Research & federal duties

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. This issue matters to me personally because: I am a 34 year old woman whose life has been profoundly affected by a chronic, debilitating health condition, and who has spent nearly two decades searching for answers. My chronic migraines began when I was 15 years old. Around that time, a cell tower was constructed approximately 0.2 miles directly behind my family’s home. I cannot claim that this tower caused my illness, but the timing of these events has remained significant to me throughout my health journey. My symptoms quickly became so severe that I had to reduce my high school schedule. I woke up nearly every morning with debilitating migraines and vertigo, often unable to function. At one point, I missed more than 30 consecutive days of school. My family and I went from doctor to doctor, desperately searching for the underlying cause. I was prescribed countless medications in an effort to manage my symptoms, many of which came with adverse effects. My education suffered, my grades declined, and what should have been a formative, exciting period of my life became a daily struggle to get through the day. Rather than improving with age, my condition became progressively more severe. By age 26, I was experiencing symptoms that I associated with exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure. My arms would go numb while using my phone. I experienced stabbing pains in my head and stomach when people with cell phones came near me or when I was in areas near cell towers. As newer wireless technologies were introduced, I became increasingly concerned about the relationship between these exposures and my symptoms. My family went to extraordinary lengths to try to help me. We invested significant money in completely hardwiring our home and removing all wireless devices in an effort to reduce my potential exposure and find some measure of relief. This was not a casual lifestyle choice; it was a response to the debilitating reality of my daily life and our desperation to find answers. My family has had to make significant adjustments to our home and way of living because of the severity of my condition. The fact that my health concerns have required these kinds of sacrifices speaks to just how profoundly this has affected not only my life, but the lives of the people who love and support me. Also, when 5G technology was introduced in stadiums, attending sporting events became extraordinarily difficult for me because of the debilitating migraines I experienced. Travel became another challenge. Wi-Fi on airplanes, Bluetooth connections, and the wireless devices used by people around me became sources of concern as I struggled to manage my symptoms. Activities that most people take for granted; attending a game, boarding a plane, going into public spaces, or simply being around other people, became obstacles I had to weigh against the possibility of becoming severely ill. The consequences have extended far beyond physical pain. This condition has isolated me from experiences, relationships, opportunities, and the independence that most adults work toward building. I have struggled to maintain the health necessary to work consistently and support myself. Today, at 34 years old, I remain financially and physically dependent on my parents in ways I never imagined would define my adult life. I would give anything to have the freedom to attend a sporting event without fearing the consequences, travel without anticipating debilitating pain, work toward financial independence, and participate in everyday life without having to calculate the potential cost to my health. No one should have to spend nearly two decades fighting to reclaim a life they feel they have lost, while wondering whether an environmental exposure could be contributing to their suffering. People deserve answers. They deserve rigorous science, transparency, and a regulatory process willing to examine difficult questions. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

To the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): I am submitting this public comment to express urgent concern regarding the biological and neurological health impacts associated with exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation, electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and dense wireless infrastructure, including 5G technology. I appreciate HHS taking this critical step to collect real-world user experiences and non-thermal scientific evidence to re-evaluate outdated exposure guidelines. 1. Real-World Symptomatic Evidence Across the country, an increasing number of individuals report debilitating physiological responses when exposed to continuous RF emissions from small cells, Wi-Fi, and cellular infrastructure. Common acute and chronic symptoms experienced by individuals affected by RF radiation exposure include: Severe Headaches and Migraines: Frequently coinciding with proximity to high-density wireless infrastructure or prolonged device usage. Persistent Tinnitus: A distinct ringing or buzzing in the ears that often correlates with localized RF exposure and disappears or diminishes in low-radiation environments. Nausea, Dizziness, and Vertigo: Disruption of vestibular function and equilibrium during exposure to high-frequency pulsed signals. Sleep Disturbances and Brain Fog: Chronic disruption of circadian rhythms, melatonin suppression, impaired concentration, and memory deficits. Cardiovascular Irregularities: Unexplained heart palpitations or racing pulse in high-EMF environments.  These symptoms—often referred to as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) or microwave syndrome—are not placebo or psychoactive effects. They represent observable biological distress in response to environmental stressors. 2. Regulatory Gaps: Non-Thermal Mechanisms and Pulsed Signals The current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) safety limits rely almost exclusively on guidelines established in 1996. These guidelines evaluate safety solely through the lens of short-term thermal (heating) impacts on body tissue. However, 5G and modern wireless technologies utilize complex beamforming, rapid signal pulsing, and high-density, multi-frequency exposures at levels far below those that cause tissue heating. Peer-reviewed biomedical literature demonstrates that non-thermal RF radiation can induce: Cellular oxidative stress and free radical production. Disruption of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) in cell membranes, affecting neural transmission. Permeability changes in the blood-brain barrier. DNA damage and cellular repair inhibition. Evaluating modern 5G safety without accounting for non-thermal biological impacts, signal pulsing, and cumulative lifetime exposure leaves the public unprotected.  3. Protecting Vulnerable Populations Federal guidelines currently fail to account for cumulative, chronic exposure across sensitive populations, including children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting neurological or cardiovascular conditions. Children are particularly susceptible due to thinner skulls, higher tissue conductivity, and a longer lifetime of expected exposure.  4. Action Requested from HHS I respectfully request that HHS take the following actions: 1. Acknowledge Biological Non-Thermal Effects: Formalize health guidance recognizing that low-intensity RF radiation causes non-thermal biological harm below current thermal thresholds. 2. Establish Precautionary Guidelines: Recommend updated, health-based exposure limits to the FCC that account for real-world cumulative exposure, 5G signal characteristics, and vulnerable sub-populations.  3. Fund Independent Health Research: Allocate federal funding for independent toxicology and epidemiological studies regarding long-term exposure to millimeter-wave and sub-6 GHz radiation. 4. Issue Public Health Education: Provide clear public guidance on practical exposure reduction strategies (e.g., hardwired connections, safe distance guidelines) for homes, workplaces, and schools.  Thank you for reviewing this public comment and prioritizing public health and biological safety.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in response to this Request for Information. The widespread use of wireless technologies, including mobile phones, Wi‑Fi networks, smart devices, wearable technologies, and expanding telecommunications infrastructure, makes this an important public health issue worthy of continued scientific evaluation. HHS has stated that the purpose of this RFI is to assess the current state of evidence, identify research gaps, compare regulatory approaches, and support evidence-based policymaking. I encourage HHS to place particular emphasis on the following areas: Long-term exposure research Much of the public concern relates not to short-term exposure but to cumulative exposure over many years. Longitudinal studies examining health outcomes following decades of exposure would help address persistent uncertainties and improve risk assessment. Children and vulnerable populations Children, pregnant women, and individuals with existing health conditions should receive special consideration. Further research should examine whether exposure patterns, physiology, or developmental factors may warrant different risk assessments for these groups. Independent and transparent research Public confidence depends upon transparency. HHS should prioritize systematic reviews that clearly distinguish between established findings, emerging evidence, and areas where evidence remains insufficient or conflicting. Exposure measurement and real-world conditions Studies should focus on realistic modern exposure scenarios, including combined exposure from multiple wireless devices and sources commonly found in homes, schools, workplaces, and public environments. International standards comparison HHS should review and compare domestic and international approaches to RF/EMF exposure standards in order to identify areas of consensus, disagreement, and scientific uncertainty. Public information and risk communication The public would benefit from clear, accessible information explaining what is known, what remains uncertain, and practical steps individuals may take if they wish to reduce personal exposure. In conclusion, I support continued scientific investigation into RF/EMF exposure and health effects. Policymaking should be guided by transparent evaluation of all high-quality evidence, with particular attention to long-term exposure, vulnerable populations, and unresolved scientific questions. Continued research and open public discussion will help ensure that health protections remain appropriate as wireless technologies continue to evolve. Thank you for considering these comments. Yours sincerely, Dr Stephen Marvin

A minority but still a significant number of my clients have EMF sensitivity: they have symptoms after spending time near wi-fi, using cell phones, etc. I suspect this is an effect all of us experience but in a way that our body's are able to manage okay. Nevertheless, there is enough signal from the data to warrent much more in depth study of the effect of EMFs on health. This work seems long overdue, given how ubiquitous EMF exposure is now, and given that it seems only likely to increase.

Let science and not uninformed opinions lead the way on this.

This is a joke, right? Why is the federal government seeking input from random unqualified people through Facebook ads when the science on non-ionizing radiation is clear and simple?

As long as the secretary puts his tinfoil hat on, we'll all be fine. Low energy radio waves below visible frequencies do not ionize.

As a manufacturer of LED lighting devices since 2008 and consultant of exposures to magnetic fields, electrical fields, radio frequency fields and geophysical fields professionally for over 25 years I offer this article from Barrie Trower regarding the theory that certain exposure levels from certain identified microwave radio frequency fields will produce infertility and birth defects similar to Thalidomide.Barrie Trower is a British physicist and former member of the British Navy and Secret Service. He has opined on the negative health effects of exposure to microwave radiation for several years. His experience working in the British Secret Service exposed him to information from foreign spy’s that had pulsed electromagnetic frequencies that were developed to be used as weapons. Today he states that there are about 750 frequencies that are used both deliberately and accidentally in places that cause various negative health effects. According to Trower, 58% of the planet’s governments are taking avoidance action against this while 42% are not aware of the risks and taking no action. Seventeen countries are currently enacting legislation to restrict the deployment of microwave radiation.

Which parts of the massive body of existing evidence on this issue do you choose not to believe or is this just a scam process to promote your own biased fears?

WIth respect to electromagnetic fields and RF radiation, I hope that HHS listens to scientific consensus from reputable sources, rather than unfounded conspiracy theories from the public.