All comment threads

My Comment is added in the pdf entitled FCC HHS Submission Oct 2026 on FCC Limits...

We have noticed an increase in sleeplessness, pain, skin, irritation, headaches, fatigue, and nausea. We live in Central New York and we have numerous cell towers around us. We have noticed this uptake in pain and problems since 2021. We do believe that it is being caused by the cell towers and 5G. We lived in a different area several years ago in a city and never had these sort of problems till we move to this area. We definitely believe our area needs to be investigated for over exposure of EMF or RF. We have minimal electronic devices in our home. And we feel there are no safety measures for people like us. We are basically being exposed to the EMF and 5G without consent and without any investigation being done. I have spoke to several of the neighbors around me, and they all have similar symptoms, especially the sleeplessness. None of us can sleep a full night in our neighborhood. We would openly welcome investigation conducted in this neighborhood where we live, and willing to share more information with our government. But we do believe we are being made ill by the EMF and the 5G. Doctors don’t seem to have any answers for our health problems nor do they offer any solutions. This is not an isolated situation. I have other family members that live in other places near cell towers also expressing the same issues of pain and health problems. Something needs to be done about this issue it is serious enough that it’s almost debilitating

I appreciate HHS undertaking this important inquiry into electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and their potential effects on human health. My central concern is that the widespread deployment of wireless technologies has outpaced our understanding of the biological consequences of chronic, cumulative exposure. Compliance with existing exposure standards is not equivalent to demonstrating long-term biological safety. I urge HHS to address the following concerns: 1. Reevaluate safety standards beyond thermal effects. Current RF exposure standards have historically emphasized protection against tissue heating. Yet peer-reviewed research has reported biological effects involving oxidative stress, neurological function, reproductive health, and cellular processes at exposure levels that warrant investigation beyond heating alone. The National Toxicology Program’s 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to certain RF conditions. The Ramazzini Institute independently reported increased heart schwannomas in male rats. Although these findings do not establish cancer risks from ordinary human wireless exposure, they raise legitimate questions requiring further investigation. 2. Investigate cumulative, real-world exposure. Americans experience simultaneous exposure from Wi-Fi, cellular networks, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, and other wireless technologies. Research must examine long-term exposure to multiple sources, including potential effects of duration, frequency, modulation, and cumulative lifetime exposure. 3. Prioritize vulnerable populations. Children, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and individuals with neurological vulnerabilities deserve particular consideration. Children increasingly experience wireless exposure throughout their school day, often without meaningful alternatives. HHS should determine whether existing standards adequately protect developing biological systems rather than assuming uniform safety across populations. 4. Ensure independent research and regulatory transparency. The telecommunications industry has substantial financial interests in maintaining existing infrastructure and exposure standards. HHS should disclose how current limits were established, how conflicting scientific findings have been evaluated, and what role industry-funded research and representatives have played in regulatory decisions. Independent replication, transparent methodologies, and full disclosure of financial conflicts are essential to public trust. 5. Protect informed choice and individual autonomy. Americans deserve understandable information about wireless exposure and practical ways to reduce it. I urge HHS to support wired alternatives in schools and public facilities, greater transparency regarding infrastructure emissions, meaningful community participation, and reasonable accommodations for individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. 6. Apply the precautionary principle. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm must never be misrepresented as conclusive evidence of safety. Reasonable precautionary measures should not require absolute scientific certainty, particularly when exposure is widespread, continuous, and difficult to avoid. Specific Actions Requested I respectfully urge HHS to: 1. Independently reassess existing RF exposure limits, including potential nonthermal biological effects. 2. Commission replication and follow-up studies of significant National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute findings. 3. Fund long-term research examining cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources. 4. Prioritize research involving children, pregnancy, neurological health, sleep, and reproductive outcomes. 5. Require transparency regarding industry influence, research funding, and regulatory conflicts of interest. 6. Expand public access to real-world exposure measurements and meaningful consumer information. 7. Support wired alternatives and reasonable exposure-reduction measures. 8. Establish a transparent process for periodically updating exposure standards as scientific evidence evolves. Closing Statement Wireless technology provides undeniable convenience, but convenience must never substitute for rigorous public health evaluation. The burden of establishing reasonable safety should not rest entirely upon individuals after a technology has already been deployed throughout their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. The American public deserves an independent assessment that examines all credible scientific evidence, acknowledges unresolved questions, and places human health above commercial interests. I urge HHS to make this inquiry the beginning of meaningful scientific investigation and regulatory accountability rather than another exercise in reaffirming existing assumptions. Thank you for considering my comments.

I am submitting this comment as an individual consumer (Question 2). My comments are based on my own direct, repeated experience with everyday wireless devices and an electric vehicle. In response to Question 3, I want to describe what I have experienced. I have used both iPhone and Samsung smartphones, along with Apple AirPods, on the AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile networks. I use my phone an average of 10 hours a day, which means my exposure is long, daily, and ongoing. I experience headaches, and they consistently come on after I have been close to electronic devices. This has happened across different phone brands and different carriers, which tells me the issue is not limited to a single product or network. My experience with my electric vehicle has been more severe. I own a 2025 Jeep Wagoneer Launch Edition and charge it using both Level 2 and Level 3 (DC fast) charging, including at EVgo charging stations. When I sit inside the car while it is charging, I get a severe headache within 3 to 5 minutes. The speed and consistency of this reaction is significant. Many drivers stay in their vehicles while charging, especially at public fast-charging stations, yet no one has told me whether doing so is safe. Regarding Question 5 and Question 9, I urge HHS to require clear, accessible disclosure of exposure information for consumers. For phones and wireless earbuds, this should include SAR values and the exact distance from the body at which each device was tested. Phones are carried against the body and earbuds are worn inside the ear for hours, so testing at a distance does not reflect how these products are actually used. For electric vehicles, manufacturers and charging providers should disclose the magnetic and electric field levels inside the cabin during Level 2 and DC fast charging, and should state plainly whether occupants should remain in the vehicle while it charges. Today, this information is either difficult to find or not provided at all. Regarding Question 10, there is currently no simple way for a consumer like me to report symptoms connected to wireless devices or EV charging. I ask HHS to create a public adverse event reporting system for RF/EMF exposure, so that patterns across many individuals can be identified and studied rather than dismissed one case at a time. Regarding Question 13 (wearable technologies and vehicles) and Question 16, I ask HHS to make the following research priorities: exposure from wearable devices worn in or on the head, such as wireless earbuds; cumulative exposure from using multiple wireless devices for many hours each day; and exposure inside electric vehicles during charging, particularly DC fast charging, when occupants sit close to high-power electrical systems in an enclosed space. I also ask that EV charging be studied under real-world conditions, including measurements taken at the seating positions where drivers and passengers actually sit. I respectfully ask HHS to take reports like mine seriously, to close these gaps in testing and disclosure, and to give the public the information it needs to make informed decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment.

Victoria Marshall Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket #.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397; Federal Register Notice: 91 FR 59792 (Sept. 21, 2026) Dear Ms. Marshall and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health: This is an abridged version. The full version is attached as a PDF. I worked in satellite communications in the late 1980s. The field was new; we transmitted live sports via audio then video within 18 months. The company grew from ~23–24 to ~350 employees in five years. I worked under the executive VP overseeing engineering. Safety was taken seriously—rigid line and transmission equipment were tested and kept within then-applicable exposure margins. Despite this, I was chronically ill the entire time. I have had multiple RF, wireless, and magnetic exposures (satellite RF, extreme magnetic fields exceeding accepted standards, ordinary/not ordinary wireless). I may be more sensitive than average. One can literally feel the low-level “noise” of these emanations as continuous low-level stress on the body, separate from any bio-field or optogenetic-type effects. RF/wireless/magnetic safety limits have not been meaningfully updated in ~30–40 years. FCC limits adopted in August 1996 (based on ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 and NCRP) remain essentially unchanged (reaffirmed 2019). They rest on a ~4 W/kg whole-body SAR threshold linked to roughly a 1 °C core temperature rise, with large safety factors yielding a public limit of 0.08 W/kg. The safety exposure levels for RF, wireless, microwave radiation have not been meaningfully updated in roughly 40 years. The current U.S. FCC limits were adopted in August 1996, based on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard and NCRP recommendations which was studied in the 80’s which govern the frequency range from 3 kHz – 300 GHz. Those numerical limits (and their thermal-only basis) have remained essentially unchanged; the FCC reviewed and explicitly reaffirmed them in 2019. The foundational threshold is approximately 4 W/kg whole-body average SAR, associated with roughly a 1 °C rise in core body temperature (and with the behavioral disruption seen in earlier animal studies that was attributed to heating). Large safety factors are then applied—reducing the occupational limit to 0.4 W/kg and the general-public limit to 0.08 W/kg. Military development and fielding of RF/microwave directed-energy systems as non-kinetic tools is itself proof that governments know these fields can produce physical effects. They would not have researched and deployed such systems if they believed the fields were inert. The same applies to medical and commercial remote-sensing tools. For 30 years, medical, military, and commercial sectors have been using and further developing methods to sense and influence the body via RF, wireless, magnetic, and related pathways. IEEE 802.15.1–.6 (including Body Area Network standards) define networks in which the human body itself functions as a node and essential backbone. Without living bodies as nodes, the systems do not function as designed. This has occurred under SMART/IoT/IoB, and many other Io'X' labels without clear public disclosure that the architecture depends on human bodies. Absence of consent is criminal. I have found no clear independent studies showing that continuous use of the body as a communications node does not affect cellular energy, molecular/photonic processes, or long-term health. Robert O. Becker, M.D. (Army Medical Corps, VA orthopedics, The Body Electric), documented the body’s intrinsic DC electrical system (currents of injury, perineural control, piezoelectric bone) and its sensitivity to external fields well below thermal levels. The body is an electrical organism. Are there rigorous studies showing that treating it as a network node does not disrupt those systems? Every person in range of expanding sensor/wireless infrastructure should be informed of the body’s role as a network node and given a practical ability to opt out of remote/wireless/magnetic access or use of their body as a network element by any party when no onboard or near-body device is present and no consent has been given. This inquiry is decades overdue. If Making America Healthy Again is to be taken seriously, RF, magnetic, wireless, and related exposures—including use of the body itself as network infrastructure—must be examined alongside diet and traditional medicine. Best Regards,

My brain became “unhinged” when 5G transmitters were placed on phone poles right in front of my house. One is about 50’ away, one less than 100’ away (not sure why; no other phone poles have them so close together). I was born with a pretty good brain – I graduated from Harvard at the top of my class! (junior year Phi Beta Kappa, class of ’73). No signs of dementia before this. When the transmitters were installed, I developed brain fog, memory loss, deep fatigue, irritability / anger outbursts, inability to think clearly. I work at a home office, and I have been almost completely unable to work since then. I have acquired some EMF protective gear which has helped to some extent. I also have a Safe & Sound meter to measure EMF levels; it has a green light to indicate a safe zone, a yellow light to indicate acceptable levels, an orange light for problem levels, red for danger; and a blinking red light indicates 10 times the danger level; mine blinks much faster, indicating 100 times the danger level. On EMFradar.com, the EMF exposure at my street address is listed - on a scale of 1 to 100 – at a 100. I work in health care and I like to think that my life is dedicated to serving the health of others. Please help to protect me so I can continue to be of service!

See attached file(s)

I am commenting as a concerned public citizen. Wireless radiation exposure and EMF's, although invisible, just like carbon monoxide, are very harmful. It's common sense that humans, as electrical beings, would be affected. Personally, I have done what I can to shield myself, and am considering more measures. I have Ethernet connections for my laptop and my phone, and shielding paint on one wall because my roommate has WiFi in her room. Since taking these steps I have experienced far less headaches. Also, it has already been demonstrated that cell towers near schools negatively affect young brains. I appreciate that HHS is considering this issue, and I support any actions that can be taken to identify gaps in understanding these dangers and establish appropriate research priorities to protect human health, and especially children's health.

Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397, Request for Information on EMFs, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Thank you for asking. Federal RF exposure limits date to 1996, and in 2021 the D.C. Circuit found the FCC had not adequately explained why it kept them. Since then wireless has moved from 3G to 4G to 5G, with 6G planned around 2030: more antennas, closer together, more of the time. It doesn't stop. HHS should give the public, and the FCC, a real health record to work from. 1. Update the limits on modern science. Revisit the 1996 limits using current research, with special attention to children and long-term, close-to-body exposure. HHS should lead the health review and hand the FCC a record that answers the court. 2. Take public reports seriously. Many Americans report real symptoms they connect to wireless exposure. Their experiences should not be dismissed simply because no one has funded a peer-reviewed study to examine them. Absence of funded research is not evidence of safety. HHS should collect these reports systematically and fund independent studies, free of industry money, designed to test them. 3. Review each generation before and after rollout. Every new wireless generation should get an exposure assessment before broad deployment and ongoing monitoring afterward, rather than riding on decades-old assumptions. As another commenter noted, most instruments were built to check heating limits, not to record everyday exposure continuously. HHS should fund continuous, real-world measurement where people live, work, and sleep. 4. Set device efficiency standards. For most people the closest source is their own phone. Push for standards that make phones and wearables connect at lower transmit power, whether to towers or satellites, and publish real-world exposure data for each model. 5. Study satellite connectivity as a lower-exposure path. Satellites with large antenna arrays, paired with more efficient phones, could cover rural and remote America with fewer towers near homes and schools. HHS should study this side by side with dense 5G and 6G networks, including the higher power phones may use to reach orbit, and communities should be able to choose it where it works. 6. Health comes first. More connectivity is not automatically progress. Faster video is not what stands between Americans and abundance; affordable energy, medicine, and housing are. Each new generation should show it is needed and safe before it is built into every neighborhood, and the burden of proof belongs on the deployers, not on families. Please publish the underlying data and keep the review independent. Alec Snelling California This comment was crafted with super intelligence (SI) support.

See attached file(s)