{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6928","number":"6928","name":"Anonymous Anonymous","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-28T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-20T04:00Z","body":"Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397: Comment on RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health\n\nPerspective (Question 2): Individual member of the public. My full comments, with citations to peer-reviewed research, government reports, federal court records and my own home measurements, are in the attached PDF. They are organized by the RFI's question numbers (Questions 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17).\n\nSummary:\nU.S. RF exposure limits were adopted in 1996 to prevent one harm, tissue heating. They do not account for non-thermal biological effects, long-term exposure, pulsed and modulated signals, or children. Since then:\n- 2011: IARC classified RF radiation as \"possibly carcinogenic to humans\" (Group 2B).\n- 2018: The U.S. National Toxicology Program found \"clear evidence\" of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, along with evidence of brain gliomas and DNA damage.\n- 2018: The Ramazzini Institute found the same rare heart tumor in rats exposed to a cell-tower signal at about two-thirds of the FCC's public limit.\n- 2021: In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit held that the FCC failed to explain how its limits protect against non-cancer harms, long-term exposure and effects on children.\n\nChildren absorb more RF energy than adults because of thinner skulls, more absorbent tissue and higher whole-body absorption from towers and Wi-Fi. Yet phones are still certified using a model of a large adult male head. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act bars communities from rejecting towers near schools on health grounds, which leaves the federal limit as children's only protection.\n\nNew technologies, including 5G small cells, millimeter waves, smart meters, wearables and satellites, keep adding exposure that no one evaluates in total. U.S. limits also offer no protection for birds, insects or other wildlife.\n\nUsing a TriField TF2 meter and a broadband RF meter, I measured EMF and RF levels in and around my home, which revealed exposure from sources I had never thought about. Near overhead power lines beside homes, parks and walkways, my meters read off the scale.\n\nI ask HHS to:\n1. Develop biologically based exposure limits, set by a health agency, that account for long-term exposure and children.\n2. Recommend against cellular antennas on or near schools and childcare facilities, and favor wired connections in classrooms.\n3. Require child models and body-contact testing for devices, and publicly disclose measured RF levels at schools and magnetic field levels near power lines.\n4. Publish practical guidance so families can reduce their own exposure.\n5. Fund long-term research on current 4G and 5G signals, ambient exposure monitoring, wildlife effects, and a prospective study of children, all free of industry conflicts of interest.\n\nPlease see the attached document for the full evidence, references and recommendations.","attachments":["https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6928/attachment_1.pdf"],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6928","tags":["cancer-tumors","child-development","biology-metabolism","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"935be625edef295ea73a3804e44df8118900445d7f3b05fa28f7ead1f3263837","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-6928","classification":null,"forum_topics":["awaiting-review"],"primary_topic":"awaiting-review","forum_title":"Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397: Comment on RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health Perspective (Question 2): Individu…"}