One thing I would like HHS to look into are the Body Scanners at airports. Can they cause cancers? I remember reading a decade ago or more that they could impact your DNA in a very negative way. See: https://davidwolfe.com/blogs/learn/study-airport-body-scanners-effect-dna
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 an army veteran. While I was standing in front of a row of radios fixing them in the battalion TOC, a rocket hit in the parking lot out front. I was standing on the elevated part of the room where radio operators sit but I was standing. People below me were all sitting. Because I was standing I was above the sand bags that were in the windows. When the blast came through while it did not knock me out I felt the force of it go through me. But as no one else seemed affected I assumed I was fine other than having a headache for which I went to the medic and got medicine for. How this is related to frequencies is that I have over the years since this event became very sensitive to frequencies. To the extent where I am now disabled. The VA does not recognize this as the cause but as they will not hear me over the past 20 years I have had to learn ways to deal with the symptoms. My spouse and I have tracked what makes the symptoms worse. Frequencies seem to really set it off. When this happens it causes migraines, dizziness, nausea sometimes vomiting and acute sensitivity to everything. Saw noises set it off. When it’s a cloudy day high pressure that sets it off. Going to stores or indoor places of any kind that has a lot of floresent or led lights sets it off. I have had to avoid these places that includes church because of it. My hope is that by this inquiry these concerns will be looked into. I’d be glad to help.
I would be against wireless radiation if I could find any scientific evidence that is harmful in any way other than the towers being eyesores.
I do enjoy my cellphone and the internet.
So there’s that.
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 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 that. 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.”
I am writing this to urge you to adopt a regulatory profile that would significantly reduce EMF radiation. Furthermore, I also urge robust independent biophysical research to be performed to asses EMFs impacts upon humans and other living organisms.
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.