Research & federal duties

Please send me information on EMF and RF radiation exposure. Why is this used on US civilians?

I am commenting specifically about LED headlights which are absolutely blinding and dangerous especially on Tulane roads. The brightness is so harsh that if I keep my eyes directly ahead of me while driving, the lights from an oncoming car leave a burnout in the left side of my field of vision that takes 10 to 15 seconds to dissipate. Of course they light up the path in front of you very well for the driver but that is a trade-off that we cannot have if we are making the driver’s view brighter by blinding oncoming drivers. I want whatever section of the government is responsible for these lights to do a thorough unbiased study not influenced by auto manufacturers or politics and if the conclusion is that these lights are dangerous to other drivers, the manufacturers of vehicles using LED lights must cover the full cost of retrofitting every vehicle.

As someone whose health is negatively affected by wireless radiation, and having many friends similarly affected, I urge the HHC to study this issue as mandated by law, in order to stop the proliferation of wireless technology until more is known abt how to use & deploy it in a way that is less harmful to human health & the environment. Government agencies need to prioritize health and well-being for us and our planet, & stop being influenced by mega corporations whose main goal is profit. Thanks for your attention to this vital issue.

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 concerned parent, an individual that has heard the stories people experiencing health effects from EMFs and also having experienced health impacts myself. My children both attend public school and are given devices by their schools. There are cell towers everywhere. At their schools, on football fields, street lamps, electrical posts, every few miles on highways and more. As a parent I am concerned with the invisible damage occurring to their smaller bodies. I have also heard stories of people from all over the country that get sick from living near cell towers. Why have no safety studies have been done in over 30 years? Technology has greatly changed since then! Why are industries allowed to rely on 30 year old science? This is completely absurd. I also have my own experience. Most days I wake up after 8-9 hours of sleep. I am in very good health yet I wake up feeling not rested, everyday. One night I came home about 9:00pm after playing a soccer game. I found that our neighborhood had no power. Initially, I was disappointed thinking I would have trouble waking up on time. I had tired muscles from running and decided to take and Epsom salt bath. No power so I used candles to light the bathroom. After the bath I went to bed. What I experienced that night was the best night of sleep I've ever had. There is NO doubt in my mind that the lack electricity and electromagnetic fields, in my neighborhood that night, caused me to sleep fully and restoratively. I often wish, longing to recreate those exact circumstances to experience that quality of sleep again. I fully support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I URGE HHS to carefully evaluate the experiences of people effected and scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding radiation and public health. Thank you for providing 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 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.

It is long past time to make sure that we are all protected from electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation. Many studies have been done that show the damage can be severe, especially for higher radiation levels such as 5G. The next generation that is being proposed, 6 G and higher, will be even worse. Some people are more seriously affected than others, but already it is hard for those most affected to find places where they can be comfortable. However, even those who are not aware of it are being affected. All these forms of radiation damage not only humans, but also domestic animals, wildlife, and even plants. It would be nice if industry was more capable of restraining itself or if education about the dangers wasn’t being smothered by monetary influences, but since that is not proving to be the case, we need laws and regulations to stop the increasing prevalence of radiation before we do further damage to ourselves and our planet.

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, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, and genuinely concerned member of the public. The harmful effects of EMFs, RF and wireless radiation exposure are not well known (to the public) and truly objective studies performed by people and organizations who in no way profit are not publicized, are dismissed or suppressed. 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 objective scientific evidence (meaning no one or no organization benefits in any way, shape, or form). 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 the superintendent of schools in a school district of about 10,000 students. Our district has had agreements in place for cell towers on school property for approximately 12 years. Over the past year or so, we have heard from some of our parents expressing concern over RF exposure from cell towers near schools. In response, the district installed RF monitoring systems on the campuses that have cell towers onsite. The owner of the cell towers agreed to pay for the monitoring equipment, but the district pays for the monitoring service. We are transparent with data and share it with parent or community member who has interest. From the school lens, we would definitely like to see updated exposure guidelines based on the most recent research. Additionally, we would like to see a requirement for cell tower owners to do more than provide predictive analytics. We recommend that these companies, at their own cost, be required to monitor RF frequencies on school campuses and other public spaces where children are regularly present and make the data accessible to the public.

Please do the research to verify what has already been found to be harmful to our health. The radiation from these utilities is truly frightening. I don't want this wireless technology installed at my home but was told I have to pay a monthly penalty to not use this new technology because I want to keep my family and myself safe. Please help to eliminate this danger in our homes and schools.