Exposure limits & oversight

I have 3 massive stacked cell towers in the northwest part of Davenport, IA. 2 of them are within 50-100 feet of homes and fire department. All three are within 2 blocks of an elementary school. I haven't felt well since the installation of these things and I know my neighbors are feeling it too. These towera can't be good for our health. What do we need to do to put regulations on these things?

The impact of Radiation and Wireless Radiation Exposure and (EMF's) that it has on me and my family is enormous. I am sensitive to all of this technology, the WIFI, High Definition and being around 5G cell towers does not help. Eliminate the development of these EMFs because it is harmful and dangerous to children, Seniors and animals. Please put people over profit.

Wireless radiation is very dangerous, especially for young children! Please protect children if no one else!

Remote neurology (especially since being secret from the people for decades) should be classified as an illegal domestic torture program (or non domestic if it’s from Isreal) As far as the useful utility from wireless transmissions, there are safer ways than 5G (which used to be a weapon and now recycled for the people to use for utility)

The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg is a book that traces the history of electricity and its impact on health - nearly always detrimental, especially to mitochondrial function, which causes a variety of serious diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, among others. YOU ARE KILLING AMERICANS with this onslaught of electricity everywhere without consent from those harmed. Turn back from this wrongdoing. WE OBJECT!

I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment. Please review the current state of biological science and create protective standards I have been personally affected by wireless radiation, as I have now had Breast cancer twice and was looking for all avenues to improve my health upon recovery from surgery. I would not sleep well with the wireless on in the house, and turned off all the cells and was looking for other things to do to elimate as much as I can, since I want to continue to live a long life. I contacted an electrician and he installed a switch in my bedroom to turn all the internet systems off right by the bed. Since then I am sleeping much more soundly and feeling more rejuvinated from it. I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on that. Please consider what I have experienced and review the current state of affairs of the system. I know there can be improvements.

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

**651 days.** That's 1 year, 9 months and 12 days since I've left my house. Why? Because there isn't a street around me without overhead transmission lines or a cell tower either on it or within line of sight. Some people wonder how I remain sane, being such an active person. However, just driving five minutes to the beach — a beach with significant EMF exposure — can set my health back for days. I hope the people reviewing this are at least half as knowledgeable as I am about EMF measurement and monitoring, and have some understanding of just how high our dynamic background magnetic fields can be due to the power grid, along with the microwave radiation exposure from cell towers. The discomfort I experience outweighs any desire to live outside my house, which itself is far from perfect. I see myself as the opposite of *the Electric Man from Serbia*, **Slaviša Pajkić**, who is known for his ability to pass electrical current through his body and perform feats such as cooking a sausage using himself as a conductor. Our standards and regulations don't adequately consider people like me, who report being at the extreme end of sensitivity to these exposures. How did we get here? That's the question I have to repeatedly answer in my consultancy business, to mothers, searching for answers. *The Canary in the Coal Mine*

I. Introduction As an individual consumer and parent, I am submitting this comment to urge regulatory authorities to adopt a strict precautionary framework regarding human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency radiation (RFR), and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF). While public communications often claim there is "no evidence" of harm from non-ionizing radiation, a rigorous evaluation of the published literature reveals a substantial body of pooled epidemiological and experimental data. To support the need for updated, biology-based safety limits, this submission highlights the quantitative findings of multiple peer-reviewed meta-analyses spanning brain tumors, childhood leukemia, general carcinogenesis, reproductive health, and neurodegenerative decline. II. Summary of Evidence from Peer-Reviewed Meta-Analyses 1. Mobile Phone Radiation & Brain Tumors (Gliomas and Neuromas) Pooled data demonstrates a statistically significant increase in brain tumor risks correlated with long-term or ipsilateral (same-side) mobile phone usage: • Yang et al.: Found that mobile phone use extending to 10 years or more is associated with an elevated risk of glioma. This risk increases for same-side (ipsilateral) use and low-grade glioma. • Hardell et al. Reported that 10+ years of same-side mobile phone use doubled the risk for glioma and more than doubled the risk for acoustic neuroma. • Myung et al.: Identified an overall tumor risk increase for 10+ years of use. Notably, the authors found that methodologically superior, blinded studies clearly identified harm, whereas unblinded studies showed a false "protective" effect. • Wang et al.: Noted that while ever-use was not statistically significant, the data indicated an increased risk trajectory specifically for long-term users. 2. Childhood Leukemia & Magnetic Fields The vulnerability of developing children to ambient magnetic fields is documented in high-scale pooled controls: • Zhao et al.: Analyzing 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls, researchers found that exposure to magnetic fields of 0.4 microtesla or greater (compared to <0.1 yielded a significant risk elevation for leukemia. The risk escalated sharply for acute lymphocytic leukemia. • Wartenberg: Calculated that if an association exists, approximately 175 to 240 childhood leukemia cases per year in the United States could be directly attributed to magnetic field exposure. 3. General Cancer Risks & ELF Fields • Zhang et al.: Aggregated 42 studies (13,259 cases, 100,882 controls) and found a positive association overall. The risk was higher in United States cohorts and notably elevated for residential exposures. 4. Breast Cancer Risk Elevation • Chen et al.: Identified an elevated risk of breast cancer associated with exposure, which rose slightly higher for estrogen-receptor-positive configurations. • Zhao et al.: Found a pooled OR of 1.10 for breast cancer, which increased significantly among premenopausal women. 5. Reproductive Health & Sperm Quality • Adams et al.: Meta-analysis of 1,492 samples demonstrated that mobile phone exposure is significantly associated with a decrease in sperm motility by -8.1% and viability by -9.1%. This effect was consistent across both in vitro experimental setups and in vivo observational studies. • Liu et al.: Confirmed clear biological harm and degradation in in vitro and animal models, though human observational data in their pooled subset remained null. 6. Neurodegenerative Diseases & Occupational ELF-MF Exposure • Jalilian et al.: Found a substantial relative risk increase for Alzheimer’s disease among workers with high occupational ELF-MF exposure. • Huss et al. (Bioelectromagnetic, 2018; PMID: 29350413): Found an elevated risk for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) overall, which jumped sharply for individuals working within electrical occupations. III. Conclusion & Regulatory Recommendation The argument that there is "no evidence" of biological harm from ambient electromagnetic and magnetic fields is contradicted by the extensive epidemiological data compiled above. Regulatory agencies cannot rely solely on short-term thermal absorption models (like SAR) to determine human safety. Because these meta-analyses demonstrate clear patterns of increased risk - particularly regarding chronic, long-term exposure, residential proximity, and early-childhood vulnerabilities - I request that the agency: 1. Implement the Precautionary Principle across all updated safety regulations. 2. Establish lower, biology-based exposure limits that account for non-thermal, chronic biological mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress, DNA transcription changes). 3. Incentivize and prioritize wired telecommunications and localized power mitigation infrastructure over widespread, high-density ambient wireless radiation. Thank you for reviewing the data and incorporating public health research into your regulatory process. Respectfully, Nina Martin

The second biggest mistake we can make when evaluating wireless radiation is assuming that because something doesn't heat us, it cannot affect us. The biggest is electrifying the entire biosphere based upon that assumption. Life is bioelectric before it is biochemical. Decades before 5G towers, orthopedic surgeon and researcher Dr. Robert O. Becker investigated the electrical properties of living tissue. His work on regeneration, injury currents, and direct-current electrical signaling challenged the notion that biology could be understood exclusively through the reductionist chemistry. In his 3 books, Becker warned about the consequences of introducing artificial electromagnetic environments without adequately understanding how living organisms respond to them. His central thesis deserves renewed attention especially as we further develop wireless technology. He argued that biological electrical signaling is not incidental. It participated in tissue repair, development, and physiological regulation. Yet modern wireless safety assessments remain heavily focused on thermal effects, leaving an incomplete framework for investigating a fundamentally electrical organism. Cell membranes maintain voltage gradients, neurons communicate through electrochemistry, mitochondria depend on proton gradients, and calcium signaling regulates a wide rage of processes from neurotransmission to gene expression. There is growing evidence that everyday wireless exposure disrupts these electrical systems, and the inconvenient concerns have been dismissed throughout our safety standards. Consider the National Toxicology Program's $30 million radiofrequency research program. Its 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. Some evidence was also reported for malignant brain gliomas. Although these exposures cannot be simply extrapolated to ordinary cellphone use, the assumption that preventing tissue heating settles the safety question is obviously flipped on its head with this. This is exactly why more research is required for the bioeffects of cellphone EMF on humans. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Scientists are evaluating a rapidly changing electromagnetic environment using incomplete long-term exposure data. Real-world exposure is not a single frequency delivered under an isolated laboratory environment. A child sleeping beside a wireless router, a technician working around transmitting equipment, and an adult occasionally using a cellphone do not share identical exposure profiles, and will not experience identical effects. HHS should prioritize independent investigations into chronic, cumulative, and developmentally sensitive exposures, including realistic 5G and Wi-Fi conditions. These studies should examine sleep physiology, nervous system function, reproductive outcomes, oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, and electrophysiological signaling, while carefully controlling temperature and other confounding variables. Absence of conclusive evidence is not a substitute for comprehensive investigation. Finally, technological convenience should not require universal, involuntary participation in an increasingly wireless environment. Families should have meaningful choices in this. Schools should be able to prioritize wired internet. Communities should have access to transparent exposure measurements. Consumers should receive understandable information about their devices. Federal research must be insulated from industry influence, with transparent funding, open data, independent replication, and meaningful public participation. We should prioritize reducing unnecessary exposure without having to prove that every transmitter causes disease. Becker's legacy was not that he answered all the questions surrounding the harmful effects of EMF exposure. It was that he recognized that we could not fully answer them yet in good faith. HHS now has a serious oppurtunity to answer those questions. Study biology as an integrated electrical, magnetic, optical, hydrated, chemical, and environmental system. Investigate plausible mechanisms without overstating or understating them. Protect the scientific independence, and give communities the ability to make informed decisions. Public health should not require people to surrender control over their electromagnetic environment simply because wireless infrastructure has become ubiquitous. The burden of responsible innovation is to demonstrate safety through transparent, independent, and continuously updated science; not merely to demonstrate connectivity.