Proposed biological mechanisms

2. I am submitting my response as a patient. 3. Clearly, anyone who claims that pulse-modulated radiofrequency (RF) radiation causes health problems has psychiatric problems, because I don’t experience any of these issues. This summarizes what people with EMR Syndrome face – denial that their illness could possibly be true. And yet, millions of people can eat peanuts and feel just fine, so how could anyone else have bad reactions to peanuts? Yet we know that severe allergic reactions to peanuts affect a subset of the population and society accommodates them through peanut-free zones, warning labels, and epinephrine availability. Similarly, some people have asthmatic reactions to smoke, dust, or chemical fragrances that don't affect others. Variability in biological sensitivity doesn't mean the reaction isn't real - it means we need to accommodate the vulnerable minority, not dismiss them based on the majority's experience. 3a. Technologies involved: cell phones, cell antennas, WiFi, Bluetooth, smart meters, municipal water meters (which communicate via the cellular network) and blind spot detection systems on new cars. 3b. The duration of exposure affects the severity of my symptoms and recovery time. 3c. I experience nausea, dizziness, sharp pains throughout my body, burning sensations, difficulty breathing (shortness of breath as well as my throat constricting), extreme fatigue, blurred vision, short term memory loss, difficulty concentrating, irregular heartbeat, a sensation of pressure, and changes in my voice which eventually leads to a complete inability to speak. 3d. My health effects first appeared in the year 2000 when I bought my first cell phone. I had used an analog cell phone prior to this with zero health effects. But my new cell phone used a digital signal. The first symptom was a burning sensation. Very quickly these sensations become more severe, other symptoms such as dizziness, difficulty concentrating, a sensation of pressure, and difficulty concentrating appeared. I purchased a new low SAR cell phone but that made no difference. When smart meters were deployed my health was immediately impacted. I could no longer spend time outdoors in my own yard or go for a walk in the neighborhood without getting sick. The only place I could get relief was in my unfinished basement. Blind spot detection systems on cars cause severe health problems for me, and the effects are instantaneous. It causes incredibly sharp pains and extreme fatigue. If I am exposed for a short duration, I quickly recover (even the fatigue disappears within minutes). But the longer I am exposed the more severe the symptoms become and the longer it takes me to recover. In the worst cases I need 2 days to fully recover. Traveling by airplane is very problematic now that most airlines have WiFi on board. My throat constricts and I have difficulty breathing, I become extremely fatigued, can barely keep my eyes open, have short term memory loss, very strong burning sensations in my eyes and have difficulty concentrating. 3e. Yes, I sought medical treatment. Due to the near constant exposure to pulse-modulated radiofrequency (RF) radiation I have double strand DNA breaks along with damaged gut, blood brain, and retinal barriers. And oxidative stress caused by exposure to RF radiation has resulted in high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which in turn is causing mitochondrial dysfunction. I have levels of inflammation that my physician has never seen before. My inflammation is much higher than the worst cases of crippling arthritis. And yet I do not have any joint pain. The inflammation, per my doctor, is directly caused by my exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation. 3f. I had shielded my previous home to block RF from reaching the interior. This made a huge improvement. However, that house later burned down. I moved into a new house only to discover that the water meter in the basement transmits usage via a cell signal every 15 seconds. If I shield the meter the water department cannot read my meter. If I shield the house to protect myself from the RF emitted by cell towers, neighbors WiFi and the electric company’s smart meters, then the signal from the water meter would bounce around inside the house making my health worse. So I have to spend most of my time (even during the day) inside a shielded bed canopy. It is a miserable way to live. I bought another house in an extremely rural area where there is no cell phone coverage. My doctor confirmed via lab tests that my body is now healing at a rapid rate, due to me moving to the low RF environment. However, she anticipates it may take 2 to 3 years or possibly longer for me to make a full recovery. And even then she believes I may need to stay living in the low RF environment, otherwise my health will begin deteriorating again. So this is a solution, but it is very isolated here, this is not where I want to live, and this is not the lifestyle I want.

Solar panels/Dirty Electricity/EMF affect your health, especially those who are immunocompromised. After having solar panels installed, I noticed a diabetic family member have exacerbated side effects, going from mild to extreme, so I did some research to further the connection. Indeed, there was a study for every side effect she was experiencing. This study shows how dirty electricity effects the ability to control blood sugar, putting oxidative stress on the body, affecting mood, vision, uti infections, skin infections, chronic fatigue, etc. Increasing evidence suggests that oxidative stress plays a crucial role in both the development and progression of diabetes. Doctors recommend exercise for patients with diabetes. However, if that exercise is done in an electromagnetically dirty environment (*under solar panels*), and if the patient is sensitive to this form of energy, it may increase stress on the body and elevate levels of plasma glucose, as in Case 2. The increasing exposure and ubiquitous nature of electromagnetic pollution may be contributing to the increasing incidence of this disease and the escalating cost of medical care. Diagnosis of diabetes needs to be done in an electromagnetically clean environment to prevent misdiagnosis, and to properly assess the severity of this disorder. Most medical centers have electronic equipment and use fluorescent lights that produce dirty electricity, which is likely to cause abnormally high blood sugar readings for those with a combination of diabetes and electrohypersensitivity (Type 3 diabetes). Dirty electricity may also explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty controlling their blood sugar levels. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2557071/ Several disorders, including asthma, ADD/ADHD, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, are increasing at an alarming rate, as is electromagnetic pollution in the form of dirty electricity, ground current, and radio frequency radiation from wireless devices. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17178585/ https://publish.kne-publishing.com/index.php/JEHSD/article/download/17386/16187/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387505304_The_Impact_of_Electromagnetic_Field_Exposure_on_Diabetes_A_Narrative_Review https://www.jidmr.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/69-M22_1779_Hava_BEKTAS%CC%A7_Turkiye.pdf https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09553002.2018.1490039 Not only are there adverse health effects, solar panels contain toxic substances that require them to be disposed of as hazardous waste, paid for by homeowner. In the event of crack or break, toxic substances may leak onto roof and ground. Solar panels also harbor mold, damaging roof, which could potentially infest attics resulting in costly mold remediation and new roof.

I became aware of electromagnetic fields after living over 10 years within 100 feet of a neighborhood power line and measuring exposures with a gaussmeter. These fields negatively impact mood, energy, sleep quality, skin health (increased redness and decreased elasticity), and hair health (increased dryness and thinning.) Radio frequencies typically produce similar effects. Electric distribution infrastructure produces multiple forms of electromagnetic fields, some of which can extend hundreds of feet and enter homes. These fields can be substantially reduced or eliminated through established engineering alternatives. According to EPRI, arranging conductors (wires) in a compact-delta (triangular) configuration reduces magnetic field emissions by 60–90%.[1] This avoids the higher cost of under-grounding. Utility companies should not be allowed to use multi-grounded four-wire systems because these can produce ground currents that spread laterally through the earth for hundreds of feet. Many countries do not allow such systems. Alternatives include uni-wye, delta, or five-wire systems. According to a 1998 report to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, artificial electromagnetic exposures create "internal electric fields" and potentially decrease concentrations of dopamine and serotonin.[2] The Cleveland Clinic lists health factors affected by serotonin, including focus, emotional stability, relaxation, and bone density.[3] Anyone living or walking within a few hundred feet of utility infrastructure is potentially affected by the resulting emissions. A Health Officer for California's Santa Cruz County noted in 2012 that the utility neutral bonded to water pipes causes adverse electromagnetic exposure.[4] In addition to the biological impacts of multi-grounded four-wire systems, the earth has exponentially higher resistance than metal conductors,[5] so using the earth as a conductor is energy inefficient and creates energy losses, causing additional costs for ratepayers and higher profits for utility companies. Utility smart meters contain antennas that generate radio-frequency emissions on connected wiring and in neighborhoods. Smart-meter deployment can involve costs of billions of dollars. According to IEEE member Tim Schoechle, utility smart meters have little to no demonstrable benefit to society.[6] In 2011, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan described legislation promoting smart meters as an attempt by utility companies to "protect their revenues for the next decade at great expense to consumers..."[7] Similar critiques of smart meters were made by Connecticut's Attorney General in 2011,[8] and Michigan's Attorney General in 2013.[9] Smart meters contain "hazardous materials" according to the International Electrotechnical Commission.[10] Smart meters use rare earth elements that raise financial costs, increase demand for scarce materials, and create environmental and disposal challenges. The International Electrotechnical Commission notes, "With traditional electromechanical designs and life spans of several decades, use of hazardous materials and safe disposal of decommissioned meters is not an issue." I appreciate the Department of Health and Human Services is addressing these issues. Please contact LinLinHanGou@gmail.com for additional information. [1] https://restservice.epri.com/publicdownload/TR-106003/0/Product [2] https://mn.gov/puc/assets/dairy_cow_response_final_report_tcm14-12009.pdf [3] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22572-serotonin [4] http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Health-Risks-Associated-With-SmartMeters.pdf [5] https://ep2000.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/EP-White-Paper-System-Ground.pdf [6] https://gettingsmarteraboutthesmartgrid.org/pdf/Smart%20Grid%20Report%203-15-13.pdf [7] https://www.chicagotribune.com/2011/06/21/an-experiment-too-expensive-for-consumers/ [8] https://smartgridlegalnews.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/517/2011/02/ConnAG_brief.pdf [9] https://www.annarbor.com/DTE-SMART-METERS_ATTORNEY-GENERAL-OPINION.pdf [10] https://www.iec.ch/public/miscfiles/sbp/13.pdf

My friend was severely harmed by a Wi-Fi router installed in his home without his consent. He was severely impacted. Time away from the home he improved and then repeated exposure impacted him again. He removed the Wi-Fi router and reinstalled his wired router but then other family members kept reinstalling the Wi-Fi because they said it was not the cause of his problem because it was within FCC guidelines and also the internet company that kept reinstalling the Wi-Fi router told the family it was "safe". This happened several times by going against his wishes and deceitfully putting Wi-Fi back. The Wi-Fi pulsed modulated radiation was the agent of harm and my friend knew it but was his wishes were not respected. This is a tragedy with the consequences of a very sad outcome from a product put in his home without his consent that had harmful biological effects. Request is to have all devices, products with radio frequency to inform the risks and get consent before selling or installing such products. Industry needs to take responsibility to inform and not deny harm when the research shows the mechanisms of harm from pulsed modulated microwave radiation and be held accountable. Education to the public to raise awareness of the harms would be helpful and put some responsibility back on the persons that deny that microwave radiation is harmful without doing the research. Thank you for addressing these issues and caring about human health.

To: HHS Re: RFI for EMF exposure and human health Date: October 21, 2026 My focus in the paragraphs below is: wireless communications transmissions in the human environment. Prevalence of Wireless Communications EMF (microwaves) in the human environment: Why should we be concerned about possible chronic human health effects of exposure to wireless communications EMF transmissions? (1) In the human occupied current environment of cities and towns, ambient microwave levels (power density) are typically circa a billion-fold higher than ambient levels prior to the creation by humans of microwave-emitting devices (i.e. the ambient environment thruout the entire history of planet earth prior to circa early 1900s). Hence life on earth prior to the early 1900s existed and evolved in environments with ambient background levels of microwaves that likely did not exceed a power flux density of one picowatt per square meter. Furthermore, wireless communications transmissions are coherent, polarized, and pulsed, unlike those naturally occurring transmissions in the microwave range (e.g. from the sun; though little of this penetrates the atmosphere). Living organisms therefor have not been adapted to surviving, reproducing, and evolving in environments of high levels of exposure to coherent, polarized, and pulsed microwave radiation; and we do not currently have adequate information to firmly assess how significant any long-term deleterious effects of the current microwave exposure environment is for living organisms (in the terrestrial biosphere), including humans. (2) Microwave communications transmissions penetrate into the cells of all living terrestrial organisms, including humans. Within animals such as humans, after penetrating thru the outer layers (hair or scales or feathers, etc.) and outer layers of the epidermis, the incident microwave radiation is partially absorbed and partially transmitted thru the various tissues and organs, with a fraction of the incident radiation exiting the body of the organism and a fraction of the incident radiation being absorbed within the body of the organism. Extinction depths in animal flesh for microwave transmission are largely dependent on the microwave frequency; being shorter for higher frequency microwaves. At current ambient microwave levels in cities and towns, every cell in the body of every organism is being exposed to a significant fraction of the power flux density of ambient microwave radiation at all times. This is unlike incident radiation in the IR thru ultraviolet frequencies, which do not penetrate thru the outer layers of the epidermis. Like the much more energetic x-ray and gamma ray radiation quanta, microwave radiation penetrates into and is partially absorbed within and partially transmitted thru the bodies of animals. Prudent Action: It is my understanding that there is currently no government agency tasked with monitoring and characterizing the levels of wireless communications EMF radiation in the human environment. As a consequence, the characteristics (e.g. power densities, frequency bands, modulations including pulsations, etc.) of the current microwave-permeated environment that nearly all humans live in is not well known, let alone established. It may be prudent to begin to develop a baseline of some basic measured characteristics of wireless communications EMF radiation that is present in the human (and greater biosphere) environment. Imagine 20 and more years from now with ever-increasing levels of wireless communications radiation in the human environment; it may be of great value to have a baseline of measurements in the human environment from the 2020s, much like the earlier baselines we have for air pollution. The EPA may be a suitable candidate tasked with ensuring such ambient monitoring of the human environment for ambient microwave characteristics, which could be organized and performed in much the same way as is done for chemical and particulate air pollutants. Who knows what the future will bring in terms of findings of the chronic effects of microwave communications EMFs on human health? Note: Support for technical discussion above is sourced mainly from peer-reviewed literature I've read over the past decade (apologies, ran out of time to find citations), some basic knowledge of the workings of wireless communication devices, and my background & experience in varied engineering and applied research fields. Sincerely, Dr. James C. Trask Davis, CA Pertinent Biography: Academic: BA Applied Physics; MA Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; MS Chemical Engineering Employment History: Electrical Engineer & Materials Scientist 1980s, Biochemical Engineer 1990s

Thank you for requesting input from the public on a topic that has impacts on everyone. Yet I would honestly be shocked if any of this translates into concrete actions that protect the public from the many negative health effects of radiofrequency radiation. So far, the playbook has proceed as with other things that produce both large profits and significant harm - create the illusion of safety by setting standards that don't reflect reality, claim emissions are within the limits, and design some studies to obfuscate harms, and other studies to cast doubt on the higher-quality studies which have found clear harms. As with many other things, when industry had an undue influence in science, it can be technically true to make claims that sound assuring, about regulatory limits or studies finding no evidence of harm, yet actually be gaslighting - because the limits, and the studies, are designed to not honestly reflect the true impacts. And the health health of everyone – adults, children, the unborn, and our animal companions, as well as the well-being and productivity of our nation, suffers. This link is extremely informative regarding industry influence in the "science" that's used to gaslight the public about safety of wireless radiation from cell towers, cell phones, wifi routers, and the many, many, many, constantly expanding sources that increase everyone's proximity radiofrequency radiation. These studies are valuable in their own right, and indispensable to the bigger picture - where industry sponsored studies, often indirectly sponsored, pollute the information environment and give assurances of safety that do not stand up to scrutiny when followed all the way down: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/industry-influence-in-science/ With the false premise that only ionizing radiation is capable of harm, limits are set based on thermal heating that ignore the many ways cellular processes are disrupted by non-thermal exposure. This is wrong. It is scientifically, and morally, obviously, wrong. Enclosed are some of many studies showing negative health impacts from the shortsighted rush to expand wireless infrastructure, as well as studies explaining why the narrative around what is safe is a giant gaslight, while our country gets more chronically ill every day. Inclusions: The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Provide No Assurance of Safety. Scientific Evidence Invalidates Health Assumptions Underlying the FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limit Determinations for Radiofrequency Radiation: Implications for 5G The Carcinogenic Potential of non-Ionizing Radiation If by some miracle this reaches anyone who cares more about humanity than about covering up harm for short term gain, thank you. Sincerely, Ellen Osuna

The Tri-Service Program incorrectly presumed that the only effects from radiation were thermal and they were not cumulative. A compendium of over two thousand early research publications studying the health effects from exposure to MW radiation can be found at ZoryGlaser.com. In addition, here is an interview with microwave expert Barrie Trower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxrBLO1rAMM. The maximum limit for microwave exposure was set with insufficient data and was influenced by industry and the military-industrial complex.

BoscoHPFB 25 weeks ago Two years later update on dissipating the ionic charge that I think is responsible for most of the DEW symptoms. If you can prevent the charge from accumulating, I think it reduces the ability of the AI to see you, and therefore target the weapons on you. Anyway, now I use two anti-static foot straps, (only when sleeping). The reason to use the foot strap type of anti-static (even when one is worn on the hand) is because all of the anti-static wrist straps have metal on them, and that metal will be targeted and it is not tolerable if the AI does that. The foot strap type are available in versions with no metal and a woven or flat braided fabric cord. So I wear one anti-static on my right hand (or stuff it into a disposable nitrile glove worn on the right hand) and then the other foot strap on the right foot. Both of these connected to an automotive jumper cable that is connected to the copper or galvanized hot water line of the house. I think the hot water line is better because I think the water itself can store the ionic charge - or if you have tankless water heater there is a big lump of copper there for the heating coils that the AI can target and build up a charge. Make sure the water lines both hot and cold are connected to a ground rod.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the serious health impacts of EMF radiation on the human body. EMF is negatively impactful to children and adults in the following categories: NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS CARCENEGETIC EFFECTS INFLAMATORY EFFECTS (OXIDATIVE STRESS) I am a physician with over 40 years of clinical experience. Please consult the scientific articles referenced below for clear evidence of these effects. The best background paper of all of these is: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health Environmental Research Published July 2018 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355 I will also comment that EMF radiation is widespread in hospital settings with the extensive use of WiFi enabled instruments. By permitting these signals to remain in hospitals, students, providers, teachers, patients, and the care team will all be detrimentally impacted. While it is very disappointing that HHS and the FCC have been slow to recognize the volume of evidence corroborating these serious health impacts----it is never too late to enact rules that will better protect the public going forward. Thank you for your consideration of this important scientific evidence of the harmful impacts of EMF radiation on the human body. REFERENCES 1. THE IMPACT OF EMF ON THE NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN i. Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics 2020;63(11):422-428. Published online: May 26, 2020 https://www.e-cep.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3345/cep.2019.01494 ii. Environmental and auto-induced RF-EMF adult and children far-field exposure simulations between 450 MHz and 26 GHz Physics in Medicine & Biology, Volume 71, Number 17 Published 2 September 2026 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6560/ae97ac/pdf 2. CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF EMF i. The interplay of heart rate variability and ventricular repolarization parameters in the obese state: a review Cardiovascular Endocrinology & Metabolism Published March 2025. https://www.ovid.com/jnls/cardiovascularendocrinology/fulltext/10.1097/xce.0000000000000323~the-interplay-of-heart-rate-variability-and-ventricular?context=latestarticles ii. Exposure to cell phones reduces heart rate variability in both normal-weight and obese normotensive medical students Explore (NY) Published Jul-Aug 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32249199/ 3. CARCENEGETIC EFFECTS OF EMF i. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health Environmental Research Published July 2018 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355 II. Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices Sec. Radiation and Health Volume 7 - 2019 Published 12 August 2019 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223/full 4. INFLAMATORY EFFECTS (OXIDATIVE STRESS) OF EMF i. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective Environ Pollution Published Nov. 2018 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30025338/ ii. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation Electromagnetic Biology Medicine Published July 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/

Children should not be treated as small adults in RF/EMF research or risk assessment. Pregnancy, infancy, childhood, and adolescence are periods of rapid growth including and not exclusive of neurological, immune, endocrine, reproductive, and metabolic development. However, children today are growing up in an electromagnetic environment that is not only fundamentally different from that experienced by previous generations, but are receiving extensive, undocumented and unstudied cumulative exposures. Wi-Fi, cell phones, tablets, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, wireless baby monitors, smartwatches, wireless classrooms, IVs, and increasingly wireless medical devices add to a child's overall exposure beginning very early in life (preconceptually and fetal exposures as well). The available pediatric research remains inadequate to answer some fundamental questions. A 2022 systematic review by Bodewein and colleagues examined 42 epidemiological and 11 experimental studies involving children and adolescents. Evidence regarding cognition, behavior, and subjective symptoms was judged low to inadequate, while evidence regarding early childhood development, brain activity, cancer, and physiological outcomes was considered inadequate for drawing conclusions. Investigators cautioned that these findings should not be interpreted as demonstrating that RF exposure is safe for children. An absence of demonstrated harm is not equivalent to demonstrated long-term safety. Those of us with concerns are neither 'anti-science' or 'anti-technology'. Wireless medical devices such as the continuous blood glucose monitor (CGM) require a more nuanced approach. I care for children with type 1 diabetes who depend upon CGMs. The clinical benefits of these devices are significant and potentially lifesaving. A medically necessary CGM should therefore not be treated as equivalent to a smartwatch simply because both use wireless technology. Looking at comparative dosimetry across common pediatric devices would help clinicians and families make rational decisions based upon actual exposure and benefit rather than fear. I also encourage HHS to examine exposures in electric and Waymo-type vehicles. A published study measuring extremely low-frequency magnetic fields in the rear seats of ten electric vehicles specifically considered children because their smaller bodies may place them closer to electrical systems beneath the vehicle floor. The measured magnetic fields were far below current international exposure limits, which is reassuring. This does not answer the question of long-term developmental exposure. Research must characterize passenger-compartment exposures by seating position and age, and evaluation the following conditions: acceleration, cruising, regenerative braking, and other real-world operating conditions. Manufacturers should be held to provide consumers and researchers with standardized measurements of the electromagnetic environment inside their vehicles. The most important research gap is cumulative exposure. Children do not experience wireless technologies one at a time. A child awakens in a Wi-Fi- home, wears a smartwatch to soccer practice, uses Bluetooth earbuds at the gym (I see this all the time in High Schoolers), carry an iPhone in their back pocket or bra, spend six hours in a wireless school environment, travel in an EV, return to a home containing numerous wireless devices including Alexa, and sleep near a phone or a phone under their pillow. A medically complex child can have additional wireless medical technology as mentioned. Please prioritize: -Longitudinal studies during pregnancy, following children through adolescence. -Pediatric dosimetry that reflects age, body size, individualized physiology, device placement, and real-world use. -Long-term studies of all physically wireless devices. -Comparative exposure studies of medically necessary versus discretionary wireless technologies. -Studies of cumulative RF/EMF exposure across the home, school, transportation, medical, and recreational environments. -Independent characterization of passenger exposures in electric and Waymo-type vehicles. -Public health educational programs including the use of nonessentials, like wi-fi baby monitors. Research examining biological effects below existing federal exposure limits, including mechanistic studies addressing oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, calcium signaling, inflammation, sleep, neurodevelopment, reproductive health, metabolism, and immune function, and effects on the microbiome while clearly distinguishing reproducible findings from preliminary or conflicting evidence. Precaution does not require panic, fear, or neuroses, nor does scientific uncertainty establish harm. But uncertainty should also not be mistaken for proof of long-term safety. Thank you for your serious investigation of this issue.