Wildlife & environment

Four years ago, I started having unexplained irregular heartbeats, often in the middle of the night but also during the day. I knew about the health issues arising from proximity to cell towers but didn't see any immediately around where I lived. I hired a woman who was a specialist in measuring the amount of radiation in one's home environment as well as in one's body. Her equipment was expensive and made in Germany. When she tested my bedroom and apartment, the test reflected off-the-chart numbers (we combed the neighborhood and did find a tower--mostly obscured--very nearby). But more startling, discovered how much radiation my body was absorbing! I also watched a video test of a gentleman with no heart symptoms who, when hooked up to a monitor, had significant heart abnormalities when a smart meter--in another room and out of sight to the test subject--turned on and off. I then had my room painted with a special paint and used a specialized blanket to help protect me from these heart anomalies. These things did help, but they all stopped when I moved to a semi-rural location with no 5G towers!!! Please, PLEASE put an end to these towers!!!

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, was negatively impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community, and recently died of cancer. Other countries limit EMF levels, even China requires EMF protective clothing be worn by all pregnant women. 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 very concerned about EMF exposure on our health, animals and the environment. I am highly sensitive to it and have had health issues from it. It is not good for our health. The testing for how it affects our bodies is out of date. Please start honest testing and protect us from it. Also, data centers! Please stand up for our health against big business. That is what you are hired to 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. This issue matters to me personally. I initially became aware of the presence wireless devices when my city began installing smart meters. Soon I began felling dizzy, oozy, unsteady on my feet, and even felt like my skin was being pricked with sharp needles. The discomfort now includes cold numb hands and fingers. My body feels fatigued , reaching the point of exhaustion. I am specially concerned with the effects of short, medium and long-term exposure to wireless radiation on our children, growing under this ever present radiation. 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: We believe, a family friend, who recently died of cancer, was directly adversely impacted by the cell towers located outside his mobile home community in where he resided. We know other countries limit exposure, even China requires pregnant women to 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.

It is time to review:The impacts of RF radiation on children. The health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation. The ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments since the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines were last updated in 1996. The impacts of RF radiation on the environment. The adequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation testing procedures for cell phones and other portable wireless devices.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: My autistic son continued to have seizures and medications did not stop his seizure. The wireless router about 6 meters away from him got damaged and it was replaced with another one further away from him. Within 3 months his seizures stopped! He did not have seizures for 2 years and he got another seizure after he used a phone for several hours for an activity. 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. Thank You

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 I have been severely and adversely affected by wireless radiation. My health and career have been severely hampered by the exposures, and I have suffered immensely as a result. I have also been bullied by many people in my life because of my intolerance for exposure to wireless radiation. I live in constant fear of a wireless transmitter being installed near or on my home and the debility that would result. I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to remediate my home and purchase protective clothing and other equipment that allows me to leave the safety of my home for short periods. This needs to be addressed at a federal level and the citizens' safety, health, and wellbeing prioritized and protected. The current level of exposure is unacceptable and the direction we are headed in as a nation poses an even greater threat to my safety and wellbeing.

The FCC is not a health agency and is not taking into consideration the scientific evidence showing the very harmful effects of RF radiation on humans and animals. Recent decisions need reconsideration to protect human health 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. This issue matters to me personally because: You need to obey the court, and do your job. The thousands of studies (many of them Russian) need objective evaluation. Stop relying on the decades old decision that harm can’t be done without tissue heating. Look at glioma rates. Stop Stonewalling us. 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.