Exposure limits & oversight

I am submitting comments about my lived experience when exposed to EMF and RF radiation from cell towers. I used to live in a garden apartment in a Colorado town for 9 years in good health until a cell phone tower was put up only 3 blocks away. Soon I experienced poor quality sleep, ocular migraines, occasional heart palatations with chest pains, & my tinnitus became unbearable all through the day. I moved across the state to a smaller town and another lovely garden apartment where I felt total relief from the previously mentioned symptoms and sidnificant reduction in my tinnitus "noise" for about 2 years. Then a cell tower was constructed 1 block away. Very soon (in a few weeks) my previous symptoms started up again w/ my tinnitus becoming quite unbearable and in addition to the previously mentioned health problems, my skin became extremely itchy, I started having nose bleeds and my lethargy was a daily burden. I moved again, this time to a more remote location, but with an almost hopeless feeling that I would be continuously pursued by this poisonous EMF and RF radiation anywhere I might go. Currently the nearest cell tower is 2 miles away. So far I still have ongoing tinnitus, but it is somewhat quieter. I still get very occasional ocular migraines and itching skin. It is clear to me that the distance I live from a cell tower adversely affects my health to some degree no matter what. This clearly means that these towers must Never be placed too near communities or schools because the RF radiation causes illnesses. Human bodies are NOT meant to withstand these harmful frequencies which cause internal health problems. Serious consideration Must be given to these problems and appropriate regulations have to be put in place. Please take these comments into very serious consideration. I am now a 77 year old woman who went from excellent health 7 years ago to a compromised health situation due to cell towers and their RF radiation being putup around me!

I am submitting comments about my lived experience when exposed to EMF and RF radiation from cell towers. I used to live in a garden apartment in a Colorado town for 9 years in good health until a cell phone tower was put up only 3 blocks away. Soon I experienced poor quality sleep, ocular migraines, occasional heart palatations with chest pains, & my tinnitus became unbearable all through the day. I moved across the state to a smaller town and another lovely garden apartment where I felt total relief from the previously mentioned symptoms and sidnificant reduction in my tinnitus "noise" for about 2 years. Then a cell tower was constructed 1 block away. Very soon (in a few weeks) my previous symptoms started up again w/ my tinnitus becoming quite unbearable and in addition to the previously mentioned health problems, my skin became extremely itchy, I started having nose bleeds and my lethargy was a daily burden. I moved again, this time to a more remote location, but with an almost hopeless feeling that I would be continuously pursued by this poisonous EMF and RF radiation anywhere I might go. Currently the nearest cell tower is 2 miles away. So far I still have ongoing tinnitus, but it is somewhat quieter. I still get very occasional ocular migraines and itching skin. It is clear to me that the distance I live from a cell tower adversely affects my health to some degree no matter what. This clearly means that these towers must Never be placed too near communities or schools because the RF radiation causes illnesses. Human bodies are NOT meant to withstand these harmful frequencies which cause internal health problems. Serious consideration Must be given to these problems and appropriate regulations have to be put in place. Please take these comments into very serious consideration. I am now a 77 year old woman who went from excellent health 7 years ago to a compromised health situation due to cell towers and their RF radiation being putup around me!

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Re: Public Comment on Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket No.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 To Whom It May Concern: I am sharing my experience as HHS considers whether research and federal safety standards adequately address exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless technologies. In 2015, at age 33, I began experiencing blurred vision. I suspected my LASIK surgery from three years earlier might be reverting. I scheduled an appointment with Dr. J. James Rowsey, a pioneering refractive surgeon at St. Michael's Eye and Laser Institute in Largo, Florida. Dr. Rowsey helped develop laser treatments for myopia beginning in 1988 and previously chaired Ophthalmology at the University of South Florida. Following examinations, including a visual field test, he suspected a brain lesion. An MRI confirmed a pituitary tumor pressing against my optic nerve and causing blurred vision. Dr. Rowsey referred me to neurosurgeon Dr. Carrie Shulman, who trained at Walter Reed Medical Center, served as a U.S. Army neurosurgeon, and was Neurosurgical Director during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Her experience gave me confidence before surgery. During an office visit before my transsphenoidal endoscopic resection of the tumor, I asked Dr. Shulman whether she had any theories about its cause. Medical literature indicated that the causes of pituitary tumors were largely unknown, although some research suggested approximately 10% of the population might have them, often without symptoms. Dr. Shulman's response has stayed with me for more than a decade. She believed the next ten years would bring greater awareness of the potential health effects of cellphone radiation, comparing it to the evolving understanding of cigarette smoking and its consequences. She explained that cellphones emit RF radiation and expressed her personal belief that exposure could contribute to tumor development. She also shared her precautions: never holding a cellphone against her head during conversations, avoiding wireless earbuds, and keeping her phone in another room while sleeping. In the years that followed, as Dr. Shulman predicted in 2015, several studies raised questions about the potential carcinogenic effects of RF radiation. These included the U.S. National Toxicology Program's Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Rats Exposed to Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (2018); Falcioni et al.'s Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors (Ramazzini Institute, 2018); Carlberg and Hardell's Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk (2017); Choi et al.'s Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (UC Berkeley collaboration, 2020); and Mevissen et al.'s Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure on Cancer in Laboratory Animal Studies: A Systematic Review (2025). Notably, the 2018 NTP study reported increased pituitary adenomas in some RF-exposed male rats. Though classified as equivocal evidence, it still warrants further investigation. In 2017, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance acknowledging that studies raised concerns about possible links between long-term cellphone RF radiation exposure and certain cancers and other health effects. It recommended precautions to reduce exposure. Additionally, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) in 2011. Cellphone technology has benefited society over the past 30 years, transforming communication, business, information access, and emergency response. These benefits should not prevent investigation of potential long-term health consequences. I believe telecommunications companies and cellphone manufacturers should take a more proactive role in addressing potential health risks through independent research, technologies that minimize unnecessary RF exposure, and clear consumer information about possible risks and precautions. Through God's grace and the God-given skills of physicians like Dr. Rowsey and Dr. Shulman, I am here today to share my experience. Eleven years after surgery, I am thankful to report no recurrence of my pituitary tumor since 2019—seven years of encouraging post-op results. I respectfully encourage HHS to investigate long-term RF exposure, potential cancer risks, and effects on children and vulnerable populations, while examining whether existing safety standards and consumer disclosures adequately reflect these potential risks. Thank you for considering my experience. I sincerely hope it contributes to a better understanding of RF exposure and helps protect the health and well-being of the American public. Respectfully, Rich Fernley

Smart meters are wireless devices that operate 24/7 in most homes in the US. These digital devices have the ability to expose a homeowner to RF radiation (RFR) more so than any other type of digital device because it creates both radiated emissions from the 2 wireless antennas and dirty electricity (DE) coming from inside the meter that rides on the homeowner’s power circuits. HHS should sponsor an opt out program through the Dept. of Energy or any Agency as appropriate that is the same opt out program for every one in every state, instead of every power company having its own with different rules and regulations, or not having one at all. But for those that do have an opt out program, most power companies do not address taking care of the DE in the opt out meters they have available for those that have an electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) disability. Most people who have EMS manage that disability through avoidance of RF/EMF radiation exposures. The DE in digital AMI opt out meters comes from the operation of the switch mode power supply (2 kHz -50 kHz) which is just as harmful as the RFR exposures coming from the 2 antennas in the standard AMI digital smart meter, if not more so. However, the only way to avoid that, if you have an EMS disability, is to have other opt out meter choices. Since this involves being safe in your own home, getting an EMS access accommodation for a digital utility meter without DE should be made available to everyone who needs it. DE is going to get much worse from other distributed energy resources being added to the grid and it is inevitable, that at some point soon, the cumulative effects of DE must be addressed instead of just being ignored as optional to avoid and unimportant.

Restrictions oversight and regulations need to be put on EMFs and RF radiation exposure to the public. It's definitely a public health concern. And just because you may not feel anything, or you don't think you do, doesn't mean you aren't being impacted.

My name is Michael Remington and I am a resident of Pennsylvania. I have been diagnosed with a medical disability, by a medical doctor (M.D. Family Medicine) related to my exposure to RF/EMF - without informed consent. The most severe symptoms occurred after I moved into an apartment, within one half of a block away from a roof top cell site; and a "smart" electrical meter was installed, against my will, on the wall adjoining my bedroom/office. Symptoms include blurry vision, red eye, loss of vision, eye inflammation, eye lid ulcers, excessive hair loss, insomnia, muscle fatigue, lack of energy, memory loss, muscle cramping, muscle spasms, skin rashes, greying, varicose vein formation, brain fog and others. After a couple of years, my health was so poor that I realized that something was very wrong. This is when I began to investigate my exposure to RF/EMF, by purchasing an EMF meter and researching the topic. I quickly learned that sources outside of my home were emitting RF/EMF into my home: far above the precautionary recommendations of some respectable medical and scientific organizations, while being well below the FCC's safety guidelines. Otherwise, there were no significant sources of RF/EMF in my home, as I had stopped using a cell phone regularly over a decade prior to, my internet connection was hard wired, there were no WiFi devices operating in my home, and I had stopped using a DECT phone at the first sign of symptoms. All sources of my exposure orginated from outside of my apartment, aside from the DECT phone. It was only when I began applying precautionary guidelines, as published by the Building Biology Institute and the European Academy for Environmental Medicine, to the best of my ability, that signs of relief from the most severe of my symptoms were observed. At first, I applied shielding to some of my walls, but eventually ended up moving downstairs to occupy the sole room in my apartment that was not considered "extreme" - my dining room. Yet, my symptoms persisted at a reduced level and full recovery was not achievable. Finally, after six years, I moved out of my apartment with the assistance of members of my bible study group. Initially, I had purchased property well outside of town, in a rural area. Yet, it had to be abandoned after the same company that operated the roof top cell site near my apartment, installed a 260' cell tower on an adjacent hill top. I eventually moved into another home that was 1 km away from the roof top cell site, at a lower altitude, that was furnished with aluminum siding. After taking additional steps to shield my home from my neighbors' wireless security system, WiFi, and DECT phone, about ten feet away from my home, I finally found some significant relief. My sleep improved and my muscle cramps began to subside as months went by. That is, until the very same wireless company activated a recently installed 160' cell tower in my town, which broadcasted directly into my northern facing windows and bedroom. It was only after purchasing an EMF monitor, which I now keep on me at all times, that I detected this new source of RF/EMF. After taking steps to reduce my exposure to it, again, my sleep gradually improved, muscle cramping gradually diminished, and inflammation of my eyes reduced. Yet, after all of this, I have been unable to avoid all exposure to sources of RF/EMF exceeding precautionary guiedelines: in my home and in areas outside my home that I need access to in order to live. The Pennsylvania Utility Commission denied my appeal to have the "smart" eletrical meter, on the side of my home, be reverted back to the analog meter it had replaced. My vision has not fully recovered and I must now wear glasses for nearly any activity, except sleeping. Last year, I was formally diagnosed with a medical disability, by a medical doctor (M.D. Family Medicine) with a "high degree of medical certainty", due to RF/EMF exposure from outside of my home, outside of my control - without my informed consent. My disability has interfered with my ability to complete graduate school, obtain gainful employment, and even attend my church. Now, with the FCCs recent approval of SpaceX to provide mobile coverage everywhere in the U.S.A., including "dead zones" which many might considered refuges from RF/EMF, I am very concerned that there will very few places remaining in the U.S.A. that I might be able to live a normal, healthy life. Furthermore, I am concerned, as well as Dr. Pall, that these exposures may be the cause of a worldwide population collapse. Enclosed are some key references used for determining RF/EMF exposure to be the cause of my ill health, which are also the sources of the precautionary guidelines that I follow and recommend to anyone who will listen.

I have been sensitive to EMF and computers for as long as I have been using them, 35 years. I am especially sensitive to Bluetooth and get headaches and my ability to concentrate and think clearly is disturbed when Bluetooth is in use near me. I am concerned about cell towers being close to homes and I feel smart meters should not be on homes as many people have very adverse effects from them. We pay a fee for the privilege of not having any smart meters in our home, what an unjust situation. I feel uncomfortable when I am near a parking lot where many electric cars are charging. I am deeply concerned that data centers, with their concentration of emf and radiation will prove very unhealthy in our communities. I have had iPhones, iPads, and computers for 35 years and find that with each new device, the negative effect of their emfs and radiation is quite increased. My clarity and healthfulness feels diminished after using these devices. I realize many people do not feel this, and that I am more sensitive in perception than most, however that does not mean that everyone isn’t being negatively effected, they simply may not perceive the effect. Research on the effect of emf, smart meters, cell towers, computers, cell phones and cordless phones must be seriously undertaken with regulatory action taken if manufacturers do not self regulate. Additionally the logarithms used in designing social media has a deeply weakening effect on individuals and especially children.

First, we don't need more research and studies. The scientific community already has more than 20,000 studies. This is an established science. We have more than enough studies to put in place much stronger regulations and bans. Scientists for Wired Technology (scientists4wiredtech.com) is an excellent in-depth scientific knowledge base on the hazards of continuous exposures to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR), which is a manmade, toxic, highly xenobiotic agent that causes systemic biological damages at levels many thousands of times lower than current U.S. RF-EMR radiation exposure guidelines. See especially "The Largest Unethical Human Experiment In Human History" on that website. The FCC is not a health and environmental agency. So why has it been in charge of defining what is acceptable for humans and other living beings? We need scientific standards (set in collaboration with ANSI and public health experts) based on the solid knowledge gained for the past 70 years, --not mere guidelines -- let alone outdated ones from 1996, which were rubberstamped for their 1965 version or even as old as 1953!? We also know what microwave sickness looks like and why this RF-EMR technology is so suitable for use by the military as a weapon. The mere fact that wired technology is faster (has the speed of light), much more energy-efficient, secure (not hackable like wireless), much longer lasting (30-50 years vs. 5-6 years for wireless), safer, provides more privacy, does not depress home values, AND has already been subsidized to the tune of billions of US tax payer dollars (Irregulators vs. FCC) -- should be sufficient to immediately stop the wireless and 5G buildup, set scientific standards, and ask the telecom industry to fulfill their paid obligation and complete the wiring with copper and fiber optic cable networks to provide real and safe broadband to every community in the country, especially including the last half-mile or so from the street into homes. What is the justification for choosing the slower, energy guzzling, unsafe, hackable, privacy invading, wasteful (think of all the additional junk generated with each upgrade of wireless technology every few years), and posing a fire risk (as with smart meters) to boot -- over its opposite? What is "green" about this technology?

See attached file(s)I urge the responsible authorities to review the regulations concerning limits on non-ionizing radiation emissions, given the potential biological effects—effects that are documented in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers and are becoming increasingly apparent. I have experienced electrosensitivity since 2020; although I was initially unaware of the cause, I have been fully conscious of this issue since 2024. I currently study the subject and coordinate a group of over 100 Brazilians who are electrosensitive, experiencing a range of symptoms from mild to very severe. This is a real problem that requires in-depth study; however, there is already sufficient evidence to warrant lowering these limits, revising the regulations, and providing protection for the most sensitive and susceptible individuals—such as children, the elderly, and women, especially those with pre-existing health conditions.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. My partner suffers from "electro hypersensitivity syndrome" She can not be exposed to the field of cell phone towers WiFi or smart meters, because what happens is her nervous system locks up and she can (and does) experience heart palpitations, nervous attacks, loss of sleep, and even fainting. She can not go into the city for more than a couple of hours at a time. We have moved several times because of radiation fields or cell phone towers too close, and chose to live in a rural area far from development specifically for this reason. Until there are stricter regulations on the transmission power and pace of developing technology (mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wireless infrastructure, wearable technologies, wireless medical devices, 5G, 6G, satellite communications, Internet of Things devices, smart homes, smart cities, autonomous vehicles, and other emerging technologies) I don't expect this to change. The 1996 radiofrequency limits are long outdated, and with more and more impact studies that have been done in the past three decades proving, not suggesting, biological harm, there needs to be much tighter regulation regarding the communications industry and the increasing “electro-smog” problem and the detrimental effects of short-term and long-term exposure to these fields. We used to be able to place the responsibility (though still unfairly) on the end consumer to know the risks of the technology they partake in, but no longer are people exposed to one or two electromagnetic fields at a time – we are now entering a time where people are often exposed to ten, twenty, even more fields at a given time, and often don't escape that exposure throughout the entire day. Given the breakneck speed of technological innovation and adoption in the past three decades, and those technologies should be held to a stricter standard in order to protect the health of the people who use them. Not everyone feels WiFi or cell tower radiofrequencies, though more and more do - and others, it has a destructive impact on their lives. We have friends who have kids with brain tumors from being near cell phone towers, and we have known so-called “antenna refugees,” hypersensitive to the frequency radiation. My partner, who is hypersensitive to EMF, had to move when there was a cell tower constructed nearby and saw significant health decline at that time, fourteen years ago. We bought a property in Washington State and we paid the utility company to remove the smart meter because she couldn't sleep. We had the neighbors reduce their WiFi signal because it gave us both headaches, and now AT&T wants to install a cell tower in our neighborhood which, if they do, will force us to sell our property and move again and find a new place free of signal which, in an increasingly electrified civilization and culture, is becoming more and more difficult to find. We need much stricter regulations regarding exposure limits for the general public, especially children, women and hypersensitive people. We need a broad action plan for keeping certain areas (“white-zones”) completely pure and clean of any EMF/electrosmog, where these people can go (without going into a fight-or-flight response or nervous system going haywire), and for minimizing exposure in residential areas. We need to stop blinding ourselves about the side effects of technology for the sake of the GDP and to reconsider the health of the people. We need change. 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. E