Exposure limits & oversight

Public schools have a WiFi router in the center of each classroom, usually fixed to the ceiling, and it is on 24/7. The teacher and the 20-28 students (avg.) per day assigned to each classroom are within 4-18 feet of this WiFi router for 6-7 hours each day (approx.) Please consider the health and behavioral affects this may have on those assigned to a classroom. Additionally, smart boards for teaching and learning. Guidelines on proximity and duration to protect the teacher and student populations is requested. Each student is assigned a computer and each teacher has 1-2 computers, which are on or charging in the classroom all day. What is the cumulative affect and total exposure to the potentially harmful EMFs that all of these devices in sum total emit to each person? What should the daily limit for each student/teacher/worker/human be? Shouldn't a sum total daily limit for human consumption include close proximity to above ground electric transmission towers? Estimation: approx. 3.8 million public school teachers, 49 million students, and millions of other citizens who are working in public schools. Request to examine physical health affects, daily limits, ways to mitigate, and behavioral and mental health affects.

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

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 encourage HHS to assess the evidence rigorously and transparently, distinguishing established findings from emerging or uncertain evidence. Public concern and personal reports deserve respectful consideration, while conclusions about cause and effect should be based on well-designed, reproducible research. I recommend that HHS prioritize independent research on real-world and cumulative exposures from multiple wireless sources, using validated exposure-measurement methods. Studies should examine long-term outcomes and consider children, pregnant people, older adults, workers with higher exposures, and people with implanted medical devices or relevant health conditions. Research protocols, funding sources, methods, and results—including null or conflicting results—should be made publicly accessible where possible. HHS should also compare U.S. and international exposure standards, explain the scientific basis and limitations of those standards in clear language, and identify where evidence is insufficient to assess potential risks. Federal agencies should coordinate research priorities and support independent replication of important findings. Please include ongoing public health surveillance and practical, evidence-based guidance that can be updated as research develops. The goal should be to address legitimate questions without overstating what current evidence can establish. Thank you for considering this comment.

My comment is on our Smart electricity meter that was required to replace our existing meter on the side of our house. I have personally used an EMF detector and it reads in the red danger zone 3 feet into my living room effectively reducing my living space since we avoid spending any time in that area due to this hazard. We had no choice in the change.

In Michigan, Consumer's Energy told us it was our state government that demanded smart meters. Since installation we have had nearly zero cell service or wifi on the end of our home closest to the garage. Had zero issue prior. Dropping calls even. When we called to get our prior meter back, we were told they would be allowing us x amount of energy usage and charging 30% more beyond that, because of "2-7 high demand." But they couldn't prove those hours of use without the smart meter. We were laughed at on the phone when saying we have had disrupted sleep, ears ringing and loss of cell/wifi signal since installation. They actually told us it does not emit signal. Then how do they receive the information?

Years ago I had the smart meter on my house removed as an experiment because of my son having immune issues. I thought it would be worth testing it. I had come to realize that the smart meter was on the outside wall of the kitchen where I spent hours per day. I wasn’t expecting anything noticeable at the time but to my surprise, I personally noticed a big difference! My house became “quieter” in my brain sort of thing. I have also been bothered by certain fan frequencies that can get on my nerves. Since living without a smart meter I no longer notice an underlying agitation that I can’t pinpoint. I also do not use wifi in my house. Everyone should be able to opt out of smart meters and the extra cost to read your meter should be less expensive and regulated. Also putting wifi towers next to public schools should be illegal. I’ve read social media conversations from people who are super sensitive to smart meters and cellular towers.

There are hundreds of studies showing that we are being poisoned by wireless radiation. No other country allows the amount of radiation that the US does. It is time for our government to protect us form this harmful exposure!!! May God bless attorney Jimmy Gonzalez for trying to warn people about what he believes caused his terminal cancer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlOVJd0lA8&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1TmqCh84ovxoDi8_jx2OoUKpk6ysHuQaZasKRBbPa6WLYWlgATIkzSTzI Here are some of the studies showing the dangers of wireless radiation: https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

I submit these comments as an individual consumer and concerned family member (Q2). People cannot readily opt out of ambient exposure from nearby antennas. I urge federal agencies to reassess whether existing limits adequately address lifelong, real-world exposures, including for children and ecosystems. Q3–4: Sources of concern include cell towers/small cells, phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, and wearables. People report headaches, sleep disruption, fatigue, and other symptoms they associate with RF exposure. Investigate these reports systematically without assuming causation. I report no personal diagnosis or clinical observations. Agencies should collect nonidentifying reports documenting device/source, measured exposure, timing, symptoms, medical evaluation, and changes after exposure reduction, using blinded tests where feasible. Q5–6: Compare FCC limits with ICNIRP 2020 and IEEE standards, WHO reviews, and IARC assessments. Explain how limits address frequency, SAR, power density, modulation, duty cycle, beamforming, distance, exposure duration, and multiple sources. The U.S. National Toxicology Program reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats under specific high-level RF exposure conditions; these results do not establish risks from everyday 5G exposure. IARC classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B) in 2011. Recent human reviews, however, found no increased risk for several studied cancers. Assess studies below limits and distinguish cellular changes from proven harm. Q7–9: Use calibrated broadband and frequency-selective meters, personal dosimeters, SAR testing, and validated modeling. Measure actual exposures across locations and times, including indoors, during peak traffic, and from multiple sources. Publish accessible antenna locations, operating characteristics, compliance methods, measured exposure ranges, uncertainties, and ways to request independent review. Q10–11: Build privacy-protective surveillance combining cancer registries, occupational and environmental monitoring, longitudinal cohorts, and voluntary adverse-event reports. Investigate clusters with comparison groups; reports are not proof. Biomarkers for individual RF dose are not established. Prioritize children, pregnant people, older adults, workers near transmitters, people with implanted medical devices (including interference risks), and people with preexisting conditions. Evaluate symptoms reported by people identifying as electromagnetically hypersensitive without presuming an RF cause. Q12–13: Investigate reproducible biological findings reported below some limits, while recognizing that a laboratory effect is not necessarily a health hazard. Compare exposure profiles—not merely the number of devices—for 5G, emerging 6G, Wi-Fi, satellites, IoT, wearables, smart homes/cities, autonomous vehicles, wireless medical devices, and smart meters. Exposure characteristics differ. Require updated assessments when technologies change. Q14–15: Fund rigorous studies of pollinators, birds, plants, and livestock, controlling for pesticides, habitat, climate, and other factors. An evidence map found hundreds of studies with quality limitations. Evaluate installations near homes, schools, childcare and healthcare facilities using site-specific measurements, cumulative neighborhood assessments, antenna characteristics, and realistic small-cell operation. Q16–17: NIH should fund independent, preregistered long-term epidemiology, developmental research, animal replication, and mechanistic studies. FDA should evaluate consumer and medical devices; CDC should coordinate surveillance and risk communication. FCC and health agencies should publicly explain how new evidence informs exposure standards and disclose conflicts of interest. Q18: I request (1) a time-bound, public reassessment of RF limits and their treatment of long-term, multi-source exposure; (2) publicly accessible environmental monitoring; (3) special review and community consultation for installations near schools and homes; (4) funding for ecological and human studies independent of industry; (5) practical wired options and clear device settings for consumers; and (6) a transparent process to report concerns and challenge incomplete compliance assessments. The 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC required the FCC to better explain its treatment of certain health and environmental issues; it did not find that 5G causes disease. A rigorous, updated public accounting is necessary. Sources: NTP, Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies (2018); IARC Monographs Vol. 102 (2013); ICNIRP RF Guidelines (2020); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021); WHO-commissioned systematic review of RF exposure and cancer (Environment International, 2024).

1. The study needs to evaluate induction from power lines as well to set a standard for distance per kw future homes should be built to power lines. 2. The study should look at mitochondria health and the ability to recover. The body is resilient and human effects will show in symptoms such as low energy, poor sleep, and being sick more often. These effects might be seen as “normal “ and not related to EMI/EMF. So the study should include pre and post evaluation of mitochondria health during exposure.

I think this is An excellent platform for some honesty about the “So Called influential”people who are creating ways to attempt making the world into something of their own . I don’t know what that could be! it makes no sense for all Humanity, Wildlife, Plant life, and Water . We As Human People are Happy and content With the Natural World !!! We are Not Guinea pigs for those Organized Groups , Companies , Multi millionaires profiting off of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE around them . I know more humans that are totally Concerned and Frustrated by phone computer TV frequencies MEGA WATTS how high they are and the capabilities of THE Multi MIllionaires to be able to seek anything they can about any individual at any time and worse to harm us with the technology ( Mega Watts ) that are Way Too High for all human organs to function over time & People Are Getting Much Sicker from it. Constantly New Electric poles with ? # Wattage boxes put up on our roads in our yards to keep us under the radar and eventually KILL US ALL !! That is the truth , more and more people know that our Lives are at risk and NOONE IS DOING ANYTHING TO HELP US ALL AS WE TRY TO BE GOOD AND DO GOOD FOR OUR FAMILY LIFE ! THAT IS under attack from technologies wattage and those who control it . Please wake up before it’s too late ; get motivated and Set Some Real Standards and employ people to go out and monitor all these devices and set limits that WONT HARM HUMANS from Electric boxes , Phones , Iinternet , Televisions , Data Centers ,& AI .