Research & federal duties

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

Study shows an association between occupational exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields and cardiovascular outcomes reported in seven of the 14 studies included in this review: Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency fields and cardiovascular consequences: a systematic review Raeisi E, Maghare Dehkordi S, Yazdanirad S, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A. Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency fields and cardiovascular consequences: a systematic review. Public Health Rev. 2026 Sep 25;47:1609952. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2026.1609952. Abstract Objective: Exposure to extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields can have harmful effects on human health. The present systematic review study aimed to investigate the relationship between occupational exposure to ELF and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: Searches were conducted in six electronic bibliographic databases: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. This search included records up to August 19, 2026. The search strategy used two sets of keywords. Following the selection of proper studies, relevant data were extracted by the reviewers. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used. Results: Seven of fourteen studies (50 percent) showed that there is an association between ELF field exposure and cardiovascular outcomes. However, the available evidence is insufficient to establish causality. Some of the outcomes reported in the studies included acute myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, hematological parameters, coronary heart disease, and hypertension. Conclusion: Exposure to ELF fields may be associated with some cardiovascular outcomes. However, the confirmation of this relationship remains ambiguous, and it requires further investigations in future research. Excerpt Extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields are a type of electromagnetic field with frequencies from 1 to 300 Hz [1]. Exposure to these waves is common in occupational environments because it can occur during production, transfer, distribution, and use of electricity [2]. Some effects due to exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields include cerebral cancer, bladder cancer, breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, behavioral and mental problems, sleep and wake rhythm disorder, and changes in perception and memory [3]. Compared with these outcomes, the possible cardiovascular effects of ELF exposure have received less attention and remain less clearly understood [4]. Conclusions An association between occupational exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields and cardiovascular outcomes was reported in seven of the 14 studies included in this review. However, the findings were not consistent across the studies, and the current evidence is not sufficient to confirm a causal relationship. The differences in the results of the studies could be because of differences in exposure frequency, exposure duration, and exposure level to the ELF field. Some studies reported associations with acute myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, arrhythmia, blood pressure, and other cardiovascular-related changes, whereas others found no significant effects. Therefore, although a possible relationship between occupational ELF exposure and cardiovascular health cannot be ruled out, the strength and clinical importance of this association remain uncertain. The findings of this research may be useful to plan strategies to prevent cardiovascular diseases in different settings. However, more studies are needed to investigate the effect of the ELF electromagnetic field with the mentioned characteristics in various environments to confirm these results. Moreover, some confounding factors, such as personal, occupational risk, and psychosocial factors, may influence this association. The roles of these factors must be considered in future studies. Also, differences in these effects between various people with different factors should be examined in future research. Open access: https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/articles/10.3389/phrs.2026.1609952/full

you should ask someone who is qualified like a scientist or engineer, try with people at CalTech or M.I.T.

Everyone, there's ample evidence of EMF harms. The sad thing is there's a way to reverse them at the source. People are increasingly getting sicker - other causes no doubt but EMF is a major one. 6G and 7G will be exponentially worse. https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms

There have been studies upon studies. The results are in. EMF has major biological consequences.every branch of the military has conducted experiments on the the effects.good book electric rainbow

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 citizen. I have very important health issues. Wireless tv & other appliances don't work so good anyway. 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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue. Thank you for your time.

I am an individual who uses the internet, and I have a lot of concerns about electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless radiation exposure. I live near a tower, over which I have no control. It's time to really take a look at what these things are doing to individual people, the harms that cannot be reversed, and a plan set up to protect "we, the people" of this country.

Dear HHS I am writing you that you conduct a full review of Cellular Tower Radiation. My plea includes the visible spectrum as well. It cannot be understated that such a study be undertaken. The Telecommunucations Act is preposterous in excluding health and environmental concerns in consideration of Cellular Communication Facilities. In fact the tolerance level for total radiation is the highest in the world. This is unacceptable; there has now been much study around the world in which human health issues (cancer rates etc) are markedly higher in vicinity of cellular facilities. India, of all places for instance has even provided maps over their dense population centers showing this correlation. There have also been studies indicating disruption to wildlife in multiple ways. I fear that even we are affected living in a good neighborhood because 5G (so called ‘low radiation’) radiation towers have been placed in a grid, while our house is not adjacent to one, I have been told there is nothing you can do if one is. As a Senior. I am not so worried as toward the end of my life my total life exposure may not total enough to be a factor in my decline but now with the cellular proliferation children today are the ones at risk for long term exposure. Is that not obvious when you see cellular transmission shields on top of apt buildings (next to children sleeping in bedrooms) in dense urban areas? It is a shame that our approval-guidelines for so many things are only based on immediate effect but long term exposure is not, so if something doesn’t kill you or effect you immediately it must be harmless. How could Glyphosate have been deemed harmless and approved if the effects of exposure were revealed? Likewise with Teflon, or PFases. I also take exception to the Strobing lights required on cell towers which exceed 200’. All are such eyesores to our landscape and our night skies which we need for peace and serenity instead of this growing phobia. Many of our most notable scenic landmarks and even mountaintops have been literally destroyed by such towers with 24/7 flashing lights. The worse is Sandia peak, Albuquerque NM with many others as well. Do we have any respect for anything anymore? I feel HHS should examine the detrimental effects on mental health by this. In addition the effects on wildlife esp in respect to migration patterns is needed. And there are now even congressional bills proposed to increase the density of cell towers nationwide and would give the FCC total dictatorial control over their placement. Yes there is an answer to much of this and that does not mean a million satellites marring the rest of our night skies and as well for the entire world. And toward the benefit of Americas first minted trillionaire! Fiber optic cable is the best choice. It is cheap, already widespread and can be cheaply installed underground everywhere. Local WiFis can easily be set up everywhere. And today why should cell towers need these offensive strobe lights, cannot airplanes be alerted to towers through nonvisible means? Please help our technology truly serve us and not for its own sake but for ours. Peter C Guynn

I am an informed citizen and parent. I request that federal agencies dramatically lower current exposure limits, adopt a rigorous and enforceable precautionary principle, and fund long-term independent research. Current limits are dangerously outdated and ignore exponential exposure growth. FCC/ICNIRP limits were set in the 1990s based on a single acute thermal model, for a world with a handful of cell towers and no Wi-Fi, no smart meters, no small cells, no 5G. That world no longer exists. The ambient RF environment has not merely grown -- it has multiplied. RF levels in Los Angeles were found to be 70 times higher than the EPA's own estimate from four decades earlier. Small cell deployment alone increases downlink RF emissions by a factor of 7 to 46. Bandara & Carpenter (Lancet Planetary Health, 2018) documented "planetary electromagnetic pollution" -- an unprecedented, compounding increase, with 68% of 2,266 reviewed studies showing significant biological effects. 5G densification makes this worse: millimeter waves require an order-of-magnitude increase in antenna density, placing transmitters at street level, in front of homes, schools, and hospitals. The public is being subjected to a massive, unconsented experiment in cumulative RF exposure, and the regulatory framework has not been updated. ICBE-EMF, Environ Health 21:92 (2022): current limits are based on invalid assumptions. Melnick et al., Environ Health (2026): applying EPA's own methodology, limits are at least 200x too high for cancer risk and 8-24x too high for male reproductive toxicity. The precautionary principle must be applied -- not merely acknowledged. The precautionary principle is codified in the Rio Declaration (Principle 15), the EU Treaty (Art. 191), and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Where there are threats of serious harm, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used to postpone preventive measures. In the U.S., it has been systematically ignored in RF policy. FCC limits are set at the level of thermal injury -- the highest measurable effect -- rather than at a level that protects against non-thermal, chronic, or cumulative effects. This is a permissive threshold, not a protective one. I call on HHS to: Formally adopt the precautionary principle and ALARA standard in all RF policy; Establish interim precautionary limits at least 10-100x below current values for homes, schools, hospitals, nurseries (consistent with Council of Europe Resolution 1815/2011, which recommends 0.2 V/m -- roughly 1/100th of the current U.S. limit); Prohibit RF transmitters within 300m of schools and hospitals until long-term safety is demonstrated; Mandate transparent public disclosure of RF parameters near residential areas. Inaction is not a neutral position. When a population faces a compounding, invisible, inescapable increase in a physical agent, the only ethical course is to reduce exposure now, while research proceeds. Biological effects below current limits are well documented. IARC/WHO (2013): RF classified "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B). NTP (2018): "Clear evidence" of malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats; "some evidence" for gliomas. Lai & Levitt, Rev Environ Health 39(3) (2024): oxidative stress, DNA damage, blood-brain barrier disruption below FCC limits. Bandara & Carpenter (2018): 68% of 2,266 studies showed significant biological effects. Sensitive populations require stricter protection. Children, fetuses, the elderly, and workers must be evaluated separately. Developing tissues are more vulnerable, no cradle-to-grave studies exist. The precautionary principle demands the highest protection for those who cannot consent. Cumulative exposure is unaddressed. Current limits treat each source in isolation. In reality, a resident is simultaneously exposed to multiple towers, small cells, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and 5G infrastructure. HHS must evaluate cumulative, neighborhood-level exposure. Recommendations: (a) Fund a long-term independent federal research program with prenatal/pediatric cohorts, reproductive endpoints, blinded pathology, open data; (b) Issue immediate interim guidelines (wired connections in schools, RF-off zones in bedrooms); (c) Require transparent consumer and school disclosure of RF parameters; (d) Establish a precautionary review mechanism that automatically tightens limits when new evidence of harm emerges. The ambient RF environment has increased by orders of magnitude and will increase further with 5G/6G. Current limits were set for a world that no longer exists. The precautionary principle demands we reduce exposure now, while we learn. The burden of proof belongs to the technology, not to the public. Ref: IARC Monograph 102 (2013); NTP TR 595/596 (2018); ICBE-EMF, Environ Health 21:92 (2022); Melnick et al., Environ Health (2026); Lai & Levitt,Rev Environ Health 39(3) (2024);Bandara & Carpenter,Lancet Planetary Health (2018); Council of Europe Res.1815/2011; Rio Declaration Principle 15(1992)

I support HHS's efforts to investigate electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, including radiofrequency radiation from 5G networks, cell towers, Wi-Fi, and other wireless technologies. However, I am deeply concerned that these technologies have been deployed on such a massive scale without sufficient long-term, independent research demonstrating their safety under real-world conditions. The American public should not be expected to accept widespread, involuntary exposure to these technologies and simply trust that they are safe. The burden of demonstrating safety should fall on the manufacturers, telecommunications companies, and regulatory agencies—not on the public to prove harm after exposure has already occurred. I have several serious questions that deserve transparent, evidence-based answers: What is a safe level of EMF exposure? How were current exposure limits established, and do they adequately account for cumulative exposure over years or decades? How much radiation do 5G towers and other wireless transmitters actually emit? What are the exposure levels in surrounding homes, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods? Are these levels independently measured and made publicly available? What are the potential long-term health consequences of frequent, close-range exposure? Have we adequately investigated possible effects on neurological function, sleep, reproductive health, cellular processes, and cancer risk? What about children? Children are exposed to wireless technologies from increasingly young ages, including throughout the school day. What independent, long-term studies establish appropriate exposure limits for developing brains and bodies? How is cumulative exposure evaluated? People are surrounded by multiple sources of RF/EMF exposure simultaneously, including cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, smart appliances, and nearby telecommunications infrastructure. Are current safety standards adequately accounting for these combined exposures? Who is conducting the safety research? How much of the available research is independently funded, and how are financial conflicts of interest identified and addressed? Why are technologies permitted to become so widespread before their potential long-term health effects are fully understood? We have seen too many instances in which public health concerns were dismissed or inadequately investigated until years after exposure occurred. I also question whether the public is receiving sufficient information about other technologies involving radiation or electromagnetic exposure, including airport security screening systems. These technologies should be evaluated according to their specific emissions, exposure levels, and potential health effects, with the findings readily accessible to the public. I urge HHS to take the following actions: Commission comprehensive, independent, long-term studies on RF/EMF exposure, including 5G and newer wireless technologies. Reevaluate existing exposure standards, particularly for children, pregnant women, and individuals experiencing continuous exposure. Require greater transparency regarding emissions from telecommunications towers and wireless infrastructure. Investigate the potential effects of chronic, cumulative exposure from multiple devices and sources. Make independent safety research, exposure measurements, and regulatory decision-making publicly accessible. Apply the precautionary principle by considering restrictions or pauses on additional deployments where significant safety questions remain unresolved. I believe the expansion of technologies with unresolved long-term safety questions should be halted until adequate independent safety evaluations have been completed. Public health must take priority over corporate profits, technological convenience, and the speed of infrastructure deployment. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety. The American people deserve more than reassurances. We deserve transparency, accountability, rigorous independent research, and clear answers about what constitutes safe exposure. I appreciate HHS opening this issue for public comment, but I strongly urge the Department to go beyond collecting information. Meaningful investigation, public disclosure, and appropriate protective action must follow. Our health, and especially the health of our children, should never be treated as an afterthought.