Towers & siting

Please look into what happens when several cell phone/tv/ etc towers are placed in close proximity to each other. We used to live in a small city that had 14 towers and about 11 of them were clustered together and visible on my front door step. Multiple of my neighbors had breast cancer simultaneously last year, as well as multiple times in their past. I don't know if it was from the towers or some other environmental concerns nearby, such as the cement factories, steel mill, power plant, and the chemical bottling plant. It was a beautiful city, but we had to move after frequent contagious upper respiratory infections and then my child was diagnosed with Celiac. This was in Cedar Hill, Texas. Erin Brokovich herself came to see and stated that she was concerned by the things she saw/ learned in that area (nearby Midlothian, Texas). So far as I know, that was in regards to the cement factories. I don't think anyone has looked into the radio towers. Every study or report that I could find only evaluated one tower at a time, not what happens when many are bouncing waves off each other. The city of Cedar Hill website boasts that they have more of those towers closer together than any place else (or something like that). This would be a good place for you to study the impact of these things.

I’ve had no issues with RF from 5G towers, and have rather benefited from increased signal strength and network reliability

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.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a member of the public who has been adversely impacted by the reckless use of the technologies protected by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I strongly support HHS taking an active role in examining the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I was adversely affected by wireless radiation when I moved into an apartment without knowing that there was a cell antennae across the street, beaming into my new bedroom. My nervous system was so badly affected by the constant stimulation, I could not sleep and had to move out. I now live in an apartment where I cannot sleep in the bedroom because the electrical fields are in the red zone (as measured by a building biologist). I sleep in the living room and use the bedroom as a giant closet. You might say “just move out.” But this is the most affordable place I can find. My friend is very sensitive to wireless radiation and now lives in a barn on a farm outside of town because that is the only way he can reduce his exposure so he can sleep. It would be a miracle if HHS took this seriously and started to protect the people and wildlife by raising public awareness of the reality of wireless radiation. There is already ample evidence, based on thousands of scientific studies that have already been done. You don’t need to re-invent the wheel. Just evaluate the research that has already been done. Children’s Health Defense has a huge repository of evidence and testimony, and they can help you get started. I have attached a pdf of a summary of scientific studies that have already been done on this matter. May you have the courage to do the right thing.

I urge HHS to prioritize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems when evaluating cellphone-tower radiofrequency emissions. As a parent and concerned member of the public, I support independent investigation of sustained exposure, prompt correction of exposures shown to be harmful, and research into safer transmission methods. My central proposal concerns the frequencies and transmission characteristics emitted by cellphone towers themselves. I ask HHS to investigate whether carefully defined changes in carrier frequency, modulation, power, antenna configuration, or operating schedules could reduce adverse biological effects. I also support rigorous investigation of proposed harmonic transmission methods for any measurable biological benefit. “Harmonic” expresses my aspiration for technology compatible with living systems; a healing claim must be demonstrated through independently replicated research. Please evaluate repeated and long-term exposure under realistic conditions, including exposure from multiple transmitters. Studies should document frequency, intensity, duration, peaks, and changes in network traffic. Measurements should represent homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, farms, and wildlife habitats. Distance from a tower alone should not substitute for an exposure assessment. I request particular attention to children, pregnant people, workers with elevated exposure, and people with implanted medical devices, using evidence appropriate to each group. People reporting symptoms they associate with wireless environments deserve respectful medical evaluation and careful investigation. Reports should inform research without prematurely assuming or dismissing a causal connection. Animal findings warrant serious scrutiny. The National Toxicology Program reported heart schwannomas in male rats under its experimental RF exposure conditions. Falcioni and colleagues’ 2018 study of lifelong exposure to a 1.8 GHz GSM far field reported increased heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest exposure. These findings support further investigation; they do not directly establish the risk to humans living near modern towers. Human evidence, animal findings, and exposure differences should be evaluated transparently together. Ecological protection should be an explicit research priority. Please study relevant outcomes in pollinators, birds, livestock, plants, and aquatic organisms, including survival, reproduction, navigation, growth, and ecosystem function. Account for pesticides, habitat loss, artificial light, disease, weather, and other influences. Insect absorption models and bird electromagnetic-noise experiments raise specific research questions, but should not be generalized into proof that all cellular emissions harm wildlife. If credible evidence identifies harmful exposure, agencies should act to reduce it and verify that corrective measures work. Communities need accessible exposure reports, independent measurements, a clear complaint process, and timely explanations of findings. Research funding, conflicts of interest, methods, and negative results should be disclosed. Protective decisions should be accountable to evidence and public well-being. Proposed beneficial tower transmissions require equally rigorous evaluation. Researchers should specify the signal, compare it with matched conventional and sham exposures, control absorbed energy and temperature, and directly measure benefits and adverse effects. Any therapeutic application should undergo appropriate ethical and safety review before deployment. The research summarized in my accompanying document does not establish a tower frequency that heals people, animals, or water. My broader interest includes harmonious music, bells, singing bowls, prayer, and restorative environments. Music research supports benefits for selected outcomes such as pain and anxiety. These findings do not prove that musical frequencies carried by a wireless network make its RF emissions therapeutic. I also request fair, independent testing of hypotheses inspired by Masaru Emoto’s water-crystal work. Crystal appearance or changes in water spectra alone cannot demonstrate improved water quality, ecological restoration, or human healing. Please prioritize technology that serves life: investigate potential harm honestly, correct demonstrated problems, publish understandable evidence, and test promising alternatives without commercial pressure or predetermined conclusions. I support a responsible path toward safer, more biologically compatible communications infrastructure, including rigorous investigation of harmonic transmission proposals. My accompanying research document provides supporting sources, limitations, and detailed recommendations.

See attached file(s) IEEE Standards Association's 2019 guidelines to Human Exposure to EMF. Small edits were added in 2022 called "Corrigendum 2". Corrigendum 2 was appended to the standard as of June 29, 2022. This corrigendum addressed technical corrections, specifically fixing Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the original 2019 document which were found to be incorrect. Corrigendum 1 (C95.1-2019/Cor 1-2019) was incorporated directly into the 2019 publication and did not appear as a separate standalone standard. The core exposure limits and scientific basis established in the 2019 edition remain the active standard, with these corrigenda serving as necessary technical amendments to the documentation. 2019 IEEE Standards Association's guidelines remain the standard of safety reference still currently being used in the United States. Other countries however have their stricter safety standards applying to EMF exposure levels. France for example has more stringent safety standards and it is rumored that one of the latest iPhone models is banned from retail sale due to being too powerful and operates higher than European safety standards. Please have your professional staff reference the 2019 IEEE guidelines attached, I'm sure the staff has seen/heard of this standard before. Also ask staff to explore the safety standards in other European nations. With the rollout of 5G cellular networks in European states/countries, also came the beginnings of physical and mental health effects believe to be originated from 5G towers. Complaints are very similar to the now widely recognized "Havana Syndrome" or Anomalous Health Incidents.

I live in a small Canadian town that did not have 5G. Suddenly the 5G icon appeared on my work issued phone and I knew that it had been activated here without any warning or consultations. I grabbed my Safe and Sound 2 meter and went out and found the small cell located on a telephone pole at the end of street. The readings on my meter were in the "Extreme" range which means you should immediately leave the area. My house is about 150 ft from the small cell which is located between 2 residential homes, one of which has young children. I took a picture of it and sent it to my city council office. They didn't even know what it was or who it belonged to. After a 2 week investigation, they reported back that it was the property of a local internet provider Rogers Communications. Next, a neighbour contacted me to ask about a truck with a 50 foot antenna that was parked in front of my house while I was at work. This turned out to be a test being run by the Canadian Federal Government Communications Research Centre to "check levels". My house is about 150 ft from the small cell which is located between 2 residential homes, one of which has young children. The fact that the residents and city councilman were not even made aware that these small cells were being installed is outrageous. He said it's because telecommunications are under the Federal Government's responsibility. One of the homes beside it is now up for sale and the 2 homes beside That have already sold. It does seem odd that 3 homes in a row would all sell at the same time but now I'm speculating. I do everything I can to protect myself from the well known health hazards of EMF. That could have been installed outside me bedroom window and I would have had no say. This is deplorable! This technology and infrastructure is very dangerous and does not benefit those who have to live in its vicinity. It benefits corporations and the government while harming us. I am sensitive to EMF and would have had to move if they had installed next to me. The fact that the residents had no warning and were not given any opportunity to speak out is shameful government overreach especially when we know that safe levels of exposure have not even been established or properly tested for health. Profit over people is unacceptable and needs to be stopped.

Re: Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397, Request for Information on EMF/RF Exposure Question 2 (Perspective): I'm responding as an individual and family member. My husband and I are adults in our fifties who have dealt with RF exposure in our homes for many years. This response is based on our personal experience and our own measurements taken with a consumer RF meter. Question 3 (Experiences): a. Sources: wireless infrastructure (a small-cell node that was later replaced with a much larger unit), and rooftop solar systems on rental homes. b. Exposure: Over several years, we reduced RF in our Los Angeles bedroom to about 1 to 5 µW/m². Then the small-cell node outside our apartment was replaced with a unit about the size of a refrigerator. Our meter then read about 10,000 µW/m² in our living room and 30,000 µW/m² on our front step. In later rentals with rooftop solar, we measured very high readings in the bedroom. c/d. Health effects and timing: We both experienced increased inflammation, migraines and headaches, hormonal imbalance, trouble sleeping, fatigue, brain fog and difficulty concentrating, a persistent buzzing sensation and ringing in the ears, skin tingling or burning, heart palpitations, dizziness, irritability and anxiety, and joint and muscle aches. These began to ease once we reduced our bedroom exposure to 1 to 5 µW/m², and they returned after the larger node was installed. We now rent a home with rooftop solar panels, and all of these symptoms have come back. f. Steps to reduce exposure: While our bedroom stayed at 1 to 5 µW/m², we saw our health start to improve. Since the larger node went in, finding low-exposure housing has been a constant struggle, especially in the DC area. Question 5n (Regulatory changes): Exposure limits and siting rules should account for long-term, close-range residential exposure from infrastructure placed next to homes. That includes enforceable setbacks from bedrooms and living spaces. Question 9 (Disclosure): Residents should get advance public notice when wireless equipment near their homes is installed or upgraded. That notice should include the frequency bands and expected power levels. Rental listings should disclose nearby antennas and rooftop solar inverters. Question 15 (Infrastructure): Please study how small-cell deployments and their upgrades affect actual exposure inside nearby homes. In our case, one equipment swap raised the reading in our living room by thousands of times. Question 16 (Research priorities): Which frequency bands, signal types, and exposure levels are linked to harm. Practical, evidence-based ways for people to reduce their exposure at home. How people recover after exposure is reduced, and clinical guidance for doctors seeing patients who report these symptoms. Enforcement, meaning keeping bands found to be harmful out of residential areas. Thank you for considering this comment.

Curious to know if emf causes autoimmune issues. Both my son and I now have autoimmune diseases that we never experienced issues with before. We moved into a home right next to a cell tower.