Research, evidence & monitoring

I am commenting about this case as I have been greatly impacted by wireless for about 15 years. I was very sick with extreme heart problems , migraines , digestive problems , brain fog, light sensitivity and extreme fatigue. After seeing many doctors who were no help I started doing my own research to figure out what was causing my health problems. I decided to greatly limit my exposure to anything, wireless, especially wifi. I got rid of all my wireless devices and slowly all my health problems started to go away. My health returned to normal after about a year living in the rural area. Everything I use now is hardwired. The migraines after 12 years stopped in one day being away from the wireless. Imagine what it’s like living in this country where wireless is ubiquitous, it’s not easy but my life is so much better now. I think the way the FCC has tried to bury this issue is a disgrace in light of all the global studies that show harm, even the NIH showed harm.. The US has the second highest allowable cell towers. An industry run governmental branch, the FCC is harming people and the flora fauna. And the 1996 telecom act is way out dated and a disgrace to humanity.

There are indications that humans possess a magnetic sense. Since this is a fact that has not yet shifted the scientific paradigm, we must rely on current knowledge. Is it ethical to turn a deaf ear? Canaries were used to ensure the safety of mines. We have “canaries” who can speak and write, but our current worldview prevents us from listening to them. It’s ethical to consider this line of thinking. What if people had a magnetic sense? What would change then? What should be studied in that case? What should be taken into account? What should be done differently? What should be done when it is a known fact that all senses function in such a way that there are people in the population whose particular sense is more sensitive than the average? We are familiar with hyper-tasters, people with hypersensitivity to sound, people with sensitivity to light, etc. Is it ethically right, then, to design living environments in such a way that a sensitive person cannot find refuge from the very factor that causes their sensitivity and symptoms? Magnetic sensitivity could affect neurological symptoms, such as dizziness, headaches, or sleep disturbances, especially in technology-rich environments. Doctors might begin to assess magnetic sensitivity as part of a neurological examination, particularly in patients with unexplained symptoms. A new medical specialty might emerge—such as “magneto-neurology”—that focuses on the effects of magnetic fields on the human nervous system. Current safety limits (e.g., SAR values for MRI machines) are based on tissue heating and electromagnetic effects. If magnetic sensitivity were recognized, restrictions might also be imposed based on neurological effects. Henshaw, D. L., & Philips, A. (2024). A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). International Journal of Radiation Biology , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329   Open Access article. I have symptoms: pains that come and go, pain in everywhere : ears, fingers, legs, teeth, tongue. Skin burning. I can't hear properly when there is too much radiation. I can't sleep since my neighbour watches smart-TV at night and my body resonates with the wireless technology used. My blood sample shows that I have become allergic. Elevated allergy year through even though I am supposed to have symptoms only when trees blossom in the spring. It feels all of a suddend that air is really cold eventhough I know it's completely normal. Radiation feels like the air is polluted and dangerous. I know that what I'm saying sounds odd. Please do something to wifi and base town radiation. No wireless meters for waterconsumtion, electricity consumtion. No wireless firealarms, wireless fresh air sensoreita. I deserve to live a normal life but I live inside a nightmare. It's a deligate matter and you will publish it online. Seriously??!!!

FCC: I fully support the petition by the Children's Health Defense organization to the FCC to further research and investigate the effects on electromagnetic radiation exposure (EMF) on the human body, particularly young children. It has been many decades since serious research has been done on this subject. I strongly urge the FCC to respond to the CHD petition! This is an urgent health issue that needs to be addressed immediately! Libba Moore Upton, MA

No to all forms of harmful emf's! We are a wired rural family with a landline and only use wireless when absolutely necessary. There are all kinds of studies saying many forms of emfs are harmful to humans and wildlife. No to mega cell towers, data centers and flock cameras - please value human life over the material world.

FCC: I fully support the petition by the Children's Health Defense organization to the FCC to further research and investigate the effects on electromagnetic radiation exposure (EMF) on the human body, particularly young children. It has been many decades since serious research has been done on this subject. I strongly urge the FCC to respond to the CHD petition! This is an urgent health issue that needs to be addressed immediately! Peter Phillips Upton, MA

I am a mother and a public school teacher. I am filing in Proceeding 13-84 on the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health effects of long-term exposure, and the growth of wireless infrastructure since the Commission last updated its limits. My family lives near commercial radio broadcast towers, and a cellular antenna was later installed nearby, mounted on power lines, without notice to residents. We could find no public registration or record of it. Since living with this exposure, my family has experienced serious health effects, including complications in both of my pregnancies that affected my children. After the cellular antenna was installed, both my husband and I had changes documented in our bloodwork in the same month, with no change in our diet or lifestyle. We were both healthy and active. My doctor has advised that we have done everything we can medically and that we need to move away from the sources of radiation. We are now relocating at significant cost. Long-term exposure and technological change The Commission's RF limits date to 1996. They do not account for continuous, around-the-clock exposure from multiple sources, such as broadcast towers and cell antennas near the same home. Exposure at home continues through the night, when the body needs to rest and carry out its cellular repair. This makes installations near homes especially harmful, because there is no break from exposure during the hours the body depends on most for recovery. RF sources are also increasingly being added in office buildings, hospitals, and schools, so people are exposed at work, during medical care, and at school, then come home to more exposure. There is no break. Wireless infrastructure has expanded enormously since 1996, and families now live with constant exposure they never chose. Children Children absorb more RF radiation than adults, as their brains are not yet fully myelinated, which impacts their neurological development. Exposure during pregnancy not only affects the mother's health during and after pregnancy, but can cause irreversible damage to the developing baby. As a teacher, I see how much RF exposure children have during the school day, including from Wi-Fi routers in classrooms and RF sources placed near playgrounds. Current limits do not protect them. Request The Commission's limits and testing procedures are based on preventing tissue heating. This does not reflect the effects of RF radiation on cellular function, and it does not represent the increased risk for children and pregnant women. I ask the Commission to study the biological effects of RF radiation on cellular function, not only heating. Rather than setting new exposure limits, I ask that this exposure be avoided altogether where people live, learn, and heal: RF installations should not be placed near homes, schools, childcare facilities, hospitals, or playgrounds. I also ask that every installation, including antennas on power lines and utility poles, be listed in a searchable public registry.

Greetings - I am writing to provide first hand knowledge of the effects of EMFs, RF radiation and wireless radiation exposure on the public, and more specically, my wife. My lovely, outgoing wife was a dedicated, hard working school teacher who loved her profession and her ability to interact with children. Approximately 11 years ago, my wife's school district upgraded it's wi-fi system, thereby over saturating the school's teachers, staff and students with EMFs, RFs and wireless radiation. She along with other teachers immediately felt ill from the radiating wireless routers. The results on my wife have been devastating. She now suffers from headaches, burning skin, foggy headness and multiple other symptoms. Tragically, this all could been avoided had the school district heeded the warnings of multiple experts who warned of the consequences of oversaturating the school with wireless routers. In addition to my wife's symptoms, the resulting harm has had a profound effect on our lives together. My wife cannot travel, even for short distances, without experiencing symptoms. We can only spend limited time at restaurants, movies or with friends at their homes. My wife can no longer work which has caused us a substantial financial burden. In all, the results of these exposures have been devastating. The effect of EMFs, RFs and wireless radiation on the public must be studied and regulated in the hopes that these injuies will be prevented from harming innocent people in the future. Water in a reservoir can be helpful to people. Once the reservoir is broken and water comes flooding through the dam, the effects are devastating. Such is the case with EMFs, RFs and wireless radiation. The dam is about to break. There are already numerous studies showing biological harm. Here are some: https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/science https://ehtrust.org/science/# Physicians for Safe Technology | Military and Government Reports

Please pay attention to the studies showing EMF damage to humans. They are real! I have suffered from dizziness from 5G radiation! Thank you, Martha Byron

PUBLIC COMMENT — HHS DOCKET HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Submitted by: Slowphone Brasil Slowphone Brasil advocates for healthier and safer use of technology. We urge the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards, consider the scientific evidence already available, and prioritize public health and the protection of life over commercial interests. 1. REASSESS EXPOSURE LIMITS Current radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards should be independently reassessed in light of peer-reviewed research reporting biological effects and potential health concerns below existing guidelines. The review should address voltage-gated calcium channels, oxidative stress and peroxynitrite pathways, blood-brain barrier permeability, and tumors, including gliomas and schwannomas. HHS should evaluate the US National Toxicology Program studies and the Ramazzini Institute's 2018 findings alongside epidemiological research, systematic reviews and subsequent evidence. Animal findings and proposed mechanisms should be distinguished from proven human causation, without dismissing relevant evidence because scientific uncertainty remains. 2. ENSURE SCIENTIFIC INDEPENDENCE HHS should examine conflicts of interest, funding sources, professional affiliations and evidence-selection methods in organizations whose recommendations inform exposure standards, including ICNIRP. Relevant concerns should be assessed through verifiable documents, declarations of interest and transparent review procedures. Independent experts should evaluate the full body of evidence, including findings that challenge existing assumptions. 3. ADOPT MORE PROTECTIVE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS We propose an international outdoor RF reference level of 100,000 µW/m² (0.1 W/m²) for consideration and scientific evaluation. HHS should compare US standards with current regulations in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Poland, Italy and Israel, identifying more protective approaches and the rationale behind them. Comparisons must specify frequency, averaging periods, measurement conditions and whether values are binding limits or precautionary targets. 4. REDUCE EXPOSURE AT SOURCE HHS should promote a comprehensive strategy to reduce unnecessary exposure while maintaining essential communications. Wireless routers should provide effective low-emission modes, adjustable transmission power and automatic reduction of unnecessary transmissions. JRS ECO technology may serve as a technical reference, subject to independent testing. Public institutions, schools, hospitals, childcare facilities and workplaces should prioritize wired Ethernet connections where practical, reducing dependence on Wi-Fi in locations occupied for long periods. Wireless networks should be deployed only where needed, with access points configured to avoid unnecessary transmission power. Consumers should have access to mobile phones with low specific absorption rates (SAR), transparent and comparable exposure information, and easy-to-use settings that reduce unnecessary transmissions. Hands-free use, speakerphone use and keeping active devices away from the body when practical should be encouraged. HHS should also evaluate exposure from cellular infrastructure, small cells, Internet of Things devices, wearables, smart meters and emerging wireless technologies. Infrastructure planning should consider exposure in homes, schools and other sensitive locations. 5. PROTECT CHILDREN AND SENSITIVE SETTINGS Public-health guidance should give particular attention to children, pregnancy and fetal development. Schools and childcare facilities should favor wired connections where feasible and adopt practical exposure-reduction measures. Public procurement policies should consider low-emission connectivity options and transparent technical specifications. 6. ADDRESS DIRTY ELECTRICITY HHS should support independent, reproducible research on high-frequency electrical noise conducted through wiring, sometimes called dirty electricity. Proposed filters should be assessed through standardized measurements before and after installation; health benefits should not be presumed without reliable evidence. Measurement methods and units must be clearly defined. 7. WARN AND INFORM THE PUBLIC HHS should consider prominent graphical health-information labels on RF-emitting devices and products, inspired by tobacco warnings. Labels should explain that exposure and scientific uncertainty exist and provide practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. A broad public-awareness campaign, drawing on documented initiatives in Cyprus, should explain exposure sources, research findings, uncertainties and preventive options. Environmental measurements should be publicly accessible and report RF in µW/m², electric-field strength in V/m, and magnetic-field strength in nT. Dirty electricity requires separate, clearly defined measurement methods. 8. GLOBAL ACTION AND TRANSPARENCY The United States should encourage international cooperation on independent research, standardized environmental monitoring, public disclosure of measurement results and periodic reassessment of exposure limits. Publicly funded research should disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources, publish results regardless of outcome, and enable independent verification. OUR PRINCIPAL REQUESTS 1. Reassess existing RF exposure limits and evaluate an international outdoor reference level of 100,000 µW/m². 2. Implement a broad public-awareness campaign and promote practical exposure-reduction measures worldwide. 3. Introduce prominent graphical warnings on RF-emitting products and strengthen protections in schools and other sensitive settings. Public health and the protection of life must take precedence over commercial interests. HHS should act on existing evidence, improve scientific transparency and advance proportionate preventive measures without waiting for every uncertainty to be resolved. REFERENCES IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Monographs, Volume 102 (2013). https://publications.iarc.who.int/126 US National Toxicology Program. Technical Reports 595 and 596 (2018). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/apptoxres/cartox Italy. Law No. 36 of 22 February 2001. https://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/01036l.htm

My life has been horribly effected by wireless technology. The lives of millions of people are being harmed on a daily basis by today's wireless world. FCC's RF exposure guidelines for the omnipresence of wireless devices and technological developments were last updated in 1996. This is the same as thirty years ago that leaded gasoline was still considered OK. Thirty years ago cell phones were bulky, expensive devices primarily used for making calls and sending texts. The cell phones were so expensive very few people used them. Now, the world is full of wireless technology. The fact that the FCC has not updated the guidelines is the same as still allowing people to smoke in the neonatal (new babies) area of the hospital and on airplanes. It is vital to update the exposure guidelines. Please refer to BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – Collection of scientific research concerning neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022. The FCC's job is to protect consumers. Currently consumers are being harmed on a constant basis by wireless technology. It is the FCC's job to fix this terrible problem.