Research & federal duties

October 16, 2026 To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Subject: Request for Independent Review of 5G Tower Siting and RF Safety Standards Dear HHS Officials, My name is Jill Boan, and I am a homeowner in rural Nevada County, California. I strongly oppose a proposed 5G cell tower planned within approximately 100 yards of our home and even closer to some of our neighbors. Our community has raised serious questions about long-term health effects, environmental impacts, and the wisdom of placing this infrastructure so close to homes. We have attended hearing after hearing, yet we feel that our concerns are not being heard or meaningfully addressed. Part of the problem is federal law. Under Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments generally cannot deny wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions if the facilities comply with FCC regulations. This leaves county officials with limited authority to address the very health concerns that matter most to residents. Meanwhile, the FCC’s core RF exposure guidelines date back to 1996, before today’s widespread 5G deployment and extensive use of wireless devices. In 2021, a federal appeals court ordered the FCC to better explain its decision to retain those guidelines, including how it considered evidence involving children, long-term exposure, non-cancer effects, and the environment. I am not claiming that every possible health effect has been established. I am asking for an independent, up-to-date scientific evaluation that residents can trust. I urge HHS to: 1. Review current research on long-term and cumulative RF exposure, including exposure from 5G towers near homes. 2. Determine whether existing limits adequately protect children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable people, including those reporting sensitivity to RF exposure. 3. Assess potential environmental impacts, including effects on wildlife. 4. Recommend updated health-protective exposure standards and evidence-based setbacks from homes, schools, and childcare facilities where warranted by the science. 5. Advise Congress and federal regulators on changes that would give local communities a meaningful voice in tower siting decisions. We are not opposed to reliable cellular service. We are opposed to being told that we must accept a tower so close to our homes while our health concerns are effectively excluded from local decisions. Please ensure that federal health agencies play a leading role in reviewing RF safety and that rural families like ours are heard. Public health deserves independent scientific scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. Sincerely, Jill Boan Nevada County, California

My Personal Experience I am submitting this comment as an individual member of the public, sharing my personal experience and concerns about potential RF-EMF health effects. My health problems began gradually and eventually seriously impaired my daily life. I experienced severe sleep disturbances, headaches, visual disturbances, memory and concentration problems, cognitive fog, digestive issues, exhaustion, and anxiety. Medical examinations did not identify an explanation. Only after becoming ill did I begin investigating possible environmental causes and measuring RF-EMF levels in my apartment. The measurements revealed levels approximately 1,000 times higher than at my parents' home in a remote location. Through this investigation, I identified a mobile phone base station on a neighboring building as the apparent main source. I subsequently confirmed the installation date directly with the telecom operator and learned that it preceded the development of my symptoms. After installing shielding curtains, my measurements showed levels approximately 500 times lower than before. Within two days, my headaches and digestive symptoms disappeared. My sleep, concentration, and general wellbeing subsequently improved substantially. Importantly, I did not identify the base station as a potential source until after I had become ill and begun investigating possible causes. My initial symptoms therefore preceded my identification of the suspected source. I recognize that this sequence of events cannot by itself prove causation, but the chronology, measurements, and subsequent improvement convinced me that RF-EMF exposure deserved serious investigation. Similar Experiences Reported by Others My experience is not unique. A 2024 review published in Reviews on Environmental Health summarized seven Swedish case reports involving 16 people who developed various symptoms shortly after nearby 5G base stations were installed. Reported symptoms included sleep disturbances, headaches, fatigue, concentration and memory problems, anxiety, and cardiovascular complaints. The authors reported that symptoms often diminished after the individuals moved away from the exposure. Although case reports cannot establish causation or determine how widespread these effects may be, I believe these observations warrant independent investigation. Reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38889394/ My Concerns About RF-EMF After investigating the topic, I was shocked by the volume of peer-reviewed research reporting potential biological and health effects associated with RF-EMF. To help inform the public, I created https://emf-health.info/ to share research and information about electromagnetic fields and health. I am particularly concerned that exposure intensity alone may not adequately characterize potential health risks. Based on my experience, I believe pulsed and modulated signals deserve particular attention. HHS should investigate whether pulse characteristics, modulation, peak versus average exposure, and cumulative exposure influence biological responses, including at levels below current exposure limits. In particular, research should compare pulsed and continuous signals under appropriately matched exposure conditions. Potential effects on sleep, neurological and cognitive function, and general wellbeing deserve thorough investigation. Given the widespread use of wireless technology, even modest health effects, if established, could have significant public health consequences. Children and other potentially vulnerable groups deserve particular attention. My Request to HHS I respectfully ask HHS to conduct an independent, comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed evidence, including studies reporting adverse effects and studies finding no effects. Please investigate whether current exposure limits adequately account for pulsed and modulated signals, potential non-thermal effects, and cumulative real-world exposure. I also urge HHS to support independent research into possible health effects, identify gaps in existing knowledge, and consider practical measures to reduce unnecessary exposure where appropriate, particularly in environments occupied by children. I am not asking HHS to accept my personal experience or these case reports as scientific proof. I am asking that experiences like mine and the available scientific evidence be taken seriously and investigated impartially. Wireless technology has brought many benefits, but protecting public health must remain a priority. Please ensure that unresolved questions about RF-EMF safety receive the attention they deserve.

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 grandmother and concerned member of the public. I have personally reduced my exposure knowing the regulations for use haven't been updated in 30 years. I believe HHS should address this issue so we have the latest science protecting the public. 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 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 who is very concerned about children’s constant exposure to cell towers that are now installed in many parks, on school properties and residential neighborhoods without having safety records. 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 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. 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 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. I live with the negative health consequences these wireless 5G 6G toxic EMR emitting towers put off. I also see every damn day the negative effects it’s had on our planet the trees plants and animals and humans it takes a very blind and evil government to allow these this known toxic exposure on the people who build the country in which we live. These 5G 6G cell towers are killing everything in its path! I will no longer stay silent or put it lightly because the cell companies aren’t caring what they do to us with these toxic and destructive towers. Take the towers down stop the destruction of life.

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 healthcare professional, advocate, concerned member of the public, and citizen suffering from EMF exposure. I live in an apartment building and directly under my bedroom is the boiler room housing 60 smart meters for all the apartments and for the common areas of the building. ConEdison continually monitors the smart meters and wakes me up numerous times every night. The EMfF energy causes me to not be able to experience deep restorative sleep; I experience blood pressure, palpitations and sweating during the exposure. I recently retired from working as a Perdiem pharmacist because appropriate sleep is needed to be able to concentrate, dispense and verify prescriptions. HHS should require the energy companies to limit smart meters monitoring to daytime hours between 8am and 8pm. 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. I would like to see prescription prescribing data comparing blood pressure med prescribing rates and insomnia medication prescribing rates during 2010 to 2019 before smart meters were installed and 2019 to 2027 after widespread smart meter usage. Guaranteed people are being diagnosed with blood pressure and insomnia that is being triggered by smart meter monitoring at night. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

Please continue to research and fund studies on exposure to EMF/RMF and our children’s long term development

Public Comment Submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Advocacy for Neuro Rights Inc. (A4NR) respectfully submits the attached white paper, Pathway to Freedom: A Neuro-Rights Framework for Emerging Brain-Computer Interfaces, Artificial Intelligence, Wireless Body Area Networks, Physiological Telemetry Systems, and Emerging Neurotechnologies. This submission is based upon years of advocacy, case management, registry development, multidisciplinary evidence review, public-health analysis, and support provided to individuals reporting complex neurological, physiological, sensory, toxicological, and legal concerns. Through this work, our organization identified recurring questions involving informed consent, participant protections, cognitive liberty, mental privacy, neuro-autonomy, physiological monitoring technologies, and future governance of emerging neurotechnologies. The purpose of this submission is not to establish proof of a specific technological mechanism, device, exposure source, or causal relationship. Rather, it seeks to encourage proactive public-health discussion, scientific inquiry, and ethical oversight concerning rapidly evolving technologies, including artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, physiological telemetry networks, Medical Internet of Things systems, Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs), and future neurotechnologies. The attached white paper proposes that the foundational principles established within the Belmont Report remain highly relevant but may require modernization as emerging technologies become increasingly capable of collecting, processing, transmitting, and analyzing physiological and neurological information. It further recommends consideration of cognitive liberty, mental privacy, neuro-autonomy, informed consent modernization, enhanced protections for vulnerable populations, and increased transparency regarding technologies capable of interacting with human biological systems. Advocacy for Neuro Rights respectfully recommends continued discussion regarding: Cognitive Liberty Mental Privacy Neuro-Autonomy Brain-Computer Interface Governance Artificial Intelligence Accountability Physiological Telemetry Oversight Wireless Body Area Network Governance Medical Internet of Things Transparency Human Subject Protection Modernization Federal Neurotechnology Policy Development The goal of this submission is to support a future in which scientific innovation advances alongside human dignity, informed consent, participant protections, transparency, public trust, and fundamental rights. Public Submission Disclaimer This submission is provided as part of a public Request for Information process. All observations, recommendations, and conclusions are presented for scientific, ethical, public-health, and policy discussion purposes. No original participant files, medical records, protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable information (PII), or confidential client records are included in this submission. Any organizational observations referenced within the attached materials are presented as de-identified registry observations, analytical summaries, and policy-oriented findings intended to support discussion regarding public health, human-subject protections, neuro-rights, and emerging technology governance. The submission does not establish proof of a specific technological mechanism, device, exposure source, or causal relationship. Rather, it identifies research gaps, governance considerations, ethical questions, and areas that may warrant additional scientific investigation and public-health review. Respectfully Submitted, Lewis Scott Rowe Chief Executive Officer Research Director Advocacy for Neuro Rights Inc. (A4NR) ORCID: 0009-0008-4947-2558

I am submitting the attached document, “Frequencies as Levers: Observations from 30 Years at the Intersection of Building Systems and Human Physiology,” to offer a perspective developed through architectural engineering, decades of investigating electromagnetic environments, personal experience with electromagnetic sensitivity, and my work as an Autonomic Response Testing (ART) practitioner and health coach. My central question is whether our current approach to electromagnetic exposure adequately captures its relationship to human physiological functioning, particularly in individuals already managing substantial environmental and biological burdens. Through ART, I investigate how specific exposures correspond with changes in autonomic regulation and other physiological indicators, and how those responses change as an individual’s health improves. These observations raise questions about cumulative exposure, baseline autonomic function, individual susceptibility, and the limitations of brief, isolated exposure studies. The attached submission also addresses the consequences of electromagnetic sensitivity for access to healthcare, transportation, commerce, and community life. Ultimately, I believe the most useful research question extends beyond whether electromagnetic exposure produces acute toxicity. It is whether the electromagnetic environments we create support or interfere with people’s ability to regulate, recover, and function at their biological potential. I welcome investigation that connects environmental measurements, physiological responses, and real-world functional outcomes.