I am writing to express my concern about LED headlights and the danger they pose. When I drive at night and come across a car with LED headlights on, I am in genuine fear that I will crash with a tree or pedestrian because of my absolute inability to see anything beyond the lights. They are painful, and affect my vision. And I am a relatively young person; I am only 27 years of age, but I genuinely worry how these LED headlights are affecting my eye health.
Once, I was driving up my street (a small dead-end), and a car with the LED headlights on was parked on the side to pick someone up. I could not pass the car, so I was forced to sit there with the LED headlights burning into my retinas. Even though I tried looking away as best as I was able, I still was seeing spots from those headlights several minutes later. And it is so much worse at night, when the darkness forces it to be the only thing your eyes can perceive. I shudder to think how many lives have already been lost because people are unable to see when they are driving at night, because they have been blinded by the headlights of oncoming traffic. These are deaths that could have been avoided by legislation that better regulates. I am including articles highlighting concerns on the effects of headlight brightness.
Please consider how much these blue-tinted, absurdly bright LED headlights are affecting the health and safety of so many Americans.
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. In 2012 I was exposed to high levels of microwave radiation from two smart meters which were installed directly ont he exterior wall of my bedroom. I experienced a number of symptoms which included: brain fog, fatigue, whole body irritability, dizziness, and a squeezing pressure in my head. I was forced to move out of my apartment and seek alternative housing. This exposure has developed into a sensitivity i didn't have prior to that exposure. Wether or not the utility meters are technically "smart" meters or not is besides the point. They emit high levels of pulsed radiation 24/7. Now, 13 years later, I am living in a house with my wife and two daughters. We don't use wifi(we use ethernet) and we use our cell phones very conservatively. Over the years following my exposure I was pushed out of a number of different jobs becasue I couldn't tolerate the environment. Traveling anywhere via buses, trains, airplanes is very difficult. I work as a private contractor practicing a type of physical bodywork( Structural Integration/ myofascial work) which requires me to rent space for sessions. I am very limited in my options because of either a cell tower placed too close to the building, a banck of smart meters on an adjacent building or wall, or too many smart devices, etc. It's not that I cannot be around wireless radiation at all. i can. It all depends on the proximity and strength of the source. I want to be clear. I did not suffer from this condition prior to my exposre to smart meters in 2012. In fact, I used my cell phone and connected my laptop to wifi frequently. I didn't think anything of it. After figuring out what was causing my symptoms( I was lucky enough to hear someone else talking about it) I started looking into the effects of wireless radiation on biological health. There are 1000's of studies showing harm from exposure to wireless radiation. I am very grateful and hopeful that the HHS will take the necessary steps to consider the evidence and take appropriate action to upgrade and enforce proper regulations and exposure limits. I've attached some files as evidence of action taken by other countries and as evidence of biological harm from wireless radiation.
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 an elementary school teacher. I started having nervous system aggravation and tinnitus when cell towers were first being built in the bay area back in 2002. I left the bay area to move to the country where cell towers are not invading my health. My symptoms have decreased. In the past 15 years teachers have been experiencing a huge shift in students abilities to focus in the classroom. I have not met one teacher in the past 5 years who isn't having major issues with students being off task and unable to focus or remember two or even one-step directions. This massive change in students becoming so overly agitated while needing to apply 3 minutes of prolonged focus has become universal in schools. The media influence of students spending excessive hours being exposed to adult violent content on screens is changing how students relate to learning. That alone has caused a huge shift as students completely shut out all education to act disruptive and disrespectful like their heroes on tick-tock. I personally see children coming into school already in fight or flight, because of their overly stimulating busy lifestyle and exposure to wifi radiation. There are questions about the physical safety of the wireless radiation associated with computer use. Building Biology Specialist, Laura Markwardt BBEC, EMRS works to reduce electromagnetic radiation in buildings in order to make environments more healthy for inhabitants. She states that electromagnetic radiation has biological effects on cognition, mood, cardiovascular, and cell function. Laura states that the current FCC guidelines for radiation safety are outdated, arbitrary, and do not take into account the biological effects of the technology (Markwardt, L., 2023). Current legislation demands that the FCC reexamine their safety standards. The Federal Communications Commission was ordered to review their 5G safety standards. This must occur. The existing heat level standards are arbitrary as electromagnetic radiation can penetrate buildings and bodies. Electromatic radiation has more complex side effects than exposure to heat levels. As the technology is new it must be studied and regulated with concern for our children's health, it is a major concern that it is being pushed forward without adequate safety testing. If our regulatory agencies are going to support the use of 5G technology without proper safety data then it stands to reason that parents and teachers should be the ones to oppose children’s use of 5G until we have more information on the actual safety or lack thereof of such novel technologies. Studies of how media influences children’s mental capacities show that increased screen time for children at age 1 year is associated with developmental delays in communication and problem solving at ages 2-4 years old (Jama Network, 2023). The CDC recently changed their Developmental Milestones for children, which moved the developmental milestones to older ages (Real Clear Education, 2022). There is concern that they lowered the milestones and standards for language and that the change could cause developmental delays to go undetected. Could developmental delays be caused by wifi radiation? This must be examined. The best policy is to address developmental delays early with treatment options and learning interventions. Specialists are concerned that with the new lower CDC standards children that are in the 25 to 45 percentile are no longer in the developmental monitoring range causing them to go unnoticed and limiting the possibility to utilize early interventions (Solis-Moreira, J., 2022). Studies find that there is a correlation between heavy media use and moderate amounts of muscular pain and dysfunction. Length of screen time is related to severity of pain. The research suggests that children who are using computers and electronic games may adopt the types of sustained and awkward postures that are associated with musculoskeletal disorders in working adults. It also suggests that the physical demands of prolonged computer use could lead to adverse effects on child development including visual, neurological, and physical changes (NIH, 2002). Studies on the detrimental effects of media use on children’s eyes report that increased time on the computer causes children to develop myopia, which is nearsightedness. The studies reported that high levels of cell phone use is associated with about a 30% higher risk of myopia and when combined with prolonged computer use raised the risk factor of developing myopia to 80% in children (Science Daily, 2021). The infostructure that the cell towers support are causing mental, emotional, and physical harm to our children. This is an openly discussed fact amongst concerned teachers. We see the effects of this technology harming our students daily. We must test this technology against actual human health outcomes not overlays of unrelated data points of heat and human tolerance to heat levels.
< Please see the attached PDF document for our full substantive comment. >
Introduction
I am submitting this comment to the "Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure", Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397.
My comment is grounded in my personal experience of major adverse health impacts from wireless exposure and my foray into the knowledge aspect of this topic. I hope my experience can help HHS prioritize and fund independent, ongoing research into the health impacts of wireless exposure with the necessary breadth and depth, given the extreme complexity of the subject. I further hope it will emphasize that many Americans are suffering from exposure-related illnesses today, that delays in research and updates to FCC guidelines will only prolong and intensify that suffering. Finally, I hope that HHS can spur the development of the tools, technology, and methodologies needed to continuously monitor and assess health impacts as the wireless landscape continues to rapidly evolve.
Background
My comment will focus primarily on the "Public Experiences and Reported Potential Adverse Health Effects" question from the RFI.
< Please see the attached PDF document for our full substantive comment. >
Insights and Recommendations
I believe the questions posed by the RFI particularly in the sections "Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment" and "Measuring Human Exposure and Public Health Surveillance" are critically important and are the right questions to be asking. As a non-expert, I can simply discuss how my own experience with the harmful effects of wireless exposure and my own journey to find answers confirms the importance of these inquiries.
< Please see the attached PDF document for our full substantive comment. >
Conclusion
I shared my personal account of suffering with moderate sensitivity to wireless exposure, which hopefully makes the condition feel real to the reader, and moreover highlights how inescapable exposure is in our modern urban environments and how there is currently no effective countervailing force pushing back against ever increasing exposure. I noted some luminary doctors whom HHS should certainly consider consulting through its EMF/RF exposure health program.
This is a call to action for HHS, as public health is most certainly not being served currently with respect to health impacts of wireless exposure. Concretely and in summary, I recommended the following:
1. Research to understand and catalog the root causes of wireless sensitivity in individuals that experience it. Recognize wireless sensitivity as a disability.
2. Research and formulate effective diagnostic criteria and assessment methods for wireless sensitivity.
3. Research how infections past or present, toxins, and other factors may have an amplifying effect on the health consequences to wireless exposure.
4. Research to develop a clear understanding of whether and how non-ionizing radiation can cause negative health impacts, working closely with experts in RF physics. Develop tools for Americans to effectively identify wireless risks in their environments.
5. Make research into wireless safety an ongoing, high priority focus with the intent to empower FCC to adjust exposure limits according to an evidence-based approach. Evaluate and integrate competing international standards such as from Russia, Switzerland, Italy, and China.
6. Establish a wireless health impact monitoring system, and explicitly prioritize residents living near past and future wireless infrastructure deployment sites. Feed this collected data into urgent research.
7. Design exposure studies to be more realistic, and to collect a wider and more useful array of metrics that may be more likely to quantify health impacts.
Respectfully submitted.
Dear HHS Team,
I have been active in Australia fervently raising awareness of cumulative dirty energy, or electrosmog caused by a cacophony of frequencies that disturb our bioelectrical systems.
We begin to wonder if not convinced that most of this irregularity of negative frequency may well be deliberate after the last 6 years of the covid bioweapon debacle.
I will attach a letter I wrote my local councilors in regards to the lack of cumulative studies and quick permit approvals that are apparently outside jurisdiction of the councils that are meant to abide by Health and Well Being in their planning and by the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 which is state law in Victoria.
I am on the ANRES Australian National Register of Environmental Sensitivities.
I do not lead a normal life and I am forced to live in relative solitude in tranquil surroundings to stay out of EMF as much as I possibly can.
You will see the evidence for lack of jurisprudence in terms of public health that a Precautionary Principle ought to have been applied as many countries have done.
Why in two of the most advanced western countries, Australia and US is this not applying. There are many alternatives to EMF tech that includes the fibre optic tech that would mean electricity running through wires not putting immense pressure on our bodies and especially harm to our brain via wireless neural linked tech.
Sincerely
Kerryn Bennett
Please find attached two letters to local council.
A mentioned BioInitiative Report is dated 2012 but this is an exceptional report and warrants reading by the HHS. The link is in the first council letter.
The Summary International EMF Scientist Appeal letter
Additional references to Planetary Electromagnetic Pollution
Scientific literature, with no conflicts of interest, shows that even below the limits defined by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, microwaves from telecommunication technologies cause numerous health effects: neurological, oxidative stress, carcinogenicity, deoxyribonucleic acid and immune system damage, electro-hypersensitivity. The majority of these biological effects of non-thermal microwave radiation have been known since the 1970s.
Detailed scientific, political, and military documents were analyzed. Most of the scientific literature comes from PubMed. The other articles (except for a few) come from impacted journals . The rare scientific documents that were not peer reviewed were produced by recognized scientists in their fields. The rest of the documentation comes from official sources: political (e.g., European Union and World Health Organization), military (e.g., US Air Force and NATO), patents, and national newspapers.
(1) Since their emergence, the authorities have deployed and encouraged the use of wireless technologies (2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi, WiMAX, DECT, Bluetooth, cell phone towers/masts/base stations, small cells, etc.) in full awareness of their harmful effects on health. (2) Consequences of microwave radiation from communication networks are comparable to the effects of low-power directed-energy microwave weapons, whose objectives include behavioral modification through neurological (brain) targeting. Above 20 gigahertz, 5G behaves like an unconventional chemical weapon. (3) Biomedical engineering (via graphene-based nanomaterials) will enable brain-computer connections, linked wirelessly to the Internet of Everything through 5G and 6G networks (2030) and artificial intelligence, gradually leading to human-machine fusion (cyborg) before the 2050s.
Despite reports and statements from the authorities presenting the constant deployment of new wireless communication technologies, as well as medical research into nanomaterials, as society’s ideal future, in-depth research into these scientific fields shows, above all, an objective linked to the current cognitive war. It could be hypothesized that, in the future, this aim will correspond to the control of humanity by machines.
https://homeemftracing.com/shop/ols/products/contact-current-vs-body-voltage
This document (website wouldn’t allow the upload) has the EPRI / NIEHS summary to affirm that 1 micro-amp of contact current exposure to a child is likely the cause of childhood Leukemia and numerous other cancerous conditions. This lays the groundwork for establishing a residential medical health standard for contact voltages at 2 mV, electric field exposures at 0.3 V/m, magnetic fields at 0.2 mG and radio frequencies at 1 uW per meter squared. The medical evidence has been confirmed by EPRI and associated with environmental electrical sources like the power grid, cell towers and home electrical wiring code violations.
As a licensed electrician, read my story and the testimonials of many who have been cured and relieved of numerous hardships after removing the electromagnetic fields around them.
Www.homeEMFtracing.com/testimonials
I can provide much more hard science I have gathered on request.
Thank you!
Submission to Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure
Submitted by: Dr Nicole Bijlsma, PhD, Environmental-Health Educator and Researcher, Melbourne, Australia
I am writing as a researcher, educator and practitioner who has spent the past 25 years assessing homes for environmental-health hazards. I have also been personally affected by EMF exposure.
I developed persistent sleep problems within 2 weeks of moving into our first home. I eventually realised (after 7 years and ten miscarriages - no explanation was provided by the medical industry and we didnt qualify for IVF), we were sleeping adjacent to the meter panel. I purchased a triple axis digital gauss meter and found elevated AC magnetic fields on the bed during the early hours of the morning (when the hot water system was in use). We consequently relocated to another bedroom - sleep improved and I successfully carried a twin pregnancy to term. The fix was simple and cost nothing. I subsequently established the Australian College of Environmental Studies in 1999, and have spent the past 25 years teaching students how to undertake home assessments for mould, electromagnetic fields, allergens and toxicants. Poor sleep is one of the most common complaints I see where EMF exposure is a factor. The two sources I find most often are: radiofrequency radiation from Wi-Fi routers and wireless-enabled devices kept in or near bedrooms, often running all night; and AC magnetic fields from meter panels, switchboards and wiring, including where smart meters are installed on the other side of a bedroom wall. Reducing exposure in the bedroom is frequently followed by reports of better sleep. Typical steps are moving the bed, switching off Wi-Fi at night and using wired connections.
I subsequently undertook a PhD in environmental medicine (RMIT) examining the impact of environmental exposures to toxicants and manmade electromagnetic fields, gaps in current exposure standards, and the associated health effects. My dissertation, which asks whether radiofrequency radiation affects sleep, is attached in support of this submission. This involved the first real-world study (double blind, randomised, placebo controlled pilot study) on the impact of a Wi-Fi enabled device on sleep in healthy adults using a baby monitor which was statistically significant (within 7 days).
Current exposure standards are designed to prevent short-term heating and nerve stimulation which do not reflect real-world exposure. They do not adequately address chronic, low-level, night-time exposure in the home, which is when the body should be resting and repairing. Nor do they account for vulnerable groups such as children, or those impacted by mould who frequently become sensitive to manmade electromagnetic fields and toxicants.
Recommendations
Remarkably, the most effective measures are simple and cheap:
Design-stage solutions. Building codes and planning guidance should require meter panels, switchboards and smart meters to be located away from bedrooms and living areas. They should also encourage hard-wired data connections in new homes. These measures cost almost nothing when planned in at the design stage, but are expensive to retrofit.
Mass consumer education. The public needs clear, independent and practical guidance on reducing exposure, particularly while sleeping. This includes turning off Wi-Fi at night, keeping devices out of bedrooms and checking what is behind the bedhead.
A precautionary approach. Exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and research and surveillance on sleep and other non-thermal effects should be funded.
These recommendations are consistent with the Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation (2001) (attached). The Chair's report called for a rigorous precautionary approach to wireless technology, for emissions to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and for clear, independent public information so people can make informed choices. Twenty-five years on, those recommendations are more relevant than ever.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are replacing conventional cars worldwide, exposing a growing number of occupants daily to complex electromagnetic fields generated by high voltage batteries, cables, and motors. Some magnetic field levels measured inside EVs, particularly near the floor, footwell, and rear seats, overlap with exposure levels associated with adverse health outcomes in residential, occupational, and laboratory studies.
Health protection efforts may need to focus on certain groups, including children, who often sit in the rear seats where field levels can be highest, and professional drivers and regular commuters, who are exposed repeatedly over time. Existing exposure guidelines (ICNIRP, IEEE) primarily address established short term effects (e.g., nerve stimulation) and offer limited guidance for interpreting the complex, variable exposure conditions unique to EVs or their potential long-term impacts, highlighting the need for refinement as EV-specific research accumulates. Federal guidance would benefit from adopting standardized, occupant-specific exposure assessments (e.g., following IEC 62764-1), studying frequent EV occupants, and giving closer attention to vulnerable groups such as children to support ongoing evaluations of safety standards.
Response to HHS-OASH-2026-0397 from an individual in the United Kingdom. The full response is attached and addresses Questions 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 18.
Question 2: I have worked in technology since the age of 16 and hold a Cisco networking qualification. I am not an RF engineer or a medical professional.
Question 3: After many years of heavy personal use of wireless technology without symptoms, I developed a high-pitched tone perceived inside the head, sleep disturbance, head pressure, tingling, difficulty concentrating and irritability after moving to a home about 400m from a mobile base station. The tone stopped when I moved away and returned in spring 2025, before I became aware that a nearby base station had been rebuilt. An MRI of the brain and auditory nerves was normal. Sleeping inside a fully enclosed shielding canopy minimised or removed the tone at both homes, while partial wall shielding reduced meter readings but not the tone. I recognise these observations are unblinded.
Questions 7 and 8: Consumer RF meters, which the public relies on, can report their own noise floor as if it were a real reading, with no warning to the user. I recommend verified detection limits for consumer instruments, a validated measurement protocol for residents, assessment of low-cost frequency-resolved measurement, site-specific exposure information for residents near base stations, and research into reported sensitivity using exposure logging, symptom diaries and blinded sham and real shielding.
Questions 9, 16 and 18: Residents should be told before nearby sites are built or upgraded, including when new technology is switched on, and given site-specific predicted exposure and access to independent measurement. Research should prioritise blinded home trials of real and sham shielding. New frequency bands and exposure characteristics should not be authorised for widespread deployment until independent, time-bound assessment of their biological effects is complete.
All information is from personal experience and my own measurements and is not peer-reviewed research.