Research & federal duties

I submit this comment as an independent researcher to recommend a mechanism-resolved federal research program investigating potential biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF), with particular attention to neurovascular function, mechanotransduction, and interactions between electromagnetic and acoustic exposures. The central methodological problem is the frequent conflation of exposure, biological response, and causal mechanism. Demonstrating an exposure does not establish injury. Demonstrating a physiological response does not, by itself, identify the mechanism responsible. I recommend that federal research prioritize experiments designed to distinguish competing explanations rather than merely accumulate observations that cannot be compared across laboratories. Specifically, I propose a controlled, factorial experimental framework incorporating sham exposure, acoustic exposure alone, RF exposure alone, and combined acoustic/RF exposure, together with appropriate thermal, mechanical, and equipment-artifact controls. The combined-exposure condition is especially important. A possible interaction between physical stimuli cannot be established by studying either stimulus independently. Investigators should explicitly test whether combined effects differ from predictions under a prespecified additive model. Candidate biological endpoints include endothelial permeability, calcium signaling, barrier-associated protein localization, inflammatory signaling, and measures of neurovascular function. Mechanosensitive ion channels and integrin-associated signaling are among the pathways warranting investigation. These pathways are proposed research targets, not established explanations of RF-associated neurological injury. I further recommend standardized exposure reporting that preserves waveform characteristics, modulation, pulse timing, field strength, exposure geometry, temperature, acoustic conditions, and measurement uncertainty. Where relevant, temporal structure should be preserved rather than reduced to average intensity alone. Federal agencies should coordinate reproducible protocols, preregistered endpoints, blinded assessment, independent replication, and public reporting of negative findings. A shared reference dataset linking precisely characterized physical exposures to experimentally measured biological outcomes would improve scientific comparability and enable independent evaluation of competing mechanisms. The objective should not be to validate a predetermined conclusion about RF/EMF exposure. It should be to establish which effects are reproducible, under what conditions they occur, and which mechanisms survive rigorous experimental controls. My attached memorandum provides the proposed experimental framework, measurement priorities, research coordination recommendations, and falsifiability criteria in greater detail.

HHS I fully support the petition by the Children's Health Defense organization to the HHS to further research and investigate the effects on electromagnetic radiation exposure (EMF) on the human body, particularly young children. It has been many decades since serious research has been done on this subject. I strongly urge the HHS to respond to the CHD petition! This is an urgent health issue that needs to be addressed immediately! Libba Moore Upton, MA

There has NOT been adequate safety testing for immediate or long term use/exposure to EMFs and wireless radiation. Like everything else, these things can affect people differently. I personally think I am sensitive to it and suffer from headaches way more often than I should. I don't know what's causing it but I have to wonder if EMFs buzzing through and around us all day is healthy. We act like it's normal. It's not. Our ancestors never experienced stuff like this. We're all dropping dead form cancer... why? We can't just put all this stuff out without ever properly testing it in humans and expect that it's fine. There is plenty of anecdotal data that says people get brain tumors on the side their cell phone is one and women get breast cancer when they used to put their phone in their bra. Something is definitely happening and it's not HEALTHY. Please do proper research and then do some more. Don't be afraid to roll things back. Tell people to get hard wired systems in their homes. So many people are suffering without knowing the causes, health is very desired, people WILL make changes to feel better.

There is an Electrohypersensitivity facebook page with thousands of members. If you want to hear about the suffering of people's health that is being affected by all of the man made emf radiation. Thanks for including the public but I do feel the request for info should have been more broadly advertised.

HHS I fully support the petition by the Children's Health Defense organization to the HHS to further research and investigate the effects on electromagnetic radiation exposure (EMF) on the human body, particularly young children. It has been many decades since serious research has been done on this subject. I strongly urge the HHS to respond to the CHD petition! This is an urgent health issue that needs to be addressed immediately! Peter Phillips Upton, MA

The biggest known risks from cellphones is distracted driving and the negative impact on physical and mental health from being sedentary and increased social isolation. These risks are not caused by the RF from the device, and funding for research on RF should not distract from the need to address the fundamental needs for good exercise, social connections, and mental health. HHS / NIH should prioritize gaining a holistic understanding of individuals who attribute adverse health effects to RF. This should be done in-depth and by researchers who are independent and agnostic about any single potential cause. This should be done to get an understand of this cohort. If seeking to investigate RF, a pilot study should be done to match individuals with controls with similar backgrounds - but exposed to different levels of RF. There may be individuals who are subject to a significant amount of RF in there workplace that may serve as good controls for high exposure. HHS should be mindful that many individuals concerned with RF are vulnerable and may be targets for fraudsters who are preying on them to offer "RF safety" and promoting their false pay-for-credentials and "expert" designations by prominent but dubious RF safety organizations. The current evidence and large studies strongly suggest that FCC's current RF standards are safe. However, the financial risks from anxiety over RF are real from buying useless fraud products and services, to extremes of quitting jobs and moving. HHS should not empower the fraudsters with statements that are not based on strong, gold standard science. Bad science is "fishing expeditions" where random chance in a subgroup lead to a conclusion -- Type 1 errors are not 0%, studies are typically powered to 5% for the PRIMARY endpoint, false positive conclusions for sub-upon-sub-analysis and poorly designed studies are higher. HHS should identify where there are gaps to investigate, but be clear to concerned individuals that the solutions are free - use a wired connection, turn-off electronics when not in use, use a landline - but there is currently NO evidence that any of these actions are needed. HHS should review information from real-experts at national and international organizations, they are open-minded and science driven: https://www.icnirp.org/en/publications/index.html Gaps in Knowledge Relevant ...for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields WHO research agenda for RF https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241599948 https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/ https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/get-the-facts/ https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/research-studies/ The weight of evidence does not support a link between cellphone use and brain tumors. “The available scientific evidence does not indicate an increased risk of malignant or benign brain or central nervous system (CNS) tumors from cell phone use [Karipidis 2024, Karipidis 2025].” • Living near cellphone towers is not shown to cause health concerns. “Research does not suggest that RF exposure to individuals living near cell phone towers causes adverse health effects….Public exposure levels from cell towers are typically thousands of times below the FCC exposure limits.” • 5G exposure levels will be the same or lower than older generations. “The higher frequency millimeter waves (mmW) that can be used in 5G networks penetrate less into buildings and your body. Thus, in that respect, exposure levels are expected to be lower.” • Studies have not confirmed EMF hypersensitivity. [Bodewein 2022; Danker-Hopfe 2020b; Huang 2020; Schmiedchen 2019; Bosch-Capblanch 2024]. • Studies have not found convincing evidence of RF impacts on pregnant mothers or their fetuses. “A few studies have looked at the effect of RF exposure on the health of pregnant women and fetuses, assessing outcomes such as miscarriage, preterm birth, or birth defects. Overall, these studies did not find convincing evidence of adverse effects when exposure was below established public safety standards.” • Studies have not found convincing evidence of increased risk of cancers in children at typical exposure levels.“ Several epidemiologic studies have examined childhood leukemia in relation to proximity to cell phone (and other RF) transmitters, and overall, they have not found convincing evidence of increased risk at typical environmental exposure levels….Two case-control studies [Aydin 2012, Castaño-Vinyals 2022] of cell phone use and brain tumors in children have found no clear increase in risk by the amount of use of cell phones.”

I oppose further expansion of 5G infrastructure without a thorough, transparent, and independent evaluation of potential health and environmental impacts. I urge HHS to prioritize public health and address the concerns of people who cannot readily choose or control their exposure. I ask HHS to support independent research into long-term exposure, including potential effects on children, pregnant people, and individuals reporting sensitivity to wireless devices. Reports of adverse symptoms deserve respectful investigation, with careful assessment of possible causes. Please evaluate whether existing exposure standards adequately address real-world conditions, including exposure from multiple sources over time. Findings, uncertainties, funding sources, and conflicts of interest should be clearly disclosed to the public. I also urge federal agencies to support wired connectivity options, accessible exposure monitoring, and meaningful community participation in decisions about infrastructure near homes, schools, and workplaces. My position is no to continued 5G expansion without stronger public accountability and a credible, independent assessment of health and environmental concerns. Public health must come first.

Baby monitors influence on sleep. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1481537 "Does radiofrequency radiation impact sleep? A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study" ... "Materials and methods Study design Radiofrequency device, exposure set-up, and power dosimetry The study involved a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design over 4 weeks on healthy adults at their homes in Melbourne, Australia. We compared 7 consecutive all-night exposure to either an active or inactive (sham) pulse-modulated radiofrequency device. The device used was a commercially available Uniden baby monitor (BW 3001 model), consisting of a digital wireless monitor and digital wireless camera with two-way walkie talkie capability. This device has a transmitting power of 15 dBm and employs a frequency range of 2.4 to 2.4835 GHz using a frequency-hopping spread spectrum system (FHSS) with Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK) modulation to avoid interference. The units were tested prior to randomisation to determine the level of radiation emitted. This was done by placing them two metres apart and using a Gigahertz HF59B Analyser with UBB27 omnidirectional antenna (frequency range between 27 MHz to 3.3 GHz) and a Gigahertz HFW59D Analyser with UBB2410 omnidirectional antenna (frequency range between 2.4 GHz and 10 GHz). The metres were set at Peak and Peak Hold to establish the minimum and maximum levels over the course of 1 h, which were determined to be between 2.2 and 7 mW/m2. This is well within the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection public guidelines of 10 W/m2 for frequencies above 2 GHz within the far field zone averaged over 30 min and the whole body (37)." ... "Results While the goal was to recruit 20 participants, due to the strict inclusion criteria and impact of the pandemic, data from only 12 participants were evaluated. Summary statistics for the primary and secondary outcome measures are outlined in Table 1. Sleep quality as indicated by the PIRS-20 was found to be significantly reduced during RF-EMF exposure compared to placebo exposure (p < 0.05) as illustrated in Figure 2. Three participants (27.3%) scored above the cut off of 20 (out of a total score of 60 for PIRS-20) for risk of clinical insomnia. The raw single-channel EEG signal derived from the Z-machine was converted to EDF format and analysed using Curry 7 EEG analysis software (Compumedics Pty Ltd). The EEG signal was high/low pass filtered (.3 Hz/70 Hz) with a 50 Hz notch filter. Compared to sham-exposure, during the RF-EMF exposure, a statistically significant increase (p < 0.5) in EEG power density in the higher frequencies (theta, beta and gamma bands) was detected during Non-Rapid Eye Movement (NREM) sleep but not in Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep. No differences were observed in HRV or actigraphy. When asked, only 44% correctly identified the week with the active intervention."

Hi, I am writing to you as a very concerned individual with regards to the growing risks of EMF for me, my family and everyone around us. In the quest of making things more fast, automated and the wish to be able to access the internet literally everywhere we have forgotten to study the adverse effects its causing us humans. United States is one of the countries who can take lead in researching this. This comment section is full of real life examples of people who have first hand effects, cancers, tumors etc caused because of direct, prolonged exposure to devices / machines with high EMF. I am requesting department of HHS to please take this as a priority and look into this. We need to have strict guidelines and educate the masses on adverse effects of EMFs. We need to protect the human race, animals and nature. Please look into this.

Center for Electrosmog Prevention, a 501c3 nonprofit, was established in La Mesa, California in May, 2011, with a mission to promote the general public health by providing advocacy and education, information, and solutions regarding electrosmog, a manmade form of electromagnetic pollution. EMF's (electromagnetic fields), RF (radiofrequency) radiation (in the microwave and millimeter wave range in particular), and rf radiation from a wide range of wireless devices such as cell phones, smart utility meters, baby monitors, wifi, Bluetooth, and a multitude of others now being marketed to the unsuspecting public are a major health hazard documented by tens of thousands of research studies. These dangers to health include - but are not limited to - multiple forms of cancer (including glioblastoma), immunological, and inflammatory effects - in numerous studies linked to the development of Alzheimers and autism, damage to DNA, and infertility. The industries profiting off wireless technologies have been very influential in vigorously denying health hazards at most governmental and major health organization levels, worldwide, much as the tobacco industry has defended its marketing of a toxic product over the decades. Meanwhile, cancers are on the rise - including those that can be linked to cell phone use - as well as Alzheimers and autism, and many people (it is said to be 1-2% at least) are becoming hypersensitive (electrosensitive) to rf radiation, causing them to be unable to function at schools, workplaces, and even in their own homes due to the proliferation of these hazardous devices. Despite a multitude of evidence pointing to toxic exposures at even very low levels, the US government and its regulatory FCC, CDC, and HHS, often headed up by or influenced by lobbyists for the tech industry for decades, has exposed the unsuspecting general public to extremely high levels of EMF's. "In the USA, the FCC guidelines make it currently legal to allow RF radiation levels at 10 000 000 µW/m2, which is 10,000,000,000,000 (ten trillion) times higher than than the upper natural background levels we evolved to tolerate" (https://www.electrosmogprevention.org/smart-meter-resources-links/safety-guidelines-for-rf-exposure/). Center for Electrosmog Prevention's website at www.electrosmogprevention.org is a repository of thousands of articles and links to scientific research studies concerning the hazards of rf radiation exposure. It has links to other extensive repositories of scientific articles concerning these health hazards at https://www.saferemr.com/, https://bioinitiative.org/. and http://ehtrust.org/, to name but a few. It is time to acknowledge the risks, at the very least, and the harms being perpetrated on the public health, and greatly reduce exposures to rf radiation in our homes, schools, workplaces, vehicles, modes of transportation, and all public places. We commend this request for information on EMFs, Rf radiation, and wireless radiation exposure, though long overdue.