Research & federal duties

I am submitting this comment because I am deeply concerned about the potential health effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the lack of adequate consideration given to families who believe they have experienced negative effects from increased exposure. This is not an abstract issue for our family. We have personally experienced health concerns that have caused us to question whether our environment and cumulative exposure to wireless technologies and other sources of electromagnetic radiation may be contributing factors. Watching changes in our family's health and well-being has made me increasingly concerned about how little we know about the potential long-term effects of continuous, 24-hour exposure. What concerns me most is that exposure is no longer limited to occasional use of a cell phone or a single electronic device. Wireless signals are now present throughout our homes, schools, workplaces, vehicles, and communities. Children in particular can be exposed for many hours every day, beginning at a very young age. Families deserve to know that these exposures have been adequately studied, particularly with respect to long-term and cumulative exposure. I am not asking the government to dismiss technology or eliminate wireless communication. I am asking for a precautionary approach and for greater transparency, independent research, and meaningful consideration of the concerns being raised by families. Research should continue to examine potential effects of chronic, low-level exposure, including effects that may not be immediately apparent. At a minimum, families should have access to clear, unbiased information about EMF exposure and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure, especially for children. Government agencies should also continue to support truly independent research rather than relying solely on studies or standards that may not adequately address today's level of continuous exposure. Our family should not have to wonder whether the technology surrounding us could be contributing to health problems. We deserve better answers. I respectfully ask that you take these concerns seriously, support additional independent research, and apply a precautionary approach when establishing policies and exposure standards that affect the health of our families and future generations.

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.

Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/12/1207 "Results Children without emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 7 years, but who had cellphone exposures, had increased odds of emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 11 years..." ... "These results did not materially change when early adopters were excluded, or when children with emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 7 years were included in the analysis." Is it EMF? Screens? Software usage? EMF could play a role.

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.

HHS has Requested Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. As an impacted patient and concerned member of the public, I have been harmed by smart meters from utility EMFs. I was not informed when the utility smart meters were first installed on the other side of my block, but I suddenly began to have severe glaucoma problems with my vision with diagnosis of very serious narrow angle glaucoma with potential for sudden irreversible blindness due to public utility company arbitrary business choices. Electric utility smart meters give off non-ionizing EMF radiation. In California, court records of multiple household members in the same house with glaucoma as well as extremely high 800-900 blood sugar readings requiring ER treatment/hospitalization occurred immediately following installation of electric utility smart meters. Narrow angle glaucoma, unlike the more common open angle glaucoma, can result in immediately permanent loss of eye vision without warning. Open angle can cause permanent loss of eye vision but it happens more slowly over a couple of years, not immediately. As a result, I had to have laser surgery on both eyes to make a hole to release the buildup of fluid that otherwise would cause my sudden and permanent blindness. A few years later I found out that my glaucoma occurred shortly after electric smart meters had been installed on the other side of my block facing the back of my house. Somehow, the local electric utility was able to adopt a more dangerous way to measure its product that harmed residential health but reduced staff, without consulting the affected public, nor informing anyone of the public health dangers, while emphatically denying such problems. Similarly, gas smart meters later were installed on my house recently, after being put on my neighbor's gas meters perhaps 6-7 years back. The gas is owned by MG&E which told me that they would be putting a smart meter on my gas or they would be turning off my heat as an elderly citizen for this coming winter and that would leave me finding my own source of fuel from another vendor. MG&E wouldn't be in business without its takings of public easements from both public and private land, but now it claims its business decision as to the meter it chooses is outside of public input per State PSC and that is not subject to any determination of the best interests of the entire public nor subject to provide any alternative for service objection. They took private property easements to violate those property owners health needs & safety and privacy needs when they digitally throw private data of each residential account into the airwaves where the data can be compromised. Wisconsin has a Public Service Commission controlled by 3 appointed commissioners. The public's best interests are ignored when any utility wants to expand in any way. 98% go against the project for more harm than benefits, but PSC rules for the utililty. This has happened with electric transmission lines, smart meters, and EMFs. Wireless radiation is 24/7 surveillance in large numbers of unnecessary frequency bursts where exposure becomes fairly constant on the other side of a wall where people sleep, eat, or live without regard for damage to their health that likely is increasing cancer, death, and fires. Did these sicknesses exist before man-made EMFs? Review Arthur Firstenberg's books about EMFs who had EMF hypersensitivity and had to move constantly every time EMFs were installed in his living area. He documented with every man-made new technology for communication--telegraph, radio, television, cell phones--that the first time each was turned-on or turned-up, it created a large human death anomoly from its stronger EMF dosage and/or different EMF exposure. It was recorded in the death records, but not reported by the news or the watchers of our society, but this sudden recorded wave of death occurred every time each new or increase in manmade EMF technology was turned on. Public accountability was fraudulently treated. HHS should take an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of all wireless radiation, starting with formally establishing the exact death toll spiked upward from the telegraph & all following upgraded tech for communications from its turn-on through cell phones which require the death toll caused by each of its upgrades into a different power level, which would be 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, and higher. The distance measurements in which each EMF turn-on created a spike in similar numbers of increased deaths should be created where the distance involved is shaped by the death numbers outward until that disappears. Similar surges in actual number of deaths would determine the size and shape of these boundaries of impacted geography locations when the first turn-on of each new manmade EMF technology was activated in each area.

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 am responding from the perspective of an active citizen in her eighties who lives alone and has recently recognized and is attempting to protect herself from EMF exposure harms, and who wishes to help spread the word about our societies need to protect citizens especially children from this growing toxin, I have lived with a modern wifi unit (Sonic) in my home for five years, and with an earlier generation of wifi (AT&T) for many years before that. In March 2026 after my yearly blood test, my nutritionist said that the pattern of change in my HbA1c test indicated likelihood of high EMF exposure. For the past 10 years since I've been her client the results have stayed between 5.2 and 5.4. Abruptly this past year it moved up to 5.7, the first number in the pre-diabetic category. As I said to her, I have not significantly changed my diet (no grains or refined sugar, lots of low starch veggies, some berries and citrus, grass-fed and finished meat, pastured eggs, fish). She recommended hard-wiring my computer and getting rid of wi-fi, which I have done. (I do not own a cell phone, smart or otherwise.) It's a distinct relief to not be bathing in wi-fi any more. I've long had tinnitus, which while not vanishing is much reduced, and I sleep better. I do think I may also be impacted by involuntary sources of EMF, namely cell towers and antennas. My nutritionist did a search and found about 2300 antennas and 1900 towers within a 3 mile radius of my house. I do have an EMF meter, and though the extremely high counts in my home are gone (they were in the millions), it still reads higher than 10 in my bedroom. So I am thinking of getting a bed canopy. I do look forward to the results of my next A1c test, hoping to see the numbers lower. I am very concerned about the effects of EMF on our human body health as well as impacts on animals, birds and insects, especially bees. The FCC has only measured the thermal impacts of RF, and that no more recently than 1996. For heaven's sake, there has been no attempt by the FCC to keep up with health impacts of cell phones and RF/EMF development since the pre-flip phone era! This seems a deliberate avoidance of the probable biological impacts on our cells and organs. We are after all electromagnetic beings. Much research has been done on this. Please look up Paul Heroux' work, published February 2026, on EMF and the development of diabetes. I strongly 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.

This comment is submitted by Cindy Sage, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports 2007 and 2012 (and Updates) on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group. The BioInitiative Report link is www.bioinitiative.org and is incorporated by reference due to its file size. The BioInitiative Report is an internationally acclaimed scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency/microwave radiation. In 2007, the BioInitiative Working Group released a 650-page report citing more than 2000 studies that document health effects of EMFs from all sources. The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former Presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Membership in the BioInitiative Working Group includes Sweden (6), USA (10), India (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Canada (2), Denmark (1), Austria (2), Slovak Republic (1), Russia (1) The BioInitiative Report was produced for publication to the broadest possible audience, hence placed on the Web and offered for free. Much of the BioInitiative Report content, including updated chapters and new chapters was later published in a special two-volume issue of the journal Pathophysiology to verify the quality of its science (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3). In 2013, the BioInitiative 2012 chapter on Autism and EMF was also published in two parts, in the peer-reviewed journal Pathophysiology. The BioInitiative 2012 Report concludes that the evidence for health risks from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by wireless technologies have substantially increased since 2007. A review of over 1800 new scientific studies indicates current guidelines are inadequate to protect the public from chronic exposure to very low-intensity (non-thermal) electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (EMF and RFR). In twenty-four technical chapters, the BioInitiative 2012 Report discusses the content and implications of about 1800 new studies since 2007. Overall, these new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers - particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9); carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on the fetus, neonate and offspring (Section 18 and 19); effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18); and findings in autism spectrum disorders consistent with EMF/RFR exposure effects. Global precautionary actions that have been taken in countries around the world, and recommended by medical and research experts are documented in Section 22. Use of the Precautionary Principal and its relevance are presented in Section 23. Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations are in Section 24. Attached file: Pathophysiology Full Edition.pdf (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3)

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 am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. Besides the fact that a good amount of research I have seen shows that current allowable levels of RF and EMFs from devices may not be safe, I have heard stories from people about how they are negatively affected by today's tech devices and I believe their voices need to be heard and their stories investigated. I know of people getting fatal cancers after living near cell towers. I have heard people say they feel sick when they around routers, cell phones and other devices, and especially cell towers. I have heard people say they get headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, insomnia and other symptoms from exposure to these things, but that the symptoms go away when they get away from them. I understand every BODY is different, and what affects one person one way may not affect someone else the same way (up to a certain threshold at least). However, some people serve as canaries in the coal mine--their experiences warning the rest of us that something might be more harmful to everyone than we realize. With Alzheimer's and especially cancer on the rise, I think the FCC and HHS have a duty to do a deep dive into these people's stories and make sure the RFs and EMFs we are all exposed to daily, everywhere, are not harming people. And if they find that they are, to do something about it immediately for the safety of the general public. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty and gross betrayal of the American people. Thank you for your time and consideration

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 am responding from the perspective of a [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. PERSONALIZE YOUR COMMENT HERE: Tell HHS how wireless radiation has affected you, your child, your family, or someone you care about. You may describe the source and duration of the exposure, health effects experienced, when they began, whether reducing exposure made a difference, and how these experiences have affected daily life. If you are an ally, describe why you support people affected by wireless radiation and why you believe HHS should address this issue. 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.