Wildlife & environment

I was diagnosed with extreme EMR sensitivity at work when they moved my office in front of largeadjacent computer and phone database space. Within minutes of being in my new office, my heart rate was over 120 BPM I was nauseous and felt faint so I called OSHA RR in company and was sent to ER where my BP was 210/110 and they wanted to admit me to hospital - i refused, recd therapy and stayed there all day for observation When I was released they told me I had severe sensitivity to EMR, and needed to watch my environment To militate it/ I have trouble staying at any hotel, can’t work in many spaces with excessive wireless. Have severe sleeping issues unless I Use expensive tools to mitigate exposure. I was doing oat home until Xcel Emergy and WI refused to give me health consideration for a smart meter outside and below my BR. I have spent $1K + To mitigate so I can sleep but still have major medical issues. I carry my phone in a radiation bag and avoid all sources of this radiation in my environment. It severely limits my life, and it’s inconceivable that the State of WI and Xcel Energy cannot grant health exceptions to smart meters etc with diagnosed health issues. We plead for help to assist us and remove this health threat. We should be able to have a safe nontoxic home that does not threaten our health since we pay taxes to live in it.

We are 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. We 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. We 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 today regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology, or public health; yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters deeply to me personally as someone who has experienced unexplainable, chronic headaches that started, coincidentally, around the time our house was 'upgraded' to wireless electric usage transmission. I would like proper scientific studies that investigate the effects of wireless signals on our brains. It is particularly concerning to me because I am an adult who is, perhaps, more sensitive than other adults--what about the effects on children's developing brains? What about migratory wildlife that utilize magnetic fields to guide their journey? We are energetic beings, and to reject out of hand that RF radiation and electromagnetic currents could interfere with biological processes is both myopic and foolhardy. The FCC MUST give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it in order to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. Thank you for all you can do to leave no stone unturned in our endeavor to safeguard life from technology that could potentially interfere with our health.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: As a primary healthcare provider for 44 years and after just hearing Michael Adams present a 13 chapter presentation on genetic survival, I urge each member of the CC to listen to the potential interactions that occur when mRNA spike proteins meet the wireless radiation affects. If it is a population reduction that you are interested in producing then go ahead and continue with this propagation of electromagnetic field Radiation. Reference this at geneticsurvival.com. 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. There is substantial evidence of harm from RF radiation and I myself have experienced negative effects. I sat next to a wifi router for two years and finally realized that metabolic issues and fatigue were likely due to the router which I moved. However, I find that wifi-rich environments make me tired and brain-fogged. The US Government / FCC MUST Examine the available data/studies and not just the industry-paid studies but the real studies that are done more accurately. There are many! The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: of what I mention above, as well as I know many friends who become quite ill when they are in WiFi – several of them even near a cell phone. I believe, based on their experience and the scientific evidence that their more intense cases are just more visible but the science shows that all bodies are impacted. In fact, just holding a cell phone makes the blood cells clump up! (not healthy!). When my kids were in school, it was obvious that the more WIFI became ubiquitous, the more school days they missed due to illness and the more fatigued they became. While that may not be the only factor, again the science and extensive research supports this assumption. In addition, WiFi is known to affect wildlife (and people are wildlife too!). It is insane for us to keep increasing the RF radiation, known to have negative effects. At the very least, the FCC should have independent scientific observers with no conflict of interests evaluate the science and make recommendations to the FCC. Many organizations could be of help such as the World Council For Health. 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. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: My mother contracted ear cancer and had to have the top portion of her ear surgically removed. I have been having headaches almost every day since 1993. 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. 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: Because at the time that all this wireless radiation was being rolled out in Arlington Virginia my Vitamin D started declining despite getting lots of sunshine. I became prediabetic as my blood sugar increases coincided with each subsequent decline of vitamin D as measured by tests at the doctor's office. I started taking increasing doses of vitamin D3 which helped me avoid diabetes but I eventually developed other autoimmune issues despite a healthy diet and active lifestyle. The doctors I saw were all baffled. I can't prove that EMF was the cause but I suspect that how EMF affects various minerals in the body, like magnesium and calcium, had something to do with it. 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 was living in Fayetteville AR. when cell phone towers first began going up, and there was one near my home. I am very sensitive to EMFs, and when I drove past the tower, I could feel a very toxic energy being emanated from it. I began to have panic attacks because I was becoming forgetful, and I feared I might be coming down with early onset Alzheimer's, but I also suspected it might have been due to the cell phone technology. I decided to move to a much more rural area and as soon as I did, I was fine. Sadly, there is no longer many ways to escape the dangers of cell phone tech. Since then, I have become a member of an international forum online which discusses at length the many toxins , both biological and technological, that are infesting the planet now. There has been no lack for a very long time of very credible evidence about how toxic cell phone tech is not only to humans, but to many lifeforms on Earth, including the bees which human life depends on to continue. I believe we are in the End Times, which so many prophets have warned us against, and that we all need to make sure we are ready to meet our Maker. Those who defend these dangerous technologies will have much to answer for when they do.

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.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: We believe a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was negatively impacted by cell towers located outside the mobile home community where he resided. Other countries limit exposure, even China requires all pregnant women wear EMF protective clothing. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.