Exposure limits & oversight

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. RFI on EMFs, RF radiation, and wireless exposure. U.S. radiofrequency limits need a comprehensive health review. That review should be run with the Department of Defense and the medical and scientific teams already investigating directed-energy bioeffects (DEBE), Havana syndrome, and anomalous health incidents (AHIs). It should cover non-ionizing RF, thermal and non-thermal, and it should not ignore ionizing radiation, which the public is also entitled to have explained in plain terms. Citizen health should not be traded for corporate convenience or an outdated heating-only rule. Russia set much lower public RF limits than the United States, and did so from chronic, non-thermal studies rather than from a six-minute heating test. The history of those standards is in Repacholi, Grigoriev, and colleagues, Bioelectromagnetics 2012. Soviet and Russian public power-density limits have long been on the order of 10 microwatts per square centimeter. The FCC public limit above 1.5 GHz is about 1,000 microwatts per square centimeter, roughly 100 times higher. I take that gap as evidence that RF is under-controlled here and is a credible contributor to neurological and chronic disease that has been explained away for years. HHS should test that claim. It should not leave it to the licensing agency. The mechanism file already exists inside the U.S. government. The National Academies (2020), An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, found directed, pulsed RF energy the most plausible mechanism for the acute, directional AHI cases. Dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, cognitive deficit, and memory loss were also consistent with known RF effects. A 2022 intelligence-community experts panel likewise found pulsed electromagnetic energy plausible. The 2023 assessment that a foreign weapon was unlikely is an attribution finding, not a finding that pulsed RF cannot injure tissue. Pakhomov and Murphy (2000), written for the Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, reviewed 114 Russian experimental studies and reported that pulsing, not average intensity, was treated as the dominant factor in low-intensity effects. Frey (Aerospace Medicine 1961; J Applied Physiology 1962) showed that pulsed microwaves produce a sound inside the head by thermoelastic expansion, a bioeffect set by the pulse, not by core heating. Cancer evidence below a meaningful thermal story: NTP TR-595 (2018), an HHS study, found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannoma and some evidence of malignant glioma in male rats exposed to 900 MHz GSM and CDMA. Falcioni et al., Environmental Research 2018 (Ramazzini), found the same heart tumor in male rats at far-field, base-station-like exposure near 0.1 W/kg, close to the FCC whole-body public limit of 0.08 W/kg. IARC Monograph 102 (2013) classifies RF as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic, on limited evidence for glioma and acoustic neuroma. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court held that keeping the 1996 limits was arbitrary and capricious because non-cancer evidence was not addressed. I want objective studies across major disease categories, not another thermal reassurance. Priority is Parkinsonian and Lewy-body syndromes: tremor, rigidity, autonomic failure, cognitive decline, and the overlap with AHI brain injury. Existing power-frequency meta-analyses do not show a clear Parkinson's association (Huss et al., Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015, summary RR about 1.05; Gunnarsson and Bodin, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, EMF RR about 1.02 for Parkinson's, higher for ALS and Alzheimer's). That is not a study of pulsed or modulated RF. Yakymenko et al., Electromagn Biol Med 2016, found oxidative stress in 93 of 100 low-intensity RF studies. Oxidative and mitochondrial injury is a shared pathway into nigral and Lewy-body disease and should be tested directly. Lai and Singh (Bioelectromagnetics 1995, 1996) reported DNA strand breaks in rat brain after low-intensity microwaves. Salford et al., Environ Health Perspect 2003, reported blood-brain barrier leakage and neuronal injury after GSM exposure at non-thermal SAR. Request: a joint HHS-DoD-AHI evidence review; a public table of U.S. versus Russian limits and the biology each used; NTP restarted on pulsed versus continuous wave at equal average SAR, at or below 0.08 W/kg; disease-category studies, led by Parkinsonian syndromes, neurodegenerative disease, cancer, cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive outcomes; a de-identified registry for acute neurological events tied to a measured RF source; and a plain-language correction of the claim that compliance with the FCC limit means no biological effect. Ionizing exposure should stay under its own regulators, but HHS should publish one map so the public can see thermal, non-thermal, non-ionizing, and ionizing evidence side by side.

I am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment. I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on that. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.

I am very concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation on human health, as well as the negative effects on our environment. I strongly urge HHS to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these deleterious effects and to take decisive action to mitigate them. Please consider including the experiences of those negatively affected by this harmful radiation as part of the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.

I don’t have information or research studies, but I DO have an opinion. Stop trying to kill us or make us sick. We all know 5G, smart meters, etc, emit radiation and whatever else, to interfere with our bodily functions. Any radiation floating around in the air is not good for people, animals, plants, soil, air. So why do you keep coming out with more and more things that will make us sick and potentially kill us? Money? Control? Depopulation? Very sad that the very people who should be protecting us are trying to kill all of us. Shame on you. God will judge you when it’s time to send you all to hell.

I am writing to share my support for keeping our wireless networks open and expanding our internet infrastructure, including 5G and Wi-Fi. Having reliable wireless access is incredibly important for everyday life, and I do not believe we should limit it or slow down its growth. Please consider these points: • My family relies on this technology every day: High-speed internet and wireless connections are not luxuries anymore—they are tools we need to survive. We use them for school, talking to doctors, and keeping in touch with family. If we restrict the wireless spectrum, it could hurt regular people and businesses who need this connectivity. • Public safety depends on it: Cell towers and wireless networks are how we call for help in the remote rural area where we live. Police, firefighters, and paramedics rely on these networks to do their jobs and protect my family and our neighborhoods. • Major health agencies say it is safe: From what I understand, major health organizations—like the FDA and the World Health Organization—have looked at hundreds of studies over decades. They have consistently found that the low-level signals from Wi-Fi and cell phones do not cause health problems. The radiation used is "non-ionizing," which means it is too weak to cause damage. • There are already safety rules: Our government already has strict safety limits in place for cell towers and devices to make sure they are safe for the public. Conclusion While it is always a good idea for scientists to keep studying technology, we should not make rules that hold us back based on fear instead of facts. Please keep our wireless spectrum open so our communities can continue to grow and stay connected.

Patents disclosed for years the penetration of 5 Ghz signals (“5G”) on the human body. A patent for a vascular system measuring necklace (KR20170017989A) , filed in 2017 before the Korean patent office, discloses: Radar source can be divided into 2Ghz, 5Ghz, 10Ghz, 20Ghz area according to permeation depth by using general RF generator. However, it is most efficient to use 10Ghz source at 5GHz because of different penetration / Do. The sensor has a dedicated radar sensor with a middle wavelength in the wavelength range, which improves detection efficiency and minimizes the amount of energy consumed. What is the penetration efficacy of 5G? In the Korean patent, it is: “the biometric information includes blood pressure, blood flow velocity, color information of blood or blood vessels, pulse, blood vessel thickness, etc.” That is a lot of very personal information 5G can read just by being close to our bodies. Cells feel 5G acutely. In studies done on E. Coli and yeast cells, the 5 Ghz signal was found to influence cellular division ( 5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz | Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology ). The risk of cancer (constant, uncontrolled cell division) is so well-known that one U.S. patent assigned to Fractal Networks LLC explicitly discloses “Cancer Minimization of 5G Cell Phones” . In that patent US11658407B2, where our cell phones contain varied antennas to capture the 5G signal, a revised reflecting cavity inside the cell phone “can change a radiation direction of the 5G antenna to reduce the electromagnetic radiation on the user. In one embodiment, if the user puts the phone next to the face, sensors detect such usage scenario, and uses the 5G antennas most away from the user to increase antenna efficiency and reduce radiation on the user.” 5G is different from the networks that came before it because 5G ( US11658407B2 - Cellular system - Google Patents ): is used to designate fifth generation of mobile technologies. 5G has made it possible to use mobile phone with larger bandwidth possible. It is a packet switched wireless system. It is used to cover wide area and used to provide higher throughput. It uses CDMA, BDMA and also millimeter wave (for backhaul wireless connectivity). It uses improved and advanced data coding/modulation techniques. It provides about 100 Mbps at full mobility and 1 Gbps at low mobility. It uses smart antenna techniques to support higher data rate and coverage. This higher level of function, and penetration, requires an increased number of cell towers with multi-antenna. 5G relies on massive multi-antenna (MIMO) structures. So not only do we have to be concerned about the radiation from our phones on 5G, we also have to be concerned about the increased number and functionality of cell towers. 5G antennas emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation and so far the 3.5 GHz frequency has been used as carrier wave for 5G in city environments. RF radiation, a type of microwave, was already proven to be harmful to human health at levels encountered in the environment before the deployment of 5G. Per OSHA ( Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation - Health Effects | Occupational Safety and Health Administration ), the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. With 5G, RF radiation has reached such levels we should expect widespread headaches, fatigue, concentration difficulty, insomnia, emotional distress, irritability, dysesthesia, skin lesions including burning sensation, cardiac and lung symptoms. Another term for the illness is radiofrequency sickness syndrome. ( Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave sy... ) Sweden and France conducted extensive studies on RF radiation. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0017/html French studies exposing animals to the 3.5 GHz frequency found negative effects such as oxidative stress in the liver, kidneys, the plasma, degenerated neurons in the brain as well as oxidative stress in muscles and negative effects on bone strength. France combats the health risk associated with 5G by banning certain pieces of 5G equipment ( France introduces de facto ban on Huawei 5G equipment by 2028 – POLITICO ) and favoring local manufacturers, where it can test antennas for radiation reduction among other factors. The United States does not seem to have conducted thorough tests on 5G / RF radiation impact on human cells. We are really falling behind in understanding 5G. It may be best if we place a moratorium on all imported 5G equipment (similar to what France did in July 2020) until radiation reduction policies and equipment options can be explored and prioritized.

I'm extremely worried about wifi damaging our blood brain barrier. We needs safe 4g, 5g and wifi. Bluetooth is also really harmful. At the very least consumers should be heavily warned about dangers before buying.

I don't like the idea of being bathed in microwaves. It does not matter if it's very weak. The effects are still present. I have 5G turned off on my phone. Soon we will get 6G in Terahertz? This is extremely energetic. No, just no to 5g & 6g

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'm constantly amazed and disturbed that EMF radiation has been so ignored by health and regulatory agencies. The evidence of harm caused by EMFs is overwhelming, especially with the proliferation of cell phones and cell towers bristling with antennas. It's high time the industry was reigned in and safe standards were established.