Research & federal duties

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 parent and concerned member of the public. Personally, I have been severely affected by EMF's and Wireless Radiation Exposure as well as my son. I've had horrible tinnitus for a few years now and have done almost everything to stop it or at least to try and lessen it. I notice when I shut off my wifi router it's a lot better but there are 5G towers everywhere and now with the smaller extenders on street posts it's horrible. We know how it's unhealthy and there needs more regulation. 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 writing as a parent. I want the issue of EMFs effects on human biology thoroughly studied, and published, so i have confidence on how to protect my children from bodily harm

Comment submitted in response to Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Category: Public Experiences and Reported Potential Health Effects (with relevance also to Categories 2–4) I am submitting this comment as a private individual residing in Naha City, Okinawa, Japan. I am not a scientist or physician. I am submitting this as a firsthand, timestamped case record, because the domestic health and administrative authorities in my own country have declined to investigate it, and because this RFI explicitly requests real-world clustering data of the kind described below. 1. The core factual record On August 4, 2021, I experienced a left-hemisphere hemorrhagic stroke while at my workplace, an office building belonging to a regional electric utility company in a dense commercial and administrative district of central Naha City, Okinawa. Three months earlier, on May 9, 2021, a female coworker of the same age, working in the same building, suffered a stroke and subsequently left her position. I want to state this timeline as precisely as possible: my hemorrhage occurred before I received any COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose. I received my first dose during hospitalization, after the hemorrhage had already occurred. This sequence removes vaccination as a possible cause of the initial event and isolates it as a pre-vaccination, environmentally-exposed case — which I believe gives it particular evidentiary value for isolating non-vaccine environmental factors, including RF/EMF exposure. To summarize the cluster: Same workplace (a single office building) Same calendar year (2021) Same age cohort (both employees born around 1972) Two cerebrovascular events, three months apart (May and August 2021) 2. The infrastructure context The district in which this workplace is located underwent a concentrated buildout of 5G small-cell and telecommunications infrastructure during 2020–2021. A major regional telecommunications/data-center facility was completed in the immediate vicinity in November 2021, and I understand from published construction timelines that test transmissions from that facility likely occurred during the summer and fall of 2021 — a period overlapping with both cerebrovascular events described above. I want to be transparent about the limits of my own documentation: I have not been able to obtain conclusive public records confirming the exact installation date of any small-cell antenna on my own workplace building. I state this as an open, unresolved question — not as a settled fact. 3. Why I am submitting this I am not asking HHS to conclude that RF/EMF exposure caused these two cases. I am submitting this record because: It is precisely the kind of "public experience" and "workplace cluster" data this RFI's Category 1 explicitly invites. It is, to my knowledge, a comparatively rare pre-vaccination case — meaning it may be useful as a data point for isolating environmental (non-vaccine) contributing factors in cerebrovascular events. No domestic institution in Japan — municipal, prefectural, or national — has been willing to examine or record this cluster. I am placing it into this federal public record because I believe a factual account, however small, should exist somewhere on the public record rather than nowhere at all. 4. Specific points relevant to the RFI's other categories Exposure standards (Category 2): I would respectfully urge that any revised framework consider occupational and workplace RF exposure in dense commercial office environments — not only residential or personal-device exposure — as a distinct exposure category worth separate evaluation. Surveillance (Category 3): I would suggest that same-workplace, same-timeframe clustering of cerebrovascular or neurological events be considered a surveillance signal worth systematic, structured tracking — similar to how occupational disease clusters are tracked in other contexts — rather than being dismissed case-by-case as coincidence. Existing evidence (Category 4): Current exposure standards based solely on short-term thermal effects (SAR) do not, to my understanding, address the kind of chronic, non-thermal, clustered occupational exposure described in this case. I thank HHS for opening this process to public and international input, and I hope this record is useful in identifying the research gaps this RFI seeks to find. Respectfully submitted, NOBUO TAIRA Naha City, Okinawa, Japan

I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate the experiences of those being negatively affected by EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation, 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.

Commprehensive Government Study of the Potential Health Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation and Wireless Technologies To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to respectfully request that the appropriate government health and public-safety agencies undertake, support, or commission a comprehensive, independent study of the potential long-term health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the many wireless technologies now used routinely by the public. Wireless technology has become an integral part of everyday life, and people may be exposed to multiple sources simultaneously and for extended periods. These sources include, but are not limited to: 5G and other cellular networks and infrastructure Cell phones and smartphones Wi-Fi and wireless internet routers Bluetooth devices Wireless earbuds and headphones Wearable wireless devices and smartwatches Wireless home and office equipment Cellular towers and small-cell installations Other consumer and telecommunications RF-emitting devices I recognize that there is substantial scientific research concerning RF and EMF exposure, and that regulatory agencies have established exposure limits based on currently available evidence. However, given the rapid expansion of wireless technologies and the increasing duration and complexity of everyday exposure, I believe it is appropriate for the government to periodically reassess the evidence using current technology, exposure patterns, and epidemiological data. I respectfully request that any such study examine, among other issues: Long-term population health effects of chronic exposure to RF and other relevant portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Cumulative and combined exposure, including simultaneous exposure from cellular networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, phones, wireless earbuds, wearable devices, and other sources. 5G and newer wireless technologies, including whether differences in frequencies, modulation, signal characteristics, network architecture, and exposure patterns warrant additional research. Cell-phone use, including long-term and heavy-use patterns and exposure associated with devices held close to the body or head. Wireless earbuds and Bluetooth devices, particularly because some devices may be used for many hours each day and in close proximity to the head. Children and adolescents, including whether developing bodies or patterns of lifelong exposure warrant separate study. Potential neurological, cognitive, reproductive, developmental, cardiovascular, sleep-related, and other health outcomes, while distinguishing established evidence from preliminary or uncertain findings. Cancer and other long-latency outcomes, including sufficiently long-term epidemiological follow-up to identify effects that may not become apparent for many years. Individual susceptibility and exposure differences, including whether certain populations may experience different effects from comparable environmental exposures. Real-world exposure levels, rather than relying solely on theoretical or laboratory conditions, including measurements of aggregate exposure in homes, schools, workplaces, public transportation, and other environments. Adequacy of existing exposure standards, including whether current limits sufficiently account for chronic, low-level, cumulative, or simultaneous exposure from multiple technologies. Independent scientific review, with appropriate disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, methodologies, raw data where possible, and the full range of relevant peer-reviewed evidence. I also request that the government make the findings of such research readily accessible to the public and clearly distinguish between findings that are well established, findings for which evidence remains mixed or uncertain, and questions requiring further investigation. This request is not based on an assumption that wireless technologies are harmful. Rather, it is a request for continued, independent, evidence-based surveillance and research as exposure patterns and technologies evolve. Given the widespread use of wireless devices and the potentially large population affected by any long-term health consequences, continued monitoring and rigorous research appear to be an important public-health responsibility. I respectfully ask that this request be forwarded to the appropriate federal and/or state agencies, scientific advisory bodies, and public-health authorities for consideration.

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to share my personal experience with radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi and 4G/5G transmitters in my surroundings. I live in Norway, and I am concerned about the increasing level of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation to which people are exposed. I am also concerned that safety limits and assessments may rely heavily on information and research connected to the telecommunications industry itself. I own and operate a company in Norway. We have several computers and a Wi-Fi system at our premises, and the company has been operating for more than ten years. During the first few years, we used desktop computers connected to the internet exclusively through Wi-Fi. In 2017, I received a new desktop computer, which was positioned close to my right foot. Shortly afterwards, I began noticing an unusual sensation along the right side of my body. It felt like a persistent tingling, irritation or discomfort that started in my lower right leg and extended upwards to slightly above my right hip. This continued for several months—possibly four or five months. I consulted a chiropractor because I thought the symptoms might be caused by a trapped nerve or a similar problem, but the treatment did not help. Some time later, we installed a wired internet connection at the premises, significantly reducing our reliance on Wi-Fi. Within approximately one week of installing the wired network, the tingling and irritation on the right side of my body disappeared. To test whether the change might be connected to the Wi-Fi, we disconnected the wired network approximately two weeks later and returned to using Wi-Fi. After a few days, the tingling sensation returned. It was not painful, but it felt like an irritation deep inside the muscles, similar to the sensation of a compressed or irritated nerve. Since that experiment, we have used only a wired internet connection at the company, and I have not experienced those symptoms again. I still use a mobile phone and have Wi-Fi in my home. I am not frightened or distressed by wireless technology in my daily life. However, I am concerned that the telecommunications industry may have too much influence over the standards used to determine which exposure levels are considered safe. Based on the timing of my symptoms, their disappearance after switching to a wired connection, and their return when we temporarily resumed using Wi-Fi, I am convinced that radiofrequency exposure from the Wi-Fi equipment caused my body to react. I have also noticed that vegetation surrounding some 4G and 5G towers in Norway appears to show poorer growth when trees are located very close to the transmitters. I cannot establish the cause based on observation alone, but it adds to my concern that prolonged exposure at close range may have biological effects. When the industry presents this technology as entirely harmless, without what I consider sufficient independent long-term research, I become sceptical. I believe experiences such as mine deserve to be documented and investigated through genuinely independent scientific research. I hope that health authorities will continue to examine the possible biological effects of long-term radiofrequency exposure and ensure that public safety standards are based on precaution, transparency and research that is independent of the telecommunications industry. Sincerely, Geir Loseth Norway

To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The work to understand the harmful effects of excessive electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation has already been done.  The science is well established, and waiting for additional literature to be published is time wasted and more illness and deaths produced.  Feel free to contact me should you desire numerous citations from refereed, professional journals providing the evidence for immediate action. Here's just one systematic review to start from (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28213724/) or Neurol Sci. 2017 May;38(5):797-810.doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8. Epub 2017 Feb 17:  Title: Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Conclusion:"for mobile phone use of 10 years or longer (or >1640 h), the overall result of the meta-analysis showed a significant 1.33 times increase in risk" with "Studies with higher quality showed a trend towards high risk of brain tumour, while lower quality showed a trend towards lower risk/protection."  In fact, I'm wondering why the U.S. government hasn't acted more quickly on addressing the issue, but then again, it has to deal with the massive influence of corporations demanding that nothing - including the public's health - get in the way of their profits.  In response to public alarm, the offending companies create pseudo-scientific "studies" of very low quality to confuse everyone and, in the short-term, it usually works. Meanwhile, people die unnecessarily.  Remember how long it took government to regulate tobacco, benzene, asbestos, PCBs, DES, SO2, TBT antifoulants and CFCs (to name a few)?   The answer is that it took government up to one-hundred years, in some instances, to act.  Historically, government has been economically conservative (on preserving profits) and sluggish on protecting the public: there's little to no use of the Precautionary Principle, merely "let's allow the private sector to do as they please and when the bodies start piling up and we get a lot of complaints we'll start looking into it. Again, the time to act to stop people from dying from brain tumors and other costly, nasty diseases was long before "yesterday" with regard to EMFs and non-ionizing radiation.  The work on legislation has already been done, as well.  Perhaps, start by considering the implementation of the European standard as set forth under Resolution 1815 (2011). Thank you for your consideration.

Consider the effects of EMF at 5G as noted in these articles before approving 6G and requiring electric vehicles. Many of us are not aware of the stress and mitochondrial damage that the existing services create and our bodies' need for defenses. These articles go back to 2012, but the proliferation and allowed manner of distribution is moving faster than man can document in terms of the effects on life. Before stepping it up, please require mitigation as known as part of the access to service. Please see these articles: https://bioinitiative.org/ ⁠https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

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. I am currently 75. Around 2011 I experienced tinnitus in my right ear only. I consulted an ear, nose, and throat doctor, who sent me for an MRI. He said that one sided hearing loss could be caused by a tumor. The MRI revealed that I had an acoustic neuroma. These tumors are usually benign, but if they grow, they can require invasive surgery which can result in hearing loss, facial paralysis, and more. These tumors take up to 10 years to form. I started using a cell phone around 2001. From the beginning, I believed that my tumor was caused by cell phone use. I'm right handed, its my right ear, and I held my phone up to that ear for long periods of time talking to people long distance with that phone. I was unaware of the radiation coming from cell phones. At first I had an MRI with contrast yearly for 7 years. That contrast was gadolinium which is a heavy metal. I now regret complying with that requirement because of the possible health ramifications from heavy metals. Current medical research indicates that the contrast is not required for MRIs of acoustic neuromas and my current doctor agrees. Initially, it was very frightening to have a tumor in my head and I experienced anxiety about the possibility that invasive surgery might be required. When my tumor was diagnosed, the medical literature did not show a relationship between acoustic neuroma and cell phone use, but it does now. Initially, my doctor did not attribute the tumor to cell phone use. My current doctor does. Yet, the general public continues to use these phones and to give them to their children to use with little understanding of the possible health consequences. Now I often tell people about my tumor and the fact that research has proven that they are caused by cell phone radiation. The public needs to know this and our government needs to protect American citizens from this danger, especially vulnerable children. I do as much as I can to avoid exposure to radiation which is very difficult in a world where 5G is everywhere, xrays are often recommended, smart meters are forced on American citizens, etc. I was an academic librarian when I started to lose the hearing in my right ear. That loss affected my ability to hear students who asked questions at the reference desk and to hear students during my presentations to classes. I have difficulty hearing people speak when there is a great deal of background noise and this affects my relationships and ability to communicate. I must position myself with my good ear closest to the person speaking in many situations in order to hear conversation. Sometimes I stop trying to hear. Fortunately, as soon as I stopped holding the phone up to my ear, my tumor stopped growing. I have been watching and waiting for years now. My doctor believes that my tumor will not grow and I can avoid surgery. Others are not so lucky. I have seen patients at support group meetings who have experienced facial paralysis as a result of their surgery. I object to being exposed to more and more unchecked radiation in the world that we live in and believe that it is unconscionable that our government has not protected its citizens from this danger. Data centers are springing up everywhere exposing the public to more and more technology and radiation. Technology companies should have to prove that their products are safe prior to putting them on the market. Instead, citizens are injured and must prove that the technology caused their injury. How many of those children now using cell phones will have tumors like mine in 10 years or cancerous tumors as a result of cell phone radiation? Therefore, I wholeheartedly 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 very lucky that my tumor has only taken my hearing in one ear and has stopped growing. Others will continue to experience these tumors until the health of American citizens is prioritized and companies are required to prove that their products are safe before they can sell them.

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 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 healthcare professional, 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.