Exposure limits & oversight

Manmade electromagnetic radiation exposure has radically altered the trajectory of my life. In the early 2010s, I achieved my dream career of a firefighter-paramedic. Paradoxically, my health began to suffer. This seemed strange to me as I was young, healthy, and eating an extremely healthy paleo diet and working out daily. But brain fog, skin rashes, eye fatigue, ringing in my ears and aches/pains became the new norm for me. Firefighting can be a high-stress job, but that alone didn't account for my symptoms. Doctors had no answers for me. My performance on the job, and as a husband and father back home, began to suffer. Eventually, I saw the writing on the wall and left that career that had been acquired at such a dear cost. It was a heartbreaking decision but I thought it the best thing for me and my family long-term. Unexpectedly, my symptoms began to improve with no interventions besides leaving the firefighting lifestyle behind. This was the dawn of the podcast era, and on health-focused podcasts, I began to hear a bit about "EMF" both natural and artificial, and the research on their impacts on human health. Several things began to click for me as I researched the topic further. #1 The firefighting world exposed me to a variety of very powerful manmade EMF sources, primarily radio frequency, or "wireless" communications of walkie-talkies, cell phones, pagers, and supporing equipment within the forestation. #2 The firefighting world, by frequently keeping me up during the night, was disrupting my circadian rhythm, and reducing my ability to rest and recover. Armed with this new understanding of the world, I recovered quickly, and took steps within my home to protect my family from EMF. Not long after, my mother was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of brain cancer. She passed within 8-months. It was an incredibly difficult few years around her passing. However, in thinking about how she used technology, I saw a link to her cancer. For example, she was incredibly social, and had many friends. As a result she used her cell phone multiple hours every day. Her tumor was on the same side of her head that she held her phone up to. As the dust settled around her passing, I realized there was a significant lack of awareness in the world about EMF exposure. I felt compelled to do something about it, so that others might avoid the pain I had experienced in losing a treasured career, and loved one. I discovered people were doing this work in the world, through the Building Biology Institute. I signed up for their training and In just a few short years, I had become certified and began working with clients to uncover the EMF exposures in their homes, coaching them through practical remediations to reduce their exposures. My work as a Building Biologist is incredibly rewarding. It is also an uphill battle as slick marketing, tech creep, and biased research dilute the links between human made EMF and health. Technology does wonderful things for us, but not without a biological cost. The public needs to be made aware of this, so that they can make informed choices on their exposures to EMF. Here are several ways the government could help accelerate this change: #1 Stop the revolving door between Big Wireless and regulation bodies like the FCC. #2 The FCC must update their 1996 exposure guidelines without industry influence. Greater exposure protection for sensitive populations like children and pregnant mothers should the minimum outcome. #3 The precautionary principle should be the starting point for technologies that use electromagnetic forces to function. Industry must provide a reasonable degree of safety and assurance prior to rolling out new products.

I am submitting this comment because the United States needs to stop confusing regulatory compliance with proof of biological safety. A wireless device can “pass” an RF exposure test under specified laboratory conditions and still leave unanswered the real public-health question: what happens to living tissue after years or decades of real-world exposure? Real life does not resemble a single-device laboratory test. Children, adults and pets are surrounded by phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, laptops, Bluetooth devices, wearables, smart appliances and nearby antennas, often operating simultaneously and for many hours every day. Current standards do not adequately reflect chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure. Exposure changes with distance, signal strength, device position, frequency, modulation, data transmission and the number of sources present. Yet our regulatory framework has relied heavily on specific absorption rate and power-density limits rather than long-term biological monitoring of actual populations. The question should not simply be, “Does this device stay below a SAR limit?” It should be, “What happens biologically to cells, tissues, organs and developing nervous systems under realistic exposure conditions?” HHS should independently investigate oxidative stress, cellular signaling, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, sleep, development, endocrine effects and cancer. Absence of substantial heating should never be treated as automatic proof that there are no biological effects. Children deserve special attention. They are not small adults. Their bodies and nervous systems are still developing, and today’s children may experience wireless exposure from infancy through an entire lifetime. Yet the long-term evidence for lifelong exposure beginning in childhood remains limited. That is a serious knowledge gap, not reassurance. Animals and the environment also deserve attention. Pets spend long periods inside homes near routers and wireless devices. Wildlife, insects, birds and plants are now exposed to an increasingly dense RF environment. The evidence is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent, but that is precisely why rigorous independent research is needed. The National Toxicology Program reported cancer findings in RF-exposed animals, including malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and some evidence of malignant gliomas. Human studies have produced mixed results. These differences should not be used to declare the issue settled in either direction. “Not conclusively proven harmful” is not the same thing as “proven safe.” The regulatory process itself also deserves scrutiny. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had not adequately explained why its RF exposure limits protected against harmful non-cancer effects and had not sufficiently addressed evidence involving long-term exposure, children and environmental effects. A communications regulator should not be the final authority on complex questions of toxicology, developmental biology, neurology and public health. Other countries have taken more precautionary approaches. Switzerland applies lower precautionary limits at certain sensitive locations, and France conducts post-market SAR testing of phones. The United States should not assume that decades-old limits remain adequate simply because they are familiar. HHS should establish a truly independent research program with transparent funding and strict conflict-of-interest protections. Research should examine chronic and cumulative exposure, multiple simultaneous sources, direct body contact, pregnancy, children, pets, vulnerable populations, modern 4G/5G/Wi-Fi technologies, and biological outcomes at the cellular, tissue, organ and whole-body levels. Public confidence cannot rest on assurances from agencies or industries. It must rest on independent science, transparent data, reproducible findings and standards that reflect how people actually live. A compliance test is not a safety study. HHS has an opportunity to replace assumptions with modern, real-world health research and to protect children, families, animals and the environment using evidence that reflects actual exposure.

In 2017 I was diagnosed with a brain tumor called a meningioma brain tumor. These are brain tumors that are known to be caused from exposure to x-rays, and that type of magnetic energy field. Leading up to the diagnosis of my brain tumor my family and I moved into a new home and I began to experience excruciating migraines. I was hospitalized sometimes for days with a diagnosis of clustered migraines. In addition to moving, we purchased some property behind us and brought my horses home to live with us after they had been living at a boarding facility for years. That winter, my horses refused to drink from their water troughs due to electric shock. After several troubleshooting methods and contacting different electricians, we were told that we had “Dirty Electric electricity on our property “we contacted Ameren who admitted that the issue was from the electrical poles in the backyard, emitting electricity. This began a five year ordeal. Eventually, we sold the home and moved, and I have recovered to the most possible. Although we tried to sue and were told that we had a very strong Case from different attorneys we were also told that they would refuse to take the case because Ameren UE was such a large company that they would bankrupt the firm before we could ever settle. After building my new home Ameren ue came back and installed a meter on my new barn. This is not the America that we used to know. We now live in an America where big corporations can do anything they want to you with no recourse. This is my story, but it’s not the whole story. Every single Neighbor, experienced cancer, MS, lupus, childhood cancer, and some form of a very serious illness. What a much better America we would have if we could just have some regulations. I have tons of pictures of Ameren Yui coming to my farm and digging up my property and trying to install a grid system to take the dirty electricity out of the air and into the ground. To this day, I still do not have any kind of apology or am I has never tried to financially make their wrong right. Thank you for fighting the good fight. Sincerely, Carrie Marschuetz of Hillsboro, Missouri

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. As a concerned parent and member of the public, I support further research into the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation, particularly its long-term effects on children and other vulnerable populations. With wireless technology becoming increasingly common in our homes, schools, and communities, I believe it is important that federal agencies thoroughly examine potential health risks, consider the experiences of individuals reporting adverse effects, and identify gaps in existing research. I urge HHS to prioritize independent scientific research, evaluate current safety standards, and ensure that public health decisions are based on comprehensive, transparent, and up-to-date evidence. Thank you for providing the public with an opportunity to voice these concerns.

I am writing as a patient and former telecommunications industry professional who was diagnosed with a Clear Cell Grade 2 Meningioma in August 2019. I spent 20+ years working in the wireless telecommunications industry, where I was directly involved in developing wireless networks, tower sites, small cell sites, and rooftop and in-building distributed antenna systems for major carriers including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and formerly Sprint nationwide. My job required me to work in close proximity to operating antennas and while transmitters were active. I was exposed to RF radiation on a frequent basis, often at close range, with cumulative exposure over years of employment. I deployed networks at various locations including the Empire State Building, Barclays Arena, and The Kennedy Center. Since my diagnosis, I have been forced to confront a devastating pattern that I observed within my industry: I have watched colleagues and friends, skilled professionals who shared similar occupational exposure, die of brain tumors and aggressive cancers at young ages. I don't believe these were isolated incidents. The concentration of serious illness among workers routinely exposed to antenna radiation suggests a correlation that demands investigation. I believe strongly that my occupational exposure to operating antennas caused my meningioma. The location of my tumor, the nature of my work, and the pattern of illness I witnessed among my peers cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Current FCC safety guidelines focus solely on thermal effects and do not account for the kind of chronic, close proximity occupational exposure that I and my deceased colleagues experienced. This issue is deeply personal, but it is also a matter of occupational and public health. Workers installing and maintaining our nation's wireless infrastructure deserve protection. The public living near these facilities deserves answers. And patients like me deserve recognition that our experiences matter. I urge HHS to prioritize research into occupational RF exposure and brain tumor risk, to examine patterns of illness among telecommunications workers, and to update safety standards that have failed to protect people in my profession. Please do not allow another generation of workers to face what I and my friends have faced.

Comment to HHS: RF Radiation and Public Health I am submitting this comment in response to HHS's Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. The Science Behind This Comment One of the most important, and most overlooked, scientific foundations for this RFI is the research of Robert O. Becker, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and bioelectricity pioneer, detailed in his landmark 1985 book The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Becker's central finding: living organisms are fundamentally electrical systems. Bioelectric signals govern growth, healing, and regeneration, and these systems evolved in concert with Earth's natural electromagnetic environment. When artificial electromagnetic fields interfere with those signals, biological harm can follow. His key findings: Non-thermal biological effects are real. Current FCC standards assume only heat-generating exposures cause harm. Becker demonstrated biological responses to electromagnetic fields at intensities far below thermal thresholds — overturning the very framework on which U.S. safety standards rest. Bioelectric mechanisms govern healing. His research showed that bone healing is electrically regulated, and that low-level electrical stimulation could trigger regeneration where conventional medicine had failed. If the body is this sensitive to electromagnetic signals, it cannot be indifferent to the artificial electromagnetic environment we now live in. Industry influence corrupts safety standards. Becker documented how experts setting U.S. pollution limits were influenced by the industries being regulated, and drew a direct comparison with Eastern European nations where more independent scientists arrived at far stricter exposure limits. Whistleblowers are punished. After testifying that power line fields posed documented health risks, Becker's NIH grants were canceled, his VA funding was blocked, and his laboratory was shut down in 1980. This is not fringe science — it is science that threatened powerful interests. Why This Matters Today Becker published his warnings in 1985. The FCC's RF safety standards were last meaningfully updated in 1996 — predate smartphones, ubiquitous WiFi, and 5G densification. They were built on a thermal-only framework that Becker's research had already scientifically undermined before those standards were written. Children are particularly vulnerable. Thinner skulls and developing nervous systems mean they absorb RF radiation at significantly higher rates than adults — yet towers continue to be sited near schools and playgrounds. What I Am Asking HHS to Do Commission independent, longitudinal research on chronic low-level RF exposure, with priority given to children and vulnerable populations. Apply the precautionary principle where exposures are involuntary — near homes, schools, and playgrounds. Evaluate the full body of peer-reviewed literature on non-thermal biological effects. Create a formal mechanism to document and study experiences of individuals reporting RF-related health effects. Recognize that the FCC — a communications regulator — is not equipped to be the final word on human health risk. The science exists. What has been missing is the institutional independence to act on it. HHS is the right agency to change that. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.

I have suffered intense migraine headaches after exposure to high frequency radiation. I am a physician and have many patients who suffer this exact same problem. Better regulation and research into the health effects of this problem is necessary,\

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. We have found out that every time we are exposed to 5G out health deteriorates. We need to make substantial effort to decrease our exposure. We need HHS to create laws where that individual rights of citizens to be free of harmful radiation are respected. We need HHS to implement extensive tests on the effect of EMI on human health.

Why have studies done if you do not pay attention to the discoveries that are made? If the decision makers are bribed by the very industry they are supposed to regulate, how does that serve the public? There are numerous studies proving the dangers and harms caused by wireless radiation, but if the regulators do not heed the conclusions drawn, how can we make any progress? Decision makers need to be responsible to those they were hired to protect. When financial gain is the motive for taking a particular job, rather than service to those you are entrusted to protect, how can we expect to get honest regulations passed?

I have experience, extreme anxiety, brain fog, and a feeling of being wired, or on edge, when exposed to high levels of EMFs. This is most prominent for me with AC electric fields and dirty electricity. Unlike RF radiation, these are accidental features of our current electric grid and are not necessary for them to function properly. I have friends who are extremely sensitive to other forms of EMF as well, such as RF radiation, which limits their livelihoods and thriving. I believe that EMF mitigation should be considered basic public health measures, just like water quality, air quality, and food safety. ***Serious health conditions can rapidly resolve when harmful EMF exposures are removed from the human body.*** These issues are simply too complex, and too expensive for the end consumer to mitigate for their health. I’m a licensed physician assistant, but even with my credential and understanding of EMFs, the issue is so complex and all-encompassing that I have a hard time getting it across to friends, family, and patients. I urge the FCC, HHS, and any other relevant governmental body to initiate widespread study, and mitigation of these harmful effects, for the education and protection of the public.