Section 704 / TCA

Physician of 21 years experience, with past 15 years focusing on practical application of metabolic/physiologic principles toward the discovery of root cause drivers of common diseases and various symptoms. Past 10 years have professionally and personally encountered peculiar, and often very severe, symptoms that must be classified as neuroinflammatory in nature. Concern: our modern world now presents an unplanned, and unprecedented, number of physiologic stressors to the human physiology. There are likely subpopulations who are more vulnerable; likely, individuals who are in developmental phases (from embryo through puberty). Wireless radiation has been introduced to into the homes, schools, and communities of nearly 100% of the population. Therefore, studying the effects of RF on the population is going to be fraught with difficulty. But, we only need to look at the cascade of physical and psychological challenges that seem to be overwhelming our youth to acknowledge that we must pause and think. RF presents a very unqiue situation: we have the neurobiological effects of the various types of radiation and its continuous nature (24hrs/d everywhere) and the media that this RF carries (social media, intense unadulterated "communication"). As physicians, we committed to "first, do no harm." Our government, of the people and for the people, must create regulatory structures that allow individuals, parents, and communities to have confidence that the people they are charged with serving can have freedom to "pursue life, libery, and happiness". The extreme and untested introduction of RF technologies into our communities is irresponsible: this is evidenced by the 1996 Telecommunications Act prohibiting regulation base on "environmental effects", which seem to have been interpreted by courts of law to include health concerns. (Section 704(a). Obviously, our modern economy now relies on telecommunications and to a large extend RF use. Our advanced society can certainly find paths that allow the advancement of technology while protecting the humans who use it. From my personal experience, all 4 of my children began suffering peculiar health problems which became critical in 2017. Fortunately, I had the training and education to discover the drivers of their problems which included the discovery that radiofrequency avoidance was crucial to their health. Prior to moving to a more remote location to protect my family during their developmental period, we lived in the Phoenix region. My oldest son was having severe depression and seizure like activity- serious daily suffering. When I discovered the potential role of RF exposure, I purchased RF blocking fabric and made a tent for him to sleep in. As a physician and scientifically minded professional, I was astonished how much improvement this strange step made. Obviously, we cannot expect ordinary families to know to take, any how to take these steps... instead, their children are being diagnosed with autism, depression, bipolar disorder, or any number of neuropsychiatric diagnoses that are driven by environmental toxins and neuroinflammatory insults to their physiology. It appears the HHS easily discovered the connection between acetaminophen and autism... we can certainly make some sense around the ubiquitous RF exposure to our children (and everyone on the planet) and learn how to properly implement and make productive use of these technologies. Alternatively, we allow science to progress at the expense of a healthy body and mind... and suffer the societal and individual consequences unnecessarily. I am not going to provide redundant information (a simple search of PubMed will reveal at least a decade of discussion; "Havana Syndrome" already proves the point in an extreme manner; we likely already know what is going on since "radar sickness" was immediately identified in the 1970s when the navy introduced radar.

Hello, I am an American born U.S. Citizen of 56 yrs. old and along with my wife have raised a beautiful family of four in this wonderful country. At least it was wonderful for us until about 6-7 years ago. We had built a house and gardens and a good life in Willits, Ca.. AT&T and T-Mobil wanted to put a cell tower in our rural neighborhood-basically right on top of us. Our neighborhood opposed this tower-77% were against 33% for. We petitioned the county planning and supervisors to deny the tower approval to the telecom companies and to give us fiber-optic line instead. They had fiber all the way to the tower site and could have given us safe broadband easily but a tower is cheaper and makes more profit for them. We attempted to share our medical issues and health concerns with them but were told that they would be struck from the record and not considered because of the 1996 telecommunications act-health issues were not valid according to this arbitrary and capricious act. So we tried to show how it was ugly-they said they would make it look like a fake tree-we showed that they had placed it 5ft. too close to a residence to pass code-they changed the code to allow five more feet . Sneaky, behind the closed door bullshit! They built the tower in complete disregard to the people's wishes-the overwhelming majority-77% said no/twice 77% -In any American election or vote 77% is a majority-hands down. At least this is how I believed we did things in America. Now I know better. Since that time my family and I have all realized that the major health issues we have has been due to the EMR in our environment. We were forced to leave our home we built and have been living in a R.V. down in a creek zone where there is no cell service. We cannot work jobs, go out to eat, go see a movie or music concerts with out becoming ill and having to take days to recover. We cannot engage in modern American life anymore-we are isolated and alone without any real way to make an income. Our children cannot even attend school or go to college let alone travel anywhere. We are currently looking into the American disabilities act for compensation-there have been a few individuals that have been awarded lifetime compensation due to their EHS and inability to create an income and must stay at home. If this is the only way to afford living here then we must pursue the ADA claim. I do not want to do so-I would rather be able to work and be in society. The health effects are real and devastating. My family is living through them at this very minute-We are seeing a doctor for EHS and know 100% that the effect are not psychosomatic. I implore you to look at the real science-not the telecom funded b.s. and lies they have been feeding us. The future of our country, children and environment depend on diminishing the high levels of EMF's we are currently being poisoned with 24/7. We can still have high speeds and keep pace with the world of commerce if we can regulate and make this technology safer. My family could even participate in American life once again. Please do your job and help the people! By the people? For the people? Please live up to true American values-not big business! Thank you, Rain Youngstrom

Non-thermal radiofrequency radiation is entropic waste. It is a fidelity stressor that disrupts the critical timing components of biology, and what it produces is bioelectrical dissonance and a meta-disease state. The evidence is already on the record. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute found the same rare heart tumor. The WHO-commissioned review rated glioma and heart schwannoma high-certainty. The FCC's own 2 mm tests hit 5.2 W/kg. Europe moves body testing to 0 mm by March 7, 2028. HHS should act now, and the end game is Li-Fi compatibility through the Clean Ether Act. Comment of John Coates on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Individual respondent. My full comment, with sources, is attached: It answers Questions 2 through 18, with every subpart, in order. THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY ON THE RECORD (Q6, Q12). - NTP and Ramazzini, two independent lifetime bioassays, found the same rare tumor, malignant heart schwannoma, in male rats. Germany's BfS called Ramazzini's exposures "at a comparable level to the basic limit values for humans." - The WHO-commissioned review: "The CoE for an increased risk in glioma was judged as high." Heart schwannoma was rated high too. - NTP held heating under 1 degree C, and NTP itself says: "The role of thermal changes on cancer development needs to be further investigated." GSM gliomas ran 0, 3, 3 and 2 per 90 across sham, 1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg. Heat does not draw that curve. HHS should fund the investigation NTP called for. - NTP's 1.5 W/kg is a whole-body average; the FCC's 1.6 W/kg limit is a 1-gram local peak. Different measures, but the numbers sit right on top of each other. The iPhone Air's 1.60 W/kg is the highest simultaneous-transmission value reported in its FCC grant. THE TEST MISSES THE BODY (Q5(p), Q7, Q8, Q9). - The FCC's own 2019 tests at 2 mm recorded up to 5.2 W/kg. - Europe moves body testing to 0 mm by March 7, 2028. The U.S. still certifies at typically 5 to 15 mm. - SAR averages away the timing biology reads: GSM bursts about 217 times a second, Wi-Fi beacons about ten times a second, DECT and 5G NR use 10 ms frames. - Require 0 mm testing, and disclose test distance and pulse structure with every SAR value. THE META-DISEASE STATE (Q10, Q12). RF does not need to cause one unique disease to matter. It only needs to reduce the fidelity of the systems that prevent many diseases. Bioelectrical dissonance is the process, low-fidelity biology is the state, and disease susceptibility is the consequence. The causal fingerprint is not one diagnosis. It is a shifted distribution of biological failure: rare becomes less rare, late becomes early, recoverable becomes persistent. S4-MITO-SPIN (Q12). The S4 helix of the VGCCs, including CACNA1C, is the bulk-calcium gate; Cyb5b is the internal-timing transducer (Kim et al., Cell, 2026: "an essential mediator likely acting as an EMF sensor"); mitochondria are the redox amplifier (95% of 131 non-thermal studies found oxidative effects); cryptochrome-to-flavins spin dynamics are the modulator. At matched SAR, pulse modulation, not the carrier, changed human EEG and blood flow. HHS should test whether pulsed exposure disrupts pulsatile insulin release, which runs on the same calcium machinery. SENSITIVE POPULATIONS (Q11). Development has no restore point. Children absorb higher local doses; NTP pups were born smaller; responses differ by CACNA1C genotype and mouse strain; aging neurons carry more L-type calcium channels. WHAT I ASK (Q5, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18). - Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. It is HHS's job. The Secretary "shall establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program" and develop techniques "for minimizing exposure." Publish the performance-standard determination and a public work plan; replace FDA's tumor-only 2020 review. - Run the meta-disease experiment: pulsed RF vs carrier-only vs sham at matched SAR, from the womb, measuring fidelity endpoints before pathology (NIEHS/NTP). - Fund Cyb5b, CACNA1C and organoid replication (NIH); build registries and measured-exposure cohorts (CDC); issue precautionary guidance now. - Repeal Section 704, which bars localities from weighing RF health effects in siting. - Pass the Clean Ether Act: fiber, Ethernet and Li-Fi on IEEE 802.11bb indoors, with pilots in Head Start, childcare, maternity and pediatric care, and HHS facilities. Invisible does not mean irrelevant. Non-ionizing does not mean non-biological. Legal does not mean safe. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 7 in 1977, with my left kidney removed at age 8, while my family lived near a radar installation on a military base. In 1995 my daughter Angel Leigh was born with anencephaly and did not survive. My daughter was the canary in the coal mine... and so was I. John Coates RF Safe

I very much support HHS's involvement in studying (including reviewing published independent non-conflict of interest studies) the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation on human health (particularly children and other vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women) and the environment (animals, plants, etc), given that it has the expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health that the FCC does not. These studies should also include long-term consequences and cumulative exposure, and should not include any conflict of interest industry input. Also, I believe that whatever studies the HHS does, should be transparent so that independent, non-conflict of interest scientists can replicate them. And once HHS has completed their studies, analysis, etc., the necessary protections to public health and the environment should be implemented. Herein, I will refer to the 3 areas the HHS will be studying as electromagnetic radiation, although I am aware that the more correct phrase would be non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. The FCC has been negligent in this area – 1) touting its 1996 guidelines used to determine the safety limits of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, even though there have been massive increases in the levels of electromagnetic radiation since then, due to advances in the technology; 2) relying on studies done in the 1980's (on animals) which focused only on the thermal factors affecting health, and not on the effects on cells, DNA, and possibly other factors, that could affect human and animal health; 3) ignoring for 5 years, a court order to update their 1996 guidelines to the current date; 4) ignoring the voluminous independent, non-conflict of interest studies that clearly show a DNA, etc. harm to human health and the environment. Based on just these 4 listings of negligence, it is clear to me that the FCC is more concerned about the interests of the industry than the health of the public and the environment, and therefore we need the HHS to take the lead on this. I do not have a story of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation on myself, and no one I know has expressed any of these issues. However, in the last 5 years, I have listened to, and read articles by, independent non-conflict of interest scientists that say that my body (cells, DNA, etc) may be continuously affected without my awareness and eventually lead to a symptom or illness. Also I am aware that citizens have reported becoming very ill from electromagnetic radiation and strongly believe that it would be very beneficial for HHS, in its investigations/studies of the harmful effects of this radiation, to listen to the stories of these ill people. Also, I am aware that parents have reported their concerns about the growing presence of wireless devices and screen-based technology in schools. Therefore, based on the above, I am very concerned about the health and environmental impacts from the following: 1) cell towers going up at an accelerated pace, many in areas that already have sufficient broadband access, such as my community; 2) the smart meter on the side of my garage; 3) the increases from 5G to 6G and further, which will increase the electromagnetic radiation we are subject to; 4) the small cell towers that they will need to put on properties every 700 or so ft. in order to accommodate the 5G or up cell phones; 5) my wifi router, which sits right next to my desktop computer. On the legislative front, I am appalled that the 1996 Telecommunications Act, in Section 704, does not allow local authorities, representing its citizens, to deny cell tower infrastructure on the basis of health and environment. I am sure that was done because they knew that health and environment would be the biggest effect of the increased electromagnetic radiation. Also, I wasn't happy that the US Congress recently, in a proposed bill (HR2289) that was defeated, attempted to take away all local governments' authority with regard to cell phone infrastructure. And of course, the industry captured FCC was parroting that bill with their own proposed regulations, which also were dropped for now. So to conclude, since Congress and the FCC are clearly captured by the telecommunications industry, and therefore more concerned with the interests of the industry than the health of the public and the environment, we need HHS to step in and reverse that course. And while HHS is doing this, there should be a moratorium on any expansion of electromagnetic radiation in our communities. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to you. Janice

The fact that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 doesn't allow health concerns when local governments deny permits for cell towers is absolutely concerning! AND the fact that the safety limits haven't been updated since 1996 is absurd! I live in a neighborhood near a community of people that have Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and I have been fighting a cell tower with them that will drastically affect their health and learning about how cell towers effect health in the process is very disturbing. They moved to this rural area away from cell towers and built their homes specifically to protect them for EMFs and RFs and now they are about to turn on the new tower so close to their community. The FCC has too much power over the will of the people and this has got to end! This illness and the effects of EMFs and RFs cannot be ignored, the law needs to change NOW in favor of We The People, not big corporations!

I first became aware of the health impacts of RF/EMF emissions when our County Council in Montgomery County, Maryland was preparing a zoning text amendment (ZTA) that would allow small cell antennas as close as 30 feet to single-family homes, and as close as 10 feet to mixed zoning apartment buildings, and as a growing movement opposing this ZTA was quickly forming. Thanks to the research I was made aware of, it did not take long to realize that my family and I had been experiencing significant health impacts from a cluster of 42 cell antennas mounted less than 500 feet away on a high rise in the valley below our home, including worsening auto-immune conditions, frequent and persistent headaches, heart palpitations, and insomnia. I was stunned when learning that the FCC was operating and regulating cell antenna placement using safety standards from 1996 that were based on the thermal effects of single exposure to humans, given that these technologies have not only become exponentially more powerful, but we are now surrounded by an enormous amount of them, 24/7. I was also stunned to learn that ample research showing a multitude of detrimental effects on human health existed, but had been heavily suppressed by industry. What shocked me the most, however, was that it was written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that state or local governments are prohibited from denying applications for cell antenna placement due to environmental effects, which has been interpreted by multiple U.S. Circuit Courts to include "health concerns." Two years later, when we moved into a home where we had used an RF/EMF meter to evaluate the emission levels as one of the many variables that were important to us, the change was fundamental. Within a few days, the persistent headaches had dissipated, the heart palpitations stopped, and we were able to sleep again. If I hadn't been convinced before, this cemented my conviction of how toxic these emissions are. Moreover, two of my auto-immune conditions improved significantly over the following months, and they have continued to improve - one of them measurably, as it is appearing that my Hashimoto's Hypothyroidism is reversing, and I have been able to continue to lower my doses of replacement thyroid hormone multiple times, after only increasing it for the ten years prior since my diagnosis. It is nearly impossible to avoid exposure to ever-increasing cumulative RF/EMF emissions, however, and under the current regulation - which includes the swift passing of the above mentioned ZTA by our County Council - a cell antenna can legally be mounted on the telephone pole right outside our home anytime. Updating the regulations regarding the placement of wireless facilities (cell antennas) is long overdue, and I urge you to take the science and detrimental effects on the environment and human health into consideration this time. Cell towers do not belong near homes, schools, eldercare facilities, or any other place where vulnerable humans spend a lot of time. In addition, rather than pushing more and more wireless technology on society, fund and encourage safe technologies, such as fiber-optic wired internet, whenever possible. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Regarding: Request for Information on EMF, RF, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Comment by Dan Feidt, Philadelphia resident. [Question 2 & 3] I am an individual consumer and former resident who experienced chronic, close-range exposure (<25 feet) to cell tower mast hardware on a residential building. This exposure was continuous (24/7), highlighting severe gaps in public safety frameworks. Crucially, another resident in my immediate living environment required a cardiac pacemaker during their residency near this specific transmitter array. This observation necessitates formal tracking to investigate if chronic, close-range residential exposure acts as an environmental stressor or accelerant for cardiac electrical dysfunction, even at levels deemed compliant with outdated standards. [Question 5 & 6: Outdated Exposure Standards] I urge federal health agencies to critically re-evaluate the FCC’s General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure framework (47 CFR § 1.1310). The current Max Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits are structurally deficient: 1. Outdated 1996 Baseline: The framework relies on guidelines adopted in 1996, failing to reflect modern 5G/6G densification, multi-frequency arrays, and multi-family rooftop placements. 2. Thermal Precedent Flaw: The 1996 framework protects only against acute thermal tissue heating over short intervals. It entirely ignores the biological realities of chronic, long-term, non-thermal cumulative exposure. 3. Preemption Gaps: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 blocks local municipalities from restricting placements based on environmental health concerns if they meet FCC limits, leaving residents completely vulnerable with no legal recourse or mandatory safety buffers near living spaces. [Question 7, 8 & 9] - 3D Volumetric Spatial Auditing: Compliance frameworks must evolve past single, static center-of-the-room data points. Testing should require a standardized protocol using an extended pole assembly with a calibrated tri-axial probe to systematically plot electromagnetic energy within every individual cubic meter of residential space to map "exposure hot spots" caused by reflections off internal building materials. - Standardized Inflow Auditing: The government must establish standardized protocols using calibrated, tri-axial isotropic antennas to measure the exact RF energy density and electric field strength entering a private residential unit, cross-referencing this against independent, non-thermal biomedical models. [Question 8 & 9 (Cont.): The "Energy Star" Model & Power Logs] - Transparent Disclosure Labels: Federal health agencies should establish a standardized, consumer-facing labeling framework analogous to the Energy Star metrics for device efficiency. Every residential rooftop mast must feature an accessible public registry placard (and QR link) disclosing maximum transmission intensity, active frequency bands, and licensed directional beamforming pathways. - Weather-Variant Disclosures: Regulators must mandate explicit disclosure of how wireless infrastructure alters its transmission intensity under varying conditions. Providers must declare operational ceilings for Automatic Transmit Power Control (ATPC), as dynamic surges used to compensate for "rain fade" (atmospheric attenuation from rain, snow, or fog) significantly escalate localized exposure compared to baseline clear-weather compliance models. - Mandatory 2-Year Historical Logs: Telecom operators must maintain and provide an accessible, rolling 2-year log detailing the exact power variations, intensity fluctuations, and active frequency bands used by any given mast. This allows residents, epidemiologists, and doctors to retroactively audit and map health changes or cardiac anomalies against real, long-term emission trends. [Question 11 & 12] - Medical Device Interoperability: Current risk evaluation frameworks neglect the spatial density of 5G antennas on residential roofs. The government must modernize safety buffer zones around multi-family residential structures to specifically protect individuals with implanted medical devices (such as pacemakers and defibrillators), ensuring localized fields do not cause unmonitored electromagnetic interference (EMI) over prolonged periods. [Question 17] - Inter-Agency Environmental and Cardiac Cross-Referencing: I urge the HHS to establish a collaborative research pipeline between the FDA, CDC, and FCC to cross-reference localized, time-stamped weather data and documented ATPC transmission surges with localized, anonymous emergency department admissions or remote pacemaker telemetry logs. This targeted research is necessary to determine if sudden, weather-induced spikes in localized RF transmission intensity correlate with acute cardiovascular events or electrical anomalies in implanted cardiac devices among residents living in close proximity to rooftop masts. More details attached in txt file. Thanks for consideration.

It is time to stop letting the RF dangers just because a human cannot see them go without great concerns. When was the last time a full report was done with all the tower sites and the monster antennas feeding the wireless cancer product. This is still OUR PUBLIC AIRWAYS and just because it has not been reported the death toll is happening. What about this WAR What About Radiation. I have since November of 1999 been a watchdog who made a different of this 1996 Telecommuting Act of 1996 Be the Government that Controls too much, too fast and to many. With Great Concerns Karen Johnson Leuthner it is this generation to save the next Can you hear me now?

Over 6,000 studies have shown biological effects of wireless radiation and we desperately need to shift control to the public to weigh the benefits and risks of this technology. Section 704 of the Wireless Radiation Act is not serving the public. I am worried about the effects of new technologies on myself and my family. Please put in place some common sense legislation around these new and impactful technologies before there is irreversible damage.

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 wellness consultant, safe-tech and environmental advocate who feels the effects of ElectroSmog. I first learned about the health hazards of EMF in functional neurology class. We turned our wifi off that night and both of us slept amazing and woke up feeling so much better. That was ten years ago. Since then I have had times of completely being unable to work, the right side of my face drooping and the right side of my body not working the same as the left when over exposed. It sidelined my NYC music career, derailed my relationships with family as no one believes in health effects because the gov't says it's safe, I cannot work in most environments and it has severely limited my finances. The personal financial and emotional losses if calculated using forensic accounting are devastating. MY SYMPTOMS IMMEDIATELY RESOLVE UPON LOW EMF ENVIRONMENT and immediately return in cell service areas and wifi routers. I have trouble swallowing from the tightening of the neck muscles, brain encephalopathy pinching cranial nerves and over activating the limbic system that dysregulates my body so much I've been diagnosed with dystonia and dysautonomia. X-rays show developing scoliosis from a complete dystonic twist from attempting to live and work to survive in this environment. It's INSANITY! As a wellness practitioner, I see many people who also complain of symptomology in wireless exposure as well. And in my 18 years as an Osteopathic Movement Therapist and Personal Trainer I am seeing these twists, tensions, and symptoms in many people. In fact, myself, colleagues and teachers keep talking of how we seldom see a normal brain, nervous system and body of any client anymore. The biggest change to our environment is ELECTROSMOG. Our advocacy groups already won a landmark lawsuit for the people due to extensive evidence of harm from ElectroSmog and the FCC shows flagrant disregard for humanity. This issue must continue to be addressed with holding FCC accountable, rescinding the 1996 Telecom Act and zero liability for Big Wireless, allowing opt outs, mandatory wifi on/off switches on routers, ensuring routers do not have secret frequencies, cell phone wireless hygiene options, educational campaigns and informed consent for the public, warning labels on all wireless tech devices, mandatory FCC commercials to explain the health risks of using wireless as was done with smoking, white zones that are protected zero EMF areas in every state/province/region of every country and research and development to pick up where the Tesla Society left off with using healthier frequencies/pulsation/modulation options for providers and also R&D for quantum computing. We are bioelectric beings, our heart is electric, our brain is electric, every cell communicates with electromagnetic impulses, we have to keep our electrolytes balanced... these electromagnetic frequencies go through walls AND our bodies.... there are gov't studies dating back to the 1930s showing wireless communications undermine every system in the human body and also have environmental effects. For the future and survival of all life on this planet, we need to make sweeping changes. WE ALREADY KNOW THE DISASTROUS HEALTH HAZARDS from ElectroSmog, NOW LET'S MOVE ON IT! 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.