Towers & siting

There are many things that need to be addressed. Cell towers should have to be a minimum distance away from schools, hospitals, neighborhoods. I say that distance is 500 meters, but right now I believe there is no minimum distance. Wireless routers should be limited to as few as necessary in schools. There is too much incentivizing the proliferation of wireless tech in schools. Light is also an EMF and therefore should be considered in this too. There's an abundance of research on healthier artificial light sources. Unfortunately, healthy light spectrum doesn't line up with energy efficiency. The energy efficiency of LEDs has been oversold and the light spectrum of LEDs has negative health consequences. We should look into healthier light sources such as incandescent and halogen. The lighting should be full spectrum and have low or no level of flicker. Fluorescent lights should be banned altogether. There are studies that show that the spectrum of light produced by most fluorescents makes ADD worse. Well, that's the lighting in every school. And LED isn't much better. Lastly, the state of our electrical grid should be taken into consideration for a few different reasons. The amount of harmonic distortion or transient distortion, better known as "dirty electricity", is a huge and increasing problem on our grid and it is know to causes health issues, such as tinnitus, ringing in the ears. Almost everyone today suffers from some degree of tinnitus. Another problem is high magnetic fields, from things such as unbalanced loads and wire spacing, in our neighborhoods. Lastly, ground currents are a huge problem with out grid. Electricity comes to the home from the power station on the "hot" line and electricity is supposed to go back, in the form of current, on the "neutral". Most of our electricity doesn't go back on the neutral, instead it goes back on the earth in the form of ground currents. This is an established problem with animals on farms, most notably dairy farms. It is having an effect on people too. There are many experts in this area. Our electric is put up and in the ground and maintained by a bunch of sub-contracted "cowboys". They are paid to put it in the ground or in the air by the foot and their M.O. is to get it done as quick as possible. I know industry rules, but maybe practices can be changed that don't hinder progress too much. There are well established experts on all of these topics. If nothing gets done regarding any of these issues, it will only serve to further erode the trust of government in the eyes of the people. The people deserve a quick resolution to a lot of these issues and more.

I am submitting a comment as a citizen concerned about the growing impact of exposure to wireless radiation has had on increasing numbers of people as the power of the wireless installations grows and their density increases. Some of the more recemt applicayions require even closer positioning of relay stations. While I have not been severely effected by this radiation I have been working with others who have been.Some need a wireless "faraday cage" of metallic garments to shelter from the radiation. It appears that the so called 'Electrically Sensitive' population are serving as the canary in th the coal mine for the rest of us. The history of human adaptation to increasing wireless technology was documented by Arthur Firstenberg in his book "The Invisible Rainbow." see page 368-375 for detailed experiemces t the time. When Cellular thelephone service was first rolled out in the major cities of the United States.In NewYork City, where cell phone service was initiated November 114,1996The Death rate accrding to the Center for Disease Control MMWR publication rose an average of 18% over the next 11 weeks, the highly electrically sensitive died off and the death rate returned to the previous level. This pattern of an increased death rate occurred in all tthe other cties.In San Diego on the West coast the death rate went up 15%for about 2 months starting in late November 1996.Los Angeles received cellular service in July 1997. The death rate for the next 9 weeks went up a whopping 57% over the comparable period in 1996. In Chicago began cellular service on Christmas 1996 and experienced an 11% increase in the death rate lastin about 10 weeks. Boston received limited PCS sevice in the fall of 1997 and full service January 1,1998. Boston had a 5% increase in the death rate beginning the end of October 1997 and 20% fot another 9 weeks. The FCC standards for exposure have to be updated and HHS should be responsible for setting standards, The FCC is concerned with engineering and the telecommunications industry is seen as its CLIENT not the citizens exposed to wireless radiation.

As a Doctor who has been injured from radiofrequency radiation, I have a sincere interest in new, updated regulations of HHS and the FCC to protect all living things from the known biological harm of RFR. Since 2018, living near a cell tower, sleeping close to a smart meter and having a wifi router from a neighbor within 10 feet of my sleeping space, I have had neurological harm. Since then, when I'm near a wifi router or another person's phone or smart watch, I get burning pain on my skin in the area closest to the pulse-modulated RF radiation. I also get severe fatigue, brain fog, a pressure headache, and the next days to weeks I feel "hungover" from the exposure. It makes normal functioning very difficult. When I sleep next to someone with a smart watch on or sleep in a house/hotel with wifi on, my sleep is very poor- I wake up many times and have trouble falling asleep. When I sleep at home with our wifi router turned off and phones off, I wake up much more rested and do not wake up in the middle of the night. I fear for my young daughter and unborn baby, since research shows their brains absorb much more radiofrequency radiation, and it is pervasive in classrooms, places of worship, as well as playgrounds. I am calling for more research on the biological harms from radiofrequency radiation, particularly pulse-modulated RF radiation. As more cell towers proliferate and new bands of frequency are being used, there needs to be a halt to all new infrastructure until solid research has been done to investigate the impacts on living beings- humans, flora and fauna. The current FCC guideline is based on an antiquated study from 30 years ago. Telecommunications have changed drastically over that time period, so that is now irrelevant. What studies have the FCC or HHS done to evaluate the RFR's effects on cellular health and oxidative stress, which manifest into countless disease states? What about neurobehavioral outcomes, like children learning in school near a wifi router, or productivity and concentration in the workplace? How are migrating animals and insects affected by the never-ending bombardment of frequencies running through their bodies? How does that impact ecosystems and ultimately human health? Europe has more stringent standards on pulse-modulated RF radiation to protect the health of its citizens and wildlife- why don't we mirror their regulations as a starting point and add on as more research has accumulated? The cost of inaction is far too high- if HHS fails to produce relevant research to protect the health of all living beings, what is the cost to all of humanity? The cost of healthcare is already astronomical in the US. Could limiting the number of towers, satellites, smart devices, band frequencies and the power produced by these structures decrease the amount of human suffering and cost of "mystery" chronic disease states? Before any new technology is developed, I urge HHS to study chronic radiofrequency radiation exposure at ambient levels in a cohort study as well as RCT studies to assess the cellular and physiological changes with acute exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation. Please see the references attached as evidence to support my claims. The inaction of federal health agencies, including the HHS, in studying the biological and environmental effects of RFR and pulse-modulated RF radiation is extremely disappointing. As a Doctor and one who has been injured by RFR, I see the damage this has on my patients as well. I did not consent, nor do I consent today, to the continuous, involuntary exposure to biologically active RF radiation. Please allocate necessary funding to study RF radiation's effects on living beings. It is the ethical, responsible and humanitarian action to do that. Sincerely, Dr. Colton References: Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. PMID: 27454111. Kaszuba-Zwoińska J, Gremba J, Gałdzińska-Calik B, Wójcik-Piotrowicz K, Thor PJ. Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Przegl Lek. 2015;72(11):636-41. PMID: 27012122. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 2022 Oct 18;21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. PMID: 36253855; PMCID: PMC9576312.

Submitted Oct 13, 2026 Comment submitted by Dr Karl Maret regarding Request for Information on EMFs, RF and Wireless Radiation Exposure and its Impact on Health published in the Federal Register Vol 91, No 181 dated September 21, 2026. I am offering my expert opinion on the current danger of wireless radiation in today’s increasingly radio frequency and microwave radiation environment including sources from cell towers and antennas, WiFi and wireless transmitters, wireless devices in the home and office environment, cell phones and other cordless phones, and wireless smart meters. These wireless transmitters typically operate at present between 800 Megahertz (MHz) and 5 Gigahertz GHz), with new devices now coming into use with the latest 5G technologies that are capable of operating between 2.4 and 95 GHz using very short wavelengths called millimeter waves. This comment is in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Request for Information on EMFs, RF and Wireless Radiation Exposure and its Impact on Health published in the Federal Register Vol 91, No 181 dated September 21, 2026. I have given expert testimony regarding the dangers of this type of radio frequency radiation (RFR) based on my background as an electrical engineer, biomedical engineer and medical doctor who has also completed also a post-doctoral fellowship in physiology and served as a Bioscience Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces. Details of my background and contact information can be found in the longer Word document attached to this comment. Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act that established the U.S. nation-wide cellular communications network, there have been essentially no new health protection standards implemented to protect the general population despite massive research studies showing evidence of harm to the general population. Especially problematic is Radio Frequency Radiation that comes from transmitters close to the body as well as high powered transmitters from cell towers and antennas, microwave transmitters covering schools, housing projects and apartment complexes where the transmitters are often hidden in ceilings and walls. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is charged with protecting the public, has exposure standards that are principally suitable for short-term exposure and only those that concern heating or thermal effects while ignoring any long-term exposure and non-thermal effects that are now the norm. The widespread proliferation of this technology now in its 5th generation of development (5G), is viewed by hundreds of scientists throughout the world as hazardous to human welfare. The United States has one of the highest exposure guidelines in the developed world which is hundreds of times higher than permitted in other countries including China, Eastern European countries and Russia which have studied the long-term health effects of these RF radiations and chosen to protect their populations appropriately. We have known of the adverse health effects for at least five decades with thousands of studies demonstrating an increased incidence of brain tumors (gliomas, acoustic neuromas, glioblastomas and pituitary tumors) in addition to thyroid and parotid gland tumors. Breast cancers have been demonstrated in young women exactly at the multiple antenna sites who carried their cell phones inside their bras. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), has classified electromagnetic radiation as a Class 2B possible carcinogen in 2011 based on numerous scientific studies. My full comment and a brief summary of my past experience and qualifications are attached in the Word file attached as well as 2 PDFs of presentations that substantiate my concerns about the adverse health effects of long-term EMFs and the wireless radiation. I am writing this comment both as a past expert, a healthcare provider, and a very concerned living man who has observed great suffering from many electrosensitive people during 30 years of healthcare practice. Dr. Karl Maret cell (831) 539-3255 and email soniclight@ebold.com

I have serious headaches around cell towers since my son went to kindergarten, where by their classroom, there are not one, but two, cell towers sitting right next to the kindergarten classroom, close to the children's playground. After dropping off my son there for a period of time, I started having headaches whenever I was at the playground waiting for him to go into the classroom. The headache would stay with me while I drove back home, and when I was home, the headache would almost be gone. When I tried to get to the cell towers to get some readings from an RF meter, my head hurt severely and I couldn't get any closer to the cell towers anymore. I got sensitivity to EMF whenever I'm close to some kind of radiation since then. Like when I went to a restaurant and I noticed my head hurts, I would turn around and found a smart TV right behind me. Or when I went to a friend's house/ clinic/ fast food chain/ wherever I go, and I noticed that my head hurt, I would find the Wifi router right above me/ very close to me, and sometimes even behind a wall. Since Wifi and cellphone technologies are getting more advanced, my head hurts a lot more frequently, even at home. I had to switch Internet Service Provider because my head hurts so much with the High-Speed 5G Internet, and opt for a slower one. I also have to set the Wifi band to 2.4 Ghz instead of 5 Ghz, and put it inside a metal box in order to reduce the Wifi radiation as much as possible. I have to turn off Wifi at night before I sleep, or else I'll have headaches all night. I can't control my neighbors' Wifi, but I can feel which part of the house has stronger signals with my headaches (and confirmed with a RF meter), and try to stay away from those areas if I could. Last but not least, I have a meningioma in my head, although it's calcified, it's continually growing, and the growth of the meningioma could be related to those increasingly strong exposures. Many scientific research studies had shown links to EMF/ RF exposure to brain tumors, which would be especially harmful to children. Attached with this comment are pictures of the cell towers in the elementary school (Knox Gifted Academy in Chandler, AZ), and pictures of my brain meningioma scans. The elementary school mentioned is part of Chandler Unified School District, and although quite a number of parents contacted the superintendent back then about the risks and harmful concerns on our children, they argued that there is no proof for these concerns, and they’re completely safe. I saw cell towers all over the district schools, and so are the other school districts in the valley. This is simply not the right thing to do for any school districts to put cell towers in their school grounds just for more funding. Even if there’s the slightest chance that these EMF infrastructures could harm the children, teachers and people around, this shouldn’t be done in the first place, let alone planting them all over school districts. I truly hope that with this nationwide request for collecting experiences and expertise from regular citizens and experts could help our country, the greatest in the world, to lead the world to do the right thing. The next step for the technology will be 6G, and it will only be more powerful and destructive to the human race at the same time. Please don’t repeat the mistake and harm done as 5G was enrolled, to race and chase after the fame of the world’s fastest to get to the technology, at the expense of the whole country’s health. We’re digging graves for ourselves and this would be irreversible. Thank you very much for “Making American Healthy Again”!!!

I have experienced negative effects from both major kinds of EMFs: RF and what is commonly called dirty electricity from power cords and appliances. At one point, I could not even use a computer mouse for extended periods of time because it would cause pain in that hand that would immediately cease once lifting my hand. With RF, similarly, after 10-15 mins of exposure, I experience symptoms of headaches or a general fuzziness that is hard to describe. Avoiding these sources allows recovery and reduced sensitivity, and ability to withstand longer periods of exposure. My biggest concern is the lack of safety guidelines for things like localized 5g towers, and a general ignoring of expert calls for reevaluation, such as the bio initiative report. Recently, using an EMF meter, I have detected highly unsafe levels of electric radiation from underground powerlines running parallel to sidewalks, presenting an eminent danger to pedestrians, especially those who have to walk repeatedly along the same routes every day. I have also detected huge spikes in RF radiation near small cell towers and have seen them placed on schools and extremely close to residential apartments and houses.

Our neighborhood has been denied Due Process in a cell tower Application at Artist Falls Road in North Conway NH. It is a political decision that ignores safety of the residents. The neighborhood is less than 300 meters from this 160 ft Tower that starts at an elevation 20( twenty ) ft higher than the neighborhood. So a difference of 180 ft altogether. We will be effected severely according to Science.Our DNA is a fractal antenna and according to the Inverse square law ; we are in the area of greatest intensity in the electromagnetic fields.

I am a Software Engineer, IT consultant and business owner, living in south of Sweden. Discovered my sensitivity from wireless tech (RF/microwaves) in 2006, shortly after moving into an apartment that had mobile base station antennas located very close nearby. I did not notice these antennas until after I started having recurring headaches, disturbed sleep, and many other symptoms, and started investigating possible causes. Mobile phone operator Telia made an on site measuring audit showing around 8mW/As soon as I left the apartment the symptoms quickly disappeared. I have been working with computers pretty much all my life and also did my military service in radar (air force) and my own theory is that I have been sensitized as a consequence of long-term exposure over many years. Today I live in the house in the countryside working remotely via fiber connection and usually do not experience any symptoms unless I use my mobile phone or other wireless tech more extensively (which is very tempting because of my profession). I have read lots of scientific studies over the years and some illustrates the problem especially well, such as the Spanish study on the Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (by Balmori A, https://doi.org/10.1080/15368370500205472), that show with rather high significance that the birds with nests nearer to the phone base station antennas have increased likeliness problems with nesting and reproduction. My own measurements of RF radiation over the years consists of different measuring devices ranging from simpler meters such as Cornet ED88T to more advanced devices such as Gigahertz Solutions HF59b.

I am submitting this comment as a resident of Paris, France, living near a site hosting multiple mobile phone base stations. My purpose is not to provide a scientific conclusion but to present information that may be relevant to the HHS and FCC's review of real-world RF exposure issues. In my residence, concerns have arisen regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from nearby telecommunications antennas. Independent measurements commissioned by me reported significantly higher exposure levels than those previously identified through an official measurement process. French authorities, through the Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR), informed me that an official measurement performed in my residence on 25 January 2024 resulted in a global exposure level of 4.29 V/m and concluded that the installation complied with the applicable French regulations. The ANFR stated that this value was below the 6 V/m threshold used at that time to identify an atypical exposure situation. However, subsequent measurements obtained independently reported substantially higher values, including measurements reaching approximately 30 V/m according to the documentation submitted to the French authorities. Because of this discrepancy between the official measurement and the subsequent measurements, I believe that additional attention should be given to: Real-world residential exposure conditions near wireless infrastructure; Variability of exposure levels over time; Measurement methodologies and their limitations; Long-term exposure assessment in occupied dwellings; Transparency and reproducibility of exposure measurements. For transparency, I am submitting both the independent measurement report and the response received from the ANFR. I respectfully request that the FCC consider situations where different measurement campaigns may produce significantly different results and evaluate whether additional research or monitoring could help improve public understanding of residential RF exposure. The existence of materially different measurement results in the same dwelling illustrates why ongoing scientific review and independent verification remain important for public confidence in RF exposure assessments. Thank you for considering this information.

I am submitting this comment as a resident of Paris, France, living near a site hosting multiple mobile phone base stations. My purpose is not to provide a scientific conclusion but to present information that may be relevant to the FCC's review of real-world RF exposure issues. In my residence, concerns have arisen regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from nearby telecommunications antennas. Independent measurements commissioned by me reported significantly higher exposure levels than those previously identified through an official measurement process. French authorities, through the Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR), informed me that an official measurement performed in my residence on 25 January 2024 resulted in a global exposure level of 4.29 V/m and concluded that the installation complied with the applicable French regulations. The ANFR stated that this value was below the 6 V/m threshold used at that time to identify an atypical exposure situation. However, subsequent measurements obtained independently reported substantially higher values, including measurements reaching approximately 30 V/m according to the documentation submitted to the French authorities. Because of this discrepancy between the official measurement and the subsequent measurements, I believe that additional attention should be given to: Real-world residential exposure conditions near wireless infrastructure; Variability of exposure levels over time; Measurement methodologies and their limitations; Long-term exposure assessment in occupied dwellings; Transparency and reproducibility of exposure measurements. For transparency, I am submitting both the independent measurement report and the response received from the ANFR. I respectfully request that the FCC consider situations where different measurement campaigns may produce significantly different results and evaluate whether additional research or monitoring could help improve public understanding of residential RF exposure. The existence of materially different measurement results in the same dwelling illustrates why ongoing scientific review and independent verification remain important for public confidence in RF exposure assessments. Thank you for considering this information.