Research & federal duties

Public Comment — HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I hold a PhD in Biomedical Sciences (Molecular Medicine) from the University of Iowa and a BSc in Biology from Tufts University. My background includes over three years of medical training in an MD/PhD program, biomedical research, and environmental health research development. My current work focuses on real-time indoor fungal monitoring and citizen-science approaches to understanding environmental exposures and health. I have personally experienced significant illness associated with water-damaged, mold-affected indoor environments. I cannot establish that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) contributed to my illness, nor am I reporting confirmed electromagnetic hypersensitivity. My experience has nevertheless reinforced the importance of investigating poorly characterized environmental exposures before preventable harms become widespread. Biological mechanisms: Non-ionizing radiation lacks sufficient photon energy to directly ionize molecules, but that distinction does not establish biological inertness. Human physiology depends on membrane potentials, ion transport, and electrochemical signaling. Under appropriate conditions, external electric and time-varying magnetic fields induce currents and affect excitable tissues, as demonstrated by medical applications such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. These established effects do not prove that everyday wireless exposures cause neurological harm. They do justify evaluating specific frequencies, field strengths, modulation patterns, and durations rather than treating non-ionizing status alone as a safety determination. Environmental interactions: I encourage HHS to examine whether EMFs can influence indoor fungal physiology, including growth, sporulation, allergen production, oxidative-stress responses, or secondary metabolism. This is a hypothesis, not an established explanation for mold-related illness. Evidence that ordinary household wiring, Wi-Fi, or cellular signals increase mold virulence or toxicity is insufficient. Controlled studies should compare realistic exposures with sham conditions and measure fungal outcomes while controlling for moisture, temperature, substrates, and ventilation. Low-frequency electrical fields and radiofrequency wireless exposures should be evaluated separately. Exposure assessment: Better personal and building-level measurements are essential to identifying meaningful exposure-health relationships. I recommend validated, time-resolved monitoring of relevant exposure characteristics, combined with building data, objective health outcomes, and carefully designed longitudinal or citizen-science studies. Studies should address confounding, exposure misclassification, selection bias, privacy, and reproducibility. Clinical research: Individuals reporting symptoms they attribute to EMFs deserve respectful care and rigorous investigation. Blinded provocation studies have generally not established a consistent causal link between everyday RF exposure and reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms. Future research should investigate symptoms and potential contributing factors without presuming either causation or dismissal, and should consider populations with distinct exposure or health vulnerabilities. I ask HHS to prioritize: (1) independent, reproducible mechanistic studies at environmentally relevant exposure levels; (2) improved electromagnetic dosimetry and longitudinal exposure assessment; (3) exploratory research on EMF interactions with indoor microbiology; (4) interdisciplinary collaboration across neuroscience, biophysics, environmental epidemiology, microbiology, and building science; and (5) accessible, evidence-based public guidance that clearly distinguishes established risks from uncertainty. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not proof of safety; equally, plausible mechanisms and reported symptoms are not proof of causation. Preventative public health depends on investigating uncertainty with rigor and transparency, so individuals can understand their environments and make informed decisions. Rebecca Lesan, PhD Biomedical and Environmental Health Researcher Zürich, Switzerland

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a parent. We live close to areas with lots of cell towers and other radio signals. As more and more increase in the area, I have real concerns about how this will impact a growing child based on some of the data being shown. A real study that is trustworthy is desperately needed. Therefore, 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.

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT: RADAR MAINTENANCE, ELF FIELDS, X-RAYS, AND PARATHYROID DISEASE This supplements my prior HHS comments on radar maintenance, RF exposure, deficient monitoring, medical surveillance, latency, and accountability. I request investigation of extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields from numerous transformers and a Power Conditioning System (PCS) inside an ASR-11/MSSR equipment shelter, alongside RF and possible incidental X-rays. SWEDISH OCCUPATIONAL STUDY: Hakansson et al., "Arc and resistance welding and tumours of the endocrine glands," Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005;62:304-308; DOI 10.1136/oem.2004.015479, examined 67 parathyroid tumor cases. Adjusted odds ratios were 3.3 (95% CI 1.6-6.9) for any welding, 4.3 (1.7-10.6) for arc welding, and 2.6 (0.9-7.1) for resistance welding. The authors considered ELF magnetic fields a possible explanation. Welding has other exposures; the association does not prove ELF causation. It does justify targeted research among electrical and radar technicians. ASR-11/MSSR SHELTER: Commissioned at my FAA facility in 2007, the installation placed numerous energized transformers and a PCS IN THE SAME ROOM where technicians routinely worked, often at close range. Transformer leakage flux, load currents, conductor routing, and power electronics can produce spatially variable 60 Hz magnetic fields, harmonics, and switching-frequency fields. These sources differ from radar RF emissions. HHS should examine equipment ratings, locations, loads, technician proximity and work duration, and any ELF surveys. RF SHIELDING IS NOT ELF PROTECTION: Metal cabinets and enclosures effective against radar RF cannot be assumed to attenuate 60 Hz magnetic fields. Ordinary conductive RF shielding may offer little attenuation at power frequency. Actual protection depends on magnetic permeability, thickness, geometry, frequency, and source arrangement. Some steel structures reduce ELF fields; effectiveness requires measurements or engineering analysis. RF compliance does not establish ELF safety. IONIZING RADIATION LITERATURE: "The Parathyroid as a Target for Radiation Damage," New England Journal of Medicine 2011; DOI 10.1056/NEJMc1104982, reported signs of primary hyperparathyroidism in 15 of 61 Chornobyl cleanup workers following substantial radiation exposure. "Dose-response relationships for radiation-induced hyperparathyroidism" (PMID 7829622) identified 36 confirmed cases among 2,555 people irradiated in childhood and a significant dose-response. "Parathyroid tumors in atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima" (PMID 1762105) reported a radiation-associated trend. "Therapeutic radiation and hyperparathyroidism" (PMID 2764660) provides further case-control evidence. A 2024 UK vascular surgeon radiation-safety survey (DOI 10.54522/jvsgbi.2024.155) reported one parathyroid adenoma, an observation that does not prove causation. These exposures differ from mine, but justify investigating occupational ionizing radiation and long latency. MEDICAL CHRONOLOGY: I maintained military radar/electronics beginning in 1982 and FAA systems through 2017. Original laboratory records show calcium 8.8 mg/dL in 2002; subsequent values include 9.0 (2004), 8.9 (2005), 9.8 (February 2007), 10.0 (2011), 10.2 (2016), 10.6 (December 2017), and 10.8 (March 2018). PTH was 174 pg/mL in January 2018. A parathyroid adenoma was removed April 23, 2021. This documents evolving biochemical findings, not proven disease onset or causation. The 2007 installation merits scrutiny without excluding earlier exposures. DISTINCT EXPOSURE PATHWAYS: Some legacy high-voltage radar electron tubes can generate incidental ionizing X-rays under certain conditions. X-rays, radar RF/microwaves, and ELF magnetic fields require separate exposure assessments. Neither RF compliance nor lack of personal dosimetry proves that other exposures were absent. Proposed mechanisms involving oxidative stress, calcium signaling, or endocrine-cell proliferation should be studied, not presumed established. I REQUEST THAT HHS: (1) review and commission follow-up to the Swedish parathyroid findings; (2) evaluate transformer and PCS magnetic fields at actual FAA technician positions, including shielding effectiveness; (3) establish long-term FAA ATSS and military radar-maintainer cohorts tracking calcium, PTH, parathyroid adenomas, hyperplasia, and hyperparathyroidism; (4) preserve equipment drawings, transformer/PCS specifications, maintenance procedures, shielding records, and RF/ELF/X-ray surveys; and (5) independently reconstruct exposures, evaluate latency, and investigate failures of medical surveillance. Missing measurements are not proof of no exposure. Federal radar technicians deserve rigorous investigation of their COMPLETE maintenance environment.

My late wife was teaching in a sick building in San Francisco in 1989 and was environmentally injured. Because of this we got involved in a support group for people with similar difficulties. Over the years, because of my involvement with that group, I've met many people whose neurological reactions to environmental exposures resulted in them developing sensitivites to wireless technology. I don't know anyone who was actually injured by using wireless technoclogy, but I know plenty of people who cannot tolerate being around electro-magnetic radiation. This has profoundly interfered with being able to work and even with access to many buildings. I don't know the ins and outs of legislative issues surrounding this, but I do know that telecommunications companies have managed to pass laws that even make it illegal for residents of a community to oppose cell towers and 5G technology on health grounds. I have read that In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. Obviously something is not right about that. Since the issue is now in the forefront, I support all possible caution and investigation into these issues rather than a continued violation of consumers' rights to protection from harm.

I’d just like to share my thoughts on these topics. 5G/cell towers potentially affect behavior(agitation, irritability, anger, anxiety, headache, sleep, ect.) Majority of average homes are filled with wifi modems and smart devices. Smart devices can be accessed by utility companies, locked, turned off, thermostats adjusted, water usage restricted on washing machines, ect. Potential for devices to be hacked/accessed by others with malicious intent is also a concern. Not to mention the data being collected from the use of these devices. The body seems to find comfort and ease away from devices and their frequencies. Addictive devices such as cellphones affect every day life, relationships, driving habits where people can’t put their phones down, social behaviors, demoralization. Long term cellphone, computer use affecting the blood cells causing clumping restricting oxygen flow, eyes, sleep, ect. Our environment and every aspect of our lives has been invaded by non native EMF’s and RFs. Not just on the human body, but also the life of animals, insects and marine life that share this environment. Strange behaviors are accusing in all of the above. There is a potential for catastrophic, irreversible damage that needs to be investigated.

Since my comment exceeds 5000 characters, I´m sending it as an attached file. It collects my personal experience on how electromagnetic fields have affected my physical and mental health. The thesis I defend, supported by different scientific research, is that there is a direct cause-effect relationship between radiofrequency and central sensitivity illnesses (fibromyalgia, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, electrohypersensitivity). These illnesses, only recently on scene, affect millions of people all over the world. If the research proves that these illnesses are caused by inadequate limits for wireless technologies, the human, working, economic and social costs can be huge.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. I believe wireless radiation has effected me and my family with many headaches, overly tired and easily catching diseases. 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 responding to Docket (HHS-OASH-2026-0397) regarding EMFs, RF and wireless radiation. I responding as a concerned member of the public. I became aware of the dangers of wireless radiation about five years ago. The FCC has not questioned the current RF guidelines in 30 years. During that time we have had rapid expansion of population wide wireless radiation exposure. It is long past time for the FCC or HHS to provide rigorous, independent and transparent research the effects of wireless radiation on humans, especially children. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate personal experiences and the scientific evidence, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health.

I remember my first cell phone. My parents bought it for me when I was in fifth grade. It was a pink Razr Motorola flip phone. Little did I know at the time that a few years later, I would start working for an environmental health non-profit organization on Long Island where I’d learn about the seriously disturbing health effects linked to wireless radiation exposure emitted by devices like cell phones, WiFi routers, and even those big cell towers that we see on highways and near homes across America. On the first day of my internship with the non-profit, the organization’s Executive Director sat me down at the office dining room table and dropped a couple of three-inch binders, each overflowing with paper, right in front of me. The table shook due to the weight of the binders. She told me that every piece of paper in each binder was just a sliver of the scientific literature about the biological effects of wireless radiation exposure. DNA damage. Sperm damage. Oxidative stress. Cancer. The list of terribles went on. My eyes widened. I had been, and continue to be, a health-conscious person. I want a healthy family, and I want to live a long, happy life. It greatly angered me to realize to realize that I had handled wireless devices in a potentially unsafe way -- especially during some of my most important developmental years -- because I just didn’t know better. Before that day in the office, nobody had ever told me that wireless radiation is a health hazard. Where would I have learned such information? From the non-existent warning label on my cell phone? From health class? From the FCC -- a revolving door for telecom lobbyists and former industry insiders? From the media outlets that get their advertising money from Verizon and AT&T and T-Mobile? After years of working in the non-profit sector and learning as much as I could as quickly as I could about the wireless telecommunications industry and the scientifically documented adverse biological impacts of RF radiation, I became a staunch advocate for the responsible and thoughtful placement of wireless telecommunications infrastructure. But that wasn’t enough. I couldn’t just be an advocate. I needed a law degree. So, I went to law school so I could teach municipalities about the powers they have to enact wireless telecommunications ordinances that prioritize public safety and smart infrastructure siting. And I still enthusiastically do that work today with my brilliant father who has practiced law for over 43 years. I am genuinely encouraged that HHS has issued this RFI. I hope this marks the beginning of a fundamental shift in how our federal government addresses the health and environmental implications of wireless radiation. The FCC has had ample time to act, and its record speaks for itself. Clearly, it cannot do its job. HHS must now take a leading role in investigating the health effects of wireless radiation and ensure that public health drives federal policy. This is HHS’s big moment to be on the right side of science and history. Please seize it. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public as good friends of mine are highly sensitive to EMF’s, to the point where they mainly no longer venture from their rural home; I believe it’s a mistake to blithely support something which impacts all living forms on the planet. At the least, it should be an individual’s choice as to whether or not one is subjected to the potential health risks from wireless radiation. In my case, the state of Michigan allows consumers to opt out from smart meters but unfortunately my local REA (Ontonagon REA) has a loophole around this law and Ontonagon REA forced me (a senior citizen and longtime customer in good standing) off-grid at my rural summer homestead because I refuse to use their smart meter (I know of others in the area who are also being pushed to accept REA’s smart meters). It’s been a hardship for me to be off-grid, and no one I’ve spoken with believes that it’s acceptable for an American company to allow its own interests to override individual liberties. HHS can play a role in helping to allow consumers this important right to choose whether or not to have a smart meter at their home and in so doing, protect individuals who wish to reduce wireless radiation exposure and keep their homes safe and comfortable places in which to live. 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.