Exposure limits & oversight

I am submitting this comment as someone who has experienced a profound sensitivity to electromagnetic environments for many years. I often describe myself as a “canary”—someone whose nervous system seems to register environmental changes more intensely or earlier than the people around me. Living this way has been incredibly difficult. Again and again, people who experience the world more viscerally are told that what we are noticing is imaginary, psychological, or simply “in our heads.” I believe there is an important lesson in listening to the canaries rather than dismissing them. I am not asking regulators to accept every interpretation of electromagnetic sensitivity as established scientific fact. I am asking for serious, independent investigation into the possibility that our rapidly increasing exposure to human-generated electromagnetic fields may have biological consequences that we do not yet fully understand. The question should not only be, “Can we prove that EMFs cause a particular disease?” We should also be asking: What are the cumulative effects of living, sleeping, working, and raising children in environments saturated with increasingly complex electromagnetic signals? Are there populations who are more sensitive? Are there biological effects that occur below the thresholds currently used to define harm? And are our existing standards adequately accounting for long-term, continuous exposure rather than only acute thermal effects? My own experience has led me to think about this in terms of the body’s relationship with its electromagnetic environment. Everything in the human body is ultimately physical, biochemical, electrical, and energetic. Our nervous system, brain, heart, cellular signaling, and biological rhythms all depend upon extraordinarily precise electrical and electromagnetic processes. From a more holistic perspective, I also understand health as a state of coherence and harmony—with our bodies, with one another, and with the natural electromagnetic environment in which human beings evolved. Modern technology has introduced electromagnetic frequencies and patterns of exposure on a scale and continuity that are profoundly different from the environments in which our biology developed. I believe we should be humble about what we may not yet understand about that interaction. For people like me, this is not an abstract debate. When my environment changes, I can experience changes in my ability to rest, regulate, concentrate, and feel at ease in my own body. Whether the eventual scientific explanation validates my interpretation or reveals something different, the experience itself is real and deserves investigation rather than ridicule. And I believe this issue extends far beyond people who identify as electromagnetically sensitive. The absence of an obvious immediate sensation does not necessarily mean the absence of a biological effect. Many environmental exposures have historically been understood only after years of research. The people who notice something first are not necessarily the people who are imagining it; sometimes they are simply the people whose systems are giving an earlier signal. I therefore urge the government to support rigorous, independent, transparent research into the biological effects of both existing and emerging electromagnetic technologies, including long-term and cumulative exposure. Research should consider neurological, cardiovascular, cellular, reproductive, sleep, endocrine, and other potential effects, as well as individual differences in sensitivity. Most importantly, I hope we can create a regulatory environment that does not require people to become sick enough—or scientifically convenient enough—to deserve protection. We have an opportunity to listen to the canaries. Please take seriously the people who are telling you that something in their environment feels different. Investigate it. Measure it. Study it without predetermined conclusions. And allow the science to lead us toward technologies and environments that support human health rather than assuming that everything technologically possible is automatically biologically compatible. Thank you for considering my experience and this perspective.

I am extremely sensitive to EMF radiation. I'm akin to a coal mine canary for this issue. It developed slowly as EMF proliferated with cell towers, cell phones, and other microwave sources over the decades. I can no longer go into large cities. What I experience is overall an immediate sense of devitalization, like I'm losing energy on every level. like my whole body, is going into increasing states of shutdown. As the symptoms progress, I experience headaches, disorientation, even to the point if it's severe enough that I can become non-functional. It can take me days to come back to a balanced state. EMF jams some of the subtle communication systems that the body has outside the central nervous system complex. The science is there if it's investigated. U.S. government regulations don’t restrict low-level, non-ionizing EMFs and don’t consider biological effects like free radical creation, immune system suppression, neurological efects etc. Federal safety guidelines focus on,ionizing radiation (which breaks chemical bonds) and thermal effects (acute tissue) heating from high-intensity fields). Essentially the current EMF standards completely ignore their most pernicious effects. There are ways to mitigate this directly. I utilize technology from https://www.blushield.com which is highly effective. It can be used for homes and also devices that can be carried. Without this my life would be extremely limited. Building Biology Standards are particularly important in analyzing this general health issue, as they include Non-Thermal Biological Mechanisms. Independent scientific literature (such as the BioInitiative Report) compiles studies indicating the myriad of non thermal effects. I highly recommend that you investigate in depth the Bioinitiative 2012 website mentioned just below. Bioinitiative 2012 A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation https://bioinitiative.org The credibility of Building Biology's specific low-frequency evaluation guidelines (SBM) sits outside mainstream consensus regulatory bodies, presenting a mixed picture regarding traditional empirical validation. Regulatory vs. Biological Limits: Mainstream regulatory agencies (like the ICNIRP or FCC) base limits strictly on short-term, high-intensity thermal effects (measurable tissue heating). By contrast, Building Biology guidelines are set orders of magnitude lower, targeting unproven or debated chronic non-thermal biological mechanisms. [1, 2] Building Biology guidelines have their basis in the Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods (SBM), built on decades of indoor environmental surveys and measurements insleeping areas, often in collaboration with physicians. [1] Medical Recognition: Professional medical organizations, such as the Austrian Medical Association and the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM), have historically referenced or adopted Building Biology sleeping area guidelines as sensiblebenchmarks for long-term (over four hours daily) low-intensity exposures. [1] https://ehsciences.org/powerlines-emf-elf-magnetic-fields-health/ I am certain that if you do in-depth research you will find that the current standards are unworkable, and that the placement of many cell towers and other microwave and low frequency EMF sources such as power substations and electrical power lines need to be mitigated. There are ways to do this. I suggest that you talk to some of the experts who have researched these fields. you will more than likely receive extreme resistance from utility companies, companies, cell providers, etc. as this would mean immense overwhelming cost to mitigate this by moving towers, etc. I do not believe this is necessary. I believe other mitigation can be provided by devices such as you will read about if you look at the Blue Shield information above. feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

I'm writing to share how wireless radiation has affected my health and to raise a concern I don't think current policy accounts for: the layering of exposure inside and around our homes and office buildings. For years I lived with migraines, tinnitus, poor sleep, slow recovery, and a nervous system that struggles to settle. These aren't abstract complaints; they shape my life. When I began measuring the radio frequency levels in my home and reducing them, by hardwiring our network, scheduling the router off at night, and tracking down hidden sources, my body responded. The quality of my sleep has improved, although I still have day to day exposure and migraines have gotten worse, and the ringing in my ears hasn't stopped. What's most concerning is how pervasive the exposure is getting. A decade ago, a home might have had one wireless router. Today, radios are built into refrigerators, washers, thermostats, smoke detectors, televisions, sound systems, garage door openers, lighting controls, doorbells, and security systems, alongside routers, modems, and mesh repeaters. Many are boxed into walls and cabinets where homeowners can't see them, and many can't be turned off without disabling the appliance itself. People and pets absorb these signals around the clock, including while we sleep, when the body is meant to repair. Even after we deployed mitigation strategies, the highest reading in our house was in the hallway outside our bedroom, and it traced back to an alarm communicator mounted inside a closet wall. We didn't choose that exposure; we didn't even know it was there.The layers don't stop at our walls. Outside, 5G small cells now sit on streetlights and utility poles steps from bedroom windows, in addition to existing cell towers. Smart meters on each home relay signals to one another in a mesh network, so an entire neighborhood transmits as one connected system. License plate cameras at intersections and community entrances send their data over cellular connections, and satellite networks now beam service down from above. I can turn off my own router at night; I can't turn off my neighbor's smart meter, the small cell on the corner, or the camera at the end of my street. The public never consented to any of this and an informed public would surely not consent. Many of these systems also track where we go; geofencing lets companies and agencies draw a virtual boundary and collect data from every phone that crosses it. We weren't asked about the exposure or the tracking. Federal exposure limits were set in 1996 and evaluate single devices, not the cumulative load of dozens operating at once. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the FCC had failed to explain why those limits still protect people from harms unrelated to cancer, including effects on children and long-term exposure. The U.S. National Toxicology Program and Italy's Ramazzini Institute both found tumors in rats exposed to cell phone and cell tower radiation, and a Danish birth cohort study linked prenatal and childhood phone exposure to behavioral difficulties. Over the same decades that wireless exposure has multiplied, we've seen rising rates of autism, autoimmune disease, and chronic illness, and some researchers have raised questions about RF exposure and mold growth indoors. I'm not suggesting wireless radiation is the single cause of any of these; I'm asking that it be studied seriously rather than ruled out. Wireless radiation also doesn't reach us alone. Every day we're exposed to more synthetic building materials that off-gas, plastics in our clothing, children's toys, and household products, and chemicals permitted in our food and skincare. Each of these is approved on its own, and RF limits are set one device at a time, while our bodies take in all of it together. Little research has looked at how RF exposure interacts with this growing chemical load; until it does, I don't see how anyone can call the combination safe. I respectfully ask that you: 1. Update exposure limits to account for cumulative, long-term exposure from multiple sources, inside and outside the home, as the 2021 court ruling requires. 2. Require public notice and local input before new towers, small cells, smart meter networks, or surveillance cameras go up in residential neighborhoods, with a no-cost opt-out for smart meters. 3. Require that appliances and home systems with wireless radios offer a wired option or a simple way to disable the radio without losing core function. 4. Require clear labeling of wireless modules on appliances and building systems so families can make informed choices. 5. Fund independent research on chronic exposure and how it interacts with everyday chemical exposures, with attention to children, sleep, and the nervous system. Thank you for considering the people living with these exposures every day. Christy Wallace

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Specifically what needs to be challenged in the Telecommunications Act is the “environmental effects”. “SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS… (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” I remember visiting the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in 1996. I read all the quotes etched in stone inside the beautiful memorial to a great man. A few years ago, I remembered one that was so significant, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson Even though, Jefferson could never have imagined what life would be like 200 years in the future. This quote covers it. This wireless insanity is tyranny over the minds of all of us. Tyranny shows up in all sorts of forms and repression, and this invisible wireless stuff is in the category of "every form of tyranny over the mind of man." In the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And then I needed to put it all together....and then Martin Pall's journal article came out "Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression". This was the missing piece to the challenging of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically Section 704. Our Constitutional rights are being denied because this is Tyranny over the minds of Men, and we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and since wireless technology causes depression and unhappiness in the minds of men, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704 is therefore unconstitutional and a direct violation of our inalienable rights! And on a related quote from history. To Joseph Priestley "...for I believe in my conscience that Mankind are wicked enough to continue slaughtring one another as long as they can find Money to pay the Butchers. " - Benjamin Franklin Enough! The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704, needs to be challenged as being unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America!! If we as a civilization, continue down this path of insanity, there will be no future. What we are all facing is a "Technological Holocaust" (I coined this phrase) because our governments are run by corporations, and the corporations are run by men and women who are self-serving money driver sycophants.

I am submitting this comment because I am deeply concerned about the potential health effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the lack of adequate consideration given to families who believe they have experienced negative effects from increased exposure. This is not an abstract issue for our family. We have personally experienced health concerns that have caused us to question whether our environment and cumulative exposure to wireless technologies and other sources of electromagnetic radiation may be contributing factors. Watching changes in our family's health and well-being has made me increasingly concerned about how little we know about the potential long-term effects of continuous, 24-hour exposure. What concerns me most is that exposure is no longer limited to occasional use of a cell phone or a single electronic device. Wireless signals are now present throughout our homes, schools, workplaces, vehicles, and communities. Children in particular can be exposed for many hours every day, beginning at a very young age. Families deserve to know that these exposures have been adequately studied, particularly with respect to long-term and cumulative exposure. I am not asking the government to dismiss technology or eliminate wireless communication. I am asking for a precautionary approach and for greater transparency, independent research, and meaningful consideration of the concerns being raised by families. Research should continue to examine potential effects of chronic, low-level exposure, including effects that may not be immediately apparent. At a minimum, families should have access to clear, unbiased information about EMF exposure and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure, especially for children. Government agencies should also continue to support truly independent research rather than relying solely on studies or standards that may not adequately address today's level of continuous exposure. Our family should not have to wonder whether the technology surrounding us could be contributing to health problems. We deserve better answers. I respectfully ask that you take these concerns seriously, support additional independent research, and apply a precautionary approach when establishing policies and exposure standards that affect the health of our families and future generations.

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.

Non native frequencies are making me very ill. I have recently found that I cannot stay in my own home without getting ill. I am attempting to address this and it is complicated. Wifi and cell towers have been placed without care for health. Technology has rolled forth quickly without care for safety. I am supportive of new technology but this process requires regulation.

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 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 an active citizen in her eighties who lives alone and has recently recognized and is attempting to protect herself from EMF exposure harms, and who wishes to help spread the word about our societies need to protect citizens especially children from this growing toxin, I have lived with a modern wifi unit (Sonic) in my home for five years, and with an earlier generation of wifi (AT&T) for many years before that. In March 2026 after my yearly blood test, my nutritionist said that the pattern of change in my HbA1c test indicated likelihood of high EMF exposure. For the past 10 years since I've been her client the results have stayed between 5.2 and 5.4. Abruptly this past year it moved up to 5.7, the first number in the pre-diabetic category. As I said to her, I have not significantly changed my diet (no grains or refined sugar, lots of low starch veggies, some berries and citrus, grass-fed and finished meat, pastured eggs, fish). She recommended hard-wiring my computer and getting rid of wi-fi, which I have done. (I do not own a cell phone, smart or otherwise.) It's a distinct relief to not be bathing in wi-fi any more. I've long had tinnitus, which while not vanishing is much reduced, and I sleep better. I do think I may also be impacted by involuntary sources of EMF, namely cell towers and antennas. My nutritionist did a search and found about 2300 antennas and 1900 towers within a 3 mile radius of my house. I do have an EMF meter, and though the extremely high counts in my home are gone (they were in the millions), it still reads higher than 10 in my bedroom. So I am thinking of getting a bed canopy. I do look forward to the results of my next A1c test, hoping to see the numbers lower. I am very concerned about the effects of EMF on our human body health as well as impacts on animals, birds and insects, especially bees. The FCC has only measured the thermal impacts of RF, and that no more recently than 1996. For heaven's sake, there has been no attempt by the FCC to keep up with health impacts of cell phones and RF/EMF development since the pre-flip phone era! This seems a deliberate avoidance of the probable biological impacts on our cells and organs. We are after all electromagnetic beings. Much research has been done on this. Please look up Paul Heroux' work, published February 2026, on EMF and the development of diabetes. I strongly 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 regulate wirless frequencies. these are essentially micropwaves and they are causing damage and health complications to children and vulnerable people. the cell phone companies and espcially apple need to ensure that they provide compensation when more studies are done to prove what we are seeing in our youth and vulnerable populations