Exposure limits & oversight

I am submitting this comment as a resident of Paris, France, living near a site hosting multiple mobile phone base stations. My purpose is not to provide a scientific conclusion but to present information that may be relevant to the HHS's review of real-world RF exposure issues. In my residence, concerns have arisen regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from nearby telecommunications antennas. Independent measurements commissioned by me reported significantly higher exposure levels than those previously identified through an official measurement process. French authorities, through the Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR), informed me that an official measurement performed in my residence on 25 January 2024 resulted in a global exposure level of 4.29 V/m and concluded that the installation complied with the applicable French regulations. The ANFR stated that this value was below the 6 V/m threshold used at that time to identify an atypical exposure situation. However, subsequent measurements obtained independently reported substantially higher values, including measurements reaching approximately 30 V/m according to the documentation submitted to the French authorities. Because of this discrepancy between the official measurement and the subsequent measurements, I believe that additional attention should be given to: Real-world residential exposure conditions near wireless infrastructure; Variability of exposure levels over time; Measurement methodologies and their limitations; Long-term exposure assessment in occupied dwellings; Transparency and reproducibility of exposure measurements. For transparency, I am submitting both the independent measurement report and the response received from the ANFR. I respectfully request that the FCC consider situations where different measurement campaigns may produce significantly different results and evaluate whether additional research or monitoring could help improve public understanding of residential RF exposure. The existence of materially different measurement results in the same dwelling illustrates why ongoing scientific review and independent verification remain important for public confidence in RF exposure assessments. Thank you for considering this information.

Dear OASH staffs, I’m the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and I just received information about US Health Ministry the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields from few my US colleagues (Dr’s Moskowitz, Pakhomov, Slesin etc). As is well known, the EMF exposure limits for the general public in Russia is more strong than in the USA (in 100 times). The main reasons for this is differing criteria for assessing harm from EMF biological effects, as well as the specific nature of the state regulatory system for electromagnetic field sources in Russia. Russia has 130 years of scientific school in EMF biomes research, therefore we have collected datas about most of EMF bioeffects, including non-thermal, information and thermal effects. As Russia has strict mandatory EMF limits under states service control, we haven’t issues regarding EMF hypersensitivity or EMF cancer. The question of specific EMF limits for children in digital education environment is discuss now (for example, on national hygiene science and radiobiology conference last week). Hope you and colleagues know, that the international debate over the reasons for and advisability of a strict EMF limit has been ongoing for more than 50 years, include direct discussion between US and Russian scientists since early 1970th. Mandatory EMF limits were established in Russia (USSR) in 1968; some last, EMF limits for general population covering all EMF frequencies since 1971. One of the most edition of EMF radio frequency limit took place in 1984, after finish of the USSR-USA joint EMF health research project under government’s agreement (1975-1985). Our EMF health scientist has joint Russia-USA bioEMF projects in 1997-2006 too. US Scientists from few universities participated in these projects, as EPA staffs and EMF researchers from AFRL (Radio Frequency Radiation Branch, Brooks Air Force Base), who was as IEEE C95 members. Huge collection of EMF biological effects data has been summarized and analyzed; these are likely the best syntheses available, enabling the establishment of «dose-effect» relationships and the prediction of both medical and biological effects for new exposure conditions. Although biological effects can vary, when we talk about medical consequences, it's clear that adults human has a limited number of possible ways to react, adapt, and de-adapt to electromagnetic overexposure. Therefore, it is not the best methodology way to find for distinct effects based on the specific EMF source (such as 5/6G). However, there are specific aspects to the EMF impact on a child's organism, including effects on the formation and development of children’s nervous system, that necessitate a special approach to electromagnetic safety for children. The WHO Electromagnetic Project, launched in 1996, was unsuccessful; it failed to resolve the issue of EMF health standard int harmonization and has some accusations of industry influence. Despite the turbulence, global economic and technologies continue to evolve, therefore need to have a common approach for electromagnetic safety for humans. So, the EMF initiative of the Minister Mr. Kennedy could be international. We know that China’s exposure limits fall somewhere between those of Russia and the USA; however, the country’s system for monitoring electromagnetic safety regarding environmental sources has utilized Russian methods as base for adopting. As a chairperson, I possess all the original materials regarding research into the biological effects of electromagnetism in the USSR and Russia. Of course, the majority of these publications are in Russian, which presents a challenge for analysis in English. I’m attaching our article in English, which summarizes main conclusion of EMF bio-medical research in Russia. We would appreciate your opinion on possible international participation in the electromagnetic safety system. Several years ago, I received a mail from Mr. Kennedy, when he was not yet the USA Secretary for Health. We would be happy to restart scientific cooperation for public health once again in EMF health safety issues. This letter doesn’t represent the position of the government, was not initiated by the government, and is not intended to influence the policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Sincerely, Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev Dr. Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D.(radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionizing radiation) Chairman, Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Member of the Board, Scientific Council for Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences

We lived 560 ft from three macro cell towers in Moorpark, CA, right off of Tierra Rejada near Brookhurst. In the home that we lived in, our family of six experienced ear ringing, vertigo, heart palpitations, and headaches. We measured the distance of our home from the three macro towers from AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Other neighbors had also experienced issues. Four of our neighbors who were closer to the cell towers ended up getting leukemia and cancer. These eventually passed. We had several city council meetings at the City of Moorpark addressing our concerns. The city said that the towers were to be present according to the Brown Act, which required telecommunications to be available to the community should there be an emergency. We stated that sufficient telecommunications had been available with the previous versions of 1G and 2G, but with the advancement of telecommunications allowing for higher levels of data for video and internet service, there was a stronger signal that was posing health risks to homes. Our plea to move the towers was ignored, and other towers were placed near homes. At Peach Hill Rd., another tower was placed near a family home, which was 45 ft from the home and 12 ft from the child's playhouse. This was not acceptable. This family also began to experience symptoms as our family had. This family also approached the Moorpark City Council in July of 2017 and December of 2020. This family's concerns were also ignored, stating the Brown Act. Other cities such as the City of Malibu and the City of Calabasas had ordinances in place to allow safe placement of cell towers from homes, but Moorpark does not. This concern was ignored. There are other homes in the area that have been at risk for health effects, such as homes that are near the Verizon tower on Tierra Rejada in Moorpark. One home is only 50 ft from the tower. Other homes close as well. A person should be allowed to live peacefully in their home without outside intervention. What we and others have had to endure living in a home where we were bombarded day and night with EMF, which caused symptoms that should not have occurred. We were unfairly driven from our home to be in a healthier environment, which our City was telling us was safe and not an issue at all. While we are not opposed to telecommunications, we are in favor of safe telecommunications where equipment is placed safely away from homes. Our experience has been heartbreaking, as we felt that we were driven from our home to be at a safe location where we and our children could be healthier. We ask that the United States government look into this issue and to provide regulations to the telecom companies as to where they can place their equipment. Equipment should not invade homes but should be placed at safe distances. If airports and fire departments are protected from unsafe placement of telecom equipment, why can't homes where people live for many hours. Something needs to change to help.

We want the truth. We all know that wireless technology comes from the military, and that it is far more advanced than the technology used by ordinary citizens. We need to know about the side effects, like those caused by vaccines. There are thousands of independent studies that prove the harmful effects on human health and even on life itself. Thank you for your work for everyone's health.

In short, science-based policy updates to reduce public exposure are urgently needed. Cellphones and wireless communication technologies have enriched human lives. It is difficult to imagine contemporary lives without them. The deployment of 5G and 6G mobile technology is well underway with its heralded mm-wave performances. It is not evident whether the health effects of 5/6G mm-wave radiation would be analogous or not to previous generations of cellphone and wireless communication technologies, given the paucity of research on health effects of 5/6G mm-wave radiation. Without dispute, cellphones have provided direct benefits to multiple arenas of human endeavor that includes helping to safeguard our personal security and safety. Nonetheless, the health and safety of billions of users who are subjected to repeated, unnecessary levels of RF radiation over lengthy intervals of time or even over their lifetimes should be recognized and accounted for.

I thank the HHS for inviting public comment on the health effects of wireless radiation. As federal legislation has not been enacted to govern cell tower placement near schools, I urge HHS to consider the science indicating our children are at risk. This is an unfortunate gap exposing our young citizens to long-term health complications. One finding is that children’s brains are more deeply affected by wireless radiation due to the width of their skulls than those of adults exposed to the same amount of radiation. Concerning a simple phone exposure, “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull” (https://ehsciences.org/science-on-children-cell-phone-radiation-and-health-risk/). Then multiply this exponentially concerning a cell tower located in the vicinity of a neighborhood or a school. As municipalities in CA, NY, TN, and MA have enacted set distances between schools and electromagnetic fields generated by cell towers, there is hope for growing awareness and local progress. However, with the small cell market now operating in midband 5G, the potential hazard is invisible to the general public. It requires greater scrutiny than local municipalities can provide to make a difference. Let’s join the scrutiny underway in our international community and set US boundaries aimed at protecting citizens, young and old, but especially our young. With gratitude.

There are 1009 studies that already tell us exactly what the problems are with EMFs and how they affect the human body. There is nothing positive about the outcomes of these studies with respect to the damage caused by EMFs. These study should be the basis for any decision-making going forward and they should be taken seriously. Then moving forward, there should be more serious studies done and there should be a halt to all this 5G 6G nonsense along with data centers and high-powered transmission lines that have been installed in order to supply power to them. Another source of EMFs running through our neighborhoods and close proximity to schools and businesses. You already know the answers, you’re just too cowardly and greedy to do anything about the truth. It’s time to do the right thing and stop talking about it.

We are demanding the release of all information regarding EMF and RF EXPOSURE.

I support the study of electromagnetic fields and associated regulations that protect the public. I am a volunteer with Save Temecula, a nonprofit organization formed in 2026 to fight San Diego Gas and Electric’s proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink featuring 145-mile long 200’ tall 500,000 volt extra high voltage power towers/lines through a densely populated area of Temecula, CA. This is the largest and most invasive project SDG&E has undertaken through a well-established urban area. As a volunteer, I have spoken with thousands of residents who say one of their major concerns, behind wildfires, is EMF exposure. This project would be only hundreds of feet from homes, businesses, schools, churches, daycare centers, playgrounds, parks, walking paths, an historic district, etc. This investor owned utility downplays our concerns, saying that studies find EMF harm to be inconclusive; they compare exposure to our microwave ovens that we generally use for minutes rather than on an ongoing basis. However, residents are so concerned that they are willing to move elsewhere if the power towers are approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. In less than five months, more than 12,000 people have signed a change.org petition against this project and in just a couple months, more than $30,000 has been raised to fight it. Additionally, I have a friend whose husband died of brain cancer, which adds to my suspicion of EMFs. She and her husband purchased a home in foreclosure overlooking the Southern California Edison extra high voltage lines in Corona. This young man’s past time was working in their beautiful backyard. Furthermore, some of our community leaders and local utility experts have extensively studied EMFs, and they have concluded this is potentially harmful to human health. I believe the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink project (which will be filed with the California Public Utilities Commission mid-November 2026) and others like it should be placed on hold until Federal studies have concluded. Otherwise millions of people will be paying for this outdated infrastructure through significant rate increases. Thank you for your concerns and action regarding electromatic fields. For more information regarding my concerns, please consult SaveTemecula.org and the City of Temecula’s website at www.temeculaca.gov Sincerely, Melanie Nieman

I am writing to formally request stricter regulations on anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and to advocate for the official medical recognition of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). Current public exposure standards fail to account for non-thermal, biological effects that severely impact human health. Scientific evidence proves that EHS is a definitive neurological disorder characterized by oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and objective physiological biomarkers. Furthermore, recent molecular research highlights that chronic EMF exposure triggers genetic toxicity and impairs vital cellular repair mechanisms. To support this urgent need for tighter biological safety limits, I submit the following peer-reviewed scientific studies: 1. On DNA Damage and Genetic Toxicity: Sonzogni L, Al-Choboq J, Combemale P, et al. Skin Fibroblasts from Individuals Self-Diagnosed as Electrosensitive Reveal Two Distinct Subsets with Delayed Nucleoshuttling of the ATM Protein in Common. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025;26(10):4792. doi: 10.3390/ijms26104792. This crucial study confirms that individuals with EHS suffer from a delayed or impaired cellular response to DNA double-strand breaks when exposed to EMFs, providing clear evidence of genetic vulnerability and organic pathology. 2. On the International Scientific Consensus: Belpomme D, Carlo GL, Irigaray P, et al. The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22(14):7321. doi: 10.3390/ijms22147321. This consensus report officially classifies EHS as a neurological disorder involving altered cerebral blood flow, oxidative stress, and elevated inflammatory markers such as histamine. 3. On Population Prevalence and Global Health Impact: McCredden JE, McLean L, Steinemann A. Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States. Next Research. 2026;8:101577. doi: 10.1016/j.nexres.2026.101577. This recent epidemiological research indicates that up to 12.6% of the general population across the US, Canada, and Australia reports sensitivity to wireless radiation, representing millions of citizens experiencing EMF-related health barriers. I urge the HHS to adopt the Precautionary Principle, revise current guidelines to include non-thermal biological thresholds, and establish dedicated healthcare protocols to protect the rights and lives of medically vulnerable EMF-sensitive individuals. Sincerely Italia