Wildlife & 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. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: McCredden, McLean, and Steinenmann (2026): Wireless sensitivities and comorbidities: A prevalence study of co-morbidities in Canada, Australia, and the United States Although this study does not establish causation, I believe the information gathered raises enough red flags to warrant further investigation of both the thermal and non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. These studies are crucial for studying its impact on both the human population 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. I have always been sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies. I first noticed it as a child when we would drive under high power electrical wires. I would feel “pressure” or pain in my head and chest. Decades later, as cell towers started to be constructed, I noticed increased intensity and headaches when within a certain range of cell towers. In 2012, while vacationing at a resort that was in close proximity to a cell tower, I ended up in the emergency room with chest pain. They found trace levels of troponin in my blood and a cardiac catheritization was performed. I was 44 years old and otherwise healthy. Around the same time, I started to have symptoms when near Wi-Fi and security systems, while holding a cell phone next to my head, when wearing wireless headphones, and when using Bluetooth in my car. Now, with 5G expansion, satellite technology, and increased security systems, my symptoms have increased tremendously and are often unbearable. There is frequent ringing in my ears, headaches, chest pressure, shortness of breath, and extreme fatigue. I find that it is especially bad on overcast days. 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. People should always come before profits!

(Relating to earlier comment) A brief historical summary of those involved with passing the previously mentioned Oregon Senate Bill 283 Prof. Paul Héroux, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism at the McGill University flew to Portland from Montreal to testify on behalf of SB 283, only to return to Monreal the following day. Prof. Héroux developed a Unified Theory of Weak Magnetic Field Action that proposes A radical new outlook. Dr. Paul Dart, an Environmental Physician of Eugene, Oregon, makes invisible electromagnetic radiation visible, using his instrument, as he testifies at the Senate. The term Electromagnetic Medicine has, over the years, meant researchers in laboratories looking to use electromagnetic radiation to treat diseases. Dr. Dart gives it a new, clinical meaning, in the protection of Lucia, 14 years old, who testified below. L---a (a minor) attended school while positioned just below a WiFi router. At 9 years old, she became ill with nausea and rashes, and for over a year saw 7 doctors before her family realized that she was made sick by the WiFi radiation. Her mother switched her to the only school available that did not have WiFi, and she recovered. Graduating from her current school, she is now looking to continue her studies in an environment that will not make her sick. Senator Laurie Monnes-Anderson introduced the bill as a legislator and retired public health nurse. Monnes-Anderson is also a former school board member and the mother of two children who attended Oregon public schools.  She understands the strengths and weaknesses of our public education system and has become well versed in the potential risks of long term exposure to microwave radiation in the classroom environment and made a special appearance at the hearing to speak in support of the bill.

PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET Docket No. 13-84 Submitted by: Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc. Date: October 20, 2026** 1. Introduction Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc. sincerely thanks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for inviting public participation in its review of radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards, testing procedures, and potential health effects. Incorporated in 2021, our organization provides advocacy, education, and incident-documentation services for civilians reporting unexplained physical and neurological symptoms they believe may involve directed-energy, radiofrequency, electromagnetic, or acoustic energy exposure or assault. We support technological innovation while believing that public safety protections must advance alongside wireless technology. 2. Our Experience Our organization began receiving civilian incident reports because people repeatedly told us they could not find an agency willing to document their experiences. We could not stand by while Americans were suffering and feeling that their country did not care. Despite limited resources and no permanent physical investigation facility, we established procedures to receive complaints, conduct case reviews, and prepare incident reports. Approximately 1,000 civilians throughout the United States have submitted incident reports to our organization. Complainants describe unexplained pain, burning sensations, vibrations, pressure, sleep disturbances, unusual sounds, and other physical and neurological symptoms. Complainants stated in their reports that they have no mental health conditions and that their injuries are often misdiagnosed. Some believe remotely operated, wall-penetrating energy technologies are responsible for their experiences. Others report electronic intrusion, unwanted communications, and possible technology-assisted harassment. These reports do not independently establish RF exposure, identify particular devices, or confirm the cause of symptoms. However, they highlight concerns deserving appropriate scientific and medical evaluation. We have contacted federal security and investigative agencies requesting assistance with these reports but have not received a substantive response. 3. RF Exposure Standards and Testing We encourage the FCC to carefully review whether existing RF exposure limits and testing procedures adequately address today's wireless environment. This includes widespread mobile-device use, multiple sources of RF exposure, emerging wireless technologies, and potential health effects associated with long-term exposure. Special consideration should be given to children, who may experience many years of wireless technology use beginning at an early age. We encourage the FCC to examine reliable scientific research concerning possible non-cancer health effects and determine whether existing testing procedures adequately protect the public. We ask that conclusions be based on reproducible scientific evidence, with clear explanations of the strengths and limitations of available research. 4. Public Safety and Consumer Protection The advancement of wireless communications makes public safety, accountability, and consumer protection increasingly important. We encourage clear federal guidance on RF exposure standards, compliance requirements, and safe wireless-device operation. Our organization has also received reports from civilians who describe hearing external sounds, voices, or communications without being able to identify their direction or source. Directional speakers and Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) demonstrate that sound can be projected toward particular areas or listeners over distances. These reports do not establish that acoustic devices caused the experiences described. However, they raise concerns about the need for appropriate technical and medical evaluations. An unexplained auditory experience should not automatically be classified as either a mental health condition or evidence of technological harassment. We encourage appropriate federal agencies to examine safeguards against the intentional misuse of acoustic technologies to threaten, intimidate, or harm men, women, or children. 5. Recommendations We respectfully request that the FCC: 1. Review existing RF exposure limits and portable-device testing procedures using reliable scientific evidence. 2. Evaluate scientific findings concerning potential non-cancer health effects and long-term RF exposure, particularly involving children. 3. Consider whether current testing procedures adequately reflect widespread wireless-device use and technological advancements. 4. Strengthen public education concerning RF exposure standards, regulatory compliance, and consumer protection. 5. Coordinate with HHS and appropriate federal agencies regarding RF exposure research, public health concerns, and safety standards. 6. Provide clear procedures for reporting suspected violations of FCC regulations and referring matters outside the Commission's authority to appropriate agencies. 6. Closing Statement The United States is a world leader in wireless technology. We believe it should also lead in public safety, responsible regulation, and consumer protection. People are asking for answers. They deserve credible scientific information, appropriate medical attention, and meaningful consideration of their reported experiences. We encourage the federal government to examine whether existing criminal laws adequately address the intentional misuse of emerging technologies to harm, threaten, or harass individuals. DEW Agency welcomes opportunities to collaborate with appropriate federal agencies and provide civilian triage services, including receiving complaints, documenting incidents, identifying urgent needs, and referring individuals to qualified authorities. We respectfully request consideration of our organization's experience and willingness to assist with civilian reporting and referral efforts. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to an important national public safety discussion. Respectfully submitted, Direct Energy Weapons Agency, Inc Ms. Mechael Wright-Hodges, Founder and Executive Director Website: www.DEWAgency.org Telephone: 781-561-8753 Email: info@dewagency.org

I live in Berkeley, CA. I feel that my health has deteriorated in the last years -- joint pain, fatigue, vertigo, mental fog and memory loss and other maladies. I have had four or five very scary episodes of vertigo, where my head was spinning, which evolved into a feeling that a strong force was pushing me down toward the ground. I couldn't stand up. I hobbled outside and took off my shoes and hummed (some things I had heard about to ground my self). On one of these occasions my mother (95) was coming up the block from her walk using her walker. She was slumped over and said she was exhausted. We recovered (otherwise I wouldn't be telling you this). Another time I saw my neighbor on the side of his house between our house and his house. He was trying to walk and then slumped over and couldn't stand up. I remember when I and some others were protesting the installation of a cell tower in our neighborhood, a military man walked by and told us cell technology was a "weapon" and told us of an incident when he was on a ship and a big flock of sea birds flew too close to the warship and dropped to their deaths when they hit the wall of the deadly energy field. We have no place to complain about these occurrences. The science loving, war capital city of Berkeley has no agency to talk to about it and are completely unsympathetic. We just have proliferation. I also read that this technology was created by the military and that, even though healthier frequencies could be used, they chose to use the unhealthy ones. I pray that those who perpetrate and perpetuate this technology for their own selfish gain will figure it out, perhaps by getting zapped themselves. Sincerely, Wanda Warkentin

To Whom it May Concern: Please think about the future of the children in your lives by looking at current research on how the existing RF exposures may be harming us all and our environment. Thank you.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Public Comment on Reopened Docket Regarding Wireless Radiation Safety Limits Dear Commissioners, As a deeply concerned citizen who values both technological innovation and the health of my family, I am writing to urge the FCC to completely overhaul its outdated radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The current standards, established decades ago, rely exclusively on preventing thermal (heating) harm. However, as an everyday user watching our children grow up surrounded by a 24/7 blanket of Wi-Fi, cell towers, and smart infrastructure, I know that our constant, real-world exposure looks nothing like the brief laboratory simulations used to set these guidelines. In my own home, I have taken steps to hardwire our internet connection to protect our sleep and focus, but we cannot escape the dense web of neighborhood cell towers outside our home and when visiting the towns and cities. The D.C. Circuit Court correctly ruled in 2021 that the FCC failed to address severe gaps in its safety logic. I urge you to look at the independent, peer-reviewed data disproving the assumption that non-thermal radiation is harmless: • Definitive Evidence of DNA Damage: The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) comprehensive $25 million study proved that chronic exposure to cell phone radiation causes significant, measurable DNA damage—specifically in the frontal cortex and hippocampus—as well as clear evidence of rare malignant tumors. DNA damage occurs without any tissue heating, directly undermining the FCC's regulatory foundation. • Unique Vulnerabilities of Children: Our children's skulls are thinner, and their nervous systems are still dynamically developing. Millions of students sit directly under powerful industrial Wi-Fi routers all day. Compiled data from the BioInitiative Report establishes that low-intensity, non-thermal RF radiation alters gene expression and triggers neurological impacts at levels far below current FCC limits. • Environmental and Wildlife Disruption: Our ecosystem is suffering the collateral damage of unchecked wireless infrastructure. Multi-author analyses show that continuous RF radiation alters biological rhythms, disrupts the navigation patterns of crucial pollinators like bees, and inflicts oxidative stress on local flora and fauna. The FCC must stop deferring to industrial convenience and prioritize living biology. I ask that you adopt protective, biologically-based exposure standards that reflect the independent science of today. Sincerely, Marcia Keizer Yelm Washington

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: 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. 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 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.

Re: ET Docket No. 13-84, Public Notice DA 26-997 I write as a concerned member of the public to urge the Commission to update its radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure limits, adopted in 1996 and based only on heating effects. The court’s remand. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court found the Commission failed to explain its dismissal of evidence of non-cancer harms. That evidence has grown. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields concluded that current science invalidates the assumptions behind the FCC limits (ICBE-EMF, Environmental Health, 2022;21:92). Large animal studies. The U.S. National Toxicology Program found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to RF EMR, along with evidence of DNA damage (NTP TR-595, 2018). The Ramazzini Institute independently found the same tumor type at exposures modeled on cell towers (Falcioni et al., Environmental Research, 2018;165:496-503). The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies RF EMR as possibly carcinogenic, Group 2B (Baan et al., Lancet Oncology, 2011). Sleep and well-being. Controlled studies show RF exposure alters sleep EEG and cerebral blood flow (Huber et al., Journal of Sleep Research, 2002;11:289-295). Sleep underlies immune, hormonal and mental health, so even modest disruption across a population matters. Children. Children absorb more RF energy in the brain and bone marrow than the adult model used to set the limits (Gandhi et al., Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2012;31:34-51). Testing based on an adult male head does not protect them, and today’s children are exposed from birth, around the clock. Long-term, ubiquitous exposure. When the limits were set, exposure was brief and occasional. Today it is continuous: phones carried against the body, Wi-Fi, smart meters and dense 5G infrastructure. The limits have never been evaluated for decades of cumulative exposure from many sources at once. Environment. The Department of the Interior warned in 2014 that tower radiation may harm migratory birds. Research published in Nature found that weak human-made electromagnetic noise disrupts the magnetic compass of migratory songbirds (Engels et al., Nature, 2014;509:353-356). I respectfully ask the Commission to: (1) adopt limits that protect against non-thermal biological effects; (2) base device testing on children and on body-contact use; (3) evaluate long-term, cumulative exposure; and (4) give weight to independent health researchers and agencies, not only industry-involved standard-setting bodies. Thank you for considering these comments.

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 decision that its guidelines adequately protect humans against the harmful, non-cancer-related effects of radiofrequency radiation. Specifically, the Court required the FCC to address the effects of radiofrequency radiation on children, the health consequences of prolonged exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological advancements, environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for mobile phones and other portable devices. The FCC should carefully examine evidence and real-world experiences regarding the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation—including non-cancer-related health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and effects on wildlife and the environment. Below is one study, among others, that I believe the FCC should review when addressing concerns related to wireless radiation: • Panagopoulos et al. (2021): Man-made electromagnetic fields: Ion-gated channel dysfunction, oxidative stress, and DNA damage—an examination of the evidence and proposed mechanisms linking man-made electromagnetic fields to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cellular dysfunction. The FCC is not a health agency and possesses no expertise in medicine, biology, or public health. Yet, it continues to assert its authority over radiofrequency exposure standards and is preparing to conclude whether its current guidelines provide adequate protection for the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the essential role of federal health agencies—most notably the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—and to draw upon appropriate expertise in the fields of health and biology to address the issues raised by the court. This matter is of particular personal concern to me because: For several years, I have suffered the consequences of exposure to electromagnetic waves; my health has been lastingly impaired (manifesting as chronic pain and severe sleep disturbances). I find it difficult to work in environments where such exposure exists; I can no longer travel by train due to the presence of Wi-Fi and passengers’ mobile phones; I cannot stay in hotels because of Wi-Fi; and my life has been significantly diminished by the omnipresence of these waves. I urge the FCC to give serious consideration to the experiences and evidence submitted to it, and to fully address each of the questions raised by the court.

In 1999, I moved close to a pylon whose role I completely ignored. From the very first night, I didn’t sleep a wink. Then it persisted and other debilitating and painful symptoms arrived. I ended up finding out what this pylon was used for and I learned that it was a variety of transmitters: France television, the beginning of mobile telephony in France, microwave links and FM radio. At the time, I was working as a computer scientist at the CNES in Toulouse and a neighboring colleague who specialized in satellites and therefore their protection against electromagnetic fields alerted me to leave in order to preserve my health. That’s what she was doing on her end by selling her house to flee the neighborhood. Despite his advice and the discovery of many patients with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s in the environment of transmitters, I had lost all discernment and ability to react. It must be said that these were pollution emitters in Toulouse (France) for which professional measures requested by sick residents had revealed levels of high frequencies up to 20 volts at the foot of homes. Finally, after years of fighting, these emitters were dismantled due to extreme emissions. The neighborhood was a cluster of neurodegenerative diseases and others...? Following my years under the pylon, I first lost sleep, felt permanent agitation, and developed fluctuating symptoms like multiple sclerosis, such as blurred vision, paraesthesia, temporary loss of motor skills after heavy exposure, headaches, oppressions, nausea, chronic fatigue, concentration problems with confusion, pins and needles, loss of perception of body sensations and obstacles etc. I am passing on this whole long and painful period where my whole world has collapsed. It took me a long time (years) to realize that I had to mourn a normal life. I was able to regain better condition thanks to anti-wave canopies for sleeping and protecting my living space, where I am the most permeable and vulnerable to waves. To limit my exposure, in order to best maintain my intellectual and physical faculties, I must drastically limit my exposures. I can no longer work, so my income and social life are significantly altered. For these reasons, I receive a small disability pension related to the consequences of my intolerance to almost all electromagnetic fields. I am particularly affected by WIFI frequencies, all types of high frequencies, and power lines that disrupt the 50 Hertz network (all boxes, Enédis smart meters in France). Currently, it is complicated, even with the best protections, to avoid the multiplicity of connected objects in the neighborhood that fit everywhere, including under two layers of canopy for certain technologies such as Wi-Fi boxes and CPL in France, which sometimes use the earth from the electrical network to connect to the earthing system, I don’t understand why these connected tools do not remain within the framework of their home or professional network by using two-way wireless instead of constantly watering several meters away. There would also be the possibility of mapping one’s environment and limiting oneself to it. Today I no longer have access to much, and I am concerned about the proliferation of these antennas and devices connected via WiFi and Bluetooth, which for some no longer offer the option of deactivation. Accessing healthcare in a hospital setting is very complicated for people with my disability. For important care, it is torture that adds to an already difficult situation. I am doing my best today to survive with resilience, hoping to find myself a healthy and low-exposed place. I have been searching for years because the equation is very complicated. In the meantime, I want to avoid suffering too much as much as possible so that I can stay at peace regardless of the outcome.