All HHS comments · page 280

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.

On a des gens qui vivent à proximité de ces antennes et qui sont malades

Des animaux notamment d'élevage qui meurent et sont impactés lourdement

On ne pas besoin de ces antennes 5 G .... entre la santé et ça, le choix est vite fait

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.

Let me start by saying there were scientists that disclosed years ago that 5G shouldn’t even exist. It’s weaponized and dangerous. They are correct in their assessment. On 5G. Poles are disclosures that it affects people and animals. Why is this even a thing? I had to get rid of my 5G mobile router because of the adverse physical effects from it. I have about 10 EMF plugs around my apartment to try to keep it out of life as much as possible.

I believe everyone in the government already knows this, yet now Trump is pushing for 6G which is proven to destroy human cells.

We need protections and we need them now. We need 5G to not be in existence anymore and we certainly absolutely do need 6G. This is a slow death for us all, and in the end someone will need to answer about why all this was allowed.

Can we please address Directed Energy Weapons next? That ties into this as well.

There are many of us civilians currently being attacked right now.

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.

In 2020 after almost losing ny husband to covid. Remdesivir destroyed 2/3rds of his kidneys. He has heart disease also, forcing our hand to sell our home and move into a top floor of 6 story condo March of 2021. On July 3 at a routine eye exam, we were told his results were "concerning", on July 5 he was told he had a large choroidal melanoma tumor behind his left eye. 5 IN A MILLION CANCER!!! THIS WAS NO COINCIDENCE!!. We were never advised or told what hung outside the windows of our bedrooms when we purchased. In 2023 we were told the 4g towers were upgraded to 5g in Nov. What was behind what I thought were electrical boxes on side of building were indeed cell towers. The HOA Board agreed to upgrade...they had no choice as years earlier ONE board member signed a 30 YR iron clad document "locking us in". The residents only thought about the income that kept the fees down. My daughter called me one day as she was driving by and said "Why didn't you tell me there are cell towers on your building?" I just didn't realize. She quickly bought monitors and enlightened me in April 2024. US CELLULAR told the board they didn't want to put the "boxes" back up as it was too much maintenance. Unfortunately, my husbands head was 8 feet from the other side of the wall where those 4G/5G towers were literally DRILLED into the brick building. I started asking questions, no one had an answer..why was this allowed? We bought 3 different RF monitors online, the numbers were horrific..like in the 300-400's.. the monitors would scream beeping...normal and safe was in the 20's! I laid monitors on my husband's pillow...it was 180! When I stood in front of the wall where the tower was on the other side..450! I scoured the internet for information. I called different companies across the country asking if I could hire a professional. I called the FCC, i begged someone to hear me. I sent a text to US CELLULAR TOWER, i got a call one week later. It was Mike Deinhart the VP of US cellular towers. He asked me to tell him what I was concerned about. I thought finally, someone is listening. I told him everything, i sent him videos. He of course said online monitors were not reliable and…

Read the full comment →

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.

The SAR (syndrome of acute radiation) caused by microwave radiation from telecommunication antennas, mobile phones, routers, computers, etc…, is the reason so many of us are sick, debilitated, confused, with memory loss, brain tumors, cardiac arrests, skin conditions, tinnitus, flu like symptoms, ADHD, Parkinson’s, dementia, to name a few.

There exists a technology which grounds the microwave radiation, so it is not harmful to living beings and nature. Governments should start using this technology to help the population get better health.

I personally am a hypersensitive person, affected by exposure to the wireless radiation emitted from antennas, mobile phones, computers, and routers, for example. My symptoms manifest as headaches, fogginess, tiredness, tingling in the face (specially the chin area), upset stomach, and eye strain.

I’m very proud of Bobby Kennedy’s work in the Health Department. I hope he and his team keep digging for answers about the dangers of exposing humans and animals to microwave wireless radiation. I’m specially concerned for the children, as their skull’s thickness is less than an adults, thus the wireless radiation penetrates easily.

The military operation of raising towers with antennas all over the world, needs to stop. Humanity is at risk. Children are at risk. Nature is at risk. Species are at risk. We are all at risk!

We know better, we can do better! Let’s tackle the pink elephant in the room.

If we do, Bobby Kennedy’s name will go down in history, for saving humanity from its finality.

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 get headaches , nausea, confusion if im near towers , or put my phone to my head. , i use speaker phone it helps a little

Hello, I believe I do have sensitivity related to being in settings where there is strong WiFi. I become disoriented when I'm in these settings ie: grocery stores like Target, Jewel-Osco Foods, Whole Foods, Walmart, Theaters both for movies & especially for the Performing Arts, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, any music or Plays. I am a volunteer usher for the Performing Arts venues & I have had to cut back significantly because I can't tolerate it & need time to recover after any event. I experience a feeling of disorientation in my head & sometimes an uncomfortable sensation in my chest. It goes away after I remove myself from whichever setting I'm in.

During my annual Mammogram I react the same way. I believe Mammograms are Ionizing Radiation. also during CT scans, Panoramic Dental x-rays.

I suspect it has affected my memory & may be something like CTE that football players get from repeated brain injuries.

I'm glad someone is paying attention to this & investigating it further.

I have Right eye Optic Nerve Atrophy which may be caused by a small stroke which I believe is somehow connected.

I wondered about a Havana Syndrome situation after I saw a program about some people who experienced it.

I'm not sure what else to say. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have.

I've mentioned this to various physicians but none have known what to make of it.

I've had CT scans which were done during an acute illness which I can send if needed.

Thank you

Thank you.

A good friend of mine realized that her severe headaches and disabling neurological symptoms were related to her using a cell phone, being near other people’s cell phones, and living in a city with many sources of WiFi. She became so ill that she had to move from the city she liked and had lived in for many years to a less populated area that had less cell phone towers and satellite dishes at the time. She was homeless for months while she looked for a permanent home. She’s had many difficulties since leaving the community where her friends live, she hasn’t fully recovered her health, and she is no longer able to work full time in her profession. Meanwhile the area she moved to has acquired more WiFi technology. The harms of WiFi technology are well documented. Seeing what my friend has gone through made me understand how devastating those harms are. We absolutely do need controls and limits on the corporations that value their profits over people’s health.

As a consumer, I would like to report that three fingers were injured from EMF by typing on my iPad. I did not have a separate keypad. I type directly onto the screen. I bought my first iPad in 2012 and I’m on my third one. In 2023 I bought my first iPhone (model 12) in 2023 which I still use. I also touched the surface with my fingers. My index and middle fingers on my dominant hand feel like they are burnt as well as the index finger on my non-dominant hand. They also tingle. This is permanent damage. Therefore I now use a stylus and try not to touch my fingers to the screen. Because of this bad experience, I bought shielding devices for my iPad and iPhone, a Qi Home device to protect my complete body, and a shielding hat to wear when I leave the house. I presently am 75 years old. In my opinion, EMFs are dangerous and need shielding cases, warnings to not touch the screens but use a stylus and/or separate keypad, Warning should be made public and shielding devices should be explained as a possible help, Thank you.

A recent study by Yale researchers published in Cell Reports found that exposure to wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cell phones, cell towers, and Wi-Fi — interfered with neurodevelopment and increased the expression of autism-related genes in laboratory models of the fetal brain. This was a state-of-the-art study using human cortical organoids — tiny, lab-grown models of the developing human brain. Created from stem cells, these organoids form many of the same early brain structures seen in a fetus. They are not full brains and have no consciousness, but they closely mimic early fetal brain development, and scientists use them to study how environmental exposures such as air pollution, microplastics, and diesel fuel could impact the brain. The experiments used a wireless transmitter operating at Bluetooth frequency and power, at exposure levels 4,000 times lower (0.025%) than the FCC’s limit for allowable human exposure to RF wireless radiation. “Our findings revealed that RF-exposed cortical neurons exhibited increases in Autism Spectrum Disorder-associated gene expression and dendritic spine density, characteristics of patients on the autism spectrum.” How 'bout a garage door opener that turns out to have v. strong wifi. I felt it even outside the garage by a least 10 feet, so I wonder how the person whose bed it's underneath will be affected? Techs wouldn't come and replace it w. a difft one because they said it's now "used," even tho it was only their testing of it that made it used... Same w. banks of SCE "smart meters," 5 of which are housed next to one apartment. 2 successive tenants got nasal infections requiring heavy antibiotic usage while subsisting next to them. Infections awfully close to the brain. I am the only person in the building who "opted out" with a pretty hefty financial penalty. I keep my cell phone on airplane mode at all times, unless I need to make a text or speaker-call, which is very rarely. My office computer, and a monitor in the living room for Netflix, are both hardwired via ethernet, w. the modem way out at street level so I don't feel it. Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a federally recognized…

Read the full comment →

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.