Exposure limits & oversight

I am deeply concerned about the potential long-term health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and the increasing amount of wireless radiation exposure in our everyday environments. As a mother, I am particularly concerned about the cumulative exposure our children experience from an early age through cell phones, Wi-Fi, tablets, wireless devices, and technology in schools and homes. Children are growing up in environments where wireless technology is nearly constant, yet important questions remain about the effects of lifelong exposure. I recognize that current scientific evidence has not established that everyday wireless exposure within existing safety limits causes adverse health effects. However, I believe the remaining scientific uncertainties deserve continued independent investigation, particularly regarding long-term exposure, developing children, pregnancy, sleep, neurological health, and reproductive health. I am also concerned about whether current safety standards adequately reflect modern exposure patterns. People are no longer exposed to just one wireless device at a time. Many of us live and work surrounded by multiple sources of radiofrequency emissions throughout the day. I would like to see more research examining realistic, combined, and prolonged exposure rather than relying solely on short-term assessments. I strongly encourage federal agencies to prioritize transparent, independent, peer-reviewed research, including studies that examine potential effects beyond tissue heating. Research should also consider vulnerable populations and clearly communicate both established findings and areas where evidence remains inconclusive. I believe families deserve accurate information, meaningful choices, and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure without fear-based messaging or having to give up essential technology. My request is for greater transparency, stronger long-term research, ongoing evaluation of safety standards, and a precautionary approach where scientific uncertainty remains. Protecting public health, especially the health of future generations, should remain a priority as wireless technology continues to expand.

I am a person living in Luxemburg. These last years the quality of my life has changed quite a lot as I am sensitive to the electromagnetic radiations. When these radiations were quite low (3G for example) I could have a pleasant life but nowadays my body is aching most of the time : headaches, extreme nervosity with acceleration of my heart beats, unpleasant feelings in my mouth ( kind of electricity inside), feeling dizzy....Travelling is a nightmare even on buses as everybody uses a cell phone. Shopping , going out to a restaurant, a theater ...is unpleasant as public Wifi are on most of the time and everywhere. Even going to a medical center or a hospital is quite challenging for the same reasons. I am now retired but as a former teacher I can also say that it is unbearable to work in schools with all these new connected technologies! For all the people suffering as I do, I pray for a strict regulation that would help us find some relief in our everday life! Thank you for reading me.

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.

Public discussion of RF/EMF still centers almost exclusively on thermal/heating effects and “no proven harm at current levels.” This ignores decades of official U.S. patents and military analyses that describe remote sensing, modulation, and alteration of human brain activity via electromagnetic means. These are not fringe claims—they are government-granted patents and open-source military work. Key examples: - **U.S. Patent 3,951,134** (filed 5 Aug 1974, issued 20 Apr 1976, Robert G. Malech / Dorne & Margolin): “Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves.” It describes transmitting RF signals that interfere in the brain, producing a waveform modulated by the subject’s own brain activity. That signal is received, demodulated, analyzed, and a compensating signal can be sent back “to effect a desired change in electrical activity therein.” - **U.S. Patent 7,051,636 B1** (filed 21 Sep 2004, issued 30 May 2006, Snow et al. / U.S. Navy): “Electromagnetic weapon.” Semi-random antenna elements form an active phased array controlled by a central computer, capable of finding and exciting a resonant mode of a target with enough energy to disable it. - **U.S. Patent App. US 2013/0194092 A1** (filed 27 Jan 2012, published 1 Aug 2013, Moriarty et al. / Qualcomm): “Unlocking a Body Area Network.” Describes body-area networks with sensors for EEG, ECG, blood pressure, glucose, toxins, and implants, controlled wirelessly and able to transmit physiological data. - Naval Postgraduate School thesis **“Neurowar Is Here!”** (Gramm & Branagan, Dec 2021, public release): Argues neurowarfare—targeting and weaponizing the human brain—is already underway, linking Havana Syndrome-type incidents and the biotechnological focus on the nervous system. These documents establish that the technical capability has been formally recognized for decades. Current regulatory frameworks that treat RF solely through thermal SAR limits are incomplete if non-thermal modulation, resonant targeting, or closed-loop neural feedback capabilities exist in the patent and military literature. **Systemic level:** Independent research into long-term, low-level, pulsed, and information-bearing RF exposures is needed. Dual-use research transparency should be required. Impact assessments for dense wireless infrastructure (including 5G beamforming and body-area networks) must include neurological and cognitive endpoints, not only heating or cancer metrics. **Individual level:** People reporting unexplained neurological symptoms, sleep disruption, or cognitive changes currently lack accepted diagnostic pathways or protective options. Practical measures that should be studied include better personal exposure tools, accessible shielding, medical protocols that take non-thermal effects seriously, and informed-consent/opt-out mechanisms for dense infrastructure and implantable systems. The patents and the NPS thesis are public record. Pretending the technical possibility does not exist, or that only thermal effects matter, is no longer scientifically or ethically defensible. This RFI must address both the documented capabilities and the gap between those capabilities and current public-health frameworks—for populations and for affected individuals. Thank you for looking into this.

Of course, RF/EMF is damaging to humans. Otherwise why have radio stations learned to sheild their employees from the invisible energy waves emitting ftom their towers?? Pretending EMF isn't dangerous is no diffetent that believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Hoping it's not damaging people isn't a method for protecting people, but at this point, I no longer believe your agency works in the best interests of the American Citizen. In fact, I don't believe any Federal agency works in the best interest of the American Citizen, otherwise, the country would not be sinking deeper and deeper into a distopic nightmare.

I am writing as a mother and caregiver in response to this Request for Information. My son is seven months old, and like many parents I make dozens of small decisions every day about the environment he grows up in — including his exposure to wireless radiation. In our home we have taken simple precautionary steps: we keep phones off and away from our bodies, we use air-tube headphones instead of holding a transmitting phone to the head, our e-reader stays in airplane mode, and wireless devices stay out of the rooms where our baby sleeps. I have also looked into EMF-shielding textiles for his sleeping area. I am not a scientist, and I don't claim certainty about specific harms. But the existing exposure standards were designed around adults, and I have not seen clear, modern guidance that accounts for infants and small children — smaller bodies, developing brains, and decades more lifetime exposure ahead of them. That gap is exactly why I am writing. I ask HHS to: (1) develop child-specific, precautionary guidance for families; (2) fund independent research on RF exposure in infants and children; and (3) make the evidence behind any updated standards public and understandable to non-specialists. Thank you for inviting the voices of families and caregivers into this process.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Santosh-Kesari/publication/263931015_Why_children_absorb_more_microwave_radiation_than_adults_The_consequences/links/53d8fee20cf2631430c38c88/Why-children-absorb-more-microwave-radiation-than-adults-The-consequences.pdf "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences" "Abstract Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless devices."

I get migraines when LED lights are too bright, when using AirPods or other Bluetooth devices, or even in cars that have too many electric components. This only began 3-4 years ago and I was never sensitive prior to this. I feel that the EMF and RF exposure had increased as I truly feel a wave of energy come over my body and the feeling triggers an anxiety like feeling that ceases immediately once I exit the room or shut off the device. I think we are being exposed to too many waves that are affecting health. This also happens with 5G and even when I’m in a room directly below solar panels. I know I’m not the only one who feels like this as most migraine sufferers are sensitive to LEDs and some Bluetooth. I ask that you please force vehicle manufacturers to reduce RF and EMF in cars, and bring back incandescent light bulbs! Im in NY and they’re extremely rare to find, so please make them more widespread. Please also make all the different hardware needed for incandescents jut as available as the LED light hardware. I’m happy with the current HHS and delighted to see new restrictions. I don’t like government regulation but please heavily restrict high wifi, RF and EMF technology. It’s affecting the lives of thousands (remember when Bluetooth ear pieces were said to cause cancer?).

COMMENTS OF THE SAFER BUILDINGS COALITION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Safer Buildings Coalition (“SBC”) is a cross-sector membership organization of public safety agencies, industry organizations, and the owners and operators of buildings where in-building coverage is required. SBC does not offer scientific conclusions on the biological effects of radiofrequency (“RF”) energy and defers on those questions to the expert agencies and standards bodies responsible for them. SBC’s comments address the public safety benefits and costs that any complete assessment of RF exposure policy must weigh. In-building wireless coverage is a cornerstone of emergency communications. Americans spend about 90 percent of their time indoors, and about 80 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless devices. Cellular coverage allows building occupants to reach 911, and public safety radio coverage allows first responders to communicate once they are inside. The International Fire Code (“IFC”) and the National Fire Protection Association’s (“NFPA”) NFPA 1225 require building owners to provide and maintain minimum levels of public safety radio coverage. That coverage depends on wireless infrastructure engineered to existing federal standards. Distributed antenna systems (“DAS”), Emergency Responder Communications Enhancement Systems (“ERCES”), indoor small cells, signal boosters, and Wi-Fi are required to comply with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules, including the FCC’s RF exposure requirements. More than 830,000 indoor small cell and DAS nodes are in service nationwide, and in-building systems typically cost $1 to $5 or more per square foot. Changes to RF exposure limits could force costly redesign and reduce coverage. Lower permissible antenna power, minimum distances between antennas and occupants, or setbacks from homes, schools, and healthcare facilities would require disproportionately more antennas, could render existing systems incompatible with new limits, and could place building owners in conflict with fire-code signal requirements. Redesign or replacement of only 10 percent of existing indoor nodes would cost an estimated $820 million, before counting Wi-Fi networks, public safety ERCES, equipment removal, and recertification. Policy focus should be directed at eliminating in-building dead zones. Federal law already requires the FCC to measure and map broadband availability, but no comparable data exists for coverage inside buildings. Publishing in-building coverage data would inform policymakers, allow building owners to make informed investment decisions, and let market forces drive private investment to close the in-building coverage gap. SBC recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services (“Department” or “HHS”) base any conclusions on robust, peer-reviewed scientific evidence; evaluate the consequences for public safety communications before recommending any change to exposure limits, siting restrictions, or setbacks; preserve regulatory certainty and coordinate with the FCC in its parallel proceeding; and support the collection and publication of in-building wireless coverage data.

To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:I submit these comments on the HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure (HHS-OASH-2026-0397). I urge HHS to evaluate the substantial evidence of biological effects and potential adverse health outcomes from RF/EMF exposures, including levels below current federal limits, and to identify research gaps and protective recommendations, especially for children and vulnerable populations.Personal ExperienceMy bedroom is about 20 feet from a neighbor’s smart meter. Since its installation I have suffered severe debilitating headaches, muscle spasms, cramps, occasional heart palpitations, and other unusual sensations. These symptoms align with scientific literature on non-thermal biological effects of RF radiation and non-ionizing EMFs.Scientific Evidence (Resources Incorporated by Reference)Electrosensitivity: Functional MRI studies by Dr. Gunnar Heuser et al. (Reviews on Environmental Health, 2017) found abnormal scans in all 10 patients with electromagnetic hypersensitivity after long-term EMF exposure, showing consistent hyper-connectivity in the anterior default-mode network. Conventional MRI was largely normal. The authors proposed fMRI as a diagnostic aid. Prevalence studies in Australia, Canada, and the U.S. further document wireless sensitivity and co-morbidities.Industry acknowledgment of non-thermal effects: Swisscom patent WO2004075583A1 addresses electrosmog as a known health problem, cites non-thermal DNA damage and chromosomal instability in human blood cells linked to cancer risk, and proposes emission-reduction methods. The 2000 ECOLOG Institute review for T-Mobile (over 220 studies) found strong evidence of cancer-initiating/promoting effects, DNA breaks, chromosomal damage, fertility impacts, and teratogenic effects far below then-existing guidelines, and recommended much lower precautionary limits.Comprehensive reviews: The BioInitiative Report (2007/2012 and updates) documents DNA damage, neurological, cancer, reproductive, and immune effects at levels far below FCC/ICNIRP limits and calls for biologically based standards. Additional reviews cover neurological/cognitive effects, male fertility, impacts on children, parotid gland tumors, glioma associations, cell-tower epidemiology, and wildlife effects (bees, birds, etc.).DNA, cancer, and other effects: Studies show DNA damage, oxidative stress, and non-thermal mechanisms. U.S. National Toxicology Program research reported statistically significant tumor increases (including heart schwannomas) with RF exposure. Literature also addresses effects on implanted medical devices.Emerging technologies: Patents and programs on wireless body-area networks, nano-sensors/devices, brain-computer interfaces (including DARPA non-surgical neurotech), and bio-nano systems raise unanswered questions on cumulative health effects, safety data, and informed consent. Havana Syndrome cases among federal employees further highlight the need to evaluate directed-energy and pulsed RF exposures.Regulatory history: Older industry manuals, EPA correspondence, GAO reports, NIOSH materials, and prior FCC documents show longstanding awareness of potential non-thermal effects. Current U.S. limits, largely unchanged since 1996 and based on thermal thresholds, do not adequately address today’s continuous, multi-source, pulsed exposures from phones, Wi-Fi, 5G/6G, IoT devices, and wearables.Key Responses to the RFI Science and effects below limits: Peer-reviewed evidence, industry patents, and reviews show genotoxic, neurological, reproductive, and immune effects at non-thermal levels. Thermal-only standards are insufficient. Cumulative exposures: Real-world simultaneous multi-source exposures are not adequately reflected in current testing or limits. Vulnerable groups: Children, people with electrosensitivity, and those with implanted devices require special attention. Research gaps: Independent studies are needed on electrosensitivity (with objective markers such as fMRI), long-term low-level and cumulative exposures, nano/bio-interfaces, environmental impacts, and device interactions—free of industry conflicts of interest. Recommendations: Support biologically based limits with safety margins, real-world testing protocols, transparent public information, wired alternatives where feasible, accommodations for sensitive individuals, and coordinated federal research. The precautionary principle is appropriate given widespread exposure and available risk-reduction options. I urge HHS to treat this evidence seriously, close research gaps, and develop health-protective recommendations for policymakers, families, schools, and communities. All Exhibits are incorporated by reference in their entirety. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Respectfully submitted,