Research & federal duties

I am writing as a concerned parent of three young children to express my support for greater research, transparency, and public awareness regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation exposure. Our children are growing up in an environment with nearly constant exposure to wireless technologies, including Wi-Fi routers, cell phones, tablets, smart devices, and wireless systems in schools. While these technologies provide many benefits, I believe we need a better understanding of the potential long-term health effects of cumulative exposure, particularly for developing children. I respectfully urge federal agencies to: * Prioritize independent, long-term studies examining chronic RF exposure, particularly in children and other potentially vulnerable populations. * Investigate potential biological effects beyond tissue heating, while carefully evaluating the quality and reproducibility of the evidence. * Reevaluate current safety standards in light of modern wireless technologies, changing exposure patterns, and emerging scientific findings. * Encourage practical, low-cost exposure reduction measures in schools and homes, including access to wired internet connections when feasible. * Increase public transparency regarding exposure levels, research findings, and the scientific basis for safety guidelines. As a parent, I believe we should not have to choose between technological advancement and taking reasonable precautions to protect our children’s health. I am not advocating for fear or the elimination of wireless technology. I am asking for responsible oversight, rigorous independent research, and a precautionary approach where meaningful scientific uncertainties remain. Our children deserve thoughtful, evidence-based policies that prioritize their long-term health and well-being. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.

We have a digital meter on our home outside our kitchen window. It is not a smart meter but it is a wireless meter for reading purposes. When I sit at the kitchen table the digital meter is about 5 to 6 feet away on the other side of the kitchen window on the outside wall. I almost immediately start to have an upper chest pain start up and go across my entire chest. It will persist when I sit in this chair close to the wall with the digital meter on the other side. This only happens when I sit at this kitchen chair that is close to the digital meter on the outside wall. When I get up and move and walk away the pain subsides. Even if I am cooking in the kitchen I do not have this pain. It only happens when I am stationary sitting at this chair that is close to the outside meter. The EMF's from this digital meter I do feel within our home and have to be detrimental because of the symptoms I experience only when I sit close to this digital meter. No one else in the home uses this kitchen chair to sit at during the day. Please investigate the EMFs emitting from the digital meters and the smart meters.

I am very curious and concerned about the effects of EMFs on the body and brain. In addition to addressing 5G towers I think it is pertinent to also look at the EMFs stemming from autonomous cars and delivery robots. Is it a health hazard to ride in an autonomous car? Is it a health hazard to be next to one unwillingly in traffic?

As a mother of two children living in Sandy, Utah, I am deeply concerned about the cell tower located at Sprucewood Elementary School, where my son attends school. Every day, parents send their children to school trusting that their health, safety, and well-being are being prioritized. Children spend approximately seven hours a day, five days a week, at school during critical stages of physical, cognitive, and neurological development. My greatest concern is the potential long-term impact of radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure on children’s developing brains and nervous systems. Children are not simply small adults. Their brains are still developing, and I believe federal safety standards should specifically account for their unique developmental needs and the possibility of cumulative environmental exposures throughout childhood. While current scientific evidence has not established that exposure from cell towers operating within federal safety limits causes neurological harm, questions remain about long-term exposure beginning early in life. I believe those questions deserve continued independent research and careful consideration. I am especially concerned about the placement of telecommunications equipment directly on elementary school campuses. Even when equipment complies with existing regulations, parents deserve transparency about exposure levels, monitoring procedures, and the decisions that led to its installation. I respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services: 1. Prioritize independent research examining the long-term neurological, cognitive, and developmental effects of RF exposure during childhood. 2. Review whether current federal RF exposure guidelines adequately account for children’s developing brains and nervous systems. 3. Encourage independent, publicly accessible RF exposure measurements at elementary schools where cell towers are located. 4. Investigate alternative locations for telecommunications equipment that would reduce unnecessary exposure concerns in school environments. 5. Evaluate whether additional precautionary measures or recommendations regarding cell tower placement on elementary school properties are warranted. 6. Encourage greater parental involvement and transparency when decisions are made about installing or maintaining cell towers on school property. I am specifically requesting that the cell tower at Sprucewood Elementary School in Sandy, Utah, be evaluated for removal or relocation. I understand that wireless technology plays an important role in modern society. However, I also believe technological convenience and infrastructure needs should be balanced with thoughtful consideration of children’s health and development. As a parent, I should not have to wonder whether my child’s daily learning environment has been adequately evaluated for long-term environmental exposure. I am not asking the government to assume that harm has occurred. I am asking for meaningful research, transparency, independent testing, and a precautionary approach when evaluating potential risks to children. Our children only get one childhood, and their developing brains deserve careful consideration when decisions are made about the environments where they spend so much of their lives. Thank you for allowing parents to participate in this important discussion and for considering the health and well-being of future generations.

Diagnosed with a Giant Cell Tumor in 2023 at my distal right femoral condyle approximately 3 cm spherical bone mass. I had been carrying my cell phone in my right pants leg pocket that ended approximately 5 cm from the where the tumor was discovered. I have been healthy to date. Got the Johnson & Johnson Covid shot in 2021 as forced to keep my job. Is the tumor coincidence or is there a cause and effect? I’m 65 years old. Giant Cell Tumors typically are limited to younger people.

Hello, I implore you to study the effects of new technology on the population before ots approved to roll out.

• U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP): A $30 million large-scale rodent study reported "clear evidence" of malignant schwannomas in the hearts of male rats exposed to high levels of 2G/3G radiofrequency radiation (RFR), alongside some evidence of brain gliomas and DNA damage in certain tissues. • Ramazzini Institute: A large rodent study mirrored findings from the NTP, observing similar heart and brain tumor increases at lower exposure levels that closely mimic environmental cell tower exposures. • Cellular and DNA Research: Multiple in vitro and animal studies (including reviews indexed via PubMed) suggest that RF radiation can increase oxidative stress, trigger cellular inflammation, or cause single- and double-strand DNA breaks under specific experimental conditions. Here are two studies, one from the National Cancer Institute and the other from the National Institute for Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6701402/ https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

The science is well established. Public opinion cannot enter into decisions based on physics and biology.

The government should be requiring all devices that emit radiation to undergo randomized testing and reporting. The emitted levels should be considered healthy or otherwise a warning issued. If no one can decide what is considered healthy, experiments should be conducted and results finalized. There is special concern over wearable devices where there is no long term evidence of safety. Any products with unknown causes of harm should be properly labeled so.

Grok has made this website with SAR data from phones. Maybe the downloadable spreadsheet or the websites search filter can be useful somehow. https://sar-data.grok.me/ Take note that there are different measurement types used in EU and US and in general. Such as head, trunk and limb measurements. But also "1g" and "10g" measurements. The FCC (US), ANFR (France) and BFS (Germany) also have data on SAR you can find. The Grok made website uses data from Apple. Here are the other websites. The FCC has this website, where there is an advanced search tool that may come in handy. https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid here is Apple. https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure here is the French ANFR. https://data.anfr.fr/explore/dataset/das-telephonie-mobile And the German BSF. https://www.bfs.de/SiteGlobals/Forms/Suche/BfS/EN/SARsuche_Formular.html I think the Grok or other LLM search tools can be easier to use for searching. So long as links are verifiable and sources included.