Exposure limits & oversight

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 as a concerned member of the public. We have a right to know what we are being exposed to. Current wireless radiation (RF/EMF from cell phones, Wi-Fi, 5G/6G, smart meters, cell towers, and everyday devices) is treated as if it is fully understood and safely managed. It is not. People cannot give informed consent when the information is incomplete, outdated, or buried. What must be made public and easy for ordinary people to access: Real-world exposure levels (not just laboratory SAR numbers), including cumulative and simultaneous exposure from multiple sources in homes, schools, workplaces, and public spaces. Clear, plain-language disclosure of potential biological and health effects reported in the scientific literature, including effects at levels below current FCC limits, especially for children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable groups. Exact locations, power levels, and frequencies of cell towers, small cells, and other wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, and playgrounds—updated in real time and without requiring FOIA requests. Independent (non-industry-funded) research summaries and the full underlying data, so the public can see what is known, what is uncertain, and where the gaps are. Practical ways people can reduce exposure, and the option to choose wired alternatives without penalty or loss of service. No one should be forced into continuous, involuntary exposure without transparent information and meaningful choice. Public health requires the precautionary principle when the science is still evolving and the exposure is universal. Please prioritize full disclosure, independent research, and genuine consent over industry convenience. Thank you for opening this process.

It is long past time to make sure that we are all protected from electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation. Many studies have been done that show the damage can be severe, especially for higher radiation levels such as 5G. The next generation that is being proposed, 6 G and higher, will be even worse. Some people are more seriously affected than others, but already it is hard for those most affected to find places where they can be comfortable. I have several friends who are immediately affected by the presence of cell towers and other emitting devices. I myself get heacaches, but a couple of my friends have much more severe reactions. However, even those who are not aware of it are being affected. All these forms of radiation damage not only humans, but also domestic animals, wildlife, and even plants. It would be nice if industry was more capable of restraining itself or if education about the dangers wasn’t being smothered by monetary influences, but since that is not proving to be the case, we need laws and regulations to stop the increasing prevalence of radiation before we do further damage to ourselves and our planet.

Here is what I know: if you take even minimal steps to reduce wi-if in the school, kids will be calmer and healthier. If health risks that doctors/scientists and thousands of studies do indeed exist, then we owe it to our children. We are bioelectrical beings, and wi-fi and cellular signals interfere with our cell-to-cell communication. Studies show wi-fi causes the cell membrane to leak, which produces a very destructive free radical and can contribute to cancer. Wi-Fi also has been shown to interfere with melatonin's ability to clean up free radicals. Other damages shown in the 1000s of studies performed: compromising the blood-brain-barrier (which keeps toxins out of the brain); cellular communication interference; damage to cell metabolism; single-and double-strand DNA damage; loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells; reduction in free-radical scavengers (particularly melatonin); abnormal gene transcription; neurotoxicity; carcinogenicity; damage to sperm morphology and function; and effects on behavior. This causes real damage to accumulate, especially in the small bodies of children. U.S. wireless radiation standards (set 20 years ago) based on a 6-foot, 200 pound healthy male? Why have no field studies been performed on children - and the child brain overall absorbs twice as much radiation as that of an adult, and their bone marrow absorbs 10x that of an adult. The following experts have said: • Dr. David Carpenter, M.D., public health physician educated at Harvard Medical School: "RF penetration is greater relative to head size in children, and they have a greater absorption of RF energy in the tissues of the head at WI-FI frequencies because their skulls area thinner, their brains are smaller, and their brain tissue is more conductive than that of adults since it has a higher water content and ion concentrations….Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, and limit exposure to background levels of WI-FI.” • Dr. Keith Black, Neurosurgeon, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center: “In children, the microwave radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain, and their cells are dividing at a much faster rate so the impact can be much larger.” As a side note, WiFi systems in school districts are usually much higher in strength than home systems because they are designed to operate hundreds of computers simultaneously and can be up to three times more powerful than a phone mast outside a school. This will be the first generation ever to spend 6-8 hours each day for years in industrial strength WiFi environment. Dr. George Carlo, who was the cell phone industry's Director of Research and was hired to run their $28 million dollar, 7 year research program to find out if cell phones were dangerous, is now an outspoken advocate of informing the public and calling for more research. We all love wireless. It has connected us, made life so much easier, and has brought information to our fingertips. I know the ease of cell phones, and the money behind cell phone companies is a powerful entity to fight, but if Dr. Carlo did the right things, so can we. Please I beg of you: we need strong leaders who care about the health of our children to step forward and protect them. Thank you for your time. Lauren Heller 74 Green Street, unit 1 Brookline, MA 02446

Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 FR Doc No: 2026-19252 Comment Submitted By: Rex Funk Affiliation: EMF Consultant / Member of the Public Attachments: Three peer-reviewed studies (see attached PDFs) To the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health: I am submitting this comment as an individual with direct personal experience of adverse health effects from radiofrequency (RF) exposure, and now as an EMF consultant working with others who share these experiences. BACKGROUND AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE In 2018 I became aware of negative health reactions to RF exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, and related wireless sources. I learned to reduce my exposure and to avoid exposures in public spaces. This has been a tormenting experience and it remains very difficult to function in mainstream society, because RF sources are now essentially everywhere. I am unable to work in typical job settings. I now work as an EMF consultant helping people who are also noticing reactions to RF and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Some of my clients are even more sensitive than I am and have suffered greatly — unable to function normally in society or even in their own homes — simply because these devices were assumed safe without proper consideration of true safety. They must spend thousands of dollars to identify and mitigate environmental stressors, and many cannot afford to improve their situation at all. RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC RFI QUESTIONS 1. Effects below current exposure limits. The assumption that heating (thermal) effects are the only relevant biological mechanism is not acceptable. Thousands of independent, peer-reviewed studies report biological effects beyond thermal mechanisms, and this literature has been largely ignored in U.S. policy. I have attached three such studies for your consideration. HHS should commission systematic reviews of this body of evidence rather than relying solely on assessments that discount it. 2. Sensitive populations. Children are being enabled to grow up in a sea of RF radiation without adequate study of possible effects on the developing body. This should not be tolerated. Dedicated pediatric research, and precautionary measures in schools pending that research, should be a funding priority. 3. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Federal research agendas should include affected individuals as a defined population: clinical characterization, diagnostic criteria, disability accommodations, and access to low-EMF environments. Many people like my clients cannot work, attend school, or use public services. 4. Practical guidance and mitigation access. HHS should publish plain- language exposure-reduction guidance and consider how to make assessment and mitigation affordable. At present, relief is available only to those who can pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. 5. Research priorities. Highest priorities in my view: long-term studies of chronic low-level exposure; personal dosimetry reflecting real- world use; studies of children and adolescents; and mechanistic work on non-thermal biological effects. I support transparent, science-informed decision-making and urge HHS to treat the existing independent literature — and the lived experience of thousands of affected people — with the seriousness it deserves. Respectfully submitted, Rex Funk Woodstock, NY rex@emfcheck.com 845-853-6060

I am not a scientist or tech person. I only know what i have personally observed and felt. In the past five years, I have noticed a decline of pollinators, bees and butterflies, in my organic chemically-free gardens. I have also been experiencing dizzy spells for no reason when I go outside or in public places. My home has low radiation levels which I monitor. With the introduction of 5G, smart meters and discontinuation of copper based landlines, etc the world is being surrounded more and more by wireless radiation. Please, it is time to review safe radiation level standards and put a hold onto what we are doing. Please, place better safety issues on this technology! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Create a wonderful day!

I am hypersensitive to EMFs. Why is the electric company allowed to force dangerous smart meters on our houses. What about the Energy Policy Act of 2005? Help us and stop them

This court case is happening in America is because of the FCC abusing its power authority, denying people protection/forcing exposure. For me a multitude of neurological symptoms occur as a result of exposure to pulsed and modulated RFR. The symptoms described in the scientific and medical literature I suffer with include headaches, sleep problems, heart palpitations, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, depression, memory, and cognitive problems, among others. In my experience, exposure avoidance is the only effective management.

I've worked in IT and have questioned this exposure and time and again, powers above have referred to the FCC's science and stated it's safe and shut it down. So finally, having a body do real research will be great. My only concern is the timing, as I believe when the next wave of election comes and RFK is out, and the republicans loose, I think we'll see a massive regression back to the old ways. I know these scientist are hot and bothered by having all this exposure to their long standing control, so that's my only request, do it as quickly as possible and make it available as soon as possible, because the clock is ticking, you're less than a month away from loosing midterms, and if that trend continues, loosing the next election and we'll see a raging return with even more aggressive lockdowns than before. God speed.

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally submit evidence and personal testimony regarding the adverse health and biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs), as requested by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a long-term advocate and the former founder and owner of a dedicated European platform for individuals affected by electromagnetic radiation (formerly betroffene-elektromagnetische-strahlung.com, recently transitioned in July 2026), I have spent over seven years documenting, analyzing, and consolidating the health complaints of citizens affected by these environmental factors. During this time, our platform was contacted by more than 350 affected individuals from all over the world. Their documented experiences demonstrate that these neurological and physical symptoms constitute a global phenomenon, affecting ordinary citizens worldwide and across borders. In response to the specific categories of your Request for Information (RFI), I submit that the biological impacts of RF exposure are measurable and verifiable. Over years of documentation, the following evidence has been compiled to substantiate these biological effects: 1. Medical and Biological Data: Objective medical reports and RF body-scan analyses showing physiological stress, neurological disruption, and specific biological anomalies corresponding with proximity to high-frequency radiation sources. 2. Technical and Investigative Documentation: Detailed evidence consisting of 2. investigative reports, environmental monitoring, video documentation, and eyewitness testimonies that track the presence of elevated EMF/RF levels and their immediate impact on human health. 3. Historical and Regulatory Context: Corroborating documentation including historical governmental research frameworks (such as legacy documentation regarding neuro-electromagnetic research) and registered public patents demonstrating the established technical capability of high-frequency fields to interact directly with human biological and neurological systems. The compiled documentation strongly suggests that current exposure thresholds do not adequately protect public health from non-thermal, long-term biological effects. The physical toll on citizens includes severe neurological symptoms, sleep disruption, cognitive impairment, and persistent cellular stress. I urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administration for a Healthy America to rigorously evaluate these non-thermal biological effects and to integrate the experiences of affected citizens globally into the new public health guidelines. The comprehensive documentation, including medical analyses, technical reports, and investigative material, remains available to support further scientific inquiry by the Please support Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s legislation to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act—a long-overdue measure to restore constitutional protections and correct years of unchecked surveillance authority. Since its passage in 2001, the Patriot Act has been used to expand federal surveillance powers far beyond what most Americans ever intended or imagined. While it was sold as a tool for counterterrorism, it has since enabled broad, secretive programs that collect information on Americans without warrants, eroding our Fourth Amendment rights. Representative Luna’s bill, the American Privacy Restoration Act, H.R. Bill 3245, would repeal these overreaching provisions and return our laws to a more balanced framework—where privacy is not sacrificed in the name of blanket security. Though rarely acknowledged publicly, many citizens feel they have been subject to intrusive monitoring, blacklisting, or other surveillance-related harms without due process. While not every case is easily verified, the very existence of laws that allow this kind of unchecked access only heightens that fear. Repealing the Patriot Act would help restore public confidence that government power is being used responsibly and constitutionally—and that not individual is subject to undue targeting without oversight and lawful justification. This is not a partisan issue—it is an American one. Protecting the rights of all citizens, especially when those rights are unpopular or inconvenient, is what distinguishes a free society. I ask that you support this vital legislation and stand up for the rights, dignity, and freedoms of the people you represent. Sincerely Ursula Jasef Friedrichstr. 87 40217 Düsseldorf Germany Tel.: +49 211 819 659 63 email: urs.asia74@gmail.com https://patents.google.com/patent/US3951134A/en