Research & federal duties

**Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 — RF/EMF Exposure, Reproductive Health, Mitochondrial Function, and Emerging Wireless Technologies** **Questions 2–3: Personal Perspective** I am a 43-year-old woman experiencing unexplained infertility. For more than half my life, I have lived in metropolitan environments with extensive cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi networks, and wireless devices. Although I cannot establish that these exposures contributed to my infertility, I question whether the long-term biological consequences of widespread RF exposure have been adequately investigated, particularly regarding reproductive health, mitochondrial function, and developing children. **Questions 5, 6, and 11–12: Reproductive and Mitochondrial Health** I urge HHS to examine whether current RF exposure standards adequately address reproductive and developmental outcomes, including potential biological effects beyond tissue heating. A 2024 systematic review by Cordelli et al. identified potential adverse reproductive effects in experimental studies, although evidence remains uncertain. A 2024 review by Meyer et al. examined oxidative-stress biomarkers and found very low-certainty evidence. Mitochondrial function is fundamental to cellular energy production, fertility, and healthy development. I request independent studies investigating whether chronic RF exposure influences mitochondrial respiration, oxidative stress, egg and sperm quality, implantation, pregnancy outcomes, or childhood development. Research should prioritize women attempting conception, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and children, using objective measurements of real-world, cumulative exposure. **Question 13: 5G and Emerging 6G Technologies** Emerging 6G systems may use higher-frequency spectrum, including sub-terahertz frequencies, to support greater bandwidth and data capacity. Advanced beamforming and denser wireless infrastructure may also alter exposure patterns. Although higher frequency alone does not establish greater biological harm, expanding these technologies without adequate long-term biological research raises legitimate public health questions. I urge HHS to independently evaluate the biological implications of emerging frequencies and exposure patterns before widespread deployment wherever feasible, rather than assuming existing standards adequately address every new technology. **Questions 14–15: Environmental Health** Potential RF effects on pollinators, birds, plants, and other organisms also warrant investigation, particularly concerning reproduction, development, behavior, and ecosystem health. **Questions 9, 16–17: Federal Research Priorities** I respectfully request that HHS: 1. Fund independent, longitudinal studies examining fertility, pregnancy, childhood development, and mitochondrial function. 2. Investigate biological endpoints beyond tissue heating, including oxidative stress and cellular energy metabolism. 3. Measure realistic, cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources, accounting for frequency, intensity, duration, and proximity. 4. Establish transparent research priorities for 5G and 6G, with independent replication and disclosure of funding conflicts. 5. Provide accessible exposure data and evidence-based guidance to families seeking to minimize unnecessary exposure. **Conclusion** Technological advancement should be accompanied by equally rigorous public health research and accountability. As a woman struggling to conceive, I believe reproductive health, mitochondrial integrity, and the biological consequences of lifelong environmental exposure deserve serious federal attention. Scientific uncertainty should motivate independent investigation, transparent risk assessment, and reasonable precaution—not premature assurances of safety or unsupported claims of harm. **Selected References** Cordelli et al. (2024). *Environment International*, 185, 108509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108509 Meyer et al. (2024). *Environment International*, 194, 108940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108940

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 a mom, an engineer with a passion for understanding how the body works. Bioelectricity is fundamental to cellular function. External electromagnetic fields interact with biological tissues. Certain exposure conditions can alter physiology and, at sufficient intensities, cause harm. A key question is lower exposure over prolonged periods of time. As well as impact to growing babies / kids vs adults. Can external EMFs alter the electrical gradients and signaling mechanisms that cells need to function? Do particular electromagnetic exposures measurably alter nervous-system function, and are some individuals more responsive? There are enough concerning findings in this report to warrant further research - Zorach Glaser's Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation, originally published in 1971 and revised in 1972. 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. Wireless radiation significantly impacts the environment we live in compared with our ancestors. And may be a key factor in increased health issues. 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, personally, feel heart palpitations and eye irritation anytime I am near wireless towers and/or 5G small cells or small-cell antennas. They are popping up all over and are causing great dis-regulation. 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. Sincerely, Keren O. Kalimian

I am 76 years old and I have seen the general health and wellbeing of the people around me deteriorate at an alarming rate. I have always avoided exposure to high frequency electronics and radio frequencies and I am relatively healthy for 76 and take no prescription medications on a daily basis. Please take the serious concern of our fellow Americans for these issues seriously. Once the damage is done- it cannot be undone. As a professional Architect, if I was proposing a new building etc. for an environmentally sensitive area, many studies would have to be done before approval. Nothing is more environmentally sensitive than our children and grandchildren. Care MUST be taken now to protect them. Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Department of Health and Human Services, I am writing to formally report severe and ongoing adverse health effects that I attribute to exposure to 5G radiation. I first became aware of my extreme sensitivity to 5G in 2020. According to available data, 2020–2021 marked the peak years of the initial mass rollout of 5G infrastructure worldwide. In 2020, I began experiencing severe heart palpitations and sought emergency medical care. Physicians performed an electrocardiogram (EKG) and blood tests for cardiac enzymes; all results were reported as normal. I left the emergency room without any medical explanation for the sudden onset of these cardiac symptoms. After conducting my own research, I obtained a device designed to mitigate the effects of 5G radiation on the human body. Immediately after plugging the device into a wall outlet, my heart palpitations ceased. Since 2021, I have been required to use a 5G-compatible cellular phone. Whenever my fingertips contact the phone’s screen, I experience a burning sensation. After only one to two minutes of contact, my fingertips become completely numb. I researched mitigation options and purchased specialized gloves for handling the phone, as well as a stylus for typing. Without these protective measures, any direct contact with the phone causes pain. Even with them, touching the device produces shock-like sensations that travel up my arm and into my shoulder, resulting in significant bodily pain. I also have noticed that when I hold my phone close to my body, that I experience pain in the area that the phone is closest to. To continue mitigation efforts, I have needed to purchase protective clothing to use during my workday on the computer. I have also developed extreme insomnia, characterized by difficulty falling asleep, frequent nighttime awakenings, and early-morning awakening. The only reliable method I have found to obtain sleep is to unplug my Wi-Fi router at night. On occasions when a family member uses Wi-Fi late at night and forgets to disconnect it, I routinely awaken between 2:00 am and 3:00 a.m. and am unable to return to sleep. Additionally, on days of heavy 5G exposure I experience profound fatigue and extreme tiredness that severely impair my ability to function during the day. None of these symptoms occur when I am in natural environments far removed from 5G infrastructure. However, such areas have become increasingly difficult to locate. I am deeply concerned about the forthcoming deployment of 6G technology. I believe that 5G—and especially 6G—has the potential to harm human health, animal life, and the broader natural environment. For me personally, continued exposure could prove debilitating or worse. I therefore respectfully demand meaningful reductions in ambient levels of this radiation and urge rigorous independent investigation into its biological effects. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I am prepared to provide additional details or documentation upon request. Sincerely, Mary Okocha okocha.mary@gmail.com October 15, 2026 CITATIONS: Gartner forecast on worldwide 5G network infrastructure revenue growth (2020–2021):
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-08-04-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-5g-network-infrastrucutre-revenue-to-grow-39pc-in-2021 Viavi “State of 5G” report — cities with 5G jumped ~350% in 2020 (to 1,336 cities):
https://www.lightwaveonline.com/broadband/article/55031716/study-global-5g-roll-outs-jumped-350-in-2020-despite-pandemic
(Related PR: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/command-the-5g-network-5g-roll-outs-more-than-tripled-in-2020-to-reach-1-336-cities-worldwide-according-to-viavi-report-301233149.html) GSA 5G End-of-Year Report 2021 (200 commercial networks, device counts, etc.):
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/print/37434-gsa-5g-end-of-the-year-report---2021
https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-market-snapshot-2021-end-of-year/ https://ehtrust.org/what-evidence-of-people-injured-by-wireless-radiation-was-ignored-by-the-fcc-historic-lawsuit-eht-et-al-v-fcc/ National Toxicology Program — 2018 The U.S. National Toxicology Program conducted extensive animal studies involving radiofrequency exposure at 900 MHz, representative of earlier cellular technologies. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones

In 2009 I began noticing a reaction to WiFi radiation in my home. It was about 1 yr after I had begun working at home. I was incredibly healthy, was a runner, had been running daily since 1978. No illness, no sensitivities, extremely healthy. But, reactive to EMF's. Please conduct thorough research and implement legislation to properly identify and manage this health hazard. It is real. people are affected by it. Do not sacrifice human health for the profit of big business.

There were studies done decades ago in Denver that showed a high correlation between housing with strong electromagnetic fields and childhood leucimmia. For some reason, probably due to corporate financial interests, these studies have largely been ignored, but the evidence appears to be irrefutable. Nothing good can come from such exposure, whether for adults or children. EMFs, RF Radiation, and wireless radiation exposure should be regulated. Thanks.

This comment is in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am good friends with a family of four who cannot live in the home they own because of the high level of various frequencies in and around their home. They experience a variety of physical symptoms including headaches, loss of energy, foggy minds and more. They are forced to look for areas with lower radiation levels. This includes homeschooling their children as the radiation levels near schools are often too much. I have known other individuals who have had to put up shielding in their bedrooms and go to extraordianry measures to lower the radiation in their homes to alleviate physical symptoms. These people are the canaries in the coal mines. If it can affect some so dramatically as to cause debilitating physical symptoms, it is probably affecting all of us to some degree or other. 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.

Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 - Supplemental explanation of occupational RF site exhibit Prior comment tracking number: mv5-i6d1-04w6 Please consider this supplemental comment with my prior submission identified above. It explains the accompanying "HHS RF site illustration" exhibit, which depicts the University of Illinois/Willard Airport (CMI) radar and communications site in the Champaign-Urbana area of Illinois. I recall the 17-ft platform configuration as approximately 1990-2000; the exact tower-elevation date is unknown. The drawing shows ATCBI-5 after its replacement of ATCBI-3 during that period. It explains the site and simultaneous-source assessment questions. HOW TO USE THE EXHIBIT The accompanying PDF contains Figure 1, equipment and power tables, source context and limitations. Read the numbered work areas together with the figure: radar platform (1), northeast and southeast radio platforms (2 and 3), and equipment shelter (4). Orange identifies the ASR radar and cyan the directional beacon; radio envelopes surround the ground-radio platforms. Figure 1 shows the source patterns together in a schematic simultaneous-source view. It does not establish that every radio channel transmitted at once during a historical task, or that the antenna was stationary and energized. HOW IT WAS CREATED AND WHAT IT USES The exhibit was prepared with three-dimensional computer graphics using my equipment and work-location recollections, stated equipment parameters, schematic site geometry and published technical information. It is not an FAA-produced model, a surveyed site plan or a measurement-based electromagnetic simulation. I recall that ATCBI-3 was replaced by ATCBI-5 while the tower remained in its 17-ft configuration; I do not remember the replacement date. I also recall frequent simulcasting, GRT transmitter output of 10 W per transmitter, and transmission-line loss as high as 2 dB. Exact channel-specific losses and historical simulcast combinations remain unresolved. Power labels distinguish peak and pulse-averaged transmitter output from power reaching a worker. GRT output is 10 W (40 dBm); 2 dB line loss leaves 38 dBm (6.31 W) at the antenna. Radio envelopes are schematic. Channel-specific line losses are unknown; no frequency-dependent loss curve is assigned. The still image does not reconstruct controller-pilot exchanges or historical keying; aircraft emissions are not depicted. The five-channel simulcast grouping is an example. Broad coverage surfaces, fading layers and reflection overlays are illustrative. Dimensions and antenna-center heights remain schematic. NTIA Report 13-490, Table C-1, provides generic ASR-8 context; the illustration uses a 1.35 degrees horizontal beamwidth, while NTIA lists 2.3 degrees for a generic ASR-8. The site-specific beamwidth remains unverified. WHAT IT DEMONSTRATES VHF, UHF and microwave radiation is invisible. I challenge HHS reviewers to imagine themselves at the numbered work areas in Figure 1, with their own bodies among the operating sources. The body encounters the combined environment. Near fields can be strong and uneven; their strength requires task-specific assessment. Ask what reaches the body during repeated maintenance, what shielding provides, and what measurements and health monitoring are needed. The colors make the unseen environment imaginable; they do not quantify bodily exposure. WHAT IT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE The exhibit does not determine my personal RF exposure, establish a limit exceedance, prove disease causation or certify a safe location. Envelope size, color, brightness and overlap are not calibrated field strength, absorbed energy or dose. The 300-ft radar drawing cutoff is not a near-field boundary or the stated 60-nautical-mile service range. The shelter remains a spatial reference, not a realistic view from 60 miles away. Reflection overlays do not solve the indoor field or quantify reflected power. Close-range fields, cabinet leakage, shielding changes, interference and building transmission require separate assessment. Possible equipment-generated X-rays are a distinct ionizing-radiation question and are not modeled here. I ask HHS to use this exhibit as an explanatory aid supporting task-specific assessment, accessible exposure records and meaningful communication of findings to workers and physicians. FAA assessments and occupational-health decisions should account for actual energized maintenance conditions and simultaneous sources. Current and retired technicians should be included in the research and follow-up needed to resolve those questions.

Radio frequency radiation (microwave) and electromagnetic frequencies have insidiously proliferated in our environment and are causing debilitating health effects in all biological organisms, including humans. We do not need more studies (see attached). We need the FCC and HHS to immediately recognize the harm and protect the health and safety of Americans and the nation. Fiber optics is safer, faster and more secure. Why has the FCC allowed wireless frequencies to proliferate without recognition of the harm? Why did the FCC pass laws in 1996 to disallow communities to stop the proliferation of cell phone towers based on health or environmental effects? Why hasn't the FCC updated their 30 year old safety studies that were flawed int he first place? Why has the funding for determining the effects of manmade frequencies been eliminated from the Environmental Protection Agency? Why hasn't the HHS taken the necessary steps to determine the effects of radio frequency microwave radiation on humans, animals and all biological life? Our government agencies have failed us and I request this issue be regarded as a top priority.