Exposure limits & oversight

The current technology in LED headlights in automobiles and trucks affect my life profoundly. Due to a lifelong astigmatism in my eyes, these headlights create a white out effect when they are pointed toward me from oncoming traffic at night. It wasn't such a big issue until almost two years ago when they seemed to reach a sort of critical mass on newer vehicles. I have seconds where I'm blinded and I can't see anything but white glare. This is happening while I'm driving a moving vehicle. I'm terrified I'll hurt someone else by not seeing a pedestrian, or having no clue where any curbs or road markings are and crashing into another vehicle. Of course, that would likely be the end of me, too. I can only drive after dark if I can plan nearly all of a route on familiar roadways with no oncoming traffic, like service roads or freeways. The older halogen headlights never did this, and I mostly don't drive after dark now. My life is so much more restricted now. It's limiting and depressing. I know there are a lot of people with astigmatism who must be similarly affected. As I understand it, 21 U.S.C. 360ii requires the FDA to establish and maintain a liaison with NHTSA to test and evaluate LED headlights for their impacts on human health. Isolation, depression, and possibly crashing and loosing our lives are certainly impacts on our health. There has to be some solution, some way to modify the existing headlights, such as a coating or applied film, that mitigates the effects of what are like a multitude of tiny reflecting mirrors. I propose that this is an urgent matter worthy of research and efforts toward a way to make LED headlights safer.

I believe my family has been severely affected by 5G. And I hate that our US government has no regulations and refuses to look at research concerning this. I have read research done by our defense department that shows the classic symptoms of radiation sickness and it seems to me that many people during Covid had radiation sickness, not Covid. Since I assume you have access to the same studies that I’ve read, I don’t find the need to recap them here. The evidence is clear 5G is clearly much more dangerous than 4G and we are running towards 6G which is a globalist terrible awful idea. No one needs 6G and I do not need the government in my body. I am so tired of the idea of all of the censorship that the globalist and our government because our government is full of globalist want to unleash on the free people of America. 5G causes anxiety. It causes sleeplessness. It causes a host of other issues. It is awful that this has been unleashed on us during the pandemic and I figure you will have to start a new pandemic for 6G to hide the radiation damage that that will do. Am I right or will it be a different psyop?

Please, make the FCC take on the health challenges that are before us. We've already experienced many deaths and illnesses from over exposures to wireless radiation. Our children and our futures are at stake. If the FCC cannot follow court orders than the HHS could take up this cause. We are sitting in massive amounts of RF radiation due to the grid/satellites/cell infrastructure/cell phones/baby monitors/ wireless health devices/ Wi-fi and many others. The manufacturers are completely out of control and setting more and more dangerous standards. The most vulnerable in our society are in harms way. Our medical system is not addressing this issue and many are suffering without the cause. This will not only destroy our medical system with tremendous amounts predictable cancers. Needlessly I may say. This will be the 'Wireless Holocaust" if not stopped.

I strongly urge HHS and its selected scientists to review the effects, symptoms, and published studies and report on non-thermal effect and take these into consideration. I have been conducting assessments for AC electric and magnetic fields and wireless radiation (RF) with professional calibrated instrumentation in residential, commercial and institutional buildings for over 30. I can attest that in many cases were individuals reported unspecific health problems and symptoms; once the source was eliminated, exposure reduced or shielded improvements were clearly noted. The current regulatory exposure limited need to be revised and significant reduced, especially in sensitive aeras such as but not limited too kindergartens, schools,...... I am encouraged that 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.

I am a retired environmental attorney and currently a Professional Engineer in Washington and California (RCE). I have participated in proceedings before the FCC regarding the harms to humans and other protected animals of non-ionizing EMF including radiofrequency and wireless radiation. The FCC has been unresponsive to these harms. I greatly appreciate the HHS addressing this issue. These harms are addressed in the attachments submitted as part of this comment. A good summary of these harms is provided in Sage, Cindy (2007-2014) (attached hereto). There has been an International Appeal (2015) (attached hereto) seeking to get reasonable regulation of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). I attach other articles that address this issue, including Pall, Martin L. (2015); Yakymenko, Igor (2014); and Levitt, B. Blake (2010). Cell towers not only adversely impact humans, but also have adverse impacts on protected wildlife. Albert Manville is an expert on the adverse impacts to protected wildlife and I attach several articles from a Manville Report that give guidance. Please address mitigation of the harms addressed herein. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted,

The attached published and expert scientific research recommends key policy updates. Current regulations are outdated and do not protect the public. These pertain to Question 5. Please follow recommendations of the published papers attached.

Our government, including HHS have as their first and most important purpose, to secure the rights of the People who created government. We are calling on HHS to protect the People from the harm of EMFs RF Radiation and Wireless Radiation. The FFC has proven incompetent and not impartial. FCC employees are regularly employed in the fields that benefit from their lax regulations and refusal to investigate and research. I have been personally affected by the lax regulations through a smart meter that was forced on me by my utility company that provides power to my home. A smart meter was placed outside my bedroom window. From that month to 2 years after, i suffered many health issues that took over 2 years and 10 health care providers to finally realize that the issue was the radiation. Ultimately the health care providers did not help me as they are not educated on this issue. I had to figure it out through my own diligent research which took hundreds of hours. I finally ran across a podcast about smart meters and remembered a notice from my utility company 2 years before about the smart meter. I emailed them and had it confirmed that the same month my symptoms started was the month the meter was installed outside my bedroom. The worst of my symptoms was full body eczema, hives and welts which I had never experienced in my life. I then had other issues from the stress of it all that piled on, creating a full blown crisis in my body. I had lost my will to live and it was all created by a company that still to this day claims their equipment is safe which obviously is a total fabrication. It is not healthy to have a constant pulse of radiation outside your window. From that point on I have been sensitive to EMFs and other radiation. I see other people struggling in other ways as well because we all have different weakness in our body so we present dis-ease differently. HHS must help regulate these types of exposures. To ignore it any longer is a violation of our right to a healthy environment. It is not right to allow companies and industries to benefit financially from destroying the health of the American People. I have attached a picture of my leg to show how excessive my reaction to the smart meter was. I apoligize for how unsightly it is but it is important for HHS to know how People are suffering and how urgent it is that this issue be addressed. Thank you

I submit this as an individual consumer and family member, relying on peer-reviewed research, federal reports, and court findings cited below (Qs 2, 3). Concern (Qs 5, 6): FCC's RF limits date to 1996 and address only short-term tissue heating, not chronic exposure, pulsed/modulated signals, multi-source cumulative exposure, or children's thinner skulls. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court found the FCC failed to justify that its limits protect against non-cancer harms, citing unaddressed evidence on children and long-term exposure, and remanded the issue. HHS, not FCC, should lead on the health basis for any standard. Evidence below current limits (Q12): NTP's $30M study (2018) found "clear evidence" of heart schwannomas and "some evidence" of brain/adrenal tumors in RF-exposed rats, with DNA damage reported in a follow-up (Smith-Roe et al. 2020). Italy's Ramazzini Institute independently found the same rare tumor at lower exposures comparable to cell tower emissions (Falcioni et al. 2018). IARC classifies RF-EMF as "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B, 2011). Reviews report oxidative stress (Yakymenko et al. 2016), reduced sperm quality (Adams et al. 2014), and DNA strand breaks (Lai & Singh 1995; REFLEX project 2004). Technologies changing cumulative exposure (Q13): 5G/small cells near homes and windows; Wi-Fi transmitting continuously in classrooms; smart meters installed on homes, often without real opt-out, pulsing near bedrooms; satellite broadband (e.g., Starlink) creating a new planet-wide RF source; networked cameras (e.g., Flock) on public poles with cellular modems and no resident notice; wireless earbuds transmitting inside the ear canal for hours daily, especially in teens; EVs producing low-frequency magnetic fields in cabins where children ride (IARC links this field type to childhood leukemia); AI data centers driving new high-voltage lines near communities; LED/"smart" lighting suppressing melatonin (AMA 2016) and adding RF transmitters with little safety study. Environmental effects (Q14): Thielens et al. (2018) found insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, the direction 5G/6G are heading. Levitt, Lai & Manville (2021–22) reviewed reported effects on birds and insects, noting no federal environmental RF standard exists. Sensitive populations (Q11): Children, pregnant women, and implant recipients need separate risk evaluation. France restricted Wi-Fi for under-3 childcare settings in 2015. Disclosure (Q9): Residents deserve public antenna/exposure maps, advance notice before installations near homes and schools, clear device transmission labeling, and a genuine no-fee smart meter opt-out. Research priorities (Qs 10, 16, 17): Fund independent long-term cohort studies with real exposure measurement, especially in children; commission NTP follow-up at current 5G/mmWave frequencies; build a national RF/EMF environmental monitoring network; create an adverse-event reporting pathway; direct FDA to test consumer devices under realistic body-contact conditions. This research must be free of industry funding. Conclusion (Q18): We have deployed unprecedented, involuntary population-wide EMF exposure without proving it safe. Credible research has found cancer signals, DNA damage, oxidative stress, and reproductive effects. I ask HHS to investigate this independently and thoroughly, and prioritize human and environmental health over the pace of commercial deployment.

This is a copy of the comment I sent to the FCC. I reiterate it here for your agency. The same applies to HHS, which should be doing it's job, but has not been protecting us! ------ EMFs can and are doing harm to us in the US. Your job is to regulate industry and the devices they are placing in the marketplace, all around us, and in and on our homes. You have not been doing your job. All other countries around the world have set regulations on the amount of bad and heavy EMFs coming from cell towers, smart meters, cell phones, and other devices. How is it that this country is just a free-for-all giving a pass to anything the tech industries want to do? It is because industry owns our FCC. And we have had enough of it! I am not going to post any links of science or data for you here. You have the data. many have been telling you for years, decades! People are being harmed, and you know it! We could have functional devices, achieving all they are doing now, without utilizing these harmful frequencies. Your job is to protect us and restrict the harmful frequencies while allowing only those which are safer. DO IT!

I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public urging HHS to undertake a comprehensive, independent investigation into the potential human and environmental health effects of the rapidly expanding electromagnetic environment created by modern technology. My concern is not based on the assumption that every wireless technology has been proven harmful. Rather, it is that society has dramatically increased the intensity, density, duration, proximity, and variety of electromagnetic exposures while the long-term biological consequences of this cumulative exposure remain incompletely understood. Today, people can be exposed simultaneously and continuously to Wi-Fi, 4G/5G and future 6G infrastructure, cell towers and small cells, Bluetooth and wireless headphones, smartphones, smart meters, wireless cameras and security systems, wearables, smart-home devices, connected and electric vehicles, wireless medical devices, satellite communications such as Starlink, and the rapidly expanding infrastructure supporting AI and data centers. The central question should therefore not simply be whether each individual device complies with an existing exposure limit. HHS should determine whether current standards adequately address real-world, cumulative, lifelong exposure from multiple sources operating simultaneously. I respectfully ask HHS to investigate potential effects on: sleep and circadian biology; hormonal and endocrine function; reproductive health and fertility; pregnancy and fetal development; neurological and cognitive function; immune and metabolic function; oxidative stress and cellular signaling; DNA integrity, repair and epigenetic processes; cancer and other chronic diseases; and children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Research should specifically examine effects that may occur below existing exposure limits and should evaluate frequency, power density, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, proximity to the body, duration, and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies. HHS itself identifies these factors as important areas for investigation. I am particularly concerned about involuntary residential exposure. Smart meters, nearby wireless infrastructure, small cells, and other continuously operating devices can expose people inside their own homes regardless of whether they personally choose to use wireless technology. Americans should have meaningful information and reasonable options for reducing unnecessary exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. HHS should also investigate the rapidly changing exposure environment created by 5G, future 6G, satellite networks, IoT devices, autonomous vehicles, wireless charging, electric vehicles, smart cities, and other emerging technologies before assuming that older exposure research adequately represents these systems. The investigation should extend beyond human health. HHS should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies to examine potential effects on wildlife, birds, insects, pollinators, livestock, plants, and ecosystems. HHS specifically requests information concerning environmental effects and wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, and livestock. Independent research is essential. Federal research should be transparent, independently replicated, and protected from conflicts of interest. Long-term studies should measure actual exposure rather than relying solely on estimates of device use. The government should develop standardized methods for measuring individual and neighborhood exposure and consider longitudinal health studies, environmental monitoring, occupational monitoring, disease registries, biomonitoring, and adverse-event reporting. I also urge HHS to improve public transparency. Consumers, parents, schools, workers, and communities should have understandable information about the emissions and realistic exposure characteristics of wireless devices and infrastructure. The scientific evidence contains established findings, conflicting findings, emerging research, and significant uncertainty. That uncertainty is not a reason to dismiss public concern; it is a reason to investigate more rigorously. We should neither assume that modern wireless technology is harmless nor assume that every health problem attributed to EMF has been scientifically proven to be caused by EMF. We should measure the exposures, study the biology, monitor health outcomes over time, investigate potential risks, and make the evidence publicly available. The unprecedented proliferation of wireless and electrically powered technology should be matched by an equally serious commitment to understanding its long-term consequences for human health and the environment. I urge HHS to make cumulative, real-world EMF/RF exposure and its potential biological effects a significant federal research priority.