HHS-OASH-2026-0397-3912
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-3912

I support HHS's efforts to investigate electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, including radiofrequency radiation from 5G networks, cell towers, Wi-Fi, and other wireless technologies. However, I am deeply concerned that these technologies have been deployed on such a massive scale without sufficient long-term, independent research demonstrating their safety under real-world conditions.

The American public should not be expected to accept widespread, involuntary exposure to these technologies and simply trust that they are safe. The burden of demonstrating safety should fall on the manufacturers, telecommunications companies, and regulatory agencies—not on the public to prove harm after exposure has already occurred.

I have several serious questions that deserve transparent, evidence-based answers:

What is a safe level of EMF exposure? How were current exposure limits established, and do they adequately account for cumulative exposure over years or decades?

How much radiation do 5G towers and other wireless transmitters actually emit? What are the exposure levels in surrounding homes, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods? Are these levels independently measured and made publicly available?

What are the potential long-term health consequences of frequent, close-range exposure? Have we adequately investigated possible effects on neurological function, sleep, reproductive health, cellular processes, and cancer risk?

What about children? Children are exposed to wireless technologies from increasingly young ages, including throughout the school day. What independent, long-term studies establish appropriate exposure limits for developing brains and bodies?

How is cumulative exposure evaluated? People are surrounded by multiple sources of RF/EMF exposure simultaneously, including cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, smart appliances, and nearby telecommunications infrastructure. Are current safety standards adequately accounting for these combined exposures?

Who is conducting the safety research? How much of the available research is independently funded, and how are financial conflicts of interest identified and addressed?

Why are technologies permitted to become so widespread before their potential long-term health effects are fully understood? We have seen too many instances in which public health concerns were dismissed or inadequately investigated until years after exposure occurred.

I also question whether the public is receiving sufficient information about other technologies involving radiation or electromagnetic exposure, including airport security screening systems. These technologies should be evaluated according to their specific emissions, exposure levels, and potential health effects, with the findings readily accessible to the public.

I urge HHS to take the following actions:

Commission comprehensive, independent, long-term studies on RF/EMF exposure, including 5G and newer wireless technologies.

Reevaluate existing exposure standards, particularly for children, pregnant women, and individuals experiencing continuous exposure.

Require greater transparency regarding emissions from telecommunications towers and wireless infrastructure.

Investigate the potential effects of chronic, cumulative exposure from multiple devices and sources.

Make independent safety research, exposure measurements, and regulatory decision-making publicly accessible.

Apply the precautionary principle by considering restrictions or pauses on additional deployments where significant safety questions remain unresolved.

I believe the expansion of technologies with unresolved long-term safety questions should be halted until adequate independent safety evaluations have been completed. Public health must take priority over corporate profits, technological convenience, and the speed of infrastructure deployment.

The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety.

The American people deserve more than reassurances. We deserve transparency, accountability, rigorous independent research, and clear answers about what constitutes safe exposure.

I appreciate HHS opening this issue for public comment, but I strongly urge the Department to go beyond collecting information. Meaningful investigation, public disclosure, and appropriate protective action must follow.

Our health, and especially the health of our children, should never be treated as an afterthought.