Research & federal duties

HHS-OASH-2026-0397 RFI Questions 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 People should be able to rely on health protections without having to become scientists. When published research reports malignant tumours in exposed animals or damage to reproductive cells, the public has good reason to want those findings examined carefully. Understanding their implications matters to people who cannot assess the science for themselves. I offer the attached review, Health protection deserves clear answers, to help bring that evidence within reach. Important findings are scattered across technical journals and government reports. Their significance can be difficult to follow, especially for someone already worried about their own health or that of their family. This review gives concerned readers an accessible way into the original work, with the detail needed for scientific examination alongside it. A strong starting point is the cancer evidence, records RF-001 and RF-002. The US National Toxicology Program classified malignant heart tumours in male rats after prolonged whole-body radiofrequency exposure as "clear evidence" of cancer-causing activity. A separate lifetime experiment at the Ramazzini Institute reported a significant increase in the same rare tumour type at its highest exposure. These are disease outcomes in experimental animals. Their meaning for human protection deserves close attention, while recognising that these experiments alone cannot calculate the risk from everyday phone use. The reproductive findings, RF-006 to RF-008, are another important starting point. Experiments with isolated human sperm and whole-body-exposed mice reported impaired sperm function and DNA damage. Sperm movement and genetic integrity are directly relevant to reproduction. The findings warrant attention on their own terms; they do not establish infertility in people. The report explains the exposure conditions, identifies the related research groups and records what the experiments did and did not show. Other experiments examine whether radiofrequency exposure can influence tumour development in mice also given a cancer-causing chemical. They raise a distinct question about combined exposures and biological susceptibility. The review also covers brain-tissue observations, objective responses in blinded human experiments, and ecological findings. One prolonged-exposure experiment reported fewer bees returning home. These different outcomes each need to be understood under the conditions in which they were observed. The report is deliberately selective. It brings together published adverse findings, exposure-associated symptoms and biological responses potentially relevant to harm. It does not attempt to settle the overall balance of the literature. Animal disease, cellular damage and a measurable biological response carry different meanings; the review keeps those distinctions visible. Relevant nonconfirming follow-ups, corrections and publication notices are included. Abstract-level records and unfinished retrieval leads are clearly marked. Please begin with the short opening chapters and the coloured "Why this matters" panels. There is no need to master the technical detail before understanding why a study deserves attention. Clickable contents, bookmarks and indexes lead from those introductions to the study records and original sources. The attachment is intended to be useful to interested members of the public as well as to readers equipped to examine the science closely. My hope is that this contribution helps these findings receive serious consideration alongside the other evidence submitted, and informs the work of the public bodies on which people rely for protection. Cancer prevention and reproductive health give these questions an importance beyond specialist debate. Clear explanations of what the evidence means for protection would matter to many people. Simon Fox Director, Resonance Sciences Limited, UK Perspective and source basis (Q2): a public, literature-based contribution drawing on peer-reviewed original research and government technical reports.

Regarding: Request for Information on EMF, RF, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Comment by Dan Feidt, Philadelphia resident. [Question 2 & 3] I am an individual consumer and former resident who experienced chronic, close-range exposure (<25 feet) to cell tower mast hardware on a residential building. This exposure was continuous (24/7), highlighting severe gaps in public safety frameworks. Crucially, another resident in my immediate living environment required a cardiac pacemaker during their residency near this specific transmitter array. This observation necessitates formal tracking to investigate if chronic, close-range residential exposure acts as an environmental stressor or accelerant for cardiac electrical dysfunction, even at levels deemed compliant with outdated standards. [Question 5 & 6: Outdated Exposure Standards] I urge federal health agencies to critically re-evaluate the FCC’s General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure framework (47 CFR § 1.1310). The current Max Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits are structurally deficient: 1. Outdated 1996 Baseline: The framework relies on guidelines adopted in 1996, failing to reflect modern 5G/6G densification, multi-frequency arrays, and multi-family rooftop placements. 2. Thermal Precedent Flaw: The 1996 framework protects only against acute thermal tissue heating over short intervals. It entirely ignores the biological realities of chronic, long-term, non-thermal cumulative exposure. 3. Preemption Gaps: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 blocks local municipalities from restricting placements based on environmental health concerns if they meet FCC limits, leaving residents completely vulnerable with no legal recourse or mandatory safety buffers near living spaces. [Question 7, 8 & 9] - 3D Volumetric Spatial Auditing: Compliance frameworks must evolve past single, static center-of-the-room data points. Testing should require a standardized protocol using an extended pole assembly with a calibrated tri-axial probe to systematically plot electromagnetic energy within every individual cubic meter of residential space to map "exposure hot spots" caused by reflections off internal building materials. - Standardized Inflow Auditing: The government must establish standardized protocols using calibrated, tri-axial isotropic antennas to measure the exact RF energy density and electric field strength entering a private residential unit, cross-referencing this against independent, non-thermal biomedical models. [Question 8 & 9 (Cont.): The "Energy Star" Model & Power Logs] - Transparent Disclosure Labels: Federal health agencies should establish a standardized, consumer-facing labeling framework analogous to the Energy Star metrics for device efficiency. Every residential rooftop mast must feature an accessible public registry placard (and QR link) disclosing maximum transmission intensity, active frequency bands, and licensed directional beamforming pathways. - Weather-Variant Disclosures: Regulators must mandate explicit disclosure of how wireless infrastructure alters its transmission intensity under varying conditions. Providers must declare operational ceilings for Automatic Transmit Power Control (ATPC), as dynamic surges used to compensate for "rain fade" (atmospheric attenuation from rain, snow, or fog) significantly escalate localized exposure compared to baseline clear-weather compliance models. - Mandatory 2-Year Historical Logs: Telecom operators must maintain and provide an accessible, rolling 2-year log detailing the exact power variations, intensity fluctuations, and active frequency bands used by any given mast. This allows residents, epidemiologists, and doctors to retroactively audit and map health changes or cardiac anomalies against real, long-term emission trends. [Question 11 & 12] - Medical Device Interoperability: Current risk evaluation frameworks neglect the spatial density of 5G antennas on residential roofs. The government must modernize safety buffer zones around multi-family residential structures to specifically protect individuals with implanted medical devices (such as pacemakers and defibrillators), ensuring localized fields do not cause unmonitored electromagnetic interference (EMI) over prolonged periods. [Question 17] - Inter-Agency Environmental and Cardiac Cross-Referencing: I urge the HHS to establish a collaborative research pipeline between the FDA, CDC, and FCC to cross-reference localized, time-stamped weather data and documented ATPC transmission surges with localized, anonymous emergency department admissions or remote pacemaker telemetry logs. This targeted research is necessary to determine if sudden, weather-induced spikes in localized RF transmission intensity correlate with acute cardiovascular events or electrical anomalies in implanted cardiac devices among residents living in close proximity to rooftop masts. More details attached in txt file. Thanks for consideration.

Health effects from wireless radiation are not always obvious, but the cumulative burden could be far greater than we realize. Please help us find out how to minimize the harm. I am glad HHS is 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 investigating this important issue.

I am an ordinary citizen who has been harmed by EMF radio since 2014 when a smart meter was attached to my house. I suffer from tinnitus because of it and the power company refused to uninstall it. EMF radiation is known to cause this condition. I ask that the harms of EMF radiation be independently studied because I know that it can cause many other health issues.

I am a mother in Arizona his children have been impacted by emfs and Wireless Communications. My son is so sensitive even to microwaves and it impacts his health I know a lot of us have toxic overload of everything in our environments maybe it's not one thing but it's two or three things that are breaking the Children's Health. Please do the research on this and limit it from our communities

I am a Licensed Electrician and perform EMF Mitigation for private residences. I received training through the Building Biology Institute and am in process to be certified through BBI as an Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist. For the past 6 years I have measured and mitigated electromagnetic fields in homes with a primary focus on sleeping areas. My work is guided by the Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines, which are based on the precautionary principle and the goal of creating environments that support long-term health rather than merely avoiding acute thermal injury. I appreciate HHS’s initiative to examine RF/EMF exposures, particularly as they affect children and other vulnerable populations. There exists a large gap between U.S. standards and precautionary guidelines. U.S. and ICNIRP standards are based almost exclusively on heating (thermal) effects. A substantial body of peer-reviewed research documents non-thermal biological effects at levels far below those limits. Mechanisms repeatedly discussed in the literature and observed in practice include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels leading to oxidative stress, disruption of melatonin and circadian rhythms, DNA damage, increased blood-brain barrier permeability, and effects on sperm and reproductive tissue. From my professional experience, the most consistent and rapidly reversible effects are on sleep quality and overnight recovery. Clients frequently report improvements in sleep, energy, headaches, heart palpitations, cognitive clarity, and skin sensations after reduction of nighttime exposures, even when daytime exposures remain largely unchanged. These observations align with the emphasis Building Biology places on sleeping areas. Children are of particular concern. Their thinner skulls, higher tissue conductivity, developing nervous and immune systems, and longer cumulative lifetime exposure increase vulnerability. I regularly encounter elevated RF and AC electric/magnetic fields in children’s bedrooms from Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, cordless phones, cell phones, tablets, gaming devices, smart meters, and poorly designed electrical wiring. Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines for Sleeping Areas: • Radiofrequency: ideally < 0.1–10 µW/m² • AC magnetic fields: < 0.2–1 mG (20–100 nT) • AC electric fields / body voltage: very low (typically aiming for body voltage < 10–100 mV) These levels are orders of magnitude below current FCC public exposure limits. Several European medical associations (e.g., Austrian Medical Association, EUROPAEM) and the BioInitiative reports have recommended substantially lower precautionary limits than those adopted in the United States. To address the current research gaps, the following areas should be prioritized: • Long-term studies of chronic, low-level, pulsed RF exposures typical of real-world environments (Wi-Fi, 4G/5G, DECT, smart meters) rather than short-term, continuous-wave laboratory exposures. • Effects on sleep architecture, melatonin, and overnight recovery in children and adolescents. • Combined exposures (RF + dirty electricity/microsurge electrical pollution + AC electric and magnetic fields). • Identification of susceptible subgroups (including those with electrohypersensitivity/EMR syndrome) and objective biomarkers. • Prospective studies of mitigation effectiveness in homes and schools. Recommendations: 1. Prioritize sleeping areas — Turn off or place Wi-Fi routers in airplane mode at night; keep cell phones and tablets out of bedrooms or in airplane mode; prefer hardwired Ethernet connections. 2. Reduce close-range device use — Encourage speakerphone, wired headsets, or airplane mode for children; avoid carrying phones against the body. 3. Address electrical environment — Identify and correct wiring errors that elevate magnetic fields; consider demand switches or circuit control for bedrooms to reduce AC electric fields during sleep; minimize dirty electricity from dimmers, inverters, and certain electronics. 4. School and institutional settings — Prefer hardwired networks where feasible; locate wireless access points away from classrooms and offices; provide low-EMF options for sensitive students. 5. Siting of infrastructure — Avoid placing cell antennas, small cells, and smart meters in close proximity to homes, schools, and daycare facilities. 6. Education — Provide clear, accessible information so parents, teachers, and clinicians can make informed choices while research continues. I urge HHS to incorporate precautionary considerations for non-thermal effects into its evaluation, especially for children, and to support independent research that examines real-world exposure patterns and mitigation outcomes. Practitioner observations and the existing body of non-thermal research should be weighed alongside the thermal-only framework that currently underpins U.S. standards. Respectfully, William Pursino

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 and friend. Wireless radiation has affected someone I care about. Her experiences have affected daily life and relationships terribly. Wireless radiation isn't safe and HHS should address this issue. 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 submit this comment as a 27-year-old resident of France who has experienced localized physiological and neurological symptoms associated with ambient and near-field electromagnetic environments since early 2021. My experience highlights the importance of assessing whether current regulatory standards adequately address real-world exposure conditions and individual sensitivities. Firstly of all, current testing protocols often assess wireless devices under controlled conditions that may not fully reflect simultaneous use of GPS, cellular data, and Wi-Fi. Such multi-radio activity can affect device power consumption, heat generation, and exposure levels. I therefore encourage the Commission to evaluate simultaneous transmissions in realistic operating and handling conditions when reviewing Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and power-density standards. Relevant industry developments, including U.S. Patent No. US20120231784A1, illustrate the technical challenges of managing emissions in multi-radio systems. Secondly, exposure assessments should also consider the broader environmental context. Atmospheric electricity, temperature, low-frequency fields, and device-generated noise may coexist in everyday settings. Although their combined physiological effects require further investigation, I encourage the Commission to support research into potential interactions between environmental factors and neurological responses, including symptoms reported by sensitive individuals. Thirdly, metal enclosures such as trains, subways, elevators, and vehicle cabins can affect signal reception and prompt mobile devices to adjust transmission power. These changing conditions may produce exposure patterns not adequately represented by averaged outdoor measurements. Testing should therefore include realistic indoor and enclosed transport environments, transient transmission peaks, and common device-use positions. Furthermore, building materials, architectural design, and local topography can also influence radiofrequency distribution. Masonry may attenuate signals, while windows, upper floors, and reflections from nearby structures can create variations in indoor exposure. I encourage the FCC to collaborate with architects, engineers, and materials scientists to investigate shielding materials, develop standardized testing methods, and assess practical measures to reduce indoor exposure where appropriate. Finally, disabling wireless interfaces and using wired connections may reduce radiofrequency emissions, but electronic devices continue to generate low-frequency electromagnetic fields, heat, and other electrical emissions. I therefore recommend that regulatory bodies assess these sources alongside radiofrequency emissions, including during close-proximity use of battery-powered and mains-powered electronics. In conclusion, I respectfully encourage regulatory authorities to review existing safety standards in light of realistic device operation, changing environmental conditions, building characteristics, and emissions across different frequency ranges. Further independent research and appropriately precautionary safety margins could help clarify potential non-thermal effects and improve protection for the general public, including individuals reporting heightened sensitivities.

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.

I am writing to share concerns about EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation exposure. It is my understanding that US studies and regulations are out of date. The stakes are high; we need to have a clear picture of the impacts on human health, wildlife, the environment, and privacy rights. (See link to learn about some known health effects.) I have a PhD in Human Sciences and understand research (and conflict of interest in research). We need to study these areas further before developing additional, related technologies. I know of people who have had to relocate and unplug connections and apply protective fabric due to impacts on their health. (We are hard wired in our house.) Citizens need informed consent, and future generations need us to call out conflict of interest and apply the Precautionary Principle. Thank you for consideration. Sincerely, Stacey S. PhD https://childrenshealthdefense.org/emr/education/