Research & federal duties

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 very concerned parent. My beautiful son William was diagnosed with brain cancer in February of 2025. It is imperative that time, money, and deep care and attention, are given to anything that may be contributing to these types of disease in our youngest and most vulnerable members of society. 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.

The attached submission draws on several complementary sources of evidence including peer-reviewed research, my own research and reports from government and intergovernmental bodies. These include the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It also draws on an independent scoping review and evidence map of the RF-EMF genotoxicity literature, an independent assessment of the evidence concerning RF-EMF and cancer using the Bradford Hill viewpoints, and a comparative analysis of approaches adopted by two international radiation protection authorities. The submission further incorporates an analysis of public submissions to the 2019-2020 Australian Parliamentary Inquiry on 5G. Symptoms reported by respondents to that inquiry are compared with symptoms reported in two smart-meter datasets: Lamech 2014, a peer-reviewed case series, and Halteman 2011, a survey report. Finally, the submission draws on my broader research into epistemic issues in evidence interpretation and the governance of scientific uncertainty. These analyses examine how differences in evidentiary frameworks, assumptions and approaches to uncertainty may contribute to divergent interpretations of the same body of evidence. Full citations are provided in the consolidated, numbered reference list at the end of the attached submission. Overview The United States Human Health Services (HHS) has released an RFI that is effectively asking the following question: What does the evidence actually show about RF-EMF and human health, and are current RF-EMF guidelines/standards, surveillance systems and research priorities adequate? This submission answers this question from a position that will be unfamiliar to HHS in one respect: it does not treat the reassurance of ICNIRP, the WHO International EMF Project, or the FCC as a reliable proxy for “the science.” Those bodies are one set of institutional actors among several. The evidence set out below, includes animal carcinogenicity data, mechanistic and genotoxicity research, an analysis of a selection of WHO-commissioned systematic reviews (SRs) in 2024-25, the documented influence of funding sources on reported outcomes, and the history of how the WHO/IARC World Cancer Report has treated this evolving literature. Overall, it indicates that their settled position of safety reassurance is unjustified and that the evidence has not been treated as a neutral body of findings to be weighed impartially. Instead, the selection, characterization and relative weighing appear to have been influenced by the prevailing institutional interpretation of RF-EMF health risks in order to maintain regulatory status quo. Importantly, this submission does not claim that RF-EMF is a proven, established human carcinogen in the sense that tobacco smoke and ionizing radiation are proven carcinogens. It is a claim that the totality of the evidence, considered across animal, mechanistic, and epidemiological domains, and without deferring automatically to the institutions that have minimized it, is substantially stronger than “no evidence of harm”. It is also a claim that the governance structures that are currently responsible for setting limits are not well suited to registering that strength. The attached submission contains sections organized around the RFI’s own numbered questions and integrates two bodies of my own independent research: an evidence assessment of the RF-EMF cancer and genotoxicity literature, and an analysis of the governance and institutional dynamics that have shaped how the evidence has been used, or not used, in setting federal policy. Where both analyses converge on the same underlying point, for example, that funding source and institutional affiliation are more predictive of a study’s reported findings than its methodological quality, the evidence and the governance analysis are presented together rather than repeated separately, because the pattern is the same pattern viewed from two directions.

I have multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic neurological disease, and I am concerned about the potential long-term effects of everyday environmental exposures on human health. I believe it is important that potential risks from mobile phone and Wi-Fi radiation be investigated independently, transparently, and rigorously, particularly with regard to people living with chronic and neurological conditions.

Thank you for taking comments. As a parent, I'm concerned that children (and fetuses) are particularly vulnerable to EMF radiation. They are not able speak for themselves on this topic and so I urge you to take into account research showing this increased vulnerablility into your decisions. Please see recent relevant studies attached. Thank you for your time.

I´m a serious engineer, product developer from Sweden, Europe. Now living in US. I also have 15 years of experience in compiling technical documentation for manufactured products. The radiation that operates with digital products is against our product laws. We cannot ensure the technology as safe for life, health, environment. Due to this, there is no valid, legal technical documentation for either AI or digital radiation technology. When there is no legal technical documentation, we do not know what makes us sick. Doctors cannot provide adequate care for the injured. We know that radiation is harmful, but we hide it because many users abuse the technology for their own gain. We who design, construct products are often good at drawing. When we use images for technical documentation, we use photos or our own illustrations. Radiation technology and AI are deadly in the hands of countries without knowledge. We cannot have drones and flying missiles across national borders. TIME TO UNCOVER THE FRAUD. The Technical Documentation is often secret or unavailable. Even if a journalist, doctor would like to review the technical documentation, much of it is trade secrets. Manufacturers are required by law to keep the technical manufacturing documentation available to authorities for ten years, but they are under no obligation to release it to journalists or the public. Without access to the development process, a review becomes impossible. The exception: Investigative journalism and whistleblowers. However, there are times when journalists actually do this. This happens primarily in investigative journalism when a whistleblower leaks internal documents, test protocols or risk analyses that show that a company is hiding deficiencies, shortcomings. In those cases, journalists can enlist the help of independent external experts to decipher the documentation and reveal that a product violates product laws. PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT APPROVED FOR INTERNATIONAL USE. THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED FOR THE USER AND END USER. International law, human rights, Who takes responsibility? Does a Government believe that manufacturers can have responsibility for human rights? To cooperate in this way so that individuals affected by a company's manufactured products are not deprived of, for example, life and health? In international laws, human rights are the responsibility of countries, they have agreed to implement international, national rules. These rights exist for all of us and their ultimate purpose is to protect us individuals from our own governments, authorities and from each other. But companies, what responsibility do they have? How long will it take before unfriendly governments start saying “not us, but the companies are responsible”. What then happens to international law itself and the rights that exist? TECH DOC. CODE OF HONOR. THE TEN PRINCIPLES. THE ENGINEER, THE PRODUCT DEVELOPER. THE ONE WHO CONSTRUCTS THE TOOLS AS A NECESSARY NEED. Engineers, product developers in their professional capacity must feel personally responsible for technology being used in a manner that benefits humanity, the environment and society. Engineers, product developers must strive to improve technology and technological knowledge so as to achieve more efficient use of resources without harmful effects. Engineers, product developers must offer their knowledge in both public and private contexts so as to ensure the best possible basis for decisions and to illuminate both the opportunities and the risks associated with technology. Engineers, product developers should not work for or cooperate with companies and organisations of a questionable nature or with objectives that conflict with personal beliefs. Engineers, product developers must show complete loyalty to employers and colleagues. Difficulties in this respect ought to be raised in open discussions, in the first instance at the workplace. Engineers, product developers should not use inappropriate methods when competing for employment, assignments or orders, and nor should they attempt to damage the reputation of colleagues with unfounded allegations. Engineers, product developers must respect entrusted information of a confidential nature and others' rights to ideas, inventions, studies, plans and blueprints. Engineers, product developers should not favour vested interests and ought to openly report financial and other interests that could impair confidence in their impartiality and judgement. Engineers, product developers must both publicly and privately, in writing and rhetoric, strive for factual presentations and avoid erroneous, misleading or exaggerated statements. Engineers, product developers must actively support colleagues who encounter difficulties as a result of acting in accordance with these principles and, to the best of their belief, avert criminal actions against them. I feel the difference when I'm out in nature.

I, Chad Ryan, 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, concerned member of the public. From terrible insomnia, gut imbalances, exacerbated mold issues both in the house and in the body, terrible tinnitus, to hearing EMF pulses through my implant tooth made of a titanium rod and a multi-metal crown lattice (I.e. an antenna!), the horrific quantity of EMF is overwhelming. I was in tech from 1996-2012 when I quit Microsoft due to EMF from computers, wifi, and cellular. First effects of sweaty hands, brain fog, energy drain started as early as 2000 and only got worse with time. I quit tech in 2003 for health reasons, but felt forced for financial reasons to return in 2004 until I officially quit and moved to small town California to escape EMF (outskirts of Grass Valley where the nearest cell tower was over a mile away). Note battles continue to today 2026 to keep cell towers off a elementary school and people's homes <1 mile of my house. After much research and trial and error I removed wifi completely from my house and felt immediate relief. I then had to clean up the dirty sine wave electricity coming to my house and generated by my own electronics using Stetzerizer electrical filters. I got my EMF sampling down to -62 decibels steady. Urban settings are around -42 decibels. A cell phone can pulse to -10 decibels within 3 feet. I found peace finally in my rural setting, but suffered every-time I went to town, stayed at a hotel/motel, on took a plane where everyone now uses wifi in a metal cage (the plane) which keeps all the wifi contained and absorb by the human body, and we wonder why traveling in cars or planes is so tiring now? It didn't used to be that way! Did you know that microwaves are pure sine waves called carrier waves that is, until you add the data onto them that create all kinds of bumps and eddies on the wave? If you study dirty electricity how pure sine waves become jagged and distorted by machines and electronics converting AC to DC, causing erratic magnetic fields that to the body are irritating and hard to balance, not to mention oxidative damage (stress)? Well same with microwaves with data added on them. Not to mention microwaves especially 2.4mHz that literally shakes water molecules violently in a microwave causing heat and splits DNA strand? Those microwaves can carry those erratic waves directly to every cell in your body! You are made of 72% water! Did you know that stem cell differentiation in bone marrow actually uses the frequency range that includes 2.4mHz to determine if the stem cell becomes blood, muscle, or nerve? Leukemia cancer, common near cell towers like the San Fransisco tower, is a cell differentiation problem! Why is that not talked about? I can go on, but clearly the ridiculous notion that heat is the only problem caused by our use of EMF waves must be overcome. When china--who has very little concern for its individual inhabitants--has a 10x better (more stringent) standard for EMF exposure than the United States, clearly industry has captured yet another so called regulatory agency in the FCC. 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 (cranial bone thinness) 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 want a published federal evidence review of the existing literature, with a timetable for completion. I want my grandkids and their kids protected from emf harms such as cancer, damaged immune systems, and chromosome dmage. Link to studies at GreenMedInfo https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/use-bed-insulating-system-electromagnetic-fields-improves-immune-function-redo https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/electromagnetic-radiation-has-significant-genotoxic-action-human-cells https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/radiofrequency-radiation-induces-wide-range-adverse-health-effects-substantiat https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/long-term-exposure-low-density-elf-emf-may-cause-decrease-adaptive-immune-resp

I am glad that there is interest in the effects of these EMFs on our health and well-being. I have not been the same since moving into a town just outside of Hartford Connecticut 6 years ago. My Lyme disease flared up dramatically, without any new exposures and I have suffered with high blood pressure and irregular heartbeats. Nothing like this has ever been an issue, and I did not get any covid vaccines. I never feel calm because I am constantly being bombarded with this energy. My phone now indicates that we are in 6G radiation. Which is terrifying. I see the issues with my daughter as well. There is not a lot of settling down when children are exposed. Please continue to look into this, as we need a reprieve from the constant attacks.

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 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.