All comment threads

Danke, ich hoffe, es hilft

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 and friend. Wireless radiation has affected someone I care about. Her experiences have affected daily life and relationships terribly. Wireless radiation isn't safe and HHS should address this issue. 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 read the attached document.

I submit this comment as a 27-year-old resident of France who has experienced localized physiological and neurological symptoms associated with ambient and near-field electromagnetic environments since early 2021. My experience highlights the importance of assessing whether current regulatory standards adequately address real-world exposure conditions and individual sensitivities. Firstly of all, current testing protocols often assess wireless devices under controlled conditions that may not fully reflect simultaneous use of GPS, cellular data, and Wi-Fi. Such multi-radio activity can affect device power consumption, heat generation, and exposure levels. I therefore encourage the Commission to evaluate simultaneous transmissions in realistic operating and handling conditions when reviewing Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and power-density standards. Relevant industry developments, including U.S. Patent No. US20120231784A1, illustrate the technical challenges of managing emissions in multi-radio systems. Secondly, exposure assessments should also consider the broader environmental context. Atmospheric electricity, temperature, low-frequency fields, and device-generated noise may coexist in everyday settings. Although their combined physiological effects require further investigation, I encourage the Commission to support research into potential interactions between environmental factors and neurological responses, including symptoms reported by sensitive individuals. Thirdly, metal enclosures such as trains, subways, elevators, and vehicle cabins can affect signal reception and prompt mobile devices to adjust transmission power. These changing conditions may produce exposure patterns not adequately represented by averaged outdoor measurements. Testing should therefore include realistic indoor and enclosed transport environments, transient transmission peaks, and common device-use positions. Furthermore, building materials, architectural design, and local topography can also influence radiofrequency distribution. Masonry may attenuate signals, while windows, upper floors, and reflections from nearby structures can create variations in indoor exposure. I encourage the FCC to collaborate with architects, engineers, and materials scientists to investigate shielding materials, develop standardized testing methods, and assess practical measures to reduce indoor exposure where appropriate. Finally, disabling wireless interfaces and using wired connections may reduce radiofrequency emissions, but electronic devices continue to generate low-frequency electromagnetic fields, heat, and other electrical emissions. I therefore recommend that regulatory bodies assess these sources alongside radiofrequency emissions, including during close-proximity use of battery-powered and mains-powered electronics. In conclusion, I respectfully encourage regulatory authorities to review existing safety standards in light of realistic device operation, changing environmental conditions, building characteristics, and emissions across different frequency ranges. Further independent research and appropriately precautionary safety margins could help clarify potential non-thermal effects and improve protection for the general public, including individuals reporting heightened sensitivities.

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.

It is time to stop letting the RF dangers just because a human cannot see them go without great concerns. When was the last time a full report was done with all the tower sites and the monster antennas feeding the wireless cancer product. This is still OUR PUBLIC AIRWAYS and just because it has not been reported the death toll is happening. What about this WAR What About Radiation. I have since November of 1999 been a watchdog who made a different of this 1996 Telecommuting Act of 1996 Be the Government that Controls too much, too fast and to many. With Great Concerns Karen Johnson Leuthner it is this generation to save the next Can you hear me now?

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Cell phone towers, 4G/5G network signals. wi-fi, mobile phones. ALL RF/EMF sources 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):At least ten years of involuntary exposure to wi-fi in workplace, network signals and neighbours' wi-fi etc in living environment. Network signal in all urban environments and now all rural locations. Affected 24/7. 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:Tinnitus 24/7. Headache, inner ear pain in close proximity to any wireless device particulary wifi router or someone's phone / "smart" device. Brain fog, sometimes severe, can only perform simplest tasks when affected. Memory loss/ focusing/ concentration/ word finding difficulties. Regular periods of depression and anxiety/anger/irritability. sleep disturbance. Chest tightness, "fight or flight" panic response. Prostate issues. Exhaustion/daily fatigue. Effects are cumulative. 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:When wi-fi began being installed in the multiple locations I had to work in. Direct and immediate correlation with symptoms and adverse health effects. Adverse health effects increasing with addition of all new wireless infrastructure in my local environment. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?More than one medical doctor's diagnosis sought. Eventually (correctly) diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Spending time in very remote rural areas with little or no mobile network signal/infrastructure/wi-fi/other people's devices etc (now no longer acheiveable) Eventual complete disappearance of all adverse health effects. Sleeping in a shielding canopy- some mitigation of most symptoms. Shielded some walls in home to reduce neighbour's wireless pollution, otherwise impossible to spend time in own home.

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Wi-Fi 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):Approx 15 years 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:Agitation/racing heart, abnormal, extreme fatigue (not related to activity, sleep, or other illness). Headaches. 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:Appeared gradually, began to notice feeling better when away from wireless devices and worse near them. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?No 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Yes. Removed all Wi-Fi from house, moved from house that had smart meter, limited cell phone use (turned off while driving or not using), connected to ethernet at home (bought iphone, as Android did not do this), tried protective clothing, hired home building biologist consultants to test EMF and mitigate. Did EMF research, added supplements. Reduced time in crowds, airports, places with high EMF. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:There is a wealth of science showing EMF damage to living organisms. https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122023659 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1538544223000238 https://https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27738269/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27738269/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24064953/ Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's: B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:Wi-Fi, cell phones, smart meters, cell towers, radiowave sensors from cars (in heavy traffic) B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed:I sense less harm from a device on airplane mode connected to a wired network (assuming I am not surrounded by others using Wi-Fi). B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy):Micro-current B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:History of Lyme disease B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant:Osteopenia B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure:H2 (Molecular Hydrogen) B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help:Niacin (flushing type) 25 mg B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful):Essential oils. Homeopathic EMF remedies. B3d. Treatments that had no effect:EMF hat, sometimes gives me a headache. As if the beam is bouncing around in there. B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:55-64 B4. What is your age range?55-64 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?2011 B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?Orangevale, California

I am writing to share concerns about EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation exposure. It is my understanding that US studies and regulations are out of date. The stakes are high; we need to have a clear picture of the impacts on human health, wildlife, the environment, and privacy rights. (See link to learn about some known health effects.) I have a PhD in Human Sciences and understand research (and conflict of interest in research). We need to study these areas further before developing additional, related technologies. I know of people who have had to relocate and unplug connections and apply protective fabric due to impacts on their health. (We are hard wired in our house.) Citizens need informed consent, and future generations need us to call out conflict of interest and apply the Precautionary Principle. Thank you for consideration. Sincerely, Stacey S. PhD https://childrenshealthdefense.org/emr/education/

The Health Physics Society (HPS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) request for Information on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and human health, Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Please see the attached comments.