Exposure limits & oversight

To those individuals functioning at HHS: We need more stringent RF radiation exposure standards in the United States. There is a great deal of evidence of harmful biological effects spanning many decades that have been reported in peer reviewed, published, scientific journals. Some of these harmful biological effects are: sleep disruption, headaches, disruption of cell membrane channels, DNA damage, disruptions to heart functioning, leakage of the blood-brain barrier, increased risk of cancer, oxidative stress, anxiety, behavioral disruptions, memory loss, and decreased fertility. There are also anecdotal reports of fatigue, feelings of pressure in the head, nosebleeds, hair loss, ringing in the ears, nausea and ‘brain fog' after exposure to wireless radiation. The subject is complex and it requires a thoughtful and precautionary approach. It is very important to understand that radiation exposure guidelines have been declared inadequate by numerous scientists and medical doctors, especially because they were written with adults in mind and not for children. Our children are being exposed to unprecedented, unevaluated, unregulated levels of microwave radiation without complete study, without proper discussion, and without informed consent. I urge the individuals at HHS to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise and to create better policies focused on precaution and guidelines that adequately protect the public. The burden of proof lies with those who promote the technology. Rather than asking concerned citizens to prove that RF radiation is harmful, the ones who promote the technology, and those who benefit financially from the technology, need to prove RF radiation is safe. This issue matters to me personally because I get heart palpations and earaches. My husband also experiences ill health and disrupted sleep with exposure. I urge the HHS to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues. I enclose for the record a report of evidence of biological harm from RF exposure. This report, written and compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD, (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University) is: 5G Risk: The Scientific Perspective Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them Sincerely, Judith Story

Patients are suffering and our humanity is at stake, people, pets and properties are being destroyed. Please help us and do the right thing and ban the further technology deployment. As a health minister, I am calling out to you in the name of God the Father and Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior! Turn back from the wicked ways and do the correct leadership.

Over 6,000 studies have shown biological effects of wireless radiation and we desperately need to shift control to the public to weigh the benefits and risks of this technology. Section 704 of the Wireless Radiation Act is not serving the public. I am worried about the effects of new technologies on myself and my family. Please put in place some common sense legislation around these new and impactful technologies before there is irreversible damage.

When I was 12 my whole life got turned upside down due to EMF. I couldn't do normal things, was ostracized from my peers, teachers, and classmates. I got nosebleeds, stabbing headaches, memory loss, nausea, restless legs, pain, extreme whole-body inflammation, my eyes couldn't focus, and insane fatigue. Everyone around me thought I was crazy or making it up.  But then I was 15 and had to write a research paper on something, I chose to write on EMF. I got paid to have my 15-page research paper published by a company in the United Kingdom that I wrote my freshman year. A classmate who thought I was making it up mocked me for doing that, and later didn't have enough research to back up his paper. I had so much scientific published research on EMF I actually had to take out over 6 pages of my paper. The research was astounding and other countries know and acknowledge the harms of EMF. They protect children. They don't allow cell towers within 2 miles of schools, they have research on the effects of non-ionizing radiation.  My pain from EMF got to such a degree that it felt like in addition to having headaches that felt like someone was stabbing me in the head and I couldn't breathe. Once we started turning off our Wi-Fi at night I was finally able to sleep, and some of the pain went away. The shift was drastic. I am happy to say that a few years later I've recovered and am a lot less sensitive, but that's only thanks to the research I did when I was younger, and to my parents work to protect me and help me heal from the damage.  We should not allow the cell phone companies profiting from these to set the safety standards. That's unethical and we're putting profit over health here in the US. If any third party did the research we would know ad see that we're insanely exceeding the safe amount of radiation a human can tolerate. But instead we are letting the cell phone tower companies tell us what is safe, and we're allowing this to be an unregulated industry.  My teenage years were dictated by EMF and my symptoms. I couldn't go to things I wanted to, hang out with friends, have people over unless they turned their phones off, or be in normalcy in society due to the extreme negative health effects I experienced from EMF and RF.  I have done extensive research on EMF, please read my paper below that was published in the UK. Let's do better for our country and our children - because I was the one who wasn't protected.  https://www.electricsense.com/emf-silent-killer/

HHS should regulate EMF radiation and establish biologically sound limits for exposure. HHS has a mission to protect and support human health. The FCC has no such mission. Its mission is to proliferate EMF radiation, and it does. At this time the FCC regulates EMF exposure according to its mission: It sets limits which do not protect human health, but proliferate EMF exposure. HHS should step in and do its job. The is a huge difference between voluntary and involuntary exposure. Involuntary exposure is criminal battery and should not be allowed at all. There should be a way to opt out of involuntary exposure, especially from Smart Meters, but also from non-consensual transmitter siting. All involuntary exposure should be kept at a distance of at least one mile, in order to avert claims of battery. The most urgent issue is Smart Meters and the Smart Grid, an extremely harmful involuntary exposure. The opposition to Smart Meters is fierce and vocal. Smart Meters have caused the most serious injuries, killing people, permanently debilitating them, and forcing them out of their own homes. Smart Meters regularly emit a millisecond pulse, which the FCC allows at 1.8 million times over the FCC limit. This is because the FCC averages the exposure over 30 minutes, even though the next pulse is often less than 30 minutes away. (30 minutes x 60 seconds x 1,000 milliseconds = 1,800,000) A shorter pulse would allow even greater exposure. In this way, the FCC has essentially created an exception for pulsed radiation, The first coarse of action for HHS is to eliminate the 30 minute averaging for pulsed radiation, and require that it comply with existing limits. The Smart Grid would have to be dismantled and replaced with the safe analog grid that performed flawlessly for almost a century. The next step is to eliminate all involuntary exposure, which violates the Constitution, the law, and human rights. The third step is to establish biologically-based limits for voluntary exposure. The attached files include scientific and legal documents which show that involuntary EMF exposure is both harmful and illegal. The case involves Smart Meters which forced people out of their homes, killed their loved ones and pets, and caused permanent injury. No court has ruled on the issues raised because the defendants bribed the clerks and ensured that no judge ever saw the documents. EMF exposure is rife with corruption because the stakes are so high for the billionaire class and the multi-trillion dollar industry. HHS should make its own ruling.

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 wellness consultant, safe-tech and environmental advocate who feels the effects of ElectroSmog. I first learned about the health hazards of EMF in functional neurology class. We turned our wifi off that night and both of us slept amazing and woke up feeling so much better. That was ten years ago. Since then I have had times of completely being unable to work, the right side of my face drooping and the right side of my body not working the same as the left when over exposed. It sidelined my NYC music career, derailed my relationships with family as no one believes in health effects because the gov't says it's safe, I cannot work in most environments and it has severely limited my finances. The personal financial and emotional losses if calculated using forensic accounting are devastating. MY SYMPTOMS IMMEDIATELY RESOLVE UPON LOW EMF ENVIRONMENT and immediately return in cell service areas and wifi routers. I have trouble swallowing from the tightening of the neck muscles, brain encephalopathy pinching cranial nerves and over activating the limbic system that dysregulates my body so much I've been diagnosed with dystonia and dysautonomia. X-rays show developing scoliosis from a complete dystonic twist from attempting to live and work to survive in this environment. It's INSANITY! As a wellness practitioner, I see many people who also complain of symptomology in wireless exposure as well. And in my 18 years as an Osteopathic Movement Therapist and Personal Trainer I am seeing these twists, tensions, and symptoms in many people. In fact, myself, colleagues and teachers keep talking of how we seldom see a normal brain, nervous system and body of any client anymore. The biggest change to our environment is ELECTROSMOG. Our advocacy groups already won a landmark lawsuit for the people due to extensive evidence of harm from ElectroSmog and the FCC shows flagrant disregard for humanity. This issue must continue to be addressed with holding FCC accountable, rescinding the 1996 Telecom Act and zero liability for Big Wireless, allowing opt outs, mandatory wifi on/off switches on routers, ensuring routers do not have secret frequencies, cell phone wireless hygiene options, educational campaigns and informed consent for the public, warning labels on all wireless tech devices, mandatory FCC commercials to explain the health risks of using wireless as was done with smoking, white zones that are protected zero EMF areas in every state/province/region of every country and research and development to pick up where the Tesla Society left off with using healthier frequencies/pulsation/modulation options for providers and also R&D for quantum computing. We are bioelectric beings, our heart is electric, our brain is electric, every cell communicates with electromagnetic impulses, we have to keep our electrolytes balanced... these electromagnetic frequencies go through walls AND our bodies.... there are gov't studies dating back to the 1930s showing wireless communications undermine every system in the human body and also have environmental effects. For the future and survival of all life on this planet, we need to make sweeping changes. WE ALREADY KNOW THE DISASTROUS HEALTH HAZARDS from ElectroSmog, NOW LET'S MOVE ON IT! 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 get frequent headaches if I turn wifi on or am in a wifi heavy area. C Can the regulatory agency prove that any of these microwave technologies are safe.i bet not.

I appreciate HHS undertaking this important inquiry into electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and their potential effects on human health. My central concern is that the widespread deployment of wireless technologies has outpaced our understanding of the biological consequences of chronic, cumulative exposure. Compliance with existing exposure standards is not equivalent to demonstrating long-term biological safety. I urge HHS to address the following concerns: 1. Reevaluate safety standards beyond thermal effects. Current RF exposure standards have historically emphasized protection against tissue heating. Yet peer-reviewed research has reported biological effects involving oxidative stress, neurological function, reproductive health, and cellular processes at exposure levels that warrant investigation beyond heating alone. The National Toxicology Program’s 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to certain RF conditions. The Ramazzini Institute independently reported increased heart schwannomas in male rats. Although these findings do not establish cancer risks from ordinary human wireless exposure, they raise legitimate questions requiring further investigation. 2. Investigate cumulative, real-world exposure. Americans experience simultaneous exposure from Wi-Fi, cellular networks, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, and other wireless technologies. Research must examine long-term exposure to multiple sources, including potential effects of duration, frequency, modulation, and cumulative lifetime exposure. 3. Prioritize vulnerable populations. Children, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and individuals with neurological vulnerabilities deserve particular consideration. Children increasingly experience wireless exposure throughout their school day, often without meaningful alternatives. HHS should determine whether existing standards adequately protect developing biological systems rather than assuming uniform safety across populations. 4. Ensure independent research and regulatory transparency. The telecommunications industry has substantial financial interests in maintaining existing infrastructure and exposure standards. HHS should disclose how current limits were established, how conflicting scientific findings have been evaluated, and what role industry-funded research and representatives have played in regulatory decisions. Independent replication, transparent methodologies, and full disclosure of financial conflicts are essential to public trust. 5. Protect informed choice and individual autonomy. Americans deserve understandable information about wireless exposure and practical ways to reduce it. I urge HHS to support wired alternatives in schools and public facilities, greater transparency regarding infrastructure emissions, meaningful community participation, and reasonable accommodations for individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. 6. Apply the precautionary principle. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm must never be misrepresented as conclusive evidence of safety. Reasonable precautionary measures should not require absolute scientific certainty, particularly when exposure is widespread, continuous, and difficult to avoid. Specific Actions Requested I respectfully urge HHS to: 1. Independently reassess existing RF exposure limits, including potential nonthermal biological effects. 2. Commission replication and follow-up studies of significant National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute findings. 3. Fund long-term research examining cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources. 4. Prioritize research involving children, pregnancy, neurological health, sleep, and reproductive outcomes. 5. Require transparency regarding industry influence, research funding, and regulatory conflicts of interest. 6. Expand public access to real-world exposure measurements and meaningful consumer information. 7. Support wired alternatives and reasonable exposure-reduction measures. 8. Establish a transparent process for periodically updating exposure standards as scientific evidence evolves. Closing Statement Wireless technology provides undeniable convenience, but convenience must never substitute for rigorous public health evaluation. The burden of establishing reasonable safety should not rest entirely upon individuals after a technology has already been deployed throughout their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. The American public deserves an independent assessment that examines all credible scientific evidence, acknowledges unresolved questions, and places human health above commercial interests. I urge HHS to make this inquiry the beginning of meaningful scientific investigation and regulatory accountability rather than another exercise in reaffirming existing assumptions. Thank you for considering my comments.

I am submitting this comment as an individual consumer (Question 2). My comments are based on my own direct, repeated experience with everyday wireless devices and an electric vehicle. In response to Question 3, I want to describe what I have experienced. I have used both iPhone and Samsung smartphones, along with Apple AirPods, on the AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile networks. I use my phone an average of 10 hours a day, which means my exposure is long, daily, and ongoing. I experience headaches, and they consistently come on after I have been close to electronic devices. This has happened across different phone brands and different carriers, which tells me the issue is not limited to a single product or network. My experience with my electric vehicle has been more severe. I own a 2025 Jeep Wagoneer Launch Edition and charge it using both Level 2 and Level 3 (DC fast) charging, including at EVgo charging stations. When I sit inside the car while it is charging, I get a severe headache within 3 to 5 minutes. The speed and consistency of this reaction is significant. Many drivers stay in their vehicles while charging, especially at public fast-charging stations, yet no one has told me whether doing so is safe. Regarding Question 5 and Question 9, I urge HHS to require clear, accessible disclosure of exposure information for consumers. For phones and wireless earbuds, this should include SAR values and the exact distance from the body at which each device was tested. Phones are carried against the body and earbuds are worn inside the ear for hours, so testing at a distance does not reflect how these products are actually used. For electric vehicles, manufacturers and charging providers should disclose the magnetic and electric field levels inside the cabin during Level 2 and DC fast charging, and should state plainly whether occupants should remain in the vehicle while it charges. Today, this information is either difficult to find or not provided at all. Regarding Question 10, there is currently no simple way for a consumer like me to report symptoms connected to wireless devices or EV charging. I ask HHS to create a public adverse event reporting system for RF/EMF exposure, so that patterns across many individuals can be identified and studied rather than dismissed one case at a time. Regarding Question 13 (wearable technologies and vehicles) and Question 16, I ask HHS to make the following research priorities: exposure from wearable devices worn in or on the head, such as wireless earbuds; cumulative exposure from using multiple wireless devices for many hours each day; and exposure inside electric vehicles during charging, particularly DC fast charging, when occupants sit close to high-power electrical systems in an enclosed space. I also ask that EV charging be studied under real-world conditions, including measurements taken at the seating positions where drivers and passengers actually sit. I respectfully ask HHS to take reports like mine seriously, to close these gaps in testing and disclosure, and to give the public the information it needs to make informed decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment.

Victoria Marshall Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket #.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397; Federal Register Notice: 91 FR 59792 (Sept. 21, 2026) Dear Ms. Marshall and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health: This is an abridged version. The full version is attached as a PDF. I worked in satellite communications in the late 1980s. The field was new; we transmitted live sports via audio then video within 18 months. The company grew from ~23–24 to ~350 employees in five years. I worked under the executive VP overseeing engineering. Safety was taken seriously—rigid line and transmission equipment were tested and kept within then-applicable exposure margins. Despite this, I was chronically ill the entire time. I have had multiple RF, wireless, and magnetic exposures (satellite RF, extreme magnetic fields exceeding accepted standards, ordinary/not ordinary wireless). I may be more sensitive than average. One can literally feel the low-level “noise” of these emanations as continuous low-level stress on the body, separate from any bio-field or optogenetic-type effects. RF/wireless/magnetic safety limits have not been meaningfully updated in ~30–40 years. FCC limits adopted in August 1996 (based on ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 and NCRP) remain essentially unchanged (reaffirmed 2019). They rest on a ~4 W/kg whole-body SAR threshold linked to roughly a 1 °C core temperature rise, with large safety factors yielding a public limit of 0.08 W/kg. The safety exposure levels for RF, wireless, microwave radiation have not been meaningfully updated in roughly 40 years. The current U.S. FCC limits were adopted in August 1996, based on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard and NCRP recommendations which was studied in the 80’s which govern the frequency range from 3 kHz – 300 GHz. Those numerical limits (and their thermal-only basis) have remained essentially unchanged; the FCC reviewed and explicitly reaffirmed them in 2019. The foundational threshold is approximately 4 W/kg whole-body average SAR, associated with roughly a 1 °C rise in core body temperature (and with the behavioral disruption seen in earlier animal studies that was attributed to heating). Large safety factors are then applied—reducing the occupational limit to 0.4 W/kg and the general-public limit to 0.08 W/kg. Military development and fielding of RF/microwave directed-energy systems as non-kinetic tools is itself proof that governments know these fields can produce physical effects. They would not have researched and deployed such systems if they believed the fields were inert. The same applies to medical and commercial remote-sensing tools. For 30 years, medical, military, and commercial sectors have been using and further developing methods to sense and influence the body via RF, wireless, magnetic, and related pathways. IEEE 802.15.1–.6 (including Body Area Network standards) define networks in which the human body itself functions as a node and essential backbone. Without living bodies as nodes, the systems do not function as designed. This has occurred under SMART/IoT/IoB, and many other Io'X' labels without clear public disclosure that the architecture depends on human bodies. Absence of consent is criminal. I have found no clear independent studies showing that continuous use of the body as a communications node does not affect cellular energy, molecular/photonic processes, or long-term health. Robert O. Becker, M.D. (Army Medical Corps, VA orthopedics, The Body Electric), documented the body’s intrinsic DC electrical system (currents of injury, perineural control, piezoelectric bone) and its sensitivity to external fields well below thermal levels. The body is an electrical organism. Are there rigorous studies showing that treating it as a network node does not disrupt those systems? Every person in range of expanding sensor/wireless infrastructure should be informed of the body’s role as a network node and given a practical ability to opt out of remote/wireless/magnetic access or use of their body as a network element by any party when no onboard or near-body device is present and no consent has been given. This inquiry is decades overdue. If Making America Healthy Again is to be taken seriously, RF, magnetic, wireless, and related exposures—including use of the body itself as network infrastructure—must be examined alongside diet and traditional medicine. Best Regards,