All comment threads

I support HHS in taking an active part in researching & then regulating the obvious affects that wireless radiation has on our environment with regard to our children, animals, birds, flora & fauna, etc. The time has come for this issue to be brought out from under the rug & scientifically examined in great depth. Our Mother Earth home deserves that We The People do the right thing by her. Thank you from a mother, grandmother, great grandmother & health freedom activist

*See Attached: Non-thermal Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects.

World Council for Health (WCH) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information. WCH is an international health advocacy organisation committed to promoting informed consent, individual health sovereignty, scientific transparency, and the protection of human and environmental health. We believe that the rapid and largely unrestrained expansion of wireless technologies represents a significant public health and environmental policy concern that warrants urgent, independent and comprehensive scientific scrutiny. Over recent decades, wireless communications infrastructure has expanded dramatically, introducing increasingly widespread and persistent exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields. While technological innovation has brought considerable benefits, WCH is concerned that the pace of deployment has outstripped the assessment of potential long-term biological and environmental consequences, particularly in relation to chronic, cumulative and involuntary exposure. In 2023, WCH published its Policy Brief on the Effects of Unregulated Digitalization, examining the wider implications of rapidly expanding digital and wireless technologies for public health, human rights, democratic accountability and the environment. This body of work includes the recommendations of the late Dr Arthur Firstenberg, who devoted decades to investigating the biological and ecological effects of electromagnetic fields. His work brought together scientific publications examining possible effects on neurological function, cellular processes, reproduction, wildlife, biodiversity and ecosystem health. Of particular concern is the extent to which existing RF exposure standards have historically focused on established thermal effects, while questions concerning long-term exposure, non-thermal biological effects, signal modulation, vulnerable populations and ecological impacts remain contested or insufficiently resolved. WCH believes that public health policy must consider the full breadth of available evidence, including research findings that challenge prevailing assumptions about exposure thresholds and biological safety. We are particularly concerned about the implications for children, pregnant women, individuals reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and those who have little practical ability to avoid exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces or communities. The continued expansion of 5G telecommunications and wireless infrastructure including the introduction of new frequencies, network configurations and connected technologies raise further questions about aggregate exposure, long-term health effects and the adequacy of existing safety assessments. The potential environmental implications must also be considered. The Brief highlights research examining associations between anthropogenic electromagnetic fields and changes in the behaviour, development, reproduction and survival of insects, birds, plants and other organisms. These findings require careful evaluation, including consideration of study limitations and other environmental factors, as part of a comprehensive approach to ecological protection. WCH therefore calls for an independent, transparent and multidisciplinary review of the scientific evidence, free from inappropriate commercial or regulatory conflicts of interest. Such a review should address thermal and possible non-thermal effects, chronic and cumulative exposure, biological responses to modulation and pulsed signals, and the implications of exposure across the lifespan. We further urge HHS to consider the precautionary principle, particularly where exposure is involuntary, where vulnerable populations may be affected, and where meaningful opportunities to reduce unnecessary exposure exist. This includes serious consideration of practical alternatives such as wired communications infrastructure, greater public disclosure of exposure information, improved professional education, and individual choice. WCH encourages greater coordination between public health authorities, environmental agencies, independent researchers and affected communities, recognising that the potential implications of electromagnetic pollution extend beyond conventional telecommunications regulation. The protection of public health and the natural environment must remain central to technological policy, and not be treated as secondary considerations after widespread deployment has already occurred. We believe that responsible technological development must be guided by independent science, transparency, informed consent, the protection of vulnerable populations, and a commitment to safeguarding the health of both present and future generations. Yours sincerely Dr Tess Lawrie MBBCh, PhD Ambassador World Council for Health worldcouncilforhealth.org https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/what-is-5g-health-risks/

I want to educate myself on this before it hits home too hard.

There are many reasons to research the impact of man-made non-ionizing radiation. First, we’ll start with cellphone and mobile base stations (MBSTS) effects on children (it should be noted these base stations are leased and pay the schools tens of thousands of dollars annually). A study involved parting a non MPBST (mobile phone base station) exposed group to an exposed group and comparing test scores after a period of 2 years’ time (Meo SA et all, 2018). The impact of the radiation showed memory and motor deficiencies of significant value. In the attached report you’ll see a significant difference in the study groups when it comes to learning and memory. I will say that I have measured the radiation from my cellphone in an otherwise zero EMR environment. The zero EMR environment registers 0.2 to .5 mW/cm2 (0.2 microwatts per meter squared), which is considered very safe. Comparatively, when you measure my phone with its Wi-Fi turned on (and no other connectivity signal), I get 189,000 mW/cm2. That’s an incredible difference. Other individuals of concern are those with preexisting medical conditions, especially those with weakened immune systems are more susceptible to the degrading effect EMR has on the blood brain barrier. The BBB is a semipermeable border that moves ions, oxygen and water between the blood and the central nervous system. It serves to block pathogens and toxins from entering the brain and these studies have found correlation between EMR and penetrability of the Blood Brain Barrier. Additionally, IARC (International Agency of Research on Cancer) have found cellphone users have a greater risk of cancer (MSD, 2016). Cumulative exposure is the biggest problem with EMR. It is very hard to determine the cause of issue when so many devices are involved. The various sources of cumulative exposure include 6G, 5G, Wi-Fi and wearable technology. 6G involves THz (Terahertz) frequencies that will have the ability to alter DNA and neurons. It has been determined that 5G and 6G and other high frequency radiation causes tissue and nerve damage (Minar, 2025). The IoT will magnify the effects of EMR as many appliances connect and communicate with each other. Wearable technologies concentrate EMR on the body and range up to 2.4 GHz, which is not advisable to wear and it is not fair to expose others to this device’s radiation (Revolutionhealth, 2025). Unless it is mandatory, wireless medical devices should not be worn (mdasafetech, 2026). It is also known that wireless devices can cause heart issues and it’s extremely ironic they are used to measure heart rate and other general health metrics. As for satellite-based communication, studies need to be made regarding its impact on the environment and biology. The WHO and FCC have already mentioned, in their former studies, that electromagnetic radiation devices are possibly carcinogenic. These same studies are decade’s old and needing review. It should be assumed that at this point, with the massive increase in man-made electrical fields, that scientific evidence is irrefutable and that it does cause harm (Johansson, 2026). Like tobacco and alcohol, outreach/education about the potential harmful impacts of wireless radiation should be readily available with warning labels. At this time, the cellphone and telecommunications companies are largely uninsurable due to the high risks of electromagnetic fields (ehtrust, 2026) (Complete Markets, 2026). Since we are discussing the need for HHS to reevaluate and none of the other branches, we can talk about the need to expand its epidemiological studies to cover the cancer and leukemia issues known to be associated with this as well as harm reduction in classes, libraries, hospitals and public spaces. Every technological product we use has a measurable field. These items should be 3rd party tested and sold with the readings provided and a warning label printed. The packaging should be sold with a label that states its level at microwatts per meter squared (mW/cm2) and each level should be color coded for quick recognition so that we can create a baseline chart that consumers easily understand. Much like the EMR test meters available on the markets, you’ll have Red, Orange, Yellow and Green and these colors correlate to the degree of signal on the object. The FDA will be responsible for labeling and verifying full disclosure is provided to consumers. Public spaces need to be measured and coded as well and if possible, provide Ethernet connections and lower their EMR signal to the minimum necessary. We already have thousands of well researched, published scientific articles online that have spanned 40-50 years. We don’t need to invent the cart; we just need some horses and a destination. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment on man-made electromagnetic radiation and its effects on health. Sincerely, Nicole Stallings

*See Attached: Non-thermal Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects.

*See Attached: Non-thermal Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects.

Please see the attached document: my response to the HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Radiation (HHS-OASH-2026-0397). I am an Electromagnetic Hypersensitive (EHS) person from Israel and an EMF/EMR awareness activist. My life, and my daughter's, have been deeply affected by exposure to EMF/EMR. Since 2006 I have supported EHS people in Israel and worldwide with exposure measurement and reduction, and I run the information site www.norad4u.com. My main points: 1. Many studies show biological and health effects of RF/EMF at levels far below current FCC and ICNIRP limits. 2. EHS is real and is caused and influenced by EMF/EMR exposure. Reducing exposure reduces symptoms. 3. Provocation studies with design flaws (such as Rubin et al., 2006) should not be used to dismiss EHS. 4. Exposure should be measured with fast-sampling meters showing peak values, not averages over minutes. 5. New, health-based exposure guidelines are needed, with special protection for EHS people, children and other sensitive groups. 6. Federal health agencies should track symptoms, EHS cases and exposure, and fund research on how, not if, EMF/EMR causes harm. The attached document answers the RFI questions (Q2–Q17) and includes a numbered list of 134 scientific references. Amir Borenstein Zichron Yaakov, Israel norad4u@gmail.com

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Public transport equipped with wireless technology (trams, busses, trains, planes), where nearly all passengers are constantly scrolling on their cell phones. 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):I have been experiencing health issues since 2020 when 5G was introduced in Belgium and in most other EU countries. An average tram ride takes 10-20 minutes, a domestic European flight 2-4 hours. My body always responds to the EMF. That's why I avoid public transport, and when I do have to take a bus, tram or train I always look for a seat away from other passengers. I often change 2-4 times of seat when new passengers get up and all the seats around me get taken. But sometimes there is "no escape" possible. 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:A fatigue overwhelms me, I start sweating and my vision gets blurred. I have had light cataract since 2021. Once home (low radiation home) it takes half an hour to a few hours before the symptoms disappear. But of course my cataract does not disappear. 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:According to the intensity of the EMF, adverse health effects appear within about 15 minutes to an hour. The fuller a bus, tram or train compartment, the faster the effects. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?Although I gave my family physician scientific information on the impact of EMF, he is not interested in the matter. After I gave him the information I asked his opinion during the 2 next consultations (over a period of 1-2 years). He twice said that he did not have had the time yet to read through the information. For the majority of the medical establishment there is a taboo, omerta on the topic! 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?I avoid public transport. I rather walk or bike. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:I have not found yet any studies on EMF in public transport. But there is this website https://carsradiation.org/ Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's: B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:public transport (bus, tram, train, plane), mobile phones, wi-fi B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you:No idea. B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed:No idea. B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy):Yoga and a shiatsue massage every 3-4 weeks to calm my nervous system. Gardening, being in nature. B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:These are not health conditions but may be related to my sensitivity; empathy with all life, great sense of responsibiity. B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant: B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure:yoga shiatsu organic food intermittent fasting B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help:supplements: omega 3, vitamine D, organic herbal teas. B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): B3d. Treatments that had no effect: B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:65-74 B4. What is your age range?65-74 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?2020 B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?Belgium, Flanders

*See Attached: Non-thermal Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects.