Occupational exposure

Public schools have a WiFi router in the center of each classroom, usually fixed to the ceiling, and it is on 24/7. The teacher and the 20-28 students (avg.) per day assigned to each classroom are within 4-18 feet of this WiFi router for 6-7 hours each day (approx.) Please consider the health and behavioral affects this may have on those assigned to a classroom. Additionally, smart boards for teaching and learning. Guidelines on proximity and duration to protect the teacher and student populations is requested. Each student is assigned a computer and each teacher has 1-2 computers, which are on or charging in the classroom all day. What is the cumulative affect and total exposure to the potentially harmful EMFs that all of these devices in sum total emit to each person? What should the daily limit for each student/teacher/worker/human be? Shouldn't a sum total daily limit for human consumption include close proximity to above ground electric transmission towers? Estimation: approx. 3.8 million public school teachers, 49 million students, and millions of other citizens who are working in public schools. Request to examine physical health affects, daily limits, ways to mitigate, and behavioral and mental health affects.

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 encourage HHS to assess the evidence rigorously and transparently, distinguishing established findings from emerging or uncertain evidence. Public concern and personal reports deserve respectful consideration, while conclusions about cause and effect should be based on well-designed, reproducible research. I recommend that HHS prioritize independent research on real-world and cumulative exposures from multiple wireless sources, using validated exposure-measurement methods. Studies should examine long-term outcomes and consider children, pregnant people, older adults, workers with higher exposures, and people with implanted medical devices or relevant health conditions. Research protocols, funding sources, methods, and results—including null or conflicting results—should be made publicly accessible where possible. HHS should also compare U.S. and international exposure standards, explain the scientific basis and limitations of those standards in clear language, and identify where evidence is insufficient to assess potential risks. Federal agencies should coordinate research priorities and support independent replication of important findings. Please include ongoing public health surveillance and practical, evidence-based guidance that can be updated as research develops. The goal should be to address legitimate questions without overstating what current evidence can establish. Thank you for considering this comment.

I submit these comments as an individual consumer and concerned family member (Q2). People cannot readily opt out of ambient exposure from nearby antennas. I urge federal agencies to reassess whether existing limits adequately address lifelong, real-world exposures, including for children and ecosystems. Q3–4: Sources of concern include cell towers/small cells, phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, and wearables. People report headaches, sleep disruption, fatigue, and other symptoms they associate with RF exposure. Investigate these reports systematically without assuming causation. I report no personal diagnosis or clinical observations. Agencies should collect nonidentifying reports documenting device/source, measured exposure, timing, symptoms, medical evaluation, and changes after exposure reduction, using blinded tests where feasible. Q5–6: Compare FCC limits with ICNIRP 2020 and IEEE standards, WHO reviews, and IARC assessments. Explain how limits address frequency, SAR, power density, modulation, duty cycle, beamforming, distance, exposure duration, and multiple sources. The U.S. National Toxicology Program reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats under specific high-level RF exposure conditions; these results do not establish risks from everyday 5G exposure. IARC classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B) in 2011. Recent human reviews, however, found no increased risk for several studied cancers. Assess studies below limits and distinguish cellular changes from proven harm. Q7–9: Use calibrated broadband and frequency-selective meters, personal dosimeters, SAR testing, and validated modeling. Measure actual exposures across locations and times, including indoors, during peak traffic, and from multiple sources. Publish accessible antenna locations, operating characteristics, compliance methods, measured exposure ranges, uncertainties, and ways to request independent review. Q10–11: Build privacy-protective surveillance combining cancer registries, occupational and environmental monitoring, longitudinal cohorts, and voluntary adverse-event reports. Investigate clusters with comparison groups; reports are not proof. Biomarkers for individual RF dose are not established. Prioritize children, pregnant people, older adults, workers near transmitters, people with implanted medical devices (including interference risks), and people with preexisting conditions. Evaluate symptoms reported by people identifying as electromagnetically hypersensitive without presuming an RF cause. Q12–13: Investigate reproducible biological findings reported below some limits, while recognizing that a laboratory effect is not necessarily a health hazard. Compare exposure profiles—not merely the number of devices—for 5G, emerging 6G, Wi-Fi, satellites, IoT, wearables, smart homes/cities, autonomous vehicles, wireless medical devices, and smart meters. Exposure characteristics differ. Require updated assessments when technologies change. Q14–15: Fund rigorous studies of pollinators, birds, plants, and livestock, controlling for pesticides, habitat, climate, and other factors. An evidence map found hundreds of studies with quality limitations. Evaluate installations near homes, schools, childcare and healthcare facilities using site-specific measurements, cumulative neighborhood assessments, antenna characteristics, and realistic small-cell operation. Q16–17: NIH should fund independent, preregistered long-term epidemiology, developmental research, animal replication, and mechanistic studies. FDA should evaluate consumer and medical devices; CDC should coordinate surveillance and risk communication. FCC and health agencies should publicly explain how new evidence informs exposure standards and disclose conflicts of interest. Q18: I request (1) a time-bound, public reassessment of RF limits and their treatment of long-term, multi-source exposure; (2) publicly accessible environmental monitoring; (3) special review and community consultation for installations near schools and homes; (4) funding for ecological and human studies independent of industry; (5) practical wired options and clear device settings for consumers; and (6) a transparent process to report concerns and challenge incomplete compliance assessments. The 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC required the FCC to better explain its treatment of certain health and environmental issues; it did not find that 5G causes disease. A rigorous, updated public accounting is necessary. Sources: NTP, Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies (2018); IARC Monographs Vol. 102 (2013); ICNIRP RF Guidelines (2020); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021); WHO-commissioned systematic review of RF exposure and cancer (Environment International, 2024).

I studied biology to degree level, graduating in 1994. The subject of cell science was a favourite of mine. My comment arises from the fact that there is evidence that the current, Safe E/M Radiation Level is much too high, current levels causing changes in biological cellular activity. 5G masts are of concern in the UK, and LED street lighting is a further issue. While you can put up heavy curtains to dim the light, the radiation is of course unimpeded. Furthermore, one environmental consequence of LED lighting is that insect reproduction near these lights is mostly absent. A great deal more research into the neurological and neurophysiological response to these EMF sources should be carried out if we are to set a more realistic Safe level of exposure for the general public and all those who work near EMF sources.

In the 1990 decade my well-being (health) decreased because of the introduction of 2G communication. Later the density of 3G, 4G, 5G WiFi and mobile phone increased enormous. I had to shield my house against the wireless communication signals from outside and of course there is no WiFi in my house. And I also can not use a mobile phone, because I feel sick during and after using it. Also after visiting a clinic or hospital for more than 1 hour I am exausted for 2 days or more. I had to quit my job because the wireless frequencies of WiFi and the use of smart-phones by my colleagues made me sick. I also cannot go to a cinema, theater, concert, restaurant or travel by air, because Wifi and phones So my social life is almost on hold.

Hello, My name is Carly and I help manage a daycare. A 5g tower was put up directly across the street from our daycare during covid. I know there can be other factors that may be causing this (like food etc) but we have notice a tremendous uptick in adverse behaviors. Kids are biting at a younger age and right now we have an infant class with 9 kids biting, out of 11. Before the tower, we had 1-2. More kids are exhibiting signs of adhd and autism since before the 5g put up during covid. Defiant and overstimulated kids as well. We have had many teachers suffer from migraines and stomach issues. We have had an uptick in difficult parents and teachers, but that might be a society thing. People seem to be less patient and anger easily. I have had a lot of health issues and ear ringing as well since it has been put up. Thank you for studying this! My computer/phone is the same speed it was before the 5g tower so I don’t see the point. Feel free to contact me if you need more information.

Hello. I worked for the Boston Police dept for 35 years. 38 of which I was in charge of preparing audio tapes/ CD’s for investigations and court process Over the years with advanced technology and working daily on radio recording equipment left me feeling a constant vibration in my body. I am extremely sensitive to most sounds including the “hissing” sound of having the tv on. I retired 1/3/25 and things are much better for me but the EMF from being around this equipment as well as the proximity of the tower to the building and my office has impacted me beyond belief. I could be sitting having a cup of tea no issues and feel the vibration and audio sound at any time. So glad that you are researching this. I thought I was losing my mind at one point. This is a true effect. Thank You !

I request clear, evidence-based information about the possible health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless technologies. Please address exposure levels, duration, and multiple sources, as well as potential implications for children, pregnant individuals, and workers with frequent exposure. The assessment should distinguish established risks—such as tissue heating at high RF exposure levels—from possible long-term effects, including cancer risks, that remain uncertain or under investigation. Please also explain how current safety limits are established and recommend practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.

For six years I worked on the bottom floor of a three story building that had a cell phone tower installed on the roof. I developed a mystery illness that progressively got worse to where I lost my ability to function, sleep, think and my career. My lifestyle was just work, gym 3x a week 3 meals a day & shopping/chores on the weekends. Nothing crazy but losing a career at 47 is devastating, living in poverty and afraid of doctors. I also live very close to a big shopping mall when I drive by it my radio starts to squeal from the signals. I actually feel better when I leave home but it's a vicious circle because I mostly feel too sick to leave. Thank you so much for looking into this. We are experiencing death by a thousand cuts and this weapon needs to be monitored and/or removed.

The American Telecommunications Guild (ATG), an Arizona nonprofit building workforce standards and credentialing for U.S. telecommunications infrastructure trades, submits the attached comment from the perspective of workers with occupational RF exposure. Tower and wireless technicians work closer to active transmitters, for longer periods and in more complex conditions than the general public, yet occupational exposure is rarely measured at the worker level or linked to health outcomes. ATG supports evidence-based wireless deployment and does not presume current limits are unsafe. We recommend a national occupational RF exposure-and-event surveillance framework, developed jointly by HHS/NIOSH, FCC, OSHA, and NTIA, that links measured exposure, transmitter configuration, and work task to reported symptoms and follow-up outcomes; standardized worker-facing exposure disclosure; validation of personal RF monitors in beamforming and multi-band environments; and prospective cohort studies of tower and rooftop technicians using measured rather than assumed exposure. The attached response addresses Questions 2, 3, 5–13, and 15–18.