Research & federal duties

A major research gap in public policy regarding RF exposure is the psychological phenomenon known as "radiophobia"; that is, the irrational fear of radiation of any type. Radiophobia heavily influences the public's attitude towards RF exposure leading to gross overestimation of risk. Radiophobia is largely due to scientific illiteracy, such as not understanding the inverse square power law of radiative flux and why that's important in realizing how insignificant day-to-day RF exposure is. The solution is public education in physics rather than hollow platitudes from a distrusted government in attempts to placate public fears (remember "safe and effective"?). Better scientific education can be effective provided radiophobia is not so severe that it's created hoards of incorrigible paranoid masses fretting over 5G. I'm afraid we are past that point, and my hopes of fixing the stupidity are slim. Good luck.

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 someone struggling with her own health issues, while seeing others struggle, as well. Also, as someone who is familiar with research suggesting radiation causes harm far in excess of anything paid shills for the industry are willing to admit. On a strictly experiential level: Radiation exposure is a lot like boiling a frog. The frog doesn't know what's happening, but it feels unwell, it has lost and continues to lose function and a baseline sense of well-being, and eventually, unless it's removed from the cooking pot, it will die. When I moved out of an apartment building blighted with a high density of WiFi signals... to a location with fewer WiFi routers per square mile, I started to sleep better, and other issues eased, as well. I'm still being boiled in all the other sources of radiation (cell phones and cell phone masts, smart meters, etc), but even this minor change has made an appreciable difference in my sleep. How much more lost function and productivity (over the past years) might I regain in an environment without all this toxic, weapons-grade radiation… that our own military used to admit was a threat to the health and preparedness of its troops! How many more of my health issues might reverse, if I didn't have to endure radiation levels up to a million times normal background radiation which our bodies and brains have historically been exposed to! How much more functional and healthy and happy might our children be, and all of our society be, without this pervasive and unprecedented toxic exposure! The failure to properly investigate and regulate radiation is nothing short of a crime against humanity. Ecocide, too. One way or another, the truth will come out. Better it come out sooner, to spare us needless suffering, and spare our planet the needless loss and extinction of its most vulnerable species, starting with insects and birds, but including our precious children. The link between radiation and biological harm is established for any who are courageous enough to acknowledge it. I urge HHS to take 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 ALL these experiences AND the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give espeical attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to be heard.

In 2008-2009 time frame I developed ringing in my left ear. I could often hear a static, droning also. Doctors just counted it as Tinnitus . I feel as tho I’m feeling the noise at times. My health is great but has been altered at times because of this problem. I remember it was around the time the Government sent out the TV boxes and took away our antenna tv reception. I feel like they sold us out for a number of reasons. Thank you for investigating these problems .

Public Comment on HHS Request for Information: EMF/RF Exposure and Human Health Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I submit this comment as a concerned consumer urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to put public health, independent science, and informed consent ahead of commercial interests when evaluating radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF/EMF) exposure from wireless devices and infrastructure. Wireless technology is everywhere, from phones and Wi-Fi to wearables, smart meters, and cellular networks. Consumers cannot assess safety when exposure information is hard to find and testing may be funded by companies that profit from the products. The public deserves transparent answers. I do not claim every RF/EMF exposure causes illness or that every alleged harm is established. HHS should identify what is known and unknown, without treating uncertainty as proof of safety or speculation as proof of harm. Policy must follow transparent, reproducible science, free from commercial or advocacy pressure. I urge HHS to prioritize these actions: 1. INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY TESTING. Require qualified labs independent of manufacturers and telecom companies to test devices and infrastructure. Disclose funding, conflicts, methods, calibration, exposure conditions, analyses, and full results. Publish positive and negative findings and make testing reproducible. Industry-funded research must not be the sole basis for declaring a product safe. 2. REAL-WORLD AND CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. Assess ordinary and high-use scenarios, multiple devices together, and long-term exposure in homes, workplaces, schools, childcare facilities, and neighborhoods. Consider distance, duration, frequency, signal strength, and actual use. Measurements must be independently verifiable and explained plainly. 3. LONG-TERM HEALTH RESEARCH. Fund adequately powered, independently replicated long-term human studies, systematic reviews, and laboratory research on reported concerns involving cancer, cognition, sleep, reproduction, development, cardiovascular outcomes, and other effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation, address confounding factors, publish protocols and null findings, and share data when ethical and privacy rules permit. 4. PROTECT VULNERABLE GROUPS. Assess whether added precautions are warranted for children, pregnant people, older adults, people with medical conditions, exposed workers, and users of medical devices. Include schools and childcare facilities. 5. CLEAR CONSUMER DISCLOSURES. Require accessible disclosures of emissions, limits, independent test results, test conditions, limitations, and uncertainty. Explain implications for normal and cumulative exposure. Create a searchable public database of test and adverse-event reports. Marketing must not substitute for evidence. 6. PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING. Create privacy-protecting systems to report suspected health effects. Investigate credible patterns with validated exposure measurements and clinical assessment. Reports should prompt investigation, not prove causation automatically. Coordinate research and publish findings. 7. ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN HARM IS ESTABLISHED. If reliable evidence shows that a company's product, emissions, concealment, or failure to comply with safety requirements caused or materially contributed to injury, consumers should have meaningful remedies. Congress and regulators should consider requiring responsible companies to cover reasonable medical evaluation, treatment, ongoing care, and appropriate compensation. Companies that knowingly conceal credible safety findings, falsify results, or obstruct required disclosures should face meaningful penalties. Responsibility must be determined fairly, based on evidence, causation, and applicable law. 8. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. Disclose conflicts, publish the basis for conclusions, invite independent peer review, and explain how conflicting evidence is weighed. Review standards as technology and science evolve. Publish who funded studies, what was measured, and why conclusions were reached. Consumers deserve information about possible risks, and should not bear the full financial burden if evidence establishes preventable harm. Transparency encourages safer design, honest communication, and better science. I urge HHS to establish rigorous, independent, publicly accountable RF/EMF research and oversight. Where evidence identifies a risk, take proportionate action. Where evidence is uncertain, fund better research and communicate uncertainty honestly. Where evidence does not support an adverse effect, explain that conclusion and the strength and limits of the research. Commercial confidentiality should never hide information essential to public health. The public deserves independent testing, accessible data, protections for vulnerable populations, and medical and financial remedies when harm is demonstrated.

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, researcher, and advocate. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects. 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 parent, family member and concerned member of the public. 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.

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Question 2 – Perspective This comment is submitted by an individual with an interest in evidence-based public health. It draws on peer-reviewed literature, government and international agency assessments, and systematic reviews. Established findings are distinguished from emerging or uncertain evidence. Questions 5, 6, and 12 – Exposure standards, risk assessment, and evidence regarding effects at or below current federal limits Federal health agencies should consider the following established frameworks and evidence: • ICNIRP 2020 guidelines: The only substantiated adverse health effects of RF-EMF are those caused by tissue heating (thermal effects). The guidelines protect against all established adverse effects, including those relevant to 5G and other modern technologies. No adverse effects below the thermal threshold have been consistently substantiated in human populations at typical exposure levels. • U.S. FCC RF exposure limits (47 CFR 1.1310) and FDA assessments: These are based primarily on thermal effects (SAR). FDA has stated that the weight of scientific evidence does not support a causal link between RF exposure below these limits and cancer or other adverse health effects. • WHO-commissioned systematic reviews (2023–2025): Reviews of human observational studies on cancer (including glioma), cognition, reproduction, and non-specific symptoms generally found no or only small effects associated with RF-EMF exposure, with moderate certainty of evidence for the absence of increased brain tumor risk from mobile phone use. Confidence is lower for many other outcomes due to limited high-quality data. • IARC 2011 classification: RF-EMF is Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”) based on limited evidence linking heavy mobile phone use to glioma and acoustic neuroma. This classification has not been upgraded. • NTP rodent studies (2018): These reported carcinogenic signals in male rats at high whole-body exposures well above typical human levels. Findings were not consistent across sexes or species, and methodological limitations have been noted by expert bodies. The results do not directly translate to typical human exposures below thermal limits. Established finding: At exposure levels below current thermal-based limits, there is no consistent, high-quality evidence of causal adverse health effects in the general population from everyday RF/EMF sources. Areas of uncertainty: Long-term effects beyond most study follow-up periods; cumulative multi-source real-world exposures; potential subtle non-thermal biological effects; and whether any subgroups experience effects not captured in population-level data. Question 11 – Sensitive populations Children warrant careful consideration due to potentially higher relative absorption in some tissues and longer lifetime cumulative exposure. Current evidence does not demonstrate harm at typical levels, but data specifically addressing developmental stages remain limited. Targeted research with personal dosimetry is warranted. Question 13 – Cumulative exposure patterns 5G, Wi-Fi, IoT, wearables, smart meters, and denser infrastructure create complex multi-source exposure patterns. Average levels generally remain well below thermal limits. Evidence on how these real-world combinations affect cumulative dose or health outcomes is still limited. Improved multi-source exposure characterization is needed. Question 16 – Highest-priority research gaps 1. Long-term prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with individually measured personal RF exposure. 2. Improved real-world dosimetry for cumulative, multi-source exposures (including 5G characteristics). 3. Independent replication and mechanistic studies of any non-thermal signals using realistic exposure parameters. 4. High-quality blinded investigation of reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Question 17 – Coordination HHS (FDA, NIH, CDC) should coordinate with FCC and international bodies (WHO, ICNIRP) to prioritize independent research that can meaningfully update risk assessment. Question 18 – Additional recommendations Maintain clear public communication that distinguishes established thermal effects and the absence of confirmed adverse effects below limits from areas of residual uncertainty. Support practical exposure-reduction options for those who prefer them without implying established harm. Ensure any future guidance is driven by high-quality evidence.

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 well-educated 69 year old female whose life has been very greatly impacted by my being disablingly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. I live in the UK, where EHS (electrohypersensitivity) is a condition not recognised by the health service, to the point of there being no code available to allow the condition to be entered into my medical records. Nor is there any treatment or support available from the National Health Service. Exposure to radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi affect me the most, inducing nausea, extreme brain fog and overwhelming tiredness; I can feel any electrical current, even low voltage DC, and emfs from household circuitry and appliances affect me adversely. Technological "progress" is making daily living an increasing challenge. Finding any environment in which it is physically safe to work has become increasingly problematic, leading to long-term unemployment and its financial consequences. My social isolation has been extreme, resulting initially from my inability to participate because all social activities (employment, cultural, religious, educational, healthcare, travel, transport, shopping...) involve, these days, exposure to wifi, blutooth and mobile phones, etc. This led me to a lengthy period of severe depression and anxiety, which increased the isolation because often I have been too depressed even to talk with my remaining friends. Possibly the worst thing emotionally was discovering, as a result of EHS, how corrupted science has become; how extremely unkind so many people can be; and how many politicians claiming to care about inclusiveness and democracy don't give a damn about actual real people who are suffering. Dealing with the resulting disillusionment while also dealing with ill health and extreme isolation has been a transformative experience and my understanding of the world has changed. It looks a lot more corrupt and in the thrall of evil than I understood before. For instance I have seen scientists lose their jobs just for asking questions, or finding answers, which powerful industries want to suppress. I have seen the UK government run public consultations into EMF-related matters only to hide or ignore replies providing scientific evidence which calls into doubt the next money-spinning innovation which Big Tech has decided to impose on us whether we want (or can physically tolerate) it or not. I have witnessed legal challenges fail because the judge apparently couldn't understand science. I have watched the FCC simply ignore a court ruling ordering it to justify its position of denial of the biological effects of microwave radiation. I know of those for whom suffering from electrosensitivity has become a burden no longer endurable, so that they chose to end their lives. For those still determined to live, daily life becomes increasingly challenging. I have spent years trying to understand why emfs affect me as they do. Years reading scientific papers, increasing my understanding; hours formulating evidence only to find that those presently running the world are determined to dismiss the best presented evidence when it is unfavourable to their self-interest. I am watching the biosphere which supports life as we know it teeter on the edge of collapse, have seen the evidence of the role played in this collapse by, among other stressors, man-made, non-natural emfs, yet we continue to hurtle towards the edge. I could attach links to many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers which demonstrate the biological effects of emfs. Instead, I invite you to read Arthur Firstenberg's "The Invisible Rainbow", which has an extensive bibliography. Or look at the Bioinitiative Report. Or the Freiburg Appeal. Go look at the website of the EM-Radiation Research Trust. Take a look at the papers suggested here: https://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Selected%20ES%20and%20EHS%20studies.pdf Here's just one of many available papers demonstrating the irrelevance of ICNIRP's so-called safety standards: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 And then, once you have absorbed what this small selection of scientific papers tells us, take a look at this little beauty, and ask yourself what it's like for anyone adversely impacted by emfs to live in a world where this is regarded as a trusted source of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity I am fed up with being told that the evidence is inconclusive. Exactly how much evidence is deemed conclusive? Who gets to decide? And what about the precautionary principle? Science is empirical: it begins with evidence. We, the electrosensitive, are evidence, and I for one have had more than enough of being ignored, gas-lit, and harmed by technology.

Hello I would like the government regulatory dept to conduct an analysis of radiation exposure from wireless transmission. I am sensitive to radiation poisoning as I’m sure millions of citizens are also. It is concerning for our youth and society to have to always worry about protecting ourselves from our agencies not looking into third party testing before going ahead and installing. This is problematic as it is too late when the government steps in.

First and foremost, the entire concept of pooling average Americans, who don’t even understand how electricity gets to their toaster, let alone understand the complexities of the combined physics and physiology of how non ionizing electromagnetic radiation effects human tissue, is at best misguided and at worst purposefully intended to produce a biased outcome. But this is what happens when a politician with brain damage and no education in the sciences is placed in charge of a government agency wholly dependent upon science and technology. You get bad decisions and bad data. Any and all questions and concerns about currently in use RF technology is already settled science. The effects of every part of the electromagnetic spectrum from DC to daylight Has been researched, theorized, and tested for decades. This has been done by actual scientists in physics, medicine, and engineering. No input from the uneducated masses is valid or needed. I am far more educated and experienced than an average citizen in RF. I have worked in/with RF for decades both professionally and as a licensed amateur radio operator holding an Amateur Extra Class license. In 50 years of near field exposure, always following the FCC exposure limit guidelines, I have never had a single issue of any kind. This includes work with HF, VHF, UHF, and into Gigahertz applications. I have taught Amateur Radio theory to hundreds of students and those interactions demonstrated to me how little understanding of electrical and RF theory is held by otherwise well-educated people. It is my sincere belief that one purpose or result of this survey, will be to justify the termination of the entire Amateur Radio service and spectrum in the United States so that it may be monetized and licensed to commercial uses. This is what this administration is attempting to do with all public resources. Let the law suits begin!