Research & federal duties

We know that radio waves affect cellular metabolism through calcium ion channels, and possibly other mechanisms. What we don't know is the long-term effects on human health. This is a huge topic because the RFenvironment that most Americans experience gets denser and more complex by the month. Let's do the health research so that we can expand cell service and wifi with our eyes open.

Hello I have been practicing Chinese and natural functional medicine in a family practice for 36 years, and have trained over 20,000 health professionals in 33 years of teaching. I've seen firsthand the adverse effects of unlimited EMF exposure in patients. I urge you to resist industry influence, evaluate the evidence dispassionately, and take action to protect the public. Thank you. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

Wireless radiation is a toxic exposure that hasn't been properly studied to truly understand its harmful impacts on children, wildlife, and insects, including bees and other pollinators. This is because many so-called "studies" have been funded by Big Tech, which puts profits over both people and the natural world. Many children and adults are experiencing adverse health effects daily, reducing their quality of life and leading to illness. Please also consider widespread harm to fruits and vegetables from a declining pollinator population. I support people affected by wireless radiation, especially those who may not realize the root cause of their illnesses. I believe HHS should address this issue for the health of all Americans. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals, families, healthcare providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

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.

I lived in a rural area in Nebraska. In 1916 I started to become progressively sensitive to cell phones and cell towers. Verizon constructed two repeater cell towers; I lived in between them. When they turned the second one on I felt like an elephant sat on my chest and was in extreme pain. I had to live in my basement until we could sell our home. A home that I had worked 16 hour days, 5 1/2 days per week for years to buy. I had to leave my family, friends and a life I had taken years to build. No one is accountable, no one takes responsibility for the thousands affected. No one makes the research count. The research is there. Make it VISIBLE and spotlight the science that validates the harm.

Studies show that the human body is genetically designed to resist radiation because of millennia of sunlight exposure. The concern should thus be discounted, as the regulations in place work. For example, "Studies that are global baselines for proving that radiation causes cancer famously revealed a 'surprising' finding that contradicts public perception: the vast majority of atomic bomb survivors did not develop radiation-induced cancer." At Los Alamos, the Demon Core accident, where critical mass was achieved, showed that even during critical-mass radiation exposure, the subject needed to be holding the core or within feet of it to die.

Thank you for the opportunity! You MUST get in touch with Dr. Rhoda Alale, PhD. She has treated hundreds of people impacted by wireless radiation. When pastors in the Cogic denomination were dropping dead in the pulpit, she reports going to the churches to do NASA level testing of EMF and found excessively high levels caused by microphones and speaker equipment in the pulpit. She used her technology to reduce radiation to safe levels. She has treated people with Parkinson's caused by WF. I may be reached at 704-885-4315. I cannot reach her to get her permission to share her number; however, I will if you contact me.

I have experienced symptoms that I identify as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) for approximately ten years. In the past, my condition was considerably more severe than it is today. I am currently doing much better, but this needs to be understood in the context of the way I have adapted my daily life to maintain very low exposure to electromagnetic fields. I try to live with minimal exposure in order to avoid returning to the severe condition I experienced previously. Maintaining this low-exposure baseline now allows me to tolerate occasional exposures, such as going to restaurants or traveling, generally with fewer consequences than in the past. In my experience, Wi-Fi exposure is associated with headaches and tension or pain in my neck and shoulders. When I hold or use a mobile phone or tablet, I experience tingling sensations in my hands. These symptoms occur during exposure and gradually decrease after the exposure ends. The time required for them to subside varies depending on the exposure. In the past, I lived in an apartment with a telecommunications antenna directly in front of it. While I lived there, my symptoms were persistent rather than occurring only during occasional exposures. At that time, I experienced headaches, neck and shoulder tension or pain, insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, and episodes involving symptoms that I now recognize as compatible with mast cell activation, although this had not been diagnosed at the time. This situation was one of the reasons I eventually decided to move. After moving and substantially reducing my everyday exposure, my improvement was slow and gradual, not immediate. Over time, however, I improved considerably. I continue to maintain a very low-exposure home environment. I believe this is important to mention because looking only at my current level of symptoms could give an incomplete picture: reducing exposure is part of how I organize my life in order to remain stable. I cannot establish from my personal experience alone that RF/EMF exposure caused my symptoms, nor can I prove that reducing exposure caused my improvement. What I can report is an approximately ten-year history in which I have repeatedly observed a temporal association between certain exposures and the onset of symptoms, a gradual reduction in symptoms after exposure ends, and long-term improvement while living in a low-exposure environment. I believe research into the potential health effects of RF/EMF exposure should include people who report persistent symptoms temporally associated with exposure, particularly individuals who may currently appear recovered or much less affected because they have substantially modified their environment. If research considers only current symptom severity without documenting the exposure-reduction or avoidance measures a person uses, important information may be missed. I also believe it is important to investigate the timing between exposure and symptom onset, recovery time after exposure ends, the effects of continuous or repeated exposure, and whether maintaining a low-exposure environment over long periods changes an individual's response to subsequent occasional exposures

Over the past 18 years, my personal exposure to EMF's from WIFI at home and even in hospitals, has caused my bi-cuspid heart to go into atrial fibrillation. I have eliminated WIFI in my personal home and live far away from phone towers. I have put graphite on my walls and ceilings and then painted over them, in my ground floor apartment. I am 80 years old, a Vietnam vet and am not on any medication. My heart does not go into A-fib, as long as I avoid exposure to EMFS. My I-phone is in another room and I feel blessed to have found the cause of my atrial fib. We need to study this now to have a baseline for the future generations. People over profit.

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