Research & federal duties

For 3 years, my home contained an extremely high EMF caused by an electrician who improperly installed dimmers and violated the electric code when wiring to fuse box. The EMF field was highest in my son’s bedroom and adjacent tv room. My healthy son then experienced unexplained chronic pain. I used an EMF meter to find defect and fixed it with the help of an electrician. Read the book Tracing EMF in Building Wiring and Grounding by Karl Riley. You will learn that the EMF studies that said EMF is safe DID NOT understand that some of the highest EMF is caused by residential wiring defects. The EMF studies that based their analysis upon the distance of homes with children with leukemia from high power lines DID NOT understand that the real danger was not high power lines, but residential wiring defects producing much higher EMF. If a house was 10 miles from a high power line and the resident had leukemia it had little to do with proximity to the power lines but probably a lot to do with whether that home had high EMF due to wiring defect. My son’s room had an EMF level of 80 to 120 mG whereas the level near the high power lines in my town was like 12 mG. I know because I started testing locations to understand. After the wiring defect was fixed in my house, the level dropped down to 0.14 mG. I used AC Milligaus meter by Alpha Lab Inc

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.

Re-evaluate exposure standards beyond simple thermal heating limits ​The Issue: Current federal guidelines (primarily based on FCC limits established in 1996) focus almost exclusively on preventing immediate thermal tissue heating (the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR limit) over short timeframes. ​The Recommendation: HHS should urge inter-agency coordination (with the FDA, CDC, and FCC) to evaluate non-thermal, long-term biological pathways. Current research demonstrates that fields far weaker than those required to heat tissue can induce cellular responses, primarily through: ​Oxidative stress and Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) generation, which can indirectly compromise cellular repair pathways and intracellular signaling over time. ​Disruption of cellular calcium homeostasis, affecting membrane dynamics and cellular stress protocols. ​2. Address cumulative, multi-source exposure in real-world environments ​The Issue: Safety thresholds are currently tested on individual devices in isolation (e.g., testing a single smartphone near a model head). ​The Recommendation: HHS should fund public health surveillance and exposure modeling that reflects modern, real-world conditions. Modern environments involve concurrent, continuous exposures from multiple sources—including Wi-Fi networks, smart meters, cellular networks, wearables, and spatial transmission antennas—operating simultaneously over decades. ​3. Establish specialized protective frameworks for vulnerable populations ​The Issue: Uniform safety thresholds assume a standardized adult physiology and do not account for biological variability across demographics. ​The Recommendation: Regulatory guidelines should implement explicit safety margins for sensitive populations: ​Children and Adolescents: Thinner skull bones, higher water content in biological tissue, and developing nervous systems lead to deeper relative RF energy penetration. ​Occupational Workers: Individuals with prolonged high-density field exposures in specific industries or environments. ​Medical Device Users: Individuals with implanted cardiac or neurological electronics sensitive to external field interference. ​4. Clear scientific terminology and clear public communication ​The Issue: The term "radiation" often creates confusion between high-energy ionizing radiation (such as X-rays or nuclear fallout, which cause direct DNA strand breaks) and low-energy non-ionizing radiation (such as RF/EMF, which operate through indirect biophysical mechanisms). Public guidance is often either overly alarmist or dismissively vague. ​The Recommendation: HHS should establish clear, transparent public health communication based on precautionary principles: ​Clearly distinguish between ionizing damage and non-thermal cellular stress mechanisms. ​Provide practical, low-cost "exposure hygiene" guidance (e.g., hardwiring home networks, keeping transmitting devices at a distance from the body during sleep, using speakerphones) so citizens can reduce unnecessary chronic exposure without unnecessary panic. ​5. Prioritize independent, human-relevant research initiatives ​The Issue: Much of the existing literature relies on either high-dose animal studies (e.g., the National Toxicology Program study) or in-vitro petri dish models that do not translate directly to human systemic biology. ​The Recommendation: HHS should direct federal research funding toward: ​Longitudinal epidemiology tracking health outcomes in populations with measured (rather than self-reported) exposure data. ​Biomarker discovery to identify whether specific individuals possess heightened biological sensitivity to non-thermal fields.

I request a comprehensive, independent evaluation of the potential health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from wireless technologies, particularly for children, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and communities near wireless infrastructure. As cell towers, small-cell antennas, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and mobile devices become increasingly widespread, public health protections must keep pace. HHS should assess whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term, cumulative exposure and potentially vulnerable populations. 1. Cancer and long-term exposure I urge HHS to review evidence concerning RF-EMF exposure and cancer, including brain tumors and childhood cancers. Research should consider exposure duration, intensity, frequency, age at first exposure, and proximity to transmitting infrastructure. HHS should distinguish established findings from unresolved questions and identify gaps requiring further long-term research. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm in one exposure scenario should not be interpreted as proof that all scenarios have been adequately studied. 2. Pregnancy, birth defects, and fetal development I request an evaluation of human and experimental evidence concerning RF-EMF exposure and miscarriage, congenital abnormalities, fetal growth, premature birth, and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research should account for confounding factors, accurately assess exposure, and clearly explain limitations. Pregnant women deserve transparent, evidence-based guidance on known risks, uncertainties, and reasonable exposure-reduction measures. 3. Children’s brain development Children warrant particular consideration because their brains and nervous systems are developing and their potential exposure may span decades. HHS should prioritize research into possible effects on neurological development, cognition, memory, attention, learning, behavior, and sleep. Studies should distinguish prenatal, childhood, and adolescent exposure and examine cumulative exposure from multiple sources. Long-term studies using objective exposure measurements, appropriate comparison groups, and independent oversight are essential. 4. Setback distances from schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, and homes HHS should evaluate whether minimum separation distances or additional siting safeguards are scientifically justified for cell towers, small-cell antennas, rooftop antennas, and other wireless infrastructure near schools, daycares, hospitals, maternity facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Specifically, HHS should: * Review studies linking proximity to transmitting infrastructure with health outcomes, accounting for measured exposure and antenna characteristics. * Compare U.S. exposure standards and siting practices with international standards and precautionary policies. * Evaluate cumulative exposure from multiple transmitters. * Consider additional protections for children, pregnant women, neonatal units, and other potentially vulnerable populations. * Recommend pre-installation assessments and independent post-installation exposure measurements, with results publicly accessible. * Determine whether minimum setbacks are justified and, if so, recommend distances appropriate to the facility type and exposure conditions. I recognize that distance alone does not determine exposure. Nevertheless, HHS should explicitly evaluate whether distance-based protections are warranted. Where evidence is insufficient, the agency should identify research gaps and consider proportionate precautionary measures while further studies are conducted. 5. Review of current exposure standards HHS should assess whether current U.S. RF exposure limits adequately address prolonged exposure, realistic living conditions, multiple simultaneous sources, and different stages of human development. The review should distinguish established effects from possible effects under investigation and findings that have not been consistently replicated. Compliance testing should reflect realistic conditions in homes, schools, workplaces, and healthcare facilities. 6. Independent research and transparency HHS should prioritize rigorous, independently funded research with transparent conflict-of-interest disclosures. Priorities should include cancer, reproductive outcomes, prenatal development, childhood neurological health, cumulative exposure, and the effectiveness of exposure-reduction and siting measures. HHS should publish its assessments, explain how conflicting findings are evaluated, and make results accessible to families, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments. Thank you for considering my comments.

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, myself, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. wireless radiation has affected me significantly and also i am concerned about my child, and entire family that I care about. The continues exposure from everywhere is unjust since there is no escape from it. I am very signifantly sensitive to is and the measures that I am taking are not enough. I am buying expensive clothes and blankets to shield myself but I am still significantly affected. It's not right that my life became a hell now without my consent and ability to opt out. The exposure is crazy and new towers continue to grow everywhere. This needs to stop and it is unlawful because it affects everyone without asking for acceptance. I do not consent and do not accept being continuously exposed to this radiation. 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.

Hello, I am responding as an individual and I would like to explain my experience with EMFs. I used to have the internet equipment (router, modem etc.) all in my bedroom and soon after it was installed I noticed my sleep suffer immensely. Not only was my insomnia terrible but I started getting other symptoms; brain fog, low energy, low mood, low drive, low libido etc. I was always exhausted and fatigued, I barely had the energy to go for a walk. I came across a podcast that talked about EMF radiation and some of its effects and then I realized that I might be the victim of that. I had my internet service provider move all the equipment to another room and slowly my symptoms went away and I felt like a new man. If I didn't come across that podcast I would have never guessed what it was. Since then I have read books, articles, listened to podcasts etc. about EMF radiation and there is no doubt that it is harmful to both humans and animals and it is also a carcinogen. The terrible part is that we are all surrounded by this everyday with phones, wifi, smart devices, towers etc. Our poor children are exposed to all this plus at school with all their devices and air pods that use to listen to music. It is frying their brain and could cause irreversible damage to them. There are thousands of studies confirming it's negative effects yet there is nothing done about it. I would like to share some links to studies: https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms (list of studies, there are more than this on other websites) https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/use-bed-insulating-system-electromagnetic-fields-improves-immune-function-redo https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/hearing-aid-users-may-be-risk-high-electromagnetic-field-exposure-may-be-accom https://greenmedinfo.com/abstracts/long-term-occupational-exposure-elf-emfs-likely-cause-genotoxic-effects These are just a few out of thousands!!! Again, we know they are harmful. Now we need restrictions and safety measures in place to reduce the amount of damage that people are getting from this exposure. Federal health agencies should consider the power of the tower or device being constructed and calculate the radius at which it will do harm. then construct it at a location where there is minimal people and animals. At the very least the FCC needs to review and update its guidelines to minimize the harm that people are subjugated to. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this matter.

You ignored scientist and doctors warning you of the dangers for YEARS. We know the damage it causes to our health and well being. Shame on you - stop 5g and the even More inhumane 6g.

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 mother, a healthcare professional, and a concerned member of society. I have seen negative effects of wireless radiation in videos of birds who are clearly disoriented going near a 5G tower. I also have witnessed friends who were unfortunate enough to have a 5G tower built near their home, have countless increased health issues since the installation. The whole family experienced increased headaches, vision problems, sleeping problems. After test after test gave them no answers, they acquired a meter that measured the radiation and it was off the charts. They promptly put the house on the market. We were shocked to discover there have been NO studies done to test the safety of these towers. We need to protect our children. Please consider examining the effects of wireless radiation. 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 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 urge HHS to independently review the health and environmental evidence on RF radiation and to recommend protective exposure limits and setbacks from homes and schools.