Research & federal duties

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.

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 concerned member of the public.
 I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence.
 I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health.
 Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

I have learned that in order to sleep I need to turn off the Wifi at night. This means that when we travel I cannot stay in a hotel. I must choose a rental that will allow me to turn off the Wifi. I have tested this many times, which means many sleepless nights! Please take this issue seriously and study the true health and environmental effects of EMFs, RF, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. It is ridiculous to assume that these huge changes to our environment do not affect us, our children, and the animal kingdom in profound ways. This issue screams for rigorous scientific study!

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 healthcare professional. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals, families, health care providers, researchers and scientists with an opportunity to be finally be heard on this critical public health issue. Dr Harry Ofgang

As a retired educator, I am very interested and a bit concerned that more testing has not been done concerning EMF's and human health. Even plants die close to emf's. Human health has not improved with cell and computer use both physically and mentally. I am also aware of the response I have seen in student behavior and general health. More childhood cancers are becoming more prevalent. I encourage progress on the side of caution. Protect human health. No more profit over the people and the environment..

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 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. My family has had an EMF expert come to our home because we were concerned with the proximity of a cell phone tower. The EMF expert used appropriate tools and showed us the results. The levels of EMF were shockingly high. We mitigated everything that was in our control. (WiFi,Bluetooth, any rouge wiring in our home.) Unfortunately the levels were still way to high for our 3 very small children who stay at home with mom. We had ZERO control over the cell phone tower placed just 200m from our home. We ended up making a hard financial choice and moving from that home. We just didn't want the results to show in X amount of years that our children were harmed due to the exposure and proximity of that cell phone tower. A new family moved into that home and I worry for those children. I worry for all the children who's parents are not aware of the dangers. It needs to be researched. Publish the harms/dangers once and for all. We need to keep the next generation safe as best as we can. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

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 healthcare professional and concerned member of the public. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. It is obvious that elite financial interests have a strong desire to have more surveillance of and control over the public. This interest has a corrupting influence evident in the rapid build out of both data centers and cellular networks with ever more closely situated towers. This push for control has the ability to railroad federal agencies into downplaying or ignoring the dangers of EMF. Thank you for providing individuals, families, health care providers, researchers and scientists with an opportunity to be finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

It took me 3 years to figure out that my cell phone was causing my heart palpitations. When I got rid of it, all my symptoms were gone. We ended up having to leave our home in CO when 5G cell antennas were installed in front of our neighborhood. We now live in the mountains outside of Santa Fe, NM where cell phones do not work. One of the many things I've learned is that no one can question technology because when you do that you are questioning progress but it has to be questioned. We also homeschool our child because of WiFi in schools and unnecessary screens so yes, this issue has impacted our lives greatly. It's never too late to change! I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals, families, health care providers, researchers and scientists with an opportunity to be finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

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 concerned member of the public. I believe wireless radiation affects people everywhere negatively. Working for a law firm, I have read articles and studies that show how radiation affects people, I have known many people I believe have been harmed by exposure suffering health effects and even death. I support people affected by wireless radiation and believe HHS should address this issue for the good of communities everywhere. I understand that cell phones are necessary, however, I believe that there could be greater safety guidelines for cell phones, unwired ear devices and towers. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.