{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6494","number":"6494","name":"Nancy Morris","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-28T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-21T04:00Z","body":"October 21, 2026\nHHS Request for Information on EMF and wireless radiation:\n\nDocket Number: HHS-OASH-2026-0397\n\nStudies specifically on the higher frequencies used by 5G and close-proximity small cells are totally lacking, indicating the significant need for more research. Some reports point to concerning trends about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relying on outdated standards and brushing off evidence of potential harm. No one knows how this will affect bee populations, birds, other wildlife besides the close proximity to living areas for humans, expecially children, babies, pregnant women, or the elderly. In some cases these 5G small cells have been placed right outside someone's house near bedrooms \n\nThe FCC is a compromised agency ignoring the science that already has shown harm from close proximity to non-ionizing radiation exposures.  My comments are based on peer reviewed research. \n\nQuestion 11: “Should exposure assessment or risk evaluation differ for sensitive populations such as those noted below? Please explain.”\n ANSWER: Yes it should be evaluated totally differently due to the higher risk to children and pregnant women that can be as high as 10x more of a  risk factor than that to a 25 year old male risk factor. Also many of these exposure limits are determined by a plastic mannikin head for thermal effects only. These are all totally outdated risk assessments.  (References applicable to this statement found here: “Research on Children’s Vulnerability to Cell Phone Radio-frequency Radiation” https://ehtrust.org/research-on-childrens-vulnerability-to-cell-phone-radio-frequency-radiation/ ). \n\nQuestion 12 and 13: ANSWER - For more on scientific studies these weblinks below hereby incorporated by reference at 1. and 2. and 3. that includes numerous citations:\n\n1. “5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype” https://www.saferemr.com/2017/11/5g-wireless-technology-cutting-through.html ).   \n\n2. Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: “What research tells us about an ecosystem approach” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9732734/\nB Blake Levitt 1,*, Henry C Lai 2,*, Albert M Manville II 3,* \nAbstract\n“There is enough evidence to indicate we may be damaging non-human species at ecosystem and biosphere levels across all taxa from rising background levels of anthropogenic non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) from 0 Hz to 300 GHz. The focus of this Perspective paper is on the unique physiology of non-human species, their extraordinary sensitivity to both natural and anthropogenic EMF, and the likelihood that artificial EMF in the static, extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) ranges of the non-ionizing electromagnetic spectrum are capable at very low intensities of adversely affecting both fauna and flora in all species studied. Any existing exposure standards are for humans only; wildlife is unprotected, including within the safety margins of existing guidelines, which are inappropriate for trans-species sensitivities and different non-human physiology. Mechanistic, genotoxic, and potential ecosystem effects are discussed.”. . .  Go to link for complete abstract.\n\n3. The FCC’s reliance on outdated EMF/RF exposures based on thermal effects only shows the very dangerous policy oversight of the FCC by ignoring thousands of published, peer reviewed studies showing biological harm at non-thermal levels for a number of frequencies. For more on scientific studies these two weblinks hereby incorporated by reference: ‘Americans For Responsible Technology’ https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies and ‘Physicians For Safe Technology’ https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/  \n\nTo conclude, I implore the HHS to work with scientists that are not funded by the telecom industry so you can truly help to protect the public and our biosphere from negative impacts of exposures to microwave technologies; the data that says these exposures are safe are seriously lacking and putting all of us at risk now and for future generations. ","attachments":[],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6494","tags":["child-development","health-experiences","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"9e6f1f44ea397defa8797a5cd55d18024941bd5f239b0e30903e66ac54cff9b5","slug":"child-development-comment-6494","classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6494","body_sha256":"a6c03f288c96139f3c10e05ddadc0e0e776563aa0f36231f8907ba7434ed3ed0","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"research","topics":[{"id":"research","evidence":"significant need for more research"},{"id":"infrastructure","evidence":"close-proximity small cells"},{"id":"children","evidence":"children, babies, pregnant women, or the elderly"},{"id":"environment","evidence":"bee populations, birds, other wildlife"},{"id":"standards","evidence":"outdated risk assessments"}],"summary":"The commenter requests independent research on 5G and nearby small cells, criticizing thermal-only standards and highlighting children, pregnancy, older people, and wildlife. They cite linked research and call for HHS action protecting public and ecosystem health.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-28T23:54:32Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"cf1e47056edffd68db3d129f7d10f2326041bf5885ecccf595ef983acab2bc92","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"forum_topics":["research","infrastructure","children","environment","standards"],"primary_topic":"research","forum_title":"The commenter requests independent research on 5G and nearby small cells, criticizing thermal-only standa…"}