All HHS comments · page 274

THIS MUST STOP. THEY ARE USING THIS ON CHILDREN AND PARENTS WHO ARE TARGTED... THIS IS CRIME AGAINTS HUMANITY

Exposures to EMF's & wireless radiation have caused severe headaches and tinnitus and made my eyes hurt.

Research has shown such exposure causes rouleau blood formation [blood cells clump together] and can lead to cancer and death. Suggest seeing books by Dr. James and Ora James--Handy Way to Cook Your Brain and Cellular Radiation which include PHOTOS of animal birth damage & rouleau & blood brain permeability etc.

The Wi-Fi was so strong in my house. I had to buy these things to block the Wi-Fi from my phone. And when I sleep, it gave me heart papulations

5G antennas and towers are extremely dangerous and deadly to human beings. They are equally dangerous and deadly to trees, birds, insects, animals and anything else that is alive. Symptoms for humans are body twitching, ear ringing, random migraines, cancer, strokes, stomach issues, flu symptoms, heart attacks…. just to name a few. The 5G technology that was rolled out to “improve mobile and Wi-Fi service” is a lie because they haven’t improved at all and they were ordered to be rolled out by the US military to create a surveillance state like China has. The US govt has never released the long term studies to the public about 5G or any EMF and it’s because the military controls the technology. Trump should be ashamed of himself for recently approving 6G. God sees all.

My health started declining soon after my local electric company unlawfully installed a Smart meter at my home. I finally got it replaced with analog. I had loss of energy, brain fog, aches and pains, and decreased quality of life. Some days I could barely get out of bed. I’ve always been very active and strong. I also had EMF exposure from my neighbors’ WiFi, electric lines, etc. When in the vicinity of cell towers, I would immediately get a headache. I spent thousands of dollars on products to protect me. My health kept declining. My friend put the pieces together when she counted 32 electrical wires going up and down my street. She told me I was being poisoned by EMF. I moved out of state to an area that had low EMF and I got my life back. Here I do not have Wi-Fi and my computer is connected via Ethernet cable to fiber optic cable. For years I’ve used a faraday pouch to protect my hand from my cell phone radiation. My hand would feel like it was burning.

I have noticed recently that my index finger that I use to scroll or type on my Apple XR is feeling burning and tingling sensations. So I now use a stylus. Sometimes I have waves of feeling unwell (sudden decrease in energy, it feels like “the bottom just fell out,” nausea, and hot flashes) while I’m using my phone.

EMFs, to me, are dangerous and a different system needs to be implemented.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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 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 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.

One of the main reasons that my daughter is selling her house in town is due to lack of sleep since a 5G tower was installed.

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 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 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 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.

As an MD I know that wireless radiation is very dangerous and even carry a card to protect myself but other people do not and are exposed

Hello. My family and I are concerned with the ubiquitous exposure to wireless radiation. Though we live in the countryside, we can see cell towers on hilltops. The local power company updated all underground lines and told us the old metal wires would soon become defunct. They wanted us to use wireless WiFi, but we said ‘no’ and had them use physical lines instead of going wireless. My husband and I suffer from frequent headaches; this may be due to multiple reasons, but what I have read from sensitive people’s testimonies, wireless radiation could be a contributing factor. Other family members on our farm are infants and small children; it is an established fact that they are more susceptible to the negative effects of wireless radiation. We have friends who live very near to a wireless radiation source who have developed multiple health problems since moving onto that farm. Prior to that move, they were in excellent health.

Please consider revising our lax American standards on wireless radiation. I know there are European countries with stricter standards because they have reviewed the science that reveals the true dangers of wireless radiation. We may not be able to see the thing that harms us, but it can and has been studied and you have the power to say, “Let’s protect people”. No need to completely get rid of all wireless radiation, of course, but there definitely is a need to put into place safety measures across the board for the protection of our most valuable asset—-people.

Thank you!

~Anna~

To begin, let me say that have never written down dates or took notes on my symptoms. Having said that, all I can do is guesstimate time frames and provide you with the symptoms I was experiencing and the event that actually made me realize it WAS cell tower and EMF exposure.

I started to sense that I was reacting to EMF’s a couple of years ago. I couldn’t put my finger on it, and it’s difficult to explain the “feeling” I experienced, other than to say it felt like a “buzzing” sensation in my head and chest. I had nothing to compare it to - but it was a feeling I’d never felt before. We lived in Florida at the time, but would experience the same feelings while visiting our daughter in Michigan.

It wasn’t until about a year and a half ago, while still living in Florida, that I was 100% able to associate the feeling/reaction with EMF’s and cell tower energy. Just about the time I was going to approach my doctor with my symptoms, a very intense reaction occurred after purchasing a 5G internet box from Verizon. I came home, installed it and immediately noticed the same, only more severe, “buzzing” reaction that I’d been noticing prior to that day. It was so intense that I had to leave the house and walk a good distance away before the feeling lessened. As I began to walk back into the house, the sensation returned. It was overwhelming! The only connection I could make was the new internet box - so I quickly went over and unplugged it from the wall. The buzzing subsided greatly - although was still there to a small degree. I got on the phone with Verizon and was told by the representative, after looking up my address, that there WAS NO CELL TOWER NEARBY which is why I was probably feeling that; the box was struggling to put out it’s feelers for a cell tower. She told me that the salesman should have never sold me the box without checking my location first. I took it back to the store, and in front of other customers and the clerk, I explained what had happened.

It was a horrible experience. I was angry. But, on the other hand, it was also helpful; it allowed me to make the connection to my personal sensitivity to cell towers and EMF’s. Not all people experience this. But, for those of us that do, it’s horrible and unsettling. We need to address this negative exposure before we move ahead to 6G, 7G, and up. This is real and it’s dangerous to overall health.

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 writing to underline the dangers that lurk behind all types of electromagnetic fields. Today we are living in a soup of radiation that is invisible, but potentially harmful. I cannot quote any studies to provide evidence, but I do know that many have been carried out. I myself am proof of the harmful effect that EMF´s can have as I am very sensitive to the radiation of Smart water meters, Wifi signals, bluetooth, cell towers, etc...

After suffering from headaches and lack of sleep, I moved out to the country away from cell towers, the WIFI of neighbors and many other sources of 24/7 radiation. My health has greatly improved.

I would beg you to study the literature and case studies of sensitive people like me who, like the canaries in a mine, are warning us to pay attention, and do something before everyone´s health is undermined.

I thank you for your attention to this important matter,

Mary Beth Hitt

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 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.

Telecommunication systems may be weaponised and hacked to attack targets. Constant monitoring of these systems and all other technologies to ensure that if in the case they are weaponised there are protocols to protect the target, mitigate risks and stop the attack. There are expert testimonies that testify that telecommunications systems are covert military-grade weapons in civilian jurisdiction domain. Allegedly, conflict of interest exists if the technologies around us are weaponised and the industry profiting from the weaponisation profits them. For example, if the weaponisation of technology can attack a target victim with radiation warfare and cognitive warfare to artificially induce what looks like a psychotic mental crisis in an otherwise healthy person and the victim is taken to a mental health clinic and given a misdiagnosis of psychosis put on lifelong black-box warning antipsychotic drugs whose “side effects” are death, suicide, homicidal thoughts, infertility and more than 30 other extra seriously harmful side effects no one really wants to suffer from. So the ones that profit from the initial attack is the attacker for whatever motive they attack the victim, the psychiatrists, and for the rest of the victim’s life the pharmaceutical industry that now has one more recurring customer providing income for the remaining of the victim’s life, if the victim manages to survive the dangerous side effects of the drugs prescribed. The Epstein files attest that these attacks have been used to silence whistleblowers. One prime example is Karen Mulder. The same sabotage that was done to Karen Mulder was done to me in Colombia. I have been attacked by these weapons also in France, Colombia, Spain, Italy and to less degree in Switzerland. If it can attack one victim it can also attack the population at large artificially creating what Dr. Robert Malone refers to as Mass Formation Psychosis, a term he informed about during the COVID-19 Pandemic. There are many sharing their testimonies on social media that civilians are being attacked by electronic warfare. Please look into the bigger picture of why this is happening and how to prevent more harm, acknowledgement…

Read the full comment →

Sleep disturbances, heart palpitations or other cardiac symptoms, eye issues,and more health problems, used to be rare or non-existent for me and others in my family until the expansion of wireless technologies and cell tower installations near our homes! Now, the effects of these types of radiation have shown up in many people I know!

It's overdue that the truth of being exposed to these types of emissions is dangerous and must be honestly investigated, then, limit our exposure by banning most of it! There are safer ways to make technology much safer for our health and well-being before it causes further damage to our lives!

The proof that these technologies and their radiation emissions do harm humans, plants animals and the environments we live in!