We recently got a tower about 2 years ago less than 400 yards firm our home. Since. My kids have constantly had tummy aches and low sugar.
I have also been a bee keeper for 14 years. I no longer can keep a hive. All my apple trees closest to the tower have all died. I csnt grow things in that area.
It is also near a school which is Terrifying
Please remove these weapons.
I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of EMFs. I'm concerned about the impact such radiation is having on everyone, especially the children. I'm particularly concerned about the effects of wearing devices such as air pods for extended periods of time. From teenagers to adults, a vast % of our population wears these without really knowing the effects.
I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health.
Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard!
From all studies I have read I'm very concerned about EMFs for myself and my family including grandchildren. GreenMedInfo lists the studies but I have heard of the dangers from other reputable sources.
As digital infrastructure, mobile networks (5G/6G), Wi-Fi, smart devices, and wearable technology continue to expand rapidly into homes, schools, and public spaces, a transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date federal re-evaluation of human health impacts is both timely and necessary.
Key Areas for Federal Focus
1. Vulnerable Populations and Children:
Special attention must be directed toward children, adolescents, and pregnant women. Children have developing neurological and biological systems and higher relative absorption rates in head tissues from mobile devices. Federal research priorities should explicitly evaluate long-term, cumulative exposure patterns starting from early childhood.
2. Cumulative and Multi-Frequency Exposures:
Most legacy safety guidelines evaluate single-source, short-term thermal effects. Modern living involves chronic, low-level, multi-frequency exposure from overlapping cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, and smart meters. HHS should prioritize research that mimics real-world, cumulative co-exposures rather than isolated laboratory conditions.
3. Independent Scientific Review and Regulatory Harmonization:
Current U.S. exposure standards differ significantly from guidelines in other international jurisdictions. HHS should conduct an independent, transparent synthesis of peer-reviewed literature—differentiating independent scientific findings from industry-funded assessments—to determine whether current federal safety limits adequately protect public health.
4. Public Health Surveillance and Reporting Mechanisms:
The department should establish clearer pathways for clinicians and citizens to report and document adverse health experiences potentially linked to chronic environmental or technological exposures, improving post-market surveillance.
Thank you for opening this critical dialogue and inviting public input. I urge HHS to adopt a precautionary, evidence-based approach that prioritizes long-term biological safety, closes existing research gaps, and updates federal guidance to reflect modern wireless density.
When it comes to cellphone and microwave towers the three main factors that affect human health are:
1. Proximity.
2. Intensity.
3. Duration.
Proximity: How close you are to the tower both horizontally and vertically.
Intensity: The number and types of transmitters on the tower.
Duration: How long you are in the area of the tower.
The cellphone tower has recently significantly increased, with 5G transmitters added to the tower. My wife and I have experienced numerous physical problems resulting in symptoms like headaches, difficulty sleeping, excessive thirst and other problems. We are also concerned about the health of our neighbors, particularly those with children and grandchildren. Several pets, ours and neighbors', have also suffered unexplained fatal symptoms.
I experienced exposure from my cell phone in my bra. I used my bra as a storage place to listen to music while I exercised. I always put it in the same pocket whether I was working in the garden or biking over a three month period of time. I had healthy breast tissue and after three months of doing this four or five times a week for an hour at a time, I developed a lump in my breast directly under the place that I stored my phone. I had a mammogram and multiple evaluations done over one and a half year time window to make sure it was not growing and becoming larger and immediately stopped putting my cell phone in that location. Removing the phone from that location may have been the primary reason the growth did not get larger. At the time I was in my late 20s. I would like to see further research on cell phone towers, near businesses, churches, and schools and the effect, as well as phones in pockets against the body.
Experienced both headaches and ear ringing when holding the cell phone close to my ear, which subsides when cell phone is put on a surface and speaker phone is used. Also, when sleeping in a place where the router is on, sleep is very poor. In a place where the router is turned off, sleep is dramatically improved. When stayed in a building next to a cell tower, child had severe nosebleeds daily that subsided when away from the cell tower.
My family and I warmly welcome HHS looking into this matter. It is something that we have been very concerned about for many years. Back in 2003, I was aware that cellphone towers were not permitted to be erected within a certain distance of schools in parts of Europe. When I moved to the US and attended my first city council meeting, there was a proposal on the agenda to erect a cellphone tower in the area. I asked the City council members about the research on negative health impacts from EMFs and wireless radiation exposure, and whether the city council had a restriction on the placement of cellphone towers near schools as in Europe. I was told that the City was prohibited from placing any such restrictions. This was shocking to me, but I soon learned that a lot of things that were prohibited in Europe for health and safety reasons were permitted in the US. I could not understand why elected representatives of the people had such little regard for the health and safety of the people they represented. I then came to learn that government at almost every level in the US had been captured by corporate special interests. My own experience with EMFs, RF radiation and Wireless Radiation is that I get an unpleasant tingling sensation in my hand when I hold a cellphone that is not in airplane mode. And that sensation occurs more quickly and more severely when I am holding my partner's iPhone 14 than when I am holding my own iPhone X. And the impact from my iPhone X appears to be greater than when I hold my old iPhone 6. I don't know if I am more sensitive than other people, or whether I am just more observant. I have also observed that I get headaches when I am in a car with a phone that is not on airplane mode, and particularly when the car windows are all closed. In addition to the cellphone issue, my neighbor's infant child experienced very negative effects from the moment that smart meters were installed on our condo building. The meters for all 6 units were installed on the outside wall of our neighbor's unit, and were specifically located on the outside wall of that neighbor's infant child's bedroom. He began exhibiting signs of distress when he went to bed at night, and even engaged in head hitting and head banging behavior. After a few weeks of this, our neighbors took their child to stay with relatives in another city, and the child's distress and behaviors instantly ceased.
HHS seeks to update the record on whether the science on the effects of RF radiation has changed since the FCC considered this question in 2019. I herein submit comment as City Councilmember of Monterey, California, representing a constituency very concerned and knowledgeable about the abundant studies since both 1996 (the date of the FCC’s holding on exposure limits) and 2019, when the FCC held there was no appreciable change in the science.
Two areas stand out to me as having changed and as areas of concern as a parent, grandparent, and Certified Nurse Midwife: 1) the impacts on children, and 2) the ubiquity of wireless devices.
One study, Microwave Emissions from Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8688629) notes that emissions exceed recommended limits when in contact with the body. I have observed babies clutching phones and devices and resting them directly on their bodies. We know that, unfortunately, devices are used as babysitters, replacing humans interacting with infants. We have all seen children as young as one holding and staring at devices powered by radio emissions. These children, in playing with devices, ignore their environment at an age (such as 1 year old) when learning the nuances of human interaction and the rewards thereof are essential milestones in their development and in their ability to survive through social bonding.
Additionally, our children are exposed to higher lifelong levels of radio-wave radiation than we have ever studied. Infants today are exposed to much more than previous generations. Authors AK Lee and HD Choi document that a child’s brain absorbs more cell tower radiation than an adult brain due to such factors as the smaller head of a child and hence less density and due to the thinner skull relative to adults, resulting in higher localized absorption of RF energy (EMF exposure in Korean mobile communication networks. 2023) For the safety of children , we must welcome review of the last 30 years of science. The health of our children depends on review of current science. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412017319724
2.I am responding as a healthcare provider. The federal limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996. n 2013 the FCC itself asked whether the limits should be revisited. In 2019 it answered: no. Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense and others sued. On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court found the Commission had failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer,” had failed to address the impacts on children, long-term exposure, and the ubiquity of wireless devices, and had shown “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm.” It noted roughly 200 comments from people reporting illness or injury that the agency had not addressed. It sent the matter back to the FCC with instructions to explain itself. (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025) 18. (https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms)
The FCC had relied on the Food and Drug Administration’s assurance that the limits were fine. The court said an agency cannot lean on another agency’s conclusion if that conclusion comes without an explanation. 3g. Five years later, no explanation has been produced. https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms Recommendations (m). I recommend (1) a validated clinical intake instrument for suspected RF/EMF-related complaints; (2) a federal adverse-event intake comparable to MedWatch; (3) biomarker studies in symptomatic patients following the oxidative-stress findings of Irigaray, Caccamo & Belpomme (Int J Mol Med 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30015864/); and (4) exposure-measurement studies that do not rely on self-report, following Bogers et al. (Environ Int 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30227317/).12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/ (Adams et al., Environ Int 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24927498/; Liu et al., Andrology 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700791/) and exposure reduction is low-cost. The peer-reviewed record on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT and smart-meter exposures is thin (Simkó & Mattsson, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/, concluded available studies "do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment"). This is a gap, not a reassurance.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/); Balmori, Sci Total Environ 2015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747364/).