The commenter challenges assumptions about nonthermal safety, cites a paper discussing biological vulnera…

Previous assessments of the health effects of EMF/RF have been based upon the assumption that non-ionizing and non-thermal radiation is not harmful to biological systems. This is a false assumption however. Allow me to quote Paul Héroux: "What escaped the attention of many is that life's metabolism and design make it much more vulnerable to NTER [non-thermal electromagnetic radiation] than inert matter. Living tissue has mostly adapted to the Sun's radiation as well as to the static field of the Earth only through the course of 3.5 billion years of evolution. ... But the levels of NTER from wireless techniques that we are experiencing now are totally unprecedented, and living systems have no defense against this new arrival." This is from his May 2025 Heliyon paper: "The collision between wireless and biology" https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(25)00647-4 This diagram https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3/asset/68f73d5d-0e58-49c6-af8f-99d0e7f7869d/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg from a 2018 Priyanka Bandaraa and David O Carpenter paper illustrates how unprecedented our exposures, particularly in the gigahertz range, have become. I am involved with South West Ohio for Responsible Technology (SWORT), which has been informing the public and elected officials about the hazards of 5G, smart meters, WiFi, and the like. We welcome HHS examining these technologies with greater detail, particularly focusing on the ill -or possibly beneficial- effects of certain frequency ranges upon biological systems.