Cites animal and human research and the FCC remand to request stricter exposure and siting limits, indepe…

Subject: Public Comment on RF/EMF Exposure and the Need for Stronger Public Health Protections Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I am submitting this comment as a concerned American citizen who believes our government must protect human health, future generations, and the environment from potentially harmful electromagnetic and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. I am deeply concerned about the expansion of cell towers, 5G infrastructure, wireless transmitters, and smart meters that contribute to continuous, involuntary RF exposure. Americans should not be subjected to increasing environmental exposure without rigorous, independent evidence establishing long-term safety. 1. Scientific Evidence of Potential Harm Substantial published research identifies potential biological effects associated with RF radiation. National Toxicology Program (2018): This major U.S. government investigation reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to certain cell phone RF signals. Researchers also identified other tumor findings. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595 Ramazzini Institute (2018): This independent study investigated long-term RF exposure representative of cell tower emissions and reported increased heart schwannomas among male rats at the highest exposure level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037 Hardell and Carlberg (2015): Researchers reported associations between prolonged wireless phone use and increased glioma risk, particularly with longer latency periods. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25466607/ These findings warrant further independent investigation rather than dismissal. 2. Outdated Safety Standards Federal RF exposure standards have not adequately kept pace with modern wireless technology or continuous exposure from multiple overlapping sources. Safety assessments must address cumulative exposure, long-term biological effects, and potential nonthermal effects. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals found that the FCC had failed to adequately explain its treatment of evidence concerning non-cancer effects, children, long-term exposure, and environmental impacts. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-1025/20-1025-2021-08-13.html 3. Stronger Restrictions on Wireless Infrastructure I urge federal officials to substantially strengthen restrictions on cell tower placement, density, and emissions, particularly near homes, schools, hospitals, and agricultural land. I specifically request: 1. Independent reassessment of federal RF exposure limits using current research and cumulative exposure measurements. 2. Stricter tower-siting and emission standards near residential communities and sensitive locations. 3. Independent RF monitoring with publicly accessible results. 4. Long-term research concerning children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations. 5. Investment in wired telecommunications and lower-emission alternatives. 6. Greater community involvement in tower placement decisions. 7. Investigation of potential effects on livestock, wildlife, pollinators, and ecosystems. 4. Industry Accountability and Independent Research Research establishing public safety standards must be transparent, reproducible, and free from undue commercial influence. I request disclosure of industry funding, conflicts of interest, unpublished findings, and underlying research data used in federal safety assessments. Studies identifying potential biological harm deserve serious evaluation regardless of commercial interests. 5. Public Health Must Come First Technological convenience and economic development should not automatically outweigh legitimate public health concerns. I support substantial reductions in unnecessary RF exposure, stricter wireless infrastructure limits, independent testing, and a precautionary approach wherever important safety questions remain unresolved. The American public deserves transparency, meaningful choices concerning involuntary exposure, and safety standards based on comprehensive scientific evidence rather than assumptions. I urge HHS to fully evaluate the research and establish stronger protections for human health, future generations, animals, and the environment. Thank you for considering my comment.