All HHS comments · page 272

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.

Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/12/1207

"Results

Children without emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 7 years, but who had cellphone exposures, had increased odds of emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 11 years..."

...

"These results did not materially change when early adopters were excluded, or when children with emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 7 years were included in the analysis."

Is it EMF? Screens? Software usage?

EMF could play a role.

Non native frequencies are making me very ill. I have recently found that I cannot stay in my own home without getting ill. I am attempting to address this and it is complicated. Wifi and cell towers have been placed without care for health. Technology has rolled forth quickly without care for safety. I am supportive of new technology but this process requires regulation.

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.

HHS has Requested Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. As an impacted patient and concerned member of the public, I have been harmed by smart meters from utility EMFs. I was not informed when the utility smart meters were first installed on the other side of my block, but I suddenly began to have severe glaucoma problems with my vision with diagnosis of very serious narrow angle glaucoma with potential for sudden irreversible blindness due to public utility company arbitrary business choices. Electric utility smart meters give off non-ionizing EMF radiation. In California, court records of multiple household members in the same house with glaucoma as well as extremely high 800-900 blood sugar readings requiring ER treatment/hospitalization occurred immediately following installation of electric utility smart meters. Narrow angle glaucoma, unlike the more common open angle glaucoma, can result in immediately permanent loss of eye vision without warning. Open angle can cause permanent loss of eye vision but it happens more slowly over a couple of years, not immediately. As a result, I had to have laser surgery on both eyes to make a hole to release the buildup of fluid that otherwise would cause my sudden and permanent blindness. A few years later I found out that my glaucoma occurred shortly after electric smart meters had been installed on the other side of my block facing the back of my house. Somehow, the local electric utility was able to adopt a more dangerous way to measure its product that harmed residential health but reduced staff, without consulting the affected public, nor informing anyone of the public health dangers, while emphatically denying such problems. Similarly, gas smart meters later were installed on my house recently, after being put on my neighbor's gas meters perhaps 6-7 years back. The gas is owned by MG&E which told me that they would be putting a smart meter on my gas or they would be turning off my heat as an elderly citizen for this coming winter and that would leave me finding my own source of fuel from another vendor. MG&E wouldn't be in business without its…

Read the full comment →

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 an active citizen in her eighties who lives alone and has recently recognized and is attempting to protect herself from EMF exposure harms, and who wishes to help spread the word about our societies need to protect citizens especially children from this growing toxin, I have lived with a modern wifi unit (Sonic) in my home for five years, and with an earlier generation of wifi (AT&T) for many years before that. In March 2026 after my yearly blood test, my nutritionist said that the pattern of change in my HbA1c test indicated likelihood of high EMF exposure. For the past 10 years since I've been her client the results have stayed between 5.2 and 5.4. Abruptly this past year it moved up to 5.7, the first number in the pre-diabetic category. As I said to her, I have not significantly changed my diet (no grains or refined sugar, lots of low starch veggies, some berries and citrus, grass-fed and finished meat, pastured eggs, fish). She recommended hard-wiring my computer and getting rid of wi-fi, which I have done. (I do not own a cell phone, smart or otherwise.) It's a distinct relief to not be bathing in wi-fi any more. I've long had tinnitus, which while not vanishing is much reduced, and I sleep better. I do think I may also be impacted by involuntary sources of EMF, namely cell towers and antennas. My nutritionist did a search and found about 2300 antennas and 1900 towers within a 3 mile radius of my house. I do have an EMF meter, and though the extremely high counts in my home are gone (they were in the millions), it still reads higher than 10 in my bedroom. So I am thinking of getting a bed canopy. I do look forward to the results of my next A1c test, hoping to see the numbers lower. I am very concerned about the effects of EMF on our human body health as well as impacts on animals, birds and insects, especially bees. The FCC has only measured the thermal impacts of RF, and that no more recently than 1996. For heaven's sake, there has been no…

Read the full comment →

Please regulate wirless frequencies. these are essentially micropwaves and they are causing damage and health complications to children and vulnerable people. the cell phone companies and espcially apple need to ensure that they provide compensation when more studies are done to prove what we are seeing in our youth and vulnerable populations

This comment is submitted by Cindy Sage, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports 2007 and 2012 (and Updates) on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group. The BioInitiative Report link is www.bioinitiative.org and is incorporated by reference due to its file size. The BioInitiative Report is an internationally acclaimed scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency/microwave radiation. In 2007, the BioInitiative Working Group released a 650-page report citing more than 2000 studies that document health effects of EMFs from all sources. The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former Presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Membership in the BioInitiative Working Group includes Sweden (6), USA (10), India (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Canada (2), Denmark (1), Austria (2), Slovak Republic (1), Russia (1) The BioInitiative Report was produced for publication to the broadest possible audience, hence placed on the Web and offered for free. Much of the BioInitiative Report content, including updated chapters and new chapters was later published in a special two-volume issue of the journal Pathophysiology to verify the quality of its science (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3). In 2013, the BioInitiative 2012 chapter on Autism and EMF was also published in two parts, in the peer-reviewed journal Pathophysiology. The BioInitiative 2012 Report concludes that the evidence for health risks from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by wireless technologies have substantially increased since 2007. A review of over 1800 new scientific studies indicates current guidelines are inadequate to protect the public from chronic exposure to very low-intensity (non-thermal) electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (EMF and RFR). In twenty-four technical chapters, the BioInitiative…

Read the full comment →

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 concerned member of the public.

Besides the fact that a good amount of research I have seen shows that current allowable levels of RF and EMFs from devices may not be safe, I have heard stories from people about how they are negatively affected by today's tech devices and I believe their voices need to be heard and their stories investigated. I know of people getting fatal cancers after living near cell towers. I have heard people say they feel sick when they around routers, cell phones and other devices, and especially cell towers. I have heard people say they get headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, insomnia and other symptoms from exposure to these things, but that the symptoms go away when they get away from them. I understand every BODY is different, and what affects one person one way may not affect someone else the same way (up to a certain threshold at least). However, some people serve as canaries in the coal mine--their experiences warning the rest of us that something might be more harmful to everyone than we realize. With Alzheimer's and especially cancer on the rise, I think the FCC and HHS have a duty to do a deep dive into these people's stories and make sure the RFs and EMFs we are all exposed to daily, everywhere, are not harming people. And if they find that they are, to do something about it immediately for the safety of the general public. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty and gross betrayal of the American people.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Please see my attached comments.

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 am responding from the perspective of a [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other].

PERSONALIZE YOUR COMMENT HERE: Tell HHS how wireless radiation has affected you, your child, your family, or someone you care about. You may describe the source and duration of the exposure, health effects experienced, when they began, whether reducing exposure made a difference, and how these experiences have affected daily life. If you are an ally, describe why you support people affected by wireless radiation and why you believe HHS should address this issue.

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.

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 an advocate, friend, and family member of people who have had adverse reactions to microwave radiation from cell phones, wireless routers, or cell towers. Although I personally do not have a strong immediate adverse reaction to microwave exposure, I know several people who do. Here are some vignettes from my experience: My sister in Utah complained to me about a twitch her 13-year-old grandson had developed, and wanted to take him to a chiropractor to see if anything could be done to help him. I asked her whether anything had changed in his life that might have caused this. She said no, but then called me back and said, yes. They had moved their wireless router into his bedroom. Upon removing it, his twitch went away. I, too, have noticed adverse reactions to wireless devices. I'm pretty adverse to using them at all, but I notice if I send text messages over a period of 10 or 15 minutes, my hands begin to tingle uncomfortably. On one occasion, I attended an event in an enclosed basement auditorium at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. It was a debate on the potential adverse effects of wireless devices, pitting Dr. Martin Pall against an attorney from the wireless industry. The wireless spokesman laughed at us when we asked that cell phones be put on airplane mode, because the wireless routers in the room were pointed from the ceiling at the attendees. After an hour and a half in that room I developed a headache and body aches, and was grateful to get out of there. I question what effect this was having on students trying to learn something. And why so many babies and young children are born with unusual health problems. And why so many young men are developing prostate cancer, and children in general are developing brain tumors. these are questions that should be addressed prior to the federal government allowing the definition of "broadband" expansion to include wireless and fiber-optice to the premises as if they were the same thing. I…

Read the full comment →

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 [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other].

PERSONALIZE YOUR COMMENT HERE: Tell HHS how wireless radiation has affected you, your child, your family, or someone you care about. You may describe the source and duration of the exposure, health effects experienced, when they began, whether reducing exposure made a difference, and how these experiences have affected daily life. If you are an ally, describe why you support people affected by wireless radiation and why you believe HHS should address this issue.

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.

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 an eighty five year old retired female living in a retirement community in Northern California, since October 1013. After living here for about six months, I began having strange physical symptoms - heart palpations, dizziness, nausea and tinnitus. I started investigating the cause of these symptoms, and found six electric smart (wireless) meters on the outside bedroom wall close to where I sleep. They are pulsing high levels of radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day. I discontinued sleeping in that bedroom and the symptoms disappeared, except for the tinnitus. When I stayed at my nephews house in the country which has low EMFs, the tinnitus subsided. This scenario is a classic of someone suffering from electro hypersensitivity (EHS).

I urge HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation.

For fifteen years I have been bombarded by frequencies twenty four hours a day keeping me awake all night, it feels as if I'm being cooked alive.

These studies look at how EMF influences mold. Promoting or inhibiting mold growth depending on frequency and environment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36354954/ "Enhancement of Fungal Enzyme Production by Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields" "The RF-EMF perfectly resonated at 2 GHz with directivity radiation pattern and peak gain of 0.5 dB (0.01 Watt). Total protein concentration and activity of α-amylase measured in media were about 1.5-3-fold higher in the RF-EMF exposed (10 min) sample than control (no RF-EMF) during incubation (the highest increase after 16 h). The level of α-amylase mRNA in cells was approximately 2-8-fold increased 16 and 24 h after RF-EMF exposure for 10 min. An increase in vesicle accumulation within fungal hyphae and the transcription of some genes involved in protein cellular trafficking was observed in RF-EMF-exposed samples. Membrane potential was not changed, but the intracellular Ca2+ level was elevated after RF-EMF exposure. Our results suggest that RF-EMF can increase the extracellular level of fungal total proteins and α-amylase activity and the intracellular level of Ca2+." https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/24/11508 "The Effect of Exposure to an Electromagnetic Field on Entomopathogenic Fungi" "Exposure to the 900 MHz frequency stimulated the growth of the mycelium and the pathogenicity of the entomopathogenic fungi, whereas the 1800 MHz electromagnetic field inhibited sporulation and spore germination" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723005545 "Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field on the pathogenicity of Magnaporthe oryzae" "The pathogenicity of M. oryzae were enhanced under ELF-EMF exposure. •The level of ROS increased in ELF-EMF-exposed M. oryzae. •Cell wall integrity of M. oryzae were enhanced under ELF-EMF exposure. •The infection cycle was shortened under ELF-EMF exposure.* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567539419304104 "Effect of static magnetic field on mold corrosion of printed circuit boards" "In the absence of a magnetic field, mold formed a spore-centered corrosion pit group on the surface of the PCB-Cu, which was macroscopically…

Read the full comment →

DEAR AUTHOR AND RFK

APPRECIATE END UNDERSIGN 35 YEAR V2K RADER DEW RADER AND HAVANA SYNDROME THAT Peterson & Schriever HAS UNDERTAKE . U COULD INVERSTIGATE THAT MILITARY WHO ADMIT THAY CONDUCT WIRELESS RADIATION AND HAVANA SYNDROME AND USE LAW AND TRUMP FORE COMPLELL Peterson & Schriever FORE END THEIR RADIO FREQENCY RADIATION AND V2K AND DEW RADER AND HAVANA SYNDROME AND UNDERSIGN

ALSO USA MILITARY AND FORMER AMERICA MILITARY USE HAVANA SYNDROME WEAPON ON GLOBE AND AMERICA SZEE THEIR ADDRESS AND EMAIL

Peterson & Schriever Public Affairs office at SBD1.PA@spaceforce.mil as listed on the Peterson & Schriever Space Force Base Contact Page.

Public Affairs Email: SBD1.PA@spaceforce.milHousing

Email: schriever.housing@us.af.mil

Base Address: 210 Falcon Parkway, Schriever SFB, CO 80912

PHONE: 719-567-3920

https://targetedjustice.com/treason-at-schriever

yayajawara@yahoo.co.uk YAYA JAWARA BSC TELECOMUNICATION 음

First I want to say thank you for realizing this is a problem and asking this question and doing something about it.

In June 2020 I was totally debilitated by EMF and RF in my home in Rancho Santa Fe California. I had to move out of my home to our Ranch on Palomar Mountain, which is totally off the grid no antennas no Towers no Smart Meters etc within 10 miles. It’s now 2026 and I’m still affected by the EMF’s even though I’ve taken many measures to mediate the EMF‘s and RF in my home in Rancho Santa Fe at great expense to me. I’ve also spent thousands of dollars on Health issues trying to help me get through these EMF /RF maladies, including terrible headaches, ringing in my ears, nausea, irritability, and being completely off-balance to the point where I have to hold onto things to walk around my house or out in public. It’s been a nightmare!

When this happens to you, you become aware of how many people are truly affected by this. Also, I feel incredibly sorry for all the children in the schools on the computers, etc., with no protection, and towers and antennas, sometimes even on top of the schools.

I think there might be a way to change the frequency of these things to be beneficial or at least a neutral frequency that isn’t harmful . Thank you Jana Lucaccioni