Research & federal duties

Hi my name is Salman. I have been living near a cell tower in 20 meters for the past two years and have experienced persistent health problems, including insomnia cnt sleep at night, dizziness, headaches, and burning and itching sensations in my skin and eyes everytime. Despite consulting several doctors and trying different medications, my symptoms have not improved. And there are several other residents in our area have reported symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and nausea, and hotness of body, This has raised serious problems among local residents,two residents got cancer in last 2 years, Cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation continuously, 24 hours a day, RF microwave radiation can cause cells and tissue heating at sufficiently high exposure levels, There are many researches and investigations and publications available regarding cell tower radiations which proved that cell tower radiations are harmful for humans , animals .plants and birds.and other living things I urge the relevant authorities to take residents' concerns seriously, investigate the potential health and environmental impacts of rf cell tower radiations and do research about it and make people life easy...thankyou

The key word in the RFI is the word “scientific”; it is repeated eleven time in different contexts as the main motive is to “Understand”; it is mentioned in the RFI: “At the same time, scientific literature is extensive, technically complex, and not always easy for policymakers or public health stakeholders to interpret.” This comment is from a care giver perspective; an independent healer offering services to Harmonize/Balance contaminated areas, places, devices (smart or not) with EMF and RF. The outcome of this so called (Harmonization/Balancing) is the disappearing or the dramatic improvement of the adverse health effects experienced by suffering people living in these places or using these devices. The approach used for Harmonization/Balancing is a "Holistic" approach, considered as Pseudoscience by the contemporary main scientific community, it is called (Physical Radiesthesia): a modality created by independent French researchers in the 1930’s, it works on the subtle effects/planes of the EMF, RF and the Human Subtle Energy Field, i.e. the physical measurements of EMF & RF rest unchanged after the Harmonization. The RFI is asking the following questions: 5.o. Is additional research needed to develop, test, and evaluate the effectiveness of procedures and techniques for minimizing exposure to electronic product radiation? Where are the largest gaps, if any, in knowledge? 16. What are the highest priority research gaps regarding EMF and RF radiation and public health that the federal health agencies should address? The answer is Yes, the gaps in knowledge is to embrace this different paradigm shift with an open and new mind; I personally have published scientific articles (in another field) in top peer reviewed journal in Physics, therefore “I have been there and actually I am still there in terms of awareness of the scientific rigorous process”; so, the scientific path of researching and publishing "shall" start shedding light on this modality (or other Holistic approaches) without prejudgment. On another note, the big challenge of the EMF & RF adverse health effects is that most of it are “subjective” in its core nature; the Physical symptoms (such as chronic fatigue, muscle aches, or digestive distress) are "invisible/intangible" by the standard medical tests as it shows no underlying organic disease or structural damage! The good news is that there a large similarity between the EMF & RF adverse health effects and Psychosomatic conditions that lack clear and tangible medical causes; so, we don’t have to start from scratch or to invent the wheel! The Standardized Questionnaires which are Medical approved tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) or the Screening for Somatic Symptom Disorders (SOMS-7) translate subjective physical complaints into quantifiable scientific data. (This was the answer of the question 8. from the RFI) 8. What, if any, improvements in exposure assessment methodologies are needed to better evaluate real-world exposure conditions? RFI is asking practical strategies to reduce unnecessary EMF and RF exposure where appropriate! But what if the "exposure" is not the problem per se, i.e. it is "not the physical/detectable components" of EMF and RF waves that cause the adverse health effects ?! What if that our scope/limits of contemporary scientific perspective is "limiting us" to see, study, analyze "other subtle component" of the EMF and RF waves, which is not detectable by our orthodox devices and Equipment ?! What if that there is other modality that can detect these adverse effects and transmute it into another quality that is positively resonating with living beings ?! In that context, this a formal invitation to policymakers or public health stakeholders for cooperation to apply the suggested protocol of Harmonization/Balancing for testing, evaluating its efficiency, strength, and eventually for approval as a big sector of the world population, with our contemporary highly intensive EMF & RF environment, is in real desperate need of this new paradigm shift.

Previous assessments of the health effects of EMF/RF have been based upon the assumption that non-ionizing and non-thermal radiation is not harmful to biological systems. This is a false assumption however. Allow me to quote Paul Héroux: "What escaped the attention of many is that life's metabolism and design make it much more vulnerable to NTER [non-thermal electromagnetic radiation] than inert matter. Living tissue has mostly adapted to the Sun's radiation as well as to the static field of the Earth only through the course of 3.5 billion years of evolution. ... But the levels of NTER from wireless techniques that we are experiencing now are totally unprecedented, and living systems have no defense against this new arrival." This is from his May 2025 Heliyon paper: "The collision between wireless and biology" https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(25)00647-4 This diagram https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3/asset/68f73d5d-0e58-49c6-af8f-99d0e7f7869d/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg from a 2018 Priyanka Bandaraa and David O Carpenter paper illustrates how unprecedented our exposures, particularly in the gigahertz range, have become. I am involved with South West Ohio for Responsible Technology (SWORT), which has been informing the public and elected officials about the hazards of 5G, smart meters, WiFi, and the like. We welcome HHS examining these technologies with greater detail, particularly focusing on the ill -or possibly beneficial- effects of certain frequency ranges upon biological systems.

I urge the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to independently review the scientific evidence on radiofrequency (RF) exposure from cell towers, particularly potential non-thermal effects, long-term exposure, and antenna placement near homes, bedrooms, schools, and childcare facilities. Documented premature tower activation Official City of San Mateo correspondence states that Crown Castle energized 19 wireless facilities before receiving required final city inspections and approvals. The City demanded de-energization and identified outstanding construction, electrical, permitting, and compliance issues. In subsequent correspondence following a June 26, 2024 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Linh P. Nguyen reported that only seven of the 19 sites had received final inspections and approval, two had been de-energized for necessary work, and 10 remained essentially unchanged. The City also discovered additional facilities energized without its knowledge, including one with an expired permit and no final inspection or approval. The City warned of further enforcement action. These letters document serious compliance and oversight concerns. While they do not establish health effects, they raise questions about transparency, enforcement, and public safety. Community reports and my experience During this period, members of our community group began reporting headaches, tinnitus, insomnia, anxiety, feeling unwell, and feeling unusually “off.” Some asked whether the towers had been activated. At the time, neither I nor the residents contacting us knew they were operating. After making inquiries, we learned of the City's findings regarding Crown Castle's premature activation of multiple facilities. I cannot prove that RF exposure caused these symptoms, but the timing and similarity of the reports warrant investigation. Around the same time, I developed severe insomnia for the first time in my life. Suddenly, I struggled to sleep, relied on sleep aids, and often awoke feeling unrefreshed. The timing was striking. I offer this experience not as proof of causation, but as a significant health change coinciding with the reported tower activation. I ask that it be considered alongside objective exposure measurements and scientific evidence. Request for scientific review I urge HHS to review the full scientific literature, including studies reporting effects, systematic reviews, and unresolved research questions. Please examine: * Sleep disruption, headaches, tinnitus, neurological function, cognition, and other reported symptoms. * Proposed non-thermal mechanisms, including oxidative stress and cellular signaling, and whether findings are reproducible at real-world exposure levels. * Long-term and cumulative exposure from multiple antennas and wireless sources. * Frequency, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, signal strength, and exposure duration. * Exposure in bedrooms, homes, schools, and childcare facilities, including overnight exposure and potential vulnerabilities of children. * Whether current standards adequately address real-world exposure and evolving scientific evidence. Compliance with outdated existing RF limits should not end scientific inquiry. Agencies should distinguish established adverse health effects from biological findings, plausible hypotheses, and unsupported claims. I respectfully request that the agencies: 1. Review the City's correspondence and examine premature operation before final inspections and approvals. 2. Support independent RF measurements near affected facilities, including in nearby homes, bedrooms, and schools where appropriate. 3. Commission independent research on non-thermal effects, sleep, neurological outcomes, and long-term exposure. 5. Establish appropriate ways to document community health reports and investigate exposure changes. 6. Evaluate reasonable exposure-reduction measures and alternative siting near homes 7. Clarify federal and local responsibilities for permitting, notification, compliance, and enforcement. Conclusion I am not asking agencies to presume that cell towers caused these symptoms. I am asking them to take documented regulatory failures, residents' experiences, and unresolved scientific questions seriously. The City's correspondence documents facilities energized before final approval and additional facilities reportedly activated without its knowledge. During the same general period, residents reported unusual symptoms and I experienced unprecedented insomnia. These circumstances warrant transparent investigation, reliable exposure measurements, and rigorous scientific review. Please evaluate whether current standards adequately reflect the evidence and take appropriate action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and public health protection. Thank you for considering my comment. Attachments: Official City of San Mateo correspondence regarding Crown Castle's premature activation and outstanding inspections and approvals.

This response addresses point 5 of the HHS remand in general, and 5.n in particular: “What scientific, technical, or regulatory changes by federal health agencies, if any, would improve the assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure.” Of particular concern are the assessments recommended by ICNIRP and IEEE ICES which underpin current exposure limits and will form the basis for future recommendations, as these assessments do not adequately meet reasonable scientific requirements, particularly when assessing studies investigating realistic RF-EMF exposures. Furthermore, these assessments apply requirements creating an in practice insurmountable evidentiary threshold before any non-thermal effect is given evidentiary weight, with serious consequences when setting exposure limits. This combination has so far produced conclusions of “no proof of risk”, which may be viewed as an artefact, i.e. produced by the assessments as such. Having studied this field for more than a decade, I have, together with scientific colleagues, developed a set of assessment criteria we consider necessary to improve the regulatory regime. These criteria aim to ensure that health risk assessments adequately consider studies investigating non-ionizing RF-EMF exposures below thermal levels, particularly under realistic exposure conditions, such as those encountered in everyday wireless communications. 1. Potential hazards and conclusions: Credible indications of potential harm must be identified and not disregarded due to a lack of full scientific certainty. All available evidence should be considered, and only excluded from the assessment based on scientific criteria such as serious flaws in the study design. 2. Distinguishing lack of evidence from evidence of no hazard: Insufficient evidence of harm must be distinguished from evidence that potential hazards are absent. 3. Transparent reporting: Evidentiary thresholds that reflect risk-management preferences must be explicitly identified. Risk-management preferences should not interfere with the risk-assessment. 4. Precautionary decisions: Credible indications of potential harm must be clearly reported, even when causation remains uncertain, to provide a scientific basis for considering preventive measures and their ethical, economic, and legal implications. 5. Exposure relevance and evidentiary weight: The relevance of the exposure characteristics to the target exposure scenario must be considered when assigning evidentiary weight to study findings, including findings of no effect. 6. Interpretation of exposure metrics: When assessing dose-response relationships, replication, and consistency across studies, the similarity of exposures must be evaluated using biologically relevant exposure characteristics, rather than assuming that similarity in a single exposure metric establishes biological equivalence. 7. Control-group exposure contrast: For hazard identification, exact dosimetry is not required, provided that it is reliably demonstrated that the exposed group is substantially more exposed than the control group. The exposure contrast must be sufficiently large and well characterized to support a meaningful comparison and minimize exposure misclassification. Assessments underlying the exposure limits recommended by ICNIRP and IEEE ICES do not fulfill these requirements, especially as to their handling of scientific uncertainty and the evidentiary weight they assign to studies investigating realistic RF/EMF exposures, while systematically assigning most evidentiary weight to studies with unrealistic exposures. Such methodological concerns also apply to other RF/EMF assessments based on ICNIRP and ICES theoretical foundations and methodologies, e.g. the European Commission's SCHEER opinion on RF/EMF health risks and the WHO systematic reviews prepared for its RF/EMF Environmental Health Criteria monograph. I recommend that HHS evaluate all scientific assessments intended to inform RF/EMF risk-management decisions against the proposed criteria before relying on their conclusions. The attached document, authored by five researchers who have studied and published scientific papers and books on the foundations of the current regulatory regime, provides the detailed reasoning behind these recommendations. It also forward references to methodologies suitable for assessing RF-EMF effects on human health in ways consistent with standard risk assessments for potentially toxic agents, as well as scientific literature establishing the scientific rationale for the proposed criteria. Else K. Nordhagen, Ph.D., Univ.of Oslo, Norway

I first noticed a light headed feeling when I was close to a modem many years ago. When I moved to another room, the feeling subsided. The next experience was when our power company installed smart meters wherever it was most convenient for them. They put one on my bedroom wall and I was dizzy, light headed and unable to sleep. I had to move and when it happened again at another rental unit, I was told I was too sensitive. I am unable to be close to modems for more than 15 minutes as I get dizzy and light headed, and have chosen to shut them off at night in order to sleep more soundly. I have found that I cannot live in some places because of the EMF fields and the radio frequencies, etc. and that if I can put up a 16" piece of sheet metal, on the wall where the smart meter or fuse box is, I cannot pretty much mitigate the intensity of the waves. I recently was visiting a home of a friend and felt very strange and light headed, almost losing my balance when I entered the bathroom, and it subsided when I went into the other room down the hall. I went back to that area and the same thing happened. I asked my friend and she said that their TV satellite dish was on the roof right at that room. And when I went into the bedroom to take a nap, the same thing happened. I looked on the wall and the smart meter was right on the bedroom wall and the neighbor's Satellite dish on their roof was aimed right at the bedroom as well. I had to leave the home as I was starting to feel very shaky from the EMF's and radio waves. Some of us are truly more sensitive than others to EMF, radio frequency waves and wifi. The cell towers they are putting into our communities are put right in front of people's homes and there are numerous cases of children and adults getting symptoms and there is nothing we can do about it because the county gave them permission to "help" us have better cell phone access and they are not required to alert the homeowners and phone companies are able to put them where they feel it is best for their company. We, the people, would like to have choice about our bodies and how we are impacted by new technologies. Smart meters should be put on garages where no one lives and not on our bedroom walls. And now we have new AI data centers that are being built with no care for the impact on the populations nearby. I cannot sleep with the modem on at night and have had to shut it off to avoid the way it impacts my sleep and my brain function. My hand starts aching when I hold my cell phone for more than 10 minutes. I use some protections that are sold by companies claiming to have devices that block the EMF's but they do not block them completely. I feel relieved when the phone is on airplane mode but still, the only full relief I feel is when it is shut off completely. I only can share personal experiences and have no documents to prove anything. I request that you please expedite safety reviews of the new technologies that will be even stronger than 5 G. As well as how we can be protected from all the smart meters and cell towers and computers that are everywhere emitting radio frequencies and wifi signals that truly have an impact on our bodies and brains and immune systems. There have not been enough research studies done to clearly document the impacts. And the research needs to be across a large population of children, adolescents and elders and those who have compromised health issues already, because I truly believe that we are harming ourselves and our families by not having protections available and having choice about what the new technology companies can do without our permission. Thank you for finally considering science do research about this. In our area, those of us who have the financial means to hire specialists come to our homes to use expensive meters that can check for "dirty electricity" and for EMF exposure and help us find ways to shield ourselves from the impacts on our bodies when we have not been able to figure out why we are not feeling well and there is no reason for it. And then we find out that our homes have very high EMF and radio frequencies and that the cell towers close by are all contributing to the high readings.

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

I am a member of the public who has measured radiofrequency radiation using the Safe and Sound Pro II meter as well as electric and magnetic field strengths using the ME 3840B from Gigahertz Solutions. My family has been forced to move after developing symptoms including headaches, insomnia, nosebleeds, vomiting, muscle spasms, memory issues, and seizures from exposure to levels of non-ionizing radiation (RF-EMF peak 500,000+ μW/m2, magnetic field of 400+ nT) below the FCC limit that resolved with dramatically reduced exposure (RF-EMF peak less than 10 μW/m2, magnetic field less than 100 nT). Even childrens’ toys have wireless capabilities today. Establishing truly safe exposure levels is essential. I am writing to encourage you to consider the experiences of families like mine, the weight of scientific evidence already available, and the need for further study to protect the public health and to urge you to reconsider the current limits in light of the fact that they are not protective of human or environmental health. I appreciate your time and attention in reviewing the accompanying studies.

I am submitting this comment to express my serious concern about the potential health effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, particularly for children, pregnant women, and future generations. We live in an increasingly connected world in which people are exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from cell phones, wireless devices, Wi-Fi networks, cell towers, and other wireless technologies. Children are growing up surrounded by these technologies and may experience exposure throughout their lives, beginning during pregnancy and continuing through childhood and adolescence. Given this increasing and prolonged exposure, I believe it is essential that the federal government carefully examine the potential short-term and long-term health consequences. **A particular concern is the potential relationship between EMF exposure and cancer.** The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. This classification does not establish that exposure causes cancer, but it does indicate that the scientific evidence warranted concern and further investigation. Research examining possible associations between radiofrequency exposure and brain tumors and other cancers deserves continued, independent scrutiny. I am especially concerned about children because their bodies and brains are still developing, and their lifetime exposure may be substantially longer than that of previous generations. It is important to determine whether existing exposure standards adequately account for children's developmental stages, potential differences in vulnerability, and the cumulative effects of exposure over many decades. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm should not be interpreted as definitive proof that all potential long-term risks have been ruled out. I respectfully urge the federal government to take the following actions: 1. **Conduct and support independent, long-term research** into possible associations between EMF exposure and cancer, neurological development, reproductive health, sleep, and other relevant health outcomes. 2. **Give special attention to children and pregnancy**, including studies that examine prenatal exposure, childhood exposure, and potential effects over the course of a person's lifetime. 3. **Reassess existing exposure standards** in light of the latest scientific evidence, including whether those standards adequately address prolonged exposure, real-world exposure patterns, and potentially vulnerable populations. 4. **Ensure transparency and independence in scientific reviews**, including disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, research limitations, and disagreements among qualified researchers. 5. **Provide clear, accessible public information** about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical measures individuals and families can take to reduce unnecessary exposure if they choose to do so. 6. **Apply a prudent, precautionary approach** while scientific uncertainties remain, particularly when considering children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Reasonable exposure-reduction measures should be considered where feasible without overstating what the evidence establishes. I recognize that wireless technologies provide significant benefits and that scientific research has not established that ordinary environmental EMF exposure causes every health condition of concern. Nevertheless, the widespread and increasing use of these technologies makes it especially important to investigate potential risks rigorously, independently, and continuously. Protecting public health requires more than waiting for absolute scientific certainty before investigating a possible risk. It requires a commitment to transparent research, careful evaluation of emerging evidence, and appropriate safeguards when the health of children and future generations may be at stake. I urge the relevant federal agencies to give this issue serious consideration, ensure that the scientific evidence is evaluated comprehensively, and prioritize the long-term health and well-being of the public. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment and for considering these concerns. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): The 2011 classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). This is a hazard classification, not a conclusion that everyday exposure necessarily causes cancer. National Cancer Institute: Its overview of cell phones and cancer discusses epidemiological research, biological evidence, and the limitations of existing studies. World Health Organization (WHO): Its research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields addresses the evidence on possible health effects and the need for continued evaluation.

G _____________ Dr. George L. Carlo Washington, D.C. 571-276-4000 I am deeply grateful to Secretary Kennedy and the leadership at HHS for initiating this vital and serious inquiry into the health effects of EMF and RF radiation. I have been closely following the submissions to this Request for Information, and I would be profoundly honored to offer my assistance to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) as you navigate the next steps of this process. My commitment to this issue began in 2008 under deeply personal circumstances, when my husband and the late Senator Edward Kennedy both suffered seizures and brain tumor diagnoses within days of each other. Our son, who had interned for Senator Kennedy, learned from former colleagues of the family's concerns regarding the role of cell phone radiation. This prompted me to look deeply into the issue. My husband had been a heavy cell phone user for 20 years, consistently holding the device to the exact side of his head where the tumor developed, with no other known environmental exposures. When I shared his medical and phone records with global experts, they noted the stark correlation. Driven to understand the science, I was thrust into public advocacy, testifying before Congress in 2008 alongside Dr. Ronald Herberman and Dr. David Carpenter. That experience began a lifelong education. In the years since, I have endeavored to serve as a bridge between grieving families and the independent scientific community. I founded the California Brain Tumor Association to focus on public education and prevention, and my heart breaks regularly as I speak with young victims and parents worldwide who are navigating these devastating diagnoses. Over nearly two decades, I have sought to understand both the human impact and the technical complexities of this issue. I have worked alongside communities facing cancer clusters—such as those in La Quinta and Ripon, California—to investigate local EMF exposures. I have also engaged directly with the regulatory and testing framework, including meeting with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to discuss testing protocols, serving on the Board of Directors for Phonegate Alert under Dr. Marc Arazi, and advocating for local Right-to-Know ordinances in San Francisco and Berkeley. While those local efforts ultimately faced immense federal and legal hurdles from industry opposition, they taught me invaluable lessons about the challenges of public health communication. The solutions to this problem will come from the public health risk management area of expertise. Most importantly, we're not starting from scratch. Under numerous existing laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Superfund law, there are methods for risk assessment and risk management that have been tested in the field and validated that can easily be adapted to solve this problem. My network of professionals in this area can bring the needed expertise and they are at the ready. What I hope to bring to HHS is not just a historical perspective, but a willingness to serve. I want to meet the public where they are. I would be immensely grateful for any opportunity to assist OASH—whether by supporting your internal team as they review these diverse submissions, helping to synthesize public and clinical insights, or advising on community outreach strategies. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your consideration of how a dedicated public stakeholder might support your vital mission.