Research & federal duties

Please pass this bill to keep us informed. Utility companies should not be allowed to keep us in the dark. Let's use real science to analyze impacts instead of trusting the utility companies, whose shareholders profit from our use, to try out new technology using us as their guinea pigs. 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.

I am writing as a person who is adversely affected to the point of being disabled by radio-frequency (RF) radiation. I am a 54-year-old woman from the UK. I was diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in 2009 after suffering unexplained and debilitating symptoms over several years. My symptoms suddenly became extremely severe when Wi-Fi was installed in my university workplace in 2008. (I discovered that Wi-Fi was present only after the onset of far worse symptoms, and it transpired that I had been working immediately above Wi-Fi routers recently fixed to the ceiling of the room below me; thus, an informal and unintended ‘blind’ test took place.) My symptoms include: headaches and head pressure, facial burning and redness, chest pains and chest oppression, palpitations, feelings of ‘fight-or-flight’, digestive problems, stomach pains, nausea, vertigo, ear pain and ringing ears, urinary urgency, problems concentrating and focusing, memory loss, aphasia, exhaustion, insomnia. My symptoms fluctuate in severity depending on the duration and intensity of exposure. They resolve in an area with little or no RF pollution. I feel, however, that my cognition has been irreparably damaged to some degree. I am debilitated and disabled by all sources of wireless radiation: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, DECT cordless phones, smart meters and ‘smart’ devices, cellphones and cell towers, etc. I have paid a very high personal price because of my EHS and have lost my career as a university lecturer, my home, my ability to earn a living, the chance of a family, my social life – not to mention my basic human rights. Unless things change, the future looks very bleak indeed for me and for others who are similarly affected. Given the lack of recognition of EHS and its cause, I currently have no access to redress for the harm and loss inflicted on me by the proliferation and ubiquity of wireless technologies and the concomitant RF radiation. I welcome the Department of Health and Human Service’s call for evidence about health harms from RF radiation because recognition of these harms is well overdue. Rather than provide you with a long list of studies on EHS, I here refer to four that I find instructive: Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environ Res. 2022 Sep;212(Pt A):113374. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113374. Brown RR and Biebrich B (2025) Hypothesis: ultrasonography can document dynamic in vivo rouleaux formation due to mobile phone exposure. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 12:1499499. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1499499. Heuser G, Heuser SA. Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health. 2017 Sep 26;32(3):291-299. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2017-0014. Erratum in: Rev Environ Health. 2017 Dec 20;32(4):379-380. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2017-0027. PMID: 28678737. McCredden, J., McLean, L., Steinemann, A. Wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities: A prevalence study in Australia, Canada, and the United States, Next Research, Volume 8, 2026, 101577: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexres.2026.101577; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745?via%3Dihub

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 writing 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 parent, long time educator and concerned member of the public. Ever since my son was born twenty eight years ago, I have been concerned by the increasing exposure of children, as well as wildlife, to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones, particularly. As a biologist, I am aware that the effects of this radiation are subtle and chronic for most people though more acute for some. They can interfere with our bodies on a cellular level, impacting the electrostatic fields created by our bodies and cell functioning. Some studies have found that EMF radiation can interfere with the calcium channels in cells. These play an important role in nerve and muscle function (J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Jun 26;17(8):958–965. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088). Employing the precautionary principle would have necessitated HHS to shield children from the unknown and potentially harmful effects of EMFs until they were found to do no harm rather than unleash them and hope for the best. Anecdotally, as an educator, I can say that children today have neither the attention spans nor the physical fortitude that they did twenty years ago when I began teaching, but this is an amalgamation of all the toxins in the environment that we have placed there rather than just EMFs. Our environment suffers the effects of EMFs as well, notably our pollinators (Sci Adv. 2023 May 12;9(19):eadh1455. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adh1455 ) who already suffer from pesticides and ravages of climate change. I support, indeed urge, HHS in taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. For far too long, citizens have been left on their own to research and question the effects of these radiation sources on human health, something which should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health. 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 this opportunity to be heard.

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 parent and professional who is seeing the impact of this radiation with clients. More and more people are becoming sensitive to this exposure and for those who aren’t sensitive and don’t feel it, their bodies do, which leads to unexplained health issues. As someone who does everything in her power to counteract it (as a profession) 5G is WAY too potent, leading to very expensive fixes that won’t work when 6G is thrown at us. All humans and animals are being affected. This needs to end. Kids are falling asleep with their devices in beds and the truth of EMF radiation needs to be discussed publicly. A tower, a mile away, is not only affecting my fascia but my health. Which requires even more work on my part to get my body to somewhat neutral, while healing remains much further away because it’s everywhere. 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.

Please research 5g effects on health. EMF has effects on the biology of all living organisms.

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 and parent. I first became aware of the fact that EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation in our environment affect human health and well-being when I underwent a CT scan after sustaining a concussion. While I have had countless x-rays, sonagrams, and EKGs prior to this procedure, I noticed a strange feeling after I emerged out of the CT scanner--the vibrations in the scanner leaving residual echoes in my body that were unfamiliar to me. That was only the beginning of my initiation into the world of the electrically sensitive. Following this procedure, I quickly witnessed a barrage of symptoms that I still occasionally experience to this day-- twelve years later. I became aurally sensitive to Bluetooth and WiFi frequency to the point where I developed migraines, chest tightness, mental agitation, and myoclonus, or pulsatile tinnitus. While some might wonder if my electrical sensitivity is the result of concussion, there has not been enough unbiased review of how electromagnetic exposures can contribute to and lead to bodily sensitivities and disease to rule these out in the final assessment of how I got here. We cannot rule out at this time, or when my sensitivities surfaced, many likely other factors which may have contributed to the onset of my electrical sensitivity including the magnetism from the CT scan, additive synthesis of my overall EMF exposures at the time, and Mercury in the amalgam fillings I had in my mouth...in other words, the many singular, but potentially interactive, variables that can trigger a person's exposure tipping point at any moment in time. The personal toll my electrical sensitivity has taken on my life has been considerable. It cut short a promising career in technology, and in my work life in general, and affected every choice I make about my travel, social interactions, personal tech use, and daily and living arrangements. Sadly, I have also watched the effects increasing EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation have had on my child, my child's friends, the classroom, and our local school district. Minute-to-minute EMF, RF and wireless radiation exposure and technology addiction have had a harmful affect on the physical and mental health, academic achievement, and privacy of my child; all claims increasingly documented by scientific findings these last several years. I stand with Americans affected by wireless radiation, and believe HHS should continue to raise questions and fund research on the effects of EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation on human biology and psychology. We cannot afford as a society and species to continue expanding and unleashing untested EMF, RF and wireless radiation techologies in service to all but the American public. We deserve to live freely and safely, and need help from the HHS to do that in this instance. 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.

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]. I moved into a new place in 2021 and suddenly I was exhausted all of the time, even after a full night’s sleep. After some time I started to wonder whether it could be because the internet company had run the wifi into my bedroom. In my old place the internet came into the house from a cable that was run into the living room. I decided to move the wifi connection to the living room but was still not feeling 100% so I turned off the wifi on the router and plugged in our devices with an ethernet cable. This solved the problem. During that time I bought an EMF meter and before I made changes to the wifi I had a reading of 2.1 in my bedroom. After I made the changes the reading went down to .7 everywhere in the house. Outside walking through the neighborhood the reading was at a 1. I did some research to find out what a safe level of EMF exposure is so that I could change the setting on my EMF meter to reflect the official safe level only to find that there wasn’t an official safe level of EMF exposure. This is a serious health concern. 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.

Department of Health and Human Services, As a healthcare professional, an RN with over 40 years of experience, I know the dangers and benefits of exposure to non-ionizing and ionizing radiation. I know the science behind radiography and the science behind microwave radiation. In the clinical setting, measures are taken to reduce exposure, however, in the general environment, there are no safety controls, nor is there any formal data collected on symptoms related to RF, or radiowave exposure. Wireless radiation from tech devices and the advent of the installation of Smart Meters has increased ambient EMFs, or electromagnetic fields. As a public health nurse, I am attentive to the effects such environmental changes have caused. One of the effects of exposure of EMFs on the body is a clustering or aggregation of red blood cells. There has been an increase in the incidence of strokes over the last decade since the Smart Meters replaced the Android meters for utility use monitoring. Strokes have been occurring more frequently among younger people. Exposure to EMFs can cause a rise in blood pressure. Knowing this, at the time the Smart meters became ubiquitous, I collected BP readings from many people in my community. I consistently saw higher blood pressures in elderly who were positioned near a wall with a Smart meter attached. I tried desperately to appeal to leaders and politicians to take notice of these deleterious health effects, but the subject of health effects from EMFs seemed to be completely off the agenda, out of their purview. Regardless of the data I could demonstrate, no official would respond to my concern. My care, expertise and preventive efforts were completely ignored. My authority as a public health professional was rendered inert. Over the years since the advent of Smart Meters and pervasive WiFi, I have continued to watch people become ill with chronic conditions. Non-ionizing radiation represents oxidative stress on the body, which is well-known in science and can cause a wearing down of the immune system, as well as many other cellular changes. For the Federal government to ignore, to refuse to study this issue is clearly a disservice to the American people. Many of us are happy that RFK Jr. has tackled the 'cover-up problem' when it comes to health. I'm so upset watching my people suffer, but glad that HHS is finally responding. Thank you, Teresa Sanders, BSN, RN