Research & federal duties

Ask a scientist not random people on the internet

As digital infrastructure, mobile networks (5G/6G), Wi-Fi, smart devices, and wearable technology continue to expand rapidly into homes, schools, and public spaces, a transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date federal re-evaluation of human health impacts is both timely and necessary. Key Areas for Federal Focus 1. Vulnerable Populations and Children: Special attention must be directed toward children, adolescents, and pregnant women. Children have developing neurological and biological systems and higher relative absorption rates in head tissues from mobile devices. Federal research priorities should explicitly evaluate long-term, cumulative exposure patterns starting from early childhood. 2. Cumulative and Multi-Frequency Exposures: Most legacy safety guidelines evaluate single-source, short-term thermal effects. Modern living involves chronic, low-level, multi-frequency exposure from overlapping cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, and smart meters. HHS should prioritize research that mimics real-world, cumulative co-exposures rather than isolated laboratory conditions. 3. Independent Scientific Review and Regulatory Harmonization: Current U.S. exposure standards differ significantly from guidelines in other international jurisdictions. HHS should conduct an independent, transparent synthesis of peer-reviewed literature—differentiating independent scientific findings from industry-funded assessments—to determine whether current federal safety limits adequately protect public health. 4. Public Health Surveillance and Reporting Mechanisms: The department should establish clearer pathways for clinicians and citizens to report and document adverse health experiences potentially linked to chronic environmental or technological exposures, improving post-market surveillance. Thank you for opening this critical dialogue and inviting public input. I urge HHS to adopt a precautionary, evidence-based approach that prioritizes long-term biological safety, closes existing research gaps, and updates federal guidance to reflect modern wireless density.

I experienced exposure from my cell phone in my bra. I used my bra as a storage place to listen to music while I exercised. I always put it in the same pocket whether I was working in the garden or biking over a three month period of time. I had healthy breast tissue and after three months of doing this four or five times a week for an hour at a time, I developed a lump in my breast directly under the place that I stored my phone. I had a mammogram and multiple evaluations done over one and a half year time window to make sure it was not growing and becoming larger and immediately stopped putting my cell phone in that location. Removing the phone from that location may have been the primary reason the growth did not get larger. At the time I was in my late 20s. I would like to see further research on cell phone towers, near businesses, churches, and schools and the effect, as well as phones in pockets against the body.

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 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.

The American Telecommunications Guild (ATG), an Arizona nonprofit building workforce standards and credentialing for U.S. telecommunications infrastructure trades, submits the attached comment from the perspective of workers with occupational RF exposure. Tower and wireless technicians work closer to active transmitters, for longer periods and in more complex conditions than the general public, yet occupational exposure is rarely measured at the worker level or linked to health outcomes. ATG supports evidence-based wireless deployment and does not presume current limits are unsafe. We recommend a national occupational RF exposure-and-event surveillance framework, developed jointly by HHS/NIOSH, FCC, OSHA, and NTIA, that links measured exposure, transmitter configuration, and work task to reported symptoms and follow-up outcomes; standardized worker-facing exposure disclosure; validation of personal RF monitors in beamforming and multi-band environments; and prospective cohort studies of tower and rooftop technicians using measured rather than assumed exposure. The attached response addresses Questions 2, 3, 5–13, and 15–18.

HHS seeks to update the record on whether the science on the effects of RF radiation has changed since the FCC considered this question in 2019. I herein submit comment as City Councilmember of Monterey, California, representing a constituency very concerned and knowledgeable about the abundant studies since both 1996 (the date of the FCC’s holding on exposure limits) and 2019, when the FCC held there was no appreciable change in the science. Two areas stand out to me as having changed and as areas of concern as a parent, grandparent, and Certified Nurse Midwife: 1) the impacts on children, and 2) the ubiquity of wireless devices. One study, Microwave Emissions from Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8688629) notes that emissions exceed recommended limits when in contact with the body. I have observed babies clutching phones and devices and resting them directly on their bodies. We know that, unfortunately, devices are used as babysitters, replacing humans interacting with infants. We have all seen children as young as one holding and staring at devices powered by radio emissions. These children, in playing with devices, ignore their environment at an age (such as 1 year old) when learning the nuances of human interaction and the rewards thereof are essential milestones in their development and in their ability to survive through social bonding. Additionally, our children are exposed to higher lifelong levels of radio-wave radiation than we have ever studied. Infants today are exposed to much more than previous generations. Authors AK Lee and HD Choi document that a child’s brain absorbs more cell tower radiation than an adult brain due to such factors as the smaller head of a child and hence less density and due to the thinner skull relative to adults, resulting in higher localized absorption of RF energy (EMF exposure in Korean mobile communication networks. 2023) For the safety of children , we must welcome review of the last 30 years of science. The health of our children depends on review of current science. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412017319724

Perspective: Individual consumer and person reporting potential adverse health effects. Questions addressed: 3, 13(k), 16, and 18. I am submitting this comment because I want HHS to hear from people like me who are experiencing serious health problems associated with wireless technology, electromagnetic fields, and electrical exposure. My symptoms exploded after I purchased my Florida home in April 2023 and spent a week there. I have experienced burning skin, sharp head pains, fatigue, insomnia, difficulty thinking clearly, heart palpitations, tingling, numbness, worsening tinnitus, and vibrations in my legs when the HVAC runs. The vibrations stop when the system shuts off. I cannot tolerate Wi-Fi or Bluetooth and dirty electricity. I have made costly changes to my home to reduce same, including replacing appliances, changing lighting and wiring, using wired Ethernet, and rerouting HVAC lines through the garage. I am still struggling. I use a Greenwave meter to measure electrical noise in my home. My readings fluctuate, with approximately 400 mV on the low end and readings as high as 1212. Around 50 mV is what I can tolerate. I want better research into electrical noise and its possible health effects. When I purchased my home, a smart meter was installed. The meter was changed in May 2023. I requested a true analog electromechanical meter, but Florida Power & Light provided a digital meter it describes as non-communicating. My concern is not limited to wireless transmission; it also involves the digital and electronic nature of the meter. I have repeatedly provided FPL with medical documentation requesting an analog electromechanical meter, as recommended by my doctors. I even purchased one that FPL could inspect and install, taking the cost of obtaining the meter off FPL. I formally submitted an ADA disability accommodation request supported by my medical documentation. However, FPL denied my request without acknowledging or addressing it as a disability accommodation, responding instead as though I had made an ordinary customer request. Despite more than 20 attempts to resolve this matter, FPL has refused to provide the analog meter my doctors recommended. I also continue to pay a monthly fee for the non-communicating digital meter and its manual reading. What is especially discouraging is even after seeking medical help and repeatedly providing written recommendations, I feel my health concerns have not been taken seriously. It is hard not to feel that companies care more about revenue and policies than the health of the people affected. People reporting serious health problems deserve to be heard and treated with respect. I have spent more than $15,000 having mercury dental fillings removed in an effort to address my symptoms, but the symptoms persisted. I am desperate to understand what is happening and find relief. My condition also affects my family and others who do not experience what I do. They must sometimes change their lifestyles when around me. It is painful to struggle with my health while knowing that my circumstances affect the people I care about. I am severely affected by what I believe are wireless exposures and electrical pollution, and I am frightened by the toll this is taking on my health and my life. I ask HHS to support independent, thorough research into the potential health effects of radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, wireless devices, digital electrical equipment, and electrical noise. Research should consider people reporting symptoms in circumstances that may not affect everyone equally, as well as combined exposures in everyday environments. People deserve clear information about what is known, what remains uncertain, and how exposures are assessed. Practical alternatives, such as traditional analog electromechanical meters where feasible, should also be considered for people reporting serious difficulties with digital and wireless technologies. More needs to be brought to light about what people like me are experiencing. There are people suffering from serious symptoms who feel that no one acknowledges what is happening to them. Instead of having their concerns taken seriously and properly investigated, they are often dismissed or made to feel as though they are crazy. I know what it is like to struggle with these symptoms while trying to get someone to listen. We deserve to be heard, and our experiences deserve honest, independent scientific investigation. People should not have to prove beyond all doubt what is causing their suffering before anyone is willing to take them seriously. This has cost me my health, money, comfort, peace of mind, and the ability to safely live in my home. I ask HHS to listen, investigate and support research that provides honest answers based on good science. We should not have to wait for absolute certainty before our experiences are taken seriously.

2.I am responding as a healthcare provider. The federal limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996. n 2013 the FCC itself asked whether the limits should be revisited. In 2019 it answered: no. Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense and others sued. On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court found the Commission had failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer,” had failed to address the impacts on children, long-term exposure, and the ubiquity of wireless devices, and had shown “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm.” It noted roughly 200 comments from people reporting illness or injury that the agency had not addressed. It sent the matter back to the FCC with instructions to explain itself. (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025) 18. (https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms) The FCC had relied on the Food and Drug Administration’s assurance that the limits were fine. The court said an agency cannot lean on another agency’s conclusion if that conclusion comes without an explanation. 3g. Five years later, no explanation has been produced. https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms Recommendations (m). I recommend (1) a validated clinical intake instrument for suspected RF/EMF-related complaints; (2) a federal adverse-event intake comparable to MedWatch; (3) biomarker studies in symptomatic patients following the oxidative-stress findings of Irigaray, Caccamo & Belpomme (Int J Mol Med 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30015864/); and (4) exposure-measurement studies that do not rely on self-report, following Bogers et al. (Environ Int 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30227317/).12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/ (Adams et al., Environ Int 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24927498/; Liu et al., Andrology 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700791/) and exposure reduction is low-cost. The peer-reviewed record on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT and smart-meter exposures is thin (Simkó & Mattsson, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/, concluded available studies "do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment"). This is a gap, not a reassurance.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/); Balmori, Sci Total Environ 2015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747364/).

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.