Wi-Fi, meters & wireless devices

I am the Board President of the nonprofit, Community and Friends of Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. I submit these comments as an individual, not on behalf of the organization. I am a community member and advocate who is directly affected by a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower sited in a historic human and pet cemetery, and I write from firsthand experience. I have followed the permitting and legal record closely. The situation. The historic Seattle-Tacoma Pet Cemetery est. 1950 on Kent's West Hill is located in unincorporated South King County, Kent, Washington, in a community of color, immigrants, refugees, and low-income households. Humans, pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, some as whole families. Many cultural traditions exist here. In Indigenous cultures and spiritual traditions, animals are regarded as equally important as humans, deserving of the same dignity, honor, and respect in life and death. I hold that humans and animals call for the same and equal respect in life and death. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Crown Castle installed a 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower inside active Burial Block 13 with graves and mourners and 115 feet from neighboring homes in opposition to cemetery patrons, neighbors, and community members at large. It was installed in the wrong zone without a conditional use permit, in violation of King County Code and Washington State cemetery law. Additionally, Crown Castle did not disclose the human burials or the cemetery's historic significance on its permit application, and the project was pushed through the King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review without addressing them. I have opposed its placement and operation since 2019. Why this matters to the issues before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is open to public comments for Cell Phone and Wireless Radio Frequency Radiation (RF) Health Effects and other Non-ionizing Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF). I am talking about RF in this comment because that is the issue in the situation. The FCC's standards are the primary protection communities have against radio frequency radiation (RF) exposure. Under federal law, local governments generally cannot deny a cell tower based on RF health effects when it meets FCC limits. However, it is my understanding that communities can raise health concerns alongside other legitimate issues, such as zoning, permitting requirements, human remains, historic significance, etc. Our cemetery case involves all of these concerns. We should have the right to raise RF health concerns independently, without having to rely on other grounds for objection. If the FCC's standards are outdated, communities have limited recourse to protect residents, mourners, and their loved ones from potential RF exposure risks. Changes since 1996. The limits predate smartphones, small cells, etc., and constant connectivity. Towers now stand close to where people live and grieve, and people spend long periods near them. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether 1996 limits account for the ways that cell phones, cell towers, and the like are used and installed today including but not limited to chronic, daily, close-range RF exposure. Children and vulnerable people. Children live in the homes near this tower and visit the cemetery with their families. The record includes research showing children absorb more RF energy than adults (e.g., Fernández et al., 2018, Environmental Research). I ask the Commission to address children, pregnancy, and medically vulnerable people specifically. Long-term and non-cancer effects. The Commission should examine long-term, low-level exposure and non-cancer effects, including neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects, oxidative stress, and DNA damage, rather than relying on short-term heating thresholds. Animals and the environment. Pets, K-9 officers, and service animals are buried here, and wildlife lives on the grounds. The FCC has no wildlife-specific exposure limits. I ask the Commission to consider the research on effects on animals, insects, birds, and plants (e.g., Levitt, Lai & Manville, 2022, Reviews on Environmental Health, Parts 1–3). Testing and compliance. I ask the Commission to require independent, post-installation RF testing with public results that are easily accessible, so communities can verify compliance themselves at any time. There should be no barriers here. Why this is also a sacred space issue. Cemeteries are sacred regardless of a visitor's religion, meant to offer peace and tranquility, and dedicated in perpetuity to honor, remembrance, and love. A 100-foot industrial AT&T cell tower this close to graves and mourners intrudes on that purpose and raises serious concerns about exposure and potential harm to people and animals. My requests: • Update RF exposure limits based on a comprehensive review of current science, including but not limited to long-term, cumulative, and non-thermal effects, with specific protections for children, pregnancy, and vulnerable people. • Establish wildlife and environmental exposure standards, make them publicly accessible, and enforce them. • Modernize compliance testing and require public, independent post-installation testing. • Require easily accessible public records of tower locations, measurements, compliance, and complaints. • Adopt protective siting policies for sensitive places such as homes, schools, and cemeteries, and require disclosure of burial grounds and historic sites when towers are proposed. • Provide free advocates for the public to use to educate and support them in fighting for RF safety when necessary. • Stop giving away local control in cell tower permitting. Allow local jurisdiction and the public to decide if a cell tower siting plan is legal and appropriate and disallow it when necessary. • Support the retraction of permits when a cell tower or antennae modification application provides false information or omits information that is required for a complete application for consideration. I am not against cell towers. I support responsible telecommunications infrastructure and advocate for the safe, lawful, legal, ethical, and appropriate placement of cell towers. Not here. Not in an active, historic cemetery. Not among our beloved dead and those who come to mourn them. Thank you.

My ears have not stopped ringing since the smart meters were installed.

For the past 3 years I have had a hair follicle test and every year the results come back showing significant emf radiation exposure. My health is being adversely affected by all of the cell network, WiFi and electronic radiation. Please be mindful of how harmful unbridled technology really is to humanity.

I have had a chronic illness for over 20 years and the effects from wireless technology has made recovering exceedingly difficult. I am unable to have wireless in the house due to headaches that feel almost tinny in my head. I cannot be in a car that using GPS or any other "bells and whistles" as it causes my condition to worsen. I also notice that if my children are near wifi/cell towers, they experience ill effects. Not to mention, flying in planes tends to aggravate my condition significantly. I have to do particular protocols in order to feel some what ok. Thank you for taking the time to read and have the ability to submit concerns as I do in fact wish the continued advancement of wireless is causing much harm to our society as a whole.

Our loved one was harmed by over exposure to harmful wireless radiation where she worked and in an apartment building where she lived. Neither place would test the area. She heard a physician speak about his daughter's problem with RF radiation exposure. She purchased the meter he recommended and tested the environments, which were in the high danger zone. She moved out. She suffers greatly and cannot go in many places without excruciating pain (headaches, jaw pain, stomach pain (as if being punched in stomach), brain fog, speech problems, etc. She once visited Green Bank WV and felt peace. If she walks on a beach or barefoot in the woods, she feels better. Her life and travels have been significantly compromised as a result. She has been unable to fly or go to many places. Please update guidelines and create safe places and require companies to create safe portable phones and other devices for people like our loved one. She recently moved to a new place and has been unable to create a safe environment. She needs a landline, but the wiring was removed when the contractors renovated the house and local suppliers refuse to install one. She rarely goes to large events and even struggles going to church because there are no safe zones, despite her pleas to create these. When she goes into a hospital (after working in hospitals her entire life), she gets quite sick. She can only travel in old cars, since so many of the newer ones have too much technology. We're concerned for her life, as it looks like she now needs surgery for something and we're concerned about how to protect her during and after surgery and recovery. Most physicians we encounter here in Boston don't even recognize this issue yet. Please help her and all those who suffer from this manmade disaster. Please update guidelines for safety to reflect current data, to help protect people from this kind of harm.

I request an independent review of the science, performed by entities not tied to the wireless or mobile communications industry. Over the last nine years, neighborhoods all over the USA have been left helpless against devices that you (FCC) categorize as intentional radiators. These devices have been installed right outside peoples homes, without their consent. Some antennas are not even found on antennasearch.com. People in urban areas are being overexposed to non-ionizing radiation and safety standards must be re-examined and updated. Prolonged exposure to RF radiation has adverse health impacts. I can limit the time I hold the cell phone up to my head, and keep my phone away from me when I sleep. Besides moving, what can I do to protect my health from the intentional radiator outside my bedroom while I sleep?

Re: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC - ET Docket No. 13-84 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. This is my second comment and the next several paragraph's are the same as yesterday's. The Court directed the FCC to explain its determination that FCC 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 using wireless devices and technological developments, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence from those of us who have suffered harm from the accumulative effects of RF radiation along with the 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. I believe the FCC should review the following study to address the concerns regarding wireless radiation because my sibling and I both suffer from neurological effects, oxidative stress, probably DNA damage if we can get tested and electromagnetic sensitivity and I have witnessed many of the same symptoms in other families in my community who suffer from EMR Syndrome: 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. Updated Research Summaries Updated Research Summaries 2022 Updated Research Summaries (May 2022) These are invaluable sets of abstracts and tables covering the RFR... MY STORY CONTINUED: Another expense I will now incur is restating my Living Trust and specifically my Special Needs Trust for my sibling. I am now sailing into unchartered waters as I navigate options, along with an attorney, that should something happen to me, my sibling needs to remain in my shielded home and shielded car. I need to be able to sleep at night knowing she will be protected because there are no words to describe how devastating the ill-effects of RF radiation on the body really are. Even though my older car has RF blocking window film on it and although the RF signal is lower inside my car going from "extreme" on the outside of the vehicle to "high" on the inside of the vehicle in my driveway which, then of course the signal fluctuates driving through different neighborhoods, I still have a high magnetic field inside my car confirmed by my building biologist with his specialized and more sensitive meters. As an amateur, I detect the magnetic field using my TriField EMF meter TF2. Approximately three weeks ago, I realized the roof of my mouth was throbbing every time I was driving but then realized the throbbing stopped every time I got out of my vehicle so we are still being effected by RF radiation even with RF window film shielding. This might explain the excessive bony overgrowth in my upper mouth and a possible link with tooth crowns that I will be researching next and am out of time today. Wanted to mention for others to consider. Prior to the roll-out of 5G my sibling was beaming from ear to ear on a daily basis and couldn't wait to get out of bed daily as we both were living life to the fullest with a huge support system. Daily, she would ask where we were going and what would we be doing that day. Now daily she asks what we're going to watch on TV all day long. My sibling just started in-home PT because she hasn't been to the gym in almost 2.5 years and her body is very stiff but there is a limit on the number of covered home visits. An at home, personal trainer is too expensive and not covered by insurance. It's too hard for me to train her. We don't even get to use our Medicare Advantage plans free gym membership(s) anymore when we need it the most. How are we expected to go to the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) in person when or if required, social security office if needed, nursing homes (hard time visiting our mom in 2023 before she died) with RF radiation, smart TV's and staff cell phones, i-watches, riding with a tow truck driver should our car need towing, could possibly drive somewhere for a day outing but can't stay in hotel or motel, I could camp or ideally backpack but my sister can't, financial institutions and most importantly, health care settings especially hospitals? We need solutions. We are equally as important as anybody else. Questions/Comments: 1. I was able to opt-out of both electric and gas RF radiation smart meters that humans are getting sick from. I would like the FCC to provide a way for those affected, to "opt-out" of 5G, RF radiation that's making us sick. 2. Why would I spend approximately $100,000,00 from my retirement IRA instead of "paying off my mortgage" if RF radiation wasn't making me too sick to live inside my own home? 3. Why are there over approximately 100 non-profits challenging and/or bringing awareness to 5G radiation if it wasn't a danger to human health and probably all living species' health? 4. I used to have an abundance of bees on my property. Now I don't. Why? 5. Why are so there so many excellent and reputable companies selling EMF protection to shield your house and body from 5G, RF radiation if it wasn't a danger to human health? Thank you excellent companies. 6. On the flip side, why are there so many "online predators" taking advantage of those of us with EMR Syndrome claiming their products will protect us from RF radiation? I was forced to spend approximately $100,000.00 incrementally, over the last many years to protect my families health because the FCC failed to protect me and my sibling's health from the harmful effects of RF radiation. As a "non-licensed" agency in regards to medicine, biology and public health, the FCC must not assert authority over RF exposure standards. 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. I urge the FCC to consider the real-life experts which are those of us suffering from bodily and financial harm from RF radiation and to completely address ALL issues identified by the courts. The evidence is clear that the FCC needs to change it's rules and protect human health. Our lives matter and so do your lives and your families lives. Thank you.

Re: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC - ET Docket No. 13-84 The FCC's limits were set 30 years ago, amidst a very different environment and lifestyle and there has been no scientific review since. And even with all the existing science, the United States still has no radio-frequency exposure guidelines that address long term, chronic, non-heating exposures. Therefore I request that the FCC update and correct their guidelines in line with all of the research that was presented in the original court case, EHT/CHD vs FCC . Declaration of Toby Stover Toby Stover declares under penalty of perjury the following: 1. I live in Ulster County, New York. 2. I never gave consent, nor do I consent today, to continuous, involuntary exposure of pulsed modulated, biologically active electrical and radio frequency / microwave (RF/MW) radiation emitted into my home or on my property. 3. I was perfectly healthy, living in my home for many years with an analog electric utility meter but was made ill by the electrical and pulsed modulated RF/MW radiation coming from a “smart” digital electric utility meter which was installed on my property without my consent. 4. After having a grid-tied solar system installed on my home, Central Hudson Electric Company switched my mechanical analog meter to a “smart” electric utility meter without my knowledge. A number of weeks later, I became extremely ill and discovered that the company had switched out my meter. I contacted the electric company demanding that they remove the “smart” meter and return an analog meter. I was told by Central Hudson that the solar array would not work without a “smart” utility meter. After researching this, I discovered that solar arrays work perfectly well with analog meters but Central Hudson still refused to remove the “smart” meter. Since I was unable to live with the continuous pulsation of the smart meter I was left with the decision to either have to leave my home of 35 years or cut the electric line to the smart meter. I chose to cut the wire rather than be sickened in my home as I had no means to move. As a single woman in her 60’s, I was living without electricity for 9 months through the winter, using a wood cook stove and candles. I had to store food in a cooler and buy ice to keep it fresh. Finally I hired an electrician to disconnect my wiring to the “smart” meter & re-connect my home wiring to an analog meter which was on my barn. I was then able to use electricity in my home again. 5. However, having been injured by weeks of exposure to RF/MW pulsed radiation, many years later, I am still unable to go into buildings that are using smart meters or wifi. I cannot tolerate the radiation for more than a few minutes without becoming ill and must leave the area as I now have Eletromagnetic Radiation Syndrome, known as EMR Syndrome. This has made it difficult for me to travel as I cannot stay in hotels, motels or shop at stores where there is microwave radiation. As a professional musician, I am often hired to go into public buildings or play music for school shows. It is a frequent occurrence that today I can no longer spend much time in these buildings without my symptoms returning. I consider this a grave personal injury that has made my life much more difficult. 6. When I am exposed to RF/MW radiation, I experience severe pain and pressure in my head, especially in the forehead. I also feel tingling sensations on my skin as well as tightness in the chest, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating and insomnia. I simply must leave the area as I feel sick around the microwave radiation. 7. Since I have been injured by “smart” meter radiation, I have become a member on the board of New York Safe Utility Meter Association, (NYSUMA). This organization has been working for years in the effort to legislate a safe utility meter choice to anyone who chooses to have returned, or to retain an analog utility meter. Analog utility meters have been used safely and successfully for many years. All utility companies should be required by law to provide analog meters to all consumers who choose to have them. Analog meters work perfectly well and are safe. No one should be forced to accept a device on their property that is a known health hazard. The FCC must update their exposure guidelines for MW/RF radio-frequency radiation exposures from "smart" meters and cell towers and all other wireless devices. 8. References: https://virginiansforsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Balmori-Cell-Tower-Radiation-2022-Review-.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512601371X https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/ 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11672739 https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Preliminary-Clinical-Guidelines-for-EHS.pdf https://journal.fcrisk.ru/eng/2021/3/4 https://smartmeterharm.org/2025/04/26/victory-against-enedis-the-court-rules-against-the-forced-installation-of-linky-meters/ 9. According to Public Law 90-602, October 18, 1968, AN ACT to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public heath from radiation emissions from electronic products. “Subpart 3 - Electronic Product Radiation Control “DECLARATION OF PURPOSE “ Sec. 354.The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electric product radiation”. I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. 10/22/26 Toby Stover

Hello, I'm living in Belgium and I know I'm electrohypersensitif since 4 years, but I'm suffering from electrohypersensitivity since 28 years. I had a lot of symptoms since all these years, tinnitus, headaches, visual problems and burning eyes, fatigue, sleeping problems, burning sensations in the head, balance problems, nervousness, agitation, just feeling horrible... I live since these 28 years near to an antenna and little by little my symptoms became worse, particulary after the installation of 4G and 4G+. I can't live in my house anymore and have to go sleeping outside in my van, summer and winter. I'm still searching for a white zone, but i't's really hard to find, since antennas are installed everywhere. I've asked for help at the local authorities, but they don't want to take away the antenne or change the orientation of the antenna, even if other neighbours have symptoms as well. I lost my job as a welder, and can't even follow another formation to learn another job, because there is wif-fi and phones everywhere. My health is suffering a lot from the wireless technology. During this 4 years, I met so many other people who are suffering from electrohypersensitivity. It's terrible for the young generation too, who are themselves impacted, sometimes without knowing why. I want to thank you that you give us the opportunity to alert around this question. There was a local tv that made a news report about our situation. Here is the link: https://www.notele.be/it505-media162960-le-plus-de-l-info-l-electro-hypersensibilite-comment-vivre-avec-ce-calvaire.html. I'm part of one of the 2 belgian organisations (AREHS and VEHS) of people suffering from ehs, there are more 1000 people in the both, but we can observe that a lot of more people have become ehs and are not yet membres.

Comments of Erin Finegold ET Docket No. 13-84, DA 26-997 Remand Issue: Testing Procedures for Cell Phones and Other Portable Devices I write in support of compliance testing that measures portable devices as they are carried and used. I am the founder and CEO of StingRay Shields Corporation, which develops patented passive RF technology, including Shield Antenna. I request no endorsement of any product and submit no proprietary information. This comment rests on the Commission’s own record. The question on remand is narrow. The court did not resolve the scientific debate and did not find the Commission’s procedures technically invalid. It held that the Commission had not reasonably explained its decision to retain them. Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), slip op. at 19–20, 31. A reasoned explanation must address three points. First, the Commission cannot merely repeat its safety-margin rationale without curing the explanatory deficiency identified by the court. In paragraph 14 of FCC 19-126 the Commission gave four reasons for declining zero-spacing body testing: head testing with no separation, maximum-power testing, actual test distances that tended to be less than 2.5 centimeters (with a maximum of 1 centimeter for hotspot testing), and the “large safety margin” in the limits. The court held that the safety-margin explanation depended on an inadequately explained premise: that RF exposure below the existing limits does not cause harmful non-cancer effects. The court concluded that this explanatory defect also undermined the justification for retaining the testing procedures, noting that footnote 49 of the order linked challenges to testing with challenges to the exposure limits. On remand the Commission should state whether the first three reasons independently justify retaining the procedures, and on what record basis. Second, the Commission should separate two questions it merged in 2019: whether a certified device stays within the numerical limits in ordinary body-contact use, and whether those limits protect health. The first is a measurement question. The Commission should explain, with record support, whether a device certified at the distances described in paragraph 14 can exceed the applicable SAR limit at zero spacing and, if it can, why the procedure remains adequate. Third, footnote 47 relies on proximity sensors that reduce power near the body and on manufacturers’ antenna design changes. The Commission should identify the certification procedures that apply to those features, explain how they are verified, and describe how test configuration, separation distance, and power-control behavior are documented so that results are reproducible. If the Commission cannot make these showings on the record, it should revise the procedures to test devices in the configurations in which they are used. The Commission’s own footnote recognizes that design, including antenna design, affects exposure. A procedure that measures the device as sold would allow any design remedy to be judged on demonstrated performance in that device rather than on assumed benefit. The Commission should answer the deficiency the court identified directly rather than restate its 2019 assurances. References: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, Public Notice, DA 26-997, ET Docket No. 13-84 (OET rel. Sept. 17, 2026), 91 FR 60128 (Sept. 22, 2026). Resolution of Notice of Inquiry, Second Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 19-126, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, ¶ 14 and nn.46–49 (2019). Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), No. 20-1025 (consolidated with No. 20-1138), slip op. at 19–20, 30–31.