Research & federal duties

I don’t know why we are suddenly claiming electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency, and wireless radiation are scary or harmful. They have been used for a long time. People are overreacting because the words and names sound scary. Decisions related to this topic should be made by physicists, biologists, and chemists. Not laypersons.

To Whom It May Concern: I appreciate the opportunity to provide information regarding electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless technologies. I am not an expert in epidemiology, toxicology, biophysics, dosimetry, oncology, neurology, or radiation science. However, I understand that personal observations are being solicited, and I am therefore pleased to contribute data of approximately the same scientific rigor as any other uncontrolled anecdotal report. Over the past several years, I have experienced repeated exposure to Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular networks, and other forms of radiofrequency radiation. During that same period, I have observed a number of concerning health-related outcomes. For example, after spending prolonged periods in Wi-Fi-enabled environments, I frequently experience fatigue, reduced concentration, irritability, and a strong desire to stop working. The association is especially pronounced Monday through Friday. Symptoms tend to improve substantially on weekends and during vacations. This reproducible dechallenge phenomenon may indicate a biologically meaningful relationship between wireless exposure and employment. I have also observed a strong temporal association between 5G exposure and hunger. Following several hours of exposure, I reliably develop an urge to eat. Administration of food results in rapid symptom improvement. The consistency of this response, together with its recurrence on re-exposure, raises concerns regarding a possible radiofrequency-associated metabolic syndrome. Additional observations include: - Exposure to Bluetooth is frequently followed by depletion of headphone batteries. - Prolonged screen use in Wi-Fi environments is associated with eye strain. - Cell-phone exposure is strongly associated with receiving unwanted phone calls. - Individuals exposed to wireless networks continue to age over time. - Every person I know who has died was, at some point in life, exposed to electromagnetic fields. The last finding is particularly troubling because the observed association with mortality is 100%. I recognize that several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. Exposure was not quantified. Symptoms were not prospectively defined. There was no control group. There was no blinding. There was no randomization. Potential confounders such as age, sleep, caffeine, stress, occupation, screen time, underlying illness, and the ordinary passage of time were not evaluated. Selection bias was substantial because I selected myself for participation. Recall bias was unavoidable because I am recalling the events. Reporting bias is possible because I am reporting only the observations I find interesting. The hypothesis was formulated after the outcomes occurred. No statistical analysis was performed. Nevertheless, because the events occurred after exposure, a causal relationship cannot be ruled out. I therefore recommend that federal agencies consider a streamlined evidentiary framework for future public-health policy. Under this approach, causation could be established when the following conditions are met: 1. An individual believes an exposure caused a symptom. 2. The symptom occurred at some point after the exposure. 3. The individual reports improvement after doing something else. 4. The story sounds compelling. 5. Enough similar stories can be collected. This framework would offer several advantages over conventional epidemiology. It would eliminate the need for control groups, exposure measurement, preregistered hypotheses, statistical power, replication, dose-response analysis, and tedious arguments about confounding. It would also dramatically accelerate policy development. The same methodology could be extended beyond radiofrequency radiation. For example, I have personally observed that rain is strongly associated with umbrellas, fire trucks are frequently present at large fires, and nearly every person with arthritis has previously consumed water. These associations merit immediate federal review. Respectfully submitted, Jack Mahogov, A Member of the Continuously Exposed General Population

I am a physician and have many patients who report EMF sensitivity. Their symptoms include, increased fatigue, cognitive difficulties, neurological symptoms. fasciculations, headaches, insomnia, tachycardia, and more when exposed to RF waves. I have examined the literature and there is a plethora of published research demonstrating mechanisms that explain that EMF sensitivity is a true phenomenon. With the potential for DNA breaks when exposed to RF levels that are lower than modern cell phones, it would be worth evaluating whether the increased exposure to RF that our modern society has compared to just 2004 may be a contributor to increased cancer rates we are seeing in all ages.

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 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 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.

Building Biology institute Building Biology institute Building Biology institute Building Biology institute Building Biology institute Building Biology institute The word RADIATION pretty much sums it up. Dang

The science, the hard science not the popular science, states that such wireless signals have minimal penetration depth into animal tissue- not near enough to cause any kind of genetic damage. What needs to happen is public demonstration of why such technology is safe, not open comment to people who might be conspiracy theorist leaning. Such polls will doubtless show a disfavor rate in the teenth percentile at least, a which would be used to create more fear of the benign. I am an engineer who works closely with cellular communications via SCADA systems, and I have zero fear of cellular radio waves and their eeffects.

With how quickly the towers were out up and limited long term studies in effects of this tho of technology on living cells, very interested to see if we can get some truth and facts.

I am writing with praise from Ireland on this vital work for investigation due to my interest in this area after my young child suffered a huge regression after moving next door to an airport. I now know this to be calls “pans” I am hoping that with the progression in this field of study, other countries will be inspired to “catch up” with modern and current research , and even if they choose not to, breakthrough will be possible for the millions of concerned mothers and fathers paying attention to this administration. Thank you