Section 704 / TCA

**Public Comment to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services** **Re: RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health, Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397** I am a homeowner in East Hampton, New York. Recently, I woke up to discover that a 42 foot cellular antenna structure had been erected directly across the street from my home, outside my bedroom window. It was installed without any advance notification to me or my neighbors, and stands less than 100 feet from my residence. Several other homes are similarly close, with some only 20 to 30 feet away. My greatest concern is for my health and the potential consequences of prolonged, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation in the very place where I sleep. Yet what I find most disturbing is that, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments are prohibited from rejecting the placement of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of RF emissions, provided those facilities comply with FCC exposure regulations. Think about what that means for homeowners like me. A telecommunications company can install an antenna directly outside our bedroom windows, and the health concerns of the people who will live beside that equipment are legally restricted from influencing the siting decision. I am not opposed to cellular technology. I recognize its importance. But there is an enormous difference between supporting wireless infrastructure and being forced to accept a new source of continuous, involuntary RF exposure immediately outside one's home, without notice, meaningful input, or the ability to raise health concerns as a basis for opposing its location. The current framework places tremendous weight on federal exposure standards. But are those standards sufficiently protective of people who live in close proximity to wireless infrastructure for years or decades? Have we adequately studied the consequences of chronic, cumulative exposure, particularly in residential settings where people spend a substantial portion of their lives? I recognize that the scientific evidence concerning potential long term health effects remains contested and that proximity alone does not establish an unsafe exposure level. That uncertainty is precisely why independent, rigorous research is so important. I urge HHS to prioritize long term studies of residential exposure to RF radiation, evaluate whether existing standards adequately address chronic and cumulative exposure, and recommend transparent, independent exposure assessments for wireless installations near homes. I also urge HHS to consider whether federal policy gives sufficient weight to protecting residents when wireless infrastructure is placed directly beside their homes, particularly when alternative locations may be available. **Americans should not have to choose between access to modern telecommunications and having a meaningful voice in decisions that may affect their health.** My bedroom window should not be the front line of an unresolved public health debate.

My late wife was teaching in a sick building in San Francisco in 1989 and was environmentally injured. Because of this we got involved in a support group for people with similar difficulties. Over the years, because of my involvement with that group, I've met many people whose neurological reactions to environmental exposures resulted in them developing sensitivites to wireless technology. I don't know anyone who was actually injured by using wireless technoclogy, but I know plenty of people who cannot tolerate being around electro-magnetic radiation. This has profoundly interfered with being able to work and even with access to many buildings. I don't know the ins and outs of legislative issues surrounding this, but I do know that telecommunications companies have managed to pass laws that even make it illegal for residents of a community to oppose cell towers and 5G technology on health grounds. I have read that In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. Obviously something is not right about that. Since the issue is now in the forefront, I support all possible caution and investigation into these issues rather than a continued violation of consumers' rights to protection from harm.

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

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.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. You likely know about the Clinton administration's 1992 Telecommunication Act. Prior to it being passed, telecommunication companies were prohibited from building cell towers within close proximity of schools, hospitals, medical clinics, day care and senior care centers. Why? Because strong Wi Fi (RF radiation) is not healthy. It is radiation. Human bodies perceive it as a foreign body and our immune system responds. Eventually our immune system fatigues and our bodies inflammatory response leads to disfunctions like diabetes and cancers. The passing of the 1992 Telecommunication Act rescinded that protection. How is it we knew to put protections in place, for our most vulnerable populations, and then pretended we did not know? Politics, greed and ignorance. You see the ill effects of strong Wi Fi (RF radiation) in your friends, families and neighbors every day. RF radiation stresses the nervous system, the immune system and eventually erodes good health. The statistics of alarming numbers of what were rare cancers are indisputable. There are volumes of reliable independent research on the damaging effects of RF radiation. If we do not have our good health nothing else matters. You were put in the position to act on behalf of yourself, your family, friends and country in this serious matter. I pray that you have the clarity, courage and wisdom to put reasonable safeguards in place. Thank you for 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 on behalf of Nevada County for Safe Tech (NCST), a community advocacy group of residents in Nevada County, California. NCST formed in 2025 when our county began updating its ordinance for cell towers and wireless facilities. Hundreds of residents have since commented to our Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. What we learned is that when residents raise health concerns about wireless facilities, no one in local government has the authority or expertise to answer them. What we have seen locally: • A resident near a tower activated in December 2025 reported headaches and insomnia beginning when the tower went live. The county had no way to require independent RF testing, and because the tower was approved under prior rules, no post-installation testing was required. • County staff acknowledged they lack the expertise to evaluate carrier RF compliance reports. A report can certify compliance without showing exposure levels at nearby homes. • Carrier predictive models can underestimate real-world exposure because of terrain, antenna orientation and multiple co-located transmitters. Consumer meters cannot measure 5G frequencies, so residents have no practical way to know their exposure. • Our county treats new small cells as a building-permit matter with no public notice. Residents may first learn of an antenna in front of their home when the crew arrives. • Elevated exposure is not only a ground-level issue. Arborists and maintenance workers can enter high-exposure zones at height. Federal law (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) bars local governments from regulating wireless facilities on health grounds when they meet FCC limits, and the FCC is proposing to narrow local enforcement further. The FCC is not a health agency. Communities are left with health questions and no health authority responsible for answering them. We ask HHS to: 1. Develop independent field-measurement protocols that cover all frequencies in use, including 5G and 6G, measure cumulative exposure from multiple sources, and test at ground and upper-story heights, so local health departments can verify exposure. 2. Recommend what RF information should be public for each facility, such as predicted exposure at nearby homes and schools. 3. Create a way for individuals and clinicians to report symptoms they associate with RF exposure, and guide local health departments on responding. 4. Prioritize research on chronic ambient exposure, effects below current limits, and vulnerable groups including children, pregnant women and people living close to facilities. 5. Advise the FCC on exposure limits and on health-protective distances between facilities and homes and schools. 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.

Dear HHS I am writing you that you conduct a full review of Cellular Tower Radiation. My plea includes the visible spectrum as well. It cannot be understated that such a study be undertaken. The Telecommunucations Act is preposterous in excluding health and environmental concerns in consideration of Cellular Communication Facilities. In fact the tolerance level for total radiation is the highest in the world. This is unacceptable; there has now been much study around the world in which human health issues (cancer rates etc) are markedly higher in vicinity of cellular facilities. India, of all places for instance has even provided maps over their dense population centers showing this correlation. There have also been studies indicating disruption to wildlife in multiple ways. I fear that even we are affected living in a good neighborhood because 5G (so called ‘low radiation’) radiation towers have been placed in a grid, while our house is not adjacent to one, I have been told there is nothing you can do if one is. As a Senior. I am not so worried as toward the end of my life my total life exposure may not total enough to be a factor in my decline but now with the cellular proliferation children today are the ones at risk for long term exposure. Is that not obvious when you see cellular transmission shields on top of apt buildings (next to children sleeping in bedrooms) in dense urban areas? It is a shame that our approval-guidelines for so many things are only based on immediate effect but long term exposure is not, so if something doesn’t kill you or effect you immediately it must be harmless. How could Glyphosate have been deemed harmless and approved if the effects of exposure were revealed? Likewise with Teflon, or PFases. I also take exception to the Strobing lights required on cell towers which exceed 200’. All are such eyesores to our landscape and our night skies which we need for peace and serenity instead of this growing phobia. Many of our most notable scenic landmarks and even mountaintops have been literally destroyed by such towers with 24/7 flashing lights. The worse is Sandia peak, Albuquerque NM with many others as well. Do we have any respect for anything anymore? I feel HHS should examine the detrimental effects on mental health by this. In addition the effects on wildlife esp in respect to migration patterns is needed. And there are now even congressional bills proposed to increase the density of cell towers nationwide and would give the FCC total dictatorial control over their placement. Yes there is an answer to much of this and that does not mean a million satellites marring the rest of our night skies and as well for the entire world. And toward the benefit of Americas first minted trillionaire! Fiber optic cable is the best choice. It is cheap, already widespread and can be cheaply installed underground everywhere. Local WiFis can easily be set up everywhere. And today why should cell towers need these offensive strobe lights, cannot airplanes be alerted to towers through nonvisible means? Please help our technology truly serve us and not for its own sake but for ours. Peter C Guynn

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Specifically what needs to be challenged in the Telecommunications Act is the “environmental effects”. “SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS… (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” I remember visiting the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in 1996. I read all the quotes etched in stone inside the beautiful memorial to a great man. A few years ago, I remembered one that was so significant, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson Even though, Jefferson could never have imagined what life would be like 200 years in the future. This quote covers it. This wireless insanity is tyranny over the minds of all of us. Tyranny shows up in all sorts of forms and repression, and this invisible wireless stuff is in the category of "every form of tyranny over the mind of man." In the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And then I needed to put it all together....and then Martin Pall's journal article came out "Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression". This was the missing piece to the challenging of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically Section 704. Our Constitutional rights are being denied because this is Tyranny over the minds of Men, and we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and since wireless technology causes depression and unhappiness in the minds of men, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704 is therefore unconstitutional and a direct violation of our inalienable rights! And on a related quote from history. To Joseph Priestley "...for I believe in my conscience that Mankind are wicked enough to continue slaughtring one another as long as they can find Money to pay the Butchers. " - Benjamin Franklin Enough! The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America!! If we as a civilization, continue down this path of insanity, there will be no future. What we are all facing is a "Technological Holocaust" (I coined this phrase) because our governments are run by corporations, and the corporations are run by men and women who are self-serving money driven sycophants. We are living in a technological insane world where health is not considered in the roll-outs of new technology. I am not against technology, I am for a prudent and safe approach to the deployment of new technology to keep people safe. I have suffered greatly because of the deployment of cell phones, smart meters, and cell phone towers. I have found that I am very sensitive to this technology. I have found that I have a tough time concentrating, reading, and feeling like myself when I am around wireless technology. My life has been upended because of all the cell phone towers. I will not stay at a hotel/motel if a cell phone tower is nearby because it definitely interferes with my sleep. When smart meters where deployed in my neighborhood in Fort Collins, CO, it really pushed by body over the limits and it really caused my body and mind pain and suffering. I finally sold my house in 2019 because I could not handle living there with all the smart meters clearly effecting my body. Where is my financial compensation for this predicament? Once again, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Specifically what needs to be challenged in the Telecommunications Act is the “environmental effects”. Clearly, I am experiencing effects. Please take action and Challenge The Telecommunications Act of 1996!

There is a lot of literature/articles/studies to support 'No704'. Here is just one - Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified as Communications Act at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), states: “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” Some courts have interpreted “environmental effects” to include human health effects. This effectively strips local authorities of the ability to oppose cell tower permits based on health and environmental effects, as long as the emissions fall within the FCC’s limits. This is unconstitutional because it deprives states and local governments of their traditional police powers designed to protect the health and welfare of their citizens but does not provide a federal remedy or other meaningful oversight. Additionally, several court decisions hold that local jurisdictions cannot regulate other forms of wireless technologies (WiFi routers, cell phones, etc.) because the FCC has sole authority to regulate the safety of these devices. As long as RF emissions fall within the FFC’s limits, people cannot sue the device manufacturer for their RF injuries. This deprives people of their Constitutional rights, e.g. informed consent, property rights, due process, right to a jury trial, and right to life and liberty. This legal framework must be dismantled because: RF radiation below FCC limits has been shown to harm children’s health and the environment. Children harmed by RF radiation exposure are left without remedies or compensation. FCC guidelines are outdated, do not take children into account, and fail to consider current scientific evidence. Excessive FCC authority overrides local control and judicial oversight.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Specifically what needs to be challenged in the Telecommunications Act is the “environmental effects”. “SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS… (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” I remember visiting the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in 1996. I read all the quotes etched in stone inside the beautiful memorial to a great man. A few years ago, I remembered one that was so significant, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson Even though, Jefferson could never have imagined what life would be like 200 years in the future. This quote covers it. This wireless insanity is tyranny over the minds of all of us. Tyranny shows up in all sorts of forms and repression, and this invisible wireless stuff is in the category of "every form of tyranny over the mind of man." In the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And then I needed to put it all together....and then Martin Pall's journal article came out "Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression". This was the missing piece to the challenging of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically Section 704. Our Constitutional rights are being denied because this is Tyranny over the minds of Men, and we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and since wireless technology causes depression and unhappiness in the minds of men, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704 is therefore unconstitutional and a direct violation of our inalienable rights! And on a related quote from history. To Joseph Priestley "...for I believe in my conscience that Mankind are wicked enough to continue slaughtring one another as long as they can find Money to pay the Butchers. " - Benjamin Franklin Enough! The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America!! If we as a civilization, continue down this path of insanity, there will be no future. What we are all facing is a "Technological Holocaust" (I coined this phrase) because our governments are run by corporations, and the corporations are run by men and women who are self-serving money driver sycophants.