HHS EMFTHE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM
The people. The questions. The public record.An independent RF Safe project
Forum index › All threadsLatest posting day

THE LATEST SUBMISSIONS

All comment threads

7067 original comments · Newest first

Browse topics
Read full comments below. More load as you scroll.
Posted 2026-10-05#1618 · Permanent link ↗

Asserts that 5G harms people and wildlife, lists neurological, cancer and cardiac concerns, and alleges m…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
5G antennas and towers are extremely dangerous and deadly to human beings. They are equally dangerous and deadly to trees, birds, insects, animals and anything else that is alive. Symptoms for humans are body twitching, ear ringing, random migraines, cancer, strokes, stomach issues, flu symptoms, heart attacks…. just to name a few. The 5G technology that was rolled out to “improve mobile and Wi-Fi service” is a lie because they haven’t improved at all and they were ordered to be rolled out by the US military to create a surveillance state like China has. The US govt has never released the long term studies to the public about 5G or any EMF and it’s because the military controls the technology. Trump should be ashamed of himself for recently approving 6G. God sees all.
Posted 2026-10-05#1617 · Permanent link ↗

Reports declining health after smart-meter installation and improvement after relocation and wired connec…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
My health started declining soon after my local electric company unlawfully installed a Smart meter at my home. I finally got it replaced with analog. I had loss of energy, brain fog, aches and pains, and decreased quality of life. Some days I could barely get out of bed. I’ve always been very active and strong. I also had EMF exposure from my neighbors’ WiFi, electric lines, etc. When in the vicinity of cell towers, I would immediately get a headache. I spent thousands of dollars on products to protect me. My health kept declining. My friend put the pieces together when she counted 32 electrical wires going up and down my street. She told me I was being poisoned by EMF. I moved out of state to an area that had low EMF and I got my life back. Here I do not have Wi-Fi and my computer is connected via Ethernet cable to fiber optic cable. For years I’ve used a faraday pouch to protect my hand from my cell phone radiation. My hand would feel like it was burning. I have noticed recently that my index finger that I use to scroll or type on my Apple XR is feeling burning and tingling sensations. So I now use a stylus. Sometimes I have waves of feeling unwell (sudden decrease in energy, it feels like “the bottom just fell out,” nausea, and hot flashes) while I’m using my phone. EMFs, to me, are dangerous and a different system needs to be implemented. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Posted 2026-10-05#1616 · Permanent link ↗

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-05#1615 · Permanent link ↗

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-05#1614 · Permanent link ↗

Requests independent review and stronger exposure protections, citing studies and a daughter selling her …

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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. One of the main reasons that my daughter is selling her house in town is due to lack of sleep since a 5G tower was installed. 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.
Posted 2026-10-05#1613 · Permanent link ↗

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-05#1612 · Permanent link ↗

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-05#1611 · Permanent link ↗

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
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.
Posted 2026-10-05#1609 · Permanent link ↗

Expresses family concerns about wireless exposure, acknowledges multiple possible causes of headaches, an…

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
Hello. My family and I are concerned with the ubiquitous exposure to wireless radiation. Though we live in the countryside, we can see cell towers on hilltops. The local power company updated all underground lines and told us the old metal wires would soon become defunct. They wanted us to use wireless WiFi, but we said ‘no’ and had them use physical lines instead of going wireless. My husband and I suffer from frequent headaches; this may be due to multiple reasons, but what I have read from sensitive people’s testimonies, wireless radiation could be a contributing factor. Other family members on our farm are infants and small children; it is an established fact that they are more susceptible to the negative effects of wireless radiation. We have friends who live very near to a wireless radiation source who have developed multiple health problems since moving onto that farm. Prior to that move, they were in excellent health. Please consider revising our lax American standards on wireless radiation. I know there are European countries with stricter standards because they have reviewed the science that reveals the true dangers of wireless radiation. We may not be able to see the thing that harms us, but it can and has been studied and you have the power to say, “Let’s protect people”. No need to completely get rid of all wireless radiation, of course, but there definitely is a need to put into place safety measures across the board for the protection of our most valuable asset—-people. Thank you! ~Anna~

10 comments displayed. More load as you scroll.

These are separate official submissions grouped by topic. A comment can appear in more than one board.