Research & federal duties

“I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment.” I have been personally affected by wireless radiation, (explain when, and how, and what the effects are or were, explain how you were treated by medical professionals, schools, or a job, what helped you and what did not). I know someone who has been personally affected by wireless radiation, (explain who and explain what you know about their struggle). I am a healthcare professional, researcher, concerned member of the public, or other who has knowledge, experience, research, or other that applies to the area of the health or environmental effects of wireless radiation. (Explain what you may know about this area, and how it affects your patients, or what you see for the future of the environment or of health). “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.”

Wireless radiation is dangerous. Every time new stronger signals are started up, lots of people get sick. If you didn’t know that already, then please do some honest research on it. 6G isn’t necessary. 5G isn’t even necessary.

I am writing in support of stronger restrictions and more robust research on wireless radiation, especially in support of the HHS rather than the FCC directing this effort. My family experiences poor sleep and ringing in the ears as a result of it, and many others (friends, acquaintances, and wider community members) suffer debilitating effects as a result of wireless radiation. I know that the future will demonstrate the incalculable harm done by this environmental disruptor, just as thalidomide was first considered safe and effective before its devastating health effects were undeniable. Please stand for the health of our fellow citizens, our children, and future generations by seriously researching and restricting this new form of environmental pollution.

I am submitting this comment in my capacity as CEO of Children’s Health Defense to express serious concerns regarding the potential public health consequences of the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure, particularly as they relate to children. For years, Children’s Health Defense has heard firsthand from and worked with families who experience serious health challenges associated with increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from wireless technology. Stories like those of Amelia Gilardi from Pittsfield, MA, who became seriously ill when a cell tower was activated in her neighborhood, remind us that wireless technology and infrastructure do not come without a cost. Behind the promise of greater connectivity are real children and families suffering from debilitating health issues—and too often, it is our children who pay the price. Children are uniquely vulnerable and deserve special consideration. They are exposed to wireless radiation at increasingly young ages, often beginning during pregnancy and continuing throughout childhood and adulthood in their homes, schools, communities, and workplaces. The widespread use of screens and wireless devices has become normalized and encouraged, while questions about hazardous, long-term and cumulative exposure effects remain routinely ignored by federal regulatory agencies and government authorities. The FCC’s current RF exposure guidelines were established in 1996 and are fundamentally flawed and outdated. Wireless technology and infrastructure has exploded since the guidelines were introduced, and yet the industry has actively suppressed the extensive body of scientific literature that clearly demonstrates harm to people and the environment. Furthermore, federal regulatory agencies have yet to demonstrate to the public that the FCC’s decades-old RF exposure guidelines adequately protect children, other vulnerable populations and the environment from the risks of exposure. Rather than continuing to dramatically expand population-wide wireless radiation exposure, we should exercise a precautionary approach when it comes to wireless and take this opportunity to thoroughly examine the current state of scientific literature and conduct new studies that appropriately consider the long-term consequences of ubiquitous and cumulative exposure to current and future wireless environments. That means supporting independent research into the health and developmental effects of RF radiation, particularly the effects on children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, it is equally critical that federal regulatory agencies are transparent about the body of scientific literature that is used to establish exposure standards, and must ensure that they are based on biologically-relevant models. This scientific literature must be independent of industry influence and any entity that has a financial interest in continued wireless deployment. It is of utmost importance that HHS and other public health agencies play a central role in evaluating the evidence and identifying where research gaps remain. Children’s Health Defense will continue to advocate for the responsible deployment of wireless infrastructure prioritizing public health above wireless expansion and industry profits. We believe that families and communities deserve meaningful opportunities to understand and address these risks and will continue to advocate for the best interests of people, public health, and the environment. We must not allow yet another generation of children to be harmed by the effects of wireless radiation. For the sake of our children and their future, we must consider independent science, exercise transparency, and implement the necessary protections to make safer, and more responsible decisions about the wireless environment in which they are growing up. I urge HHS to prioritize rigorous, independent, and transparent research into the health and developmental effects of wireless radiation, particularly for children and other vulnerable populations. As wireless technologies become increasingly embedded in our daily lives, we have a responsibility to ensure that their widespread use is guided by sound science and accompanied by safeguards that fully protect children’s health and development. Sincerely, Mary S. Holland, Esq. President / Chief Executive Officer Children’s Health Defense

I am a professional software developer with a long career. I’ve heard both sides of the wireless radiation harm controversy. Some scientists claim there can be no problem, and they have strong arguments to support their position. Others have evidence that the potential for harm is real. AND THEY HAVE EVIDENCE. If I learned one thing from COVID, it to distrust government and industry. It’s shameful but true. If you are so certain there is no potential for harm, then fund independent research. Don’t let industry lobbyists influence the research or the analysis. I suspect there is pressure to avoid research because, like AI, we don’t want to fall behind in the race for technology. MOST LIKELY INDUSTRY IS AFRAID OF LIABILITY AND RESTRICTIONS. But none of this justifies flying blind, and putting future generations at risk. If no dangers are found after thorough and honest research, then we can all rest easier. And if dangers and risks are confirmed, then we can research mitigation strategies for keeping our communities safe, while still maximizing our technological advances. Until this research is done, this will be an ongoing concern, and a tax on the credibility of national leadership. Sincerely, Robert from Ohio

My name is Mayer Mayerfeld. I became certified as a Building Biologist Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist in 2022, after apprenticing and working for another Building Biologist for 4 years. I live in Brooklyn, New York and conducted several hundred Building Biology EMF assessments between 2018 and and 2022, in the Tristate region. Since 2022,rather than conducting individual assessments, I have decided to focus on research to become a more proficient expert with an eye to educating the public about this very important environmental pollutant and hopefully to influence public policy to curtail it. Radio Frequency Radiation/R.F./Wireless Microwave Radiation Communication is one of the 4 types of Man Made EMF that are often the focus of concern. The others 3 would be AC Magnetic Fields, AC Electric Fields,and Dirty Electricity - High Frequency Voltage Transients. In addition to these 4 types of EMF, Artificial light which is also an EMF, is a very important part of the picture. I would like to start with the conclusion of the NIEHS Rapid Report from 1999 and Its Working Group from 1988 cited by Kavet et al in regards to contact current. "In addition to these relative aspects of dose, the absolute (as well as modest) level of contact current modeled (18 μA) produces average electric fields in tissue along its path that exceed 1 mV/m. At and above this level, the NIEHS Working Group [1998] accepts that biological effects relevant to cancer have been reported in "numerous well-programmed studies". The effects the Working Group cites are "increased cell proliferation, disruption of signal transduction pathways, and inhibition of differentiation". The NIEHS endorses this conclusion in its final EMF RAPID report [1999]. So we see that the US government knew back in 1999 that an 18 microamp / 1millivolt per meter electric field can cause cancer. Although Kavet was discussing contact current, The Late Dave Stetzer,a senior expert in the IEEE, explained that you can induce an an 18 microamp current by means of capacitive coupling to the Dirty Electricity in the electric field from home wiring. A fair question is if it can cause cancer,what else might it be causing? Dr Samuel Milham M.D. a career epidemiologist, has published numerous papers and a book on the subject. He came to the conclusion that all modern diseases such as Cancer,Heart Disease,Diabetes,Depression,Suicide,etc. are due to man made electricity in general and dirty electricity in particular. Dave Stetzer explained that the most bio-active frequencies were between 1.7 kilohertz and 100 kilohertz. This is based on his discussion with Russian Scientists and possibly based on classified information that he had from his time serving in the USAF. That range of frequency is within the RF range and so it is pertinent to the discussion.The problem of High Frequency Voltage Transients is compounded by the fact that the utility companies in all 50 states have been allowed to use the earth as a return circuit, against the rules of the IEEE. Despite being warned decades ago by their own nonprofit research arm - EPRI - that they need to add Neutral return capacity to avoid using the earth as a return circuit, instead the Electric Utilities decided to expose the entire US population to these ground currents. This is a failure of the government to regulate electric power transmission in such a way as to prevent it from being a health hazard. In respect to Microwave wireless communications,most people focus on the power density and or the high frequency aspect of this radiation. However I would like to point out the work of Dr. Dimitris Panagopolous. a Biophysiscist. Among the factors that he says are of concern are the Pulsation and Modulation of the the High Frequency waves with Extremely low frequencies. It is these pulsations and modulations that are in fact the most harmful aspect of wireless communications in his view. I would also Like to point out the work of the Late Arthur Firstenberg and his very well researched book The Invisible Rainbow. One aspect that he focuses on is the deleterious effect of Man Made Electric Fields on the Electron Transport Chain. He also cites numerous examples of how in addition to Human Health, Man Made EMfs are causing Bird,Amphibian, and insect die-offs, as well as harming Plants and Trees. It should be noted that many so called Green Technologies, although credited with lowering Carbon Dioxide, are actually doing far more harm to the environment and the climate with EMFs. For Example Solar Panels. They produce large amounts of Dirty Electricity. I would also like to cite the voluminous work of Dr. Jack Kruse a Neurosurgeon and Quantum Biologist especially with his focus on how Man Made EMFs or as he terms it Non Native EMFs negatively impact the Electron Transport Chain in Humans. I conclude with the call Of Arthur Firstenberg: At the very least Mankind must go back to 1995 levels of RF.

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

I don't personally have any known ill effects from EMFs, but I have to tell you that I have lost all faith all of the regulatory bodies. I do not trust that the correct studies have been done. The thermal tests are insufficient to show all of the effects. There are many anecdotal reports of effects on children in classrooms after wi-fi is installed and people getting brain cancer where they hold their cell phone. The safety signals are out there. We need to have a regulatory organization that is honest, transparent and works to regain our trust. Until then people will continue to distrust the government and the corporations who make decisions on what is or is not safe for us.

My comment is in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a citizen, parent, and grandparent. Since this is a medical issue, it is obvious that HHS must be actively involved in directing scientific research which thoroughly tests and measures the effects of EMF, RF, and Wireless radiation on people, animals, and the environment. HHS must also investigate reports of those who have been injured/affected as a result of EMF, RF, Wireless radiation exposure. It is the duty of HHS to fully explore any and all connections between EMF, RF, and Wireless exposure and negative health outcomes, especially to those exceptionally vulnerable such as children and the aged. Do what is right for the United States and the world! Discover the Truth! 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.