Exposure limits & oversight

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 a licensed Naturopathic Medical Doctor, Medical Director and Owner of Regenerate Health Medical Center in Santa Barbara, California. Environmental medicine is an important part of my clinical work, and I have worked with patients who report symptoms affected or exacerbated by EMF and wireless radiation exposure. This issue is also deeply personal to me. I am very sensitive to EMF and RF exposure. My concern developed through my own experience, my clinical work with patients, and years of continuing education and investigation into environmental exposures and their effects on human health. My reactions can be immediate. When I am around high levels of RF exposure (measured in microwatts per square meter), including from cell towers, Wi-Fi, or prolonged cell phone use, I develop headaches. With longer exposure, I can experience dizziness and nausea. These experiences have substantially changed how I live. I rarely leave my cell phone connected during the day. I turn it on when I need to check messages or use it for a specific purpose, then return it to airplane mode. My family and I have also gone to considerable lengths to reduce exposure in our home. We use hardwired Ethernet rather than Wi-Fi and avoid Bluetooth and wireless devices. We use dirty electricity filters and an EMF kill switch so we do not sleep in an electrical field. Our solar panels were intentionally placed only over non-sleeping areas. We also use graphite-based shielding paint and EMF-blocking window film. These choices require time, expense and planning. We make them because I can personally tell the difference. That experience also affects how I practice medicine. At Regenerate Health Medical Center, we take environmental exposures seriously when evaluating persistent or unexplained symptoms. We consider the environment in which a patient lives, sleeps, works and attempts to heal. I have encountered patients who report symptoms associated with EMF exposure or worsening of existing symptoms in higher-exposure environments. Their experiences deserve serious investigation rather than automatic dismissal. My perspective is therefore both personal and clinical. I know what it is like to experience these symptoms myself, and I also know what it is like to sit across from patients describing similar concerns. When patients repeatedly report changes in symptoms associated with their environment, physicians should be encouraged to investigate those patterns, not taught to disregard them simply because our understanding of the exposure is incomplete. I am particularly concerned by how difficult these exposures are to control. People can filter their water, remediate mold or stop using a particular chemical. Wireless radiation can come from neighboring Wi-Fi, cellular infrastructure, smart meters, schools, workplaces and public spaces. Even inside your own home, substantially reducing exposure requires actively working against how modern technology is designed. HHS should take a serious and independent look at this issue. People reporting sensitivity to wireless radiation should be documented and studied. Clinicians observing patterns among environmentally sensitive patients should be heard. Research should examine potential biological effects beyond tissue heating and investigate chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure from multiple sources. I also urge HHS to investigate potentially susceptible populations, including children and people reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and study whether reducing exposure is associated with measurable changes in symptoms, sleep, autonomic function and relevant biological markers. As a physician, I want better answers for my patients. As someone who personally experiences symptoms with higher EMF exposure, I want those experiences taken seriously and investigated. And as someone whose family has gone to considerable lengths to create a lower-EMF home, I want Americans to retain the ability to make meaningful choices about their exposure. HHS has an opportunity to examine this question through the lens where it belongs: human health. Please listen to patients, families, clinicians and researchers raising these concerns. Fund rigorous research reflecting modern exposure conditions, investigate those who report particular sensitivity, and give Americans better information and greater ability to make informed decisions about their exposure. Thank you for giving those of us who have experienced this issue personally and clinically 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, family member, and concerned member of the public.I have lived in my home since December 2002. At some point after that, a large cell tower was built just outside our neighborhood. There was no meeting, no notice, and no opportunity for residents to be heard. It felt as if it appeared overnight. We were not given a choice.After the tower went up, I began experiencing extreme headaches, a racing heart, ears popping and ringing, trouble sleeping, racing thoughts, and anxiety. Some days I feel very unwell, and I believe it is connected to the tower. My son and my father also get headaches. We have even had headaches at the same time.I do not believe this is safe. I am especially concerned that towers like this are placed next to neighborhoods and schools, where children and families live every day, without meaningful disclosure or consent. People should be told before infrastructure like this is sited so close to homes.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 expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health. 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. I also urge attention to siting, notice, and whether current limits adequately protect people living near wireless infrastructure.Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

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.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications ) ET Docket No. 13-84 Commission Radiofrequency Exposure ) Limits and Policies ) COMMENTS OF AUTHOR, This filing provides comments from Sue Howard in the above-referenced proceeding. I am a member of the public concerned with the unaddressed potential health and environmental risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices. SUMMARY I am an ordinary citizen, wife, and mother, who was seriously injured by wireless radiation and who now suffers from a debilitating chronic medical condition called EMR Syndrome. ARGUMENT It was an innate survival instinct which helped me to pack up and leave everyone and everything I had ever known and relocate from the harmful suburbs north of New York City to the welcoming safety of the ‘Radio Quiet Zone’ in Green Bank, West Virginia. Due to the ceaseless, undisciplined proliferation of wireless technology, I had by 2009 developed a dizzying array of debilitating medical symptoms; which included burning skin sensations, headaches, enervation, tinnitus, numbness in my extremities, impaired focal concentration, as well as cardiac arrhythmia. After numerous consultations with leading medical specialists, I was finally diagnosed with EMR Syndrome. https://www.emrsyndrome.org/ Today, though Wi-Fi and shedding electricity from poorly insulated power-lines remain a challenge, I am much better able to manage my symptoms and enjoy an enhanced quality of life in my new home of Green Bank. However, obtaining accessible medical care both now, and in the future, remains an exceptionally difficult concern and challenge. I am unable to use tele-health services and don’t know how I could survive a hospital stay, if one were necessary. EMR Syndrome is a lifelong functional impairment, and those of us who suffer with this condition still lack access to this basic human need. I am part of a team of concerned citizens who are working hard to protect the Quiet Zone. Due to the low- EMF environment in a 10 mile radius surrounding the Green Bank Telescope, we are currently the only remaining control group left for independent scientific studies. It is imperative that we protect this sacred space, which is constantly under threat, for future generations. For as we know, once it is gone, there will be no getting it back. https://protectnationalquietzone.org/ CONCLUSION Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission. Dated: September 30, 2026 Sincerely, Sue Howard 1

Dear Sir, I spent over $80,000 at MDs to be healed of chronic Lyme disease. Nothing has been as helpful as drastically reducing radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and wireless routers and cell phone towers and the smaller 5G towers. I use a landline and I use ethernet hardwire connection for my modem and computer and I opted out getting a "smart" meter although I was charged extra each month for doing that (what an evil deceptive term). I also reduced as much as possible man made magnetic fields, electric fields, and "dirty electricity" which did help also. The bioinitiative.org website has over 2000 published studies compiled by dozens of MDs and PhDs from 10 countries showing that the RF levels standards in America are set many, many times too high to be safe in any way for humans or animals. Frank Clegg, the former President of Microsoft Canada will tell you the same thing. RF levels in homes cause even more autism than various vaccines. It is huge and horrible. Ask Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt MD, one of the leading autism experts in the world who has treated autistic children daily for decades. Please put an end to this EVIL as well as mRNA vaccines, Andrew Dart

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 lived in an apartment with a bank of AMI meters about 40 feet from my apartment. I began having intermittent hearing loss. My ENT had no idea, over time I realized it was the meters. After we moved, my issues ceased and my hearing has been restored. When I moved, the city I live in Nevada owns its own utility. They received Covid money to replace their grid operations, they forced everyone to take an AMI smart meter on their homes by March 2025. We asked our Council to develop an opt out program. I had about 80 homes that wanted one. In Nevada, this is the ONLY city in the state where a meter is mandatory. We refused the meter and were subsequently sued in District Court by the City. It has cost us over $30,000.00 and is still not resolved. I have seen many older compromised individuals, die or get sicker. I have seen more elderly women falling in their yards near the meters and getting injured. Many start with urinary tract infections and progress to worsening. I have also seen an individual sleeping near a meter get a brain tumor. My neighbor does not have full use of her home because she has a coil in her neck to prevent a stroke, the meter sickens her. I have another neighbor who cannot enjoy her garden any longer.

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.

I oppose all the radiation and exposure with the cell towers so close to homes and schools and parks.I think we should have been asked first before we are subjected to all this.It does affect our health

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.