Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives

I have acute electromagnetic hypersensitivity. It began with multiple perplexing symptoms: muscle and joint pain especially my legs and feet; memory difficulties; dizziness/fogginess; heart pounding/palpitations; cataracts (just had cataract surgery); ringing in the ears constantly; night sweats; periodic itching; etc. All I could do was sit on the couch and cry. Desperate, I found the first website WEEP (which goes back to 2008!) describing everything I was experiencing and found books and articles I devoured (Exposed by Bill Cadwallader; EMF Practical Guide by Lloyd Burrell, Zapped by Ann Louise Gittleman, The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg.…) Discovering there are EMF specialists, I hired one here in the Twin Cities (Building Biologists) who helped with some mitigations such as replacing smart meter, installing ethernet, turning breakers off at night, creating a safe sleeping space, EMF power strips, ditching the microwave, etc. I consulted with an EMF specialist online, Jeremy Johnson, who helped further with meters, travel bed canopies, fiber optic set up with the ethernet, computer safety, etc. I’m surrounded by cell towers, from 1/2 to 2 miles away. My previous regular bike route in any direction passes a cell tower. EMF protective clothing and blankets can help a little particulary in the car but are only a small part of the equation. There have been many studies concerning EMF particularly with iPhones as listed in the books above; however, the standard on what is safe still goes back to tests done in the 90s measuring heat – we are way past that now! I also have read many articles about 5G and 6G having been developed as bioweapons by our own government – why do we need these frequencies? Lastly, I can hardly stand it when I see cell towers placed at schools, churches and parks with children being exposed day after day. Four doctors and a dentist later, I am giving them information on EMF and symptoms. They never heard of it – are they diagnosing symptoms such as mine without realizing the real source? Lastly, please visit 4rbees.com who has developed PureWave cells thoroughly research – saving the bees plus humans are using it as well. We are all being affected on a cell level from EMF. Please take action to protect us!

I am a parent of two elementary-school children, commenting on HHS-OASH-2026-0397. I support wireless technology. I do not support treating the absence of a settled harm finding as if it were a finding of long-term safety for children. Criminal law puts the burden on the state before it punishes a person. Chronic exposure of a whole generation is not that kind of question. Where exposure is widespread, begins in early childhood, and will continue for decades, the burden should be on showing that exposure below current limits is safe enough for developing brains and bodies. That is the precautionary principle, and it is the right standard for this RFI. U.S. radiofrequency limits are built primarily on avoidance of tissue heating and date to 1996. Children now grow up with phones, Wi-Fi, wearables, and nearby infrastructure that did not exist when those limits were set. A child’s head is smaller, the skull is thinner, and the same external field can produce a higher localized absorption than in an adult. That is an exposure fact, not by itself proof of injury. It is enough to reject adult-only limits as a sufficient account of childhood exposure. I am not asking HHS to declare a mechanism or to ban the technology. I am asking the Department to stop leaving parents with reassurance in place of evidence. The questions that matter for my children are still open. What is the evidence, for and against, that long-term radiofrequency exposure below current federal limits affects neurodevelopment, sleep, attention, and mitochondrial function? How should cumulative exposure from phones, routers, school networks, and nearby antennas be added together, rather than assessed one device at a time? Which international guidelines use lower limits or added precaution for children, what evidence those guidelines rest on, and why the United States does or does not follow them? I ask HHS to do four things. First, publish a plain-language comparison of U.S. radiofrequency limits with international guidelines that apply lower limits or additional precaution for children, and state the evidence each standard actually rests on. Second, fund independent research on long-term, low-level exposure in children and adolescents, with sleep, attention, neurodevelopment, and mitochondrial function as priority endpoints. Industry-funded work should be identified as such. Third, issue practical guidance for schools and families that reduces exposure without abandoning the technology: distance from the body, wired connections where feasible, routers and devices out of sleeping areas, and phones off the body and away from the bed. Fourth, treat childhood exposure near schools and in homes as its own assessment, not as a scaled-down version of occupational or adult-phone exposure. My children will live their entire development inside whatever standard this review leaves in place. A limited evidence base is a reason for precaution and better science. It is not a reason to treat the question as closed.

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 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.

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.