All comment threads

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.

Re-evaluate exposure standards beyond simple thermal heating limits ​The Issue: Current federal guidelines (primarily based on FCC limits established in 1996) focus almost exclusively on preventing immediate thermal tissue heating (the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR limit) over short timeframes. ​The Recommendation: HHS should urge inter-agency coordination (with the FDA, CDC, and FCC) to evaluate non-thermal, long-term biological pathways. Current research demonstrates that fields far weaker than those required to heat tissue can induce cellular responses, primarily through: ​Oxidative stress and Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) generation, which can indirectly compromise cellular repair pathways and intracellular signaling over time. ​Disruption of cellular calcium homeostasis, affecting membrane dynamics and cellular stress protocols. ​2. Address cumulative, multi-source exposure in real-world environments ​The Issue: Safety thresholds are currently tested on individual devices in isolation (e.g., testing a single smartphone near a model head). ​The Recommendation: HHS should fund public health surveillance and exposure modeling that reflects modern, real-world conditions. Modern environments involve concurrent, continuous exposures from multiple sources—including Wi-Fi networks, smart meters, cellular networks, wearables, and spatial transmission antennas—operating simultaneously over decades. ​3. Establish specialized protective frameworks for vulnerable populations ​The Issue: Uniform safety thresholds assume a standardized adult physiology and do not account for biological variability across demographics. ​The Recommendation: Regulatory guidelines should implement explicit safety margins for sensitive populations: ​Children and Adolescents: Thinner skull bones, higher water content in biological tissue, and developing nervous systems lead to deeper relative RF energy penetration. ​Occupational Workers: Individuals with prolonged high-density field exposures in specific industries or environments. ​Medical Device Users: Individuals with implanted cardiac or neurological electronics sensitive to external field interference. ​4. Clear scientific terminology and clear public communication ​The Issue: The term "radiation" often creates confusion between high-energy ionizing radiation (such as X-rays or nuclear fallout, which cause direct DNA strand breaks) and low-energy non-ionizing radiation (such as RF/EMF, which operate through indirect biophysical mechanisms). Public guidance is often either overly alarmist or dismissively vague. ​The Recommendation: HHS should establish clear, transparent public health communication based on precautionary principles: ​Clearly distinguish between ionizing damage and non-thermal cellular stress mechanisms. ​Provide practical, low-cost "exposure hygiene" guidance (e.g., hardwiring home networks, keeping transmitting devices at a distance from the body during sleep, using speakerphones) so citizens can reduce unnecessary chronic exposure without unnecessary panic. ​5. Prioritize independent, human-relevant research initiatives ​The Issue: Much of the existing literature relies on either high-dose animal studies (e.g., the National Toxicology Program study) or in-vitro petri dish models that do not translate directly to human systemic biology. ​The Recommendation: HHS should direct federal research funding toward: ​Longitudinal epidemiology tracking health outcomes in populations with measured (rather than self-reported) exposure data. ​Biomarker discovery to identify whether specific individuals possess heightened biological sensitivity to non-thermal fields.

I request a comprehensive, independent evaluation of the potential health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from wireless technologies, particularly for children, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and communities near wireless infrastructure. As cell towers, small-cell antennas, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and mobile devices become increasingly widespread, public health protections must keep pace. HHS should assess whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term, cumulative exposure and potentially vulnerable populations. 1. Cancer and long-term exposure I urge HHS to review evidence concerning RF-EMF exposure and cancer, including brain tumors and childhood cancers. Research should consider exposure duration, intensity, frequency, age at first exposure, and proximity to transmitting infrastructure. HHS should distinguish established findings from unresolved questions and identify gaps requiring further long-term research. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm in one exposure scenario should not be interpreted as proof that all scenarios have been adequately studied. 2. Pregnancy, birth defects, and fetal development I request an evaluation of human and experimental evidence concerning RF-EMF exposure and miscarriage, congenital abnormalities, fetal growth, premature birth, and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research should account for confounding factors, accurately assess exposure, and clearly explain limitations. Pregnant women deserve transparent, evidence-based guidance on known risks, uncertainties, and reasonable exposure-reduction measures. 3. Children’s brain development Children warrant particular consideration because their brains and nervous systems are developing and their potential exposure may span decades. HHS should prioritize research into possible effects on neurological development, cognition, memory, attention, learning, behavior, and sleep. Studies should distinguish prenatal, childhood, and adolescent exposure and examine cumulative exposure from multiple sources. Long-term studies using objective exposure measurements, appropriate comparison groups, and independent oversight are essential. 4. Setback distances from schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, and homes HHS should evaluate whether minimum separation distances or additional siting safeguards are scientifically justified for cell towers, small-cell antennas, rooftop antennas, and other wireless infrastructure near schools, daycares, hospitals, maternity facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Specifically, HHS should: * Review studies linking proximity to transmitting infrastructure with health outcomes, accounting for measured exposure and antenna characteristics. * Compare U.S. exposure standards and siting practices with international standards and precautionary policies. * Evaluate cumulative exposure from multiple transmitters. * Consider additional protections for children, pregnant women, neonatal units, and other potentially vulnerable populations. * Recommend pre-installation assessments and independent post-installation exposure measurements, with results publicly accessible. * Determine whether minimum setbacks are justified and, if so, recommend distances appropriate to the facility type and exposure conditions. I recognize that distance alone does not determine exposure. Nevertheless, HHS should explicitly evaluate whether distance-based protections are warranted. Where evidence is insufficient, the agency should identify research gaps and consider proportionate precautionary measures while further studies are conducted. 5. Review of current exposure standards HHS should assess whether current U.S. RF exposure limits adequately address prolonged exposure, realistic living conditions, multiple simultaneous sources, and different stages of human development. The review should distinguish established effects from possible effects under investigation and findings that have not been consistently replicated. Compliance testing should reflect realistic conditions in homes, schools, workplaces, and healthcare facilities. 6. Independent research and transparency HHS should prioritize rigorous, independently funded research with transparent conflict-of-interest disclosures. Priorities should include cancer, reproductive outcomes, prenatal development, childhood neurological health, cumulative exposure, and the effectiveness of exposure-reduction and siting measures. HHS should publish its assessments, explain how conflicting findings are evaluated, and make results accessible to families, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments. Thank you for considering my comments.

We have our entire home hardwired to avoid wifi. I am very sensitive to EMF's. I get bad headaches, severe ear ringing, insomnia, a bad feeling in my head, and my eyes will hurt when exposed to this radiation. I have had problems with cellphones. My hand, wrist, and arm will become numb when using my cellphone. I bought a new Samsung S25 cellphone about 2 yrs ago and had to return it due to severe effects from this cellphone. I developed breast cancer when I worked at a hospital with many cells on their roof. Many nurses got cancer working there. I also became very ill when visiting Las Vegas and walking the street with the 5G small cells on every corner. I developed a severe headache and nose bleed from this. My father got very sick when a cell tower was installed close to his senior apartment building. He developed lymphocytic leukemia, severe insomnia, and horrible headaches from this radiation. The readings were sky high on my EMF meter when I took a reading in his apartment. Please regulate cellphones as my EMF meter registers high readings from my husband's and my cellphone. We havea cell tower 1 mile from our home. I cannot walk near there without bad symptoms.

2013 a cell tower was installed a couple hundred meters from my house. A couple months later I was diagnosed with A pulmonary embolism and collapsed while being treated for that and was also diagnosed with Paracarditis. Spent 2 months hospitalized. Relocated in 2016 to a rural area away from all the communications. Fast forward to 2024. S.M.A.R.T Meters forced upon everyone's home without consent, similar scenario. A couple months pass and I find myself dealing with heart failure. 1 month hospitalized and still feeling the effects daily with tinnitus and anxiety... Skeptical of any official survey, not knowing if this information will be used to remedy the problem or monitor its effectiveness as a weapon.

Thank you Honorable Secretary Robert Kennedy for caring about all the people who are suffering daily. Myself, husband and one of my sons have been injured from EMF, RT and WR exposure with severe tinnitus, pain in extremities, headaches, vertigo, constant interruption during sleep, rapid heart beats, raised blood pressures, fatigue and physical hits on our heads and bodies. I have went through breast cancer as a result of these radiation frequencies with no paternal or maternal family history of breast cancer. This has caused us to have severe AHI's. My husband can no longer work in his career as an IT analyst for IBM and me and my son had to undergo so many hardships with family because many did not know what was happening and thought we were losing our minds. It was such a horrific time but we are trying to stay strong in our faith with the Father to get us through and in constant prayer daily. I appreciate all you are doing for all civilians across the world to help stop this horrible weaponization. God bless you always. Tamera C. Williams

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a , parent, myself, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. wireless radiation has affected me significantly and also i am concerned about my child, and entire family that I care about. The continues exposure from everywhere is unjust since there is no escape from it. I am very signifantly sensitive to is and the measures that I am taking are not enough. I am buying expensive clothes and blankets to shield myself but I am still significantly affected. It's not right that my life became a hell now without my consent and ability to opt out. The exposure is crazy and new towers continue to grow everywhere. This needs to stop and it is unlawful because it affects everyone without asking for acceptance. I do not consent and do not accept being continuously exposed to this radiation. 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.

We have multiple towers on our block. They are on Rooftops, lightpoles and giant poles with multiple boxes. We also have them all around the school I work at on rooftops. After these were installed near my home, my children began having anxiety. Our sleep has been distrupted with no other explanation. My ears have been ringing on and off ever since. A young girl on my block has thyroid cancer now.

5g is a military bio weapon that needs to be stopped. I should not have to write snd let you know that the congress stole our money, gave our jobs to illegals and now you asshole are using 5g to give us radiation.

This documentary argues that the rollout of fifth-generation wireless technology (5G) poses a serious threat to human health, privacy, and freedom. Its central claims are that 5G technology is not merely intended to improve telecommunications, but could also be used for surveillance, population control, and potentially harmful biological effects. It presents these concerns through interviews with activists, people described as weapons experts, and individuals discussing biology and electromagnetic radiation. The film combines three main lines of argument: Health: Wireless radiation may have biological effects that the public is not adequately informed about. Technology and control: An increasingly connected society could make surveillance and centralized control easier. Political accountability: Governments, regulators, and telecommunications companies should face greater scrutiny over the deployment of new wireless infrastructure. The documentary uses urgent language and interviews to encourage viewers to oppose what it portrays as a dangerous technological development. 5G Apocalypse https://youtu.be/ZX4yclXvcts?is=X8yYIoqdfOhDbUF2