HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5593
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5593

Re: Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397
Public Comment on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure

I submit this comment as an individual consumer in response to Questions 3, 7–12, and 15–18.

I have experienced fatigue, poor sleep, difficulty concentrating, nausea, palpitations, and skin tingling or burning. I am concerned about whether environmental exposures, including emissions from wireless technologies, could contribute to these symptoms.

A preliminary review of public antenna-structure records identified 10 listed tower sites less than five miles from my home. Their current operating status, transmitting equipment, cellular tenants, and microwave dishes have not been independently verified. These records may also omit smaller installations.

I have not established a causal relationship between RF exposure and my symptoms. Tower proximity alone cannot establish exposure levels or health effects. However, residents should have practical access to the information and independent measurements necessary to investigate their concerns.

I request the following actions:

1. Independent research into realistic exposures.

Fund rigorous studies of long-term, repeated, and combined exposures from mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wearable devices, wireless infrastructure, and occupational equipment. Evaluate frequency, intensity, modulation, duration, proximity, and simultaneous exposure to multiple sources. Clearly distinguish established effects, emerging findings, and unresolved questions.

2. A transparent review of exposure standards.

Assess whether current limits adequately address available evidence concerning thermal and proposed nonthermal effects. Explain the standards’ scientific foundations, uncertainties, and applicability to children, pregnant people, workers, people with implanted medical devices, and other potentially sensitive populations.

3. Accessible community exposure measurements.

Develop affordable, independent measurement programs for homes, schools, and workplaces. Measurements should account for multiple sources, indoor and outdoor conditions, and changes over time. Publish methods, instrument limitations, results, and comparisons with applicable standards. Explain what consumer RF meters can and cannot establish.

4. Meaningful disclosure of nearby infrastructure.

Make current information about transmitting installations understandable and publicly accessible, including location, operator, equipment type, frequencies, authorized power, antenna height and orientation, and compliance assessments, subject to legitimate privacy and security protections.

Distinguish registered structures from installed antennas and active transmitters. Where available, identify microwave links and their operating characteristics. Residents should not have to rely on incomplete directories to determine what equipment operates near their homes.

5. A national adverse-event reporting system.

Create a straightforward process for individuals and clinicians to report suspected RF-related health effects. Collect standardized information on symptoms, timing, potential sources, exposure measurements, and relevant medical evaluations. Protect personal information and publish aggregate findings. Use reports to guide investigation without treating them as proof of causation.

6. Evidence-based clinical guidance.

Help clinicians evaluate patients reporting symptoms they associate with RF exposure. Guidance should take symptoms seriously, investigate other possible medical and environmental causes, and explain the limitations of available diagnostic and exposure-assessment methods.

7. Strong research safeguards and practical public guidance.

Disclose funding and financial conflicts, prioritize independent replication, and make publicly funded methods and data available where privacy permits. Apply consistent scientific scrutiny to findings reporting harm and findings reporting no harm.

Provide practical guidance for reducing unnecessary exposure where appropriate, clearly explaining the evidence, uncertainties, and expected effects of each measure.

HHS should publish the findings of this review, identify research priorities, and establish a timetable for follow-up.

People experiencing unexplained symptoms deserve careful medical evaluation and credible answers. Communities deserve accurate infrastructure information, reliable exposure measurements, and public health decisions grounded in transparent, independent science.