All HHS comments · page 281

7,080 public comments, newest first, 20 per page. Keep scrolling to load more.

#5601Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Natalie Kahn » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5602Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Johnny Hall » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5603Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Ify Lee » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5604Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by SCOTT JOHNSON » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5605A night-shift worker attributes symptoms and menstrual changes to workplace LED lighting, reports similar…by Amy F » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

A night-shift worker attributes symptoms and menstrual changes to workplace LED lighting, reports similar school concerns, and requests removal of such lighting.

  • LED headlights & glare: My employer has recently installed BioUp LED bulbs. These are AI controlled to adjust the blue light freq
  • Occupational exposure: led to adjust the blue light frequency. As a 3rd shift worker that struggles with ideopathic hypersomnia, this has h
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: i have severe cramps,followed by 3 weeks of light bleeding.my body aches like i have the flu constantly. I work i
  • Neurological symptoms & sleep: nd negative effect on me. It manipulates the circadian rhythm, alters hormones, disrupts meletonin production. After
  • Children & vulnerable groups: ated buildings are killing people slowly. My teenager is also having similar issues from school. And her moo
  • Cancer & tumors: dy systems. Infertility,low sperm viability, cancer, retinal damage, ect,ect. These are harmful, not just

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

My employer has recently installed BioUp LED bulbs. These are AI controlled to adjust the blue light frequency. As a 3rd shift worker that struggles with ideopathic hypersomnia, this has had a profound negative effect on me. It manipulates the circadian rhythm, alters hormones, disrupts meletonin production. After being in the lights for an hour and a half, i have severe cramps,followed by 3 weeks of light bleeding.my body aches like i have the flu constantly. I work in the dark whenever im able to, and turn off lights wherever I can. It helps a little. They are motion sensored, so its impossible to keep them off completely. Automated buildings are killing people slowly. My teenager is also having similar issues from school. And her mood is irritable, angry, all the time. Its not at all normal for her. Shes missing a day or 2 a week from it. Its well known what damages LEDs ,specifically the blue light frequency, does to our body systems. Infertility,low sperm viability, cancer, retinal damage, ect,ect. These are harmful, not just blinding us while driving. They are dangerous,and MUST be removed from infrastructure ,homes, SCHOOLS.

#5606Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Ralph Scalise » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5607Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Colleen Satterfield » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5608Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Alan Beer » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5609Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by John Watt » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5610Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by go clemson » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5611Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Kevin McKernon » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5612Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Marketa Esaili » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5613Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Patti Farley » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5614Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Clifford Phillips » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5615Briefly attributes anxiety and rapid heartbeat to an unspecified exposure, without further context.by Anonymous Anonymous » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Briefly attributes anxiety and rapid heartbeat to an unspecified exposure, without further context.

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

Causes anxiety and rapid heartbeat

#5616Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Wade Richard » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5617Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Karen Smith » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5618Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Angela Callis » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5619Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Sherrie Jordan » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.

#5620Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cance…by Wilson Nightshadow » 2026-10-05
AI summary & topic connections

Requests independent review of exposure limits, cumulative and nonthermal effects, reproductive and cancer evidence, and protection of vulnerable groups.

  • Research & federal duties: ther potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest
  • Exposure limits & oversight: ct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to
  • Cancer & tumors: issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Pl
  • Reproduction & pregnancy: ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize resea
  • Children & vulnerable groups: concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that refle
  • Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives: e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards whe

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

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.