Research & federal duties

I am a 64-year-old man whose family owns a vacation home in Hillman Township, Michigan. A cell tower developer is seeking to construct a massive telecommunications tower just feet from my property. Like others who live nearby, we purchased and maintained this home to enjoy peace, privacy, and the natural environment -- not to face the prospect of significant, long-term exposure to high levels of wireless radiation emissions. This is not a matter of NIMBY-ism. This is a matter of public health and the responsible, thoughtful sitting of powerful industrial equipment. I urge HHS to prioritize research into the biological mechanisms of harm. Federal research should investigate the effects of RF radiation on cellular signaling, oxidative stress, DNA damage and repair, neurological function, and reproductive and developmental health. HHS should fund independent, replicated laboratory studies, long-term animal research, and prospective human studies examining chronic and cumulative exposure, including levels below current federal limits. Research should also examine particularly vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and older adults. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2013 Monograph Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation, children absorb up to ten times more wireless radiation in the bone marrow of the skull compared to adults due to their thinner skulls, smaller heads, and higher brain conductivity. I urge HHS to recommend that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reassesses and lowers its existing RF exposure limits. Current RF exposure limits are so permissive that they’re essentially the equivalent of a 500-mph speed limit. No wonder people are getting sick! The FCC must reconsider the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM) model used to assess cell phone RF exposure. SAM is based on a simplified model of a standardized adult head and was developed to assess localized RF energy absorption under specified testing conditions. It does not adequately represent the full range of human anatomy, including children, differences in head and body size, or the complexity of real-world phone use and exposure. A compliance test based on a standardized model cannot, by itself, establish that all users are adequately protected under all realistic conditions. HHS should encourage independent evaluation of SAM's limitations and support improved testing methods that better reflect diverse users, realistic usage patterns, and modern wireless devices. I am not opposed to telecommunications technology. I am asking that public health receive the same serious consideration as infrastructure expansion. I respectfully urge HHS to lead a coordinated federal research effort, further investigate the biological mechanisms of RF-related harms, recommend stronger FCC exposure limits, and support more scientifically representative cell phone testing methods. Americans deserve nothing less. Thank you for your consideration of my comment. Respectfully submitted, Chris Caswell

To whom it may concern, I feel the need to be direct when I state that the fact that in 2026, we’re just now “seeking public input” on a subject that has been, beyond all shadow of a doubt, scientifically proven for many decades, feels like an afront to anyone who can see the broader economic picture, and the (all-too-typical) deprioritization of public health in favor of corporate greed. Let’s face it, The Invisible Rainbow, first published in 2017, covering countless, well-documented scientific studies going back more than 100 years, makes it abundantly clear that WE HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION ON BIOLOGY FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. That said, as for my personal experience, my life has been fundamentally and irreparably altered as a consequence of EMF exposure. I’ve been hospitalized several times, and am now permanently unable to participate in many of the activities most people take for granted. I have to cover myself from head to ankle with expensive and uncomfortable faraday clothing when I leave my home. Even with this protection, I cannot stand to be in high-EMF environments (which is pretty much everywhere now) for longer than several hours at a time, and the effects on my health are catastrophic. My activities have been limited, my diet has been limited, my social and professional life have been decimated, and my life will never be the same. But at least I haven’t died of a brain tumor, as quite a few of my clients, colleagues, friends, and family members have. Again, the fact that we’re “seeking public input” on this topic is a bitter bill to swallow. It feels a bit like asking people what their experience has been drinking arsenic-infused soda that we’ve been insisting is safe for the last 50 years, as if the people making money (huge, HUGE amounts of money) haven’t known the answer from the beginning. Anyway, I digress. On the upside, I now run a business that stays consistently busy helping clients who are becoming sick en masse due to the electromagnetic radiation soup we’re all now swimming in. Tragic. The recent acquisition of the 800mhz band by Starlink is a nightmare waiting to happen. I’ve published a book, created online content, read the studies (no – not all of them, let’s face it – there are many thousands), read the books, watched the documentaries, deep-dived into the science, the biological mechanisms, and worked with countless clients suffering the effects of EMR. We don’t need more science. It’s been done. The effects are clear. The BioInitiative Report alone made this point, as have innumerable other sources. What we need are protections and education for an unaware populace suffering while corporations yield record profits at the expense of their customers’ health and, yes, their very lives. I can only hope that enough individuals in the decision-making process have enough integrity to stand up for what is right, rather than being cowed (or bought) by the financial interests committed to keeping this subject marginalized and quiet. I must say, based on history, I’m not optimistic. But perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised. I hope you choose to do what is right. You do have the power to make a difference. I thank you for your consideration. - Anonymous EMR-S sufferer P.S. – I’m choosing not to attach files below because I fail to see the point. Yes, I have countless studies, infographics, PDFs, etc. stored on my computer that I could include, but as I mentioned – we all already KNOW the truth. The Environmental Health Trust, The BioInitiative, and literally COUNTLESS resources online have enough data to drown in. And it all says the same thing – as the BioInitiative Report put it “Bioeffects are clearly established”. Full stop.

*Folkets Strålevern* (The Citizens´ Radiation Protection Norway) was established in recognition of the existence of documented, peer-reviewed, and published international research concerning the adverse health effects of electromagnetic radiation (such as that currently used for wireless communication—mobile telephony, wireless networks, etc.). It is a significant problem for the Norwegian public that this knowledge is still not reflected in Norwegian laws and regulations. The population needs a reliable, attentive organization tasked with providing protection and information regarding this critical issue. Currently, the authorities do not provide the Norwegian public with updated and accurate information on this subject. *Folkets Strålevern* works to enable the population to more easily make informed, rational decisions regarding the appropriate use of wireless technology. The overarching objective of *Folkets Strålevern* is to help protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation. The current state of knowledge in this field indicates that existing exposure limits and regulations are based on outdated principles regarding the effects and mechanisms of action of non-ionizing radiation. Consequently, these standards are inadequate for protecting humans, animals, and other forms of biological life against the potentially very serious long-term harmful effects of such radiation—effects that have been documented even at levels far below current exposure limits. Folkets Strålevern (The People’s Radiation Protection) advocates for: – the implementation of a genuine precautionary approach, capable of protecting both humans and all biological life in nature from the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation; – the establishment of exposure limits and legislation that account for the actual biological effects of radiation—on humans, animals, insects, and plant life—at non-thermal levels, as demonstrated in several internationally published, peer-reviewed studies; – the introduction of exposure limits for non-ionizing radiation that, unlike current standards, provide protection against the harmful effects of long-term exposure. Folkets Strålevern is not an activist organization; its purpose does not include providing practical, case-specific advice or conducting measurements of electromagnetic fields. For a reasonable fee—plus the coverage of travel expenses—we can deliver professional presentations on the subject to groups, neighborhood associations, schools, kindergartens, and other organizations. Furthermore, Folkets Strålevern is neither a patient organization nor a support group for individuals who have been harmed by electromagnetic radiation, or for those seeking to determine whether such harm has occurred. The Association for the Electrosensitive (FELO) was established for this specific purpose. Folkets Strålevern is funded through membership fees and donations that are not contingent upon any reciprocal service or benefit. Membership is open to anyone who wishes to join. See folkets-stralevern.org

IEMFA is the International Electromagnetic Fields Alliance, supported by an independent and growing global body of empirically-based scientific experts on living processes, with a multilevel, multidisciplinary health focus. The Experts cover a wide range of Biological, -Physics, -Medical and Epidemiologic disciplines, ranging from electron and molecular level to the level of living cells, tissues and the functioning of different organ systems. They cooperate worldwide to supply a coherent, multilevel insight into the chaotic multitude of observed biological disruptions when exposed to non-ionizing radiation, addressing important long-term degradation threats for public health. IEMFA collaborates with leading life-science institutions and non-governmental organizations worldwide. See iemfa.org

Independent research (not funded by telecommunications companies) has shown a clear link between RF radiation and serious health issues in children, adults and flora/fauna. The HHS should follow the guidelines of BioInitiative Report 2012 unless clear scientific evidence shows that a different level of rf exposure is safe. Below are the links to research documenting the need for stronger limits on rf exposure: Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromag... The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine: Vol 41 , No 2 - Get Access Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine: Vol 40 , No 2 - Get Access

2: I am a chartered electrical engineer in the UK, responding as an individual consumer and patient. (I am not representing my professional institution.) The answers below provide a brief summary of my experience in suffering adverse health reactions to digital electricity meters and my personal investigation into the cause. Further details are available here: https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/30160/reasons-why-i-suffered-tinnitus-insomnia-chronic-fatigue-and-other-health-problems-after-having-digital-electricity-meters-installed 3a: I've suffered adverse reactions to EFs and EMFs from: • Digital electricity meters, smart or dumb • Broadband routers • Mains LED lighting 3b, c, d & f: I started suffering severe high-pitched (14 kHz) non-pulsatile tinnitus, ear pressure and insomnia 15 hours after smart meters were installed in my home in February 2022. For the next 5 days, I slept no more than 90 minutes per night. The electricity meter was then replaced with another model. When this meter was powered on, my ears each felt an electrical shock. My tinnitus, ear pressure and insomnia improved slightly, but still not tolerable The smart communications module was removed 2 days later, the power company believing I would no longer suffer. Alas, further symptoms developed over the following days and weeks, chronic fatigue becoming the most debilitating, while struggling to get medical help and an analog meter refitted urgently. In July 2022, the company installed an old non-smart digital meter. My tinnitus intensified almost immediately. Another such meter was trialed 3 weeks later. My tinnitus eased, but I developed a migraine 4 days later. I left home and over the next 3 days I recovered from the migraine and chronic fatigue. I returned home, started to feel unwell almost immediately, so I left and recovered again. I returned home on the day this meter was being replaced. Outside, I tingled horribly and instructed my wife to turn off the electricity. The tingling ceased immediately, providing evidence that the household wiring was acting like a transmission antenna. The replacement meter, the same type as the 2nd, caused symptoms similar to those experienced while its counterpart was installed. An analog meter was finally refitted 2 weeks later. I recovered back to around 80% of normal in 1 week. However, tinnitus and insomnia still continue, but these are milder than at any time during my meter ordeal, but they are getting worse as exposure to what has become known as “dirty electricity” increases. Details of symptoms, their approximate timing in relation to meter installations and my actions to mitigate the effects can be found in Attachment 1. 3e: Medical assessments were sought throughout my ordeal. I was only ever diagnosed with tinnitus and a blood pressure problem. All the medics I saw were sadly at a loss to help me. 3g: Attachment 2 contains a list of the scientific evidence I have obtained in full. 5n: Regulators must be fully independent from organizations that manufacture or use equipment that emits RF/EMF for financial gain. 5o: Yes. The cause of my sensitivity, low frequency EMFs, are poorly represented in the available science, despite being considered bio-active. The public understandably have concerns over high frequency mobile communication signals, but few people realize that badly suppressed switched-mode power supplies and inverters can cause debilitating health issues due to their low frequency emissions. 5p: The current use of SAR ignores the characteristics that cause interference with biology at much lower intensities than required for heating body tissue. (Polarization is another characteristic that needs to be considered.) 6: Scientists claim there are over 125,000 pieces of evidence available. 8: Assessment must take into account all characteristics and also real-world conditions where a dwelling or workplace are subject to multiple emitters of RF/EMF. 9: A system to forewarn people of potentially harmful exposure is essential. Currently, sensitive people only find out if somewhere is harmful when they start feeling ill, which is too late. Avoidance is key not just to stay well, but also to prevent sensitivity increasing. 10: New systems must be developed in order to assess the scale of this problem. The medical profession have to take notice of those of us who know we are sensitive. They also need to find out why a minority of people have become highly sensitive in order to prevent the majority becoming so sensitive. 11: Current standards are largely based upon short term tests with a healthy adult male and a few animals. They are highly unsuited for protecting children, females, the elderly and adults with certain medical conditions. 16: Low frequency EMFs: The cost to suppress these frequencies from power supplies and inverters is peanuts in comparison to the cost of healthcare, welfare payments, lost productivity and ruined lives etc.

Aires response to HHS RFI HHS-OASH-2026-0397 For more than three decades, the Aires research program has pursued one enduring objective: to engineer electromagnetic environments that support biological function. Its documented history extends to 1992, connecting early patterned materials and optical filters with successive silicon resonators and biological investigations. The attached response presents this connected research lineage. The primary record identifies more than 50 named authors and researchers, 15 academic, medical and research institutions represented through testing sites or author affiliations, and contributions from Russia, Lithuania and Canada. The archive review encompassed 97 research-related records, including translations, related versions and background materials. The response organizes its research and contextual sources into 44 reference entries; related publications of one experiment are identified as a research family. The breadth is central to our contribution: human EEG, ECG and heart-rate variability; human erythrocytes tested outside the body for osmotic response using laser diffraction; chromosome abnormalities in rat bone-marrow cells; rat behavior, learning, memory and blood parameters; honeybee feeding, memory and brain hsp70 gene expression; and goldfish movement. Water conductivity and infrared investigations, liquid crystals, thin films, patterned silicon, direct RF measurements and electromagnetic models supply the complementary physical research. To evaluate an intervention, researchers also investigated the exposure response itself. Mobile-phone and Wi-Fi protocols therefore contribute evidence about biological responses under specified exposures and about what changes when an Aires device is introduced. Repeated rat bone-marrow investigations reported increased chromosome abnormalities with router exposure and reductions with resonators. Other studies examine physiological regulation, susceptibility, recovery, behavior and molecular response in their respective biological settings. More than two decades of EEG and HRV investigations connect early patterned-material and optical-filter work with later phone-exposure protocols and personal-device studies. Across this sequence, investigators examined baseline state, brain activity, autonomic regulation and recovery. The response presents this human research as a connected program, with study-specific comparisons and findings retained in Appendix B. The response addresses Questions 2, 4, 5(n)-(p), 7-18, with the full research story under Questions 4 and 18. Question 12 discusses assessment against federal exposure limits without assuming that every experiment supplies the same dosimetric information. Traceable publications include the 2019 Ecological Genetics rat bone-marrow study (DOI 10.17816/ecogen17283-92), the 2020 Integrative Physiology honeybee study (DOI 10.33910/2687-1270-2020-1-3-231-241), the 2018 Lithuanian conference investigation of gigahertz fields, and Springer ICICT proceedings on semiconductor modeling (DOI 10.1007/978-981-19-1607-6_7) and 2026 thermal characterization (DOI 10.1007/978-3-032-28964-3_5). The attachment contains 44 references identifying journal articles, conference publications, technical reports and other source types. We request a technical briefing with the HHS team responsible for this RFI and relevant scientific staff at FDA, NIH and CDC to examine the research lineage, review exposure-and-intervention protocols, and identify coordinated physical and biological investigations. We ask HHS to include engineered electromagnetic environments and field-modulation technologies in its research priorities, including evaluation in personal device use, occupied spaces and equipment integration. Aires brings an accumulated experimental record and practical experience developing successive technology generations. We invite HHS to engage with us on how that record can inform its assessment of RF/EMF exposure and its next research priorities. For follow-up and a technical briefing: Josh Bruni, CEO, Aires, josh@airestech.com. Public evidence index: https://airestech.com/pages/hhs-emf-evidence-2026

As a mother I advocate for safer tech habits, including using speakerphone and wired headphones, keeping wireless devices away from one self and my children's bodies when practical, turning Wi-fi off when not in use and utilizing direct hard wire connection when feasible. Therefore I believe there should be more regulations and studies to limit this radio frequency exposure, mothers should not have to choose between benefits of modernized tech and the health of ones children.

I think it is dangerous and think we should research a lot more. Especially being in schools and around schools, it could be damaging our most vulnerable.

In early 2021, both adults in my household began experiencing a mysterious raft of ongoing and debilitating health problems with no obvious cause. We experienced chaotic changes in blood pressure, dizziness and brain fog, chronic fatigue, loss of control over muscle tension, unrestorative sleep, memory problems, lack of focus, and persistent feelings of doom. Most mysteriously, our symptoms would resolve when temporarily relocating to remote areas, but we were in no position to make any such move permanent. After experiencing such severe and prolonged symptoms that I was no longer able to work---after over a decade providing my family's primary income---I spent my available energy seeking medical help to try to understand the cause of all our troubles. After two years, I made a series of shocking discoveries: (1) that our symptoms strongly matched those of sufferers of microwave syndrome, discovered decades before, but paid little attention by the medical profession; (2) that the time our symptoms appeared coincided with the rollout of 5G networks in our community; (3) that researchers all over the world had connected reports of similar suffering to the deployment of 5G networks; and most terribly, (4) that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission had pointedly ignored this research, even in defiance of federal court orders that they give it due consideration. When I became a licensed amateur radio operator as a child, I was taught that the FCC maintained evidence-based radio frequency exposure standards to protect public health and welfare while facilitating effective communications. Recent events have made clear that the FCC no longer maintains either expertise or interest in the first of these goals, while its close relationships with telecommunications companies have compromised even its ability to follow the most basic directives of the law. With the massive increase in radio frequency exposures now pervading our country, it is clear that protecting people and other organisms from electromagnetic pollution should become primary responsibilities of the agencies charged with caring for human health and the environment, HHS and EPA. Today my children suffer concerning sleep disruptions that make me worry for their healthy development---yet another characteristic sign of microwave syndrome. I have tried to find a way to measure the electromagnetic pollution where we live, but I found that equipment able to distinguish individual sources of radiation at 5G frequencies costs tens of thousands of dollars. We may ultimately be forced to uproot ourselves from our community---our families, friends, schools, and remaining source of income---in order to find a place where we can be safe and fully alive once more. It devastates me to think how our government has failed us and so many other families in the single-minded pursuit of technological advancement at all costs, ignoring the scientific process that has allowed our society to manage progress in the past. For your reference, I am attaching below two scientific publications representative of hundreds more in their respective categories. The first is a case report documenting the clear association between 5G station deployment and debilitating microwave syndrome symptoms in the two adults of another household in Sweden, beginning also in 2021. The second is a review article documenting that the FCC's current exposure limits are based on wishful assumptions rather than consideration of scientific evidence. These are but two samples from a vast scientific literature that has been sidelined in the rush to deploy faster and faster wireless networks. I call on HHS to take charge of a new, scientifically honest program to reevaluate and regulate environmental exposure to man-made electromagnetic radiation. For every American who experiences an added convenience shaving seconds off a gigabyte mobile download, there is one suffering in silence whose life has been shattered by a poisonous force they cannot even see.