Research & federal duties

Occupational RF Exposure Versus General-Public Exposure An essential distinction in evaluating the potential health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic energy is the difference between occupational exposure in the immediate vicinity of transmitting antennas and the comparatively low-level exposure ordinarily experienced by the public. During my telecommunications career, I have participated in radiofrequency exposure compliance activities, antenna-site safety evaluations, transmitter power measurements, and FCC regulatory compliance involving both government and civilian communications systems. These activities require an understanding that transmitter output power alone does not establish the magnitude of human exposure. Actual exposure depends upon operating frequency, effective radiated power, antenna gain and radiation characteristics, proximity to the radiating elements, exposure duration, and other site-specific engineering factors. At certain high-power transmitting facilities, RF field strengths in close proximity to transmitting antennas may exceed established occupational or general-public exposure limits. Such conditions warrant appropriate engineering controls, restricted access, warning signage, and established safety procedures. However, the locations in which these elevated exposure levels occur are generally limited and are not representative of the exposure conditions experienced by individuals living or working in surrounding communities. In properly designed and operated transmitting facilities, elevated RF exposure areas are ordinarily identified through engineering evaluations and controlled through physical separation, access restrictions, operational procedures, or other appropriate safeguards. The existence of potentially hazardous exposure conditions immediately adjacent to transmitting antennas should not be extrapolated to suggest that ordinary environmental exposure from cellular networks, Wi-Fi access points, Bluetooth devices, or low-power Internet of Things equipment presents an equivalent risk. From an engineering perspective, this distinction is fundamental. RF exposure should be evaluated through scientifically established measurement methods and applicable exposure limits, rather than inferred from the presence of an antenna, the number of wireless devices in an area, or the nominal power rating of a transmitter. Public health policy should recognize the substantial differences between controlled occupational environments involving potentially elevated RF field strengths and the considerably lower exposure levels ordinarily encountered by the general population.

Research should be conducted to measure long term consequences to exposure and its effects on the body. Cumulative data should be taken for the overwhelming exposure. Information should be very available and obvious for everyone. Exposure should be voluntary as much as possible. And ALL devices and equipment should carry labels.

It is possibly cardiogenic, can cause vibration of water in human cells, cellular stress, imbalance of free radicals. It is dangerous to humans and probably animals and plants. Until further study can prove it is safe. I vote NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

I have a flip phone that I use only in emergencies. I depend on landline because whenever I use a cell phone for any length of time a burning feeling of pins and needles crawls up my arm. I have computer attached by wire from modem. Wifi disturbs my sleep. The cable company was going to attach a battery pack to the modem, in order to ensure service when electrical service is disrupted. Within 20 minutes I was shaking, despite sitting over 15 feet away. Fortunately the workman was able to quickly return and remove it. The feeling stopped. I have no idea why the installation of the battery pack would cause this. We look at the physical and chemical aspects of the body. We need to start looking at the energetic/electrical as well.

I think it is extremely important what you are doing and to look into wearables as well things like health tracking wrist bands and smart watches, I notice a marked change in sensation in my wrist when I have a wearable health tracker on.

Perspective: Member of the public and parent. Responding to Questions 10, 11, 16, and 18: historical animal pathology records as an overlooked data source. I ask HHS to examine a long-running record that, to my knowledge, has never been studied for its relevance to electromagnetic exposure: the autopsy archive of the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. The zoo's Laboratory of Comparative Pathology (later the Penrose Research Laboratory) was founded in 1901. From 1916 to 1964, directors Herbert Fox and Herbert L. Ratcliffe kept complete autopsy records on more than 13,000 mammals and birds. Their published reviews describe a striking change: - In 1923, Fox described arterial lesions as "exceedingly rare," found in under 2% of autopsies. By 1964, arteriosclerosis was found in about 25% of mammals and 35% of birds. - No coronary artery disease appears in the records before 1945. The first heart attacks were recorded in 1955. By 1963, over 90% of mammals and 72% of birds that died had coronary disease. Heart attacks had struck 24% of the mammals and 10% of the birds, often young animals. - A 1959 Penrose report compared 1901-1934 with 1935-1955. Malignant tumors rose 2- to 20-fold across nine mammal families, and benign tumors rose even more. Among 7,286 birds, malignant tumors rose 2.5-fold and benign tumors 8-fold. - The changes spanned 45 families of mammals and 65 families of birds. The investigators considered the usual explanations. Diets were improved in 1935 and then held constant through 1964, yet coronary disease emerged only after 1945. Population density and exercise were reported as stable. Ratcliffe suggested social stress from breeding programs begun in 1940. That cannot explain the arterial disease of the 1930s, or the continued rise in animals that were not being bred. Similar rates were later reported at the London Zoo (1960) and the Antwerp Zoo (1962). I learned of these records from Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow. Firstenberg notes that this period coincides with rapid electrification and, after World War II, a large rise in environmental radiofrequency radiation from radar, broadcasting, and industrial RF equipment. The records contain no exposure measurements, and I am not claiming they prove a cause. But they are a rare, consistent, multi-species dataset covering decades in which diet, crowding, and activity were reasonably stable. The main explanation offered at the time does not fit the data. Captive animals do not change their own habits, which makes them valuable sentinels. Two broader points. First, any population shows a spectrum of responses to an environmental factor. Even if the median person and above notice little effect from RF exposure, safety standards should be built with the most sensitive people in mind, not the average. A limit that protects the typical adult may not protect the bottom quartile. Second, exposure drops off sharply with distance from the source, so simple awareness goes a long way. Turning off Wi-Fi at night, or simply not keeping a router two feet from your bed, is not Luddite thinking. It is a reasonable, no-cost precaution that most people have never heard of. My requests: 1. (Q16) Fund a re-analysis of the Philadelphia Zoo pathology archive and comparable long-term zoo and veterinary records. Pair it with historical reconstruction of local electrical and RF exposure, such as power distribution and nearby broadcast and radar installations. 2. (Q10) Treat zoo and wildlife pathology programs as a standing sentinel surveillance system for environmental exposures, including RF, with exposure monitoring at those sites. 3. (Q11) Because the disease in these records so often struck young animals, give particular attention to children's cumulative exposure as wireless devices multiply in homes and schools. 4. (Q9, Q11) Publish plain-language public guidance on reducing exposure through distance and nighttime habits, and make sure exposure standards account for the most sensitive members of the population, not just the average. References: Fox H. Disease in Captive Wild Mammals and Birds. Lippincott, 1923. Ratcliffe HL, Cronin MTI. Changing frequency of arteriosclerosis in mammals and birds at the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. Circulation 1958;18:41-52. Ratcliffe HL, Yerasimides TG, Elliott GA. Changes in the character and location of arterial lesions in mammals and birds in the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. Circulation 1960;21:730-38. Lombard LS, Witte EJ. Frequency and types of tumors in mammals and birds of the Philadelphia Zoological Gardens. Cancer Research 1959;19(2):127-41. Firstenberg A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Chelsea Green, 2020.

I think you should talk to scientists about this and not ask random fucking people about it. This is screaming that dumbfuck "5G was used to spread covid" conspiracy we had to deal with in 2020. The average person knows nothing about the subject matters this form is asking for opinions on. Hell most people don't even have a basic understanding of how wifi work. Leave it to the professionals.

Do your fucking jobs and use science instead of polling old people on Facebook you brainworm ridden twats...

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

not enough testing was done on all these cell towers and radiation causing EMFs. they are everywhere, near schools, daycares, homes ! people spends their entire day right next to them and even sleep near them ! do we really need all these cell towers? what about the link to cancer ? and other health issues? stop prioritizing corporations over health !