Response: Commentary: Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation

I regret not catching errors in power density unit designations in Table 1 during page proof. I thank the letter writers for spotting them. They should read as W/m 2 . Likewise, for the error on the power density units associated with the Dagro cite 5, the correct exposure unit is MW/m 2 , not W/m 2 .As for the microwave auditory effect resulting from microwave pulse induced acoustic pressure waves inside the brain, it is critical to understand that the microwave auditory effects can be adverse and occur below 1 o C. (For a 10-microsecond microwave pulse, the calculated temperature is about 10 -6 o C at the threshold of human perception 6, 7). They claim "RF-induced sounds are similar to other common sounds." This is simply not true. It suggests that the letter writers do not know much about the effect or have very poor understanding of it. The effect is not a common sound! The perceived sound does not travel from the outer ear nor through the ear canal 6, 7. The significant points in this case are: (1) microwave pulse produces substantial acoustic pressure waves within the brain that have implications for neuropathological consequences including the Havana syndrome 6- 9 and startle responses 6, 10- 12 and (2) the effect falls within the permissible "safe" limits of currently promulgated exposure standards and protection guidelines.Furthermore, the Dagro et al study 5 showed that to generate tissue injuring levels of microwave induced acoustic pressure waves inside the human brain, the microwave pulse induced temperature rises would be substantially below the putative "safe" threshold (1 o C). Therefore, the exposure would be allowable according to currently promulgated ICES C95.1 and ICNIRP RF safety limits. It is noteworthy that for sufficiently high incident power densities, a single microsecond-pulse at significantly below the current standards could potentially result in biologically significant pressures; the small, induced temperature rise (<0.0005 °C) may create injurious pressure waves for traumatic brain injury in humans 5, 8.Global harmonization of RF exposure standards and guidelines is a reasonable goal. The process and result should be advancements beyond the status quo for better precision and lower uncertainty. Sadly, the harmonization process actually decreased precision and increased uncertainty. Also, it failed to recognize contemporary advances in RF and microwave safety protection science 1, 13 As for grounded on a strong RF heating conviction, indeed, the letter quoted ICNIRP by saying: "The lowest exposure levels that can cause adverse health effects are due to thermal mechanisms, and so restrictions have been set based on the thermal effects, as these will protect against any other effects that could occur at higher exposure levels."It is unfortunate that statements such as "ICNIRP review did not identify reliable evidence for effects of RF exposure that would presently warrant a change in its guidelines" (ICNIRP-2025) 14 and "none reported consistent, confirmed health effects at levels below IEEE and ICNIRP exposure limits" https://sagroups.ieee.org/ices/expert-reviews/ have become cliches, just like the phrase, "more systematic and in depth research is needed." A total of 12 SR's was published as a special series in the journal Environment International between 2023 and 2025. The protocols for the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews were published in 2021 and 2022. An introduction to the special series appeared in September 2025 following publication of the last of all 12 SRs. The topics chosen for the 12 SR's include cancer, birth outcomes, male fertility, oxidative stress, observable and self-reported symptoms, cognitive impairment, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity-related responses.The letter complained that the "critique of World Health Organization (WHO) sponsored systematic reviews (SRs) relies on selected criticisms without evaluating their objectivity and substance. Consequently, his commentary lacks an adequate basis for its conclusions."In addition to the latest WHO SRs on effects of RF exposure on cancer in experimental animals 15, my paper 1 reviewed, assessed and commented on the first 4 SRs as examples, alongside syntheses of observations made by many other scientists. I stand by my evaluation, comments and conclusions. For interested readers, a recent paper 16 critically evaluated all 12 WHO-SRs on health effects of RF and microwave radiation.