I would appreciate if HHS can look at smart meters being deployed in WA State. We were oven no choice by the local utility PUD to install smart meters . I declined and proved health risk proof but my request was denied. The utility installed the new smart meters in our whole neighborhood. They said I can pay an extra $25 a month to not have it turned in which I did a. Dot, however all my neighbors have it so I am still at risk.
I request clear, evidence-based information about the possible health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless technologies. Please address exposure levels, duration, and multiple sources, as well as potential implications for children, pregnant individuals, and workers with frequent exposure. The assessment should distinguish established risks—such as tissue heating at high RF exposure levels—from possible long-term effects, including cancer risks, that remain uncertain or under investigation. Please also explain how current safety limits are established and recommend practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.
Unless we know definitively that there is no harm to human health from 5G radiation those studies should be done before any further use of the technology. How often do we find out 20 years or more later what a terrible mistake was made, and how the common good was ignored in the name of profit and progress. Independent studies need to be conducted before allowing industry and government to continue using 5G.
I fully support scientific research and reviewing public health standards, but I also believe we need to be careful not to create unnecessary fear about technology that has been studied for decades.
Let's stick to the facts. 5G, Wi-Fi, and cell towers use non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation. This is not the same as X-rays or gamma rays. It does not carry enough energy to directly damage DNA through ionization.
The World Health Organization and National Cancer Institute have reviewed extensive research, and the overall human evidence has not established that everyday wireless exposure within established safety limits causes cancer. A major systematic review published in 2024 also found that mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of several types of brain tumors.
That doesn't mean we should stop studying it. Science is constantly evolving, and reviewing long-term exposure, newer technologies, and existing safety standards is perfectly reasonable.
What concerns me is when legitimate scientific questions get turned into fearmongering. Just because something is called "radiation" doesn't automatically mean it's dangerous. Exposure levels, frequency, duration, and actual biological effects matter.
I would encourage HHS to prioritize credible, peer-reviewed research, distinguish established risks from theoretical concerns, and be transparent about what the evidence actually shows.
If new evidence demonstrates a legitimate health risk, then absolutely update the regulations. But public health policy should be based on reproducible scientific evidence, not speculation, political agendas, or public fear.
We owe the American public accurate information, not another reason to be unnecessarily afraid of something they use every day.
When the DECT 6.0 technology was used with cordless landline phones, I stopped using the cordless handset, and only used the corded base phone, because using a cordless handset made me feel headachy and the sensation was like pins and needles. I hoped that I could find a way to disable or at least "turn off" the constant seeking behavior which that technology uses, but it's not possible. So the only lower-EMF-type phone was a simple corded landline, without any DECT 6.0 technology and without any capability to add a cordless handset. Then came the cell phone technology, and the issues started again. I have to use an anti-radiation case on my phone to stop the pins and needles tingling sensation - almost a burning sensation - all over again. Cell phones use that same seeking behavior but on a ramped up scale, always searching for more powerful signals, and wifi cuts through the house whether we need it that powerful or not. WE DON'T. I have to cover my wifi router with a lesser EMF-taming screen shield, just so that I can use the internet. Years ago, this was not needed. With 4G, 5G and now 6G...what's to stop the train of radiation from quickly cooking us to death? I want to opt out of this health mess, but am unable to do so....because it is unlawfully a part of life now to which we must all subscribe. This is not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our greatest asset is our health, and technology that cooks us with EMFs has stripped that health asset. Nowhere is safe. We've got to stop this while we can.
As digital infrastructure, mobile networks (5G/6G), Wi-Fi, smart devices, and wearable technology continue to expand rapidly into homes, schools, and public spaces, a transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date federal re-evaluation of human health impacts is both timely and necessary.
Key Areas for Federal Focus
1. Vulnerable Populations and Children:
Special attention must be directed toward children, adolescents, and pregnant women. Children have developing neurological and biological systems and higher relative absorption rates in head tissues from mobile devices. Federal research priorities should explicitly evaluate long-term, cumulative exposure patterns starting from early childhood.
2. Cumulative and Multi-Frequency Exposures:
Most legacy safety guidelines evaluate single-source, short-term thermal effects. Modern living involves chronic, low-level, multi-frequency exposure from overlapping cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, and smart meters. HHS should prioritize research that mimics real-world, cumulative co-exposures rather than isolated laboratory conditions.
3. Independent Scientific Review and Regulatory Harmonization:
Current U.S. exposure standards differ significantly from guidelines in other international jurisdictions. HHS should conduct an independent, transparent synthesis of peer-reviewed literature—differentiating independent scientific findings from industry-funded assessments—to determine whether current federal safety limits adequately protect public health.
4. Public Health Surveillance and Reporting Mechanisms:
The department should establish clearer pathways for clinicians and citizens to report and document adverse health experiences potentially linked to chronic environmental or technological exposures, improving post-market surveillance.
Thank you for opening this critical dialogue and inviting public input. I urge HHS to adopt a precautionary, evidence-based approach that prioritizes long-term biological safety, closes existing research gaps, and updates federal guidance to reflect modern wireless density.
My family and I warmly welcome HHS looking into this matter. It is something that we have been very concerned about for many years. Back in 2003, I was aware that cellphone towers were not permitted to be erected within a certain distance of schools in parts of Europe. When I moved to the US and attended my first city council meeting, there was a proposal on the agenda to erect a cellphone tower in the area. I asked the City council members about the research on negative health impacts from EMFs and wireless radiation exposure, and whether the city council had a restriction on the placement of cellphone towers near schools as in Europe. I was told that the City was prohibited from placing any such restrictions. This was shocking to me, but I soon learned that a lot of things that were prohibited in Europe for health and safety reasons were permitted in the US. I could not understand why elected representatives of the people had such little regard for the health and safety of the people they represented. I then came to learn that government at almost every level in the US had been captured by corporate special interests. My own experience with EMFs, RF radiation and Wireless Radiation is that I get an unpleasant tingling sensation in my hand when I hold a cellphone that is not in airplane mode. And that sensation occurs more quickly and more severely when I am holding my partner's iPhone 14 than when I am holding my own iPhone X. And the impact from my iPhone X appears to be greater than when I hold my old iPhone 6. I don't know if I am more sensitive than other people, or whether I am just more observant. I have also observed that I get headaches when I am in a car with a phone that is not on airplane mode, and particularly when the car windows are all closed. In addition to the cellphone issue, my neighbor's infant child experienced very negative effects from the moment that smart meters were installed on our condo building. The meters for all 6 units were installed on the outside wall of our neighbor's unit, and were specifically located on the outside wall of that neighbor's infant child's bedroom. He began exhibiting signs of distress when he went to bed at night, and even engaged in head hitting and head banging behavior. After a few weeks of this, our neighbors took their child to stay with relatives in another city, and the child's distress and behaviors instantly ceased.
I'm writing to emphasize the importance of requiring the FCC to revise the current US standards for safe radiofrequency radiation exposure. Please see my attached letter.
The American Telecommunications Guild (ATG), an Arizona nonprofit building workforce standards and credentialing for U.S. telecommunications infrastructure trades, submits the attached comment from the perspective of workers with occupational RF exposure. Tower and wireless technicians work closer to active transmitters, for longer periods and in more complex conditions than the general public, yet occupational exposure is rarely measured at the worker level or linked to health outcomes.
ATG supports evidence-based wireless deployment and does not presume current limits are unsafe. We recommend a national occupational RF exposure-and-event surveillance framework, developed jointly by HHS/NIOSH, FCC, OSHA, and NTIA, that links measured exposure, transmitter configuration, and work task to reported symptoms and follow-up outcomes; standardized worker-facing exposure disclosure; validation of personal RF monitors in beamforming and multi-band environments; and prospective cohort studies of tower and rooftop technicians using measured rather than assumed exposure. The attached response addresses Questions 2, 3, 5–13, and 15–18.