Research & federal duties

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 the father of two kids: Joel seven and Bresly 12 years old. My wife and I din't know any better and we let our kids use their wireless devices as they wished, as a result: Joel, suffers a constellation of symptoms including lack of concentration, nose-bleeding,.....when we take him to doctors, they don't know how to diagnose or treat him. Bresly, at her young age is almost blind due to the excessive use of screens. And we are lucky because a neighbor next door has cancer!. Note: we live within 110 meters of two cell towers and the vegetation keeps dying and the birds don't come here to nest as before. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

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 non-professional researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public for current and especially future generations. I am extremely concerned about wireless radiation and its effects because I, myself have experienced a decline in my health since emf's have become more popular in our everyday lives with smart phones and wifi connections in virtually every aspect of our lives and places we frequent. Restful REM Sleep is vital to our health and is disrupted by the growing level of electric and magnetic fields. I have experienced this in myself and children around me. The increase of radio frequencies is known to not only disrupt sleep but affect brain and cognitive function such as memory loss, cause eye problems, alter dna, reduce melatonin production, interfere with pace makers, cause brain tumors and infertility. These are major and legitimate concerns. I have attached two articles regarding the health dangers. https://drjockers.com/emf-exposure-dangers-symptoms-and-protection/ https://drjockers.com/5g-phones-safe-health/ I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

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 with a family, a concerned member of the community. For too long, questions about the health and environmental effects of RF radiation have largely been addressed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an agency responsible for regulating communications technology and spectrum, rather than through HHS, the federal health agencies with expertise in medicine, biology and public health. The HHS should, as an advocate and protector of our communities. Take an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard. Larry Shilling

Dr. George Carlo's study and the dangers of wireless were crystal clear. He was hired by the CORRUPT, TREASONOUS, and SEDITIOUS, cell companies to prove that the emf was safe; instead this results showed just the opposite. They then canceled him and the studies and burned down his house. This is how the globalist imperial nazi commie cartel monopolies and oligopolies that run America roll- in every industry and sector. Former Microsoft of Canada's president so that that EMF is unsafe, and that fiber optic should be used instead, which works just as well if not better, plus safe.

There is far too little research on EMF exposure and potential side effects. Testing should be done by independent third parties. Field strengths should be listed on devices so that consumers may make informed decisions.

Federal rules evaluate EMF, RF, and wireless radiation exposure one device at a time. They do not assess cumulative exposure humans are living with. Phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, wearables, household sensors, and satellite terminals each receive their own compliance rating. No federal program measures the combined, time-averaged exposure in a bedroom, living room, office, an apartment with neighboring networks on all sides, a school, or a crowded public place. Ionizing radiation policy accounts for cumulative dose. Non-ionizing policy does not. That is a regulatory choice and merits modernizing. FCC general-population limits in 47 CFR 1.1310 were built around single sources and peak heating tests. They were not built around dozens or hundreds of transmitters operating at once in the same room or vehicle. New systems are arriving faster than health research can follow. In a short period the public environment gained denser cellular service, additional Wi-Fi bands, consumer devices in every room, satellite broadband, satellite-to-phone service, passenger Wi-Fi, and dense small-cell and venue systems. A credible chronic study takes years. A product cycle takes months. The absence of a completed study of this combined environment is not proof of safety. It is a lag between deployment and evidence. Current limits are designed to prevent tissue heating above defined levels. What remains unsettled is whether lower levels affect other biology, including cellular energy production, oxidative stress, or circadian signaling. Standard-setting bodies have not changed exposure limits on that basis. If effects occur at ordinary public levels, today’s device tests do not capture them. HHS should state what the evidence shows at measured real-world levels, not only in laboratories. In addition to homes, people also spend hours in places where many independent systems overlap and no one person controls them: - Airports and aircraft: terminal Wi-Fi, cellular and small cell radios, airline and passenger Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, operational radios, and then a metal cabin full of devices. - Buses, trains, subways, and stations: onboard Wi-Fi, passengers’ phones, wayside cellular, and transit communications in a confined concentration of people. - Shopping malls, stores, arenas, and other venues: Wi-Fi, tenant networks, cellular in-building systems, point-of-sale and inventory radios, and a rapidly growing list of personal devices. Each transmitter may meet its own limit. The combined field in a airport gate area, a packed bus, or a mall corridor is not what a single-phone SAR fixture represents. Dwell time and cumulative exposure is key. HHS should also quantify how many radios surround people at home and in public. There is no adequate official count of in-home access points, neighboring networks through walls, and client devices. The same gap exists for public venues: how many networks and handsets are active, on which bands, and for how long a person stands in the field. Satellite internet and satellite-to-phone service add whole new bands and geometries to an environment that is already full of cellular and Wi-Fi. They should be counted in the same cumulative inventory. Ku user downlinks are an outdoor field over entire neighborhoods, 24 hours a day, from a growing constellation, on top of terrestrial cellular. Even the energy that does not enter the house still reaches yards, streets, vehicles, and anyone outdoors. A single Wi-Fi router can dominate a spot reading inside one room. That does not mean satellite and cellular are negligible in a person’s full-day dose across home, transit, work, and outdoors. Residential electrical codes only address shock and fire. They do not address powered furniture, outlets at the head of a bed, or always-on equipment next to a sleeping place in a room that already contains several radios. Power-frequency fields and radiofrequency fields are not the same problem. They now occur together in bedrooms. If indoor environment is in scope, wiring layout and household equipment belong in the review with HUD, CPSC, and related agencies. The United States already knows how to approve devices. It has not shown that it can account for RF, EMF and wireless dose in a room, cabin, or terminal.

EMF electromagnetic fields at different powers, affect living cells, tissues and organs positively and negatively depending on most importantly frequency, followed by anatomy, physiology, waveform, intensity, power, environment, immune system, pathogenic bacteria and viruses, pollutants like Pesticides, or other variables. Many scientists have shown correlations between EMFs and diseases and living near or below a high frequency tower adversely affects all life forms. My personal experience of electromagnetic frequencies disrupting body function and quality of life was more noticeable from 2016 in London. There is more than enough science publications such as those at www.es-uk.info as references and proportionally many more cases in cities compared to villages with lower EMF levels across the spectrum. Every increase in frequency requires an increase in power. I am a physicist and scientist. Best regards Gary Hayes

I, my family, and many others have been adversely affected by non-ionizing radiation for years. I ask for you to address and completely review any health effects connected to the medical body area network and more broadly all EM radiation produced by government infrastructure, government contractors, and anything tangentially connected to nanotechnology. I myself have experienced debilitating symptoms for years that increase in severity in proximity to certain frequencies. Please consider reducing frequency bands related after findings and opportunities for public exposure.

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 US citizen and concerned member of the public. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals, families, health care providers, researchers and scientists with an opportunity to be finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

I respectfully submit this comment as an individual member of the public and as someone who believes I have personally experienced adverse effects associated with modern wireless and digital technologies. I ask HHS to carefully investigate such experiences through independent, transparent scientific research, while considering possible effects on human health, children, animals, and the environment. I also request that future policies consider affected individuals and possible support, monitoring, and protection mechanisms where credible evidence identifies risks. Thank you for considering my experience.