Exposure limits & oversight

The science industry is flooded with scientific information concerning this issue of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation exposure and the mere fact that the question continues to be sought for response leads one to believe that there is enough concern to request comments so I appreciate the opportunity in hopes my comments are weighed and taken seriously. HHS/NIH knows already of the emergence of technologies in the arena of humans and health-care and our input requires swift action. As a nation we have embarked upon an experimental era of coexisting with emerging technologies: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, brain computer interface technology, nanotechnology, directed energy, and quantum technology (CRS IF1110). I have become victim subject to dangerous levels of wireless radiation exposure. I can't upload images for evidence because my library of intellectual property containing pictorial works have yet to be properly documented and registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Emerging technologies coupled with 5G millimeter EMR is the commonality between biology, biotechnology, and IoT wireless connectivity, architectural infrastructures are the backbone of research and experimental development and discovery fueling the 21st Century Bioeconomy. Humans and health-care are inclusive and have become the bedrock foundation harnessing engineered programmable artificial DNA/RNA consumer cellular technologies, operatable only by means of wireless internet of things connectivity. Without the powerful use of radiation electromagnetics, radiofrequency radiation, and influx of internet of things Wi-Fi wireless connectivity devices: antennas, sensors, biosensors, RFID tags, biotechnology and recent developments of chemical technology vaccines coupled with directed energy there would not exist wireless radiation exposure neither could there be excitation operation of these materials, devices, tools and communication infrastructures. With the ongoing deployment of 6G and the coexistence of artificial intelligent in humans, brAIn and health-care transparency and action is required including readdressing current laws such as HHS/NIH 45 CFR Part 46 and EPA 40 Part 26 Protection of Human Subjects (clinical, experimental, and medical research). As a citizen of the United States with extensive knowledge on the direction of Americas' economy, I submit comments on behalf of the general population (particularly the vulnerable); for the good, safety, and welfare of all communities and environments. I demand real commitment to legal framework at the federal and State level to allow regulation of artificial intelligence in humans and the health-care ecosystem and across-industries having direct impact on electronic-magnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, 5G IoT wireless connectivity instituting real changes to policy governing emerging technologies. No longer can agencies and institutions co-partner, create, develop, deploy, and award investigations and report back to directors and advisory boards to generate agendas, congregate in meetings, sit on webinars and post blogs. Daily the public is being exposed to dangerous levels of electromagnetic radiation radio frequency radiation from wireless device environments. It's not merely a question about "radiation exposure from cellphone" and FDA "SARS limits. Leadership at the FCC does not consist of doctors, patients or scientist but engineers and lawyers. Currently there is no plan or formal scientific consensus within the global medical industry to establish electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as a medical diagnosis although the World Health Organization acknowledges that symptoms individuals experience are real and can be disabling however controlled "double-blind" studies have consistently shown that affected individuals cannot reliably detect electromagnetic fields. In past history this may have been the scientific conclusion and as a result mainstream medicine treats electromagnetic hypersensitivity as an "idiopathic environmental intolerance" which means symptoms are acknowledge but are not scientifically linked to wireless radiation. Upon legal scrutiny, security, copyright protections and registration and trademark with all rights reserved as the owner of my IP portfolio I will release authenticated photographs to the public. There will be national call to address "the legal and ethical issues that confront society due to artificial intelligence" this includes AI in humans and health-care and implications on privacy, transparency and plain language, consent and documentation of consent, surveillance, bias or discrimination, algorithmic discrimination, data breaches, inaccuracy or mistakes in (AI) procedural protocols, device to device protocols, large scale healthcare cybersecurity / IoT wireless interconnect within an conglomerate electromagnetic radiation environment.

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 member of the public. When WiFi became popular I was onboard. Shortly afterward I noticed that I no longer felt well on an every day basis. After doing extensive research I discovered that the radiation from WiFi and cellular phones use EMF radiation and is damaging to humans, animals, bees and plants, and every progression, from 3G to 4G and finally 5G (which uses millimeter waves, the same type of waves that are used by the military in their radar and microwave-based and wireless weapons) became more dangerous and more damaging to humans, animals, bees and plants. Once I eliminated the sources of EMF radiation in my home I began to fell better almost immediately and almost immediately my health improved. The industries that profit from this technology has always claimed that the technology was harmless without ever doing honest independent studies to prove what they were saying. The only studies that they quote was VERY HEAVILY and intensionally biased in their favor. When truly independent studies were finally done it debunked that biased studies and honestly and accurately proved that the EMF radiation was without a doubt harmful to humans, animals, bees and plants!!! It is long overdue to heavily regulate this technology and ban the placement of towers and other devices that capture and/or relay this EMF radiation within at least 500 feet of homes, schools and other buildings where people and animals are found and an IMMEDIATE ban and removal of ALL so called Smart Meters that have been installed where people and animals reside MUST be put in place!!! 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 for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

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 have EMF sensitivity, particularly to 5G and WiFi. When 5G was turned on in my neighborhood, I couldn't sleep for several days. I purchased a special bed cover to reduce its effect which helped but didn't eliminate it. I only travel if I can be assured of not being in WiFi exposure - which limits me greatly because WiFi is so prevalent. WiFi's effect on me has worsened over recent years because WiFi manufacturers have increased the power/range of their WiFi equipment. Please re-consider the testing and limits allowed for wireless equipment.

I was Scientific Director and Scientific Advisor of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna until 2023, now retired. From 1981 to 2001, I worked closely with Professor Cesare Maltoni, an internationally renowned oncologist; then I was Scientific Director of the same Institute. I am expert in the study of agents that can determine cancers and other environmental pathologies; among them ionizing radiation, low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). I paid particular attention to the issue of the risks related to simultaneous exposure even to small doses of chemicals or physical agents, alone or associated to multiple exposures, especially during embryonic and foetal life, as well as in childhood. I am the principal investigator of the RF-EMF large study performed by the Ramazzini Institute since 2006 up to the publication of data. We published the results of the carcinogenicity study in 2018 (Falcioni et al, 2018)1, when the US NIEHS/NTP technical report on RF-EMF (NTP, 2018)2 was also published. And, surprisingly, using the same experimental model, we obtained the same results: a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas and an increase in brain gliomas (statistically significant in the NTP study). We studied very low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels, simulating human exposures to radio base station antennas, the NTP studied SAR much higher, and in this case the exposure responses were higher. The two studies were evaluated in the systematic review commissioned by WHO (Mavissen et al, 2025)3 , which concludes.: “The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” Based on the experimental results cited, and due to the enormous diffusion of radio frequency technologies, I am strongly and scientifically convinced that in assessing risks to the human population, policy makers must at least adopt a principle of caution by lowering exposure to limits compatible with the health of thI was Scientific Director and Scientific Advisor of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna until 2023, now retired. From 1981 to 2001, I worked closely with Professor Cesare Maltoni, an internationally renowned oncologist; then I was Scientific Director of the same Institute. I am expert in the study of agents that can determine cancers and other environmental pathologies; among them ionizing radiation, low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). I paid particular attention to the issue of the risks related to simultaneous exposure even to small doses of chemicals or physical agents, alone or associated to multiple exposures, especially during embryonic and foetal life, as well as in childhood. I am the principal investigator of the RF-EMF large study performed by the Ramazzini Institute since 2006 up to the publication of data. We published the results of the carcinogenicity study in 2018 (Falcioni et al, 2018)1, when the US NIEHS/NTP technical report on RF-EMF (NTP, 2018)2 was also published. And, surprisingly, using the same experimental model, we obtained the same results: a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas and an increase in brain gliomas (statistically significant in the NTP study). We studied very low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels, simulating human exposures to radio base station antennas, the NTP studied SAR much higher, and in this case the exposure responses were higher. The two studies were evaluated in the systematic review commissioned by WHO (Mavissen et al, 2025)3 , which concludes.: “The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” Based on the experimental results cited, and due to the enormous diffusion of radio frequency technologies, I am strongly and scientifically convinced that in assessing risks to the human population, policy makers must at least adopt a principle of caution by lowering exposure to limits compatible with the health of the exposed population, practically the entire population of the globe. See attached file(s)

10/20/2026 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Dear Secretary Kennedy and HHS staff, Thank you for your interest in receiving information from the public on the health harms of man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), particularly radiofrequency (RF) and wireless radiation. I experience firsthand, every day, how exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from Man’s electronic technologies diminishes health, while reducing exposure improves health. I am highly reactive to this radiation, and I respond to exposure with both debilitating acute symptoms and exacerbation of chronic conditions. Since I first learned that exposure to this unnatural radiation was contributing to my own illness several years ago, I have been personally investigating the biological and health effects of man-made EMR. I have integrated my research into the existing science on EMFs and health, along with my own personal perspective, into a paper, which has been published online by several health and health freedom organizations. While not strictly an academic paper, it includes references to scientific literature, including peer-reviewed research, government reports, clinical observations, academic publications, scholarly articles, and books. I have attached my paper, entitled “When Light Turns to Darkness: Electromagnetic Radiation and Health: Are Our Wireless Technologies Harming Us?” This paper and the resources to which it directs readers address each of the categories of information that HHS is seeking in this RFI: public experiences and reported potential adverse health effects, exposure standards and risk assessment, measuring human exposure and public health surveillance, existing evidence, federal research priorities, and additional information. Ultimately, I believe that we do not need the government to fund or conduct more research. Enough research already exists definitively demonstrating the health harms of man-made EMFs. All we have to do is listen to the suppressed and silenced voices who have been sounding the alarm for decades. When we do, it becomes abundantly clear: Now is the time to pause, roll back, phase out, and end our use of these destructive radiating technologies. Thank you for reading and considering my submission. Sincerely, Margot DesBois

Ive been electro sensitive for almost 20 yrs ...I was super sensitive in 2013 when a ham radio guy moved in ...He his all his antennas in his attic n flagpole.. I ended up in hospital with a SED rate of 94 two months after he moved in then 3 weeks later back in hospital my adrenals completely crashed I almost died running out of cortisol ..I tried harmonizers to no avail then luckily I found one that worked ..I was fine for almost 10 yrs then the ham radio guy increased his power dramatically in Sept 2024, he was lying n saying he didn't but I found on a ham radio site in Sept 2024 just when I said something got really bad here he got new high tech long distance equipment ...I never felt any wireless device this strong..He leaves it on all day sometimes overnight on those days i leave my own house n sleeping my car in a parking lot somewhere.Others on other side both died after he increased his power so much.. My other neighbor across the street went from mild arthritis to severe arthritis 3 months after he increased his power,,,,He is not a responsible user cause its on 24/7 now most of the time,,Wee all obviously getting over exposed and for me it is pure torture..I cannot believe some ho hum citizen can possess that kind of power,,I didn't realize ham radio operators can possess 1500 watts of power whereas a cell tower is limited to 100watts in suburban areas ,,,There is no way a citizen with zero knowledge on health consequences shpould posses that type of power in a residential area ...I know it's effecting many here within a couple hundred ft of him Foe me its debilitating I cannot evebn be at my house more then a few hrs when its on and again he don't care he leaves it on continuosly most days its rare it's off Thanks Derek

Public Comment on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Submitted to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I am submitting this comment as someone who has experienced significant symptoms that I associate with electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) exposure. I have a history of concussion, and my electromagnetic sensitivity began after my concussion in 2018. My symptoms include intense head pressure, heat and burning or tingling in my head and face, ear pressure, rapid heart rate, and chest fluttering. Symptoms have occurred in environments such as airports, train and bus stations, hybrid vehicles, and anywhere where wifi is present. Traveling on highways is difficult because cell towers create symptoms while in the car. I cannot have wifi or streaming in my home, and must drive a car without updated electronic/wireless systems. Symptoms can take three to four days to subside. These experiences have affected my daily life. I recognize that my experiences alone cannot establish causation. However, I believe that people experiencing these symptoms deserve compassionate medical evaluation and rigorous scientific investigation. I respectfully ask HHS to: Fund independent research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity, including possible neurological, autonomic, and other physiological mechanisms. Investigate whether people with a history of concussion or other neurological conditions may experience different symptom patterns upon exposure. Conduct a transparent review of the scientific evidence underlying current RF exposure standards, including uncertainties and potential health effects that remain insufficiently understood. Develop clinical guidance to help healthcare professionals evaluate and treat people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity without dismissing their symptoms or assuming an unproven cause. Include affected individuals in setting research priorities and evaluating practical approaches to improving their quality of life. The cause of my symptoms remains uncertain, but their impact is real. I urge HHS to take these experiences seriously, support rigorous research, and ensure that people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity receive appropriate medical attention. Thank you for considering my comments.

Please use scientific guidelines for human health in refused to radio tower frequency, before, not after locating and constructing. The health of future generations is at risk.

I am responding as a patient, advocate, and concerned member of the public. Ques.3(a)–(g) Personal Experience Six years ago, my environmental health physician diagnosed me with EMR syndrome. My exposures included extensive computer use in college, working in a Wi-Fi-equipped building with computer labs and a Smartboard, making hundreds of photocopies daily, and living near a cell tower. Combined with mold exposure and stress, these factors coincided with years of debilitating illness. Symptoms I have experienced from RF/EMFs include tinnitus, headaches, burning throughout my body, facial burning after watching an iPhone video, gum mucoceles/cysts after cell phone use, tingling teeth/jaw, hip pain while wearing a cordless FM-microphone battery pack, nausea after dental X-rays, and anxiety. I manage symptoms with a low-RF/EMF lifestyle: silver-lined clothing, an RF-shielding canopy when living near a cell tower, an RF Safe cell phone QuantaCase, a BluShield plug-in device, and use corded technology when possible. An EMF building biologist assessed my home with meters and helped reduce exposure. I also take calcium, magnesium, and supplements intended to support glutathione production and replenish minerals. Ques. 11(a), (f), and (g) Sensitive Populations I am particularly concerned about children. The Epoch Times article, How Screen Time Affects Different Organs, by Arsh Sarao (11/1/25), reports that excessive screen time may reduce gray matter in brain areas involved in decision-making and emotional regulation. I have observed irritability, aggression, hyperactivity, and obstinance in children after screen use, and anger, agitation, and depression in adults following wireless exposure. I have noticed calmer behavior after consuming mineral water and calcium-rich foods. These observations deserve further investigation. Ques. 13(f), (j), and (k) Cumulative Exposure Research should assess cumulative close-to-body RF exposure from wireless earbuds, smartwatches, hearing aids, and health monitors, including devices tracking atrial fibrillation and diabetes; some communicate continuously via Bluetooth and smartphones. Consumers should retain the option of analog electric meters instead of RF transmitting smart meters. Landlines do not emit RF and should remain available, with funding to maintain copper lines. Incandescent bulbs should remain an option, and electromagnetic interference from LED/fluorescent lighting should be studied. Ques. 14 Environmental Effect Research should examine possible links between RF/EMF exposure, mold, and mycotoxin illness. Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt’s research, referenced in the July 2014 Townsend Letter (attached; p. 10), reportedly states that molds exposed to high EMF levels release up to 600 times more mycotoxins and also proliferate faster. These effects could potentially exacerbate symptoms in individuals already suffering from mold-related illness. Ques. 16 Federal Research Priorities I respectfully urge HHS to review Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy’s "The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields" (attached). Goldsworthy proposes that electromagnetic fields may increase cell-membrane permeability, allowing calcium ions to leak into cells. Calcium regulates nerve signaling, muscle contraction, and inflammation; disrupted balance could affect multiple body systems and explain reported multisystem symptoms. Goldsworthy’s work deserves serious consideration and further study. In addition, The EMF Medical Conference 2021 recordings (see References) provide valuable research and clinical observations from physicians and RF/EMF experts and should be reviewed. Ques. 18 Recommendations I recommend that HHS consider the following: -Promote public service announcements and safer-technology education, especially for children, using Environmental Health Trust materials (see References). -Set school health standards for responsible technology use. -Expand public access to RF/EMF meters and detectors for purchase or rental. -Add EMF building biology tracks to college/university environmental science programs. -Encourage schools, workplaces, hospitals, and residential facilities to use qualified EMF building biologists for assessments and remediation. -Recommend that municipalities employ EMF building biologists to assess cumulative emissions from smart meters, cell towers, and other RF infrastructure. -Investigate exposure-reduction approaches discussed by Goldsworthy, including Balanced Signal Technology and resonance/scalar-frequency methods. -Limit X-rays and other imaging to medical necessity and explore tracking patients’ cumulative imaging exposure. Conclusion I respectfully ask HHS to investigate these concerns with scientific rigor, consider affected individuals’ experiences, and develop practical measures to protect public health while allowing people to make informed choices about technology. Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and views.

I am very concerned about 5g and Wi-Fi signals. These technologies are limited for health reasons through Europe, and several health researchers advocate against this technology. There are less popular resources on this available on less controlled search engines and databases.