Research & federal duties

I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment. I have been personally affected by wireless radiation, in the form of burning and debilitating sensations in my hand and arm from holding my cell phone. I have had to limit handling a cell phone, and keep it on a holder or stand or away from my person as often as possible. I also stay as far away from our wireless router as I can in our home. I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on that. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.

I very much support HHS's involvement in studying (including reviewing published independent non-conflict of interest studies) the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation on human health (particularly children and other vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women) and the environment (animals, plants, etc), given that it has the expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health that the FCC does not. These studies should also include long-term consequences and cumulative exposure, and should not include any conflict of interest industry input. Also, I believe that whatever studies the HHS does, should be transparent so that independent, non-conflict of interest scientists can replicate them. And once HHS has completed their studies, analysis, etc., the necessary protections to public health and the environment should be implemented. Herein, I will refer to the 3 areas the HHS will be studying as electromagnetic radiation, although I am aware that the more correct phrase would be non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. The FCC has been negligent in this area – 1) touting its 1996 guidelines used to determine the safety limits of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, even though there have been massive increases in the levels of electromagnetic radiation since then, due to advances in the technology; 2) relying on studies done in the 1980's (on animals) which focused only on the thermal factors affecting health, and not on the effects on cells, DNA, and possibly other factors, that could affect human and animal health; 3) ignoring for 5 years, a court order to update their 1996 guidelines to the current date; 4) ignoring the voluminous independent, non-conflict of interest studies that clearly show a DNA, etc. harm to human health and the environment. Based on just these 4 listings of negligence, it is clear to me that the FCC is more concerned about the interests of the industry than the health of the public and the environment, and therefore we need the HHS to take the lead on this. I do not have a story of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation on myself, and no one I know has expressed any of these issues. However, in the last 5 years, I have listened to, and read articles by, independent non-conflict of interest scientists that say that my body (cells, DNA, etc) may be continuously affected without my awareness and eventually lead to a symptom or illness. Also I am aware that citizens have reported becoming very ill from electromagnetic radiation and strongly believe that it would be very beneficial for HHS, in its investigations/studies of the harmful effects of this radiation, to listen to the stories of these ill people. Also, I am aware that parents have reported their concerns about the growing presence of wireless devices and screen-based technology in schools. Therefore, based on the above, I am very concerned about the health and environmental impacts from the following: 1) cell towers going up at an accelerated pace, many in areas that already have sufficient broadband access, such as my community; 2) the smart meter on the side of my garage; 3) the increases from 5G to 6G and further, which will increase the electromagnetic radiation we are subject to; 4) the small cell towers that they will need to put on properties every 700 or so ft. in order to accommodate the 5G or up cell phones; 5) my wifi router, which sits right next to my desktop computer. On the legislative front, I am appalled that the 1996 Telecommunications Act, in Section 704, does not allow local authorities, representing its citizens, to deny cell tower infrastructure on the basis of health and environment. I am sure that was done because they knew that health and environment would be the biggest effect of the increased electromagnetic radiation. Also, I wasn't happy that the US Congress recently, in a proposed bill (HR2289) that was defeated, attempted to take away all local governments' authority with regard to cell phone infrastructure. And of course, the industry captured FCC was parroting that bill with their own proposed regulations, which also were dropped for now. So to conclude, since Congress and the FCC are clearly captured by the telecommunications industry, and therefore more concerned with the interests of the industry than the health of the public and the environment, we need HHS to step in and reverse that course. And while HHS is doing this, there should be a moratorium on any expansion of electromagnetic radiation in our communities. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to you. Janice

October 21, 2026 HHS Request for Information on EMF and wireless radiation: Docket Number: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Studies specifically on the higher frequencies used by 5G and close-proximity small cells are totally lacking, indicating the significant need for more research. Some reports point to concerning trends about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relying on outdated standards and brushing off evidence of potential harm. No one knows how this will affect bee populations, birds, other wildlife besides the close proximity to living areas for humans, expecially children, babies, pregnant women, or the elderly. In some cases these 5G small cells have been placed right outside someone's house near bedrooms The FCC is a compromised agency ignoring the science that already has shown harm from close proximity to non-ionizing radiation exposures. My comments are based on peer reviewed research. Question 11: “Should exposure assessment or risk evaluation differ for sensitive populations such as those noted below? Please explain.” ANSWER: Yes it should be evaluated totally differently due to the higher risk to children and pregnant women that can be as high as 10x more of a risk factor than that to a 25 year old male risk factor. Also many of these exposure limits are determined by a plastic mannikin head for thermal effects only. These are all totally outdated risk assessments. (References applicable to this statement found here: “Research on Children’s Vulnerability to Cell Phone Radio-frequency Radiation” https://ehtrust.org/research-on-childrens-vulnerability-to-cell-phone-radio-frequency-radiation/ ). Question 12 and 13: ANSWER - For more on scientific studies these weblinks below hereby incorporated by reference at 1. and 2. and 3. that includes numerous citations: 1. “5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype” https://www.saferemr.com/2017/11/5g-wireless-technology-cutting-through.html ). 2. Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: “What research tells us about an ecosystem approach” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9732734/ B Blake Levitt 1,*, Henry C Lai 2,*, Albert M Manville II 3,* Abstract “There is enough evidence to indicate we may be damaging non-human species at ecosystem and biosphere levels across all taxa from rising background levels of anthropogenic non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) from 0 Hz to 300 GHz. The focus of this Perspective paper is on the unique physiology of non-human species, their extraordinary sensitivity to both natural and anthropogenic EMF, and the likelihood that artificial EMF in the static, extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) ranges of the non-ionizing electromagnetic spectrum are capable at very low intensities of adversely affecting both fauna and flora in all species studied. Any existing exposure standards are for humans only; wildlife is unprotected, including within the safety margins of existing guidelines, which are inappropriate for trans-species sensitivities and different non-human physiology. Mechanistic, genotoxic, and potential ecosystem effects are discussed.”. . . Go to link for complete abstract. 3. The FCC’s reliance on outdated EMF/RF exposures based on thermal effects only shows the very dangerous policy oversight of the FCC by ignoring thousands of published, peer reviewed studies showing biological harm at non-thermal levels for a number of frequencies. For more on scientific studies these two weblinks hereby incorporated by reference: ‘Americans For Responsible Technology’ https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies and ‘Physicians For Safe Technology’ https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/ To conclude, I implore the HHS to work with scientists that are not funded by the telecom industry so you can truly help to protect the public and our biosphere from negative impacts of exposures to microwave technologies; the data that says these exposures are safe are seriously lacking and putting all of us at risk now and for future generations.

Safe Tech International is a not-for-profit organization advocating for safe technology. A 34-page report issued in 1976 by the Defense Intelligence Agency titled "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) – Eurasian Communist Countries, analyzed a number of Soviet and Eastern block research studies that demonstrated a wide range of adverse biological effects from exposure to radio frequency and microwave radiation. In its summary, the report issued a “Smoking Gun” warning: “If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions." The rest is history – The US chose technological/industrial expansion and military might over the health and well-being of humans, wildlife, and perhaps even Earth herself. The time is long overdue to mend our ways. So we are particularly grateful to HHS for opening this conversation. Before responding to your questions, we offer two suggestions to consider: 1. The effects of technology and AI are far broader than just the health impacts of RF/EMFs. Other areas include psycho-social effects, screen-time addiction, e-waste, conflict minerals, energy consumption, data centers, cyber security, pollution of the skies, surveillance/privacy, info/cyber & EMS warfare, and perhaps our very humanity itself…what it means to be alive. HHS may wish to look into how any or all of these impact health and/or the environment. 2. The need to solicit input on the health of RF/EMFs begs the question as to why in the US we have so much wireless technology polluting our airwaves when a robust fiber or wired infrastructure would be far safer for both humans and wildlife. Currently, the US ranks 32nd out of 38 OECD countries for fiber-to-the-home. With a more robust wired infrastructure, we would be far less reliant on wireless, and less saturated with chaotic RF fields in our environments. Moreover, fiber is safer, faster, more reliable, resilient, cyber secure, energy efficient, and lasts for decades. Along with it, we would need honest public education on the benefits of wired and the harms of wireless, so people could make more informed choices as to when, where, and how much to use a given technology. We respond to specific HHS questions below. Question 7 – To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no accurate ways to measure either individual or population exposure levels. We don’t have sophisticated enough monitoring equipment to capture the different ambient RF fields which include modulations, peak pulses, beam forming, etc.; assess the absorption and reflection of building materials, clothing, nature, and the ground itself; ascertain the usage, size, location, position, and health of each human and animal; factor in countless other synergistic effects such as mold, Lyme, dirty electricity, pharmaceuticals etc., all of which affect the potency and nature of exposures. In our opinion, these variables make such a characterization far too complex to assess. Question 9 – The public should be informed honestly, openly, and objectively of the health harms of RF/EMFs, and of “best practices” in using technolgy judiciously and wisely. The information shared should be based on independent science and common sense, and made available (and shown by example) in schools, hospitals, workplaces, libraries, and in every venue possible, until the health harms of RF/EMFs are as well understood as those of opium. Question 13 – It doesn’t take much science to understand that if you add one technology on top of another, it will increase exposure. But it does require more study and nuance to appreciate that the synergistic effects of exposure to different toxins can have an overall impact greater than the sum of the parts. This would apply as well to combinations, variations, and permutations of RF/EMFs. Questions 12 and 14 – The science is overwhelming with thousands of peer-reviewed studies dating back over 60 years and more appearing daily showing adverse health impacts from RF/EMFs above and below FCC “safety” guidelines. Here’s a link to just one such list, https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms SafeTechInternational.org offers an overview of the many and multifaceted ways technology is negatively impacting our world, and (due to how it’s being stewarded) is heading us toward a civilizational tipping point/existential cliff. The website gives an overview of how exponential technological growth affects our health, the environment, e-waste, conflict minerals, energy consumption, our minds and hearts, cyber security, AI, pollution of the skies, EHS, surveillance/privacy, and is increasing the lethality of war through three new forms of warfare. The website also offers a vision for a better way forward. Thank you, The Team at Safe Tech International

Thank you for reading this. Please do what is right for our children and our children’s children. You’ll find cell phone radiation is very similar to tobacco. Cell phones are very addictive and have a significant, detrimental health effects and sadly the impact won’t be discovered until years after extraordinary damage has already been done. Please step up and do what is right for the health and wellbeing of humanity and frankly all life on the planet. For the radiation is harmful to all living beings (plants, animals and humans). Many have died do to the effects of cellphone radiation. Many others suffer daily. Many are completely unaware of the dangers and the long term harm being created.Please, Please, please protect the public rather than corporate profits. In 2019 a colleague of mine facilitated the passage, in Oregon, of SB283 which was to review science to determine whether children in schools are safe being exposed to high power wi-fi routers and other wireless devices in the classroom. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House. While lobbying the bill and gathering information he interviewed 2 children who had to leave school due to microwave sickness caused by RF in the school. He also met 2 teachers, one in Los Angeles with the same condition. The teacher in L.A. sued the school and won the lawsuit. The results of the science review by the Oregon Health Authority, quoting the first draft: "All studies showed worse health outcomes, all studies showed harm to reproductive organs..." The draft was withheld from a FOIA request and later obtained by journalist, Dan Forbes, who wrote a lengthy article about the corrupt handling and the crime committed by OHA in withholding from a FOIA request. In addition, commercial insurance companies will no longer insure for "harm from exposure to electromagnetic frequencies" This is an industry wide practice that has taken affect years ago. Cell telephone advertising shows people with the phone against their heads yet companies warn to keep the phone an inch from the body. I always wonder if legislators or others in high profile agencies and organizations that are compromised by industry money ever consider they are doing harm by defrauding science, writing phony reports, and controlling the narrative in deceiving the public that they are safe. A brief historical summary of those involved with passing the previously mentioned Oregon Senate Bill 283 Prof. Paul Héroux, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism at the McGill University flew to Portland from Montreal to testify on behalf of SB 283, only to return to Monreal the following day. Prof. Héroux developed a Unified Theory of Weak Magnetic Field Action that proposes A radical new outlook. Dr. Paul Dart, an Environmental Physician of Eugene, Oregon, makes invisible electromagnetic radiation visible, using his instrument, as he testifies at the Senate. The term Electromagnetic Medicine has, over the years, meant researchers in laboratories looking to use electromagnetic radiation to treat diseases. Dr. Dart gives it a new, clinical meaning, in the protection of Lucia, 14 years old, who testified below. L---a (a minor) attended school while positioned just below a WiFi router. At 9 years old, she became ill with nausea and rashes, and for over a year saw 7 doctors before her family realized that she was made sick by the WiFi radiation. Her mother switched her to the only school available that did not have WiFi, and she recovered. Graduating from her current school, she is now looking to continue her studies in an environment that will not make her sick. Senator Laurie Monnes-Anderson introduced the bill as a legislator and retired public health nurse. Monnes-Anderson is also a former school board member and the mother of two children who attended Oregon public schools. She understands the strengths and weaknesses of our public education system and has become well versed in the potential risks of long term exposure to microwave radiation in the classroom environment and made a special appearance at the hearing to speak in support of the bill.

Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Perspective (Question 2): Individual consumer and homeowner who has measured ambient fields with a consumer multi-field meter (GQ EMF-390) and is concerned about cumulative exposure for my family, including a young child. Exposures (Question 3): I live in a typical household with a growing number of devices transmitting EMF. WiFi and bluetooth on multiple devices, smart meters, and wireless infrastructure. Observed Exposure Patterns (Question 4k): Observed exposure patterns: I got a sensor to review my family's exposure. A surprising finding was that just standard wiring by light switches would give high readings. As a small test i held the sensor up to my phone while streaming a video, our running microwave, and both the phone and microwave at once. The phone and microwave together showed higher readings than the devices by themselves. Holding the sensor higher resulted in higher readings. Taking the sensor outside was notably less exposure. Another surprise to me was that at my work in an office the signal generally was less than at home. My family is concerned but does not have any noticeable health impacts that can directly be attributed to exposures that I know of. Future Research Recommendations (Questions 4m, 5o): Existing studies seem to focus on controlled lab environments mostly over short term exposures. Future studies should look at cumulative real world situations. Cumulative meaning interactions of different sources of exposure and exposure over time. One example experiment is proposed. A straightforward way to test the claim of direct sensing is a properly controlled, double-blind or blinded field protocol: participants who self-identify as sensitive are transported or positioned near verified high- and low-exposure locations (cell sites, base stations, or controlled sources) without visual or other cues, with actual field levels measured independently. Demographic diversity (age, sex, race/ethnicity) would strengthen generalizability. FCC guidance accounts for multiple transmitters inside one product and for multiple fixed sources with known spatial relationships when evaluating site compliance, but does not fully capture the real-world ambient mixture of ELF wiring fields + intermittent RF from phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, IoT devices, and distant infrastructure. A controlled “future home” protocol that starts with a low-RF baseline and progressively adds devices while measuring both fields and any biological endpoints would help quantify cumulative patterns. Current Research (Question 6): Current research: Existing studies show limited conclusive health impacts but admit limitations of existing studies (Ruben et al 2010). Regulatory Recommendation (Questions 5n, 5o, 9, 10): The limitations of existing studies could be greatly reduced if agencies moved toward a planned, phased in implementation. Whenever a new technology is introduced that would change exposures, select a subset of states to release it in first. Conduct health and environmental surveys before and well after the innovation is introduced in the test states as well as their neighboring states. This allows a control group to compare against in all demographics with 1 procedural update. Otherwise, different tests would be needed to ensure safety of different populations and it will be far more difficult. With this process update, states would be motivated to get good health and environmental records to be able to be a part of a new innovation rollout. I expect that industry and states will be against it. However, an economic study using forecast computer models would be interesting. It would help distribute technology through the country rather than having central points of innovation. I could see arguments that the economy would benefit while reducing the potential harms to society. This recommendation does not stop innovation but presents a needed planned implementation. It proposed an experiment. Without it, in the current system, it is still an experiment, but it's an experiment without a control group which is far more difficult for individuals and policy makers to make informed decisions. Historical perspective (Questions 5, 6, 16): When microwave ovens entered widespread use, regulators set leakage limits (FDA) and exposure guidelines. Debates occurred; some Eastern European standards were substantially stricter. Ovens were not banned in the USSR; leakage standards and measurement protocols were developed and enforced. Cumulative personal monitoring analogous to ionizing-radiation dosimetry badges has not been standard for non-ionizing fields because the primary established hazard mechanism differs and ambient levels are generally far below thermal thresholds. As device density and infrastructure increase, revisiting whether population-level cumulative exposure tracking or better disclosure is warranted is reasonable.

I am so happy that the public is finally being asked to participate in important health concerns. My Grand Daughter, at 10 years of age is now taking typing lessons at school on a computer. They have wi-fi exposure all day long and are on the computers a good part of that day. She comes home just bouncing off the walls, or sick! The school will not hear the parents about the dangers! They seem to need someone of "authority" to tell them that their decisions to go digital in all ways, are not benefiting the kids! I believe it is having the opposite affect! We need more "gold standard science" to PROVE that these technologies are dangerous, and promote illness not health in our kids!! Thank you for persuing this issue!!

The research regarding EMFs, RF radiation, wireless radiation exposure, and LED light is woefully inadequate. The studies done by the industries which have an interest in these radiations are biased towards the industries and do not properly study the effects of these radiations, particularly on susceptible populations including women, children, the aged, and those with medical disabilities, registered or otherwise. The FCC has been complicit in this, by its failure to act in a timely way. Please note the ruling in the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in Briganti v. Apple , where the court ruled that adherence to technical safety limits does not void a company's responsibility to inform the consumer of possible safety risks. The DHHS should be conducting a thorough unbiased study of the effects of EMF, RF, Wireless Radiation Exposure, and LED exposure, given the extraordinary increase in cancers and numerous other diseases and syndromes in humans, environmental degradation, and the deterioration in the quality of life of the increasing number of people who cannot tolerate one or all of these environmental hazards.

Please consider doing more research into the dangers and problems associated with manmade electromagnetic fields. As a holistic and functional nurse practitioner I work with lots of people who struggle with symptoms related to their Wi-Fi routers Bluetooth and cellular devices, smart homes, data centers, 5G radio towers deployed in neighborhoods, smart meters on homes to measure electricity usage. When they are able to turn these devices off and shield themselves and move out of the area where these are deployed, it is remarkable to me how much better they feel. Many people are becoming sicker and sicker all the time and I think it is very important that we look into the effects of man-made electromagnetic fields have on the human body. Over the years I have found ways to cable all of my computers. I’ve gone back to old-fashioned appliances that do not contain Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices in them. I have covered my smart meter. I have downgraded my Apple iPhone to an 11 which does not have a 5G radio and it has helped me so much. Please research the effects of such devices on children and the elderly before you just blindly allow them to be deployed.

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 parent, family member, caregiver, advocate, and concerned member of the public. I have been following the multitude of studies that are available since 2010 on the harmful effects of EMF on all biological life at the cellular level at levels FAR lower than SARS (the current heating effect measurements used). I am appalled at how the FCC has acted like a captured agency to the wireless industries it is trying to regulate. Please reevaluate the safety standards based on the, now, 20+ years of new studies/evidence!!