Exposure limits & oversight

I am submitting this comment in response to the HHS's request for information on EMF's, RF radiation and wireless radiation exposure. All of these things should have been throughly researched before use. People are being exposed to radiation with unknown consequences. Illnesses, migraines, fertility issues, and more devastating issues seem to be caused by this radiation exposure. The health of our citizens should not take a back seat to high speed internet and data centers. You must address the growing concerns and stop exposing the American people to deadly radiation. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Lisa. I am a mother of 3 living in a Chicago suburb in IL. We live in a house next to a water tower with 5G and everyday I consider moving to protect my children from radiation. I think it’s unlawful to be exposed to 5G and other EMF without consent — knowing that it causes cellular harm/damage. Please help us by regulating where 5G can go and regulation of emf “safe” thresholds. Sincerely, A mom just trying to raise the next healthy generation.

Dear Sir or Madame, It is imperative we, as humans, take care to put an immediate halt to the frenzied build-out of the current wireless and EMF related infrastructure. Updated information has not been provided to the public by the FCC since 1996. This is beyond absurd. People barely had dial-up internet at the time the last information was released by the FCC. It’s been 30 years and the technology has exponentially advanced and infiltrated our everyday lives, publicly and privately with little regard for the harm it presents to all life big and small. Please do what is right and not what the industry, that lines your pockets, tells you. Sincerely, A Very Concerned Parent.

Personal Testimony and Call for Research and Protection for People Reporting Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Public Comment — HHS-OASH-2026-0397 To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I live in Israel and have practiced complementary and integrative healthcare for approximately 28 years. I write both as a practitioner and as someone whose life was profoundly changed by a severe health crisis that I attribute to prolonged, cumulative exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). For years, my symptoms were mild and seemed insignificant. Then, within a few months, my health deteriorated rapidly. I experienced weakness, a choking sensation, elevated blood glucose, and other unexplained symptoms. As my condition worsened, I began noticing a recurring association between EMF exposure and my symptoms. I describe this through the “bucket theory”: drops accumulate unnoticed for years until the bucket overflows. For me, symptoms then appeared in an unbearable cascade, like a house of cards collapsing. During this crisis, I also developed severe multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). About five years ago, the crisis affected multiple body systems. Alongside severe symptoms, I experienced measurable physiological changes: increased blood glucose, hemoglobin (Hb), blood pressure, and heart rate. My recovery continues today. My quality of life, daily functioning, and freedom of movement remain severely restricted. Ordinary activities require planning, environmental adjustments, and major sacrifices. From my own experience, the exposure–symptom connection is clear to me. I recognize that a causal relationship is not established scientific consensus. This gap between patients’ experiences and established knowledge makes rigorous, independent research open to new findings essential. People reporting EHS often describe similar experiences despite diverse symptoms. Reported responses may differ by frequency, exposure type, and over time. These patterns deserve investigation. I urge HHS to take the following steps: 1. Expand existing research: Support independent genetic, physiological, clinical, and epidemiological studies, collaborating with EHS researchers in Europe and elsewhere. 2. Investigate biomarkers: Examine and replicate findings concerning the nervous system, inflammation, and possible myelin damage, alongside blood markers, heart rate, blood pressure, and autonomic function. Identify reliable indicators and potential patient subgroups. 3. Study individual susceptibility: Investigate genetic and physiological differences that might explain reported reactions at exposures below current limits. 4. Reassess exposure standards: Study possible non-thermal effects and prolonged, combined exposure from multiple sources. 5. Review mobile-phone emissions and inform the public: In independent measurements I conducted about five years ago, I recorded 50–70 mW/m² near my phone. Today, during calls on that same phone, I measure pulses of 150–300 mW/m², peaks exceeding 1,800 mW/m², and readings above 2,000 mW/m² near newer smartphones, under broadly similar conditions. The 2012 BioInitiative Report discusses reported biological effects at 0.03 mW/m². These observations warrant investigating changes in exposure over time, reviewing standards, transparently informing the public, and developing safer communication technologies. Reference: BioInitiative Report (2012), Conclusions: https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/ 6. Reduce environmental exposure and protect basic rights: Reconsider antenna deployment, including relocating transmitters away from residential areas, reducing small-cell and 5G installations, and promoting wired communication. Evaluate public warnings about mobile phones and other wireless technologies. Establish dedicated recovery spaces with electromagnetic exposure as close to zero as technically possible, minimizing both radiofrequency and power-frequency fields for people in severe health crises. Protect freedom of movement, health, and access to essential services, including for those who may develop sensitivity in the future. 7. Train healthcare professionals: Ensure respectful care, thorough medical evaluation, and support without dismissing patients’ symptoms. 8. Include people reporting EHS in research: Involve them in study design and research priorities. Lack of scientific consensus about causation does not justify disregarding symptoms, physical findings, or the need for appropriate medical care and research. I hope this initiative advances recognition, meaningful research, and practical solutions for people reporting EHS worldwide. I am willing to share my experience, provide relevant medical information confidentially with my consent, and participate in suitable studies. Thank you for considering my testimony.

I am a telecommunication engineering graduate and my comments are to be considered as an independent individual contributor. I experience ear buzzing, headaches and sometimes skin itch in the presence of EMF equipment such as WiFi routers and mobile phone base stations. To create exposure standards and risk assessment (questions 5. o. and 5.p) methods, several aspects need to be considered: - EMF intensity, variety and duration of exposure; - realistic testing use cases: a SAR measured in a lab might be different from an effective SAR of a phone placing a call from a driving car for example; - environmental base levels of EMF radiations: being in an urban, EMF rich environment after a week of camping is completely different than being in such environment contantly; - mental well being and psychological consequences related to the constant exposure to EMF and associated technologies; phenomena such as "fear of missing out", "feeling overwhelmed by work all the time"... - Federal research priorities (Q16): - how do EMF impact the bioenergetic field of the human body of sick and healthy patients; - what are effective and efficient shielding strategies for sensitive buildings and individuals; e.g. clothing, paints, Faraday cages - the right to be offline and the right to slow down technological use;

I first learned about EMFs after moving into an apartment building, where I shortly developed symptoms I never had before including disruption of sleep, heart palpitations and tinnitus. My daughter mentioned EMFs as a likely cause to me which opened up Pandora's box. I have since learned of the hidden dangers. I am including a link to an article published in the medical literature (PubMed) written by a recognized expert, Martin Pall, discussing further the hazards https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26300312/. Many are subject to these fields and the dangers that they present unknowingly, including children and adults who work in schools for example. I frequently see cell towers on school property. Public awareness and protection need to be increased

I would like it studied more. I would like to feel protected. I would like the health of my family to be put above profit by my government.

Docket ID: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Notice Publication Number: 2026-19252 Title: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Technology Exposure Subject: Public Comment Requesting Federal Proximity Setbacks and Infrastructure Relocation Near School Populations (Ann Arbor, MI) To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to submit a formal comment in response to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Request for Information regarding environmental electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. This comment directly addresses the agency’s inquiry into exposure levels, public health experiences, and the critical need to protect vulnerable populations like young children. Specifically, I am submitting a request for data and action regarding a localized, multi-signal wireless telecommunications tower hosting active 5G equipment and other RF broadcast arrays that is positioned at 5449 Whitmore Lake Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. This commercial broadcast infrastructure operates adjacent to and within approximately 500 feet of the main campus of Ann Arbor Christian School (located at 5500 Whitmore Lake Rd). The school’s campus serves highly vulnerable developing populations, including infants, toddlers, preschool-aged children, and elementary school students. These students spend upwards of 6 to 8 hours a day in continuous proximity to the emissions of this tower during critical windows of biological development. As the agency updates its guidelines and coordinates with other federal bodies, I urge HHS to recommend and prioritize the following regulatory actions: 1. Vulnerable Populations Priority: Because children possess thinner craniums, higher tissue fluid content, and developing nervous systems, their cumulative biological absorption rates differ dramatically from standard adult occupational baseline measures. 2. Evaluation of Multi-Signal Arrays: Local residents and parents cannot independently verify the full output, frequency variations, or mechanical expansions occurring on multi-tenant tower sites. Federal oversight must account for the mixed-use radiofrequency environments where 5G macro/small cells are combined with older legacy telecommunication hardware. 3. Strict Local Proximity Thresholds: I strongly encourage the federal government to establish definitive exposure buffers or enhanced monitoring requirements for high-output 5G arrays operating within a 500 to 1000-foot perimeter of early-childhood learning centers, school buildings, and outdoor playgrounds. 4. Mandatory Federal Zoning Setbacks and Relocation Guidance: I explicitly request that HHS recommend federal zoning frameworks that require the physical relocation of high-power broadcast towers away from educational institutions. Telecommunications infrastructure should not share such close proximity with preschools and/or elementary schools. Federal guidelines must empower local municipalities to restrict or move existing infrastructure when it operates in direct conflict with child safety environments. Thank you for accounting for the physical safety and placement of infrastructure relative to developing student populations as you evaluate the modern baseline for RF safety. Best Regards, Kristen Papke

Dear HHS Leadership, Thank you for seeking public input on the biological and health impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), including 5G, Wi-Fi, and personal wireless devices. As technology density grows in homes and schools, federal guidelines must urgently account for the heightened biological vulnerability of children. We request that HHS incorporate the following science-based protections into its safety evaluation and public guidance: Child-Specific Absorption Modeling: Current federal guidelines are based on adult male anatomical models. Research demonstrates that children—due to thinner skulls, smaller head dimensions, and higher tissue water content—absorb up to twice as much RF radiation into their brain tissue and up to ten times as much into bone marrow compared to adults. Impacts on Developing Neural and Cellular Systems: Review peer-reviewed evidence showing that non-thermal RF exposure can induce oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and altered intracellular signaling in rapidly dividing, developing tissues. Public Warnings and Device Labelling: Issue clear public health warnings regarding cell phones and wireless devices. Recommend practical limits, such as keeping devices away from the body during transmission, using speakerphone, and avoiding cell phone use directly against a child's head. School and Childcare Environment Limits: Establish guidelines for educational settings, including favoring wired ethernet over Wi-Fi in early childhood centers, turning off Wi-Fi routers when not in active use, and restricting small-cell deployment directly adjacent to school grounds. We urge HHS to align U.S. policy with international precautionary standards and provide clear, actionable guidance to protect developing children. Sincerely, Abigail Crowe

All utility companies should be required to offer analog equipment option instead of forcing consumers to live with smart meters. A process should be prominently displayed on their websites. I am also concerned about the health implications of WiFi and towers situated near schools, housing, businesses, parks.