Research & federal duties

Personal experiences and additional information - Questions 2, 3, 5, 16 and 18, HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Dear HHS Review Team, In response to your request for information, I would like to share my personal experiences with Kangen Water and emGuarde, two products offered by the Japanese company Enagic. I am writing in a personal capacity as a user based in the Netherlands. I began drinking Kangen Water in 2019. The changes I experienced prompted me to learn more about the water. Only afterward did I become an independent Enagic distributor. Similarly, I began using emGuarde myself in June 2024 before sharing information about it with others. Personal experiences - Question 3 Before discovering these products, I had experienced longstanding health difficulties that limited my daily activities. In 2019, I began drinking Kangen Water: alkaline ionized water, referred to in the scientific literature as ERW (Electrolyzed Reduced Water). Various scientific publications about this type of water can be found on PubMed using this term. During electrolysis, molecular hydrogen gas is produced, some of which remains dissolved in the water. Within two weeks, I noticed changes in how my body felt, and my longstanding fatigue began to subside. Within three months, I could cycle again without needing to rest for the remainder of the day. I began sleeping much better, my bowel function improved considerably, much of the sensory overload I experienced daily disappeared, and my allergy symptoms disappeared. The sensitivity I associated with electromagnetic exposure also became less pronounced. For example, I found it easier to spend time in shops and other public spaces containing electronic equipment. In June 2024, I began using emGuarde. Within minutes of switching it on, I noticed a change, particularly in how my head felt. With continued use, I noticed that I no longer experienced tingling in my hands while working at the computer. During car journeys, I felt much less tired, and my legs no longer developed that very heavy, numb feeling. I continued to spend approximately the same amount of time working at the computer and traveling by car, but I now find these activities much easier to sustain. I can now be near electronic equipment without difficulty when I carry emGuarde with me. I also take emGuarde into public spaces. I find it easier to spend time in restaurants, shops, and other environments with considerable noise and electronic equipment. I continue to drink Kangen Water and use emGuarde daily. Through my work as an independent distributor, I also receive positive accounts from other users. My own experience is therefore not an isolated account. As an independent distributor, I must take regulatory restrictions on medical claims into account. Through this submission, I would like to share my experiences and provide information for your assessment. Technical context and research priorities - Questions 5, 16 and 18 According to the manufacturer, emGuarde is designed to suppress or harmonize specific high-frequency electromagnetic noise within the 3-1000 MHz range. While exploring this explanation, I came across information from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In OET Bulletin 65, the FCC explains that the most restrictive exposure limits fall within the 30-300 MHz frequency range because, under certain conditions, the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently in this range. Through my work, I notice that attention regarding radiation often focuses on 5G. I also find that the FCC's information about efficient RF energy absorption in the 30-300 MHz range is often unfamiliar, even to people who present themselves as 5G specialists or electromagnetic radiation experts. For this reason, I would particularly like to bring this frequency range to your attention. FCC - information on radiofrequency exposure and safety: https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety Relevant section: WHAT LEVELS ARE SAFE FOR EXPOSURE TO RF ENERGY? emGuarde - research page, including information about research involving participants reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS): https://emguarde.com/research-standards/ The attached PDF contains my full submission, including additional references and links to video presentations. I respectfully ask HHS to consider my experiences and this information when identifying research priorities. I would be happy to provide further clarification should you have any questions regarding my submission. Thank you for giving members of the public the opportunity to contribute their experiences and information. Sincerely, Johanna Koopman The Netherlands

Dear Department of Health and Human Services Officials, I am writing as the sister of a nurse whose health and life have been profoundly affected by exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR). I have seen the toll these challenges have taken on her and her family. I urge you to take seriously the experiences of people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity and investigate the potential health effects of our increasingly wireless environment. My sister is an RN, BSN, with 19 years of experience in ICU, case management, and integrative wellness. She began to experience health issues after Wi-Fi was introduced in her ICU workplace and nurses were required to wear body-mounted wireless communication devices throughout their shifts. Wireless exposures also increased in her neighborhood around the same time. She began experiencing headaches, burning and ringing ears, head pressure, and a wired/shaky sensation. Her previously mild, intermittent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) worsened dramatically, and she developed non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). She subsequently developed mast cell activation syndrome. A day spent at a remote state park without cellular service or Wi-Fi brought striking relief from her symptoms. She repeatedly compared how she felt at the park, at work, and at home, and used an RF meter to assess environmental exposures. Sure enough, her symptoms and heart rhythm disturbances were associated with her increased exposure at work and in her neighborhood. Ultimately, she had to leave her in-hospital nursing career to protect her health. As her sister, it has been deeply troubling to see someone with so much medical experience, compassion, and dedication forced to make such life-altering decisions. She and her family made enormous financial sacrifices to find a place where she felt better. They purchased land and downsized to a small, older home near the state park, where they could reduce exposures and obtain an electric utility arrangement permitting smart-meter opt-out. Even with these sacrifices, finding a suitable environment was difficult and expensive. Many Americans simply cannot afford to leave their jobs, relocate, or purchase lower-exposure homes. No one should have to choose between earning a living and protecting their health, or between access to essential services and the ability to reduce exposures they believe are making them ill. Families should not bear the entire financial and personal burden of finding solutions to potential environmental health problems. I urge HHS and lawmakers to take the following actions: Investigate potential health effects. Support rigorous, independent research into non-thermal effects of RFR and extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, including possible cardiac, neurological, oxidative stress, mast-cell-related, and metabolic effects such as insulin resistance. Reassess exposure standards. Review current safety limits in light of the full scientific literature, including research on biological effects beyond tissue heating, cumulative exposures, long-term effects, and vulnerable populations. Protect people in essential environments. Evaluate wireless exposures in hospitals, schools, workplaces, and residential neighborhoods. Provide lower-exposure spaces and practical alternatives for people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity, without requiring them to sacrifice employment, education, or medical care. Protect informed choice. Support reasonable smart-meter opt-out provisions and alternatives to unnecessary wireless technologies, where technically feasible, without undue financial penalties or loss of essential services. Listen to researchers and affected individuals. Invite independent scientists, medical professionals, and people reporting symptoms to testify. Review the BioInitiative Report (https://bioinitiative.org/) and consider inviting its contributing researchers and Andrew Marino, MD, PhD, to discuss research concerning RFR and electric and magnetic fields. I am also concerned about the implications for children and future generations. Wireless technology is increasingly present in schools, hospitals, homes, and public spaces. We need responsible investigation and evidence-based safeguards rather than assuming existing standards address every possible risk. I recognize that my sister's experience alone cannot establish scientific causation. However, her experience deserves serious consideration alongside the broader scientific literature. People reporting these symptoms deserve compassion, appropriate medical evaluation, research, and environments safe for their health. Please use your authority to ensure HHS thoroughly investigates these concerns, supports independent research, and develops evidence-based policies that protect public health without placing the burden of exposure avoidance solely on affected individuals and their families. Thank you

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 and sufferer of EMRS. This issue matters to me personally because, though I am otherwise totally healthy, I suffer from 'Electro-Magnetic Radiation Syndrome' (EMR-S), a condition affecting millions of Americans and covered under the American Disabilities Act. Whenever I get near a cell tower or high-powered wifi router (same radiation), I start to get a headache and feel dizzy. Within minutes of me moving away, I fully recover. I have to live in a house away from this radiation in order to survive. And when I travel, I have to sleep inside a Faraday tent in order to actually sleep. 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.

Je soumets ce commentaire en réponse à la demande d'informations du HHS sur les champs électromagnétiques (CEM), les rayonnements radiofréquences (RF) et l'exposition aux rayonnements sans fil ainsi que l’envoi d’ondes par les armes à énergies dirigées. Je réponds du point de vue de la Présidente de l’Association du Collectif des Personnes Ciblées. Tous les membres actifs de l’Association du Collectif des Personnes Ciblées sont des« personnes ciblées » depuis plusieurs années par le biais d’armes à énergies dirigées utilisés sur les civils. Ces armes ont des lanceurs d’ondes comme les frigos, les wifis, les luminaires, la télé, le portable le plus douloureux pour le cerveau. Elles subissent le « Syndrome de la Havane »  avec comme symptômes pour chacun d’entre nous : Secousses dans les différents membres du corps, sensations de brûlures diffuses ou localisées intenses, Sensations d’engourdissements et de pression dans la tête, Maux et tintements d’oreilles ou acouphènes, Écoute de bruits étranges ou de voix que personne d’autre ne peut entendre Rêves étranges ou cauchemars, Privation de sommeil, sommeil perturbé, réveils nocturnes Nausées, Migraines, Épuisement, Dysfonctionnement cardiaque, Apnées du sommeil et asphyxie, Douleurs intenses et diffuses, Vieillissement prématuré et de la peau, Perte de mémoire et de concentration… En France, le Pays est condamné par la dictature nous ne pouvons faire sortir cette information primordiale car il nous est interdit d’en parler sous peine de menaces de mort, de meurtre provoqué et d’enfermements abusifs, aussi nous aimerions que Mr Kennedy affirme haut et fort que cela existe et fasse en sorte que tout le peuple Français soit au courant pour le bien de l’Humanité. Nous soutenons l'implication active du Département de la Santé et des Services sociaux (HHS) dans l'examen des effets potentiels des rayonnements sans fil sur la santé et l'environnement. Les questions relatives à la santé humaine devraient être traitées par les agences fédérales possédant l'expertise appropriée en médecine, biologie, épidémiologie et santé publique, et les témoignages des personnes et des familles qui se disent affectées devraient être pris en compte au même titre que les données scientifiques. J’exhorte le HHS à évaluer soigneusement ces expériences et les données scientifiques, à identifier les lacunes de la recherche actuelle, à accorder une attention particulière aux enfants et aux autres populations potentiellement vulnérables, et à établir des priorités de recherche fédérales appropriées concernant les rayonnements sans fil et la santé publique. Merci de donner aux individus et aux familles l'occasion de se faire entendre. Voici notre adresse mail : LaNouvelleResistanceFrancaise@protonmail.com

For about six years, I've been hearing a low-frequency humming sound that no one else around me can hear. This phenomenon is known under the name Taos Hum. A single-digit percentage of the world's population experiences this phenomenon. I went to an ENT specialist and had my hearing checked. Everything is fine. My primary care physician also couldn't find anything wrong. I also spoke with a neurologist, but she couldn’t really help me either except advising me to reduce stress. A measurement taken by the Environmental Protection Agency in my home revealed no significant infrasound exposure in the audible range. The fact that I am the only one who can hear it suggests that this acoustic phenomenon is the so-called Frey effect, which is caused by exposure to pulsed microwaves. See, among other things, U.S. Patent No. 4,877,027 (attached). In addition to that about a year ago, a high-frequency, constant whining sound began in my head, which simply “turned on” from one minute to the next. Here, too, I suspect the influence of EMF or other types of radiation. It is a very agonizing auditory sensation that significantly impairs my sleep and my quality of life. I am German and live in Germany, where there are also other people affected. I am writing to you because there is absolutely no awareness in Germany of the harm caused by EMF, RF, microwave or other radiation. We must create opportunities to study this phenomenon. Doctors must be trained to diagnose the Havana Syndrome. EEGs and CT scans must become standard diagnostic procedures. Of course, exposure to radiation must be reduced. To achieve this, it requires more accurate measuring devices capable of detecting different kinds of radiation. Unfortunately, the reality is that we, as those affected, are not taken seriously, and appropriate tests are denied—partly out of a lack of knowledge, partly out of ignorance. Most of the time, we are diagnosed with tinnitus, a mental disorder, or simply told that it’s all in our heads. The authorities must make every effort to investigate the harm caused by this radiation and take remedial action. I hope that the influence of the United States, which is taking a leading role in this regard, will also compel our governments to act.

I am Sarah Starr. My work includes space-weather forecasting, astrology, consciousness education, and exploration of non-human intelligence. I urge HHS to include space weather in its investigation of electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, wireless exposure, and human health. We cannot fully understand the electromagnetic environment people encounter by studying phones, towers, and electronics alone. Natural conditions belong in that investigation too. I want HHS to connect observations of solar activity and geomagnetic disturbances with exposure measurements, health research, and public-health preparedness. Space weather changes Earth's electromagnetic environment. Solar storms affect the magnetosphere and ionosphere, altering currents, fields, and the propagation of radio signals. They can disrupt communications, navigation, satellites, and power systems. These hazards affect public health, emergency response, and national security. Our reliance on technology makes understanding those consequences essential. Wireless infrastructure, personal devices, and high-power transmitters such as HAARP should receive independent exposure assessment. Each source has its own operating characteristics. I ask HHS to investigate the natural conditions surrounding these systems and the people who use them. Measure what happens during both quiet periods and space-weather events, rather than assuming that one set of conditions represents every situation. I am interested in changes in Earth's magnetic field and the wider reach of auroral displays during strong storms. Regional magnetic weakening, strengthening elsewhere, and unusually southern auroras are reasons to examine local conditions. They should prompt coordinated measurements of fields, particles, and radiation, rather than a single assumption about exposure everywhere. Natural radiation also deserves attention. Solar energetic particles, cosmic radiation, and gamma rays from atmospheric events involve different sources and exposure pathways. Ground-level particle detections and observed thunderstorm gamma-ray bursts show why research should capture brief events as well as averages. Establishing their relevance to people requires measuring location, altitude, shielding, energy, and duration. These distinctions make an investigation more useful: they identify the hazard and the protection it requires. My request is to study these conditions together without treating every form of radiation as interchangeable. A disrupted radio signal is different from an increased dose to a person. A change in the magnetic field is different from gamma exposure. We need measurements that establish those connections where they exist and distinguish them where they do not. The health questions deserve sustained attention. Published research has reported associations between geomagnetic activity and cardiovascular measures or mortality. I want independent studies to determine whether these findings hold across populations, what mechanisms explain them, and whether simultaneous wireless exposure changes the outcomes. Include sleep, cognition, mood, and prospectively reported symptoms alongside measurements. My interests also include consciousness and changes in human experience. I want these concerns approached respectfully and investigated through defined neural, cognitive, and subjective outcomes. Laboratory findings of brain responses to magnetic-field changes offer specific questions for replication. They should lead to careful investigation of human sensitivity, rather than assumptions about what every reported experience means. Wildlife and ecosystems belong in this discussion. Research on magnetic navigation and electromagnetic interference gives us reasons to examine orientation, migration, and other functions organisms depend on. Study realistic exposures and determine whether observed changes affect survival, reproduction, or ecological health. I ask HHS to coordinate with NOAA, NASA, USGS, FAA, FCC, and me. Support studies across multiple locations that pair environmental records and personal RF monitoring with standardized health measures. Account for weather, pollution, sleep, medications, and expectations. Include appropriate studies of children, pregnant people, older adults, implant users, and exposed workers. Publish methods, uncertainty, and null findings as openly as positive results. Preparedness must accompany research. Evaluate how power failures, communications disruption, and interrupted medical care affect communities, and people who depend on electricity for treatment. These indirect pathways deserve attention alongside direct biological questions. My attached paper explains the evidence I reviewed and proposes a coordinated research program. I ask HHS to give space weather an explicit, sustained place in its research agenda and to examine the connections that separate monitoring programs can miss. Sarah Starr

HHS Public Comment — Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Questions 2, 3, 5–13, 15–18 I submit this comment as an individual with approximately 14 years of lived experience with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS/EMR-S) and as a licensed clinical social worker. Q2–3: Personal Experience and Health Effects For approximately 14 years, I have experienced symptoms associated with electromagnetic exposure, including sleep disruption and inability to sleep, burning skin, skin redness and mottling, intense pressure around my head as though it were in a vice, squeezing sensations in my chest, heartbeats that feel erratic, and difficulty concentrating. These experiences have affected my sleep, ability to use my home, work, finances, independence, and daily life. At times, I have felt driven to sleep in my car rather than remain in an environment where I was experiencing symptoms. These are significant effects on my life, not abstract concerns. HHS should take reports of EHS seriously, investigate symptoms under real-world exposure conditions, and provide practical assistance to affected individuals. Q5–8, 12–13, 15–16: Standards, Exposure, and Research Independently review whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term and cumulative exposure, real-world conditions, and potentially susceptible individuals. Compliance with existing limits should not automatically end investigation of reported symptoms. Research should evaluate multiple simultaneous sources, exposure patterns over time, and conditions in occupied homes and everyday environments. Include the National Toxicology Program's radiofrequency studies and the Ramazzini Institute study in a transparent evaluation of the evidence. Identify research gaps and prioritize independent research into EHS and practical exposure-reduction options. Q9–11(g): Disclosure, Surveillance, and EHS Residents deserve understandable information about wireless sources in or near their homes, including their characteristics and operating patterns. HHS should support privacy-protective reporting of symptoms and exposure circumstances and explicitly consider people with EHS among populations who may uniquely experience adverse effects. URGENT: SMART METERS AND INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE Communication-enabled utility meters deserve specific, urgent attention. They may be installed on or immediately adjacent to homes, leaving residents little control over exposure. Because utilities are essential services, people may face fees, barriers, or penalties for requesting an alternative. For people with EHS, this can mean having a wireless transmitter at home without a meaningful ability to opt out. HHS should investigate meter transmission characteristics, real-world indoor exposure, placement near occupied rooms, and cumulative exposure alongside other wireless sources. Work with utility regulators to promote transparent disclosure, feasible non-wireless alternatives, fair accommodations, and protection against unreasonable fees or loss of essential service. This lack of choice requires action now, not research alone. EVERYDAY PRODUCTS AND THE RISK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION The problem extends beyond utility meters. Cars, appliances, and an increasing range of everyday products incorporate microprocessors, electronic circuitry, and wireless technologies that people with EHS may have difficulty tolerating. As wireless technology becomes embedded in more necessities, finding usable products can become increasingly difficult and expensive. People may face the frightening prospect of being progressively pushed out of ordinary social life because transportation, household equipment, housing, and other necessities become inaccessible. What are people with EHS supposed to do as everyday life becomes harder to access? HHS should investigate these barriers and promote transparent product information, practical accommodations, and affordable alternatives. People should not be expected to withdraw from society or bear the entire burden of finding workable options themselves. Q14, Q17–18: Environmental Effects, Coordination, and Accountability Coordinate among FDA, NIH, CDC, and relevant regulators. Examine environmental effects and establish clear responsibility for follow-up. Research and standard-setting must be transparent and independent, with safeguards against conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, and undue industry influence. After approximately 14 years of living with these effects, I am asking for more than acknowledgment that further research is needed. People experiencing EHS need practical help now, alongside independent research and meaningful protections. No one should have to choose between essential services and a reasonable opportunity to reduce unwanted exposure. Please treat EHS as an urgent public-health, accessibility, accommodation, and consumer-protection issue.

HHS Public Comment — Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Questions 2, 3, 5–13, 15–18 I submit this comment as an individual with approximately 14 years of lived experience with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS/EMR-S) and as a licensed clinical social worker. Q2–3: Personal Experience and Health Effects For approximately 14 years, I have experienced symptoms associated with electromagnetic exposure, including sleep disruption and inability to sleep, burning skin, skin redness and mottling, intense pressure around my head as though it were in a vice, squeezing sensations in my chest, heartbeats that feel erratic, and difficulty concentrating. These experiences have affected my sleep, ability to use my home, work, finances, independence, and daily life. At times, I have felt driven to sleep in my car rather than remain in an environment where I was experiencing symptoms. These are significant effects on my life, not abstract concerns. HHS should take reports of EHS seriously, investigate symptoms under real-world exposure conditions, and provide practical assistance to affected individuals. Q5–8, 12–13, 15–16: Standards, Exposure, and Research Independently review whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term and cumulative exposure, real-world conditions, and potentially susceptible individuals. Compliance with existing limits should not automatically end investigation of reported symptoms. Research should evaluate multiple simultaneous sources, exposure patterns over time, and conditions in occupied homes and everyday environments. Include the National Toxicology Program's radiofrequency studies and the Ramazzini Institute study in a transparent evaluation of the evidence. Identify research gaps and prioritize independent research into EHS and practical exposure-reduction options. Q9–11(g): Disclosure, Surveillance, and EHS Residents deserve understandable information about wireless sources in or near their homes, including their characteristics and operating patterns. HHS should support privacy-protective reporting of symptoms and exposure circumstances and explicitly consider people with EHS among populations who may uniquely experience adverse effects. URGENT: SMART METERS AND INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE Communication-enabled utility meters deserve specific, urgent attention. They may be installed on or immediately adjacent to homes, leaving residents little control over exposure. Because utilities are essential services, people may face fees, barriers, or penalties for requesting an alternative. For people with EHS, this can mean having a wireless transmitter at home without a meaningful ability to opt out. HHS should investigate meter transmission characteristics, real-world indoor exposure, placement near occupied rooms, and cumulative exposure alongside other wireless sources. Work with utility regulators to promote transparent disclosure, feasible non-wireless alternatives, fair accommodations, and protection against unreasonable fees or loss of essential service. This lack of choice requires action now, not research alone. EVERYDAY PRODUCTS AND THE RISK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION The problem extends beyond utility meters. Cars, appliances, and an increasing range of everyday products incorporate microprocessors, electronic circuitry, and wireless technologies that people with EHS may have difficulty tolerating. As wireless technology becomes embedded in more necessities, finding usable products can become increasingly difficult and expensive. People may face the frightening prospect of being progressively pushed out of ordinary social life because transportation, household equipment, housing, and other necessities become inaccessible. What are people with EHS supposed to do as everyday life becomes harder to access? HHS should investigate these barriers and promote transparent product information, practical accommodations, and affordable alternatives. People should not be expected to withdraw from society or bear the entire burden of finding workable options themselves. Q14, Q17–18: Environmental Effects, Coordination, and Accountability Coordinate among FDA, NIH, CDC, and relevant regulators. Examine environmental effects and establish clear responsibility for follow-up. Research and standard-setting must be transparent and independent, with safeguards against conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, and undue industry influence. After approximately 14 years of living with these effects, I am asking for more than acknowledgment that further research is needed. People experiencing EHS need practical help now, alongside independent research and meaningful protections. No one should have to choose between essential services and a reasonable opportunity to reduce unwanted exposure. Please treat EHS as an urgent public-health, accessibility, accommodation, and consumer-protection issue.

I am writing as a psychologist – and as an individual concerned about the health of myself and others. Today we are exposed to massive amounts of frequencies to which we are biologically not adapted through our prior millions of years of evolution. The impacts on our health and wellbeing are many. Psychologically, common manifestations include increases in depression, anxiety, ADHD, learning disabilities and cognitive decline. Brain development and function is affected prenatally and onward throughout life, particularly with repeated and prolonged exposures. The entire nervous system, which strongly influences virtually every bodily function, is disrupted and compromised. See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923024002247. Cell towers in particular are associated with increases in DNA damage, blood-cell abnormalities, compromised immeunity and cancer. (https://www.ehn.org/cell-tower-radiation-health-effects) Additional symptoms of exposure (which can adversely affect health and personal functioning over time) may include headaches and disturbed sleep. Even the devices we use as individuals are hazardous, giving us additional, targeted exposure to abnormal electromagnetic fields.

As a homeowner in a neighborhood with a cell tower that went up recently nearby, I am interested in seeing the long-term research done on nn-EMF; and its impacts on human health. I have been told there are no known risks based on studies, but the studies seem to fall short - they have not studied long-term health of nearby residents. People with cell towers near their homes have reported headaches, fatigue, ringing in the ears, etc. I am not presuming cell towers to be the cause, but it’s worth taking seriously. Given radiation’s impact on human health (i.e. cancer), I’d like to be sure cell towers certainly do not contribute to such a diagnosis. In conclusion, the public needs to be reassured that cell towers do not negatively impact the overall wellbeing of those who live near them.