Exposure limits & oversight

MY NEIGHBORS AND ANIMALS ARE DYING I am SICK. My family members have been SICK SINCE more than a hundred UNREGULATED TOWERS WENT LIVE over our community. This has been a challenge for me to get anyone to help in my community. I wanted to share my story in hopes of helping others. My story is one of many in Terrebonne Parish. After multiple (9) 300-foot 5G towers were put over our homes, four 300-foot 5G towers were put over my home and animal sanctuary, and four 300-foot towers were put over my office. At the same time, smart meters were put on my home, along with those of every other Entergy customer. I began getting sick, very sick. It began in my petting area with heart palpitations, headaches, vomiting, ringing in my ears, confusion, bleeding gums, insomnia, nightmares, dizziness, anxiety, ears buzzing 24 hours a day, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, and more. I have now been diagnosed with radiation syndrome / EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome) caused by extreme exposure to radiation. Many residents are experiencing similar symptoms. Countless children are now suffering. Being a very healthy person my whole life, this has been a life-changing situation. I am usually the one helping others; now I need your help. I never thought this could happen until I was forced to face it by becoming sick. I'm not sure where this illness will take me. However, I must do all I can to protect my family and my community. Seven neighbors on my street and friends have died after the towers went live over their homes. Many other residents are also sick. My community is surrounded by towers that have no regulatory testing information, nor does our planning department ask for it, citing the FCC's outdated RF radiation guidelines. I became certified in RF radiation testing. I now test the towers and smart meters. I can confirm that the EMF (electromagnetic frequency) / RF (radio frequency) radiation being emitted is extreme for every single product, tower, and smart device I have tested. It has been a fight to protect my family, my community, and myself, with EVERYONE CITING THE FCC'S OUTDATED RF RADIATION GUIDELINES. I had to learn all I could about this to protect my health and theirs. I've had to turn my home, where I have lived for 28 years, into an EMF-safe house (until I sell it), as well as my barn, which is surrounded by EMF material and protection. My bed is covered with EMF protection as well due to the radiation levels in my home. I now have to wear protective clothing all day. Leaving my safe area means becoming exposed due to the unbridled towers around me. I am a very private person. This is not easy to share, but if I do not ask for help now, many more innocent people will be sick, or they will die like my neighbors, my friends, and my animals. Since the towers went live, six of my horses have died instantly under the towers. All of my little animals have died. My 200-pound tortoises started going blind. I'm not sure where the daily radiation exposure will take me, so I thought now is the best time to ask for your help in making a change. THE FCC MUST REGULATE THE RADIATION, OR THE DEATH & DESTRUCTION WILL NEVER END. Technology is safe only if it is REGULATED. Always, Shari Champagne

We used to live rather close to a transformer. Our next-door neighbor actually had it in front of their front yard. We had not been aware of the dangers of EMFs until the 5 year old son of our neighbor's developed a brain tumor and we started reading about the concerns that were being raised about EMF exposure. We should be taking every possible precaution with the use of technology that has red flags all over them.

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 an individual When the municipal government authorized the installation of a giant telephone tower of 25m in the sidewalk at 6m of my front house´s door, they do not asked for my acceptance and I do not have a legal resource to opposite the action, done supposedly for the necessities and progress of our communities, since the importance of the communications.My person, my family, my neighbors do not count in that wide social and economic perspective. This happened six years ago, after the decease of my wife . Time passed and my daughter (30 y) begin to experiment an increased difficulty to conciliate the sleeping and problems of memory and anxiety without a defined cause. Concerning my person, actually 85 y, my problem is the surge of an increasing pain in brief episodes by the inflammation of my nerved terminations, as if I have needles through my skin, sometimes in a place, sometimes in other, at random. MHe walls of my house were constructed using electro galvanized welded wire mesh between columns, and a type of dried cane weaved, with cement mix by both sides, so I think it functions as a Faraday cage, that attenuates the effects of the electromagnetic emissions from the tower, but do not impede a amount of personal biological damage on our health. It is very difficult to demonstrate those effects since do not exists a medical general inform of each of us before the tower installation, but I have very clear that those symptoms do not exist before the installation and developed after the installation. 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.

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 and healthcare professional who works with children. I have personally witnessed children with a variety of diagnosis including ADHD, Autism spectrum disorder, and developmental delay become affected by EMF’s at the home, in school, and in public. Behavior, sleep, attention, etc can all be highly impacted by EMF’s, and we need to protect our children and our future. I have heard from parents who tried to reduce exposure in the home with some successes in children’s regulation, but it is so widespread in public spaces, schools, and even densely populated housing areas (making in-home exposure reduction difficult). The HHS need to look at current research and continue to increase research into EMF’s and our health as well as regulate the current situation and educate the public. Thank you.

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.

I am someone who cannot be around wireless radiation. It gives me a headache and makes me feel unwell. Once I realized that I removed all wireless devices from my home and connected everything with ethernet cables. My symptoms went away immediately. I am not alone--I know other people who have had the exact same experience. The only reason this technology has been allowed to proliferate is because the telecommunication companies are making huge profits from it. It was rolled out before any long term studies were done on it. Studies showing that it causes neurological damage have been suppressed or ignored. It causes serious health effects for some people and this needs to be recognized. It's about time this industry be held accountable.

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 patient and parent. There's evidence and regulations in Europe about EMF thus is paramount to start amending the causes and effects over humans health and general natural environment.

Hello - I will be providing information to the effects of these catastrophic frequencies and radiation exposures and I demand that the FCC and HHS release their findings on this as well to the public. It has been presented before but shoved off as "We don't deal with humans, only frequencies." There is so much proof out there it is absurd that our government and the tech companies keep slowly killing the global populations with these weapons; that is what they are. See below info and any attachments on this. The peer-reviewed and human evidence submitted to federal regulators establishes that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and wireless radiation produces a wide range of measurable biological harms—not merely theoretical thermal risks. As documented in the FCC docket, filings contained "peer-reviewed studies showing radiofrequency radiation contributing to cell damage, DNA damage, infertility, carcinogenicity, cognitive deficits, and cardiovascular disruption, among a wide array of negative health effects". This body of evidence—over 11,000 pages—was dismissed by the FCC, whose representative reportedly told an injured petitioner, "We don't deal with humans, only frequencies". Cancer Risk and Official Recognition The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies RF radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". Professor Lennart Hardell is responsible for this classification based on evidence linking wireless radiation to increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma [A-2]. The National Toxicology Program's own study found "clear evidence linking cell phone use to heart tumors in rats, with some evidence also linking it to brain and adrenal tumors" [A-1]. A review led by Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded there is "substantial scientific evidence" that RFR causes "cancer, endocrine, and neurological problems, as well as many other negative health effects". The Causal Mechanism: Oxidative Stress At the cellular level, the primary mechanism of harm appears to be oxidative stress. According to Children's Health Defense, the evidence identified a "causal mechanism of harm" found in 203 out of 225 studies: oxidative stress, "which can lead to cancer, non-cancer conditions, and DNA damage". Professor Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Washington State University, confirmed that "current EMFs can cause lowered fertility, neurological/psychiatric effects, DNA damage, apoptosis, oxidative stress, endocrine effects, cancer, genetic and epigenetic changes, inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cardiac effects". Children Are Disproportionately Vulnerable Children face heightened risk. Research has found that "children's brains absorb 2-3 times more radiation than an adult's". This vulnerability is compounded by the fact that substantially more children are using cell phones from younger ages. The 5G Escalation The rollout of 5G represents a dramatic escalation. Unlike previous technologies, 5G uses "frequencies between 24 GHz and 100 GHz, known as millimeter-wave frequencies". Israeli researchers found that "our sweat ducts act as antennas for millimeter waves, meaning we would absorb more energy into our bodies". Professor Pall warned that "5G will inevitably produce universal or almost universal very early-onset Alzheimer's dementia and may cause near-universal autism" . Critically, "there are no safety studies on 5G", and Senator Richard Blumenthal concluded after a Senate hearing, "So there really is no research ongoing. We're kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety are concerned". Brain, Sleep and Mitochondrial Effects The evidence further shows effects on the brain, "including impaired blood flow and damage to the blood-brain barrier, cognitive and memory problems, and effects on sleep, melatonin production, and mitochondrial damage". These findings are especially significant because mitochondrial dysfunction is central to chronic degenerative disease processes. Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe emphasized that "the relationship between radiation intensity and biological effects is not linear," and that EMFs interact with chemicals, genetics, nutrition, and stress in ways that "can exponentially worsen these biological effects". Conclusion The evidence is clear: EMF, RFR and wireless radiation exposure produces oxidative stress, DNA damage, cancer, neurological harm, reproductive damage, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

The attached submission draws on several complementary sources of evidence including peer-reviewed research, my own research and reports from government and intergovernmental bodies. These include the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It also draws on an independent scoping review and evidence map of the RF-EMF genotoxicity literature, an independent assessment of the evidence concerning RF-EMF and cancer using the Bradford Hill viewpoints, and a comparative analysis of approaches adopted by two international radiation protection authorities. The submission further incorporates an analysis of public submissions to the 2019-2020 Australian Parliamentary Inquiry on 5G. Symptoms reported by respondents to that inquiry are compared with symptoms reported in two smart-meter datasets: Lamech 2014, a peer-reviewed case series, and Halteman 2011, a survey report. Finally, the submission draws on my broader research into epistemic issues in evidence interpretation and the governance of scientific uncertainty. These analyses examine how differences in evidentiary frameworks, assumptions and approaches to uncertainty may contribute to divergent interpretations of the same body of evidence. Full citations are provided in the consolidated, numbered reference list at the end of the attached submission. Overview The United States Human Health Services (HHS) has released an RFI that is effectively asking the following question: What does the evidence actually show about RF-EMF and human health, and are current RF-EMF guidelines/standards, surveillance systems and research priorities adequate? This submission answers this question from a position that will be unfamiliar to HHS in one respect: it does not treat the reassurance of ICNIRP, the WHO International EMF Project, or the FCC as a reliable proxy for “the science.” Those bodies are one set of institutional actors among several. The evidence set out below, includes animal carcinogenicity data, mechanistic and genotoxicity research, an analysis of a selection of WHO-commissioned systematic reviews (SRs) in 2024-25, the documented influence of funding sources on reported outcomes, and the history of how the WHO/IARC World Cancer Report has treated this evolving literature. Overall, it indicates that their settled position of safety reassurance is unjustified and that the evidence has not been treated as a neutral body of findings to be weighed impartially. Instead, the selection, characterization and relative weighing appear to have been influenced by the prevailing institutional interpretation of RF-EMF health risks in order to maintain regulatory status quo. Importantly, this submission does not claim that RF-EMF is a proven, established human carcinogen in the sense that tobacco smoke and ionizing radiation are proven carcinogens. It is a claim that the totality of the evidence, considered across animal, mechanistic, and epidemiological domains, and without deferring automatically to the institutions that have minimized it, is substantially stronger than “no evidence of harm”. It is also a claim that the governance structures that are currently responsible for setting limits are not well suited to registering that strength. The attached submission contains sections organized around the RFI’s own numbered questions and integrates two bodies of my own independent research: an evidence assessment of the RF-EMF cancer and genotoxicity literature, and an analysis of the governance and institutional dynamics that have shaped how the evidence has been used, or not used, in setting federal policy. Where both analyses converge on the same underlying point, for example, that funding source and institutional affiliation are more predictive of a study’s reported findings than its methodological quality, the evidence and the governance analysis are presented together rather than repeated separately, because the pattern is the same pattern viewed from two directions.

I´m a serious engineer, product developer from Sweden, Europe. Now living in US. I also have 15 years of experience in compiling technical documentation for manufactured products. The radiation that operates with digital products is against our product laws. We cannot ensure the technology as safe for life, health, environment. Due to this, there is no valid, legal technical documentation for either AI or digital radiation technology. When there is no legal technical documentation, we do not know what makes us sick. Doctors cannot provide adequate care for the injured. We know that radiation is harmful, but we hide it because many users abuse the technology for their own gain. We who design, construct products are often good at drawing. When we use images for technical documentation, we use photos or our own illustrations. Radiation technology and AI are deadly in the hands of countries without knowledge. We cannot have drones and flying missiles across national borders. TIME TO UNCOVER THE FRAUD. The Technical Documentation is often secret or unavailable. Even if a journalist, doctor would like to review the technical documentation, much of it is trade secrets. Manufacturers are required by law to keep the technical manufacturing documentation available to authorities for ten years, but they are under no obligation to release it to journalists or the public. Without access to the development process, a review becomes impossible. The exception: Investigative journalism and whistleblowers. However, there are times when journalists actually do this. This happens primarily in investigative journalism when a whistleblower leaks internal documents, test protocols or risk analyses that show that a company is hiding deficiencies, shortcomings. In those cases, journalists can enlist the help of independent external experts to decipher the documentation and reveal that a product violates product laws. PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT APPROVED FOR INTERNATIONAL USE. THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED FOR THE USER AND END USER. International law, human rights, Who takes responsibility? Does a Government believe that manufacturers can have responsibility for human rights? To cooperate in this way so that individuals affected by a company's manufactured products are not deprived of, for example, life and health? In international laws, human rights are the responsibility of countries, they have agreed to implement international, national rules. These rights exist for all of us and their ultimate purpose is to protect us individuals from our own governments, authorities and from each other. But companies, what responsibility do they have? How long will it take before unfriendly governments start saying “not us, but the companies are responsible”. What then happens to international law itself and the rights that exist? TECH DOC. CODE OF HONOR. THE TEN PRINCIPLES. THE ENGINEER, THE PRODUCT DEVELOPER. THE ONE WHO CONSTRUCTS THE TOOLS AS A NECESSARY NEED. Engineers, product developers in their professional capacity must feel personally responsible for technology being used in a manner that benefits humanity, the environment and society. Engineers, product developers must strive to improve technology and technological knowledge so as to achieve more efficient use of resources without harmful effects. Engineers, product developers must offer their knowledge in both public and private contexts so as to ensure the best possible basis for decisions and to illuminate both the opportunities and the risks associated with technology. Engineers, product developers should not work for or cooperate with companies and organisations of a questionable nature or with objectives that conflict with personal beliefs. Engineers, product developers must show complete loyalty to employers and colleagues. Difficulties in this respect ought to be raised in open discussions, in the first instance at the workplace. Engineers, product developers should not use inappropriate methods when competing for employment, assignments or orders, and nor should they attempt to damage the reputation of colleagues with unfounded allegations. Engineers, product developers must respect entrusted information of a confidential nature and others' rights to ideas, inventions, studies, plans and blueprints. Engineers, product developers should not favour vested interests and ought to openly report financial and other interests that could impair confidence in their impartiality and judgement. Engineers, product developers must both publicly and privately, in writing and rhetoric, strive for factual presentations and avoid erroneous, misleading or exaggerated statements. Engineers, product developers must actively support colleagues who encounter difficulties as a result of acting in accordance with these principles and, to the best of their belief, avert criminal actions against them. I feel the difference when I'm out in nature.