All comment threads

See attached document for my comments. 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.

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

As a mother and a longtime Santa Monica resident, I want families to have clear, trustworthy information about wireless radiation and health. Technology is part of everyday life, and I want federal agencies to examine potential risks carefully and explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical steps are justified by the evidence. I submit this comment as an individual member of the public, not as a scientific expert. My requests are informed by the peer-reviewed review cited below. I ask HHS and the FCC to conduct transparent, independent assessments of radiofrequency exposure that consider children, long-term and repeated exposure, and realistic conditions of device use. Mevissen and colleagues (2025) reviewed experimental animal cancer studies and reported high-certainty evidence for increased glioma and malignant heart schwannoma in male rats. The authors also emphasize that extrapolating these findings to human risk is complex. These findings warrant careful evaluation; they do not, by themselves, establish that everyday wireless exposure causes cancer in people. Please assess this review alongside its 2026 corrigendum, the underlying studies, and relevant human research, including findings that do not show harm. I respectfully request that the agencies: 1. Publish an accessible assessment that distinguishes biological changes from adverse health outcomes, animal findings from human evidence, and established conclusions from uncertainty. Explain study quality, exposure levels, limitations, and conflicting results. 2. Explain whether current exposure limits and compliance testing adequately address children, long-term use, and devices used close to the body. Identify where evidence supports current practices and where additional testing or research is needed. 3. Prioritize independent, reproducible research on developmental and neurological outcomes, reproductive health, and cumulative exposure, with transparent funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures. 4. Provide practical guidance on reducing unnecessary exposure where warranted, while preserving access to communication, education, and assistive technology. For HHS, please use this request for information to identify concrete research priorities and public-health guidance needs. For the FCC, please provide a reasoned response to the evidence relevant to the court-remanded issues, including non-cancer outcomes, children, and testing procedures. The cancer review cited here is offered as broader scientific context, not as proof of non-cancer effects or a substitute for addressing the specific remand record. Families deserve decisions supported by rigorous science and explanations they can understand. Thank you for considering my comment.

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

Our comments are contained in the attached file and are supported by three published paper attachments. Other scientific references are included in our submission.

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

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

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.