Research & federal duties

This is already incredibly well studied and settled science. What a remarkable waste of taxpayer resources.

As a professional Network Technician who has been in the IT Industry for well over 20 years, I find the DHHS regulations to be quite frankly absurd. I have been exposed to EMF, RF and Wireless Radiation since birth and have yet to experience any of the health related issues, you are expressing. Humans have been exposed to EMF and RF radiations including at the 5GHz frequency for centuries. Much of these RF and EMF exposures come from extraterrestrial sources. Yet, there has never been a documented case of increased illness or injury as a result. In addition to extraterrestrial sources, I have been EMF and RF exposed to High Voltage Power Lines, Wireless Communication Devices, Satellite Communication Devices, Cell Phones, Florescent and Halogen light sources, CRT, Plasma, LCD, and LED Televisions and monitors, just to name a few. At no point did I ever feel my life was in danger with this level of exposure. Admittedly, Exposure to RF radiation in extreme an extreme dosage can cause harm. But these situations are the exception, and not the rule. Scientific research on typical exposure shown no adverse affects. Any claims by a person asserting sensitivity to RF Radiation under normal operating conditions tend to see those claims fall apart under rigorous study, meaning the effects are normally a placebo effect than reality. Such exercises are nothing but a waste of time and taxpayer money on pseudoscience. Instead, I believe it would benefit the nation to explore ways to make helthcare less expensive, hold insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and for-profit hospitals accountable for putting shareholder profits over patients, and research into health crisis. such as the measles we are currently facing.

This is the most ridiculous request for public comment I have ever seen in my life. It is a waste of money and only serves to provide an outlet for consiracy theorists and tin foil hat wearers. There is actual research showing no harms. Perhaps read the government funded research that has already been done. Here, I'll help you start! https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8263336/

I am disturbed that you are seeking opinions rather than evaluating the science and publishing guidelines based on expert consensus and current science. Opinions have no place in this process, expertise and science should guide us.

The book Invisible Rainbow has so much research cited. Hopefully you consider all of that.

There are many studies indicating harm to of EMF on human beings not just from high-end technology but also power lines. Also, please consider statements from Nicole Shanahan (former spouse of Google founder Sergey Brin) on this video link where she states "These Technologies can be made safe but big Tech is in bed with big Pharma. They can be made safe… We are an electrochemical species and we are indeed short-circuited at a cellular level… We are being polluted both electrically and chemically on a daily basis… What are we getting in exchange? We are getting an augmented transhumanist future. It’s not worth it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chrFU_XATuw See attached statement from foremost recognized SME on EMF Dr. Robert O. Becker (The Body Electric) before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, October 6, 1987, regarding the dangers of powerline EMF.

The consequences of ubiquitous exposure to non-native EMF radiation are well-researched and known, yet no action has been taken to implement strategies to mitigate, despite what’s known and what’s suspected. The “big-picture” perspective of health and chronic disease over the past 6 decades shows a worsening trend,…not an improvement trend, despite the research/funding/clinical applications dedicated toward individually named chronic health conditions. The HHS, and all regulatory agencies in the public health sphere of influence would do well to acknowledge and attend to the mounting threat that EMF radiation presents to human health (as well as that of all biological life). We need transparency and action regarding already-established research on this topic, as well as initiatives to take more seriously continued and novel research; while not waiting for “consensus”…action in the form of prevention and mitigation strategies and guardrails on the industries involved.

See attached file(s) 2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning and Spatial Memory via Oxidative/Nitrosative Stress Induced p53-Dependent/Independent Hippocampal Apoptosis: Molecular Basis and Underlying Mechanism 2015 ABSTRACT A close association between microwave (MW) radiation exposure and neurobehavioral disorders has been postulated but the direct effects of MW radiation on central nervous system still remains contradictory. This study was performed to understand the effect of short (15 days) and long-term (30 and 60 days) low-level MW radiation exposure on hippocampus with special reference to spatial learning and memory and its underlying mechanism in Swiss strain male mice, Mus musculus. Twelve-weeks old mice were exposed to 2.45 GHz MW radiation (continuous-wave [CW] with overall average power density of 0.0248 mW/cm? and overall average whole body specific absorption rate value of 0.0146 W/Kg) for 2 h/day over a period of 15, 30, and 60 days). Spatial learning and memory was monitored by Morris Water Maze. We have checked the alterations in hippocampal oxidative/nitrosative stress, neuronal morphology, and expression of pro-apoptotic proteins (p53 and Bax), inactive executioner Caspase- (pro-Caspase-3), and uncleaved Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 in the hippocampal subfield neuronal and nonneuronal cells (DG, CA1, CA2, and CA3). We observed that, short-term as well as long-term 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure increases the oxidative/nitrosative stress leading to enhanced apoptosis in hippocampal subfield neuronal and nonneuronal cells. Present findings also suggest that learning and spatial memory deficit which increases with the increased duration of MW exposure (15 < 30 < 60 days) is correlated with a decrease in hippocampal subfield neuronal arborization and dendritic spines. These findings led us to conclude that exposure to CW MW radiation leads to oxidative/nitrosative stress induced p53-dependent/independent activation of hippocampal neuronal and nonneuronal apoptosis associated with spatial memory loss. Key words: microwave radiation; hippocampal apoptosis; learning and spatial memory; oxidative and nitrosative stress; neurocytoarchitecture

My own research (attached below) shows that the limits on the electromagnetic radiation (RFR) do not protect humans and animals from damages by electromagnetic radiation.

Comment on HHS-OASH-2026-0397, Request for Information on EMFs, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Respondent: Sam Galiatsatos, Austin, Texas Perspective (Q2): Individual consumer and family member Questions addressed: 2, 5(n), 5(p), 9, 13(a), 13(d), 15(a)-(d), 16, 17, 18 Summary: HHS should treat network architecture as a way to reduce unnecessary exposure, and should favor a satellite-to-gateway-to-fiber build in federal health and broadband policy. How a network is built decides how many transmitters sit near homes, schools and clinics. The recommended build has four layers: 1. Low Earth orbit satellites reach places fiber cannot reach at reasonable cost. 2. Gateway ground stations, a few fenced sites, hand satellite traffic straight to fiber. 3. Fiber trunks carry that traffic into cities and rural hubs. Fiber carries light and emits no RF. 4. Inside homes, schools and clinics, people get wired connections and low-power Wi-Fi they can switch off. Q13 and Q15: Short-range 5G bands need more sites mounted close to streets and homes, so neighborhood exposure depends on site count and distance. With satellite broadband, the serving transmitter is in orbit, and home terminals and gateways aim their main beams at the sky. HHS should classify satellite direct-to-cell service separately, since the phone itself is the transmitter near the body. Exposure evidence should record distance to homes, schools and clinics, cumulative neighborhood exposure, and transmitters per square kilometer. Q5(n) and 5(p): Report transmitter density and backhaul type alongside device limits. Coordinate with NTIA and the FCC so broadband funding counts lower neighborhood transmitter density as a public health benefit. Add beam direction, site density and service role (everyday versus backup) to any classification system. Q9: Publish transmitter site maps for residents and local governments, notify schools and childcare facilities of nearby installations, and tell subscribers how their service reaches the home. Q16 and Q17: Start with measurement. Compare real-world exposure in neighborhoods served by dense small cells, fiber to the home, and rural satellite. FDA, NIH and CDC should coordinate with the FCC and NTIA on joint exposure mapping. Q18: Under the revised BEAD program, about two-thirds of funded locations will get fiber, so this build matches where federal dollars already go. ARPA-H's STACK program aims to bring clinical trials to rural patients, and those clinics need stable fiber connections. Limits: This comment does not claim that exposure below current federal limits causes harm. It recommends reducing exposure the network does not need while HHS reviews the evidence. The attached PDF contains the full comment, an illustrated diagram of the four layers, and linked sources for every figure cited.