Wildlife & environment

To FCC's Directors and Leadership Supervisory Commitees, 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 a couple of studies that I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: 1. Morgan, Kesari & Davis (2014): Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences – 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. 2. 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. 3. Panagopoulos et al. (2021): Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage – Reviewed evidence and proposed mechanisms linking human-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. 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. Please give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence, aforehand mentioned, and fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you. Sincerely, Mendie Moranville Ovi Poptean cc: family members, neighbors, friends, fellow citizens of the United States of America.

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!

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.

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. Please protect the health and wellbeing of our children.

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.

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. This issue matters to me personally because: it causes insomnia. 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.

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

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.