HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5340
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5340

**Public Comment to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services**

**Re: RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health, Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397**

I am a homeowner in East Hampton, New York. Recently, I woke up to discover that a 42 foot cellular antenna structure had been erected directly across the street from my home, outside my bedroom window. It was installed without any advance notification to me or my neighbors, and stands less than 100 feet from my residence. Several other homes are similarly close, with some only 20 to 30 feet away.

My greatest concern is for my health and the potential consequences of prolonged, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation in the very place where I sleep.

Yet what I find most disturbing is that, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments are prohibited from rejecting the placement of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of RF emissions, provided those facilities comply with FCC exposure regulations.

Think about what that means for homeowners like me. A telecommunications company can install an antenna directly outside our bedroom windows, and the health concerns of the people who will live beside that equipment are legally restricted from influencing the siting decision.

I am not opposed to cellular technology. I recognize its importance. But there is an enormous difference between supporting wireless infrastructure and being forced to accept a new source of continuous, involuntary RF exposure immediately outside one's home, without notice, meaningful input, or the ability to raise health concerns as a basis for opposing its location.

The current framework places tremendous weight on federal exposure standards. But are those standards sufficiently protective of people who live in close proximity to wireless infrastructure for years or decades? Have we adequately studied the consequences of chronic, cumulative exposure, particularly in residential settings where people spend a substantial portion of their lives?

I recognize that the scientific evidence concerning potential long term health effects remains contested and that proximity alone does not establish an unsafe exposure level. That uncertainty is precisely why independent, rigorous research is so important.

I urge HHS to prioritize long term studies of residential exposure to RF radiation, evaluate whether existing standards adequately address chronic and cumulative exposure, and recommend transparent, independent exposure assessments for wireless installations near homes.

I also urge HHS to consider whether federal policy gives sufficient weight to protecting residents when wireless infrastructure is placed directly beside their homes, particularly when alternative locations may be available.

**Americans should not have to choose between access to modern telecommunications and having a meaningful voice in decisions that may affect their health.**

My bedroom window should not be the front line of an unresolved public health debate.