Exposure limits & oversight

An expedited safety review of 5G EMF is of personal importance to me. I have a chronic head wound due to a failed surgical closure. I'm missing a section of bone and have residual "mesh" still in a couple of places in my head (residual from the cranioplasty). The mesh is like having an antenna in my head. Prior to 5G, I wasn't overly concerned, but did a lot of research on EMF from multiple sources. I'm aware that the FCC has not adjusted its guidelines for "safe limits" since the 1990s. The explosion of wireless devices since their last revision of their "safety" data is non-existant. The increasing "speed" of wireless connections has made it impossible for the average person to protect themselves by choice due to the increased number of towers that they need for 5G and the breaching of previous "no go" zones for these towers - hospitals, schools, nursing homes - to keep young children and vulnerable adults safe from exposure to EMFs that can affect their brains, interfere with bodily healing and certainly cause a decline in intellect and memory. I have no articles to send you. I'm just a regular person who has taken the time to look into articles written by others. This is personal to me. Please do the studies that should have been done years ago!

This is a serious matter that needs stricter regulations for the health and well being of current as well as future generations. We are electro-magnetic beings! Please do your due diligence and research the evidence and make integral, responsible decisions. Children’s and infant skulls are thinner so radiation can penetrate more. Thank you. I am a very busy and concerned citizen.

Exposer and limits need to be studied,reviewed and updated. With towers in proximity to every neighborhood this should have been done before hand.

I want to share our community’s deeply concerning experience with a proposed cell tower installation located just five feet from a school facility where young children regularly play. Despite significant concerns raised by parents, residents, and the surrounding community, the telecommunications company continued pushing forward with the installation. The owners of the building listened to our concerns and recognized the importance of protecting the children and families who use this space. Unfortunately, the telecommunications company was unwilling to meaningfully address those concerns and even fought against the building owners in its efforts to move forward. As a parent, I find it incredibly troubling that telecommunications infrastructure can be placed so close to areas where children spend their days without greater consideration of potential long-term health effects, environmental impacts, or the concerns of the families directly affected. Our experience highlighted a serious imbalance between the interests of telecommunications companies and the ability of local communities and property owners to have a meaningful voice in decisions that affect them. I urge HHS to reevaluate existing wireless radiation exposure standards using current, independent scientific research, with particular attention to children’s long-term and cumulative exposure. I also encourage greater transparency, stronger oversight, and meaningful consideration of community concerns when wireless infrastructure is proposed near schools and other places where children gather. Families should not have to fight this hard simply to have legitimate health and safety concerns heard. Our children deserve thoughtful protections, and our communities deserve a meaningful voice in decisions that may affect their health and well-being for years to come.

Rf-tinnitus induced at far below public exposure limits Smart meters are here provided as an example (among many possible) of unprotective rf exposure limits in Canada, US limits not dissimilar. A complaint to Toronto Hydro re tinnitus induced by their then fairly recently installed meters, led inter alia to dosimetry checks. This email is from correspondence had between utility reps and complainant (myself): ..................... From: ck872@sympatico.ca To: mmarchant@torontohydro.com Subject: RE: RF Metering Issues Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:58:10 +0000 fyi: doing spot testing now near various meters, starting with 59 Charleswood Dr, as usual & expected at 10:24 a.m. & 10:39 multiple spikes detected ....................... We became aware of the inadequacy of Canadian (and thus U.S.) purported safety limits years earlier. Here was a manifest example backed up by professional dosimetry. Note the exact times mentioned in the email. The utility hired a third party to conduct pro dosimetry on their meters. Their report was not made public. Alongside this 3rd party professional, a Canadian dosimetry professional of long experience performed dosimetry followed by public documentation of his findings. His report can be found at https://slt.co/Downloads/Events/1039/TorontoHydro-SLT-SmartMeterAssessment.pdf If the charts are examined on pages 12, 16 & 17 of the pdf, complete corroboration of my earlier report above is evidenced, in testing done at two locations. Incidence of reported tinnitus has dramatically increased in recent times as RF transmitters have become increasingly ubiquitous, not only smart meters. Smart meters may be particularly provocative of this symptom, in corroboration of A Frey's research decades ago when it was found sharper rf spikes were most provocative. However these transmitters are neither exclusively provocative among rf emitters, nor is tinnitus the exclusive symptom provoked. Far from it. I had told the utility I "heard" the meters on and off all day when awake at home in central Toronto. But particular times were regular all day, at 9, 24, 39, 54 minutes past every hour (as partly noted in the email above). The independent dosimetry report charts completely validate what I was reporting about symptoms timed to meters' emissions. Note that slt.co said in its report, "In the past two years, dozens of Toronto and surrounding residents have contacted Safe Living Technologies regarding adverse health effects immediately after the installation of a Smart Meter at their residence. Hence the reason for our interest in the RF / Microwave Radiation output of Smart Meters and our willingness to assist Toronto Hydro in this endeavour. See appendix C for possible health effects." Tinnitus, including as induced by manmade electromagnetic sources, can and does have severe impacts on human well-being. In the slt report, mention is made of alternative public exposure guidelines, qv. Daryl Vernon Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, Canada tel: 705 454 8451

The change in electric fields, produces magnetic fields and the changes in magnetic fields, generates electric fields. The correlation between each other and the fluctuations between each other, is called “electromagnetic waves” or EMFs. FCC’s old 90s exposure limits take into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties such as pulsing and polarization, along with the duration of exposure, which increases the impacts of the exposure. Verizon never mentions this, FCC doesn’t care to mention it. When directives are out there claiming that safety precautions should be taken against any electrical appliance , in schools, residential areas and other places where people stay for a long time, in order to prevent babies, senior citizens, patients in hospitals, children in schools and playgrounds, and especially overnight during reconstructive sleep ,these precautions are directed at the strongest electromagnetic fields detected. However, knowing what different people , children, unborn, etc, can actually handle without illness or symptoms or deteriorations of the very special human nervous system, is anyone’s guess . There are no parameters for such a cross section of humans and certainly none for animals. Why would you knowingly add on experimental effects of micro wave radiation, to an area, especially such a small area, and just throw chance to the wind? The old fashioned standards the FCC goes on and on about as being the parameters, which were established in 1995 to 1996 and are being questioned currently, but not soon enough for us. FCC allows no environmental or health impact studies to have any effect on deployment of 5G modes. They are afraid the studies would have negative results and would take too long and time is of the essence for them, to make back invested money and compete with the rest of the world. Call me old school , call me sexist, but I was brought up to believe that males had a special place in society. They, like yourselves , were supposed to help and protect woman and children and mothers , in their quests to keep their children safe. My legacy to my own children and my grandchildren, if nothing else, is that I put forth an effort to correct a danger in their environment. Your legacy is to your own children and grandchildren, as well. One day one of my children or grandchildren could unfortunately be diagnosed with a neurological discrepancy, for instance, and wonder if it was because of the node out their window or down the street. Did I fight hard enough for them? Your legacy to your own children and grandchildren is the same but in your cases, your kids and grandchildren might wonder why you didn’t delve further into your product to protect them, and realize you all chose money and your job status , instead of their health

Since its founding in 2007, Environmental Health Trust and numerous experts and expert groups have repeatedly advised governments, through docket filings and briefings of Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other officials, that science-based policy updates are urgently needed to reduce microwave-radiation exposure, especially for young children and the environment. According to Common Sense Media, forty percent of U.S. two-year-olds own some form of two-way microwave-radiating tablet. Outdated 20th century approaches such as those relied on by ICNIRP cannot provide valid means for evaluating fast-moving 21st century technologies. At the same time, the recent issuance of separate requests for information by both HHS and the FCC highlights the lack of a coherent federal policy framework. It also reflects the ongoing tension between the Department of Commerce's technology leadership, which is tasked with accelerating wireless deployment, and HHS and FDA officials, who are responsible for evaluating the evidence, supporting research on potential health risks, and advising the FCC on appropriate regulatory policies. Microwave-radiating devices can provide social, safety, and economic benefits, but their risks have not been adequately considered in standards governing manufacture, testing, use, surveillance, and disposal. Consequently, billions experience repeated, avoidable RF radiation through lifetime use of simultaneously operating phones, tablets, personal monitors, and other two-way microwave-radiating devices, increasing risks of chronic illnesses documented over five decades, much of the research conducted outside the U.S. We therefore welcome the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and FCC Request for Information (RFI) on health and environmental impacts. This compendium of selected recent studies (2020-26) on the impact of microwave radiation on human health and the environment completed since the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC, 2021, in response to queries within the RFI from HHS. In response to question 5, we note that current standards for cell phones and other two-way microwave-emitting devices are based largely on studies conducted to avoid heating a small number of rats and mice more than 30 years ago. These outdated standards primarily seek to prevent thermal (heating) effects in the body of a tall adult male and do not reflect exposure patterns experienced by billions of children and smaller-bodied individuals worldwide. They also do not account for the substantial body of research showing adverse effects of microwave radiation on plants, insects, birds, migratory species, mammals, and the ecosystems on which life depends. Phonegate Alert contends that current phone radiation tests, like diesel-engine tests, are fraudulent. We concur. As a result of these efforts, the European Union recently changed its test protocol to 0mm distance from the body. We advise that more stringent exposure limits in high tech nations is evidence per se of the need to update 3-decade old U.S. standards. Response to HHS Request for Information HHS-OASH-2026-0397, HHS-OASH-2026-0397-0001, 2026-19252 Devra Davis PhD, MPH, Fellow American College of Epidemiology, Fellow Collegium Ramazzini, Founder and Acting President, Environmental Health Trust, former Honorary Professor Medicine, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, former Professor of Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and elsewhere Introduction Since its founding in 2007, Environmental Health Trust and numerous experts and expert groups have repeatedly advised governments, through docket filings and briefings of Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other officials, that science-based policy updates are urgently needed to reduce microwave-radiation exposure, especially for young children and the environment. According to Common Sense Media, forty percent of U.S. two-year-olds own some form of two-way microwave-radiating tablet. Outdated 20th century approaches such as those relied on by ICNIRP cannot provide valid means for evaluating fast-moving 21st century technologies. Consequently, billions experience repeated, avoidable RF radiation through lifetime use of simultaneously operating phones, tablets, personal monitors, and other two-way microwave-radiating devices, increasing risks of chronic illnesses documented over five decades, much of the research conducted outside the U.S. This compendium of selected recent studies (2020-26) on the impact of microwave radiation on human health and the environment completed since the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC, 2021, in response to queries within the RFI from HHS.

Public Comment on EMF, RF Radiation, and Wireless Technology
Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I am concerned about the rapid expansion of wireless technology and its potential effects on our health, homes, and natural environment. Cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and wireless devices have become widespread, yet I believe the public needs more independent research, transparency, and meaningful input into decisions affecting our communities. I have personally experienced headaches, nausea, feeling unwell, neck and chest tightness, and ringing in my ears in situations where I believe electromagnetic fields or wireless technology may be relevant. I have noticed discomfort near high-voltage power lines and when using my computer over Wi-Fi. At home, I have noticed a significant difference when using Ethernet with Wi-Fi turned off. I have also noticed significant differences when my phone's Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and hotspot are enabled versus disabled or when it is in airplane mode. My hand can feel hot and tingly when I hold my phone for an extended period. I recognize these observations do not prove that electromagnetic exposure causes my symptoms. Other factors may contribute. However, I believe these experiences deserve consideration and that independent research should investigate the questions they raise. Electromagnetic fields and radio frequency emissions can be measured. I would like greater public access to reliable exposure measurements and clear explanations of safety standards, the evidence behind them, and remaining uncertainties. Research should distinguish between low-frequency fields associated with electrical infrastructure and radio frequency emissions from wireless communications. I am also concerned about how quickly wireless infrastructure has expanded. Cell towers and antennas are appearing on schools, atop small apartment buildings, and on large towers next to homes. These structures change our neighborhoods and natural landscapes. Smart meters and other wireless technologies have also become increasingly common. I do not recall being meaningfully consulted about this expansion or given a clear opportunity to understand the trade-offs. We should ask who is driving this expansion and who benefits financially. What interests and incentives influence the companies and institutions promoting these technologies? Why is there such strong pressure to expand them, often with little public discussion of alternatives or long-term consequences? Are public health and environmental protection receiving the same attention as commercial interests and economic growth? The public deserves transparent, evidence-based answers. I believe we should protect the natural world and carefully consider the visual, environmental, and potential ecological effects of infrastructure. Technology should not automatically be considered beneficial simply because it is newer or more convenient. Wired alternatives deserve consideration, too. Ethernet provides internet access without Wi-Fi transmissions from a local network. Where practical, wired options should be considered. The public should also receive clear information about smart meters, their communication methods, applicable standards, and available alternatives. I respectfully ask HHS to: 1. Support independent research into potential health effects and symptoms reported by people concerned about EMF and RF exposure. 2. Improve access to exposure measurements and clear explanations of safety standards and scientific uncertainties. 3. Examine real-world exposure conditions in homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. 4. Provide information about reducing unnecessary wireless transmissions and using wired alternatives where practical. 5. Investigate potential ecological effects and consider environmental protection when evaluating technology. 6. Promote public participation and transparency about infrastructure decisions and the financial interests involved. 7. Review guidance as credible new scientific evidence becomes available. I am not claiming that my experiences prove a causal relationship between wireless exposure and my symptoms. I am asking that these concerns be investigated fairly. The public deserves reliable information and a meaningful voice in decisions affecting our surroundings. We should be able to evaluate technology critically while protecting health, personal choice, and the natural world. Thank you for considering my comments.

I support HHS and their efforts to conduct a study on the dangers of EMF radiation to the public. This investigation and/or study is many years past due. Citizens already have been severely harmed by EMF radiation which has been completely ignored. More strict steps and regulations need to be placed in our country to prevent dangerous harm to our children and adults. Thank you taking the time to read this comment!

I support HHS and their efforts to conduct a study on the dangers of EMF radiation to the public. This investigation and/or study is many years past due. Citizens already have been severely harmed by EMF radiation which has been completely ignored. More strict steps and regulations need to be placed in our country to prevent dangerous harm to our children and adults. Thank you taking the time to read this comment!