All comment threads

While the Tech is incredible, yes, the EMF is something to consider. It's important we safeguard ourselves and our children's futures moving forward.

In 2009 I suffered systemic aluminum injury that took out 60% of my mitochondria in an instant. I went from vibrant and healthy to having a pretty severe physical handicap. In traveling to a Functional MD in Ocala, Florida to get to the root of my newfound condition, I stayed at a hotel as often patients do. The interesting thing about the first time I stayed there, my disability would increase dramatically while walking thru a specific hallway. I described it like hitting a wall of invisible pea soup.. like tredging thru quick sand. Just in that one spot. Through diagnosing and advice from my Functuonal MD, it was suggested I get a Q-link pendant to cope with EMF. So I got one.. and wouldn't you know, when I wore it at that same hotel, walking thr same corridor.. I didn't get the pea soup feeling anymore. Turns out the corridor was on the backside of the elevator shaft.. loaded with EMF. Fast forward nearly two decades later and it's becoming more an more apparent in medical circles and research that EMF 'dampens' mitochondrial function. Well, since I've had to learn to live with 60% less of these energy organelles, I can attest that nothing enhances my disability like EMF, RF and dirty electricity. I need a wheelchair at high EMF locations like Universal Studios, while I can physically walk and work a farm far from the city limits. It'a a no brainer for people like me who have become sensitive due to reduced mitochondrial function... that EMF harms cellular activity in all. Just most wont feel the difference.

Release the information

Public Comment on HHS Request for Information: EMF/RF Exposure and Human Health Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I submit this comment as a concerned consumer urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to put public health, independent science, and informed consent ahead of commercial interests when evaluating radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF/EMF) exposure from wireless devices and infrastructure. Wireless technology is everywhere, from phones and Wi-Fi to wearables, smart meters, and cellular networks. Consumers cannot assess safety when exposure information is hard to find and testing may be funded by companies that profit from the products. The public deserves transparent answers. I do not claim every RF/EMF exposure causes illness or that every alleged harm is established. HHS should identify what is known and unknown, without treating uncertainty as proof of safety or speculation as proof of harm. Policy must follow transparent, reproducible science, free from commercial or advocacy pressure. I urge HHS to prioritize these actions: 1. INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY TESTING. Require qualified labs independent of manufacturers and telecom companies to test devices and infrastructure. Disclose funding, conflicts, methods, calibration, exposure conditions, analyses, and full results. Publish positive and negative findings and make testing reproducible. Industry-funded research must not be the sole basis for declaring a product safe. 2. REAL-WORLD AND CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. Assess ordinary and high-use scenarios, multiple devices together, and long-term exposure in homes, workplaces, schools, childcare facilities, and neighborhoods. Consider distance, duration, frequency, signal strength, and actual use. Measurements must be independently verifiable and explained plainly. 3. LONG-TERM HEALTH RESEARCH. Fund adequately powered, independently replicated long-term human studies, systematic reviews, and laboratory research on reported concerns involving cancer, cognition, sleep, reproduction, development, cardiovascular outcomes, and other effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation, address confounding factors, publish protocols and null findings, and share data when ethical and privacy rules permit. 4. PROTECT VULNERABLE GROUPS. Assess whether added precautions are warranted for children, pregnant people, older adults, people with medical conditions, exposed workers, and users of medical devices. Include schools and childcare facilities. 5. CLEAR CONSUMER DISCLOSURES. Require accessible disclosures of emissions, limits, independent test results, test conditions, limitations, and uncertainty. Explain implications for normal and cumulative exposure. Create a searchable public database of test and adverse-event reports. Marketing must not substitute for evidence. 6. PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING. Create privacy-protecting systems to report suspected health effects. Investigate credible patterns with validated exposure measurements and clinical assessment. Reports should prompt investigation, not prove causation automatically. Coordinate research and publish findings. 7. ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN HARM IS ESTABLISHED. If reliable evidence shows that a company's product, emissions, concealment, or failure to comply with safety requirements caused or materially contributed to injury, consumers should have meaningful remedies. Congress and regulators should consider requiring responsible companies to cover reasonable medical evaluation, treatment, ongoing care, and appropriate compensation. Companies that knowingly conceal credible safety findings, falsify results, or obstruct required disclosures should face meaningful penalties. Responsibility must be determined fairly, based on evidence, causation, and applicable law. 8. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. Disclose conflicts, publish the basis for conclusions, invite independent peer review, and explain how conflicting evidence is weighed. Review standards as technology and science evolve. Publish who funded studies, what was measured, and why conclusions were reached. Consumers deserve information about possible risks, and should not bear the full financial burden if evidence establishes preventable harm. Transparency encourages safer design, honest communication, and better science. I urge HHS to establish rigorous, independent, publicly accountable RF/EMF research and oversight. Where evidence identifies a risk, take proportionate action. Where evidence is uncertain, fund better research and communicate uncertainty honestly. Where evidence does not support an adverse effect, explain that conclusion and the strength and limits of the research. Commercial confidentiality should never hide information essential to public health. The public deserves independent testing, accessible data, protections for vulnerable populations, and medical and financial remedies when harm is demonstrated.

We are citizens and not to be cooked by microwave radiation. End injurious government.

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 healthcare professional, researcher, and advocate. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects. 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.

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, family member and concerned member of the public. 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.

Please research Dr Ibrahim Karim (BioGeometry and EMF detrimental effects).

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Question 2 – Perspective This comment is submitted by an individual with an interest in evidence-based public health. It draws on peer-reviewed literature, government and international agency assessments, and systematic reviews. Established findings are distinguished from emerging or uncertain evidence. Questions 5, 6, and 12 – Exposure standards, risk assessment, and evidence regarding effects at or below current federal limits Federal health agencies should consider the following established frameworks and evidence: • ICNIRP 2020 guidelines: The only substantiated adverse health effects of RF-EMF are those caused by tissue heating (thermal effects). The guidelines protect against all established adverse effects, including those relevant to 5G and other modern technologies. No adverse effects below the thermal threshold have been consistently substantiated in human populations at typical exposure levels. • U.S. FCC RF exposure limits (47 CFR 1.1310) and FDA assessments: These are based primarily on thermal effects (SAR). FDA has stated that the weight of scientific evidence does not support a causal link between RF exposure below these limits and cancer or other adverse health effects. • WHO-commissioned systematic reviews (2023–2025): Reviews of human observational studies on cancer (including glioma), cognition, reproduction, and non-specific symptoms generally found no or only small effects associated with RF-EMF exposure, with moderate certainty of evidence for the absence of increased brain tumor risk from mobile phone use. Confidence is lower for many other outcomes due to limited high-quality data. • IARC 2011 classification: RF-EMF is Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”) based on limited evidence linking heavy mobile phone use to glioma and acoustic neuroma. This classification has not been upgraded. • NTP rodent studies (2018): These reported carcinogenic signals in male rats at high whole-body exposures well above typical human levels. Findings were not consistent across sexes or species, and methodological limitations have been noted by expert bodies. The results do not directly translate to typical human exposures below thermal limits. Established finding: At exposure levels below current thermal-based limits, there is no consistent, high-quality evidence of causal adverse health effects in the general population from everyday RF/EMF sources. Areas of uncertainty: Long-term effects beyond most study follow-up periods; cumulative multi-source real-world exposures; potential subtle non-thermal biological effects; and whether any subgroups experience effects not captured in population-level data. Question 11 – Sensitive populations Children warrant careful consideration due to potentially higher relative absorption in some tissues and longer lifetime cumulative exposure. Current evidence does not demonstrate harm at typical levels, but data specifically addressing developmental stages remain limited. Targeted research with personal dosimetry is warranted. Question 13 – Cumulative exposure patterns 5G, Wi-Fi, IoT, wearables, smart meters, and denser infrastructure create complex multi-source exposure patterns. Average levels generally remain well below thermal limits. Evidence on how these real-world combinations affect cumulative dose or health outcomes is still limited. Improved multi-source exposure characterization is needed. Question 16 – Highest-priority research gaps 1. Long-term prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with individually measured personal RF exposure. 2. Improved real-world dosimetry for cumulative, multi-source exposures (including 5G characteristics). 3. Independent replication and mechanistic studies of any non-thermal signals using realistic exposure parameters. 4. High-quality blinded investigation of reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Question 17 – Coordination HHS (FDA, NIH, CDC) should coordinate with FCC and international bodies (WHO, ICNIRP) to prioritize independent research that can meaningfully update risk assessment. Question 18 – Additional recommendations Maintain clear public communication that distinguishes established thermal effects and the absence of confirmed adverse effects below limits from areas of residual uncertainty. Support practical exposure-reduction options for those who prefer them without implying established harm. Ensure any future guidance is driven by high-quality evidence.

Good afternoon I am writing on behalf of my 29 year disabled non verbal son. First off I would like to personally thank you for even looking into the harm that this technology can possible effect future generations of American children and for taking parents and care givers opinions serious and not dismissing our concerns. I will try to keep it to a specific time frame but the dates may not be exact. Approximately 9 years ago before the roll out of 5G technology I believe they may have been testing the rollout and my son was reacting to it. I can't prove it but he changed dramatically in that time frame. I have videos of body movement disorders that he had never experienced before, mind you he has always had a seizure disorder but these were different. He started to experience dystonic body movements that were so severe no one should ever experience anything like that in their lifetime and I fear for future generations of American children's lives may be at stake. I went all the way to the top of Neurology at the University of Washington and I was completely dismissed and gaslighted by that department of medicine and was told that my son had all of the sudden out of the blue developed "tics" and offered blood pressure medication to control them. I begged to differ and later learned that they had lied about his medication not causing movement disorders when I brought up his medication Tegretol and Amitriptyline they vehemently denied it. Whenever I would drive by a cell tower my son would have one of these severe attacks in the vehicle. It got so bad that he would not leave the house for 3 years. We are currently transitioning him over to cannabis in the state of Washington to help manage his movement disorder. I know geo fencing is coming and I am not naive to the fact that they want to contain citizens to certain zones and silence any one that speaks out against a future like this but at what point and the health and well being of future American children will we allow this technology to hurt and harm our children. As his nature path put it plainly my child is "the canary in the coal mind" and from what I witnessed as a mother I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy let alone future American children. Thank you for giving concerned American parents a vouce!