HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5540
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5540

I urge HHS to prioritize independent research into the potential long-term health effects of radiofrequency radiation and to transparently evaluate whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health.

My concerns include possible cancer risks, exposure beginning in childhood and continuing throughout life, and whether research adequately reflects today’s devices and exposure patterns.

There are scientific findings that warrant follow-up. The National Toxicology Program’s studies found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas and some evidence of malignant brain gliomas in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation. These were high-exposure animal studies using signals associated with 2G and 3G technology; they do not establish that everyday wireless exposure or 5G causes cancer in humans. Nevertheless, they deserve careful investigation.

Human research also needs to be represented accurately. The large COSMOS cohort study did not find increased brain-tumor risk among people with the greatest cumulative mobile-phone call time. Reassuring findings should inform policy alongside animal findings and remaining uncertainties.

I ask HHS to:

• Fund independent, long-term research, including studies of children, contemporary wireless technologies, and well-characterized exposure levels.
• Evaluate cancer, reproductive and developmental outcomes, sleep, and neurological symptoms, clearly distinguishing established effects from preliminary findings.
• Review exposure standards transparently and explain how they address long-term exposure and potentially vulnerable populations.
• Require disclosure of research funding and conflicts of interest.
• Offer practical, proportionate guidance for people who wish to reduce exposure, including increasing distance from phones during calls.

People reporting symptoms they associate with electromagnetic exposure deserve respectful clinical attention and rigorous investigation without assuming the cause in advance.

The public deserves clear information about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what evidence would justify stronger protections.