Exposure limits & oversight

I can't understand why the regulations regarding EMFs, RF Radiation and Wireless Radiation exposure have not been updated based on the large amount of research that has demonstrated their deleterious effects upon the human population throughout the world! We purposely live in a rural area down a long driveway, as far away from the electric wires as possible, and mostly are not affected by the above. We can turn our wifi on and off when not needed, not only to protect ourselves but also our pets. We are particularly concerned about children, whose brains are more affected because of the thinner skulls, and their ongoing brain development. They are surrounded by EMFs etc. all day long at school and often, where they live.

I used a cordless phone years ago. When I would talk over 15 minutes I always got a nasty headache on the side I held the receiver the most. When I hung up the headache would lessen and then cease. It finally made me realize it was best not to use cordless phones. Cell phones and microwaves have always been on my caution list. This seems only common sense. I can't possibly understand the lack of safety testing, except the amount of pure profit at the expense of the consumers.

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 as a parent and someone who works near a 5G or 6G tower. I believe the 5G tower next to my office affected me, as I developed rosacea. Once I moved my office away from the window line of the building, my rosacea went away. It's sad that the U.S. government ignores facts about side effects from RF Radiation, when Europe has sound regulations on RF Radiation. The US Gov't has countless documents available that study the side effects of RF radiation, but somehow the US Gov't ignores the warnings/effects. 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 a resident of Hurricane, Washington County, Utah, diagnosed with electromagnetic radiation (EMR) syndrome / electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I ask HHS to treat wireless infrastructure and smart utility meters as a public-health issue, not only an FCC engineering issue.I use a landline and wired Ethernet and have shielded my home, yet I remain isolated. Symptoms include loss of balance, headaches, chest pain, anemia, elevated blood sugar, hypotension, increased heart rate, insomnia, worsening autoimmune problems, and repeated infections. Outdoor walking and medical visits are difficult. Hospitals I have used offer no low-EMF accommodations.I paid $228 plus $22 a month to opt out of the electric smart meter. That meter produced average wiring interference above 1,650 mV; an analog meter later measured about 20 mV, but I was charged $380 and $48 a month. The water district refused a medical opt-out. Neighboring meters and Wi-Fi reach my property.A cell tower was placed next to my home on Water Conservancy District land without notice or environmental review, then expanded to additional antennas and 5G. After activation in 2013, cell service fell from about four bars to none or one. The FCC did not investigate. Copper landline service is no longer maintained and is unusable.A visitor’s pacemaker failed on our tennis court but worked in our shielded home. My husband’s Inspire implant did not work at St. George Regional Hospital. Neighbors have reported cancers, heart attacks, and other illnesses they associate with the tower or meters. I do not claim proven causation; I ask HHS to investigate.Please support: updated non-ionizing exposure limits; independent pre- and post-market health testing; non-punitive analog/noncommunicating meters, including water; notice and health review before tower siting or 5G upgrades; wired phone and internet options; and low-EMF clinical accommodations.Rosemarie Russell, 854 W 3390 S, Hurricane, UT 84737

Hello, and thank you for taking an interest in EMF sensitivities. I have experienced a very strong reaction to cell phone radiation signals. I used to live in a high rise apartment in a city center. I have long been sensitive to chemicals and air pollution, but had never experienced EMF sensitivities prior to this experience. On the roof of the next high rise apartment building, approximately 150 meters away from ours, a small forest of cell phone signal transmitters was installed. Our apartment was a corner unit, with the kitchen facing this building; the living room facing in a different direction. After the transmitters were installed, I was cooking in the kitchen when I suddenly felt so weak I could not stand up. I turned off the stove and went into the living room to rest. I felt better there, so I returned to the kitchen. As I walked into the kitchen my heart began to POUND, like it was demanding to escape from my chest. I went back into the living room and it stopped. I returned to the kitchen and it started to POUND once again. I could not go into the kitchen without my heart going crazy, but I was fine in the living room. I hired a building biologist to test our apartment, and he found EXTREMELY high levels of EMFs and made some recommendations for remediation. We immediately installed Swiss Shield silver threaded covers along all the outside walls of our apartment, turned off all wifi, and kept cell phones on the windowsills outside the Swiss Shield curtains. I have never again experienced any heart troubles and I have never (before or since) been diagnosed with any heart problems. My experiences demonstrated a very clear and reproduceable effect - a true scientific experiment, as it were. I also looked up the cell signal regulations, and found that these signal towers are placed on top of buildings because it is assumed that this would be safe because the signals at street level are much lower - but there is no regulation requiring these transmitters to be distanced from other buildings, including apartments, offices, etc. A few months after this event, I moved out of the city to a semi-rural area where there are very weak signals (and we do not use WIFI or cellphones), less air pollution, and generally a much healthier physical environment, and my health has significantly improved. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the cell phone signals were the cause of my serious heart irregularities. I will attach photos of this cell signal system. I will also attach copies of the signal strength assessment which was done in this apartment, and the recommended international electromagnetic field exposure guidelines. As can be seen on these guidelines, signal strengths greater than 1000 are considered "extreme" and in my kitchen (the lower left room in the mapping illustration) the signal strength (before the Swiss Shield was installed) reached as high as 12,000, which was then (with the Swiss Shield) lowered to 820 - still high, but obviously much less extreme. I am not the only person affected by these and, in fact, I know several other individuals. Unfortunately, most individuals never learn what is the cause of their illnesses because doctors are not taught about this, and governments do not adequately regulate these. THESE INVISIBLE SIGNALS MUST BE BETTER REGULATED. Thank you for your help with this problem.

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 aN individual. I already have atrial fibrillation which can be caused or exacerbated by EMFs. Unleashing the industry to put up 5 and 6 G repeaters every block will very negatively impact my health. Standards are badly out of date and need to be brought up to the real world and regulated accordingly. 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 a Family Physician practicing and licensed in Illinois with 38 years of experience. Personally, I notice that if my wifi router is on, I do not sleep as well so I have to turn it off at night. Since a smart meter was installed at our home I also notice my sleep has been worse. We were never notified when the smart meter was installed nor given the option to opt out. I have treated many patients who are sensitive to EMFs and cannot be around them which leads them to lead very isolating lives. I've seen the studies that show EMFs cause an influx of calcium into cells thus depleting ATP stores. I've seen the studies showing that cell phones placed near the skull/ear increase the temperature and glucose uptake of brain cells all the way to the center of the brain, thus making them look like cancer cells. I've seen and heard neurosurgeons who report more acoustic neuromas and other brain tumors on the side where cell phones are used. Please investigate the health effects of EMFs, Wifi, Cell towers and cell phones so we can come up with safety guidelines that are reasonable. Please be aware that powerful industrial lobbyists will try to influence and subvert real scientific debate and research on these issues. The health and well being of this generation and the next few depends on what you can do to help safe guard our health from any harms imposed by EMFs.

We need to clamp down on the EMR created by private companies for their profit and not with our safety in mind. This includes involuntary exposures like smart meters, dirty electricity, and any involuntary appliance or transmitter that generates EMR. These signals are causing illnesses that cannot be proven scientifically because no one looks for or documents 'problems' when revenue loss could happen if they find them. Please tell me why we are so inundated with cell towers and transmitters regardless of whether or not we need better signals or want them. From my home I have direct views of a huge cell tower, why is it necessary to add extra transmitters to towers and on our light poles. I bought a tester and everywhere in my home it reads 'extreme' and blinks with no wireless phones installed and the router turned off. I cannot escape extreme signals. And I do not know how to protect my grandson, daughter and myself from these signals. We should be able to turn off the signals so we can sleep in peace and rest our bodies. We have no choice in the matter. There is no recourse other than moving and who can afford that, and even then, it is hard to find a safer location. There needs to be limits that are safe. There needs to be studies done to set safe limits by an unbiased group who is not 'bought' by these private companies. You wonder why cancer is exploding. This is just one of the problems that needs fixing. So, fix it. Give proper guidelines and limits based on these unbiased studies to the companies and let them figure out how to accomplish their goals without hurting citizens. WE NEED TO REDUCE CURRENT EXPOSURE BEFORE IMPLEMENTING ANY NEW TECHNOLOGY AND AT THE COMPANIES EXPENSE. TAXPAYERS CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE INCREASES FOR COMPANY PROFITS.

Manmade electromagnetic radiation exposure has radically altered the trajectory of my life. In the early 2010s, I achieved my dream career of a firefighter-paramedic. Paradoxically, my health began to suffer. This seemed strange to me as I was young, healthy, and eating an extremely healthy paleo diet and working out daily. But brain fog, skin rashes, eye fatigue, ringing in my ears and aches/pains became the new norm for me. Firefighting can be a high-stress job, but that alone didn't account for my symptoms. Doctors had no answers for me. My performance on the job, and as a husband and father back home, began to suffer. Eventually, I saw the writing on the wall and left that career that had been acquired at such a dear cost. It was a heartbreaking decision but I thought it the best thing for me and my family long-term. Unexpectedly, my symptoms began to improve with no interventions besides leaving the firefighting lifestyle behind. This was the dawn of the podcast era, and on health-focused podcasts, I began to hear a bit about "EMF" both natural and artificial, and the research on their impacts on human health. Several things began to click for me as I researched the topic further. #1 The firefighting world exposed me to a variety of very powerful manmade EMF sources, primarily radio frequency, or "wireless" communications of walkie-talkies, cell phones, pagers, and supporing equipment within the forestation. #2 The firefighting world, by frequently keeping me up during the night, was disrupting my circadian rhythm, and reducing my ability to rest and recover. Armed with this new understanding of the world, I recovered quickly, and took steps within my home to protect my family from EMF. Not long after, my mother was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of brain cancer. She passed within 8-months. It was an incredibly difficult few years around her passing. However, in thinking about how she used technology, I saw a link to her cancer. For example, she was incredibly social, and had many friends. As a result she used her cell phone multiple hours every day. Her tumor was on the same side of her head that she held her phone up to. As the dust settled around her passing, I realized there was a significant lack of awareness in the world about EMF exposure. I felt compelled to do something about it, so that others might avoid the pain I had experienced in losing a treasured career, and loved one. I discovered people were doing this work in the world, through the Building Biology Institute. I signed up for their training and In just a few short years, I had become certified and began working with clients to uncover the EMF exposures in their homes, coaching them through practical remediations to reduce their exposures. My work as a Building Biologist is incredibly rewarding. It is also an uphill battle as slick marketing, tech creep, and biased research dilute the links between human made EMF and health. Technology does wonderful things for us, but not without a biological cost. The public needs to be made aware of this, so that they can make informed choices on their exposures to EMF. Here are several ways the government could help accelerate this change: #1 Stop the revolving door between Big Wireless and regulation bodies like the FCC. #2 The FCC must update their 1996 exposure guidelines without industry influence. Greater exposure protection for sensitive populations like children and pregnant mothers should the minimum outcome. #3 The precautionary principle should be the starting point for technologies that use electromagnetic forces to function. Industry must provide a reasonable degree of safety and assurance prior to rolling out new products.

I am submitting this comment because the United States needs to stop confusing regulatory compliance with proof of biological safety. A wireless device can “pass” an RF exposure test under specified laboratory conditions and still leave unanswered the real public-health question: what happens to living tissue after years or decades of real-world exposure? Real life does not resemble a single-device laboratory test. Children, adults and pets are surrounded by phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, laptops, Bluetooth devices, wearables, smart appliances and nearby antennas, often operating simultaneously and for many hours every day. Current standards do not adequately reflect chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure. Exposure changes with distance, signal strength, device position, frequency, modulation, data transmission and the number of sources present. Yet our regulatory framework has relied heavily on specific absorption rate and power-density limits rather than long-term biological monitoring of actual populations. The question should not simply be, “Does this device stay below a SAR limit?” It should be, “What happens biologically to cells, tissues, organs and developing nervous systems under realistic exposure conditions?” HHS should independently investigate oxidative stress, cellular signaling, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, sleep, development, endocrine effects and cancer. Absence of substantial heating should never be treated as automatic proof that there are no biological effects. Children deserve special attention. They are not small adults. Their bodies and nervous systems are still developing, and today’s children may experience wireless exposure from infancy through an entire lifetime. Yet the long-term evidence for lifelong exposure beginning in childhood remains limited. That is a serious knowledge gap, not reassurance. Animals and the environment also deserve attention. Pets spend long periods inside homes near routers and wireless devices. Wildlife, insects, birds and plants are now exposed to an increasingly dense RF environment. The evidence is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent, but that is precisely why rigorous independent research is needed. The National Toxicology Program reported cancer findings in RF-exposed animals, including malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and some evidence of malignant gliomas. Human studies have produced mixed results. These differences should not be used to declare the issue settled in either direction. “Not conclusively proven harmful” is not the same thing as “proven safe.” The regulatory process itself also deserves scrutiny. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had not adequately explained why its RF exposure limits protected against harmful non-cancer effects and had not sufficiently addressed evidence involving long-term exposure, children and environmental effects. A communications regulator should not be the final authority on complex questions of toxicology, developmental biology, neurology and public health. Other countries have taken more precautionary approaches. Switzerland applies lower precautionary limits at certain sensitive locations, and France conducts post-market SAR testing of phones. The United States should not assume that decades-old limits remain adequate simply because they are familiar. HHS should establish a truly independent research program with transparent funding and strict conflict-of-interest protections. Research should examine chronic and cumulative exposure, multiple simultaneous sources, direct body contact, pregnancy, children, pets, vulnerable populations, modern 4G/5G/Wi-Fi technologies, and biological outcomes at the cellular, tissue, organ and whole-body levels. Public confidence cannot rest on assurances from agencies or industries. It must rest on independent science, transparent data, reproducible findings and standards that reflect how people actually live. A compliance test is not a safety study. HHS has an opportunity to replace assumptions with modern, real-world health research and to protect children, families, animals and the environment using evidence that reflects actual exposure.