We also have Wi-Fi in the home and we just do not feel as well as we did without these devices.

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.