Research & federal duties

See attached file(s) Protect Our Children First: Urgent Call for Updated, Science-Based Wireless Radiation Safety Standards To: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) My name is Zen Honeycutt, and I am the Founder and Executive Director of Moms Across America, a national educational nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering mothers and families to create healthy, non-toxic environments for our children. On behalf of Moms Across America, I am calling upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to undertake an immediate, comprehensive, and transparent reassessment of federal radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure standards, with particular attention to children's developing bodies, long-term exposures, and potential biological effects beyond tissue heating. The FCC's current RF exposure limits were adopted in 1996 and subsequently retained. Although these standards address established adverse effects associated with RF exposure, they have not been comprehensively revised to reflect the enormous changes in wireless technology and patterns of human exposure over the past three decades. Today, children routinely encounter wireless devices in classrooms, homes, and public spaces. They may experience exposures from multiple sources over many years, beginning during prenatal development. The fact is that close and constant exposure to devices such as routers in homes, wireless access points in schools, and hot spots in hospitals harms human health. We believe this exposure environment warrants renewed scientific scrutiny, independent research, and reasonable precautionary protections. The federal courts have already recognized the need for greater accountability. In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC (2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had not adequately explained its decision to retain existing RF exposure guidelines with respect to potential harmful effects unrelated to cancer. The court directed the FCC to address several important issues, including: Potential effects of RF exposure on children Pulse variations and possible changes which could reduce harm Health implications of long-term exposure The widespread use of wireless devices and technological developments The adequacy of existing device-testing procedures Potential environmental impacts on trees, animals, aquatic life, and insects This decision provides a compelling legal and public-health basis for renewed review of existing federal protections. We request action. Th ecell phones and router can be made safer by altering the pulse variations. The manufacturers just nee dto be required to do so. Please see the attached comment for further details. Zen Honeycutt

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. I am responding as an individual. I have adverse effects from smart meters, and all wireless radiation. In approximately 2011, unbeknownst to my family, a smart meter was installed on our home while we where away. Myself and other family members came home, and immediately became sick. Adverse health effects include heart palpitations, headache, pressure in the inner ear, earache, post-nasal drip, pressure in chest, "dry" agitated eyes, tinnitus, memory disruption/ loss, difficulty sleeping. Adverse effects were immediate. They stopped once the smart meter was removed, and replace with an analog utility meter. It was clear that the adverse health effects were caused by the smart meter. The smart meter was removed, and replaced with an analog electric meter, and the adverse health effects stopped immediately. Some supporting documentation and other relevant information: - Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days After 900 MHz Exposure to the Radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073 - Cell Death Induced by 900-MHz RF Radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045516 - Electromagnetic Radiation at 900 MHz Induces Sperm Cell Death:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523914/ - Maternal Exposure to a Continuous 900-MHz Electromagnetic Field Provokes Neuronal Loss and Pathological Changes in Offspring: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26391347 - Fetal RF Radiation Exposure From 900 MHz Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00312 - RF Radiation (900 MHz) Induced DNA Damage & Cell Cycle Arrest in Testicular Cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27738269 I experience adverse health effects from all wireless radiation and dirty electricity, as do others in my family. Cell phone towers, small cells, mobile phones, wi-fi, wireless printers (keyboards, etc.), bluetooth, smart devices, cordless phones, smart watches, fit-bits, etc. Years ago, we purchase a variety of RF and other EMF detection meters, and use them routinely. I have had to work with specialists ( Building Biologists) to help mitigate EMF/RF/EMF sources in my home. Summary: Wireless radiation (man-made EMFs) causes me great harm and suffering. Electrosmog (radiation from wireless devices and appliances) is more and more difficult to be away from. Even if I am careful to not use devices that emit wireless radiation, I suffer from wireless radiation from other devices, towers, routers, smart meters, mesh networks, etc., - similar to a non-smoker suffering from second-hand smoke. It is imperative that all people and nature are protected from wireless radiation. Even extremely low frequencies cause harm.

Greetings! Concerning question 18: 1) A better measurement for rf-EMF is necessary, since SAR lumps together situations with extremely different potential for biological effects: SAR measures simply the absorbed energy over 6 minutes in standard cubicles of different sizes. It ignores peaks and modulations of the signal. The problem with that is that modulations might lead to resonance-like effects in biological molecules like Proteins (ion channels, enzymes,) even DNA. The peak intensities in suitable modulation and orientation in space might be responsible for „throwing the switch“ in those molecules, leading to ion influx and disturbed signalling in cells, or impaired mitochondrial funcion. Effects on voltage gated ion channels or the respiratory chain could explain the symptoms of people with EHS to a great extent. Panagopoulos states that in studies with real mobile telephony-exposure, over 95% of the studies find biological effects even below current limits where as continuous-wave exposure with the same SAR, and even „simulated exposure“ with highly repetetive modulation yield ambiguous results. He states that the polarisation and the variability and the modulation in the ELF/VLF-range are responsible for the biological effects, not the SAR. (as stated in the european parliament-workshop). Panagopoulos tested the hypothesis in Drosophila oogenesis and did find different results in different exposure settings with similar SAR. It is deeply concerning that public agencies like the BfS are caught in the circulatory reasoning that due to difficulties with dosimetry in real-mobile-telephony-settings, those studies are excluded for methodological flaws. Therefore, only studies with a small likelyhood of biological effects are considered, which acts as confirmation that there is no danger at all at this SAR. Therefore, no further exploratory research seems necessary.. 2) When testing for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) in provocation studies, it is crucial to take into account: In almost all EHS people, reliable symptom onset is delayed, sometimes by hours, and more so in high-adrenaline-situations like a provocation study. Likewise, symptom-offset is extremely delayed, often by a day or longer. This makes provocation studies hard to do: Required would be: max 1 test per day, without need to travel through traffic or public spaces or places with higher EMF, a daylong reporting-window, and several days of recovery are needed, as well as using real signals as described above. Some backup for my requests: The inadequacy of SAR can be seen when comparing exposure with the same SAR but different signal charactersistics as seen here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.03.003 (bigger numbers would be nice, but funding seems to be hard to come by). A very good source of information is this workshop of the European Parliament (4 hours): (english starts after a few seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Kn7pGy3CI Both Panagopoulos (talking about the above points) and Yael Stein provide important insights, if you have only limited time to skim. Yael Stein is a md and proposes different stages of sensitivity - the early stages are characterized by late onset of symptoms and light symptoms overall, the later stages of late offset of symptoms even hours after the exposure has ended, and the symptoms are severe. __ That effects can occur even theoretically can be seen in this preliminary model: (autoimmune d) - this also points to a lack of funding for testing the effects of shielding during sleep on autoimmune disease in a double blind study. This does not take away from the simulation of the vit D-receptor and the result that at least in theory, mobile phone radiation might lead to functional vit D deficiency in humans in general, with very small SAR values. Models like this for the voltage gated ion channels (sodium an calcium might be of highest interest) could be very useful, but so far we don’t have a complete model of those channels (according to the German Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz/FCC-equivalent). Some personal motivation: I know several people who are extremely sensitive to Wifi and mobile phones in use and phone masts, which has led me to look into possible reasons for their reactions (headaches, brainfog, fatigue, clenched muscles, altered circulation in the face - red and white spots). From my experience with them, I can rule out nocebo, since in a place where we had measured extremely low fields, they both had symptoms without expecting them (when they insisted, we measured again and found a switched-off IPAD with strong intermittent signals for location when lost, which had been brought in after the first measurement). I'm afraid the technology also hurts nature and the normal population.(see athem3, bee-fi). Thank you for your consideration. People with EHS suffer greatly and unnecessarily, and might be the canary in the coal mine for the rest.

I appreciate being asked by HHS for comments on this topic. The FCC has not done so in the thirty years since the Telecommunications Act was enacted in 1996. I do not have reason to believe that I have been injured physically. However, I do not want a Smart Meter on my house and Pennsylvania is the only state that does not allow opting out which is a negation of the liberty given to us in the Constitution: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Many studies have been done over a period of many years that show the effects of EMF’s (Electro Magnetic Frequency) on the health of humans, animals and the environment. For any industry to not test their products for more than thirty years is ludicrous and dangerous. The wireless devices available today are completely different from what available in 1996. Smartphones didn’t even exist yet. 4G and 5G were unheard of. Children are particularly vulnerable to this damage as their bodies are smaller and spend more time outside where they can be near sources of EMR (Electro Magnetic Radiation). The FCC clearly only cares about the bottom line and the welfare of the taxpayers who support them. I learned about the dangers of cell phone radiation twenty years ago, not from the industry, but from independent doctors and researchers. It’s time for the wireless industry to prove the safety of their products. Until then, those products are to be viewed as unsafe and the industry to be untrustworthy. Note the following review: Investigation of the Adverse Health Effects of Cell Phone Radiation and Propose Solutions to Minimize Them: A Systematic Review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11111148/ Sec. Kennedy has promised the American people, “gold-standard science.” It’s time for the FCC to do the same.

#3: I am commenting regarding the FCC's response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' remand concerning its decades-old highly outdated radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The FCC should fully consider the overwhelming evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment and critically also bees and pollinators that we all rely on for our food!” *A major review by Germany’s NABU and other NGOs analyzed 190 studies, finding that 72 out of 83 scientifically relevant studies reported negative effects of non-ionizing radiation on insects, suggesting EMR acts as a driver of insect decline alongside pesticides and habitat loss. Here is just one study of many100s I have seen over the years documenting the harmful results of RF Microwave exposure to all biological beings, I believe the FCC and HHS should review: The landmark 2018 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, which provided comprehensive evidence of significant health risks from radiofrequency radiation (RFR). -The NTP study demonstrated significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas (brain cancers), as well as chromosomal DNA damage in rodents exposed to RFR levels mimicking lifetime human exposure. −The study is particularly critical for children because their developing bodies absorb higher RF radiation into their brains and bodies during sensitive developmental stages. −Research indicates that children’s brains absorb 2-3 times more radiation than adults, and their skull bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose, making the NTP’s findings on DNA damage and tumor growth highly relevant to pediatric vulnerability. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology, environmental or public health… This issue matters to me deeply because my parents suffered greatly from RF exposures, as well as myself. After moving into a house that had 3 smart meters positioned right outside our bedrooms, we all started having insomnia and low energy. And because we made the grave error of trusting the FCC, and letting the naïve telecom technician install the highly radiating router next to my parent’s bedroom my otherwise vibrant father started to complain of feeling immense fatigue, and having to go to myriad doctors who could not explain this sudden change. That is when I began researching what could be the root cause, as I literally was getting from no sleep to an hour or two a night. That is when I discovered others with smart meters were similarly having many health issues. Then I learned about “electrosmog”. I got a Tri-Field meter and took steps to reduce all emfs in/around our house and had PGE remove the smart meters and replace them with analog – which we had to pay to do so as well as pay an extra monthly rate – which is a crime in itself. I also learned that many other states would not let their customers use analog, which is a much worse crime. The day the smart meters were changed out all of our sleep improved drastically. Being able to sleep again was a lifesaver. I started unplugging the router at night and during the day I draped a faraday cloth over it to try and mitigate the harmful radiation. Although not ideal, it helped and my dad’s energy returned. At that time I didn’t understand how particularly harmful RF was so when the solar company said we should stop unplugging the router at night, my dad started to feel unwell again. The router was positioned right next do his bedroom and behind him in the den where he also spent a lot of time. He never recovered and devastatingly we lost him within 3 years. I am still trying to forgive myself for allowing the telecom tech to put the router in the worst possible location it could be. I started to carry the Tri Field meter and test everything. I tossed the microwave oven and noticed the city had allowed a massive 5G tower across the street from my health food store. Standing in the parking lot of that store, I turned on the meter and the dial shot to the max level allowed on the meter! So I do not buy anymore from that store for obvious reasons. There is an apartment complex right below that 5G tower, which is another crime to those unsuspecting residents. And there are no more birds to be seen in the trees in front of that health food store anymore, where they used to hop around looking for treats from the shoppers. The frequency of nature, the Schumann Resonance 7.83 Hz, which includes humans that our bodies have evolved with has suddenly been replaced with unnaturally and recklessly high man made frequencies in the RF Microwave range - 600 MHz – 39 GHz. We are playing with fire here.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. As a concerned parent and member of the public, I support further research into the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation, particularly its long-term effects on children and other vulnerable populations. With wireless technology becoming increasingly common in our homes, schools, and communities, I believe it is important that federal agencies thoroughly examine potential health risks, consider the experiences of individuals reporting adverse effects, and identify gaps in existing research. I urge HHS to prioritize independent scientific research, evaluate current safety standards, and ensure that public health decisions are based on comprehensive, transparent, and up-to-date evidence. I have suffered for the last decade from extreme sensitivity to RF and EMF. I have meters that measure both and have been able to confirm over and over that in low EMF/RF environments, my body can rest, but in high environments, I react as if it is plugged in to the wall- my whole body feels as if it is on fire (nerve pain), and I frequently experience arrhythmias in high exposure situations (again, I have confirmed this with my meters). I have been to many doctors, who can not find anything wrong with my heart or body even though they can see it reacting to outside stimuli in a very exaggerated way. I am asking for more study of this problem, as the effects of high EMF and RF exposure have been my family and it is in every public space, at high levels, so very hard to avoid if you are sensitive. My children are also sensitive and experienced very poor health when living near a tower and next to power lines. When we moved to a place that was low EMF/RF, their health issues dramatically decreased. I’d like more research to be done so that we can keep our children and vulnerable populations safe and not degrade the health of everyone else. I’m hoping for more conservative, wise use of technology in the future and I know that the science will show support for that, if it is studied and measured thoroughly and appropriately. Thank you for providing the public with an opportunity to voice these concerns.

I am submitting this account as a mother, patient, and caregiver whose entire family experienced years of serious illness while living in a home subsequently found to have an open neutral on the electrical utility’s primary distribution system underneath our home. After leaving that home, my daughter RH, now 19, then lost 5 years of substantive education, friendships, social development, and independence due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which is a sensitivity to everyday wireless signaling. I, too, continue to experience this sensitivity. RH and I have debilitating physical reactions with continued exposure to wireless signaling, including skin burns, blistering, rashes, boils, hidradenitis suppurativa, swelling, migraines, neuropathic pain, muscle tightness, dizziness, cognitive impairment, memory and processing difficulties, brain fog, exhaustion, and systemic inflammatory symptoms. For RH, attempts to return to school and ordinary activities after her year of medical leave were ineffective because of wireless signaling throughout the community. Our family moved into our Chapel Hill, NC, home in 2015. Over the following years, we developed serious neurological, cognitive, dermatological, and systemic illnesses. RH suffered profound cognitive deterioration, with neuropsychological scores in the first percentile; I developed cognitive impairment and small fiber neuropathy. After a year of our begging in 2020, Duke Energy discovered their corroded line improperly buried beneath our property. Magnetic field measurements exceeded 100 milligauss, beyond our meters’ range, and we experienced electrical shocks from metal surfaces. Unlike the electrical failure, which could be identified and escaped, wireless environments are virtually impossible to avoid. It is persistent sensitivity after moving from the home, not the history of our electrical exposure, that I am asking HHS to prioritize investigating. Without EHS, RH could have returned to life. Instead, she required medical leave, homebound education, and extensive accommodations under Section 504. Friends’ electronic devices and wireless networks became barriers to participation. She lost not only classroom instruction but 5 years of the friendships, independence, belonging, and ordinary experiences through which children become adults. Her medical history includes subsequent traumatic brain injuries, significant physical illness, and severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her PTSD developed amid years of debilitating symptoms, inadequate medical understanding, and exclusion from ordinary life. Her PTSD is not, in our understanding, the explanation for her electromagnetic sensitivity; it is among the consequences of prolonged illness, uncertainty, and isolation. Her reactions to wireless signaling, the repeated disruption of her recovery, and the possible contributions of those experiences to her neurological and developmental trajectory need to be investigated. My own professional life has been profoundly altered. I loved my corporate career, but working in an office surrounded by wireless networks and electronic devices is incompatible with the symptoms I experience there. Our family is not alone. We have dear friends in two other families who also suffer EHS. Unlike our family, neither has a known electrical exposure. Yet they, too, experience debilitating symptoms associated with everyday wireless signaling. Physicians lacked validated diagnostic tools, treatment protocols, and clinical guidance. We sought treatment for individual conditions, yet no medical specialty could offer an effective strategy for the recurring illness we experienced in wireless environments. Again and again, doctors told us, “There just isn’t the data.” My response has always been the same: “We are the data! Why are we being dismissed rather than researched?” Our medical records, neurological evaluations, dermatological diagnoses, hospitalizations, educational accommodations, and years of documented attempts to recover constitute a substantial clinical history worthy of investigation. We need research directed toward treatment: whether wireless radiofrequency exposure can produce measurable inflammatory, oxidative, neurological, or cellular changes in susceptible individuals; whether repeated episodes are associated with cumulative biological injury; and what interventions might prevent, reduce, or reverse those effects if demonstrated. Research should investigate objective biomarkers, possible differences between people with and without unusual electrical exposure histories, and safe, effective therapies. Avoidance is not sustainable when the places to avoid include schools, hospitals, workplaces, and nearly everywhere people gather. I ask HHS to investigate the mechanisms and treatment of EHS so that other children and families do not spend years searching for answers while their health, education, relationships, and ordinary lives slip away.

This has got to STOP!!!2026 A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women Chronic paternal Wi-Fi RF-EMR exposure impairs placental efficiency and fetal growth: Association with sex-dependent histone modification patterns in mice Impact of ELF EMF exposure on sleep quality and mental health in a Tunisian power plant: a cross-sectional study Prenatal 3.5 GHz radiofrequency exposure induces renal histological changes and DNA damage in 6-month-old rats Testicular heat-shock protein expression in rats following 3.5 GHz and 24 GHz RF-EMF exposure Radiofrequency fields at 2.45 GHz reprogram mitochondria–lysosome crosstalk and modulate the survival/death of macrophages exposed to LPS and/or the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Environmental and auto-induced RF-EMF adult and children far-field exposure simulations between 450 MHz and 26 GHz Interpretation of epidemiological studies on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer Disruptive effects of brief radiofrequency noise exposure on migratory bat navigation The Effect of 2.45 GHz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Components of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis in Male Rats

See attached file(s) Katie Webb, QuantaX Technology HHS-OASH-2026-0397 HHS must act now to reduce unnecessary wireless radiation exposure and protect biological fidelity: the precision with which living systems develop, regulate energy and information, repair damage, and recover. I support and present John Coates's complete comment, included in the attached PDF with my position statement and our illustrated plausible pathways. Low-fidelity biology is the upstream vulnerability HHS must investigate and prevent. Mistimed calcium signals, mitochondrial and redox mismatch, impaired repair, and persistent compensation can reduce the reserve needed for healthy development and later challenges. The S4–Mito–Spin framework connects these processes through specific molecular targets and measurable functions. A standard based on average absorbed energy cannot, by that number alone, characterize biological timing, recovery, or developmental susceptibility. The cancer evidence demands action. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute reported malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. The WHO-commissioned animal review rated evidence for increased glioma and heart schwannoma as high certainty. Melnick and Moskowitz (2026), applying EPA risk-assessment methods, calculated that the public whole-body limit is 15–900 times above modeled exposure levels for one additional cancer per 100,000 people, depending on daily exposure duration, and 8–24 times above their male-reproductive protection estimates. HHS and EPA must derive health-based limits and reduce avoidable exposure while completing that assessment. Put the Yale developmental findings at the center. Aldad and colleagues found hyperactivity, impaired memory, and altered prefrontal-cortex synaptic transmission in mice exposed prenatally to cellular-phone radiation. Yale's senior author described the experiment as showing that prenatal cell-phone exposure caused ADHD-like behavioral problems in mice. Cakir and colleagues subsequently identified delayed radial-glial differentiation and BET-mediated developmental effects in human cortical organoids. A developing child gets one chance at each developmental window. HHS must respond with prenatal protection and a funded developmental research program. Test the full pathway. Measure the S4/channel and CYB5B interfaces, calcium timing, mitochondrial reserve, spin-sensitive chemistry, chromatin responses, and later function together. Kim and colleagues' CYB5B gene-switch study identifies a molecular route from a defined field to rhythmic calcium-dependent gene regulation. The CACNA1C sleep study identifies genotype-dependent response. Use sham, carrier-only, and pulsed exposures at matched SAR with temperature control, then apply molecular blocking, rescue, and timed replay to establish the sequence. Protect future generations now. RF experiments already warrant offspring follow-up: Yan and colleagues reported sex-specific offspring growth and metabolic changes after paternal RF exposure. Separate diet and toxicant experiments demonstrate molecular transmission through sperm RNA and persistence of environmental effects across generations. HHS must directly test RF-associated germline transmission, following maternal gestational lines through F3 and paternal preconception lines through F2, with unexposed descendants and molecular mediation tests. Also measure repeated direct exposure across successive pregnancies. Continued exposure and inherited effects are distinct routes that both require investigation and prevention. My requests are concrete: 1. Publish a federal quantitative RF risk assessment using current cancer and reproductive evidence and established EPA methods. 2. Restore sustained NTP research, independent replication, prospective pregnancy cohorts, and multigenerational studies linked to early fidelity measurements. 3. Reduce unnecessary exposure in pregnancy, childcare, schools, healthcare, and sleeping environments. Fund practical wired and optical alternatives. 4. Require realistic body-contact testing and disclosure of test distance, dose averaging, active radios, and waveform conditions. 5. Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. Ask Congress to place RF health-protection standards under HHS/EPA and repeal Section 704's health-based siting restriction. 6. Advance the Clean Ether Act through interoperable optical networks, wired-first procurement, independently evaluated pilots, and measured reductions in unnecessary transmissions. Publish a ninety-day work plan, a one-year assessment and research program, named responsible officials, and annual results. The accompanying 5,000-word statement, pathway images, and John Coates's complete comment provide the evidence and implementation requests. Protect biological fidelity before the developmental window closes. Katie Webb QuantaX Technology

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS's Request for Information on EMG, RF and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am a concerned member of the Public and I support HHS in taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation.