Argues that existing RF standards are supported by evidence and that behavioral phone risks deserve prior…

The biggest known risks from cellphones is distracted driving and the negative impact on physical and mental health from being sedentary and increased social isolation. These risks are not caused by the RF from the device, and funding for research on RF should not distract from the need to address the fundamental needs for good exercise, social connections, and mental health. HHS / NIH should prioritize gaining a holistic understanding of individuals who attribute adverse health effects to RF. This should be done in-depth and by researchers who are independent and agnostic about any single potential cause. This should be done to get an understand of this cohort. If seeking to investigate RF, a pilot study should be done to match individuals with controls with similar backgrounds - but exposed to different levels of RF. There may be individuals who are subject to a significant amount of RF in there workplace that may serve as good controls for high exposure. HHS should be mindful that many individuals concerned with RF are vulnerable and may be targets for fraudsters who are preying on them to offer "RF safety" and promoting their false pay-for-credentials and "expert" designations by prominent but dubious RF safety organizations. The current evidence and large studies strongly suggest that FCC's current RF standards are safe. However, the financial risks from anxiety over RF are real from buying useless fraud products and services, to extremes of quitting jobs and moving. HHS should not empower the fraudsters with statements that are not based on strong, gold standard science. Bad science is "fishing expeditions" where random chance in a subgroup lead to a conclusion -- Type 1 errors are not 0%, studies are typically powered to 5% for the PRIMARY endpoint, false positive conclusions for sub-upon-sub-analysis and poorly designed studies are higher. HHS should identify where there are gaps to investigate, but be clear to concerned individuals that the solutions are free - use a wired connection, turn-off electronics when not in use, use a landline - but there is currently NO evidence that any of these actions are needed. HHS should review information from real-experts at national and international organizations, they are open-minded and science driven: https://www.icnirp.org/en/publications/index.html Gaps in Knowledge Relevant ...for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields WHO research agenda for RF https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241599948 https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/ https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/get-the-facts/ https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/research-studies/ The weight of evidence does not support a link between cellphone use and brain tumors. “The available scientific evidence does not indicate an increased risk of malignant or benign brain or central nervous system (CNS) tumors from cell phone use [Karipidis 2024, Karipidis 2025].” • Living near cellphone towers is not shown to cause health concerns. “Research does not suggest that RF exposure to individuals living near cell phone towers causes adverse health effects….Public exposure levels from cell towers are typically thousands of times below the FCC exposure limits.” • 5G exposure levels will be the same or lower than older generations. “The higher frequency millimeter waves (mmW) that can be used in 5G networks penetrate less into buildings and your body. Thus, in that respect, exposure levels are expected to be lower.” • Studies have not confirmed EMF hypersensitivity. [Bodewein 2022; Danker-Hopfe 2020b; Huang 2020; Schmiedchen 2019; Bosch-Capblanch 2024]. • Studies have not found convincing evidence of RF impacts on pregnant mothers or their fetuses. “A few studies have looked at the effect of RF exposure on the health of pregnant women and fetuses, assessing outcomes such as miscarriage, preterm birth, or birth defects. Overall, these studies did not find convincing evidence of adverse effects when exposure was below established public safety standards.” • Studies have not found convincing evidence of increased risk of cancers in children at typical exposure levels.“ Several epidemiologic studies have examined childhood leukemia in relation to proximity to cell phone (and other RF) transmitters, and overall, they have not found convincing evidence of increased risk at typical environmental exposure levels….Two case-control studies [Aydin 2012, Castaño-Vinyals 2022] of cell phone use and brain tumors in children have found no clear increase in risk by the amount of use of cell phones.”