Proposed biological mechanisms

I am submitting this comment as a mother, a resident of rural Alaska, and a person living with a brain tumor diagnosis. In January 2025, I was diagnosed with an IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 2, in my left frontal lobe. I underwent an awake craniotomy and tumor resection in August 2025 and continue regular neurological and MRI surveillance. A new cellular communications tower is now nearing completion approximately 500–700 feet from my home in my small rural Alaska community. I am not claiming RF radiation caused my brain tumor or that this tower will cause recurrence. Instead, my diagnosis and the construction of this tower have led me to a question for which I have had difficulty finding adequate research: What do we know about long-term RF exposure in people who already have cancer? Much of the RF/cancer discussion focuses on whether RF exposure can initiate cancer. Cancer patients need another question investigated: whether chronic RF exposure has any measurable effect on existing tumor cells, tumor progression, recurrence, treatment response, neurological symptoms, or long-term outcomes. I urge HHS to specifically study RF exposure in people with existing cancer and cancer survivors, including patients with primary brain tumors. Research should examine tumor progression and recurrence, molecular and cellular effects, oxidative stress and inflammation, blood-brain barrier effects, tumor microenvironment, seizure activity, treatment response, and survival. If rigorous research demonstrates that typical environmental RF exposure has no meaningful effect on these outcomes, that information would itself be extremely valuable. Patients need reliable evidence either way. I also ask HHS to investigate whether medically vulnerable populations respond differently to chronic RF exposure and whether existing standards adequately protect people with cancer or neurological disease, children, and people experiencing decades of exposure. Children deserve particular attention because today’s children may experience wireless exposure throughout nearly their entire lives. HHS should investigate potential biological effects occurring below levels that cause significant tissue heating and determine whether any observed effects translate into clinically meaningful health consequences. Research should consider cumulative exposure from cellular towers, phones, Wi-Fi, small cells, connected devices, and future technologies. I also encourage HHS to examine infrastructure siting. When transmitting equipment is placed near homes, schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds, or healthcare facilities, communities should have independent, evidence-based health guidance, particularly when reasonable alternative locations exist. Small communities should also have access to independent RF expertise rather than relying primarily on information provided by telecommunications companies or citizens attempting to interpret highly technical research themselves. I strongly encourage meaningful post-installation RF monitoring. Distance from a tower alone does not determine exposure. Antenna height, orientation, frequencies, power, terrain, and other factors matter. Residents should have access to understandable measurements of actual RF exposure after equipment becomes operational. Finally, I ask HHS to clearly distinguish between evidence that an exposure is harmful, evidence that it is safe, and circumstances where sufficient evidence does not yet exist. For someone already diagnosed with a brain tumor, the question is not simply, “Can RF radiation cause cancer?” We also deserve an evidence-based answer to: “Does chronic RF exposure matter once cancer already exists?” I do not know the answer. That is precisely why I am asking our federal health agencies to investigate it. Wireless communication is important, particularly in rural communities like mine. Technological progress and public health do not have to be opposing goals. We can benefit from wireless technology while independently studying long-term exposure, identifying potentially susceptible populations, monitoring real-world exposure, and making thoughtful infrastructure decisions. As someone who may spend years living several hundred feet from a cellular tower while undergoing surveillance for progression or recurrence of a brain tumor, I want to know that this question has actually been studied rather than simply assumed. I respectfully ask HHS to make research involving cancer patients, brain-tumor patients, children, and other potentially vulnerable populations a priority. Thank you for considering my comment.

See attached file(s). “Safety of Wireless Technologies – The Scientific View”, co-authored by Richard A. Lear and Camilla R. G. Rees, MBA, shines a light on U.S. government warnings about health risks from wireless radiation–warnings issued over 50 years ago that were roundly ignored for decades by U.S. regulators, including the FCC, EPA and FDA. The paper explains that unheeded warnings in a U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute review study in 1971, which reviewed 2,311 scientific studies on biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, finding 132 different biological effects, symptoms and diseases associated with wireless exposures, contributed to the explosion in chronic illnesses in the U.S. In ignoring the findings in the U.S. government’s own research, regulators enabled millions of unnecessary chronic exposure conditions on the American public, leading to diseases that could have been prevented. Refusal to act on the evidence significantly harmed human lives, and also burdened the health care system and economy. “Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View” demonstrated 23 of today’s top 36 fast-growing chronic diseases were predicted by the Navy study in 1971. By 2015, incidences of these 23 chronic diseases may have added as much as $2 trillion in annual health care costs to the U.S. economy. The paper by Lear and Rees also highlights what is being call “the smoking gun” for chronic disease, the molecule, peroxynitrite. Peroxynitrite is common to all chronic diseases, and is created, as well, by wireless radiation exposures. “Wireless signals trigger oxidative/nitrative stress in humans. In particular, calcium ion messengers initiate the production of superoxide, peroxynitrite, and other free radicals. These agents not only disrupt biological homeostasis, but evidence points to them creating a lethal system of 7 synergistic biofactors that can both initiate and accelerate disease. This system of dysfunction we’ll call “P-Factor.” Peroxynitrite sits at the epicenter. It includes systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, autonomic dysfunction, epithelial dysfunction and nitrative stress. P-factor is shared by all 36 of the fastest-growing diseases in the US. Is P-factor the smoking gun for the current U.S. chronic disease health crisis?” Some contend other environmental factors contributed to the growth in chronic disease, including sugar consumption, glyphosate in the food supply, pesticides and other chemicals. While all of these, like wireless radiation exposures, trigger the production of the likely smoking gun for chronic disease, the molecule peroxynitrite, “Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View” convincingly documents both the depth and breadth of the science linking risk from wireless radiation, dating back over many decades. The science speaks volumes: there is an undeniable connection between wireless radiation and chronic disease The paper contains a chart that lists 23 of 36 fast growing chronic diseases today, all of which were predicted by the findings in the U.S. Navy study in 1971. Between 1990, when wireless proliferation began, and 2015, there were over 549 million incidences in the U.S. of these 23 diseases. Unfortunately, warnings in the U.S. Navy study were ignored. This facilitated both exponential growth in the wireless industry and led to explosive growth in these chronic illnesses at great human and economic cost. Given the new administration in Washington, D.C. has stated its intention to address the chronic disease crisis, we encourage government and corporate leaders to zero in on the exogenous root cause of chronic disease, from wireless technologies, described in “Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View”. The paper convincingly documents both the depth and breadth of the science linking risk from wireless radiation, dating back over many decades, and the science speaks volumes: there is an undeniable connection between wireless radiation exposure and chronic disease.

There need to be new ndependent studies that tell us definitively whether exposure to EMF's, RF's and Wireless radiation is dangerous. I, personally am concerned that 5 g may be used to cause clotting in people who have had certain vaccinations that some scientists insist have nanoparticles which can be used for nefarious purposes. George Schmidt

I am a registered nurse with more than a decade of experience in healthcare, and my experience with electromagnetic sensitivity developed in the context of a significant environmental illness. My health initially declined after living in a water-damaged, mold-contaminated home. I developed severe neurological and systemic symptoms, including vertigo, tinnitus, cognitive changes, headaches, sleep disruption, and other symptoms that dramatically affected my ability to function. After leaving that environment, my health improved significantly. I eventually moved into a different home and initially felt well there. That is when I began recognizing something I had not previously understood: electromagnetic exposures appeared to trigger some of my neurological symptoms even when I was no longer living in the mold-contaminated environment. I began noticing repeatable patterns with certain exposures. Turning on Wi-Fi could bring on unusual neurological sensations in my head. Certain electronics could trigger sharp headaches and uncomfortable sensations in my chest or heartbeat. Increasing my distance from these sources, turning wireless devices off, and hard-wiring equipment often reduced the symptoms. What made this particularly interesting to me as a nurse was that I did not react equally to every electronic environment. For example, I could work around hard-wired hospital computers without experiencing the same degree of symptoms. That made me begin paying closer attention to the type and characteristics of the exposure rather than assuming that all electronics affected me equally. I am not claiming that my experience proves that electromagnetic exposure caused these symptoms. I am reporting a pattern that became sufficiently reproducible that I could no longer dismiss it. My experience also raises a question that I believe deserves serious research: Could environmental illness or other biological stressors make some individuals more susceptible to electromagnetic exposures? In my case, the sensitivity became apparent following a period of significant illness associated with a water-damaged building. I encourage HHS to investigate people who report electromagnetic sensitivity rather than studying only healthy populations. Research should examine whether previous environmental exposures, chronic inflammation, neurological injury, or other biological factors may identify susceptible subgroups. Controlled and blinded exposure studies could help determine whether reported symptoms correspond with measurable physiological or neurological changes. There is still much we do not understand. As both a nurse and someone who has personally experienced this phenomenon, I believe patient experiences like mine should be treated as observations worthy of investigation—not as proof of causation, but as signals that can help us ask better scientific questions. I hope HHS will pursue rigorous, independent research into electromagnetic exposure, individual susceptibility, cumulative exposure, and the experiences of people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a parent, caregiver, advocate, concerned member of the public. The potential health effects of long-term exposure to wireless radiation deserve continued, independent, and comprehensive scientific research. As wireless technologies—including cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth devices, smartwatches, and other connected technologies—have become increasingly integrated into everyday life, people are being exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for longer periods and across multiple sources, often unaware of these exposures.There is currently no research that establishes whether typical wireless exposure causes specific health conditions. Therefore, questions remain about the potential effects of chronic, cumulative, and long-term exposure, particularly at lower intensities and among children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Research should therefore examine not only short-term effects but also long-term biological impacts, including possible effects on sleep, neurological function, reproductive health, cellular processes, and overall well-being. Independent research free from industry influence is especially important so that public health recommendations and safety standards are based on the strongest available evidence and can be updated as technology and scientific understanding evolve.

I have self-diagnosed EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome). I choose to live in a rural area away from wifi hotspots, cell phone towers, and 5G antennas. And the home I live in has an analogue meter instead of an AMI (Smart meter). After 20 minutes of exposure to AMI technology (within 30-40 feet), or RF/EMF, I start to experience mood disorders, neurological problems, and pain. This includes anger, anxiety, and what feels like needles poking into my brain. After about 30-60min of exposure, my symptoms increase to include panic attacks, neck and shoulder pain, dizziness, and suicidal thoughts. Because of the prevalence of RF/EMF, I cannot be inside a mall or large grocery store for more than 30 minutes before the pain/dizziness begins. I cannot be inside smaller businesses, such as restaurants, libraries, and doctor offices, for more than an hour. I cannot hang out at the homes of friends and family unless I stay 30-40 feet away from their smart meters and RF/EMF emitting devices. I cannot use a smart phone, nor can I be around other peoples’ smart phones while in use. And when I use my flip phone to make/receive calls, I have to hold it 2 feet away from my head. And I cannot live within one mile of a cell phone tower. In the past, I’ve bought several different RF/EMF blocking materials and devices to shield myself from this radiation, but they didn’t work. I recognize that I am abnormally sensitive. I attribute that sensitivity to the 2 medical conditions I’ve been diagnosed with: The first is dysautonomia (an impaired autonomic nervous system), and second, I have myalgic encephalomyelitis, aka ME, (a chronic low-grade inflammation in my brain). Sensitive individuals like myself should probably be taken seriously. We are the canaries in the coal mine: an early indicator of potential danger. But...I’ve noticed that the vast majority of the information of EHS, on the internet, is derogatory. Some websites have suggested that suffers, like me, are mentally ill, or that we are “making it up.” This is a painful reality, but I try to remind myself that this is how it goes with new illnesses until enough public awareness is achieved. Jack Dorsy (Twitter founder) is also a sufferer – maybe he will help raise awareness someday.

Public Comment and Policy Recommendations Regarding Aggregate RF, EMF, Conducted Electrical Interference, and Child/School Exposure Please see the attached document for my full public comment. I am submitting these comments to address the critical public-health implications of prolonged, cumulative, multi-source radiofrequency (RF) and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, conducted electrical interference (dirty electricity), electrohypersensitivity (EHS), and lighting/electrical stressors in homes, schools, and communities. The attached document outlines specific concerns and actionable recommendations regarding: - Children and Educational Environments: The impacts of dense wireless infrastructure, school-mandated Chromebooks, and classroom lighting/dimmers. - Real-World Aggregate Exposure: The necessity of measuring cumulative environmental loads beyond isolated laboratory conditions. - Systemic and Neurological Health: Biological plausibility, mitochondrial health, sleep architecture, and the lived realities of electrohypersensitive individuals. - Practical Engineering Alternatives: Proximity reduction, wired Ethernet alternatives (USB-to-RJ45 adapters), manual wireless radio deactivation, and transparent parental disclosure in schools. Thank you for your time, independent research, and consideration of these public health safeguards. Respectfully submitted, Richard Anthony Individual member of the public / consumer / family and community perspective Docket No.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397

See attached file(s). Full answers to the RFI questions are in Attachment 1. Commenter: James Chrystopher Lech Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9919-0120 Contact: autismintelligenceearth@gmail.com Independent scientist and research entity. Diplomatic Science Officer / national reporter to the UN WHO International EMF Project (South Africa national reports 2021 and 2022). NRF-supported non-ionizing and ionizing radiation research. Dutch Hacking Health Award, Amsterdam Champion (Oct 2020): solution for sleep problems and neurological disorders by changing technology configurations from disruptive to constructive; demonstration observations on sleep, insomnia, mood, learning, and performance (hackathon/impact award, not a multi-site RCT). First author of the published BIOHACK trial protocol (BMJ Open 2023; outcomes pending). 2017 Rhodes MSc HYGEIA overlay/hazard-zone simulation. Professional standing cited (not attached): NRF WHO nomination (2021); Dr Eric van Rongen (then ICNIRP Chair / Health Council of the Netherlands, 2019); Lt Gen A.P. Sedibe, then Surgeon General SANDF (2018 briefing, cited only); Dr Rune Floberghagen, European Space Agency SA Head Earth Observation and Science (methods/TRL review); Dr Stephanie Seneff, MIT CSAIL; Dr László G. Boros; former U.S. Ambassador Claire Pierangelo (2023 technical discussion); Ivan Čuljak (OPCW / WHO EMF ZA subcommittee); Charles Collins (AZ applied environments); VU Amsterdam; Prof. Michael Kundi, Medical University of Vienna. ORCID lists peer-reviewed work including Fiat Lux (with M.R. Hamblin) and 5 GHz MIMO + CT combined-exposure animal work. This comment addresses Questions 2–18: standing; field and demonstration experience; measurement and disclosure; sensitive populations; cumulative and combined load; research gaps; FDA/NIH/CDC roles. Offer to HHS staff (not a procurement bid): bias-audited evidence-synthesis protocol; cumulative-exposure / configuration simulation; constructive-configuration playbook; staff briefing 60–90 minutes. Redacted professional references available on written request to OASH-RFI@hhs.gov.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. In a previous office suite where "acceptable" levels of mold were detected, I experienced adverse reactions following the building-wide installation of 5G. The testing professional stated the 5G can exacerbate sensitivities to mold even at "acceptable levels." In my current office suite, "acceptable levels" of mold were detected. The building had 5G existing when I moved in. I have continuing adverse reactions daily.

Hi everybody however i live in Belgium I did esoteric research. 5G ans wifi disturbing our immune system in some kind of way You can't imaged how this works. 5G and wifi are static second dimensional energy and disturbs our 3th dimensional energy which we called as aura. Problems in the psyche opens gaps or are even knowledgeable in joints who reacts because of these psyche. It is known that mental disease people often have also physical problems. By tuneforks i am able to release the sec dimensional energy of the human aura. The most remarkable issue: the person whose undergoes this kind of treatment is remembering their own psychic problem which is for me the proof that 5G and wifi brings problems and can occur cancers. Please if you know more or are interesting in it let me know by email.