Exposure limits & oversight

When I purchased my first mobile telephone, I set it together, switched it on and held it to my ear. Suddenly I recieved an short sharp electric shock in my nose. Wondering I looked for warnings on the packaging. NONE. Later when I began using this very useful apparatus; also held to my head/ear I experienced a certain typ of headache after some minutes of conversation. Aagin no warning on the packet that this could arise. This headache still arises today, 25 yrs later, even if I use handsfree earphones and cable and the telephone at arms length from me. The headache is stronger when the telephone is used in a car. The same type of headache arises for me with Wifi apparatus radiating in indoor rooms. I am an self employed business person and find the phone very useful, but very problematic. No warning comes from manufacturers or radiation authorities here in Sweden. Now I have to avoid towns where 4G + 5G masts are closer and causing stronger emf radiation. I have to carry a emf test meter so as not to be forced to experience the uncomfortable and inhibiting headache which impairs my whole feeling of wellbeing. At home, I cannot sleep in my above-ground bedroom as the radiation level entering into my property from the nearby telecom mast has increased enormously over the years giving me sleep problems. I have to sleep in the cellar. I discovered that there are many others with the same or similar problem with mobile telephone systems and RF/EMF. I find this particularly disturbing that the mobile industry is not subjected the precautionary principle and to providing tests and studies and that clear information is provided to customers. That is not just and honourable business practice neither honourable politics. This undermines my trust in politics and stock exchange companies. That politicians do not represent the peoples health before the profits of the telecom industri investors and make sure safety is first and that new emf technology business must prove the system harmless, especially to children and insects. I have had to inform myself about the state of the research into EMF effects on living organisms, I found that is is massive but always excluded from the mainstream press and authorities are not published or restrictive towards industry. All this amounts to an undermined quality of life. One is ostracised by others who do not experience problems with emf radiation and have never heard that there is a risk. This is not conjusive to an open and healthy society, even within my family. I really wonder if RF/EMF affects younger peoples cognitive abilities and problem solving intelligence? This over and above the effect that due to the lack of practical experiences in growing children when caught for hours infront of telephones and computers whether radiating or not than gaining life experience.

menp ment functionalised aerosols, terahertz wban interfaces, self assembling nanotech, primate models forced to reach out and grab. cmon, the power of rf is phenomenal mr trumpy your discombobulator @ 300ghz + infrasound it should be public knowledge all installations should mandate wide band sdr capture with public access to signal strength so we KNOW what we are exposed to, you know the duality of the tech stop acting naive.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on EMF, RF and wireless Radiation Exposure. Cancer has increased in peoples' bodies where cell phones are placed in pockets. Microwaves are not allowed in some countries because of the damage to food so the food is not nutritious for the people. Ringing in ears is said to be increased since the wall to wall low frequency’s are in the airwaves. Seems like these waves used to accomplish things that can be provided in a safer way and should be provided to the public asap otherwise cray cray to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome, AND if this statement is true from AI/SI we need to do the opposite "Everyday Levels are Safe: Global authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and Health Canada, state that the low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) encountered in homes, schools, and offices from appliances and wiring do not cause confirmed adverse health effects." Thats cray cray, they had us wearing masks during Covid and 6 feet apart with no scientific evidence, have us taking vaccines that are full of foreign matter, DNA, formaldehyde and they think Low-frequency electromagnetic fields are safe, probably not, thats my comment, Thanks You!

Update the wireless radiation rules We should all know exactly how much radiation each device emits BEFORE we buy them. It should be clearly disclosed. I would be more likely to buy an iPad that emits lower radiation for my child. I have a right to know this information as well as how much exposure my child is experiencing while using a device. Look around at who is on your board. Are you protecting Americans or industry? Update studies and rules so we’re no longer kept in the dark. 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.

High usage of land mobile radios from 1 watt to 30 watts while active duty and as a civilian. Handheld and base stations within 1 foot of face, kidneys and eyes. Many times all day. Line of site systems radiating 39 watts 4 feet from bed where one slept and operated many weeks in a row. In 1992 new radios from Motorola came in with .5 meter handset cord from a 19 watt radio that was labeled "Warning. Do not operate within 3 feet of face. Satellite terminals up to 1kilowatt. After 10 years radiation warning signs showed up. No Warning signs about sidelobe rf exposure about 1 mw/cm². No real training on rf exposure and damage to eyesight. Today mifis with high power 1.5 watts are pocket size and not labeled as RF exposure and keep away from eyes and vital organs.Home satellite dishes are same way. No warnings.

In response to the Request for Information announced by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on September 17, 2026, the Advocacy Team at Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is submitting this comment to address growing concerns that the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure and technology is outpacing our understanding of the harms it may pose to health and the environment. The FCC regulates communications and technology, but HHS and its agencies have the public health and scientific expertise needed to evaluate the health effects of wireless radiation exposure. The FCC’s current radiofrequency (RF) guidelines were established three decades ago in 1996— with no updates since. Wireless technology and the densification of wireless infrastructure has increased dramatically since the standards were first established. Yet the FCC has not provided the public with an adequate justification that its RF radiation guidelines are protective of public health in today’s highly dense exposure environments. CHD has heard directly from and worked with several people that have experienced significant health issues they associate with wireless radiation exposure. In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, lawyers working on behalf of CHD represented residents who reported serious health effects directly following the installation and activation of a cell tower in their neighborhood. Many of these individuals were forced to leave their homes as a result, often without meaningful notice or opportunity for community input. It is of utmost importance that these experiences are not dismissed as they warrant serious and independent scientific investigation. We have also heard from numerous parents concerned about the growing presence of wireless devices and screen-based technology in schools. Screen use and wireless connectivity have become a normal part of the school day, exposing vulnerable children to this invisible toxin. This is the first generation of children who will experience cradle to grave exposure. We must not wait for another generation of children to grow up before determining whether existing protections adequately address long-term, cumulative, and developmental exposure. CHD also works with practitioners who report treating patients experiencing symptoms of Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (EMR-S). Symptoms include headaches, nausea, dizziness, brain fog, heart palpitations, insomnia, tinnitus and more serious diseases like cancer, neurological issues, and infertility. These individual experiences may be a warning of the widespread public health crisis that may result from the continued, uncontrolled deployment of wireless infrastructure and technology must not be dismissed or excluded from consideration. Furthermore, their experiences give us important insights into potential areas of scientific investigation.. Federal preemption presents an additional concern because it prevents communities from considering the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation exposure . Communities deserve transparency and a meaningful opportunity to raise legitimate concerns about infrastructure that may affect their neighborhoods and create unavoidable long-term exposure to wireless radiation. CHD urges HHS to support independent, transparent scientific investigation on the health effects of RF radiation exposure, including impacts on children, pregnancy and fertility, long-term consequences, cumulative exposure, and environmental impacts. Research should be independently funded and free from industry influence. We cannot assume that the FCC’s RF radiation guidelines established in 1996 adequately protect public health, simply because they remain in place. Wireless technology itself, the densification of wireless infrastructure, and the nature and duration of exposure have all changed dramatically since the guidelines were adopted 30 years ago. Our scientific understanding must keep pace. Our children should not be the guinea pigs for this nationwide experiment. We urge HHS to investigate the evidence, identify the research gaps, and fund the independent science necessary to determine whether existing protections are still relevant and adequately protect public health. Sincerely, Stephanie Locricchio Senior Advocacy Manager Children’s Health Defense Michael Kane Director of Advocacy Children’s Health Defense

I have personal experiences which I feel relate to health and safety. My father died of cancer 5 years ago. He didn't like or use cell phones but once he had one that was smart he slept with it by his head listening to music and talked to friends for hours with it by his head. After getting the smart cell phone he got cancer within 2 years of having the smart phone and died within 3 months of diagnosis. He had a growth in his neck next to where he would rest his cell phone on his pillow in bed. He believed and so do I that the cancer was because of his cell phone use. I personally can not sleep when wifi is on or near me. When traveling, I have to sleep with a EMF blocking hat to sleep, otherwise my brain has the to do list running all night long. I try to make our cell phones safer by putting EMF shielding fabric in our cell phone cases but I worry about my kids and their use. They do not understand the dangers. They say everyone has their cell phones with them all the time but they are not old enough to see the evidence or experience friends dying from the shape of a tumor where they held their cell phones up to their heads. We have 3 additional friends who died of brain cancer besides my dad. If regulations were nation wide kids would understand the actual dangers. We need safer regulations!

I am responding as a parent and concerned member of the public who is deeply concerned about the potential health and wellbeing effects of wireless radiation exposure on my children and family. As a parent, I am increasingly concerned that my children’s exposure to wireless technology is becoming unavoidable. They are exposed to wireless devices and networks both at school and at home, often for extended periods, with limited ability to control or reduce their exposure. This raises concerns about the cumulative effects of prolonged exposure during childhood, a critical period of growth and development. My concerns extend beyond screen time to the radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless devices, including wireless earbuds such as AirPods, which are heavily marketed to children and teenagers. These devices sit directly in the ears, close to the head, yet the potential health implications of frequent and prolonged use are not made sufficiently clear to consumers. I am concerned about possible long-term effects and believe these products warrant independent research and clear, accessible safety information. Similarly, phones, tablets, Chromebooks and laptops are used against or very close to the body for extended periods. Phones may be held against the head during calls, tucked into bras against breast tissue, carried in pockets near reproductive organs, or placed on the lap or chest while using a laptop or tablet. I am particularly concerned about potential effects on reproductive health, including fertility and the developing reproductive systems of children and teenagers. These concerns deserve rigorous scientific investigation rather than assumptions that everyday exposure is necessarily harmless. Wireless devices are marketed to young people as essential for education, communication and entertainment, yet meaningful safety warnings are often difficult to find, buried in user manuals or printed in tiny text. Consumers should not have to search through fine print to understand potential risks associated with the products they and their children use daily. I believe manufacturers should be required to display prominent, standardised warning labels directly on wireless devices and their packaging, clearly explaining radiofrequency emissions, recommended precautions and relevant uncertainties in the scientific evidence. These warnings should be visible before purchase, not hidden in instruction manuals. Legislation should ensure that no device is sold without clear and conspicuous safety information, particularly where children and teenagers are the intended users. My concerns also include potential effects on sleep quality, energy levels, concentration and overall wellbeing, alongside questions about long-term health and reported associations between radiofrequency exposure and certain tumours. While research continues to evolve, families deserve transparent information and independent investigation into these potential risks. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate the scientific evidence, investigate gaps in current research, examine cumulative and long-term exposure, and prioritise children and other potentially vulnerable populations. I also urge greater transparency, public education, precautionary measures and enforceable consumer protections. Our children should not be expected to bear the consequences of widespread wireless technology use without adequate research, transparent information and meaningful safeguards. Their long-term health, safety and wellbeing must come first. Thank you for providing families with an opportunity to have their concerns heard.

Hello. I am extremely concerned with the amount of toxic EMF radiation that my children and I are exposed to every single day. I am questioning if some of our health issues are related to this EMF exposure- ringing in our ears, heart palpitations, or body aches when handling electronic devices like laptops and phones. Please get rid of the smart meters outside of our homes which are poisoning us and invading our privacy. Remove the 5G towers that are in our neighborhoods and near schools. Children are even more susceptible to EMF radiation than adults. Manufacture headphones that are safer to be on our heads for hours at a time like the "ibrain airtube headphones". Unfortunately, the quality of the few brands that do make them is very poor. We spend around $65 dollars per headphone set and they only last a couple of months before they break. This EMF radiation surrounds us all day in our homes and literally almost everywhere else. Please study the harmful effects and put laws and safety regulations in place to protect us. Make safer products to protect us, too, like the airtube headphones. Thank you.

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 citizen. In the last 10 years, the number of cell towers in every area that I've lived have increased exponentially. Their negative effect on the community is much further reaching than the severely outdated research being used to create legislation, would suggest. Seeing the presence of towers kept me from buying homes for fear that the harmful EMF and microwave radiation would cause long term health issues for my family, we moved from a heavily populated area to a much more rural one and still we are plagued by their presence- they are all over the college campus near us, endangering all the students. No technology should be assumed safe until proven dangerous. Clearly big telecom does not want the truth about the harms of these wireless emitting devices to be discovered, otherwise they would be open and thorough about the research and wouldn't be making it so difficult for people to comment, effect legislation, or protest them. The harm that these antennas create NEEDS to be reviewed by regulatory agencies that are not captured. You (the government) owe it to your citizens to protect them, not to harm. Continuance of this head in the sand approach is harm, active harm. 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