Exposure limits & oversight

They're safe. Completely. Radio waves are nonionizing forms of radiation. Change nothing about them. There is no effect whatsoever on human health from these forms of radio waves.

I am a licensed GMDSS radio maintainer and former maritime navigation and communications technician. Any continuous non-ionizing radiation under 100 watts per square meter is within safe guidelines. For context on how much it would take, a 25,000 watt 9GHz radar is considered safe at 1.5m from the transmission source.

The US government should adopt the IEEE C95 group of standards ( .1 through .7), as their limits are harmonized with those of ICNIRP and therefore the basis of regulations employed in most of the world's countries. OSHA 1910.97 is unenforceable and 60 years out of date. FCC (47 1.130) is also dated and not useful for regulation consideration. IEEE standards have a long history of employing the best science available, as evidenced by their international participation and agreement with those used around the world. Peer-reviewed science is what regulations should be based on.

I am submitting this comment as a member of the public who is concerned not only about the scientific questions surrounding radiofrequency and electromagnetic field exposure, but also about the increasingly involuntary nature of that exposure. For many years, I made a deliberate personal choice to minimize unnecessary wireless radiation in my home. That choice became increasingly difficult to exercise as communications providers and other systems shifted away from wired infrastructure and toward wireless technologies. In my case, Cox Communications previously provided service over fiber-optic infrastructure extending directly to our home. That option was later discontinued, leaving wireless-based service as the practical alternative presented to us. I had avoided relying on that technology because of concerns about RF exposure, but eventually found myself in a position where accepting greater wireless exposure was effectively a condition of maintaining ordinary modern communications service. This raises a broader public-health concern that I hope HHS will consider carefully. When the long-term biological effects of a form of environmental exposure remain the subject of scientific investigation, individuals should not be placed in a position where meaningful avoidance is progressively designed out of everyday life. Yet wireless transmitters are now embedded not only in phones and routers, but throughout homes, vehicles, appliances, utility systems, schools, workplaces, public spaces, and communications infrastructure. For people who would prefer to exercise precaution, the practical ability to do so is disappearing. I am not asking HHS to presume a conclusion that the scientific evidence has not yet established. I am asking the Department to recognize the ethical and public-health significance of involuntary exposure itself. A population should not effectively become the subject of a decades-long, uncontrolled exposure experiment simply because wireless deployment has outpaced our ability to establish complete answers about cumulative, chronic, and multi-source exposure. Where reasonable lower-exposure alternatives exist, they should be preserved. In particular, I encourage HHS to consider recommending policies that protect access to wired communications, fiber-optic service, wired building systems, and other non-wireless alternatives. People who wish to reduce RF exposure should not have to abandon basic communications services in order to do so. I also encourage HHS to examine cumulative real-world exposure rather than treating each device or transmitter only in isolation. The relevant question for many members of the public is no longer simply whether one device complies with an exposure limit. It is what happens when many sources operate continuously in the same home, neighborhood, workplace, vehicle, and public environment over many years. Whatever conclusions HHS ultimately reaches about health risk, precaution and informed choice should remain legitimate options. Individuals should have a meaningful ability to reduce unnecessary exposure in their own homes and immediate environments, rather than having that choice gradually removed by technological and infrastructure decisions over which they have little control.

Hello, It is far past time for you to be looking into this issue. The FCC has shamefully been avoiding this issue for 30 years. EMF radiation has exploded over that time period with no further research or regulations coming from any federal agency. At the same time 90% of non-industry funded research shows some level of harm from almost all levels and frequencies of EMF, and many below what people are currently exposed to. I thank Mr. Kennedy for getting involved in this but it is way past due. I am especially concerned about smart meters for residential electric metering, as they are getting ready to implement them in my area. I don't believe these should be forced on people and they really don't perform as advertised. They do however emit extreme levels of EMFs constantly while sending everyone's personal info all over the place where it can easily be intercepted. But the health effects are my primary concern. Anyway, we are all inundated daily with 1,000 times more EMF than we were just 20 years ago. It is way past due for the federal government to seriously and unbiasedly (uninfluenced by the industry) look into the health effects of EMF. I believe the main reason it hasn't been done is because it's already known what they will find, and it's not good. It's shameful that they continue to allow continued implementation of greater and greater amounts of this radiation without any concern for human health. I know this is officially the FCC's jurisdiction, but that agency has been captured by the communications industry almost since it's inception. HHS's reputation is not much better as you seem unable to remove your self from Big Pharma's influence. Maybe you can do some honest and meaningful work in this area as Pharma is not directly involved. I'm sure if you classify it as a disease they will come up with a vaccine or medicine to try to alleviate the symptoms but not cure it. Please put some real effort into this, the world's health is at risk. Thank You

Executives that knew about the exposure should be held liable. As a customer, I trusted that proper research had been done as to the health liabilities related to this technology. It’s time we start holding companies and executives accountable for damages. Once serious consequences are given, others will do their homework before soliciting products. Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion.

Please accept my testimony reference cell phone RF emissions and breast cancer. In or around January 2011 I was diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the left breast. I have been battling metastatic cancer since that time. Over the course of 15 years of treatment, millions have been spent on my health care via insurance or personal pay. I am the definition of a profit center to the cancer industry. Prior to the diagnosis, it had been my regular practise to carry my phone in my swimsuit or brassiere when I didn't have pockets. I am right handed so it always was placed over my left breast. Had I known the dangers of these RF emissions, I would not have done this. Subsequently after years of this practise, the cancer was found in the exact spot where the cellphone maintained skin contact. Obviously no one has ever connected my cancer to RF emissions because it cannot be "proven." However, it is a fact that the cancer grew in the exact area exposed to skin contact with the cellphone over the years. Very little has been done to warn women of this danger with only a few studies such as https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3789302/ , https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/CMAR.S267415 , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41623445/ . Mainstream cancer organizations, including the National Breast Cancer Alliance, treat the bra-cancer link as unproven or "a myth." Yet here I am, in the company of many other "profit centers" being ravaged by this terrible disease that is possibly related to cellphones. Many of us are wondering if big industry decided the dangers of their product should remain hidden at the expense of our lives. It is my hope that MAHA and Mr. Kennedy will get to the bottom of the carcinogenic nature of cellphone use as it relates to cancer of the brain, breasts, and testicles. We need national exposure of the risks, protocol to mitigate the risks, and studies to prove the correllation between RF emissions and cancer. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sandra Robles

I worry constantly about wireless radiation and its affects on the human body. I feel like my ears ring a lot more and I worry about the affects especially on children. I really wish there was more regulation on this as the trust in this kind of technology is not very high. I do not want this close to homes or schools.

As a professional Network Technician who has been in the IT Industry for well over 20 years, I find the DHHS regulations to be quite frankly absurd. I have been exposed to EMF, RF and Wireless Radiation since birth and have yet to experience any of the health related issues, you are expressing. Humans have been exposed to EMF and RF radiations including at the 5GHz frequency for centuries. Much of these RF and EMF exposures come from extraterrestrial sources. Yet, there has never been a documented case of increased illness or injury as a result. In addition to extraterrestrial sources, I have been EMF and RF exposed to High Voltage Power Lines, Wireless Communication Devices, Satellite Communication Devices, Cell Phones, Florescent and Halogen light sources, CRT, Plasma, LCD, and LED Televisions and monitors, just to name a few. At no point did I ever feel my life was in danger with this level of exposure. Admittedly, Exposure to RF radiation in extreme an extreme dosage can cause harm. But these situations are the exception, and not the rule. Scientific research on typical exposure shown no adverse affects. Any claims by a person asserting sensitivity to RF Radiation under normal operating conditions tend to see those claims fall apart under rigorous study, meaning the effects are normally a placebo effect than reality. Such exercises are nothing but a waste of time and taxpayer money on pseudoscience. Instead, I believe it would benefit the nation to explore ways to make helthcare less expensive, hold insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and for-profit hospitals accountable for putting shareholder profits over patients, and research into health crisis. such as the measles we are currently facing.

I am disturbed that you are seeking opinions rather than evaluating the science and publishing guidelines based on expert consensus and current science. Opinions have no place in this process, expertise and science should guide us.