Exposure limits & oversight

I am commenting today to encourage a thorough review of EMF and RF (wireless radiation) safety, with the goal of supporting modern technology while prioritizing public health and informed consumer choice. I am someone who experiences sensitivity to EMF and RF sources. This was not always the case. For years, I dealt with symptoms including headaches, pressure in my head, tingling sensations, and other unexplained health effects. I never expected wireless devices or electronics to be contributing factors. Through personal research, I have found studies supporting both sides of the issue, many of which contradict one another. What I do know is that I am affected by these exposures. Over time, I have conducted my own observations to better understand what I can and cannot tolerate. As technology has evolved, it has become increasingly difficult to use modern devices unless wireless features such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cellular connectivity can be disabled. In some cases, the issue appears to involve not only RF signals themselves but also electromagnetic interference (RFI). Example 1 My work computer was due for replacement, as occurs every few years. I had no expectation that a new computer would affect me. Within minutes of turning it on, I began feeling unwell. I did not immediately connect the symptoms to the computer, but when I turned it off, the symptoms gradually subsided. Measurements showed field levels similar to other computers, but the amount of RFI emitted was noticeably higher. I returned to using my old PC without issue. After additional testing, I received a different replacement computer from another manufacturer that produced significantly less RFI, and I experienced no noticeable symptoms while using it. Example 2 For most of my life, I purchased vehicles based on cost, performance, and practicality. Today, I also have to consider how a vehicle affects my health. Some vehicles produce high magnetic fields, and nearly all new vehicles contain embedded wireless technologies. Some allow wireless systems to be disabled; others do not. In 2024, I leased a vehicle that had low magnetic fields but moderate RF emissions. After about a week, I began noticing symptoms. After investigating, I concluded that the vehicle's cellular modem was contributing to elevated RF exposure. About three months later, I realized the symptoms had disappeared. Testing with an RF meter confirmed that the modem had stopped transmitting, which I also verified through the vehicle's settings. I drove that vehicle for the next year and a half without issue. After returning the lease, I acquired a newer vehicle. Testing showed significantly higher RF levels, and I am now unable to remain in the vehicle for more than 10 to 15 minutes without feeling ill. In this vehicle, there is no option to disable Wi-Fi or wireless connectivity. I currently have workplace accommodations that include relocating Wi-Fi access points away from my workstation. I also work from home most days in a low-exposure environment. My phone remains in airplane mode roughly 90% of the time. When communication is necessary, I prefer Wi-Fi calling or a wired computer connection, as I experience fewer issues than when using cellular service directly. I share these examples to illustrate how these exposures affect my daily life and the lives of others who have limited options for reducing exposure. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional details beyond the brief examples included here. As part of this effort, I would like to see: Updated, high-quality research examining the health effects of EMF and wireless technologies using modern exposure scenarios rather than relying primarily on standards developed in 1996. Greater application of the precautionary principle, including efforts to reduce unnecessary exposure from wireless devices and infrastructure while maintaining reliable communications. Further research into Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and the establishment of clear medical guidance for individuals reporting related symptoms. Regulations requiring consumer products, vehicles, and other devices with wireless capabilities to include a user-controlled option to disable wireless radios. Consumers should have the ability to choose whether these technologies are active. As both a consumer and a citizen, I believe individuals should have greater transparency, choice, and protection regarding wireless technology exposure.

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 mother of four. Wireless radiation has affected our entire family with increased headaches, POTS symptoms and moodiness amongst our four children-we have also noticed dizziness and nausea associated with long periods on cell phones or air pods and iPads needed to use for school. It can take several hours or more to go away and the moodiness can take up to three days to alleviate and the need to get off all electronics. These symptoms have happened with all our WiFi devices, but especially those closest to us, like cell phones and air pods/ipads/laptops. In addition, if we spend time near cell towers we have an increase in symptoms and POTS episodes, migraines and dizziness. Y We support people affected by wireless radiation and believe HHS should address this issue and make Verizon, Apple, and other wireless companies accountable for the use of their products and not allow 5G towers near schools, hospitals, residential areas or wildlife/oceans/natural areas. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. I am no fan of China, but they have banned cell phone use for young children and have time limits for exposure. We need to go back to hand held books for children so they are not on devices all day at school and then all evening for assignments that are all electronic. 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. The affects of these devices and towers should not be a hidden warning buried in our devices-they should come with black box warnings and studies on our mitochondria and emotional/physical health should be made priority. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

The boosters they attach to telephone poles with their own electric box are monitored by gamma ray technicians. I called the phone number they post just below the lines and asked for the data the gamma ray technicians did on the pole near my home. They directed me to multiple departments when I finally got someone I asked for data or specifics. He couldn’t give me anything because he didn’t have anything amd sent me to a Verizon site that didn’t list any information. Data needs to be public knowledge specifically the device, the placement and what it’s giving off and the measurements of it. I’m also sensitive to emf, and WiFi I use multiple blankets and blockers to negate the headaches, hot flashes and palpitations. If it’s turned off all my symptoms disappear within a few minutes.

**Public Comment to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services** **Re: RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health, Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397** I am a homeowner in East Hampton, New York. Recently, I woke up to discover that a 42 foot cellular antenna structure had been erected directly across the street from my home, outside my bedroom window. It was installed without any advance notification to me or my neighbors, and stands less than 100 feet from my residence. Several other homes are similarly close, with some only 20 to 30 feet away. My greatest concern is for my health and the potential consequences of prolonged, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation in the very place where I sleep. Yet what I find most disturbing is that, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments are prohibited from rejecting the placement of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of RF emissions, provided those facilities comply with FCC exposure regulations. Think about what that means for homeowners like me. A telecommunications company can install an antenna directly outside our bedroom windows, and the health concerns of the people who will live beside that equipment are legally restricted from influencing the siting decision. I am not opposed to cellular technology. I recognize its importance. But there is an enormous difference between supporting wireless infrastructure and being forced to accept a new source of continuous, involuntary RF exposure immediately outside one's home, without notice, meaningful input, or the ability to raise health concerns as a basis for opposing its location. The current framework places tremendous weight on federal exposure standards. But are those standards sufficiently protective of people who live in close proximity to wireless infrastructure for years or decades? Have we adequately studied the consequences of chronic, cumulative exposure, particularly in residential settings where people spend a substantial portion of their lives? I recognize that the scientific evidence concerning potential long term health effects remains contested and that proximity alone does not establish an unsafe exposure level. That uncertainty is precisely why independent, rigorous research is so important. I urge HHS to prioritize long term studies of residential exposure to RF radiation, evaluate whether existing standards adequately address chronic and cumulative exposure, and recommend transparent, independent exposure assessments for wireless installations near homes. I also urge HHS to consider whether federal policy gives sufficient weight to protecting residents when wireless infrastructure is placed directly beside their homes, particularly when alternative locations may be available. **Americans should not have to choose between access to modern telecommunications and having a meaningful voice in decisions that may affect their health.** My bedroom window should not be the front line of an unresolved public health debate.

My comment is in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding both as a patient and a healthcare professional, who has been concerned about this issue for many years, and has read the scientific literature. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379738087_Investigation_of_the_Adverse_Health_Effects_of_Cell_Phone_Radiation_and_Propose_Solutions_to_Minimize_Them_A_Systematic_Review I developed hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation when I had another serious illness, and the effects of the wireless radiation made my overall symptoms worse. Those symptoms included brain fog, insomnia, anxiety and tinnitus. I removed all cordless phones from my home, and use wired phones and computers to help reduce the symptoms. My cell phone is turned off or on airplane mode most of the time to reduce my exposure. HHS is responsible for making sure the exposure to electromagnetic radiation is safe. Thus far, it has not been proven safe, and the exposures allowed in our country are magnitudes higher than that allowed in the EU. Please examine both the scientific evidence and people’s experiences regarding the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by the appropriate federal agencies with expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health. I urge HHS to identify gaps in current research, giving particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations. We need to establish appropriate federal research priorities and laws regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for considering these concerns. Kim Weeber, DPM, LAc

Filing HHS RF Comments 2026 Response to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking public input on the potential adverse health and environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, more commonly referred to as wireless radiation. All Links in text and any attached pdfs hereby incorporated by reference. [Summary statement appended at the end.} Filed on 10/18/26 Response to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking public input on the potential adverse health and environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, more commonly referred to as wireless radiation. All Links in text and any attached pdfs hereby incorporated by reference. For the record. To whom it may concern – The Human Cost of Ever-Increasing RF Exposure at Toxic Levels SUMMARY Statement: With respect to HEALTH EFFECTS, the province of HHS, and the failure of the FCC in not changing their RF safety standards, people today not only get exposed to different and more biologically harmful RF frequencies then did decades ago when they set those standards, and for far longer periods of time. The FCC has also failed to take into account the extremely adverse effects that research over the past three decades has shown that microwaves can have, and that as RF frequencies increase, and as wavelengths shorten and become more complex, and as it does with 5G, that harmful biological effects increase as well. Despite the promotional advertising claims of the telecom industry, with respect to 5G (or RF in any frequency) "no safety testing" and "proven safe" DO NOT mean the same thing - a clear violation of the precautionary principle. Important replicated effects, observed in many different laboratories at very low levels of RF exposure, includes neurological damage in animals such as leakage of the blood brain barrier. In February of 2020 Blue Cross Blue Shield released a report that provides strong supporting evidence of an unprecedented increase in early onset Dementia, confirming an increase in Early Onset Dementia or in Alzheimer’s in humans AS PREDICTED from this research. According to this report, in the 4 years between 2013 and 2017, early-onset dementia and Alzheimer’s disease combined diagnosis rates TRIPLED for adults aged 30 to 64, going up from 4.2/10,000 adults to 12.6/10,000 adults. Autism in children shows a similar unprecedented increase. According to National Health data released in 2020, autism incidence among Irish children is now at 4.3%, an 82% rise in five years. One in 16 boys is affected." And given the recent Covid-19 pandemic, it seems important to emphasize that having a leaky blood-brain barrier - at the same time as having a viral infection - does NOT seem a good thing, and may well explain the brain damage and inflammation reported in some Covid-19 cases. And as Panagopoulos has shown in his 2019 review, the extreme and unpredictable variability of real-life cell phone signals - which 5G will markedly increase - results in ever more complex and biologically harmful signals to living cells/organisms.”] Also, with respect to long term health effects, FCC has failed to take into account the extremely adverse effect that digital technologies such as the recent roll-out of 5G and now of AI data centers have had and will have on CLIMATE CHANGE. This issue, the impact that digital technologies have on climate change through its carbon footprint - almost entirely unreported by the media - includes the expected doubling of our human carbon footprint - from 4% to 8%, 2,400 million tons of CO2 by 2025. And worse, by 2028 the projected energy demands of AI predict that it could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of U.S. households, adding and at least as much, or more, environmental, pollution. Given the failure of the FCC to address this situation, despite the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research papers documenting the environmental and human health costs of human RF exposures and of the digital technologies now in common use, I urgently recommend that HHS address this problem in accordance with this research and give this task the highest priority. Thank you. Ed Kellogg, Ph.D. Attached Supporting Pdf Documents: “Attachment1_5G Surface FCC No. 19-226 Filing” a response to “Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission. Filed 10/1/2024 “Attachment2_Filing FCC Docket ET Docket No. 13-84 Kellogg,” a response to the FCC request for public comments as it responds to a federal court order requiring the agency to address evidence and concerns about the adverse health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation. Filed 10/18/2026

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 the same thorough independent review of exposure limits as other respondents have suggested, however. my most pressing concerns lie within groups of already compromised and vulnerable people. Any review undertaken by HHS needs to consider those most heavily exposed, the most severely impacted, and needs to examine effects beyond tissue heating. 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. The papers by Melnick and Moskowitz (2026 analysis of animal data)(https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6), Lai and Levitt’s review of technical features of wireless exposures (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps with her proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583) warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups: especially vulnerable groups of people with a history of head injury. I ask that exploration be made into links between shearing injury (DAI, TAI, and CHI) and CTE (or TES, Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome) from exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation and the ensuing VGCC activation (indicated by Martin Pall, 2022 in"Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields Act via Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) Activation to Cause Very Early Onset Alzheimer's Disease: 18 Distinct Types of Evidence", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35114921 ). It is my personal observation that the causal relationship between RFR and Alzheimer's may extend to another Tauopathy, TES (or CTE). If I were to describe my experience after a shearing injury, it would be decades of pain and impairment via exposure to wireless, cellular, microwave, flickering lights operating in radio spectrum speed, and other RFR... decades of pain and impairment after exposure to radio frequency radiation, most probably because of VGCC activation, similar to post concussive syndrome. Or as frequently repeated post concussive events. Maybe that leads to CTE. Thank you for your attention.

I have concerns the technology in question is altering the way our bodies can heal and is interfering with our natural electrical pathways. In the last few years I have experienced migraines often when I’m around technology for long periods of time. I would like to also suggest that the iPhones and their practices of safety be reviewed. I reported stinging in my finger tips after receiving an upgraded phone. I had to revert back to my old phone after a month because of stinging pain. When I retired the issue to Verizon they suggested it was carpel tunnel from holding a phone for too much time. Extreme pain/ burning sensation at the fingertips does not seem anything like carpel tunnel. The pain went away upon switching back to the older model phone suggesting it was indeed a problem with upgraded technology. The battery was not over heating and it was something else. Please hold accountable tech companies so radiation poisoning and other tech forced upon a population should only be implemented with a clean bill of health. Thank you.

I am a Doctor of Physical Therapy and I live in Longmont, Colorado. The majority of patients I see in my clinical practice (outpatient practice for complex / chronic pain) demonstrate EMF toxicity symptoms; I have observed a substantial increase in these symptoms across my patient population especially within the past year, and significantly since about 2020. There has been an increase in installed towers which emit frequencies in ranges harmful to life, including bees, tress, birds, insects, and humans. Patients also report that they experienced a significant change in symptomology once a smart meter was installed on their home in 2022-2023. I recommend a building biologist to my patients who find that mitigation sometimes helps but does not totally improve symptoms, is costly, and for most overwhelming. Even an opt-out AMI meter results in harmful, measurable frequencies in the Kilohertz range within the home, within 3 feet of every electrical outlet. I have confirmed this myself and through investigation with a number of building biologists locally. Symptoms of EMF toxicity I see daily in my patients include but are not limited to: - Headaches - Migraines - Brain Fog - Neck pain - Nausea - Sensation of buzzing in the body - Worsening of other symptoms of toxicity burdens such as heavy metal toxicity, mold / mycotoxin toxicity, chronic lyme, chronic borrellia, babesia, erlichia (for example, it was rather straightforward to treat these from a functional medicine perspective prior to 2020, and now has become increasingly more challenging to get patients into remission from these conditions) - Chronic inflammatory response syndrome - Mast Cell Activation Syndrome - chronic pain and many other symptoms. We need to more deeply understand the types of waves that are emitted from all forms of electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless radiation coming from: Cellphones 5G Towers WiFi Routers Any cell towers Smart Meters on homes and businesses and the KHz effects that are measureable, pulsing, up to 3 feet into the room from each electrical outlet, even when someone has an "opt-out" AMI meter Smart appliances including washer/dryer, dishwasher, etc. I hope you investigate and establish more deeply and with greater sensitivity the ranges that are considered safe. Compare findings with other countries which have already established standards that are more supportive of human health. And then please hold our electrical companies (which in so many cases, installed Smart Meters without consent or even without awareness of the citizens) accountable for the harms done. Understand that all humans are different, and all bodies may respond differently to different inputs. We need to protect our most sensitive / challenged members of society, listen to and trust their symptomology, and understand that they serve as canaries in the coal mine. Thank you

Q2 - Perspective: Individual consumer and resident of New York City. Not affiliated with any organization. A fuller version of this comment is attached. Q3 - Personal experience 3(a) Source: In 2019, four cellular antennas were installed on the roof of the building immediately adjacent to mine, approximately ten feet from my bedroom. They initially operated as 4G transmitters. In December 2019, T-Mobile activated 5G on the same site. 3(b) Timing/duration: I slept roughly eight hours a night in the room closest to the antennas. I was not notified of the installation and did not learn the antennas were there until after my symptoms began. I stopped sleeping in the apartment in January 2020 and formally moved out in April 2020. 3(c) Effects: After the antennas began 4G operation in 2019, I developed intense tinnitus, frequent headaches, and noticeable hair loss. In December 2019, when 5G was activated, a new symptom appeared: burns on my ears with no apparent cause - no sun, no heat source, no contact with anything that could explain them. 3(d) Onset relative to exposure: I had none of these symptoms before 2019. Tinnitus, headaches, and hair loss began during 4G operation. The ear burns appeared only when 5G was activated and had never occurred before. Two distinct changes in exposure at the site were each followed by a distinct change in my symptoms. Hair loss and burns resolved after I left. Tinnitus and headaches persist to this day. 3(e) Medical evaluation: My primary care physician had no explanation for the ear burns and asked whether I had been on vacation, though I had not traveled and sunburn confined to the ears made no sense. No cause was identified, no workup done, no diagnosis given. Tinnitus and headaches were never evaluated. Through my own research I later learned that localized burns are a recognized effect of sufficiently intense RF/microwave exposure and that close-range cell transmitters were a plausible source. My clinician had no framework for even considering RF exposure. That is itself a gap HHS should address. 3(f) Exposure reduction and results: Once I learned the antennas were there, I stopped sleeping in my bedroom and slept in my kitchen, the room farthest away. By January 2020 I had stopped living in the apartment; I moved out formally in April 2020. After leaving, tinnitus and headaches improved substantially but never fully resolved. They recur strongly whenever I am near an RF source and subside when I move away. My symptoms have tracked proximity to RF sources consistently since 2019. Being driven from my bedroom and then my home, with no recourse, was a serious hardship. 3(g) Documentation: I have dated photographs of the ear burns from December 2019 and can provide them on request. Q13(a): The 4G antennas alone were associated with tinnitus, headaches, and hair loss. Adding 5G at the same site and distance was followed by a new, different effect on my skin. HHS should treat adding 5G to an existing site as a change in exposure in its own right. Q15(a), 15(d), and Q9: Antennas were placed ten feet from a bedroom in a neighboring building with no notice and no assessment of exposure at the nearest occupied residence across the property line. Compliance evaluations address the host rooftop and ground level, not a bedroom at antenna height next door. HHS should recommend that exposure evaluation for new sites and upgrades consider the nearest occupied sleeping spaces in adjacent structures, that cumulative nighttime residential exposure be studied as its own category, and that residents be notified before installation or upgrade and be able to obtain frequencies, power output, and power density at their own dwelling. Q4(m) and Q16: HHS should prioritize (1) clinical guidance so primary care providers take an exposure history when patients present with unexplained localized burns, new-onset tinnitus, or headaches after nearby antenna installation or upgrade; (2) research on long-term close-range residential exposure to rooftop 4G and 5G infrastructure, including dermal effects, tinnitus, and headache, and why symptoms persist and recur after exposure ends; (3) a standing adverse-event reporting mechanism (Q10(f)). I appreciate HHS asking for the experiences of people who have lived next to this infrastructure and am willing to provide further detail on request.