All comment threads

There is no research on the longterm effects of wireless radiation exposure. And because there are no long term studies, the technology should be prohibited (at the least, heavily regulated). Have you ever read the fine print on a cell phone package which warns you to hold the phone against your body? Have you noticed the high percentage of brain cancers in young people? This is due to cell phone use and wireless internet modems in bedrooms. Anecdotally, I know of several deadly cancers caused by phones or modems. Please pursue. I can tell you I walked into a building last year with heavy wireless amplifiers and I was struck with temporary tinnitus and very heavy pressure in my head. I do not have these conditions in a safe setting. It threw me off for hours and once I left the building I immediately felt better. When we removed all wireless devices and the modem from our home last year and hardwired our computer and phones, immediately our home felt more peaceful and we started sleeping through the night. As an American citizen who wishes live a healthy life and raise my children in freedom and health, I am very troubled by the lack of consent and freedom in my own home and in my own life when it comes to wireless radiation exposure. The electric company attached a "smart meter" to my home without my consent. I asked them for the right to "opt out" of the technology as it would be attached to my house close to our living areas (bedrooms, office, deck/backyard play area). They said I would be charged a monthly fee for someone to read the meter and I agreed. But a month later when my dog was inside, they attached the smart meter to my home anyway. I have a meter which reads RF and the meter emits dangerous levels of radiation into my child's bedroom and our backyard area where we gather. This same electric company allows Missouri customers to OPT OUT and pay an extra fee for a non communicating meter, but just yards away across the state border, Kansans cannot opt out. Everytime we're in an airport or at a school or a city building or shopping center, there is wireless internet blasting us. All without my consent. The cell towers being built next to schools and churches, on top of hospitals and hotels are attacking our bodies and cells. Many cell phone companies will pay these businesses or non profits to locate their towers on the property and for non profits and for profits the offer may seem irresitible. Did the cell phone company inform the property owner of the risks of radiation? I highly doubt it. The effect on humans and animals have not been studied and it is very unnerving that it is all being done without our consent. At a doctors office we are now handed a WiFi tablet to check in and update our records. Our own city street lights have 5G antennae caps on top. Without our consent and for someone else's profit. The gas meter next to my house was updated to a communicating wireless device without my consent. The workman said we need to update your meter. He did not tell me it would be a communicating device. This meter is outside of my other child's bedroom. None of this is fair. 1-at a minimum, all American citizens should have the right to OPT OUT of communicating emitting devices attached to our homes. 2-it should be illegal to install or build cell phone towers near neighborhoods, parks, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels or churches 3-because people have the option to use a certain amount of data within the cell phone monthly contract, installing wireless in public spaces and commercial businesses is completely unnecessary as it affects the liberty and right to consent of the individual. I should not be forced to be exposed to wireless radiation if someone else chooses to carry a cell phone. Their choice should not affect my body or health or my children. Thank you for requesting these comments and starting to address the egregious loss of liberty and lack of the right to consent to be subjected to wireless.

As a just turned 83 year-old man, I am very concerned about the rapid buildout of wireless technology , most probably is not backed by adequate study of the harms it might cause. I encourage and will support this effort. Thank you. Walt Epley

Dear sir/madam, I am writing regarding electromagnetic frequency from cellphone towers and utility poles, as well as from personal devices, eg phones, tablets, computers. I have been a nurse for 40 years. For the last 21 of those years I was exposed to 60 hours a week of computers and cellphones. As a result of living near 3 cellphone towers and one large utility pole I developed extreme sensitivity to EMFs. As a result, I’ve had to move multiple times, until I found a place that was relatively low EMF. I am 83 now and use the computer very little. I do not travel with my phone, I put my devices in the unfunctioning microwave, and turn off the router 4 hours before I go to sleep, and my symptoms of dizziness, disorientation, nausea, depression, and mental confusion have disappeared. I hope in other letters people will be writing to you about their experiences with cell phone towers placed near hospital buildings, and churches and schools, and they will provide you with their own experiences and detailed studies that will verify their own experiences. I am not including any studies as I am very sight challenged and it’s all I can do just to write this letter. Sufficient to say, that I’ve been forced to move to a very remote location where exposure is minimal, as a result of my inability to handle a high emf environment. I can no longer travel because of my inability to handle exposure. Kind regards, Sunshine Appleby Retired registered nurse

See attached file(s)

Question 2 — Perspective Individual consumer reporting unlicensed wireless transmissions, NIER fraud, and FCC complicity. Question 5(n) — Regulatory changes Abolish all RF categorical exclusions. Require independent annual NIER safety inspections of every wireless facility, without exception. Question 8 — Improvements in exposure assessment Require independent site inspections, verification of all antennas and transmitters, transmission identification, and residential-area measurements. Investigate unlicensed transmissions and missing equipment rather than accepting company paperwork at face value. Question 9 — Technical and exposure-related disclosures Require public disclosure of each facility’s FCC registration, installed antennas and transmitters, licensed frequencies, power levels, inspection results, and RF safety records. Question 15 — Evidence concerning wireless infrastructure The Crown Castle Edgemont cell tower, BU 855801, at 5351 W. 6th Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado, has no current FCC registration (permit TELE24-00035; project CN13-796 / 2400001). There are no registered active call signs or frequencies for this site in the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS). All transmissions measured at this site are publicly unlicensed. Two antennas physically present on the tower are omitted from the current site plan. Using a TinySA Ultra ZS-407 spectrum analyzer and HTOOL HT8 directional antenna, I measured an unlicensed transmission at 10.7777 GHz at +22.3 dBm beneath the tower and +9.4 dBm on my patio, approximately 0.27 miles away. At that same patio location, my cell phone signal measured −90 dBm. The +9.4 dBm reading represents approximately 8.7 billion times the received power of the phone signal. I also measured unlicensed transmissions at 10.0912 GHz and 11.5878 GHz. These transmissions, omitted antennas, and lack of FCC registration demand investigation. Question 18 Crown Castle’s NIER checklist identifies its radio service as Wireless Communications Services (Part 27). That service is not included among the services eligible for the checklist’s categorical exclusion. Crown Castle nevertheless claimed a categorical exemption that does not apply to Wireless Communications Services (Part 27) and left the follow-up power-screening questions blank. The FCC/LSGAC guide sets a 1,640 W EIRP threshold for routine environmental evaluation of Wireless Communications Services. The permit lists two Ericsson AIR 6419 antennas: the B77D has a published maximum EIRP of 80 dBm (100,000 W), and the B77G has a published maximum EIRP of 79 dBm (approximately 79,433 W). Both published maximum EIRP ratings vastly exceed the 1,640 W threshold, even before accounting for two additional antennas omitted from the site plan. Because Crown Castle left the required power calculations blank, the actual effective EIRP of the installed equipment cannot be independently verified from its submitted safety paperwork. Edgemont demands a full RF environmental evaluation, not a categorical exclusion. I allege Crown Castle committed NIER categorical-exclusion fraud by claiming an exemption that did not apply and bypassing RF safety screening. I also allege FCC complicity in a coordinated cover-up and circumvention of NIER safety regulations. Through FOIA, I requested all Edgemont site documentation held by the FCC. The FCC reported that it had no responsive records. I later obtained Crown Castle’s completed NIER categorical-exclusion checklist and site documentation through the City of Lakewood. The checklist identifies itself as the FCC/LSGAC Local Official’s Guide to RF and applies FCC RF-exposure rules to this facility. The FCC’s assertion that it possessed no responsive records is difficult to reconcile with the existence of this documentation. When I reported the unlicensed transmissions and missing antennas, the FCC dismissed my report by focusing on whether my equipment was calibrated instead of investigating. I allege that the FOIA discrepancy, refusal to investigate, and dismissal of my measurements are evidence of a cover-up warranting investigation into the FCC’s role. I allege regulatory capture and a cover-up enabling unlicensed spectrum deployment while bypassing RF safety safeguards. The FCC’s proposed “Build America” rules (WT Docket No. 25-276) would fast-track wireless deployment and restrict local oversight, which would further weaken the FCC’s safety rules. AT&T’s role in the site’s equipment, transmissions, and operation must also be investigated. Abolish all RF categorical exclusions. Require independent annual NIER safety inspections of every wireless facility, without exception. Investigate the unlicensed transmissions and Edgemont facility, establish responsibility for the alleged NIER categorical-exclusion fraud and cover-up, and hold Crown Castle, AT&T, and the FCC accountable.

It's about time public safety trumped money.

See attached file(s)

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, ADD/ADHD, seizures, cancer, infertility and more! It's been 30 years in the making but we now have an unprecedented short window with both the Federal Communications Commission AND Health and Human Services to build the public record and document the fallout. Regulations for the wireless radiation industry MUST be established for us and for our future generations for healthy safety and the protection of the planet. Stop the excessive diseases and conditions from the radiation. I am also being charged an extra unauthorized fee of $12.00 from NJ PSE&G energy company because I refuse to install a SmartMeter. SmartMeters release radiation that causes cancer and I have cancer. I offered to read or phone in the monthly meter readings but PSE&G refuses to remove the extra charge. They argue that they must send in a person to my district to remotely read my meter and they must spend gas money. They could send in an electric vehicle to save gas or a hybrid. There is no reason to charge me an extra $12.00 per month since I do not want a SmartMeter installed in my home. Please help me in this situation. Thank you. Susan Scherman, RN, BA, CSN, Certified NJ School Nurse & Certified Health Education Teacher

My name is Dr. Marion Van Horn. I am a neuroscientist and mother of three. I am submitting this comment because I believe there is an urgent need to reassess whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits adequately protect human health and the environment. This issue recently came to our attention when our friend Alison Morrow Westover tried to stop a cell tower from being installed in her neighbour’s backyard. What surprised us most was learning that, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, health concerns cannot be used as grounds to reject a proposed cell tower, provided it complies with FCC exposure limits. But I was shocked to learn that the FCC’s RF exposure limits haven’t been substantially updated in nearly 30 years, despite ongoing scientific research in this area! As a neuroscientist who has studied brain development, I know that early-life environmental exposures can profoundly influence the developing brain. These are critical periods of development, during which environmental influences can have lasting consequences. While the long-term health effects of RF exposure remain an active area of scientific investigation, parents are absolutely justified in asking questions about the safety of placing a cell tower so close to where their children are growing up. Given the evolving scientific evidence, I believe it is essential that the FCC undertake a thorough, independent review of its exposure limits, with particular attention to long-term exposure, children’s developing nervous systems, and potential environmental effects. We should not have to wait for conclusive evidence of harm before asking whether our existing safety standards are sufficiently protective.

S October 20,2026 The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 RE: Public Comment on Request for Information (RFI) regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure (Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397) "I am responding as a patient under the Individual Consumer category to provide direct evidence regarding the adverse health impacts of RF/EMF exposure. While I am submitting a concise 20-page overview of my case today, this text is drawn from a comprehensive 1,000-page medical record and extensive technical review documenting clear clinical baselines, tracking diagnoses, and highlighting critical gaps in current public health surveillance." This information I am presenting is very brief due to my extreme disability from RF/EMF. I must advocate for reasonable accommodations for all disabled people. My research has told me that reasonable accommodations for this HHS process are not allowed or recognized under the law. In short, due to my injuries from RF/EMF, my ability to function takes about 32 times longer than an average healthy person, meaning it takes me 32 hours to work a full 8 hour day. Seldom does society’s institutions allow me reasonable accommodations. I needed to state this up front so that anyone from HHS or beyond listening to my testimony can try to comprehend what is behind it, and if I am approached for information, I would appreciate people who are trauma-informed and willing to work with me on reasonable accommodations. I have been gravely traumatized many times by various professionals, and it is a truly horrifying experience after my extensive RF/EMF injuries. I have established about 1,000 pages of medical records and many other forms of evidence regarding being harmed by RF/EMF. I believe that my medical file, records, research, and evidence is one of the most comprehensive in the United States. I hope that this can help science, medicine, and most of all other victims. From my own personal experience, and from seeing others severely injured and killed by RF/EMF, the average person in the United States with the average means does not stand a fighting chance. This is horrifying to me and has shaken me to the core of my soul and beyond… I was an extremely healthy adult male at age 58 years old before my accident exposure happened with RF/EMF in October 2023. Within a period of between 4 minutes to 4 days, I became severely injured by RF/EMF to the point that I became gravely and permanently disable soon after with continued exposure. I had no idea, and no comprehension that such energy existed or was possible!!! To establish firmly the meaningful relevance of the onsite of my injury, illness, and accident is absolutely critical that each healthcare provider, scientist, and institution dealing with this information on RF/EMF know that immediately, I became a victim-patient with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) withing a time frame of 4 minutes to 4 days!!!! Additionally in a period of 4 minutes to 4 days, I became swollen with edema as a result of my lymph system flooding my body almost instantaneously!!! These two key pieces of information – SIRS and severe edema – are grossly overlooked by most medical doctors!!! Finally, my ankles became suddenly sore, not to mention swollen, so that it felt like I had sprained my ankles from an athletic injury or from an occupational injury – like jumping from my pickup truck – which clearly was not the case. I had no such injury in both ankles before this sudden accident, injury, and illness took place!!! The soreness I believe was primarily from the severe edema and secondarily from the SIRS. I have divided the SIRS down into approximately 100 key steps on a micro-level and a macro level which shows how RF/EMF can suddenly in a period of 4 minutes to 4 days bring on a cascade collapse of a person’s cellular system creating an emergency “all hands on deck” response. I am skeptical that I will be able to include this information into this crucial expose report because of my severe disability at this time and the fact that I have not been offered reasonable accommodations. Excerpt #2: . Further into this expose report, I will list approximately 30 diagnoses and 50 neurological symptoms given to me by many medical specialists – credible medical doctors – forensic expert subject matter witnesses. ee attached file(s)