All comment threads

Over the past 18 years, my personal exposure to EMF's from WIFI at home and even in hospitals, has caused my bi-cuspid heart to go into atrial fibrillation. I have eliminated WIFI in my personal home and live far away from phone towers. I have put graphite on my walls and ceilings and then painted over them, in my ground floor apartment. I am 80 years old, a Vietnam vet and am not on any medication. My heart does not go into A-fib, as long as I avoid exposure to EMFS. My I-phone is in another room and I feel blessed to have found the cause of my atrial fib. We need to study this now to have a baseline for the future generations. People over profit.

My comments are on an individual basis. I am a retired civil engineer and occupational and design safety advisor based in South Wales, UK. Question 3: I often feel slightly dizzy when in built-up areas. I also used to regularly feel both dizzy and slightly nauseous whilst at home. However, after I disabled Wi-fi at home – replaced with wired connections - and, more recently, changed my DECT telephone for a wired landline, my symptoms went. They did, however, return on one occasion but on investigation, I discovered that our DECT telephone had inadvertently been switched back on; after disabling it, my symptoms went again. Approximately 15 years ago, I raised health concerns regarding possible adverse health effects due to long-term exposure to EMF radiation when the office I worked in was fitted with multiple Wi-fi boasters. The advice I was given at that time was that it was safe. However, this reassurance did not quieten my concerns and I began to work from home more often in order to reduce my exposure. It is noted, with extreme concern, that in the last two years, an unusually high number of staff within the same office - all reasonable young and reasonable fit - have suffered from various cancers. Question 5: It is understood that the USA/FCC wireless radiation limit is some 25 times greater than that adopted in China and a hundred times greater than that adopted in Russia. In order to hopefully partly address this significant discrepancy, it is noted that a lawsuit was filed against the Federal Republic of Germany, as recent as 29 September 2026, demanding that the limits for mobile phone radiation, which have remained unchanged since their introduction in 1996, be reassessed and significantly tightened. Question 6: Over the last eight years, I have sent overwhelming evidence of harm from numerous peer-reviewed studies to numerous parties – including my local Council and planning authority, Members of the Senedd (Welsh Parliament), Ministers in the Welsh Government, Public Health Wales, UK Members of Parliament, the UK Health Security Agency, the media, and many others. But all of my concerns and evidence of harm have either been ignored or a stock response provided - ‘that there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children’. And this is despite c. 90% of peer-reviewed studies over the last 30-years finding ‘significant adverse effects’ [Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research]. And despite the fact that the ICNIRP, WHO, SCENIHR and SSM have been criticised for dismissing studies that show evidence of harm [Buchner K, Rivasi M: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G, 2020]. And even despite the fact that the latest WHO systematic review on animal carcinogenicity concluded that ‘there is high certainty of the evidence linking cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation to two types of cancer in animals; and that both these tumour types had previously been found in studies on humans.’ No doubt you will already be fully aware of all of the more recent peer-reviewed studies, but I would like to record two of note. An American study, 12 March 2026, that found that ‘One in 8 U.S. adults reported adverse health effects from exposure to wireless radiation’ [1 in 8 U.S. Adults Say Wireless Radiation Is Causing Health Issues — What Does That Mean for Kids’ Health? • Children's Health Defense]. And an Australian study, 17th March 2026, that found that ‘overall, 18.9% of Australians reported having wireless sensitivity, diagnosed EHS, or both conditions' .[final_wireless_sensitivity_prevalence_media_release_17_mar_26.pdf]. Question 8: Until how implant and other proximity-related risks are to be assessed consistently in spatial terms is resolved, placing sole reliance on a Certificate of Conformity is not a sufficiently robust basis for identifying and assessing proximity-related risks as part of an Authority’s obligations to reconcile public health and environmental implications. Thank you

I can definitely feel strong frequency from these towers. I feel the vibrations in my body and ringing in my ears, whenever one is in wye shot. My anxiety goes through the roof. Such an awful feeling that is inescapable when near one. And they are everywhere. Please help!!!

Living with an intolerance to wireless technology (including the author) (*) An increasing number of people live with the difficulties incurred by intolerance to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) generated by wireless technology. This ubiquitous ‘Electrosmog’ surrounds us all on a daily basis. EMF expert Dr. Magda Havas estimates that 35% of the population now struggles with symptoms related to exposure to radiofrequency microwaves from wireless devices, such as wi-fi, smartphones, tablets, smartmeters, and mobile phone masts, with 3-10% of people being “hypersensitive” – termed Electrical Hypersensitivity, EHS. Symptoms include: fatigue, headache, insomnia, irritability, lack of concentration (brainfog), cardiac arrhythmias, tinnitus, low mood and other physical and neuropsychiatric effects (1). Historically, it was thought to be a type of Microwave Sickness (2). In addition to tinnitus, there can be unilateral, high frequency hearing loss on the side of mobile phone use (3). Mechanisms include effects on the blood and autonomic nervous system leading to enhanced sympathetic response and downgraded parasympathetic response (ie. ‘fight or flight’) (4) (5). The WHO radioprotection programme multi-national study on the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animals revealed a high certainty of evidence for gliomas, malignant heart schwannomas, and moderate for lung carcinomas, phaeochromocytomas and hepatoblastomas (6). The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designated EMFs a Class IIB carcinogen in 2011, but, following further evaluation, there is now sufficient evidence to reclassify it as a Class I carcinogen – ie similar to tobacco and asbestos (7). Although there exists an ICD-10 code (W90) for exposure to non-ionising radiofrequency radiation, the medical profession often appears unwilling to consider this as a possible environmental trigger for illness in their patients (8). One helpful clue is that patients have sometimes noted that their symptoms are associated with EMF exposure (eg using a mobile phone). They then feel well when away from the device but feel ill again on re-exposure (9), Sometimes EHS sufferers are not taken seriously and there have been cases where the patient has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act for describing such an attribution of their symptoms (10). One might wonder whether irrational acts such as driving into crowds of pedestrians might be influenced by driver irritability from exposure to high levels of in-vehicle wireless technology (11). Whilst not universally medically recognised, EHS is a real, biological phenomenon, not a nocebo reaction. And as doctors we all remember the misclassification of CFS/ME as “all in the head”. Intolerance to RF EMFs occurs not only in radiofrequency radiation workers and the military, but also the general public, who are increasingly surrounded by pulsed, polarised electromagnetic radiation at work, school and home (12). Indeed, the Swedish government has funded shielding in hospitals for patients so affected (13). Let us hope that medical profession is now willing to educate itself on this topic so as to be better able to serve patients. Since ample, good science is available (14) (15), there is no longer any excuse to passively accept the platitudes of the communications industry based on outdated, thermal standards. (1)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via%...) (2) https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article-abstract/51/1/66/1422266?redirec... (3) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3918279/ (4) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24192494/ (5)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019701861830634X?... (6)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025002338 (7)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30196934/ (8) https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/W85-W99 (9) https://www.onedaymd.com/2023/07/the-unsettling-rise-of-microwave.html (10) Personal communication (11) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5xnlkegz0t (12) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17178584/ (13) https://www.eiwellspring.org/ehs/HospitalAccommodationsOfEHSPatientsInSw... (14) https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ (15) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139347/ (*) https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1288/rr-1 Dr Janet Menage M.A. M.B. Ch.B. GP (retired), Wales, UK

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.