Research & federal duties

We don’t know enough about the harm of our technology and we must be better informed as we roll out our digital future at a break neck pace. Certainly people should have the right to opt out for free from smart meters. We may live in a capitalistic society but after all this is supposed to be a democracy for the people who you serve as public servants- not corporations and billionaires and energy companies. Please do your due diligence in fully studying the impact on human health and environment from wifi, cell towers, cell signals, smart meters , data centers, etc. Thank you

WALLINGTON, NJ: OUR CHILDREN LIVE INSIDE THE SIGNAL, 24 HOURS A DAY. Every person in Wallington lives within half a mile of a cell antenna installation. Most live within half a mile of two or more. I ask HHS to make Wallington a pilot site and to come see it. My full report is attached. ABOUT ME. Szymon Sikorski. Medical degree; 20 years in medical research analysis, the last five on cancer. Parent of a child in Wallington public schools. I write for no institution. For six years I lived and worked from home near the Hathaway Street Park cell tower. Day and night. Then I was diagnosed with cancer. Now I live with it, and with the fear of it getting worse. How much of it came from six years of round-the-clock RF and EMF exposure? No one can tell me. No one ever measured it. PEOPLE SEE ONE TOWER. WE HAVE SIX INSTALLATIONS. They carry more than 70 panels, most hidden in plain sight: on a water tank next to an elementary school, an apartment roof where families sleep directly under eight antennas, a self-storage building, an old water tower and a chimney. You may see a tower 2,000 feet away and miss the antennas much closer to home. Not one has ever been held to Wallington's own 500-foot rule. THE WARNINGS ARE NOT NEW. The World Health Organization's cancer agency (IARC) lists radio-frequency radiation, and magnetic fields from electrical equipment, as possibly causing cancer in humans. In 2019, and again in 2024, its advisers called a new cancer review a high priority. The American Academy of Pediatrics told the FCC its limits do not account for children and pregnant women, and a federal court ordered the FCC to explain how they protect children long term. Firefighters asked for a federal study of antennas on their stations in 2004. It was never done. WHY 1,500 FEET? In Germany and Israel, studies found more cancers among people living within about 1,150 to 1,300 feet of cell antennas. A 1,500-foot buffer covers that distance. Legislators keep proposing 1,500 feet or more from schools; in New Hampshire, 1,640 feet from homes and schools. In Wallington, 83% of homes are within 1,500 feet of an installation. 24 HOURS A DAY, NOT 30 MINUTES. FCC limits were set in 1996 to stop tissue heating, averaged over 30 minutes. They do not count years. Our exposure does not stop after 30 minutes. It never stops. THINK OF ONE WALLINGTON CHILD. She spends her school day at Gavlak Elementary, 180 feet from antennas on the water tank, with three installations within half a mile. Then she comes home, still within reach of more. She sleeps there. In the morning she goes back. Year after year, while her brain and body are still growing, her exposure adds up. No one has ever studied a child like her. Her teachers may spend whole pregnancies 180 feet from those antennas. No one has studied that either. WHAT I MEASURED. In neighbors' homes within 900 feet of the tower, RF read about 7 mW/m². In the park where children play, 20 to 33. Magnetic fields at the tower's base reached 45 mG. All far below FCC limits. Yet studies found effects at these levels: where RF was higher, students scored lower on memory tests, schoolchildren had more DNA damage markers, and residents reported more symptoms. Children in homes averaging above 4 mG had about double the leukemia risk. RISK VERSUS BENEFIT. The Borough collects about $80,000 a year from two of these sites. That is $6.78 per resident per year. About $41 over six years. $41. Against cancer. Against a parent's worry that never ends. THE TOWER COMPANY WILL NOT CARRY THE RISK. The company holding the Hathaway tower lease tells investors it has no significant insurance against RF health claims. Insurers have long excluded these risks. Why are they worried about liability? What do they know that we do not? TOWNS ARE REMOVING ANTENNAS, NOT JUST BANNING NEW ONES. In California, a carrier removed a tower from an elementary school after four students got cancer, even though it tested within federal limits. In New York, a 150-foot tower beside a public housing playground came down after residents objected. India's Supreme Court ordered a tower switched off for a cancer patient who said it hit his home 24/7 for 13 years. Here, no one was even told. Not residents, not parents, not the school. Everyone who understands this now carries one more worry, every day, especially parents. Home values and taxes suffer too; the report covers that. WHAT I ASK. (1) A health-based distance from schools and homes, and moving antennas that are too close, starting on public property. (2) Make every antenna's owner, frequencies and power public. (3) Link cancer and birth records to antenna history. (4) Study children exposed at school and at home, for years. (5) Come to Wallington.

My biggest concern is the law enforcement surrounding RF and EMF. I have recorded illegal levels in my home. When a plane crashes does the black box tell us what EMF or RF was present? It should! I think this study is a big step in the right direction, but we must police it as well.

Question 2: I am responding as an individual consumer, a mother, and a member of a household where both adults work from home. I am not a scientist or medical professional. My comments are based on my own experience. My husband has submitted a separate response describing his own experience and measurements. Question 3: From 2022 to 2024 we lived about 400 metres from a mobile phone base station that carried 5G. My husband’s meter readings outdoors facing the mast were much higher than at our current home. Our house also had a lot of wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, several smart speakers, and wireless smart lights, switches and sensors. I worked from home, using my mobile phone regularly, with my desk beside our Wi-Fi router for most of the working day. While living there I had two miscarriages. I also developed tinnitus, anxiety, pressure in my head and difficulty sleeping. When we became aware of possible risks, we removed all the wireless devices from the house after both miscarriages, and in late 2024 we moved to a home further from base stations, where we do not use Wi-Fi and indoor readings are very low. My symptoms went away completely after the move. We conceived without difficulty and I have had a successful pregnancy. In late 2025 my symptoms returned. Only afterwards did we notice that a nearby base station had been rebuilt taller, with six new antennas; the operator has since confirmed the site runs 5G. By late 2026 my symptoms had become unbearable. We now sleep inside a shielding canopy over the bed, and we have fitted shielding to our windows. I understand that miscarriage is common and has many causes, and that other things in our lives changed when we moved. I am not claiming that wireless exposure caused my losses or my symptoms, and I know my observations are not blinded. Some research exists on exposure in pregnancy, including mobile phone use and living near base stations. That gap is why I am writing. Question 11: Pregnant women and unborn children should be a priority population in research and exposure guidance. Simple advice, such as keeping routers away from where people sit for long periods and limiting wireless devices in the home, costs nothing and could be given now. Question 16: I would like independent, publicly funded research into reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage and fertility, in relation to everyday combined exposure at home and at work, using measured exposure rather than estimates based on phone use. Question 18: I am concerned about how quickly new wireless technologies are being installed outdoors and inside buildings, including Wi-Fi throughout schools, where children spend most of their day and have no choice about their exposure. Reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization found very little research on long-term exposure and cognition in children, and one Swiss study of adolescents found an association between mobile phone exposure to the head and poorer memory development, which the authors say needs confirming. I recommend that new technologies and frequency bands are independently assessed for health effects before widespread rollout, and that schools follow France’s approach since 2015: no Wi-Fi in spaces for children under three, Wi-Fi switched off in primary schools when not needed for teaching, and parents told before new wireless equipment is installed. All information in this response is from my own experience and is not peer-reviewed research.

Question 2: I am responding as an individual consumer, a mother, and a member of a household where both adults work from home. I am not a scientist or medical professional. My comments are based on my own experience. My husband has submitted a separate response describing his own experience and measurements. Question 3: From 2022 to 2024 we lived about 400 metres from a mobile phone base station that carried 5G. My husband’s meter readings outdoors facing the mast were much higher than at our current home. Our house also had a lot of wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, several smart speakers, and wireless smart lights, switches and sensors. I worked from home, using my mobile phone regularly, with my desk beside our Wi-Fi router for most of the working day. While living there I had two miscarriages. I also developed tinnitus, anxiety, pressure in my head and difficulty sleeping. When we became aware of possible risks, we removed all the wireless devices from the house after both miscarriages, and in late 2024 we moved to a home further from base stations, where we do not use Wi-Fi and indoor readings are very low. My symptoms went away completely after the move. We conceived without difficulty and I have had a successful pregnancy. In late 2025 my symptoms returned. Only afterwards did we notice that a nearby base station had been rebuilt taller, with six new antennas; the operator has since confirmed the site runs 5G. By late 2026 my symptoms had become unbearable. We now sleep inside a shielding canopy over the bed, and we have fitted shielding to our windows. I understand that miscarriage is common and has many causes, and that other things in our lives changed when we moved. I am not claiming that wireless exposure caused my losses or my symptoms, and I know my observations are not blinded. Some research exists on exposure in pregnancy, including mobile phone use and living near base stations. That gap is why I am writing. Question 11: Pregnant women and unborn children should be a priority population in research and exposure guidance. Simple advice, such as keeping routers away from where people sit for long periods and limiting wireless devices in the home, costs nothing and could be given now. Question 16: I would like independent, publicly funded research into reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage and fertility, in relation to everyday combined exposure at home and at work, using measured exposure rather than estimates based on phone use. Question 18: I am concerned about how quickly new wireless technologies are being installed outdoors and inside buildings, including Wi-Fi throughout schools, where children spend most of their day and have no choice about their exposure. Reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization found very little research on long-term exposure and cognition in children, and one Swiss study of adolescents found an association between mobile phone exposure to the head and poorer memory development, which the authors say needs confirming. I recommend that new technologies and frequency bands are independently assessed for health effects before widespread rollout, and that schools follow France’s approach since 2015: no Wi-Fi in spaces for children under three, Wi-Fi switched off in primary schools when not needed for teaching, and parents told before new wireless equipment is installed. All information in this response is from my own experience and is not peer-reviewed research.

Sivani Saravanamuttu, M.Phil., Ph.D. Independent Researcher and Author; Founder of Project Plain Talk I submit the following comments on the HHS RFI on Electromagnetic Fields, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. My perspective draws on my peer-reviewed 2013 review (Sivani & Sudarsanam, Biology and Medicine) previously filed as Exhibit 19 in FCC ET Docket 13-84, and my book - The Digital Pied Piper Effect (2018) - which treats RF-EMF health questions as a systems problem involving both biological responses and behavioural patterns that increase cumulative exposure, especially in children. Key points (detailed in the attached PDF): - Exposure and behaviour are entangled; studies should measure both and attempt to separate their effects. - Priority needs include real-use dosimetry, longitudinal cohorts from early life and transparent evidence syntheses. - Individual sensitivity (including EHS/IEI-EMF) requires better methods (e.g., proteomics approaches proposed by Leszczynski) rather than relying solely on self-report or short provocation studies. - EHS recognition and prevalence data are concentrated in high-income countries; comparative data from other regions are lacking. - Coordination across FDA, NIH, CDC and related agencies is needed, with attention to non-thermal mechanisms as hypotheses requiring further testing and to practical exposure-reduction options. The full response, with citations and mapping to specific RFI questions, is attached as a PDF.

Triple board certified physician here including in Brain Injury. It's simple. EMF changes biological signaling in a detrimental way, even at levels FAR below thermal effects. It is no less than a neurotoxin that our government has failed to protect us from. Change that. For one of a thousand studies on this topic, see Int J Radiat Biol. 2026;102(4):421-434. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2026.2617592. Neurotoxic effects of 3.5 GHz GSM-like RF exposure on cultured DRG neurons: a mechanistic insight into oxidative and apoptotic pathways.

Re: Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397; Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure; 91 FR 59792 (September 21, 2026); FR Doc. 2026-19252; regulations.gov Document ID HHS-OASH-2026-0397-0001 Perspective (Question 2): I write as a researcher and as a consumer; I file in my individual capacity, with affiliation for identification only, and my response rests on the methodological literature and on professional experience rather than on new data. I am an epidemiologist (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) and a security engineer who has built RF telemetry and software-defined radio sensing systems through two companies I co-founded. The strongest case for this RFI is its order of operations: asking the research community and the public to identify frameworks, evidence, exposure methods, surveillance gaps, and research priorities before any policy move is the correct sequence, the questions are well structured, and the instruction that respondents name the frameworks they rely on and the basis of their evidence is sound. I take no position on whether RF exposure below current limits causes harm. My position is narrower and prior: that question cannot be answered well until exposure is measured, so the most consequential questions in this notice are the exposure-assessment and surveillance questions. Summary of recommendations: 1. For each exposure framework HHS relies on, state the biological endpoint the limit protects against and the safety factor applied (Question 5). 2. Fund a national measured-exposure program: calibrated personal dosimeters and fixed software-defined radio monitors on a probability-based population panel, recording band-resolved field strength and duty cycle over time with published uncertainty budgets (Questions 7 and 8). 3. Disclose measured field strength at representative use distances, in plain units with stated uncertainty, rather than only a single maximum SAR value (Question 9). 4. Evaluate any new surveillance system against the CDC 2001 attributes before it is built, and give every registry an exposure denominator by linking it to the measured-exposure panel (Question 10). 5. Differentiate exposure assessment for children and for occupational groups because dose, not only field strength, differs (Question 11). 6. Apply symmetric quality criteria to studies finding effects and studies finding none, and prioritize measured-exposure cohorts and replication of the most-cited findings on either side (Questions 12 and 16). 7. Adopt a single federal exposure-measurement data standard and shared repository for FDA, NIH, CDC, and the FCC, coordinated with the FCC's concurrent proceeding (Question 17). The full comment is attached as a PDF. Disclosure: I have no financial interest in any vendor or contract involving this request, and I was not compensated for this comment. I co-founded AirCrumbs, Inc., which develops software-defined radio systems for wireless signal attribution, not exposure measurement, and earlier co-founded MTRX, Inc., which built RF telemetry products; I have no financial interest in any wireless carrier, device manufacturer, or exposure-measurement vendor. Andrew G. Huff, Ph.D., M.S. Risk Factor Research, LLC, Michigan, USA contact@andrewhuff.com

Questions 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 18 I submit this as a resident concerned about persistent noise, perceived vibrations, health effects, and possible RF/EMF exposure near my home. My family has lived for years in an all-electric home near Whitewater Hill in the Palm Springs area, beside an aging wind farm, with a freeway below and numerous communications and radio towers nearby. In November 2024, I awoke to a loud, high-pitched, sustained sound apparently coming from outside toward the wind farm. Similar sounds and perceived vibrations have continued almost daily and nightly, changing throughout the day and often becoming particularly disruptive late at night or early in the morning. I am concerned about a nearby 5G tower that appears directed toward my home. Its involvement has not been established by testing. The disturbance has caused prolonged loss of sleep, severe headaches, exhaustion and two early-morning hospital visits. I was evaluated for tinnitus and told it did not explain my experience. My hearing specialist added a white-noise setting to my hearing aids. I have reverse-slope hearing loss. I have spent nearly two years and considerable money investigating and trying to obtain relief: Southern California Edison came three times, including at 10 p.m. My solar company inspected its equipment several times. Tesla replaced both costly home batteries multiple times; a senior representative also inspected the equipment. I shut off electricity to the entire house twice for 24 hours. The sound and vibrations continued unchanged. One shutdown damaged a pool pump, costing $2,300. I painted an entire room, walls and ceiling, with RF shielding paint. I purchased and installed special RF shielding curtains. I replaced all household ducting. I reinsulated the attic. I installed a new attic fan. I kept a log of disturbance dates and times. I installed a metal fence intended as shielding. I tried to measure the sustained sound on my phone, but the display only thickened and did not yield useful measurements. I filed a written FCC complaint. I contacted Palm Springs code officials, who referred me to the county. I paid a San Diego company $3,500 to measure frequencies. It tested only during the day and reportedly found a solar-equipment issue; the nighttime disturbance remains unexplained. I contacted the wind farm operator. After I reported noise around 10 p.m., its representative arrived about an hour later, after the sound had stopped. I wrote to a college seeking help through a research project. I sought a tinnitus evaluation; my hearing aids were adjusted for white noise. I purchased white-noise machines. I purchased four EMF hats, two EMF blankets, an EMF nightgown, noise-canceling earmuffs, and marketed EMF-blocking stickers for household electrical equipment. The shutdowns showed that switching off household electricity did not stop the disturbance, but they do not prove that a 5G tower or any other external installation caused it. My purchases do not prove that shielding products are effective. My property formerly had substantial bee activity and was once a bee farm, yet I have observed no bees over the past year. I cannot identify the reason; habitat, weather, pesticides, disease and other factors may matter. I ask HHS to support independent, multi-day and overnight investigation of complaints like mine; coordinated measurements of RF/EMF, audible and low-frequency sound, vibration and electrical interference; public access to relevant tower operating and compliance information; evaluation of cumulative conditions near homes, towers, wind farms and freeways; and better coordination among health agencies, the FCC, utilities and local authorities. Research should examine sleep disruption, headaches and possible environmental effects, including pollinators, without presuming causation. After repeated service calls, private testing, home alterations, government complaints and medical consultations, I still have no explanation. Residents need a practical route to independent testing at the times disturbances actually occur. Please consider this experience when setting research and public-health priorities.

I feel that EMF radiation has not been properly evaluated for human exposure and before we go to 6G we need to evaluate the effects this has on humans. My husband has AFIB and he has been holding his phone over his heart for years which I believe has contributed to this condition. He has been in the ICU for this problem and no doctor has ever brought up his EMF exposure as a possible explanation for his condition.