It is foolhardy and dangerous to continue to deploy and expand technologies that emit EMFs when we know it is one of many toxic exposures contributing to our society's surge in chronic illnesses. We need to start making decisions on the basis of societal and individual health and longevity, not short term conveniences and money.
We should devote money into alternative, safer, lower-emitting technology.
We should mandate that the infrastructure be set away from neighborhoods, schools, and places where people and animals congregate.
We should encourage wired connections when possible.
We should devote resource to informational campaigns that help people understand the health impacts and minimize exposure.
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.
As a concerned mother and retired elementary-school teacher, I urge FCC to take a strong stance protecting public health by updating our current exposure-guidelines to appropriate safety levels that protect our people.
Wireless radiation standards haven’t been updated by FCC since 1996. Given that the ‘safe’ level established in 1996 already surpassed the evidence-based threshold-of-harm that thousands of scientific studies indicated, and given that we and our children are now in a wireless environment bombarded with higher and higher levels of radiation – cell-phone grids, wireless phones, Smartboards, plasma TV’s, computers, wireless Internet, ear phones, etc. – the public, especially children and elderly, are being subjected to an ever-increasing virulent and toxic soup of radiation exposure. And it is having dire consequences.
Children are demonstrating increasing levels of agitation, distractibility and sleeping disorders (from the students I taught back in 1978), due to wireless overstimulation. There is also mitochondrial damage from over-exposure. Recently, five wireless meters were added to end of my building, and my sleeping patterns have been affected. Further, adults and senior citizens are increasingly complaining of balance and disorientation issues that often result in serious injuries. Humans are electromagnetic beings, just like other animals, and in the same way that geese or whales are disrupted in migratory routes by an overload of wireless radiation, humans are adversely impacted, as well.
These reckless dangers must stop. Our exposure guidelines are archaic and do not reflect the wireless soup in which we’re immersed. Please protect public health by updating our current exposure-guidelines to appropriate safety levels that protect our people.
I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: While in the military I developed migraines and vertigo that were triggered by high EMF environments. Moreover, It is well know that HF radios in fighter jets cause cancer. Please reference any fighter jet systems manual. We use to call the cone of the antenna in front of the jet the cone of cancer. There are notes, warnings and cautions pertaining to this danger. While there are different frequency ranges to the many avionics in a fighter jet some of these frequency bands reserved for the military have been released for use by the tech industry within the civilian population(Why?). There is a clear safety issue with this current technology please also reference the military studies done on radar operators in the 60's and 70's showing health concerns. It's time to FOIA all government organizations to include the military for all experiments regarding technology using any type of frequency based power. Non ionizing radiation should be looked at differently than ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is more apt to cause damage via thermal heating. Non ionizing radiation is more likely to affect the calcium channels of the body therefore showing damage later in a persons life that is not expressed by thermal damage. Because of this it also tends to affect people in different ways depending on their individual exposures and body type. We know that different types of frequency's can affect a person with more fat differently than someone with less fat. We know a millimeter wave cannot penetrate the body as deep as a longer wave frequency. Therefore more fat could potentially equal more protection against a millimeter wave reaching an organ. This is especially important with children as most do not have the body fat of an adult allowing the millimeter wave to penetrate deeper into their developing bodies. Currently the FCC only looks at ionizing radiation effects, this is pure negligence on the FCC's side as it is common knowledge among anyone that works with avionics that there are other dangers to frequency then just ionizing radiation as I explained above. This issue is going to have the most damaging effects on our children. It's time to start caring about our future generations and immediately stop any further roll out of cell towers and wireless technologies, remove all antennas from schools, remove wifi from schools and cease the use of 3g/4g/5g towers within our cities until the FCC does its job and does a complete overhaul of its safety standards to reflect measuring all the dangers that can result from this use of technology. The FCC must also ensure the Tech companies are held to the strictest 3rd party study's to ensure what they are proposing is safe. Then the FCC must remove all employees with conflicts of interest ensuring no industry employees are allowed to ever work for the FCC or vice versa. Or at least have a 5 year no compete agreement in their contracts. The FCC should also be required to work with HSS. The HSS should study the health effects and then the FCC must be required to update its standards to ensure the dangers Identified by HSS are addressed in their safety standards. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.
I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment.
AI Overview:
Wireless devices emit low-intensity radiofrequency (RF) radiation (a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields) to transmit data. Major health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration state that current scientific evidence does not conclusively prove that low-level RF exposure causes adverse health effects or cancer. However, independent researchers, public health groups, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer note several potential and debated risks.
Main Health Risks and Studies
• Carcinogen Classification: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B "possible carcinogen" based on limited evidence in humans and animal studies linking heavy, long-term cell phone use to certain brain tumors (such as malignant gliomas and non-malignant acoustic neuromas).
• Animal Studies & DNA Damage: The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found clear evidence of heart tumors (schwannomas) and some evidence of brain and adrenal gland tumors in male rats exposed to high levels of cell phone RF radiation, along with signs of cellular DNA damage.
• Oxidative Stress: A large portion of peer-reviewed laboratory studies indicate that low-intensity RF radiation can trigger oxidative stress (an imbalance of free radicals and antioxidants), which may lead to cellular or tissue inflammation and disrupted cell signaling.
• Symptom Reports: Some individuals report physiological symptoms—such as headaches, chronic fatigue, sleep disturbances, agitation, and tinnitus—that they attribute to close or prolonged exposure to mobile phones, Wi-Fi routers, and cellular base stations, though conditions like "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" are not formally recognized by mainstream health consensus as directly caused by EMF fields.
• Reproductive & Developmental Concerns: Certain studies point to potential drops in sperm count and motility from carrying phones in pants pockets, as well as possible developmental or behavioral impacts tied to early-life exposure.
Vulnerable Populations
• Children and Pregnant Women: Children absorb proportionally higher amounts of RF radiation into their brain tissue and bone marrow than adults because they have thinner skulls, smaller head sizes, and higher tissue water content.
I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on the findings. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.
Dear Secretary Kennedy,
My name is Svitlana Dobryanska, my family with two minor sons lives in Helmetta, New Jersey.
My family is among many other families that are involuntarily involved in the secret inhumane experiments conducted by some federal agencies, I suspect CIA /DARPA.
DEW devices - drones size of baseball, covered with material that makes them invisible, light goes through it, are used on my family for about 10 years. My EMF device is catching at night RF up to 34000 when normal is 10 !!!
This all started in Perth Amboy ,NJ in 2015. Couple families with small children, including us , were unknowingly involuntarily involved (and still) in this experiment. The Gov agency installed/used in the houses/apartments a hidden equipment that is shooting high frequency RF to irradiate victims, neighbor is spraying toxic gas into vent system, someone sneaking into houses at night and injecting children with some substance into legs right in their beds - all organized and conducted by Gov agencies. Some children didn’t survive!!! In 2021 a Whistleblower, a high ranking official - an Honest Person, who knows my family personally, discovered and reported “the program” - Crime against my children, but no agency started investigation.
That is a barbaric Crime against American children that is happening on American soil.
Dear Secretary Kennedy, please TAKE ACTION and Stop this madness!
There are many studies regarding wireless radiation. Here are two for your consideration. The public deserves to be informed of dangers, and deserves to learn ways to mitigate cellular damage, especially for children, who are more effected because their brain cells are still developing. Thank you or looking into the dangers of wireless radiation. God Bless!
A Narrative Review on the Influence of Electromagnetic Fields Below 100 kHz on the Endocrine System
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/10/4910
Due to the ubiquity of low-frequency electromagnetic fields in everyday human environments, exposure to them is largely unavoidable. Their biological effects are still not fully understood. This work analyzes the relationship between low-frequency electromagnetic fields and the human endocrine system. As the endocrine system is responsible for regulating and maintaining the human body, its potential dysregulation may result in significant adverse health effects. This manuscript summarizes the existing studies addressing this topic and highlights several promising directions for future research.
Mobile telephony radiation exerts genotoxic action and significantly
enhances the effects of gamma radiation in human cells
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38099580/
Experimental animal studies and in vitro (cell culture) investigations constitute the majority
of the research indicating that EMFs can influence hormone secretion and alter various
cellular processes [2]. These controlled environments offer significant advantages, allowing
for precise control over exposure conditions, including frequency, intensity, duration, and
waveform, and enabling detailed investigation of underlying biological mechanisms at the
cellular and molecular levels [4].
Consistent observations from these models include:
• disruption of melatonin secretion from the pineal gland [13],
• alterations in HPA axis activity and levels of stress hormones such as corticosterone
and ACTH [4],
• changes in thyroid hormone production, specifically fT4 [17],
• adverse impacts on reproductive function, encompassing disruptions to the estrous
cycle, changes in sperm quality, and altered hormone levels [2],
• identification of underlying cellular changes, such as increased oxidative stress, altered
ion channel activity, and DNA damage, which provide mechanistic explanations for
the observed endocrine disruptions [3].
The consistency of findings across numerous animal and in vitro studies, particularly
regarding specific endocrine disruptions and underlying cellular mechanisms like oxidative
stress and ion channel modulation, establishes a strong mechanistic plausibility for ELFEMF
effects on the endocrine system.
My family would like to know about short and long term EMF exposure from large power lines running near our home. There is a purposed route 250ft from our home for a grid growth project in Ohio (Greentown-Thistlewood (OH) 765-KV Line Project) and the grid company claims there is no threat to being so close. But if you stand under these lines with a fluorescent light bulb it lights up. I’m not believing there are no short or long term health effects to the environment or ourselves. We have a 15 month old son and plan to have more kids in the future. We are very scared and concerned about the unknown effects of EMF exposure from such power lines so close to our home. Thank you.
Thank you Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the staff of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for at long last offering the general public as well as medical and scientific professionals the opportunity to inform you of the many adverse effects of RF/EMF infrastructure and devices.
I am a U.S. citizen, writing as an individual consumer, who has been researching these adverse effects (with others who are equally knowledgeable and pro-active) for 7 years. I have written a number of Op-Ed submissions to my local newspaper, as well as made oral and written comments to my city council, RI General Assembly representatives, and to my federal Representative and Senators. Rather than summarize all of this work, I will attach them to this public comment.
I will be addressing the following numbers as delineated in the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure:
#3. a.—focusing on cell tower placement, small cell antennas on utility poles in front of homes and schools, Wi-Fi, smart phones, cordless phones, so-called Smart Meters, and the wireless mesh required to run these meters
#5—the total inadequacy of the 1996 FCC exposure guidelines (as well as the ICNIRP guidelines) to protect the public and the organic environment
#9—exposure-related information should be disclosed to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments
#10—the need for disease registries and environmental monitoring and reporting
#11—pregnant women, embryos/fetuses, children, adolescents, adults, the elderly, those with implanted devices, and those with preexisting medical conditions all need to be considered
#12—scientific evidence has existed for decades that establish harm from exposure many times lower than the 1996 guidelines
Please read and consider all of the testimony presented to you and acknowledge that the FCC’s1996 radiation exposure guidelines must be revised to protect human health and the organic environment.
Attachments:
White Paper on Scientific Evidence of Harm from Smart Meters
Links to Op-Ed Submissions
Written and Oral Comments to the RI Department of Environmental Management/Office of Air Resources Re: Sources of Air Pollution on the Pastore Center Campus