Exposure limits & oversight

MY NEIGHBORS AND ANIMALS ARE DYING I am SICK. My family members have been SICK SINCE more than a hundred UNREGULATED TOWERS WENT LIVE over our community. This has been a challenge for me to get anyone to help in my community. I wanted to share my story in hopes of helping others. My story is one of many in Terrebonne Parish. After multiple (9) 300-foot 5G towers were put over our homes, four 300-foot 5G towers were put over my home and animal sanctuary, and four 300-foot towers were put over my office. At the same time, smart meters were put on my home, along with those of every other Entergy customer. I began getting sick, very sick. It began in my petting area with heart palpitations, headaches, vomiting, ringing in my ears, confusion, bleeding gums, insomnia, nightmares, dizziness, anxiety, ears buzzing 24 hours a day, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, and more. I have now been diagnosed with radiation syndrome / EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome) caused by extreme exposure to radiation. Many residents are experiencing similar symptoms. Countless children are now suffering. Being a very healthy person my whole life, this has been a life-changing situation. I am usually the one helping others; now I need your help. I never thought this could happen until I was forced to face it by becoming sick. I'm not sure where this illness will take me. However, I must do all I can to protect my family and my community. Seven neighbors on my street and friends have died after the towers went live over their homes. Many other residents are also sick. My community is surrounded by towers that have no regulatory testing information, nor does our planning department ask for it, citing the FCC's outdated RF radiation guidelines. I became certified in RF radiation testing. I now test the towers and smart meters. I can confirm that the EMF (electromagnetic frequency) / RF (radio frequency) radiation being emitted is extreme for every single product, tower, and smart device I have tested. has been a fight to protect my family, my community, and myself, with EVERYONE CITING THE FCC'S OUTDATED RF RADIATION GUIDELINES. I had to learn all I could about this to protect my health and theirs. I've had to turn my home, where I have lived for 28 years, into an EMF-safe house (until I sell it), as well as my barn, which is surrounded by EMF material and protection. My bed is covered with EMF protection as well due to the radiation levels in my home. I now have to wear protective clothing all day. Leaving my safe area means becoming exposed due to the unbridled towers around me. I am a very private person. This is not easy to share, but if I do not ask for help now, many more innocent people will be sick, or they will die like my neighbors, my friends, and my animals. Since the towers went live, six of my horses have died instantly under the towers. All of my little animals have died. My 200-pound tortoises started going blind. I'm not sure where the daily radiation exposure will take me, so I thought now is the best time to ask for your help in making a change. THE FCC MUST REGULATE THE RADIATION, OR THE DEATH & DESTRUCTION WILL NEVER END. Technology is safe only if it is REGULATED.

To HHS, I experience symptoms such as headaches, heart racing, palpitations, irritability, and insomnia when exposed to wireless signals. I live in a shielded home with no wireless inside to help minimize exposure. I'm concerned that the United States has not adopted sufficiently precautionary policies to minimize public exposure to wireless radiation, particularly for people who report sensitivity. Other countries have demonstrated that stronger protective measures are possible. For example, France restricts the installation and use of wireless internet equipment in certain childcare settings and requires Wi-Fi in primary school classrooms to be switched off when not used for educational activities. Some European countries have also adopted stricter radio frequency exposure limits or additional protections for sensitive locations. I believe the United States should carefully examine these international approaches and consider stronger protections for public health. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts local governments from regulating cell tower placement based on the environmental effects of compliant radio frequency emissions, and I disagree with that restriction. Communities should be able to consider health concerns when deciding where towers go. Thank you for your consideration. Dianna Suslo

Please look at the low dose EMF rat studies (continuous low dose EMF's, like what humans are exposed to, over two years) that Dr. Paul Heroux carried out at McGill University in Canada. What happens in a rat, happens in a human! Deleterious results to the cornea, testicles and heart were evident in the rats. The FCC only used hours long, high doses of EMF's that caused burning, but never published studies with low dose EMF's done over months or years. Don't ignore the studies that show negative effects from EMF's. Last exposure limits update with the FCC regulations, were done in 1996! Get the information out to the public so we can protect ourselves and have cell towers and antennae placed smartly and safely! Thank you for your time.

I am writing as a private citizen to share my experience with radiofrequency radiation (RF), electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and wireless radiation exposure, and to urge the Department to give serious weight to the lived reality of individuals who develop adverse symptoms in response to ubiquitous wireless infrastructure. For approximately twenty years, I have struggled with nervous system issues, including pain and an irritated/activated nervous system, as well as chronic insomnia. I came to believe—based on careful observation of my symptoms in relation to my environment—that these issues were caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields. Since the roll-out of 5G infrastructure in my area, my condition has deteriorated significantly. I constantly feel agitated and emotional and my nervous system feels extremely heightened, activated and painful. The symptoms have become severe enough that I can no longer tolerate living in an urban environment, and I am currently attempting to relocate to a rural area with lower RF and EMF levels and more natural shielding. The practical and emotional toll of this displacement has been profound: I feel isolated, stressed, and increasingly depressed, and I am genuinely uncertain about my ability to cope if exposure levels continue to rise. I recognize that the scientific literature on RF and EMF exposure and health is complex, and that regulatory bodies have often concluded that exposures below thermal thresholds pose no established risk. However, I believe that the evidentiary picture is not as settled as it is sometimes portrayed and needs to be reassessed, especially considering that there are plans to continue increasing the number of towers and upgrading the technology. I respectfully urge the Department to implement a moratorium on the deployment of further wireless technology, to fund independent long-term research that measures real-world multi-source exposure, to formally review whether current thermal-based limits adequately account for long-term low-level exposure, to support clinical guidance for healthcare professionals encountering patients who attribute symptoms to RF and EMF exposure, and to communicate publicly with appropriate humility about the genuine uncertainties that remain—because for those of us living with these symptoms, the cost of being dismissed is not abstract but is measured in lost homes, lost health, and lost connection to the world around us. Moreover, with the continued expansion of wireless infrastructure, concerns about broader public health outcomes—including reported increases in cancer rates—demand that this issue be treated with the urgency and rigor it deserves. Thank you for considering these views. This is a very serious issue, and there should have been more public consultation in the first place about whether or not we actually want this technology to be deployed.

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 Comment: Request for Independent Research, Transparency, and Public Health Protections Regarding EMF and Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: I urge HHS to conduct a comprehensive, transparent, and scientifically rigorous review of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation exposure. This review should prioritize public health, scientific independence, informed consent, and the protection of all communities. The public should not have to choose between dismissing legitimate health concerns and accepting claims that have not been adequately demonstrated. We need independent research, honest evaluation of conflicting findings, and clear communication about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what further investigation is necessary. I respectfully request that HHS: 1. Review the full body of scientific evidence. Evaluate peer-reviewed studies on potential health effects of RF and EMF exposure, including studies reporting positive findings, negative findings, and inconclusive results. Explain the strength and limitations of the evidence. 2. Investigate real-world exposure. Examine exposure levels, duration, frequency, cumulative sources, and differences between laboratory conditions and everyday environments. Identify research gaps without assuming that cumulative exposure necessarily causes harm. 3. Protect potentially vulnerable populations. Assess whether children, pregnant people, individuals with medical conditions, and other potentially susceptible groups require additional research or protective measures. 4. Ensure scientific independence. Disclose funding sources, conflicts of interest, research limitations, and the methods used to evaluate studies. Support independent replication and research that is not controlled solely by industries with financial interests in the outcome. 5. Investigate reported health concerns objectively. Establish appropriate research and reporting pathways for people who experience symptoms or believe their health is affected by environmental exposures. Such reports should be documented and investigated without automatically assuming either causation or fabrication. 6. Make the findings accessible to the public. Publish the evidence reviewed, research methodology, identified uncertainties, and recommendations in plain language. The public deserves to understand the scientific basis for federal health guidance. 7. Address emerging wireless technologies. Determine whether existing research and exposure standards adequately address evolving technologies, changing patterns of use, and relevant exposure scenarios. Where evidence is insufficient, identify the additional research needed. 8. Provide meaningful public participation. Include independent scientists, public health experts, affected community members, and individuals reporting health concerns in appropriate research and policy discussions. Scientific integrity requires more than telling the public that evidence is insufficient. When evidence is insufficient, the next question must be: What research is needed, who will conduct it independently, and when will the public receive the results? I am asking HHS to take these questions seriously, evaluate the evidence without predetermined conclusions, and establish a clear plan for addressing unresolved scientific questions. Public health decisions should be grounded in transparent evidence, independent research, accountability, and the precaution necessary when important questions remain unanswered. Please include these concerns in the agency’s review and make the resulting findings and recommendations publicly available. Respectfully submitted, Leah Testerman

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Router: Wi-Fi 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):Nightly- 5 years near bedroom 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:Insomnia, anxiousness, headaches. Nausea, anger, forgetfulness, short-tempered. 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:It's started soon after I installed the router and "mesh" signal amplifiers. When I removed them, I felt almost better immediately. Following days better and better. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?Evidence was me getting better when Wi-Fi router and mesh devices removed. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Yes removal of devices. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:There are countless peer reviewed scientifically accepted studies supporting these side effects effect many individuals from EMF exposure. Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's:I believe 5G nodes in residential neighborhoods will have similar and potentially worse health efffects than the ones I've listed. Please ban from residential neighborhoods blasting radiation 24/7 into our homes and bedrooms. This is going to at the least reduce our qualities of life. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects: B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed: B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy): B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:None B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant:None B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure:Removing Wi-Fi within home. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help: B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): B3d. Treatments that had no effect: B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:35-44 B4. What is your age range?35-44 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?5 years ago B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?USA, NJ, Ocean County.

Re: Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Public Comment on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure I submit this comment as an individual consumer in response to Questions 3, 7–12, and 15–18. I have experienced fatigue, poor sleep, difficulty concentrating, nausea, palpitations, and skin tingling or burning. I am concerned about whether environmental exposures, including emissions from wireless technologies, could contribute to these symptoms. A preliminary review of public antenna-structure records identified 10 listed tower sites less than five miles from my home. Their current operating status, transmitting equipment, cellular tenants, and microwave dishes have not been independently verified. These records may also omit smaller installations. I have not established a causal relationship between RF exposure and my symptoms. Tower proximity alone cannot establish exposure levels or health effects. However, residents should have practical access to the information and independent measurements necessary to investigate their concerns. I request the following actions: 1. Independent research into realistic exposures. Fund rigorous studies of long-term, repeated, and combined exposures from mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wearable devices, wireless infrastructure, and occupational equipment. Evaluate frequency, intensity, modulation, duration, proximity, and simultaneous exposure to multiple sources. Clearly distinguish established effects, emerging findings, and unresolved questions. 2. A transparent review of exposure standards. Assess whether current limits adequately address available evidence concerning thermal and proposed nonthermal effects. Explain the standards’ scientific foundations, uncertainties, and applicability to children, pregnant people, workers, people with implanted medical devices, and other potentially sensitive populations. 3. Accessible community exposure measurements. Develop affordable, independent measurement programs for homes, schools, and workplaces. Measurements should account for multiple sources, indoor and outdoor conditions, and changes over time. Publish methods, instrument limitations, results, and comparisons with applicable standards. Explain what consumer RF meters can and cannot establish. 4. Meaningful disclosure of nearby infrastructure. Make current information about transmitting installations understandable and publicly accessible, including location, operator, equipment type, frequencies, authorized power, antenna height and orientation, and compliance assessments, subject to legitimate privacy and security protections. Distinguish registered structures from installed antennas and active transmitters. Where available, identify microwave links and their operating characteristics. Residents should not have to rely on incomplete directories to determine what equipment operates near their homes. 5. A national adverse-event reporting system. Create a straightforward process for individuals and clinicians to report suspected RF-related health effects. Collect standardized information on symptoms, timing, potential sources, exposure measurements, and relevant medical evaluations. Protect personal information and publish aggregate findings. Use reports to guide investigation without treating them as proof of causation. 6. Evidence-based clinical guidance. Help clinicians evaluate patients reporting symptoms they associate with RF exposure. Guidance should take symptoms seriously, investigate other possible medical and environmental causes, and explain the limitations of available diagnostic and exposure-assessment methods. 7. Strong research safeguards and practical public guidance. Disclose funding and financial conflicts, prioritize independent replication, and make publicly funded methods and data available where privacy permits. Apply consistent scientific scrutiny to findings reporting harm and findings reporting no harm. Provide practical guidance for reducing unnecessary exposure where appropriate, clearly explaining the evidence, uncertainties, and expected effects of each measure. HHS should publish the findings of this review, identify research priorities, and establish a timetable for follow-up. People experiencing unexplained symptoms deserve careful medical evaluation and credible answers. Communities deserve accurate infrastructure information, reliable exposure measurements, and public health decisions grounded in transparent, independent science.

Comment of Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), Amy Bohn, President, in Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Our full comment is attached. It responds to Questions 2, 5(n), 9, 11(a), 12, 13(c), 15(a), 16, and 17 as numbered in the notice. We file as a parent-led organization. Children in American public schools and licensed child care spend six to seven hours a day, roughly 180 days a year, inside wireless infrastructure that their parents were never told about and never asked to approve. That is the parent side of this docket, and it does not depend on how the science comes out. The FCC's exposure limits date to 1996 (11 FCC Rcd 15123). The D.C. Circuit held in 2021 that the FCC had not given a reasoned explanation on children, long-term exposure, and the spread of wireless devices, while taking no position in the scientific debate (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893). The FCC reopened that record only on September 17, 2026, while a mandamus petition was pending (In re Children's Health Defense, No. 26-1121). The FDA's 2020 literature review addressed cancer only. This notice itself says public concern has risen, particularly around children, schools, and long-term cumulative exposure. When the government cannot say the question is closed, the decision belongs with the parent, and a parent cannot decide without information. What changed since 1996: the FCC funded classroom Wi-Fi through E-Rate Category Two (FCC 14-99; 47 CFR 54.502); 88 percent of public schools now run one-to-one device programs (NCES, 2024-25); and Florida regulates the student's phone during the school day (s. 1006.07(2)(f), Fla. Stat.) but no Florida statute or State Board rule requires a district to tell parents what wireless infrastructure operates in a classroom. The only federal notice requirement attached to E-Rate concerns content, not equipment (47 U.S.C. 254(l)). We ask HHS to do four things. 1. Disclosure (Question 9). Issue a six-item notice format for schools and licensed child care providers: an inventory of transmitters by classroom; the operating schedule; device practices; any measurements taken; wired alternatives and how to request a lower-exposure placement; and a contact. France's 2015 law (Law No. 2015-136, art. 7) and Maryland's 2016 advisory council report already recommend practices of this kind, and Oregon (SB 283, 2019) and New Hampshire (HB 522, 2019) have put the question to study. 2. Guidance (Question 5(n)). Issue practical exposure-reduction guidance for schools and child care providers: wired connections where practical, access points off when not in use for instruction, devices off the body, and no wireless equipment in rooms for the youngest children. School network controllers in common use already support scheduled availability as a standard feature. 3. Measurement (Question 16). Fund a national study of RF levels in occupied classrooms and child care rooms during the school day. No federal agency has published such a dataset. The one government classroom measurement study we found is ARPANSA's 2017 study of 23 Australian schools. Add wireless infrastructure and parent notice questions to CDC's School Health Profiles, which ask nothing on the subject today. State whether the National Toxicology Program's RF research, listed as completed, will resume. 4. Coordination (Question 17). Open a standing channel with the Department of Education and the FCC, and ask that E-Rate Category Two recipients post the equipment disclosure at the internet safety hearing the statute already requires. We also ask the Department to state in its summary of this docket that schools and child care facilities are settings of involuntary, long-duration exposure for children, and that disclosure to parents is warranted on that basis whatever the outcome of the scientific review. PERK's September 2026 filings in Docket HHS-OS-2026-0332 rest on a survey of 664 parents. We offer to run a wireless version of that instrument, measuring notice and consent as parents experience them, with partner organizations across multiple states, and to provide the results to the Department in whatever form it designates. The instrument is available on request. This comment contains no personally identifiable or personal health information. Every factual claim in the attachment is cited to a primary source, with a Sources list at the end. Prepared by Rebekah Ricks, Senior Consultant. Contact: abohn@perk-group.com; Rebekah@PERK-GROUP.com.

I support HHS in taking an active part in researching & then regulating the obvious affects that wireless radiation has on our environment with regard to our children, animals, birds, flora & fauna, etc. The time has come for this issue to be brought out from under the rug & scientifically examined in great depth. Our Mother Earth home deserves that We The People do the right thing by her. Thank you from a mother, grandmother, great grandmother & health freedom activist