Section 704 / TCA

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. This is an issue that I am deeply passionate about. There is great news for our public voice to be heard as we stand powerless at state and local levels while corporate and federal agendas steamroll over everyday citizens. I have donated money time and resources and stood at county board meetings with hundreds of locals opposing cell towers within feet of our homes only to be voted against or dragged into federal court lawsuits we cannot afford trying to protect our bodies, our families, our property values, and our environment from obvious harm. I have stood shoulder to shoulder with neighbors suffering from cell tower radiation health issues only to be reminded by the teams of lawyers and the elected local board members that we as citizens are legally gagged at any level to discuss health issues as an argument against placement of these towers too close to residential and school properties!! THAT IS JUST WRONG. The federal regulations that cite outdated studies claiming no harmful effects of cellular radiation at detectable levels as a reason to gag citizens rights is just wrong. My personal experience is interesting and quickly dismissed by health care professionals: I have developed tnitus out of no where many years ago. I live primarily in a 5 mile radius of many new and pre existing 5g cell towers (not just antennas). It effects my daily health and nightly sleep. Recently we purchased a property that has NO Cellular signal at all and our Internet and cell function is cabled in.(I want my fiber optic cable I was promised and have paid for for years! Dupped again by corporate agendas.) As soon as I get to the property my tinitus is gone immediately and for the duration of the trip. As soon as I get home I get hit immediately by a random crackeling loud wave of sound. I have been to multiple specialists and final results ...I was told by the specialist that it is all in my head and to look into cognitive behavior therapy. No one can or will listen to my feeling that this is signal related. The recent federal attempts to remove any local input to expanded FCC regulations around tower placement (and satellite launches too!) would fast track the complete loss of the last remaing signal radiation free zones in our planet. It will be too late!! My main local level argument, since I am gagged at a federal level from discussing my delusional health concerns over 5g tower radiation, has been the devistaing consequence on our property values with cell towers too close. For many of us citizens our property value in our homes is all the financial liquitdy we might have in a life time and the new cell tower in view of a home devistates property values and in many instances that house WILL NOT EVER SELL! (I have been personally studying this trend on Zillow properties for years and these costal communities are good clean communities but that cell tower in view and affordable remodeled homes just sit for years Then there are the existing studies of the effects of the signals interfering with insects, precious already threatened polinators, bats and other wild life that rely on communication signal of their own frequencies. Stop destroying our planet for profit and control. Just Stop It!!! Please help us get these issues heard and stop gaging legal committed US citizens at federal state and local levels from having any control of our own property, health, and communities at local levels and beyond. Mother, Business Owner, Property Owner, Citizen

Please repeal section 704 immediately! All of this EMF, RF is affecting all of mother earth, animals, environment and creating more health issues. Losing sleep, there is more insommina than ever, more digestive issues, anger, chaos, mental issues, people are not grounded at all. I don't know about you but I CARE about all of these issues & you should too! I can go on & on ~ the list is endless. Please do your part in protecting mother earth, she is getting sicker & sicker, which overlaps in affecting everything, everyone! Can't you see the weather patterns? Mother Earth is pissed, she's crying for healing ~ as a matter of fact, I believe everyone is crying for healing.

I am a citizen advocate involved in pressing for setting and keeping RF exposure standards appropriate since the 1996 Telecom Act was first enacted and cell telephony rolled out. Congress's express mandate in the Telecom Act of 1996 on the FCC was that the FCC must set and keep exposure standards based upon current science. The FCC, apparently subject to industry lobbying pressure, has failed, for decades, to do this. The most convincing study of the biological effects of cell radiation exposure are the Balmori White Stork study (attached). Please also see my paper (attached) explaining the influence of this industry on Congress on this issue, and how the industry has successfully gagged Americans from demanding safer siting for cell antennas -- for a better understanding of why Congress and the FCC are motivated to do nothing to protect Americans from harmful RF exposure. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important topic. Respectfully submitted, Gabriel N. Seymour

This comment answers HHS RFI questions 2–18 for docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. The full numbered response is attached. I am filing as a concerned member of the public. Please see the attachment for sources (NTP TR-595, Ramazzini 2018, IARC Monograph 102, EHT v. FCC 2021, Public Law 90-602, and Section 704 of the TCA).

Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 To Whom It May Concern; My full comment is attached as a PDF. This note summarizes it. I am a retired paramedic and firefighter with over thirty years of service. I worked in fire stations that had commercial wireless antenna arrays mounted on the building. I am not reporting an adverse health effect and I have no diagnosis to attribute to that exposure. What I am submitting is an exposure characterization and a research gap. Career fire service personnel do not visit the station, they live in it. They sleep there, in a fixed location, for twenty-four and forty-eight hour shifts, across careers measured in decades. Where a commercial base station sits on that building, the result is a continuous, fixed-geometry, decades-long exposure to a population that occupies the structure far more hours per year than an ordinary workplace and is unconscious for a large share of them. They fall under the general public exposure limit, which was built around a public assumed to be passing through. Under Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 their employer is barred from declining the installation on health grounds. In August 2004 the International Association of Fire Fighters adopted Resolution No. 15, asking the federal government for a study "with the highest scientific merit and integrity" contrasting firefighters housed in stations with towers against firefighters without that exposure. It committed the organization to set policy in accordance with whatever the study found. The study was never funded and no federal agency has conducted it. I held elected office in that organization on both sides of that date, and no study came. The federal fire service assessment answering that request, the U.S. Fire Administration's 2008 Executive Fire Officer paper, rests on an evidence base that predates the IARC Group 2B classification of 2011, the National Toxicology Program's finding of clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in 2018, the Ramazzini Institute's independent base-station-model replication in 2018, and the D.C. Circuit's 2021 holding in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC that the Commission failed to justify retaining its 1996 exposure limits. It has not been revisited in eighteen years. I am asking the Department to fund and conduct that cohort study, to characterize aggregate occupational RF dose across the fire and EMS environment, to assess the ambulance patient compartment as an RF environment with attention to implanted cardiac devices, and to recommend mandatory pre-activation and post-activation RF survey with disclosure to the personnel assigned to those buildings. The attached comment answers Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17, with citations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Michael T. Wilson Carson City, Nevada Retired Paramedic and Firefighter

The FCC RF safety guidelines should be updated to protect the public's health and safety as well as prevent the real potential for privacy infringement and sabotage of our nation's electricity and communications' grid. The current safety guidelines are based on inappropriate (thermal) data prior to 1996, before the explosion of wireless technology. It is unfathomable to me that our government has let slide these inaccurate/outdated guidelines from 1996, including the edict that communities could not use environmental or health harm to fight placement in our neighborhods. To me this is proof that the telecommunications industry knew back then of the harm this technology could cause. This law has been used to ignore information of harm, forcing neighborhoods to accept anytime/anywhere placement of increasingly powerful/harmful cell towers. We were promised wired fiber optic and, instead, were baited & then switched to wireless. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health and environmental impact should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate (non-industry, independent) 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. I am responding from the perspective of a [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. 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.