Research & federal duties

I am a retired scientific researcher and strategy adviser having worked mainly in telecom R&D, industry and academia, living in Norway. Only late in my career, around 2010, I became aware of the abounding scientific research indicating health issues from cell phones and other RF-EMFs, as well as of tricks used to build a boolwark against such results. Since then, I have full time studied the scientific results and conveyed them to others, as I find the evidence overwhelming. On the way, I wrote books reviewing the science, translated books, and collected 150 selfreported descriptions of unhealth reactions experienced by electrohypersentive persons mainly from smartmeters, and from some other transmitting equipment. The stories include several in practice blind folded tests, and a wide range of so called "diffuse" acute symptoms, which vanish when away from the transmitting source. The 150 stories are included. (Publication consented.). However, listings of symptoms such as requested here and found in the 150 stories, do only register acute reactions, not long term effects from well documented impact on biosystems, e.g. DNA breaks or opening of the blood-brain-barrier. As unhealth from such effects is stochastic, multifactor and spread on a wide range of possible diagnoses, no valid conclusions can be drawn from registering acute symptoms. One must rely on huge epidemiological studies, realistic lab studies on basic mechanisms, and a precautionary approach. Therefore, as to relevant standards, the present standards from ICES/IIEEE and ICNIRP are irrelevant, as they only accept acute heat effects as proven, and set the recommended exposure maxima accordingly, only to protect against heat effects and demand presize measurements relevant for heat as causation. Such standards are unsuitable for protecting against (athermal) long term effects, and not precaucionary and have no predication value and therefore unusable for public radiation protection. Federal health agencies should in stead consider exposure standards based on experience cum science, and base standards on a precautionary approach. The best and most relevant such guideline and standard with recommended max exposure limits at present is: Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. PMID: 27454111. What would improve the assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure the most, would be to get the bodies shaping the norms have a balanced representation of industry, independent researchers and government - not only industry and/or personell accepting to work on the premises that heat only effects is all there is to protect, and neglecting all other effects, although very well proven (or even probable only). To include taking advice from the ICBE-EMF (The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields) would be such an important step in the right direction. A very efficient step to develop, test, and evaluate the effectiveness of procedures and techniques for minimizing exposure to electronic product radiation, would be to establish a lab test site and approval system based on measuring oxidative stress in cells from microwave exposure. (This can easily and cost-effectively and fast be measured by standard equipment. Ask prof. em. Martin L Pall for further advice for set up of such a lab.) As effects from RF-EMF are in part acute, in part long term and just one of several vectors, trying to list the risk picture per item is a futile exercise and disturbs real risk assessments. In stead, to Measure Human Exposure and Public Health Surveillance, MDs should start registering and reporting suspected cases of EMF-caused unhealth. Any radiation protection strategy must be based on standard environmental medicine / toxicology procedures as to already present toxic matters: i.e. based on precaution and with a low, not an extremely high, demand for proof as at present, and not demanding sigle factorial proofs. Einar Flydal, cand. polit.; Master of Telecom Strategy, retired from telecom & academia, writer and blogger Oslo, Norway

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 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 and families with an opportunity to be heard.

Please investigate the relationship between electromagnetic radiation and health effects! As a medical professional this relates to a lot of illnesses.

i have tinnitus since cell towers s were erected in our town. It disturbs my sleep and concentration. Please study the effect of EMR on the human brain.

The current technology in LED headlights in automobiles and trucks affect my life profoundly. Due to a lifelong astigmatism in my eyes, these headlights create a white out effect when they are pointed toward me from oncoming traffic at night. It wasn't such a big issue until almost two years ago when they seemed to reach a sort of critical mass on newer vehicles. I have seconds where I'm blinded and I can't see anything but white glare. This is happening while I'm driving a moving vehicle. I'm terrified I'll hurt someone else by not seeing a pedestrian, or having no clue where any curbs or road markings are and crashing into another vehicle. Of course, that would likely be the end of me, too. I can only drive after dark if I can plan nearly all of a route on familiar roadways with no oncoming traffic, like service roads or freeways. The older halogen headlights never did this, and I mostly don't drive after dark now. My life is so much more restricted now. It's limiting and depressing. I know there are a lot of people with astigmatism who must be similarly affected. As I understand it, 21 U.S.C. 360ii requires the FDA to establish and maintain a liaison with NHTSA to test and evaluate LED headlights for their impacts on human health. Isolation, depression, and possibly crashing and loosing our lives are certainly impacts on our health. There has to be some solution, some way to modify the existing headlights, such as a coating or applied film, that mitigates the effects of what are like a multitude of tiny reflecting mirrors. I propose that this is an urgent matter worthy of research and efforts toward a way to make LED headlights safer.

We all know someone that lives out in the country because they could not be exposed to 4G. With 5G and all these satellites, there is no escaping these issues. I have had a brother die from brain cancer, and I recently had a brain tumor removed. What does the data say? Can we publish it? Let's use the H in HHS to include PUBLIC HEALTH and stop the push to see who dies first.

I am very grateful that HHS is giving Americans an opportunity to share our personal experiences and concerns about RF radiation and electromagnetic fields. I appreciate the willingness to listen to the public and investigate questions that may have been overlooked or insufficiently studied. I am 29 years old, and until the past few years, I had always been an exceptionally healthy, active person. I have been athletic my entire life and loved exercising, being outdoors, traveling, and challenging my body. I have also always eaten a very clean, healthy diet and have been extremely proactive about taking care of myself. I was able to live a very active and full life. I was not someone who had a history of chronic illness. That is why the change in my health has been so shocking. After I had COVID, my health changed dramatically. It felt as though my Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which had previously been dormant, suddenly "turned on." I was diagnosed with EBV a little over two years ago, and since then I have experienced debilitating chronic fatigue, brain fog, depression, anxiety, significant neck and body pain, and what I can only describe as a constantly frazzled nervous system. I went from being a very healthy and athletic young woman to struggling to work normal hours and participate in many of the things that once made me feel like myself. I do not claim that COVID caused my EBV to reactivate or that EMF caused my illness. I understand that my experience does not establish causation. However, I believe the dramatic change in someone who was previously so healthy deserves to be investigated, especially when multiple environmental factors may be involved. One thing I have personally noticed is that I seem to be sensitive to electromagnetic and wireless exposure. I have experimented with reducing my exposure in my home, and the difference has been significant enough that I feel compelled to share it. At night, I use a kill switch to turn off wireless and Bluetooth devices, including my Alexa and television. I use wired headphones instead of Bluetooth whenever possible, and I use a Faraday box over my smart meter. When I significantly reduce my wireless exposure, particularly at night, I feel noticeably better. My nervous system feels less overwhelmed and my body seems able to settle down more easily. I realize this is only my personal experience and that there may be other explanations. But I believe experiences like mine should be studied rather than dismissed. I would like to see more research into whether some people may be more sensitive to RF/EMF exposure than others, whether people with chronic illnesses may respond differently, and whether long-term, cumulative, real-world exposure is adequately represented in current research. While we are looking at environmental factors that may affect our health, I also hope we can investigate the bigger picture: highly processed foods, pesticide exposure and glyphosate, PFAS and other "forever chemicals," plastics, and the cumulative effect of being exposed to so many substances throughout our lives. I have always eaten very cleanly and taken care of my body, yet I am still exposed to environmental chemicals that are difficult or impossible to avoid. I would like to better understand what levels of these substances are actually accumulating in our bodies and what long-term, low-level exposure may mean for human health. I also hope there is continued independent research into microwave ovens, including both the radiation they emit and potential effects of prolonged proximity while they are operating. I understand that properly functioning microwave ovens are currently considered safe when they meet federal standards, but I believe it is reasonable to continue studying these questions rather than assuming everything has already been answered. I hope researchers look at cumulative exposure rather than studying every environmental factor completely in isolation. We are surrounded by wireless technology, pesticides, plastics, PFAS, food additives, and many other environmental substances daily. We need to understand what years of combined exposure may mean for human health, particularly for people who develop complex chronic illnesses. I am not asking for predetermined conclusions. I am asking for these questions to be taken seriously and investigated with rigorous, independent research. I am grateful that HHS is creating a place for people like me to share what we have experienced. The past two years have been incredibly difficult. I know what it feels like to have a healthy, active body, and I desperately want to get back to that life—to exercise, work, travel, have a family, and feel like myself again. I hope listening to patients and investigating these environmental questions can lead to better research, greater transparency, and a healthier future for all of us and the generations that come after us.

Please, make the FCC take on the health challenges that are before us. We've already experienced many deaths and illnesses from over exposures to wireless radiation. Our children and our futures are at stake. If the FCC cannot follow court orders than the HHS could take up this cause. We are sitting in massive amounts of RF radiation due to the grid/satellites/cell infrastructure/cell phones/baby monitors/ wireless health devices/ Wi-fi and many others. The manufacturers are completely out of control and setting more and more dangerous standards. The most vulnerable in our society are in harms way. Our medical system is not addressing this issue and many are suffering without the cause. This will not only destroy our medical system with tremendous amounts predictable cancers. Needlessly I may say. This will be the 'Wireless Holocaust" if not stopped.

I strongly urge HHS and its selected scientists to review the effects, symptoms, and published studies and report on non-thermal effect and take these into consideration. I have been conducting assessments for AC electric and magnetic fields and wireless radiation (RF) with professional calibrated instrumentation in residential, commercial and institutional buildings for over 30. I can attest that in many cases were individuals reported unspecific health problems and symptoms; once the source was eliminated, exposure reduced or shielded improvements were clearly noted. The current regulatory exposure limited need to be revised and significant reduced, especially in sensitive aeras such as but not limited too kindergartens, schools,...... I am encouraged that 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.

I am a retired environmental attorney and currently a Professional Engineer in Washington and California (RCE). I have participated in proceedings before the FCC regarding the harms to humans and other protected animals of non-ionizing EMF including radiofrequency and wireless radiation. The FCC has been unresponsive to these harms. I greatly appreciate the HHS addressing this issue. These harms are addressed in the attachments submitted as part of this comment. A good summary of these harms is provided in Sage, Cindy (2007-2014) (attached hereto). There has been an International Appeal (2015) (attached hereto) seeking to get reasonable regulation of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). I attach other articles that address this issue, including Pall, Martin L. (2015); Yakymenko, Igor (2014); and Levitt, B. Blake (2010). Cell towers not only adversely impact humans, but also have adverse impacts on protected wildlife. Albert Manville is an expert on the adverse impacts to protected wildlife and I attach several articles from a Manville Report that give guidance. Please address mitigation of the harms addressed herein. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted,