Exposure limits & oversight

We need government officials that take health harms seriously, as the telecom companies slowly increase 5G, 6G etc who is ensuring this is safe. If so, surely there would be a limit to how many towers and the frequency that humans, bees and other life can thrive in

I got a pituitary tumor,vision impairment,weird pressure in my head, nose bleed bleeds,insomnia,irritability, exteme fatigue, brain fog, increased blood pressure, heart palpitations, just for starters.The FCC recomedations are inaccurate!!! It also has major effects on the earth itself. One example is our trees,bee population and wildlife itself. This not only effects us but your families as well. I hope you make the right choice!

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 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 a parent and concerned member of the public. For about the past 6 years I have personally experienced episodes of dizziness and loss of balance. I am an active 58 year old male in relatively good shape with no family history of this condition. While I cannot definitively connect this condition to wireless radiation, I intuitively believe there may be a connection since the exposure to wireless radiation is ever present and from multiple sources in our daily environment (e.g., routers, cell towers, 4G and 5G cell phones, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi from innumerable "smart" devices used in our everyday products). We have been concerned about the vast amounts of legitimate scientific evidence from many sources indicating strong concerns with wireless radiation on the health of the environment, especially people and children. We are frankly shocked that the federal agency responsible for addressing questions about health effects from wireless radiation has been under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an agency responsible for regulating communications technology and spectrum. They have a long proven history of royally "flubbing it up". Their history would be laughable if the concerns were not so serious. For example, the FCC's RF exposure guidelines date to 1996. In 2019, the agency declined to change them saying the available evidence supported maintaining the existing standards. Wireless technology has changed dramatically since then - smartphones, Wi-Fi networks, wearable devices, smart appliances and other connected technologies now create sources of exposure that were not part of everyday life when the FCC adopted its guidelines. In 2021, a federal appeals court ordered the FCC to address evidence and concerns about the health and environmental effects of RF radiation and explain how it determined that its limits adequately protect people and the environment. In May 2026, the court was petitioned to force the FCC to comply with the 2021 order. In late August, the court gave the FCC 30 days to explain why it had not complied. This long-repeated blatant disregard for action and transparency on the part of the FCC not only makes them look like a "fox" only concerned with its own interests, but proves it. Stop letting the fox guard the henhouse! The work of evaluating and regulating health effects from wireless radiation should be fall squarely to Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal health agencies with expertise in medicine, biology and public health. HHS must be actively involved in reviewing the data and regulating this industry. 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 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 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 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.

My comment is regarding cell towers near schools/neighborhoods and WiFi in schools. These are two very important areas to look at when analyzing the safety of RF and EMF. Kids spend up 40+ hours a week in school and are bombarded by WiFi. Other countries such as France, Israel, Belgium, Cyprus and many others ban WiFi in schools due to the adverse health impacts RF and EMF have on children. The other area that needs to be examined very closely is the proximity of cell towers to homes and near schools. The FCC has tied the hands of anyone trying to get information on the safety levels of nearby RF levels, based on 1997 standards (which we all know was many years before WiFi was used). Local municipalities constantly reject anyone pursuing information of these cell towers, in some cases located within feet of their homes, citing that they cannot do anything to help because of the FCC guidelines. There is no reason the Federal Communications Commission should continue to be in charge of peoples health from RF and EMF. This needs to change. I’m sure the HHS will uncover a lot of alarming information when they look at how badly the FCC has been mismanaging and misleading the American people. It will be amazing to see everyone feeling healthier, happier, less fatigued, less anxious and get better sleep once new standards for exposure are in place by the HHS.

Re: Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I submit this as an individual consumer, patient, parent, and family member. It is based on personal experience and precautionary public-health concerns. Questions 2–4 — Personal Experience Exposure to Wi-Fi routers, phones, cell towers, Bluetooth devices, and environments with substantial wireless activity appears to coincide with recurring symptoms for me: ringing in my ears, tingling in my hands and body, headaches, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, chronic fatigue, poor sleep, and inflammation-related symptoms. I am also concerned about possible oxidative stress. My symptoms become more noticeable around wireless devices and higher-exposure environments. Reducing exposure and using wired connections are important to me. Personal testimony does not establish causation, but experiences like mine should be documented and investigated rather than dismissed. Questions 5–8 — Standards and Measurement In my view, current U.S. limits are far too high and emphasize acute heating rather than possible nonthermal, chronic, and cumulative effects. HHS should evaluate pulsing, modulation, peak and average power density, nighttime exposure, proximity, simultaneous frequencies, and lifetime exposure. My requested precautionary ceiling for chronic ambient wireless exposure is below 0.0001 milliwatts per square meter (0.1 microwatts per square meter), with exposure kept as close to zero as reasonably possible. This corresponds with the Building Biology SBM-2015 “no anomaly” category for RF radiation in sleeping areas. Other proposals include the BioInitiative Working Group’s 3–6 µW/m² target and the Seletun Scientific Panel’s 170 µW/m² proposal. Though different, each is substantially below prevailing U.S. limits. HHS should examine international research and disclose funding sources and industry conflicts. Testing one device alone does not represent real life. People may be exposed simultaneously to phones, Wi-Fi, towers, Bluetooth, smart meters, wearables, and neighboring transmitters. HHS should standardize long-term measurements in bedrooms, classrooms, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Questions 9–11 — Disclosure and Vulnerable Groups Consumers should receive clear information about emissions, cumulative exposure, wired alternatives, and disabling wireless functions. HHS should establish adverse-event reporting, environmental monitoring, longitudinal studies, and symptom registries. Children, pregnant women, older adults, people with medical conditions or implanted devices, exposed workers, and people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity require greater protection. Questions 12–15 — Technology, Infrastructure, and Environment HHS should investigate reported effects below federal limits involving sleep, cognition, neurological symptoms, tinnitus, fatigue, inflammation, oxidative stress, reproduction, and long-term health. 5G, 6G, Wi-Fi, satellites, Bluetooth, wearables, smart appliances, wireless medical devices, and smart meters should be studied as a combined exposure environment. Research should also examine possible effects on livestock, wildlife, pollinators, plants, soil biology, and ecosystems. Cell towers and small-cell antennas should not be placed near homes, schools, childcare centers, workplaces, or healthcare facilities without assessing cumulative exposure and effects on residents and animals. Questions 16–18 — Research and Policy Federal priorities should include independent long-term research into nonthermal effects, cumulative and childhood exposure, electromagnetic sensitivity, oxidative stress, neurological effects, sleep disruption, and wired alternatives. Research should be conducted independently of telecommunications-industry influence. I would vote to phase out and disable wireless communications and replace them with wired connections wherever technically possible. I support fiber-optic internet, wired Ethernet, wired telephones, wired school networks, and hardwired utility meters. I would not support expanding Wi-Fi, 5G, 6G, smart-city transmitters, wireless appliances, wearables, or similar systems. Homes, schools, workplaces, healthcare facilities, and public buildings should provide wired service by default, and wireless transmitters should be capable of being completely disabled. No one should be forced to accept continuous wireless exposure to access education, employment, healthcare, housing, transportation, or public life. The below-0.0001 mW/m² ceiling should be a backstop for unavoidable exposure, not authorization to expand wireless infrastructure. Scientific uncertainty should lead to independent investigation, extremely low precautionary limits, full disclosure, and wired alternatives. Thank you for considering my experience and recommendations. Kyle Bennett