Wildlife & environment

The Peace Research Institute of Oslo, PRIO, provides in an article titled: Imagining War in the Neurotechnological Age: ‘We are entering a world, where technologies no longer simply threaten our bodies. They are directly affecting our minds’ (quoted in Evans, 2022). In this new neurotechnological age, which is characterized by a growing geopolitical neurobiological and Artificial Intelligence (AI) arms race (NSI, 2017a: 20), traditional concepts of war, security and peace are increasingly replaced by terms such as ‘cognitive warfare’ (NATO, 2021), ‘neurodeterrence’ (NSI, 2012: 50), and digital biosecurity” (Giordano and DiEuliis, 2021: 22). Just a few sources on this topic are accessible here: Imagining War in the Neurotechnological Age: https://www.prio.org/comments/1816 https://spectrum.ieee.org/neurotechnology-battle-for-your-brain https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology https://mronline.org/2021/10/13/behind-natos-cognitive-warfare-battle-for-your-brain-waged-by-western-militaries/ As cited by Soucie v. David in a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case from 1970 that was presented in an effort at government disclosure: Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in response to a persistent problem of legislators and citizens, the problem of obtaining adequate information to evaluate federal programs and formulate wise policies. Congress recognized that the public cannot make intelligent decisions without such information, and that governmental institutions become unresponsive to public needs if knowledge of their activities is denied to the people and their representatives. The touchstone of any proceedings under the Act must be the clear legislative intent to assure public access to all governmental records whose disclosure would not significantly harm specific governmental interests. The policy of the Act requires that the disclosure requirement be construed broadly, the exemptions narrowly. The public's need for information is especially great in the field of science and technology, for the growth of specialized scientific knowledge threatens to outstrip our collective ability to control its effects on our lives. The OST itself was created to help alleviate this problem; Congress intended that the OST would provide better information and coordination with respect to federal activities in the scientific field. It would defeat the purposes of the OST, as well as the purposes of the Act, to withhold from the public factual information on a federal scientific program whose future is at the center of public debate (https://openjurist.org/448/f2d/1067/soucie-v-e-david). With this in mind, I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old insufficient 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 and should include known effects of non ionizing radiation from thousands of publications found in early research studies. 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. Because the FCC controls this policy during a time when there has been a massive roll out of essentially all wireless technology that is also entirely weaponized and evidence suggests is sharing the same exact network being used by the civilian population to drive all that we use in the day to day for everything we do in our lives from the workplace, inside of our homes and in our schools to the wireless of the medical body area network now advancing in many areas of public health and now also involving increasing surveillance, SMART city and SMART meter technologies that are largely pulsed frequency radiation technologies advancing a system mostly without any safety testing capable of communicating with our appliances, vehicles, HVAC systems, home wiring, and most certainly the bodies of ourselves, our children and our pets. https://technav.ieee.org/topic/wireless-sensing/ The FCC, as a gatekeeper, must reconcile established evidence that is well documented and published like the evidence given in the numerous Biological Effects of Radiation and or Electromagnetic radiation studies in the government records database that have been conducted or originated by agencies such as ARPA, DOD, the Department of National Intelligence, known by the Directors of National Intelligence,published decades ago by the Behavioral Radiology Laboratory, the Division of Neuropsychiatry, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND and a long list of others—frankly, too many of them to name them all have every one conducted their own research studies as well in those agencies. To illustrate how well known this has been across agencies of government, consider the following quote from the July 1971 report on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation: Mead Data Central has had the contractual responsibility for building a computerized data bank of abstracts of the literature which would subsequently be made available to investigators interested in the effects and hazards of nonionizing radiation (Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, July1971, p.1). https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0887119/page/1/mode/2up). The FCC should fully consider all evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation electromagnetic 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, which clearly do not and that are decade after decade being used to cover for what may amount to crimes against humanity if not properly dealt with. Please consider the testimonies given in 2011 to the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues here: Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 1/6: https://youtu.be/9iqIaQ94c8o?si=9Xbej-CEqufC0fzP Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 2/6: https://youtu.be/MinTxWhEwiw?si=IPtVc6I74fo1MjA_ Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 3/6: https://youtu.be/-Gim3EQ2s88?si=nrOEhwM5MPsyV1hL Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 4/6: https://youtu.be/TrgSpF70ZRo?si=pbJoWhtfHUBVCYU4 Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 5/6: https://youtu.be/MAxVYPYUVwA?si=vxCZmsHedn8rmHQj Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 6/6: https://youtu.be/8JkcYM6YsBE?si=Ev6DooUTJLSwtASt As noted by the International Association of Firefighters IAFF: The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF/MW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower-radiation/). 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, which in all honesty may be seriously deficient given the nature of wireless frequency based technology and the capability to interact with human bodies and biological systems that are also weapons systems. I also 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 critical that we have a widespread campaign to address what has been kept from the record for decades regarding wireless based technologies and their impact on health systems and the environment. These are also very much so weaponized as already noted, and the same weapons in use by intelligence, law enforcement, military and its contractors now are made a part of our daily lives coexisting in the spaces we share while causing significant unregulated effects and subsequent damages. This has likely been since the very beginning but is only increasing with their widespread implementation. In many ways, bringing this weapon system into the hands of civilians is also having the effect of damaging the testimonies of those who have been made into victims of systematic non consensual and for dual use human subjects of weapons research because what is happening is that those reporting similar health effects as the ones who are intentionally being targeted for experimentation declared legal for purposes other than warfare, are the same or similar symptoms being reported by those who are having various health effects simply from chronic daily exposure to wireless devices without this being necessarily weaponized against them in any way. The two may have similarities but those who are targeted are experiencing things that others are not experiencing, so it is important to make the very clear distinction to recognize that this is a technological system that should never have been made available for dual uses in the civilian environment because this technology was released and employed without any update to the safety guidelines making it impossible for many people who have suffered long before the full scale introduction of wireless for civilian use to be recognized as research subjects or for those who are being targeted simultaneously to this full scale introduction. There were already a growing number of people reporting to government agencies of this experimental dual use program going back to the writing of EO 12333 stating that they were being targeted by various hidden methods and weapons prior to the roll out of cellphones and completely wireless systems, so that must be dealt with to give relief to those people, because if not, what type of government are we running and what type of government do we really have? Because the FCC gate keeping of information regarding this technology and its safety guidelines have not been updated in thirty years even those who in their day to day jobs are around, maybe are testing and or are using these technological weapons are not always able to receive adequate health coverage for any injuries or chronic health conditions as a direct result of a lack of full disclosure.

As a future nurse practitioner (current student), I am deeply passionate about improving and advocating for public health. The FCC states, "The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones." Further, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts state and local governments from regulating wireless infrastructures (like cell towers) based on health or environment effects of radio frequency emission. Firstly, there is an overwhelming amount of research and studies that demonstrate the negative health effects of radio frequency / non-ionizing radiation on the human body (https://www.emf-portal.org/en). Secondly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is entirely outdated considering the exponential increase in technology since the early 2000s. Revisions to this act should include regular review of RF exposure standards, research, protection of sensitive locations such as schools, expand environmental review, increase transparency, and allow local governments and their constituents to have more decision-making power over wireless facility placement.

As your agency is “promoting safety of life and property” I am submitting my comments regarding the safety of my life. I did not consent, nor do I consent today, to the continuous, involuntary exposure to biologically active RF radiation. My injury from radio frequency radiation began in the 2010s when millimeter scanners were used for airport security. When I had to go through one, I would be bedridden the entire next day because my body couldn’t function from the radiation exposure. In 2016 when a router at work was installed on the outer wall above my desk, I was disabled with heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, nausea, the top of my head felt as it the sun was burning the top of my brain and my body was overwhelmed with feeling as if a weighted blanket had been thrown over me. The router had to be removed. When cell towers were built, they harmed me with stabbing pain through my head and neck, palpitations, headache and dizziness. I would have to alter my driving route to avoid them. Since the 2020s when their numbers were significantly increased, they are impossible to avoid. I have the same harmful symptoms when driving past them. On July 8, 2024 when smart meters were installed in my neighborhood, the harm from the pulse-modulated RF radiation (the worst kind) was great. I suffered debilitating harm. I immediately was impacted by the pulsed radiation with off kilter balance, body heaviness, whole body weakness, stabbing pain in temples, head squeezing sensation, weak thighs and hips with great pain so it was difficult to walk, palpitations, chest heaviness, headache and nausea, blood from sinuses, interrupted sleep, extreme tiredness, difficulty concentrating, tinnitus and worsening of tremor disease. https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_bc6229ea88e040d98aa9bf2eced35134.pdf My home is no longer my safe sanctuary. I have no wireless devices in my home. Everything is hardwired. I have a cell phone which I only turn on and check once or twice a day. My home is invaded by the constant exposure to the radio frequency radiation and pulse-modulated RF radiation from smart meters, cell towers and neighbor’s routers. I used to walk through the neighborhood a lot for exercise. Now it is too harming to me with all of the smart meter radiation to do so. I have turned off all wireless controls in my vehicle. Travel is difficult due to cell towers everywhere. They cannot be avoided when driving. Hotels and vacation rentals have RF radiation devices in them and there are cell towers on or near the buildings. Airplanes are filled with radiation and seatmates use RF producing devices during flights. There are even shelves on airplane seatbacks for the RF devices to rest on behind the heads of the person sitting in front of it to expose them to device radiation. There is no escaping the harm and injury of radio frequency radiation and pulse-modulated RF radiation. My physicians have no remedy for me. My sister is also affected in the same ways. This submission represents her as well. Those of us with EMR syndrome are the canaries in the mine shaft. We become immediately injured from exposure to the radiation. That does not mean there is no harm to everyone else. All are exposed to unsafe levels of radiation from all wireless devices. Everyone’s health is injured by it. My quality of life and health have been tremendously harmed by the constant exposure to the radio frequency radiation and pulse-modulated RF radiation. There are untold numbers of us who live in constant disability and pain from the radio frequency radiation and pulse-modulated RF radiation. There needs to be ADA accommodations for those of us with EMR Syndrome. The exposure levels need to be dramatically reduced and there needs to be radio frequency radiation and pulse-modulated RF radiation free areas of the country for us to live in. EMR Syndrome is the easiest disability to reverse and heal. As you work to “promoting safety of life and property”, please reverse this disabling situation. Please support safe technology that allows us to communicate without harm to anyone. It has also been my observation that in the past several years with more cell towers erected in the area and smart meters installed, there are fewer and fewer birds and bees. https://www.bemri.org/publications/wildlife-and-plants/wildlife/1-birds-bees-and-mankind/file https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_63cd657e2ebc493dbc3cf4a92044f2ba.pdf Thank you for your help. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. October 15, 2026.

Harm most plausibly attributed to cell phone transmitters emitting spikes of 180% of flesh heating threshold on the water tower adjacent to our home include: my wife's stroke after 2 hours of planting shrubs within 100 ft thereof, immediate neighbor's degenerative disease upon his retirement and 24/7 presence in his home vs. part time exposure prior, forcing its sale and his relocation, sudden death of trees ranging from 2" to 20" in diameter, inability to grow multiple varieties of vegetables within 200 ft despite best practice cultivation methods, obligatory wearing of protective head wear when outdoors, fetching mail, taking out garbage, recycling etc., mental anguish and torment over the cruel imposition of this radiation without consent on the entire residential zone whose homes are without the protection of Faraday shielding built into our home 115 years ago. The City of Milford pledged to cease leasing the water tower for transmitters in 2022 after petitioning by residents but a new administration renewed the lease without notice to the public in 2025. Objection to this by proximate residents is nearly universal.

I am writing as a Monterey, California resident to request a thorough, transparent reassessment of radiofrequency exposure standards in light of credible scientific findings published since the current limits were adopted. Several major research efforts deserve particular consideration. The National Toxicology Program’s externally peer-reviewed animal studies found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation. The peer-reviewed Ramazzini Institute study, published by Falcioni and colleagues in Environmental Research in 2018, also found a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas in male rats at its highest tested exposure, using a different exposure approach intended to represent emissions from cellular base stations. More recently, the 2025 systematic review by Mevissen and colleagues in Environment International evaluated 52 animal studies and rated the evidence as high certainty for increased gliomas and malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. These findings warrant careful consideration alongside human studies, including those that have found no increased cancer risk. I recognize that animal findings do not establish that everyday wireless exposure causes cancer in people. Differences in exposure intensity, duration, and whole-body versus localized exposure require careful evaluation. Nevertheless, these limitations should be addressed through a clear scientific assessment of what the findings mean for public protection. Please publicly explain how this evidence affects the adequacy of the FCC’s exposure limits, device testing procedures, and safety margins. That explanation should address long-term exposure, children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and whether compliance testing adequately represents actual device use, including direct contact with the body. If the Commission concludes that existing standards remain protective, it should explain how it accounted for these findings and the remaining uncertainties. If the evidence supports changes to limits, testing, or research priorities, those changes should be identified and pursued. The public deserves standards supported by a current, transparent evaluation of the full body of evidence. Sincerely, Raymond Meyers Monterey, California

I am a resident of Paris, France, and I would like to submit information that I believe may be relevant to the FCC's ongoing review of radiofrequency (RF) exposure issues. Attached is a measurement report documenting RF field measurements performed in my apartment, located approximately 79 to 90 meters from a building hosting multiple mobile phone base station antennas. According to the report, repeated measurements were conducted between October and December 2025 using a Narda SRM-3006 spectrum analyzer. The report records several RF field levels above 6 V/m and 9 V/m, with higher values observed during certain measurement sessions. The measurements were performed on multiple dates and in different rooms of the apartment, both with windows open and closed. The report also includes observations regarding exposure from several mobile network operators and contains technical measurement data and photographs of the environment. I respectfully request that the FCC carefully consider evidence relating to: Real-world exposure levels experienced by residents living near wireless infrastructure; Long-term exposure to RF emissions; The adequacy of current exposure assessment methods; The need for continued research concerning residential exposure scenarios. I am submitting this document in French because it reflects the original measurements and observations. An English summary can be provided if necessary. Thank you for considering this information as part of the public record.

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 As a Doctor who has been injured from radiofrequency radiation, I have a sincere interest in updated, evidence-based regulations of the FCC to protect all living things from the known biological harm of RFR. The FCC is currently not fulfilling its mandate to promote the “safety of life and property” (Communications Act of 1934). Since 2018, living near a cell tower, sleeping close to a smart meter and having a wifi router from a neighbor within 10 feet of my sleeping space, I have had neurological harm. Since then, when I'm near a wifi router or another person's phone or smart watch, I get burning pain on my skin in the area closest to the pulse-modulated RF radiation. I also get severe fatigue, brain fog, a pressure headache, and the next days to weeks I feel "hungover" from the exposure. It makes normal functioning very difficult. When I sleep next to someone with a smart watch on or sleep in a house/hotel with wifi on, my sleep is very poor- I wake up many times and have trouble falling asleep. When I sleep at home with our wifi router turned off and phones off, I wake up much more rested and do not wake up in the middle of the night. I fear for my young daughter and unborn baby, since research shows their brains absorb much more radiofrequency radiation, and it is pervasive in classrooms, places of worship, as well as playgrounds. I am calling for more research on the biological harms from radiofrequency radiation, particularly pulse-modulated RF radiation. As more cell towers proliferate and new bands of frequency are being used, there needs to be a halt to all new infrastructure until solid research has been done to investigate the impacts on living beings- humans, flora and fauna. The current FCC guideline is based on an antiquated study from 30 years ago. Telecommunications have changed drastically over that time period, so those guidelines are now irrelevant. What studies have the FCC done to evaluate RFR's effects on cellular health and oxidative stress, which manifest into countless disease states? What about neurobehavioral outcomes, like children learning in school near a wifi router, or productivity and concentration in the workplace? How are migrating animals and insects affected by the never-ending bombardment of frequencies running through their bodies? How does that impact ecosystems and ultimately human health? Europe has more stringent standards on pulse-modulated RF radiation to protect the health of its citizens and wildlife- why don't we mirror their regulations as a starting point and add on as more research has accumulated? The cost of inaction is far too high- if the FCC fails to produce relevant research to protect the health of all living beings, what is the cost to all of humanity? The cost of healthcare is already astronomical in the US. Could limiting the number of towers, satellites, smart devices, band frequencies and the power produced by these structures decrease the amount of human suffering and cost of "mystery" chronic disease states? Before any new technology is developed, I urge the FCC to study chronic radiofrequency radiation exposure at ambient levels in a cohort study as well as RCT studies to assess the cellular and physiological changes with acute exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation. Please see the references attached as evidence to support my claims. The inaction of federal agencies, including the FCC, in studying the biological and environmental effects of RFR and pulse-modulated RF radiation is extremely disappointing. As a Doctor and one who has been injured by RFR, I see the damage this has on my patients as well. I did not consent, nor do I consent today, to the continuous, involuntary exposure to biologically active RF radiation. Please allocate necessary funding to study RF radiation's effects on living beings. It is the ethical, responsible action to do that. Sincerely, Dr. Colton References: Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. PMID: 27454111. Kaszuba-Zwoińska J, Gremba J, Gałdzińska-Calik B, Wójcik-Piotrowicz K, Thor PJ. Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Przegl Lek. 2015;72(11):636-41. PMID: 27012122. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 2022 Oct 18;21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. PMID: 36253855; PMCID: PMC9576312.

I am concerned about the proliferation of 5g cell towers and their effect on our population and environment. Some organizations such as the WHO and Health Canada have suggested that their studies show limited impact to people and animals (minor effect on skin and eyes) but other studies cite those studies were not complete (science direct.org /toxology report.) They state that 5g indeed affects skin and eyes but also daily exposure will impact people’s entire system. Also stated that children are particularly vulnerable to 5g radiation. I am particularly concerned for my grandchildren and their health as well as our population, wildlife and our environment.

Along with all the scientific evidence that is cited below in all the research documents. I have personal experiences which I feel relate to health and safety. My father died of cancer 5 years ago. He didn't like or use cell phones but once he had one that was smart he slept with it by his head listening to music. Talked to friends for hours with it by his head. After getting the smart cell phone he got cancer within 2 years of having teh smart phone and died within 3 months of diagnosis. He had a growth in his neck next to where he would rest his cell phone on his pillow in bed. He believed and so do I that the cancer was because of his cell phone use. I personally can not sleep when wifi is on or near me. When traveling, I have to sleep with a EMF blocking hat to sleep, otherwise my brain has the to do list running all night long. I try to make our cell phones safer by putting EMF shielding fabric in our cell phone cases but I worry about my kids and their use. They do not understand the dangers. They say everyone has their cell phones with them all the time but they are not old enough to see the evidence or experience friends dying from the shape of a tumor where they held their cell phones up to their heads. We have 3 additional friends who died of brain cancer besides my dad. If regulations were nation wide kids would understand the actual dangers. We need safer regulations! Below are cited documents research documents etc showing the findings that all the radiation is not healthy. Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., Manville, A. M., II, & Scarato, T. (2025). Flora and fauna—How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1693873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873 Melnick, R. L., Moskowitz, J. M., & International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environmental Health, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Scientific Documentation That Limits Are Inadequate Melnick, R. L., Moskowitz, J. M., & International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environmental Health, 25(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: Implications for 5G. Environmental Health, 21(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2024). Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(3), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683 Lai, H. (2021). Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2025). Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Reviews on Environmental Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104 Lin, J. C. (2025). Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1619781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781 Golomb BA. Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation. Neural Comput. 2018 Nov;30(11):2882-2985. doi: 10.1162/neco_a_01133. Uche, U. I., & Naidenko, O. V. (2021). Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environmental Health, 20(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1 Wildlife Impacts Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022). Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1000840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2: Impacts—How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M., II. (2022c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3: Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(4), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083 Manville, A. M., II, Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. C. (2024). Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—State of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1283709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 Thill, A., Cammaerts, M.-C., & Balmori, A. (2024). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews on Environmental Health, 39(4), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., & Chrousos, G. P. (2024). Biophysical mechanism of animal magnetoreception, orientation and navigation. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 30053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77883-9 Balmori, A. (2021). Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment, 767, 144913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913 Children’s Vulnerability International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). (2026). Safeguarding children’s health in the digital age: Addressing screen time, wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures. Position statement https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ICBE-EMF-Child-Health-Cell-Phone-Cell-Tower-EMF-Position-Statement-PDF-982026-1.pdf Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374 Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A., Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013 Soares, N. E., Bulla, G., Fernández-Rodríguez, C. E., & de Salles, A. A. A. (2025). SAR estimations in a classroom with wireless computers. Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, 24(2), e2025288526. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526 Thyroid Effects Alkayyali, T., Ochuba, O., Srivastava, K., Sandhu, J. K., Joseph, C., Ruo, S. W., Jain, A., Waqar, A., & Poudel, S. (2021). An exploration of the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile phones and extremely low frequency radiation on thyroid hormones and thyroid gland histopathology. Cureus, 13(8), e17329. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17329 Reproductive Impacts Lamzouri, O., Ahl Laamara, R., & Drissi, L. B. (2025). Impact of electromagnetic field exposure on reproductive health: An umbrella review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 30, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-025-00258-1 Vijay, S., Ibrahim, S. F., Osman, K., Zulkefli, A. F., Mat Ros, M. F., Jamaludin, N., Syed Taha, S. M. A., Hairulazam, A., & Jaffar, F. H. F. (2025). Histomorphometry and sperm quality in male rats exposed to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi. Reproduction, 169(5), e250048. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-25-0048 Zhang, Y., Song, J. Y., & Sun, Z. G. (2025). Exploring the impact of environmental factors on male reproductive health through epigenetics. Reproductive Toxicology, 132, 108832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.108832 Bektas, H., & Dasdag, S. (2025). The effects of radiofrequency radiation on male reproductive health and potential mechanisms. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 44(3), 359–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2025.2480664 Assefa, E. M., & Abdu, S. M. (2025). Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: A systematic literature review of animal studies. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 6, 1515166. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2024.1515166 Maluin, S. M., Osman, K., Jaffar, F. H. F., & Ibrahim, S. F. (2021). Effect of radiation emitted by wireless devices on male reproductive hormones: A systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 732420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.732420 Santini, S. J., Cordone, V., Falone, S., Mijit, M., Tatone, C., Amicarelli, F., & Di Emidio, G. (2018). Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: Focus on reproductive systems. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 5076271. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5076271 Adams, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S. C., & Mathews, F. (2014). Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 70, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015 Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D. (2015). Are men talking their reproductive health away? Asian Journal of Andrology, 17(3), 433–434. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.140963 Agarwal, A., Desai, N. R., Makker, K., Varghese, A., Mouradi, R., Sabanegh, E., & Sharma, R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022 Gautam, R., & Arora, T. (2023). Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted from mobile phone and its impact on male reproductive health. EIACP: Diversity and Impact on the Environment, 28(3), 8–11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375799722_Radio_Frequency_Electromagnetic_Radiation_RF-EMR_Emitted_from_Mobile_Phone_and_its_Impact_on_Male_Reproductive_Health Summary and Review Papers Weller, S. G., McCredden, J. E., Leach, V., Chu, C., & Lam, A. K. (2025). A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: Assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1613353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353 McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 894447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.894447 Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A., Yakymenko, I., & Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 59(5), 92. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272 Wang, M., Zhang, Y., Angley, M., Kleiman, N. J., Wang, X., & Kahe, K. (2026). A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-026-00958-4 Hu, C., Zuo, H., & Li, Y. (2021). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on neurotransmitters in the brain. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 691880. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.691880 Cell Towers Balmori, A. (2022). Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environmental Research, 214, 113851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851 Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845 Rodrigues, N. C. P., Dode, A. C., Andrade, M. K. N., O’Dwyer, G., Monteiro, D. L. M., Reis, I. N. C., Rodrigues, R. P., Frossard, V. C., & Lino, V. T. S. (2021). The effect of continuous low-intensity exposure to electromagnetic fields from radio base stations to cancer mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229 Dode, A. C., Leão, M. M. D., Tejo, F. A. F., Gomes, A. C. R., Dode, D. C., Dode, M. C., Moreira, C. W., Condessa, V. A., Albinatti, C., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), 3649–3665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051 Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H. (2011). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 19, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-018 Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1179/107735210799160192 School Recommendations Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324 Collaborative for High Performance Schools. (n.d.). Low EMF best practices summary. https://healthytechhome.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/201/CEHPAC-EMF-in-HomeWi-Fi-in-School-Report.pdf Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (n.d.). Guidelines to reduce electromagnetic field radiation. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. (2017). Wi-Fi in school report. https://health.maryland.gov/phpa/OEHFP/EH/Shared Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf Santa Clara County Medical Association. (2023). Best practices for safe technology in schools. https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/LiveBlog/3697/SCCMA Best Practices for Safe Technology in Schools Recommendations 21423.pdf Cell Tower Health Studies Airpods and Bluetooth Genetic Impacts, DNA Damage 5G Reviews | C-Band / 3.5 GHz | Millimeter Waves | Terahertz / THz Why FCC and ICNIRP Limits are Not Protective and Conflicts of Interest in Science ELF EMF Magnetic Fields / Power Lines (for HHS only) Category: Cell Towers Tag: cell phones, cell towers, children's health, emf, FCC, health effects, policy, science

My health has been impacted since the direction of the 5G towers. My hair began falling out my head and body felt tense, and my breathing felt restricted. As a very healthy person I went through many tests to try to figure out what was going on, and then I learned that while we were under lockdown during Covid, these 5G towers got put up in any time. I drove past one and my entire body clinched and a high piercing frequency buzzed in my head. It is also explain why the birds that I heard every morning went away. The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. It's inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. I don’t see the concern or protection for humans or nature, or anyone speaking to the ugly boxes that have infiltrated our neighborhoods when we were told there was going to be an upgrade of the fiber optic network, and nobody asked for these towers. Human and environmental welfare has been neglected and I have been harmed for many years since these towers have entered our environment. They must be stopped. I had to relocate due to my health issues over the years that I dealt with when I was living in the mountains and they even infiltrated the beauty and environment there. Because there are no regulations around these towers they are now invading the new city I have moved to. Sincerely, Andrea Fisher