Exposure limits & oversight

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 concerned citizen. I am concerned that the regulation of the safety of radio frequencies has not been updated since 1996. Since then, many new forms of wireless radiation, from cell phone towers to smart electronics have become ubiquitous in our lives. Personally, I have suffered from intense tinnitus for about 20 years. My husband has had heart arhythmias and tinnitus for a similar period of time. Otherwise, we are generally healthy. There is no way to know whether radio frequencies are causing these, yet I am suspicious that they are. Therefore I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

RF, EMF in electronic devices is not safe if left uncontrolled and needs to be monitored intensely by the FCC and other US Government control agencies for the safety of all Americans. Please do not underestimate the need for adequate control and safety measures

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, infertility and more! I am crying out: stop this madness now! It's been 30 years in the making but we now have an unprecedented short window with both the Federal Communications Commission AND Health and Human Services to build the public record and document the fallout.

The biggest known risks from cellphones is distracted driving and the negative impact on physical and mental health from being sedentary and increased social isolation. These risks are not caused by the RF from the device, and funding for research on RF should not distract from the need to address the fundamental needs for good exercise, social connections, and mental health. HHS / NIH should prioritize gaining a holistic understanding of individuals who attribute adverse health effects to RF. This should be done in-depth and by researchers who are independent and agnostic about any single potential cause. This should be done to get an understand of this cohort. If seeking to investigate RF, a pilot study should be done to match individuals with controls with similar backgrounds - but exposed to different levels of RF. There may be individuals who are subject to a significant amount of RF in there workplace that may serve as good controls for high exposure. HHS should be mindful that many individuals concerned with RF are vulnerable and may be targets for fraudsters who are preying on them to offer "RF safety" and promoting their false pay-for-credentials and "expert" designations by prominent but dubious RF safety organizations. The current evidence and large studies strongly suggest that FCC's current RF standards are safe. However, the financial risks from anxiety over RF are real from buying useless fraud products and services, to extremes of quitting jobs and moving. HHS should not empower the fraudsters with statements that are not based on strong, gold standard science. Bad science is "fishing expeditions" where random chance in a subgroup lead to a conclusion -- Type 1 errors are not 0%, studies are typically powered to 5% for the PRIMARY endpoint, false positive conclusions for sub-upon-sub-analysis and poorly designed studies are higher. HHS should identify where there are gaps to investigate, but be clear to concerned individuals that the solutions are free - use a wired connection, turn-off electronics when not in use, use a landline - but there is currently NO evidence that any of these actions are needed. HHS should review information from real-experts at national and international organizations, they are open-minded and science driven: https://www.icnirp.org/en/publications/index.html Gaps in Knowledge Relevant ...for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields WHO research agenda for RF https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241599948 https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/ https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/get-the-facts/ https://non-ionizing.ncrponline.org/research-studies/ The weight of evidence does not support a link between cellphone use and brain tumors. “The available scientific evidence does not indicate an increased risk of malignant or benign brain or central nervous system (CNS) tumors from cell phone use [Karipidis 2024, Karipidis 2025].” • Living near cellphone towers is not shown to cause health concerns. “Research does not suggest that RF exposure to individuals living near cell phone towers causes adverse health effects….Public exposure levels from cell towers are typically thousands of times below the FCC exposure limits.” • 5G exposure levels will be the same or lower than older generations. “The higher frequency millimeter waves (mmW) that can be used in 5G networks penetrate less into buildings and your body. Thus, in that respect, exposure levels are expected to be lower.” • Studies have not confirmed EMF hypersensitivity. [Bodewein 2022; Danker-Hopfe 2020b; Huang 2020; Schmiedchen 2019; Bosch-Capblanch 2024]. • Studies have not found convincing evidence of RF impacts on pregnant mothers or their fetuses. “A few studies have looked at the effect of RF exposure on the health of pregnant women and fetuses, assessing outcomes such as miscarriage, preterm birth, or birth defects. Overall, these studies did not find convincing evidence of adverse effects when exposure was below established public safety standards.” • Studies have not found convincing evidence of increased risk of cancers in children at typical exposure levels.“ Several epidemiologic studies have examined childhood leukemia in relation to proximity to cell phone (and other RF) transmitters, and overall, they have not found convincing evidence of increased risk at typical environmental exposure levels….Two case-control studies [Aydin 2012, Castaño-Vinyals 2022] of cell phone use and brain tumors in children have found no clear increase in risk by the amount of use of cell phones.”

I oppose further expansion of 5G infrastructure without a thorough, transparent, and independent evaluation of potential health and environmental impacts. I urge HHS to prioritize public health and address the concerns of people who cannot readily choose or control their exposure. I ask HHS to support independent research into long-term exposure, including potential effects on children, pregnant people, and individuals reporting sensitivity to wireless devices. Reports of adverse symptoms deserve respectful investigation, with careful assessment of possible causes. Please evaluate whether existing exposure standards adequately address real-world conditions, including exposure from multiple sources over time. Findings, uncertainties, funding sources, and conflicts of interest should be clearly disclosed to the public. I also urge federal agencies to support wired connectivity options, accessible exposure monitoring, and meaningful community participation in decisions about infrastructure near homes, schools, and workplaces. My position is no to continued 5G expansion without stronger public accountability and a credible, independent assessment of health and environmental concerns. Public health must come first.

Hi, I am writing to you as a very concerned individual with regards to the growing risks of EMF for me, my family and everyone around us. In the quest of making things more fast, automated and the wish to be able to access the internet literally everywhere we have forgotten to study the adverse effects its causing us humans. United States is one of the countries who can take lead in researching this. This comment section is full of real life examples of people who have first hand effects, cancers, tumors etc caused because of direct, prolonged exposure to devices / machines with high EMF. I am requesting department of HHS to please take this as a priority and look into this. We need to have strict guidelines and educate the masses on adverse effects of EMFs. We need to protect the human race, animals and nature. Please look into this.

I am EHS [electromagnetic hypersensitive] and am severely affected by electromagnetic radiation (EMR). I am also deeply worried about the future of my children, who have been immersed in harmful "electrosmog" since childhood. We urgently need to raise awareness about these dangers and lower exposure thresholds as soon as possible—before we find ourselves facing an unfolding genocide, at which point it will be too late to take any action. Some genetic mutations are already irreversible

Center for Electrosmog Prevention, a 501c3 nonprofit, was established in La Mesa, California in May, 2011, with a mission to promote the general public health by providing advocacy and education, information, and solutions regarding electrosmog, a manmade form of electromagnetic pollution. EMF's (electromagnetic fields), RF (radiofrequency) radiation (in the microwave and millimeter wave range in particular), and rf radiation from a wide range of wireless devices such as cell phones, smart utility meters, baby monitors, wifi, Bluetooth, and a multitude of others now being marketed to the unsuspecting public are a major health hazard documented by tens of thousands of research studies. These dangers to health include - but are not limited to - multiple forms of cancer (including glioblastoma), immunological, and inflammatory effects - in numerous studies linked to the development of Alzheimers and autism, damage to DNA, and infertility. The industries profiting off wireless technologies have been very influential in vigorously denying health hazards at most governmental and major health organization levels, worldwide, much as the tobacco industry has defended its marketing of a toxic product over the decades. Meanwhile, cancers are on the rise - including those that can be linked to cell phone use - as well as Alzheimers and autism, and many people (it is said to be 1-2% at least) are becoming hypersensitive (electrosensitive) to rf radiation, causing them to be unable to function at schools, workplaces, and even in their own homes due to the proliferation of these hazardous devices. Despite a multitude of evidence pointing to toxic exposures at even very low levels, the US government and its regulatory FCC, CDC, and HHS, often headed up by or influenced by lobbyists for the tech industry for decades, has exposed the unsuspecting general public to extremely high levels of EMF's. "In the USA, the FCC guidelines make it currently legal to allow RF radiation levels at 10 000 000 µW/m2, which is 10,000,000,000,000 (ten trillion) times higher than than the upper natural background levels we evolved to tolerate" (https://www.electrosmogprevention.org/smart-meter-resources-links/safety-guidelines-for-rf-exposure/). Center for Electrosmog Prevention's website at www.electrosmogprevention.org is a repository of thousands of articles and links to scientific research studies concerning the hazards of rf radiation exposure. It has links to other extensive repositories of scientific articles concerning these health hazards at https://www.saferemr.com/, https://bioinitiative.org/. and http://ehtrust.org/, to name but a few. It is time to acknowledge the risks, at the very least, and the harms being perpetrated on the public health, and greatly reduce exposures to rf radiation in our homes, schools, workplaces, vehicles, modes of transportation, and all public places. We commend this request for information on EMFs, Rf radiation, and wireless radiation exposure, though long overdue.

I have been burned by my cell phone. I developed a sensitivity to radiation after. Cell towers, SMART Meter Banks, industrial routers, and other wireless technology, together are very dangerous. Children have developing bones and brains. Most schools have cell phone towers. Many fire departments also have towers. The laws protecting citizens are very old. We are in a different time where the old laws are not relevant to modern digital technology. Blood, brain and bone cancers will increase. If this technology can penetrate brick buildings it can penetrate bones. Please consider updating the health and safety regulations for wireless technology. Before we continue to advance in science and technology, please ensure the health and wellbeing of people and wildlife are not in jeopardy.

Perspective I am submitting as an individual, a parent, and a family caregiver. I am also a public school teacher of 14 years. Experience Our home is within sight of commercial radio broadcast towers. Soon after we moved in, I suddenly developed significant metabolic dysfunction and systemic inflammation that no doctor has been able to resolve while we live here. This is not lifestyle. I eat as clean as possible, am extremely active, and changed nothing about my diet or lifestyle when these problems began. Both of my pregnancies were in this home. In my first, I had major complications during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum, and my child was born with significant birth defects requiring multiple surgeries. In my second, lab work confirmed metabolic and hormonal problems that affected my child's development and birth, and I again had major complications. These were not random or unexplained. These are all known issues from non-native EMF exposure from the broadcast towers and nearby power lines. After my first child's birth, a cellular antenna was installed about half a mile from our home, mounted on power lines. We received no notice and could find no public registration or record of it. We only knew it existed by seeing it. After it was installed, my postpartum recovery worsened. My metabolic and hormonal problems increased, my migraines got worse, and I developed slow wound healing. Many of these reflect impaired cellular repair, including autophagy, mitophagy, and overnight repair. My metabolic problems and inflammation continue to increase, raising my long-term risk of serious disease, including cancer. My husband has always been extremely healthy and active and still plays sports as an adult. Even so, his bloodwork now shows changes in his cholesterol patterns and markers associated with heart disease risk. Neither of us changed our diet, lifestyle, or anything else that would explain this. We both had the same bloodwork changes in the same month, right after the antenna was installed. My doctor has told me we have done everything we can medically, and since my health is not improving, we need to move. We are being forced to move, at significant financial cost, solely because of these health problems, which my doctor has confirmed are caused by our non-native EMF exposure. We are especially concerned for our infant and toddler, whose brains are developing every day they spend in this home. Placement Cell antennas, broadcast towers, and similar installations should not be placed near homes at all. Notice is not enough. It leaves families like ours with one option: to keep moving at our own expense. Many residents also do not know the risks, so they cannot protect themselves or their children. Every installation, including antennas on power lines or utility poles, should be listed in a searchable public registry. We had no notice, no say, and no record we could find. Surveillance There is nowhere for families to report experiences like ours. HHS should create a reporting system for health effects near wireless infrastructure, power lines, and broadcast towers, and study clusters of pregnancy complications, birth outcomes, and metabolic and cardiovascular changes near these sources. Sensitive populations, children, and schools Exposure assessment should be different for pregnant women, infants, and children. Exposure during pregnancy not only affects the mother's health during and after pregnancy, but can cause irreversible damage to the developing baby. Children absorb more of this radiation than adults, as their brains are not yet fully myelinated, which impacts their neurological development. Proximity to homes, schools, and childcare facilities is the most important factor HHS should consider. As a teacher, I see how much exposure children have during the school day. Schools need clear regulations: no electric vehicle chargers on campus or near playgrounds, and no children seated near Wi-Fi routers. HHS should also evaluate combined exposure from multiple sources rather than each source alone. Request This is not only a question for further study. These installations are being placed near homes and schools without residents' knowledge, affecting our health and our homes. Many families cannot afford to move. Others, like mine, only learn the consequences after serious harm has happened. I ask HHS to establish that these installations cannot be placed near homes, schools, childcare facilities, or playgrounds, to require a public registry of all installations, and to set clear limits on exposure in schools.