All comment threads

See attached file(s)

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.

I am writing in response to Docket ID HHS-OASH-2026-0397. 2. In your response, please describe which perspective(s) your comments represent: I write my response in perspective of an Individual Consumer. a. The type(s) of wireless technology or RF/EMF source(s) involved ( e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wireless infrastructure, wearable devices, occupational equipment). My primary concern is with wireless technology that has been installed on sidewalks, utility poles, and rooftops of residential buildings and schools. The technology was installed within the last nine years. Under FCC terminology the devices would be fall under the umbrella of Intentional radiators. A more specific term is wirelss infrastructure technology installed on public rights of way along with the auxillary devices such as smart meters that communicate with wireless infrastructure technology. Wireless Technology infratructure goes beyond mobile and wifi devices intentioned for house hold or personal use. They operate constantly twenty-four hours a day once installed and have been increasing prolonged exposure levels of non-ionizing radiation. There is very little remediation effort a person can do on their own except keep away as far away as possible. b. The nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing of the reported exposure(s). If an installation is in close proximity to their home or dwelling a person is being forcibly exposed to nonionizing radiation for prolonged periods on a daily basis. The time spent cooking, cleaning, resting, or simply enjoying one's own dwelling may develop into a health hazard. When daily sleeping patterns are included of 5 to 8 hours adverse health effect will most likely increase since we are still for the majority of time we sleep. Scientific studies show that children and the elderly are more impacted. Children have thinner skulls increasing the absorption of non-ionizing radiation in the brain. The elderly are less mobile than middle-aged adults and have weaker immune systems increasing the adverse effects of RadioFrequency Radiation. Any person with mobility issues or immuno difficiency will also suffer greater adverse effects. n. What scientific, technical, or regulatory changes by federal health agencies, if any, would improve the assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure? I request an independent review of the science with entities not tied to the industry. Due to the lack of existing radiation, wireless infrastructure installations in neighborhoods operate without standards. There are installations with posted notices and warnings about emissions, but only on a few of the locations. Similar installations in marginalized and underserved communities have no such postings or the notice/ warning is concealed from and illegible to the residents. Updating the 1996 standards with the understanding and acknowledgement that prolonged exposure to non-ionizing radiation has negative health impacts on living organisms will help develop safety standards and installation guidelines for wireless infrastructure that prioritizes public health. 9. What, if any, technical and exposure-related information should be disclosed to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments? The November 2018 special issue of "Environmental Research" and Article on Cancer Epidemiology recommends, "based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC's current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans." (Source: Lai, Henry and Levitt, B. Blake. "Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields" Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. 39, no. 3, 2024, pp. 519-529. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023) According to another study published by Reproductive Toxicology in December 2025 Radiofrequecy-EMR "impairs testosterone synthesis and steroidogenesis." (source: Pooja Jangid, Umesh Rai, Sirajuddin Ahmed, Sanjay Singh, Rajeev Singh, Non-thermal biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation: Mechanistic insights into male reproductive vulnerability in the era of ubiquitous exposure, Reproductive Toxicology, Volume 138, 2025, 109087, ISSN 0890-6238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.109087) I shared those two sources as proof that there are negative health impacts to prolonged electromagnetic radiation exposure including the non-thermal or non-ionizing section of the electromagnetic spectrum. When federal standards reflect this fact, safety standards may be full implemented everywhere federal funds are used. This will protect public health inside municipal buildings and property exteriors, schools, hospitals, and community health centers. It will also remediate installations that are in close proximity to homes. I attached seven images of devices to support the gravity of my concern and the need for Federal Action.

These attached comments are being submitted posthumously on behalf of Lily Sinnamon of Stafford Springs, CT. At the age of 85, Lily passed away in August 2026, four years after Eversource put an advanced digital electric meter on her house, directly causing a health decline that eventually wore her down. This is the letter that I helped Lily compose where she beseeched Eversource to replace this new injurious electrical meter with whatever version she had before (previously she had one that only broadcast once a month instead of every 30 seconds). We sent it in 2023to Eversource Management, including each Board of Trustees member. Eversource insisted that this meter was deemed completely safe with the sole justification being that its RF/EMF emanations were all within the allowed FCC exposure guidelines. It did not matter that Lily was made immediately ill from its presence, they would not make any accommodation. Due to the lax US exposure guidelines for radio frequency emanations and conduction EMI noise levels -- which were never calibrated for long-term proximity to frail, elderly persons -- poorly engineered products that spew dangerous levels of RF/EMF toxic energy are routinely put into the public space. Here, Eversource forced such injurious technology into the private space of its customers, with the careless regard of any monopoly -- it is 'our way or the highway'. The Duty of Care requirements, to not cause harm to the public by their actions or products, should be enforced vigorously in such cases; instead, such companies are given a free pass because of the safety claim solely based on misapplied exposure guidelines from the FCC. Lily deserved much better than to have her health ruined and her life shortened. Submitted by Ken Gartner of Warren, MA Attachments: ------------ Jan 18 2023 - Letter to Board of Trustees for Eversource Jan 30, 2023 - Response from Eversource Legal Department Feb 10, 2023 - Letter to Eversource July 20, 2023 - Letter to Eversource July 1, 2024 - Letter of Outrage to Eversource April 17, 2025 - Letter to Eversource Aug 12, 2026 -- Eulogy I wrote for Lily Sinnamon

I am writing to formally submit evidence and personal testimony regarding the adverse health and biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs), as requested by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a long-term advocate and the former founder and owner of a dedicated European platform for individuals affected by electromagnetic radiation (formerly betroffene-elektromagnetische-strahlung.com, recently transitioned in July 2026), I have spent over seven years documenting, analyzing, and consolidating the health complaints of citizens affected by these environmental factors. During this time, our platform was contacted by more than 350 affected individuals from all over the world. Their documented experiences demonstrate that these neurological and physical symptoms constitute a global phenomenon, affecting ordinary citizens worldwide and across borders. In response to the specific categories of your Request for Information (RFI), I submit that the biological impacts of RF exposure are measurable and verifiable. Over years of documentation, the following evidence has been compiled to substantiate these biological effects: 1. Medical and Biological Data: Objective medical reports and RF body-scan analyses showing physiological stress, neurological disruption, and specific biological anomalies corresponding with proximity to high-frequency radiation sources. 2. Technical and Investigative Documentation: Detailed evidence consisting of 2. investigative reports, environmental monitoring, video documentation, and eyewitness testimonies that track the presence of elevated EMF/RF levels and their immediate impact on human health. 3. Historical and Regulatory Context: Corroborating documentation including historical governmental research frameworks (such as legacy documentation regarding neuro-electromagnetic research) and registered public patents demonstrating the established technical capability of high-frequency fields to interact directly with human biological and neurological systems. The compiled documentation strongly suggests that current exposure thresholds do not adequately protect public health from non-thermal, long-term biological effects. The physical toll on citizens includes severe neurological symptoms, sleep disruption, cognitive impairment, and persistent cellular stress. I urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administration for a Healthy America to rigorously evaluate these non-thermal biological effects and to integrate the experiences of affected citizens globally into the new public health guidelines. The comprehensive documentation, including medical analyses, technical reports, and investigative material, remains available to support further scientific inquiry by the Department. Sincerely, Ursula Jasef Friedrichstr. 87 40217 Düsseldorf Germany https://betroffene-havanna-syndrom.de/

I am submitting the attached scientific comment and 10 peer-reviewed publications in response to HHS Request for Information HHS-OASH-2026-0397. These publications present experimental findings and theoretical analyses concerning biological responses to weak static magnetic fields, extremely low-frequency fields, and radiofrequency exposures. The attached comment highlights the importance of exposure characterization, carrier frequency, modulation, background magnetic fields, cellular responses, and potential biological mechanisms. I encourage HHS to consider this evidence in its scientific review and in identifying priorities for future research and exposure-guideline development. Frank S. Barnes, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor Emeritus University of Colorado Boulder

I am grateful to HHS for opening up the opportunity for the public to share concerns about the lack of balanced consideration of scientific research in setting regulations around wireless radiation. I have read dozens of studies that point to possible health concerns around overexposure to non-ionizing radiation. The suffix "non" in "non-ionizing" is often used as if it automatically implied "non-harmful" but these terms are not synonymous. Like many people, I have had friends and relatives die of brain tumors after spending years with a mobile phone pressed against their head — but while I am convinced by this to use speaker phone, I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence and therefore only compelling to me. I will attach with my comment several studies I have read that document real physical effects of non-ionizing radiation on the human body; these studies are all peer-reviewed and published in respected medical journals. I recognize that the science is still being debated, but the people conducting these studies are credible, credentialed scientists with PhDs and medical doctorates in a variety of related sciences. Medical doctors, engineers, physicists, epidemiologists of world renown are all reporting that there are serious considerations to the health impacts of this technology. Most of us are not shouting "Get a horse!" at passing cars; we are shouting "Get a catalytic converter!" We know that cell phones are part of 21st century life, but that doesn't necessarily require putting cell towers on top of schools, for example, when we are learning that children's thinner skulls and developing brains make them more vulnerable to all forms of radiation. Until government became involved and began regulating emissions from automobiles, car companies would have had us believe that toxic emissions were a necessary part of operating a vehicle, or that fumes you couldn't see or smell couldn't hurt you. Thank goodness all over the world government regulators called BS and forced car manufacturers to find a better way. 21st century cars may not be perfect, but they are less harmful to the environment and to human health than 20th century cars were. They found a compromise we can all live with. We have the opportunity to do the same with cell phone and cell tower radiation, if regulators choose to serve the greater good rather than serving industry. We can't wait for all scientists to agree; as long as such a large number of studies are indicating cause for concern about impacts on human health and the environment, we should err on the side of caution. We should demand that industry dedicate some of its resources to developing phones that emit only as much radiation as is necessary to make a call. We should force industry to compete on safety as we did with the auto industry. And we should regulate where cell towers can be placed, with consideration to vulnerable populations, rather than rushing and "streamlining" the process in a way that seeks to cut local communities and stakeholders out of the process of approving towers that could be emitting dangerous levels of radiation. Personally, I practice safe cell phone habits; I keep my phone on airplane mode at home, shut it off at night, and never press it against my head. These things are within my control and allow me to keep my exposure as low as reasonably achievable. I would appreciate support from regulating agencies in the form of forcing the big telecom companies to conform to reasonable emission standards on their products and consider local concerns when siting cell towers. Also, Health and Human Services could do a lot of good by informing and supporting the medical industry in validating that there are real health concerns, and that certain behaviors around wireless technology are recommended and supported by research. The telecom industry is not going to go bankrupt if HHS recommends safer cell phone habits or keeping towers off of schools. People will still buy and use cell phones, but maybe the cost of the health impacts will be shifted from paying for treatment to the phone companies paying a little toward prevention. Thank you for your consideration.

I am sensitive to the radio frequency fields of cell phones, wifi smart meters and cell towers and do not use wireless computers or have wifi in my house for that very reason. I experience tiredness, lightheadedness, mental fogginess and irritability to speak of the few obvious reactions. When I sleep at homes with wifi my sleep is very difficult and interrupted. I once got a terrible face rash from sleeping too close to smart electric meters with RF. I would hope the FCC and HHS would change the exposure levels to safer levels like so many other countries have done and require cell phones to lower their exposures, which I know can be done. I know the Environmental Health Trust has submitted many studies showing the harmful effects of RF and the need to lower exposure levels so I am only attaching one such study. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Lori Schreier 916 River Road Westmoreland, NH 03467

HHS-OASH-2026-0397 | RFI Q2, Q3, Q5, Q7–13, Q15–18 Questions for HHS: What remains uncertain about chronic, multi-source RF/EMF exposure? How can studies test reported sensitivity and possible oxygen-handling effects? What exposure information and practical options should be available in homes, schools, workplaces and vehicles? I respond as an individual consumer and family member in the UK, not as a clinician or scientist. My attachment, Where Can They Hide?, provides sources. [P] means peer-reviewed research, [G] official/legal material and [L] lived experience. Imagine a grandchild asking what we did when people reported illness in wireless environments. I cannot say RF/EMF is established as the cause. I ask HHS to listen without prejudging, measure exposure better and fund independent research. Experiences (Q3) [L]. I associate neurological and mood changes with RF/EMF exposure, particularly disproportionate anger or irritability, including while driving. Family and friends report different symptoms they associate with exposure: neurological problems, severe skin inflammation sometimes cracking or bleeding, eye pain and cardiac symptoms. Some report improvement after suspected sources, including Wi-Fi, were switched off. Friends said their six-week-old baby slept through for the first time after both parents switched off phones and Wi-Fi overnight; a family member reported similar sleep improvement. These uncontrolled reports do not prove causation: exposure was not measured, several sources changed together and other explanations remain possible. Evidence and uncertainty (Q5, Q6, Q12, Q16) [P/G]. RF heating is established and central to current limits. ICNIRP’s 2020 guidelines reflect the mainstream view that heating is the only substantiated adverse effect in its assessment; this deserves fair consideration. Yet chronic, multi-source exposure and individual responses should be tested. The 2021 Environmental Health Trust v FCC ruling required the FCC to address issues it had not adequately explained; it did not find limits unsafe or decide the science. Controlled human provocation reviews have not established a consistent RF trigger for reported symptoms, but individual-level questions remain. Oxygen handling (Q12, Q16) [P/O]. Laboratory studies report changes in haemoglobin oxygen affinity or deoxygenation under particular conditions (Mousavy, 2009; Muehsam, 2013; Chowdhury, 2021). A small 2025 wearable study reported differences in estimated overnight oxygen saturation with and without a nearby phone. Neither proves that everyday RF lowers arterial oxygen saturation or causes tissue hypoxia; these endpoints need independent replication. Redmayne’s 2022 newsletter case reported a teenager’s skin improving after Ginkgo biloba, but measured neither RF exposure nor oxygenation. These observations raise a question, not a conclusion. Priorities (Q7–13, 15–18): (1) Fund preregistered studies co-designed with people reporting sensitivity, using verified exposure/sham conditions, blinding, clinical assessment and independent replication. (2) Test whether frequency, modulation, intensity and duration affect haemoglobin, red-cell function, arterial oxygen saturation or tissue oxygen delivery, distinguishing altered oxygen unloading from oxygen deficiency. (3) Improve real-world personal measurement, including pregnancy/childhood and homes, schools, workplaces, transport and vehicles; record source, frequency, modulation, duty cycle, distance and cumulative exposure; assess environmental/livestock exposure where relevant (Q14–15). (4) Develop privacy-protecting adverse-event/cluster reporting (Q10); publish accessible exposure information (Q9); evaluate wired alternatives and non-essential vehicle transmitter controls that preserve safety (Q13). (5) Transparently compare FCC, ICNIRP, IEEE and other frameworks, coordinate NIH research, CDC surveillance and FDA device testing/information (Q5, Q17), declare conflicts and report positive and null findings. In EAM v East Sussex County Council [2022] UKUT 193 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal ordered educational provision, including wired internet, for a child whose reported sensitivity was accepted as disabling in that case. This is not a general scientific finding that RF causes EHS or binding on US agencies; it illustrates practical accommodation issues while causation remains contested. Judgment What measurements could detect a reproducible effect? What fair studies would resolve uncertainty? What practical options can be offered while research proceeds? When that grandchild asks what we did, I hope we can say we neither presumed danger nor assumed every question was settled. We listened, measured, tested competing explanations and reported findings openly. I ask HHS to make that effort.

See attached file(s)