Exposure limits & oversight

**Title:** Challenging the Consensus: Occupational EMF Exposure and Firefighter Wellness  Challenging widely accepted perspectives is never easy. In the mid-19th century, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that childbed fever deaths plummeted from 18% to 1% simply by requiring doctors to wash their hands after autopsies. Yet, the medical community resisted his findings for decades, discrediting him until he died in an asylum. It took generations for Body Substance Isolation (BSI) to become universally accepted.  In 2026, challenging the consensus remains difficult. One critical topic is electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure and its detrimental health effects on firefighters and the general public. Because of the unique infrastructure of fire stations and the nature of the job, firefighters are chronically exposed to higher levels of EMFs from communication systems, station wiring, and nearby cell towers. Research suggests this long-term exposure may be linked to increased risks of mental health disorders, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.  The historical connection between electrification and health dates back to 1869, when Dr. George Miller Beard documented "Neurasthenia" (weak nerves), noting symptoms like fatigue, headaches, and heart palpitations. Beard observed that it primarily affected the educated classes—who, at the brink of the second industrial revolution, were the only ones with widespread access to electricity. In 1894, Sigmund Freud catalyzed a shift that reclassified these symptoms as psychological "anxiety neurosis," causing the medical community to treat it as an inherent human condition rather than an environmental issue. While Western psychiatry dropped the diagnosis, Asia and Eastern Europe never adopted Freud’s reclassification; neurasthenia remains frequently diagnosed there today as a sign of chronic environmental toxicity. Firefighters frequently experience these exact symptoms, often dismissing them as standard shift-work burnout.  Cancer is the third leading cause of death among firefighters. In 2009, Dr. Samuel Milham, author of *Dirty Electricity*, found that firefighters face elevated risks for various cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Notably, respiratory cancers were not disproportionately elevated despite regular exposure to smoke. This discrepancy strongly points to alternative carcinogens, such as chronic EMF exposure from communication devices and station infrastructure.  Current human safety limits fail to protect first responders. There are two distinct categories of safety metrics: one for electronics and one for humans. Electronics standards are based on the principle of interference—recognizing that even a weak wireless signal can disrupt a device. Conversely, human standards set by the FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are strictly thermal. They only protect against acute tissue heating. This completely ignores the reality that our bodies operate on complex bioelectrical cell communication, leaving us completely unprotected against non-thermal biological interference.  Change is urgently needed. In 2021, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC's existing RF safety standards were "arbitrary and capricious," mandating the agency to provide scientific justification for its extraordinarily high limits. Years later, the FCC has failed to adequately address this mandate, while telecom infrastructure continues to expand near fire stations, schools, and neighborhoods.  Immediate, practical solutions can be implemented at fire stations to create healthier environments. The most critical area to protect is the common sleeping dorm. Placing cell phones in airplane mode when turning in for the night drastically minimizes cumulative radiation exposure. Moving Wi-Fi routers out of sleeping quarters, removing unnecessary Bluetooth devices, and utilizing distance as a shield are vital first steps. Ultimately, we must operate under the Precautionary Principle: if an action or policy carries a suspected risk of severe harm to human health, protective measures must be enforced even if some cause-and-effect relationships are still being evaluated by the scientific mainstream.

There is so much corruption in healthcare, the people are aware and becoming more aware every day. Why not actually take a stand and come out on the good side of history by doing something good for the people instead of continuing to permit harm. There's enough evidence showing the harmful effects of EMFs. And people are tired of being tracked by their cell phones. The younger generation is already leaning towards discontinuing use because they don't want to be tracked like animals.

I suffer from a physiological response to wireless technologies. This happens when I am in a strong wifi environment and if I stay too long near electromagnetic frequencies from standard electrical pulsations. I didn’t want to believe that my symptoms and suffering would be so clearly caused by such ubiquitous daily technologies but the facts have remained- I feel the intensity of pulsed electromagnetic waves. My symptoms are: insomnia, headache, increased and heightened tinnitus (ringing becomes more shrill), and an overall increase in anxiety. To alleviate my reactions/illness, I have learned to prepare for a specific environment. For example, when I enter a restaurant, I use an EMF meter to find the areas of least radiation. My house is hard-wired with ethernet cables providing my internet connections and I use a landline to communicate. I do own a cell phone but it is kept in airplane mode or off most of the time. My friends and family know about my condition and they do not keep their phones on around me. I can’t attend stadium concerts, games and events where I know all phones will be pulsing their signals so, I don’t go. Luckily, I own my home and I am not subject to others’ wifi signals that would occur were I living in an apartment building. What about those who can’t afford a home and are forced to live in an unsafe environment? Sadly, I have come to believe that our government does not care about people like me. They care about the profits made by Telecom and they continue to deny that my sub-group has validity. Despite the studies that show harm, the FCC has just continued to allow more transmitters at higher frequencies to be developed. These higher frequencies (4G, 5G, 6G, 10G) are currently causing damage to plants and wildlife while the Federal government just looks the other way. I urge HHS to take me and the thousands of us (could be millions, with symptoms blamed on the wrong cause), seriously. We are disabled and are often unable to participate in general society. Today, it is hard to find a safe place where there are no EMFs. This is why many escape into a forest, living off grid and on the edge. The small cell antennas now being deployed in every conceivable location- schools, office buildings, churches (shouldn’t they be sacred and safe places?), and on people’s homes make life impossible for those suffering from EMR-S (Electro Magnetic Syndrome). Please, take action now and prevent more suffering. Thank you, Kelly Marcotulli

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 parent with a family, a concerned member of the community. For too long, questions about the health and environmental effects of RF radiation have largely been addressed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an agency responsible for regulating communications technology and spectrum, rather than through HHS, the federal health agencies with expertise in medicine, biology and public health. The HHS should, as an advocate and protector of our communities. Take 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. Larry Shilling

I'm a journalist. NY Times published. My life has changed dramatically as a result of the proliferation of Smart meters, cell towers, 5G, etc. I unknowingly lived next to a neighbor who had a powerful HAM radio. I did not know the day he turned it on, but I ended up in the ER with afib the hour he started using it. I had no history of heart issues.. My assistant developed afib. We had to move our office as a result, and both of us have recovered. I later asked my neighbor what day he began using it, and he said, "I can tell you the exact day. It was the day there was an ambulance at your house." I can no longer live in a house with a Smart meter. I have a letter from a well-known integrative doctor stating this. He is alarmed at what he's seeing in his patients and states unequivocally that there are negative health effects associated with this technology. I cannot use a cell phone and don't own one. And our house has to be hardwired. I am not alone. I know so many people who have developed similar issues, particularly from Smart meters. We are ALL grateful to Mr. Kennedy for looking into this. Then again, you are fighting a very powerful industry. Please consider putting a halt to the unchecked expansion of a technology that has no third party longitudinal studies showing safety. Please consider allowing all of us to have a choice about whether we want Smart meters on our homes, cell towers in our parks and school yards, and a technology crammed down our throats that seems to have an interesting correlation with illness and increased cancer rates.

There is far too little research on EMF exposure and potential side effects. Testing should be done by independent third parties. Field strengths should be listed on devices so that consumers may make informed decisions.

Why hasnt there been any regulations for EMF and radiation?! Im dumbfounded and confused that no one has said we need to make sure people are safe? I have seen my brother who was highly involved with his family from not missing anything and cooking and inviting family to enjoy, who was a highly respected talented construction business owner, who organized and worked for a nonprofit organization to hold benefits to help others, who loved motorcycle rides, and just an all around wonderful person become severely effected by EMF! It so heart breaking and devastating to see him have to avoid and stay away as much as possible. He cannot work. He has lost his life, any quality of life. He has even had to build his own cabin far out away from electric boxes, power lines, common household appliances, neighbors, phones,and windmills to get some kind of relief. Im not sure how he functions? He suffers from headaches, body tingling, itching and burning skin, brain fog, sleep disturbances, mood changes, sensivities to fragrances, any dyes or chemicals. It is horrible. Hes gone to doctors, had blood drawn, acupuncture with no help as a result. PLEASE,PLEASE REGULATE! I've also seen more and more children with severe allergies and sensitivities, so what in the world is it doing to our children?! Schools are full of technology, classrooms surrounded by it. Something has to be done, please create regulations to protect the livelihoods of everyone!

Federal rules evaluate EMF, RF, and wireless radiation exposure one device at a time. They do not assess cumulative exposure humans are living with. Phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, wearables, household sensors, and satellite terminals each receive their own compliance rating. No federal program measures the combined, time-averaged exposure in a bedroom, living room, office, an apartment with neighboring networks on all sides, a school, or a crowded public place. Ionizing radiation policy accounts for cumulative dose. Non-ionizing policy does not. That is a regulatory choice and merits modernizing. FCC general-population limits in 47 CFR 1.1310 were built around single sources and peak heating tests. They were not built around dozens or hundreds of transmitters operating at once in the same room or vehicle. New systems are arriving faster than health research can follow. In a short period the public environment gained denser cellular service, additional Wi-Fi bands, consumer devices in every room, satellite broadband, satellite-to-phone service, passenger Wi-Fi, and dense small-cell and venue systems. A credible chronic study takes years. A product cycle takes months. The absence of a completed study of this combined environment is not proof of safety. It is a lag between deployment and evidence. Current limits are designed to prevent tissue heating above defined levels. What remains unsettled is whether lower levels affect other biology, including cellular energy production, oxidative stress, or circadian signaling. Standard-setting bodies have not changed exposure limits on that basis. If effects occur at ordinary public levels, today’s device tests do not capture them. HHS should state what the evidence shows at measured real-world levels, not only in laboratories. In addition to homes, people also spend hours in places where many independent systems overlap and no one person controls them: - Airports and aircraft: terminal Wi-Fi, cellular and small cell radios, airline and passenger Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, operational radios, and then a metal cabin full of devices. - Buses, trains, subways, and stations: onboard Wi-Fi, passengers’ phones, wayside cellular, and transit communications in a confined concentration of people. - Shopping malls, stores, arenas, and other venues: Wi-Fi, tenant networks, cellular in-building systems, point-of-sale and inventory radios, and a rapidly growing list of personal devices. Each transmitter may meet its own limit. The combined field in a airport gate area, a packed bus, or a mall corridor is not what a single-phone SAR fixture represents. Dwell time and cumulative exposure is key. HHS should also quantify how many radios surround people at home and in public. There is no adequate official count of in-home access points, neighboring networks through walls, and client devices. The same gap exists for public venues: how many networks and handsets are active, on which bands, and for how long a person stands in the field. Satellite internet and satellite-to-phone service add whole new bands and geometries to an environment that is already full of cellular and Wi-Fi. They should be counted in the same cumulative inventory. Ku user downlinks are an outdoor field over entire neighborhoods, 24 hours a day, from a growing constellation, on top of terrestrial cellular. Even the energy that does not enter the house still reaches yards, streets, vehicles, and anyone outdoors. A single Wi-Fi router can dominate a spot reading inside one room. That does not mean satellite and cellular are negligible in a person’s full-day dose across home, transit, work, and outdoors. Residential electrical codes only address shock and fire. They do not address powered furniture, outlets at the head of a bed, or always-on equipment next to a sleeping place in a room that already contains several radios. Power-frequency fields and radiofrequency fields are not the same problem. They now occur together in bedrooms. If indoor environment is in scope, wiring layout and household equipment belong in the review with HUD, CPSC, and related agencies. The United States already knows how to approve devices. It has not shown that it can account for RF, EMF and wireless dose in a room, cabin, or terminal.

I am an elderly person who did not have a cell phone until 2013. The reason was I felt like I was going crazy after using a cordless phone Or a wireless phone. By 2013 my husband said we couldn’t afford a landline and also an iphone. By that time I also understood I Could purchase some protection from the wireless radiation - which I did. My iphone is kept on LTE and does not connect to 5Gs at all. As I have spoken to other folks I heard another say putting cell phone (before 5Gs) to her head caused earaches. Earaches ended when She stopped using it that way. Another elderly person reported feeling depleted of energy from cell tower put near her home residential area. Children relatives had earaches only when visiting her. Earaches stopped when kids stoped visiting. Cell towers are not okayed to be put near schools or directly on school grounds in other countries. My husband felt nauseated after about 15 minutes on school grounds with a cell tower about 650 yards from the school. Children’s Health Defense has a lot of science showing the negative biological effects of wireless radiation to children with thinner skulls than adults and so more sensitive, 5Gs is many times more powerful than previous technology. And I see pregnant women exposing their fetus to it. Smart meters here in Virginia are being put on houses after residents said “no”. They are pulsing radiation through the walls and residents can measure with a hand-held meter sold at Virginians for Safe Technology. They are foisting “opt out” meters on houses the opposers live in. These meters are jacking up the sine waves going through the walls. As I came to understand that I measured with a different hand-held plug-in meter. Many of my walls measured 318, 5x as many as the 60 I was exposed to as a child. I am using a stylus to write this on a tablet with protection on it rar away from the router. I feel more fatigued when I’m exposed to more wireless radiation. I have a history of having an overload of heavy metals. We need regulations and education about all this wireless to have quality of life for all the living.

A cell tower appeared on an adjacent unoccupied property about 500yds from my house and 400yds from my neighbor just N of me in Jackson County, OK. Neither of us were notified or asked if it would be ok.The property owner is paid for it to be on his land. He has a big house somewhere else. I expressed my concerns to him face to face and he told me he didnt care because he was not affected. My husband now has cancer and our elderly neighbors suffer from multiple health issues known to be related to EMF. Because it is on private land we have little recourse. We cannot even find out who actually owns this tower. We are being harmed against our will.