Exposure limits & oversight

RE: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Perspective (Q2): Individual with compound heterozygous MTHFR (C677T + A1298C), elevated homocysteine, atherosclerosis with plaque, osteoarthritis, chronic tinnitus, cardiac issues, hypertension of undetermined cause, and hypersensitivity to medications, chemicals, and environmental factors. I submit this comment to share personal experiences and support research on vulnerable populations. Q3: I experience chronic tinnitus, cardiac issues, hypertension of undetermined cause, elevated homocysteine, atherosclerosis with plaque, and osteoarthritis. I am highly hypersensitive to medications, chemicals, and other exposures. I also have fatigue, sleep disruption, and cognitive difficulties (brain fog, concentration/memory problems). These have not been fully explained by standard evaluations. I am concerned that cumulative or modulated RF/EMF exposures may contribute or exacerbate symptoms given my genetic background and elevated homocysteine. Q11: I am compound heterozygous for MTHFR C677T and A1298C with elevated homocysteine and atherosclerosis. This genotype substantially reduces enzyme activity (~30–50% of normal), impairing methylation, raising homocysteine risk, lowering glutathione, and increasing oxidative stress vulnerability. Elevated homocysteine is a cardiovascular risk factor and can affect NMDA receptors and calcium signaling. Proposed non-thermal RF/EMF mechanisms (voltage-gated calcium channel activation, excess intracellular calcium, nitric oxide/peroxynitrite, and reactive oxygen species) may interact with these vulnerabilities. People with this genotype, elevated homocysteine, chemical hypersensitivity, or cardiovascular disease may be a sensitive subgroup not fully protected by thermal-only limits. Q11 (Children): A 2026 study (Wydaeghe et al., Phys Med Biol 71:175006) found child models had 1.5–1.9× higher whole-body SAR than adults below 6 GHz. Beamforming created local SAR hotspots exceeding limits even when external exposure met reference levels. Q12: Salford et al. (1994) reported increased blood-brain barrier permeability in rats after 915 MHz exposure. Larger studies (NTP, Ramazzini) also found effects at higher levels. Further research is needed on non-thermal effects in susceptible individuals. Q13/Q16: Wireless Body Area Networks operate close to the body in RF bands including 2.4 GHz (Zhong et al., Sensors 2022, 22:3539). Real-world multi-source exposures and 5G beamforming differ from single-source assumptions. Priorities should include genotype-stratified studies (MTHFR compound heterozygotes), people with elevated homocysteine or cardiovascular disease, chemical/electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cumulative exposure methods, and transparent disclosure of device/infrastructure metrics. I urge HHS, FDA, NIH, and CDC to take reports of unexplained tinnitus, cardiac issues, hypertension, elevated homocysteine, atherosclerosis, osteoarthritis, and hypersensitivity seriously; fund independent research on genetic/metabolic modifiers of RF/EMF response; and evaluate whether current standards protect vulnerable groups. Thank you. Supporting references: Wydaeghe et al. 2026 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ae97ac Salford et al. 1994 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8012056 Zhong et al. 2022 https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093539

Greetings, I experienced negative neurological symptoms (headaches, tremors, etc.) after extended exposure to EMFs in the US military. Subsequent investigations into the expansion of EMFs and their impact on the body led me to explore the safety research. Amazingly, I learned that the current guidance offered by the FCC uses exposure limits from the 1990s. Given the massive proliferation of all types of EMF systems (Cell towers, radars, data centers, etc.) any objective view would assess this as inadequate. More incredible, these exposure limits were based on behavioral studies in the 1980s involving 5 monkeys and 8 rats. Why current studies have not been done (as have been done in other countries) is a different issue. That they should be done isn't debatable. Please do your job and protect the public. Regards, Col. Edward J. Barr USMC (Ret)

There are no long-term safety data on the use of 5g, 6g and even the technology built into commercial wifi routers and cell phones. It is also now almost impossible to do a compelling study on the safety of these technologies since they are ubiquitous, and the vast majority are exposed to them in some form at all times starting at conception (so a true placebo group in a study would be very difficult to do). Since it's basically impossible to get clear, compelling data on this now, I think it's common sense that we should not be installing/upgrading these new frequencies near schools, hospitals or in areas that would be disastrous if these new frequencies turned out to be causing harm. It is likely that there are unknown biological impacts of long-term exposure to these frequencies, and as such we as Americans have the legal right to informed consent, which by definition includes the right to decline. The risk of implementation or "upgrading" of these technologies without long-term compelling safety data should require a ballot measure or some other method that allows citizens' voices to be heard and give them their legally required option to decline. We should also be consulting with data from other countries who have done more research in this space (like Russia), and seeing what they've learned about the safety of these technologies.

I am writing to express my concern about the potential long-term health effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, particularly from the rapidly expanding use of wireless technologies. As someone living with a chronic neurological condition, I am especially concerned about how environmental exposures may affect individuals with neurological disorders, children, and other potentially vulnerable populations. I believe we deserve a better understanding of the cumulative effects of exposure from cell towers, Wi-Fi networks, smart devices, and other sources of radiofrequency radiation. Our daily exposure to wireless technology has changed dramatically over the past several decades, yet important questions remain about long-term health outcomes, cumulative exposure, and whether existing regulatory standards adequately account for potentially vulnerable populations. I urge HHS and the FCC to prioritize independent, transparent, and publicly funded research examining the potential biological and neurological effects of chronic radiofrequency exposure. Research should specifically consider children, individuals with preexisting health conditions, and the effects of multiple simultaneous sources of exposure. I also encourage federal agencies to reevaluate existing exposure standards in light of current technologies and emerging scientific evidence, improve public transparency, and consider reasonable precautionary measures while scientific uncertainties remain. Technology and public health should not be competing priorities. We can embrace innovation while demanding rigorous scientific evaluation and meaningful safeguards. The American public deserves clear information, independent research, and safety standards that reflect the realities of modern wireless exposure.

Better real-world personal and environmental dosimetry is needed to characterize actual cumulative exposure from phones, Wi-Fi, base stations, IoT, and emerging sources rather than relying solely on worst-case or compliance-test scenarios. Standardized methods for population-level monitoring would strengthen future epidemiological research and public communication. Federal Research Priorities Highest-value gaps include: Long-term prospective studies of childhood and adolescent exposure with objective exposure assessment. Improved characterization of multi-source, real-world cumulative exposure. Independent replication and clarification of animal findings at environmentally relevant levels. Transparent, high-quality systematic reviews that fully address methodological concerns raised about recent WHO-commissioned work. Coordination across NIH, FDA, CDC, and FCC so research informs both health guidance and exposure standards.

Response to Request for Information (RFI) on Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Health Due Date: October 21, 2026 Today’s Date: October 20, 2026 Dear Secretary and Review Committee, Thank you for opening this Request for Information. As someone who cares deeply about preventative health and public safety, I am relieved to see HHS stepping up to investigate the true human toll of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless radiation. For too long, federal agencies have looked the other way while chronic illnesses, neurological complaints, and reproductive issues have risen alongside the massive rollout of wireless infrastructure. As an individual managing the health of my household, I notice that many people in my community suffer from unexplained headaches, chronic fatigue, and sleep disruptions that improve noticeably when they distance themselves from high-EMF environments. I am asking HHS to lead with the precautionary principle and look closely at the peer-reviewed evidence regarding these specific priority areas: 1. Oxidative Stress and Chronic Disease: A staggering 91% of peer-reviewed radiofrequency radiation studies summarized by the BioInitiative Working Group found that low-intensity RF radiation induces severe oxidative damage. Oxidative stress is a well-known precursor to systemic inflammation, immune system deregulation, and chronic illness. 2. Reproductive Harm and Genotoxicity: Studies mapping out EMF exposure on human health have repeatedly demonstrated adverse effects on fertility, including altered parameters of sperm function, genotoxic damage, and increased risks of miscarriage. 3. The Threat of Cumulative Neighborhood Exposure: With the unmitigated density of 5G small cells and smart meters placed directly outside bedroom windows, the public is subjected to inescapable, continuous exposure. The concordance between the National Toxicology Program's finding of malignant tumors in rodents and the epidemiological data of human brain tumors cannot be ignored. HHS has a binding duty to protect human health over corporate interests. Please use your agency's authority to establish a transparent, multi-disciplinary task force to create real, health-protective federal exposure limits. Sincerely, Marcia Keizer Yelm, Washington

RFK Jr doesn't know how electromagnetic radiation works. In order for any sort of rays to cause the harm he is claiming, they have to be ionizing. Only Ultraviolet rays, and rays with smaller wavelengths and higher frequencies (like xray or gamma rays) can actually penitrate human skin. UV rays have a wavelength of 10^-8mm. Radio waves by comparison have a wavelength of 10^3mm. 5G towers and Wifi use radio waves. Comparing the frequencies, Wifi is around 2.4-5 Ghz. UV rays by comaprison are 750 Tetrahertz. Simply put, Radio waves are nowhere near powerful enough to cause any harm. RFK Jr is a lawyer with a history of lying about harmful effects to fuel lawsuits, most of which he does not win. It is a damming conflict of interest though to abuse his position of HHS secretary to attempt to change official CDC or FDA positions to better aid his lawsuits. This is no exception. This fear he spreads about 5G and Wifi is only the tip. He has also previously spread misinformation on Medicine, Vaccines, Mental disorders, Nutrition, Flouridated water, Genetic diseases, and much more. All of which serve the same purpose, so he can attempt to sue companies and bully scientists who call him out and get in his way. His actions as HHS secretary only serve as a way to enrich himself, platform his believes, and increase both the odds of a successful lawsuit and frequency of him launching them. In short, he is abusing his position of HHS secretary to enrich himself. While he spreads misinformation, He is both directly and indirectly harming those who believe it. Before becoming HHS Secretary, He ran an organization called Chilren's Healtn Defense. An organization who routinely criticizes vaccines and modern medicine. While RFK Jr has legally cut ties, he has not denounced the positions or ideas that he was promoting at CHD. People who listen to CHD and refused to get vaccinated have unfortunately payed the price. So far in this measles outbreak, at least 5 kids have died from measles. He has also lied about vaccines in Samoa in 2019, with 83 children dying from measles. I do not think RFK Jr knows what measles even is. He doesn't know what viruses are, what germs are, or what autism or ADHD are. RFK Jr is unfit to be HHS secretary and for the benefit of our country, He must be removed as soon as possible.

The effects of these should be tested ASAP and all these cell phone towers should be tested repositioned away from schools and housing and possibly all taken down as 5G is not good for the human body. 6G should not be rolled out.. if necessary they should roll back to a frequency that is more compatible with human life. Testing should also be done on smart meters cell phone radiation held in your hand and Wi-Fi and what safe levels of all of these are and limit what these devices can emit. Let’s make all of the American population safe from these potentially dangerous technologies.

To Whom It May Concern: I submit this comment as a concerned citizen and well-being advocate who spent more than two years helping a community member seek the right to retain an analog utility meter rather than being required to accept a wireless smart meter. At the start of this journey, I knew very little about electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency radiation (RF), smart meters, or electromagnetic sensitivity. However, through extensive research, conversations with physicians, researchers, engineers, and affected individuals across the country, I became convinced that these issues deserve far greater public health attention. Over the course of my advocacy, I reviewed scientific literature, books, articles, utility documents, and health reports. I also met many individuals who reported symptoms they associated with EMF and RF exposure, including sleep disturbances, anxiety, headaches, cognitive difficulties, fatigue, neurological symptoms, and cardiovascular concerns. I leaned upon well-respected organizations in the U.S. who are helping to advocate on these issues. While correlation does not prove causation, the consistency of these reports should not be dismissed and warrants serious, independent investigation. One area that particularly concerns me is the potential overlap between EMF-related symptoms and conditions commonly classified as mental health disorders. Although I am not a physician, I believe researchers should examine whether environmental electromagnetic exposures may cause, contribute, or exacerbate symptoms associated with anxiety, depression, attention disorders, and other neurological/behavioral conditions. Millions of Americans suffer from these disorders. We should ask whether some portion of these cases may have physiological contributors that remain insufficiently explored. I also believe additional research is needed regarding "dirty electricity," voltage transients, and the cumulative effects of chronic exposure to artificial electromagnetic environments. As technology becomes more embedded in daily life, public health research should keep pace. My advocacy effort resulted in a successful outcome, allowing the resident to keep an analog meter. More importantly, it highlighted a broader issue that could impact nearly 40,000 people in the community. Consumers should have the right to make informed choices about technologies placed on or near their homes, regardless of whether they qualify under disability laws. I am particularly troubled by utility policies that require customers to pay ongoing monthly fees to retain an analog meter. Such charges can create a financial penalty for exercising personal choice regarding health and safety concerns. These policies deserve regulatory review to ensure they are fair, transparent, and justified. In the course of this work, I encountered people who believed they experienced health challenges associated with long-term occupational or environmental EMF exposure. These experiences included cancer diagnoses, neurological symptoms, and cardiovascular concerns among individuals regularly exposed to radios, electrical equipment, wireless infrastructure, or other sources of electromagnetic radiation. These accounts are anecdotal and do not establish causation, but they reinforce the need for independent long-term research. I am also concerned about potential environmental impacts. Reports regarding pollinator health, including bee navigation and colony health, deserve thorough scientific examination. Given the importance of pollinators to agriculture and food security, even the possibility of adverse effects should be investigated. Likewise, the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure, smart devices, connected vehicles, and large data centers raises important questions about cumulative environmental and human exposure. At a minimum, the public deserves transparency and informed consent. Consumers should receive clear information regarding the electromagnetic emissions associated with products and technologies they are asked to use. Public health agencies should support independent research, encourage open scientific inquiry, and ensure that innovation does not outpace safety evaluation. I respectfully urge HHS to prioritize research into the potential effects of EMF, RF radiation, and electrical pollution; support studies involving vulnerable populations; evaluate possible links to neurological and mental health symptoms; assess environmental impacts; and protect consumer choice regarding utility metering and other technologies. History has shown that responsible public health policy requires investigating emerging concerns before they become established crises. The concerns surrounding EMF exposure deserve that same level of attention today. Respectfully, Concerned Citizen and Well-Being Advocate

Thank you for taking the time to look into this important matter. I first began showing signs of EMF sensitivity back in 2015. My physical, mental, and emotional health is negatively impacted by the ever increasing EMFs that I do not have any control over. The house I am living in has the internet hardwired, but I cannot control what neighbors do. I believe I should be able to live in a suburban neighborhood without being immersed in EMFs. I am especially negatively impacted by smart meters and specifically fiber WiFi internet and WiFi in general. I purposely do not have 5G on my cell phone and use Bluetooth sparingly. When I am in an environment with fiber WiFi internet, my sleep is affected. I don’t sleep as deeply and I have to sleep for longer periods of time to be somewhat functional day to day. I also have nerve pain in my legs that fluctuates in severity when around these sources. I believe EMFs can contribute to nervous system dysregulation in certain individuals, myself included. I believe the increasing EMFs can put the body in a chronic sympathetic (fight or flight) state. This condition has impacted my ability to work and I have been mentally institutionalized multiple times for having to live with this condition. I am asking for there to be some regulations in how this technology is implemented. We are living in a time where EMFs are only increasing to levels never before experienced with no real consideration on what it is doing to mankind’s physical, mental, and emotional health. I am doing all that is in my power to lower the EMFs in my own home, but there should be limitations in how far these EMFs can travel from neighbors that are now directly impacting me. I ask that you will look into the harms of EMFs, especially the radio frequency radiation that comes from specifically fiber internet WiFi (and WiFi in general), smart meters, and Bluetooth and make changes. I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.