HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5518
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5518

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I'm an attorney and I'll get straight to the point. As you may know, in the US, personal‑injury suits against telecom companies for harm from RF/EMF radiation have a very low success rate, and there is no well‑established "winning" strategy. The two walls that defeat most of these cases are (1) proving medical causation — courts require you to show your specific illness was caused by the radiation, and the US scientific record has not met that bar — and (2) federal preemption under Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which bars local/state regulation of towers based on health risk and has been used to preempt state tort claims.

Government action is long overdue. There is much the HHS can do to help electromagnetic radiation (EMR) victims in the United States. To wit:

1. Upgrade the NTP carcinogen classification (biggest single lever)

The National Toxicology Program (part of HHS) already found in 2018 that RF radiation is "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen" — the weakest tier in the Report on Carcinogens, based on a 10-year, ~3,000-animal rat study. If HHS upgraded this to "known" human carcinogen, it would:

    Give plaintiffs a federally endorsed causal finding to cite at summary judgment, directly attacking the #1 barrier (causation)

    Support failure-to-warn claims: if the government classified the hazard, defendants can't argue they "didn't know"

    Be hard for courts to ignore — federal agency findings carry substantial evidentiary weight

2. Fund and publish definitive human epidemiology

NIEHS (NIH) could run or commission a large prospective cohort study of RF exposure and specific health outcomes. A published HHS finding of a dose-response relationship would be the strongest possible causation evidence. The current NIEHS position — "the probability that EMF exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small" — is what defense lawyers cite to kill cases.

3. FDA: set lower performance standards + require warnings

FDA has authority under 21 CFR Part 1030 over RF-emitting electronic products. It could:

    Lower MPE limits below current FCC levels (which are based on thermal effects only, not non-thermal)

    Require warning labels on devices — this is critical because it converts a failure-to-warn theory from speculative to straightforward

    Require premarket chronic-exposure safety testing for new wireless technologies 

4. CDC/ATSDR: issue a formal health advisory

A CDC advisory stating that RF-EMF exposure is associated with specific health conditions would create a recognized standard of care that defendants deviated from. It would also give plaintiffs' medical experts a federal source to cite when opining on causation.

5. NIOSH: set occupational exposure limits

NIOSH could issue recommended exposure limits for workers near towers and in wireless-intensive jobs. While advisory (OSHA enforces), these limits create a benchmark for what "reasonable" exposure looks like, supporting negligence claims.

6. Medical education and clinical guidelines

HHS could direct that:

    EMF exposure history be taken as part of standard medical intake

    Clinical guidelines be developed for evaluating patients with RF-sensitivity symptoms

    Medical school curricula include EMF health effects 

This helps plaintiffs document their injury in a way courts currently find unconvincing (many plaintiffs' symptoms are dismissed as not medically recognized).

The irony to note: Setting specific federal exposure limits could backfire by strengthening the implied preemption defense (courts argue that where the FCC has set a standard, state tort claims are displaced). The sweet spot for HHS would be to issue findings of harm and hazard classification without creating a new, detailed regulatory scheme that defendants can point to as "the FCC already regulated this."

Bottom line: The single highest-impact action is upgrading the NTP carcinogen classification combined with FDA-mandated warning labels. Together, they attack both causation and failure-to-warn simultaneously, and they're within HHS's existing statutory authority.

I have further thoughts regarding actions the HHS could take and legal strategy. If you'd like to follow up and continue the coversation please email emrlegal@protonmail.com