All HHS comments · page 58

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure.

I am responding from the perspective of a Healthcare practitioner and a person who's also been effected by harmful EMFs, RF and WR. In my experience, there are metabolic imbalances that increase one's sensitivity to harmful frequencies but everyone is being harmed, whether they're aware of it or not.

Over the decades that I've practiced medicine; first with paper charting and later using electronic medical records and sitting in front of a screen all day; I've noticed a significant shift in my energy levels directly proportional to how long I'm in front of a wireless device. For my patients, I've learned through trial and error that many of their symptoms can be attributed to exposure to various harmful frequencies. This includes but is not limited to; fatigue, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo, insomnia, chronic pain syndromes and cardiovascular symptoms. This is not the underlying cause in all cases but for many people, when we've addressed their exposure properly, it completely eliminated these health concerns. What are we doing to children who are now sitting in front of screens all day and inundated with EMFs and wireless radiation?

I support HHS taking an active role in examining the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Scientific researchers around the world have already done a lot of the work but it continues to be ignored. Federal agencies that are in place to protect the health of Americans, are blatantly ignoring the staggering amount of evidence related to these concerns. Not just for people but for the health of the entire planet.

I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health.

Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

Gives me headaches

As a qualified scientist that has done a lot of research in this area, it is crucial that head and body resonance is legitimately used in the determination of the safety standards. The fact that it is not, and that this goes against the obvious science, is very questionable, and I'd say in even stronger terms that it's actually very suspicious. Some research from Grok 4.7 Extra High references this obvious science: "Head size sets the radiofrequency dose. Standards and most of the research behind them use one adult size. That misses what decides how much energy is absorbed, and where in the brain it lands. The head works as an antenna. Size sets the frequency it absorbs most strongly, and which parts of the brain receive that energy. Head size changes greatly from infancy to adulthood, and among people of the same age. The FCC does not measure this. Phones are tested on a single adult head. The environmental limits are tightest where an adult body resonates, and they loosen where the head resonates. The ARRL RF Safety Committee states it directly. "The adult head, for example is resonant around 400 MHz, while a baby's smaller head resonates near 700 MHz. Body size thus determines the frequency at which most RF energy is absorbed." The same guidance puts a grounded adult body near 35 MHz and an insulated adult near 70 MHz, with further resonances near 1 GHz at the body surface. An adult and a baby are not the same antenna. Absorption peaks when head size matches the wavelength in tissue. The field inside the skull then forms a standing wave, so some parts of the brain absorb several times more than others. A head about 10 percent smaller peaks about 10 percent higher in frequency. Circumference is about 35 cm at birth and 54 to 58 cm in adults, a factor of roughly 1.6. Applied to the adult figure, 400 MHz moves to about 640 MHz, beside the ARRL figure of 700 MHz for a baby head. At one age the spread is still several centimeters, about a 10 percent shift, enough to move a peak on or off a band in real use. A small adult and a large child overlap. Age is not a stand-in for head size (Nellhaus, Pediatrics 1968; Rollins, Collins, and Holden, J Pediatr 2010; CDC…

Read the full comment →

There is no research on the longterm effects of wireless radiation exposure. And because there are no long term studies, the technology should be prohibited (at the least, heavily regulated). Have you ever read the fine print on a cell phone package which warns you to hold the phone against your body? Have you noticed the high percentage of brain cancers in young people? This is due to cell phone use and wireless internet modems in bedrooms. Anecdotally, I know of several deadly cancers caused by phones or modems. Please pursue. I can tell you I walked into a building last year with heavy wireless amplifiers and I was struck with temporary tinnitus and very heavy pressure in my head. I do not have these conditions in a safe setting. It threw me off for hours and once I left the building I immediately felt better. When we removed all wireless devices and the modem from our home last year and hardwired our computer and phones, immediately our home felt more peaceful and we started sleeping through the night. As an American citizen who wishes live a healthy life and raise my children in freedom and health, I am very troubled by the lack of consent and freedom in my own home and in my own life when it comes to wireless radiation exposure. The electric company attached a "smart meter" to my home without my consent. I asked them for the right to "opt out" of the technology as it would be attached to my house close to our living areas (bedrooms, office, deck/backyard play area). They said I would be charged a monthly fee for someone to read the meter and I agreed. But a month later when my dog was inside, they attached the smart meter to my home anyway. I have a meter which reads RF and the meter emits dangerous levels of radiation into my child's bedroom and our backyard area where we gather. This same electric company allows Missouri customers to OPT OUT and pay an extra fee for a non communicating meter, but just yards away across the state border, Kansans cannot opt out. Everytime we're in an airport or at a school or a city building or shopping center, there is wireless internet blasting us. All without my consent. The cell towers being built next to schools and…

Read the full comment →

As a just turned 83 year-old man, I am very concerned about the rapid buildout of wireless technology , most probably is not backed by adequate study of the harms it might cause. I encourage and will support this effort. Thank you. Walt Epley

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing regarding electromagnetic frequency from cellphone towers and utility poles, as well as from personal devices, eg phones, tablets, computers.

I have been a nurse for 40 years. For the last 21 of those years I was exposed to 60 hours a week of computers and cellphones. As a result of living near 3 cellphone towers and one large utility pole I developed extreme sensitivity to EMFs.

As a result, I’ve had to move multiple times, until I found a place that was relatively low EMF.

I am 83 now and use the computer very little. I do not travel with my phone, I put my devices in the unfunctioning microwave, and turn off the router 4 hours before I go to sleep, and my symptoms of dizziness, disorientation, nausea, depression, and mental confusion have disappeared.

I hope in other letters people will be writing to you about their experiences with cell phone towers placed near hospital buildings, and churches and schools, and they will provide you with their own experiences and detailed studies that will verify their own experiences. I am not including any studies as I am very sight challenged and it’s all I can do just to write this letter.

Sufficient to say, that I’ve been forced to move to a very remote location where exposure is minimal, as a result of my inability to handle a high emf environment. I can no longer travel because of my inability to handle exposure.

Kind regards,

Sunshine Appleby

Retired registered nurse

See attached file(s)

Question 2 — Perspective Individual consumer reporting unlicensed wireless transmissions, NIER fraud, and FCC complicity. Question 5(n) — Regulatory changes Abolish all RF categorical exclusions. Require independent annual NIER safety inspections of every wireless facility, without exception. Question 8 — Improvements in exposure assessment Require independent site inspections, verification of all antennas and transmitters, transmission identification, and residential-area measurements. Investigate unlicensed transmissions and missing equipment rather than accepting company paperwork at face value. Question 9 — Technical and exposure-related disclosures Require public disclosure of each facility’s FCC registration, installed antennas and transmitters, licensed frequencies, power levels, inspection results, and RF safety records. Question 15 — Evidence concerning wireless infrastructure The Crown Castle Edgemont cell tower, BU 855801, at 5351 W. 6th Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado, has no current FCC registration (permit TELE24-00035; project CN13-796 / 2400001). There are no registered active call signs or frequencies for this site in the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS). All transmissions measured at this site are publicly unlicensed. Two antennas physically present on the tower are omitted from the current site plan. Using a TinySA Ultra ZS-407 spectrum analyzer and HTOOL HT8 directional antenna, I measured an unlicensed transmission at 10.7777 GHz at +22.3 dBm beneath the tower and +9.4 dBm on my patio, approximately 0.27 miles away. At that same patio location, my cell phone signal measured −90 dBm. The +9.4 dBm reading represents approximately 8.7 billion times the received power of the phone signal. I also measured unlicensed transmissions at 10.0912 GHz and 11.5878 GHz. These transmissions, omitted antennas, and lack of FCC registration demand investigation. Question 18 Crown Castle’s NIER checklist identifies its radio service as Wireless Communications Services (Part 27). That service is not included among the services eligible for the checklist’s categorical exclusion. Crown Castle nevertheless claimed a categorical exemption that does not apply to…

Read the full comment →

It's about time public safety trumped money.

See attached file(s)

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, ADD/ADHD, seizures, cancer, infertility and more! It's been 30 years in the making but we now have an unprecedented short window with both the Federal Communications Commission AND Health and Human Services to build the public record and document the fallout. Regulations for the wireless radiation industry MUST be established for us and for our future generations for healthy safety and the protection of the planet. Stop the excessive diseases and conditions from the radiation. I am also being charged an extra unauthorized fee of $12.00 from NJ PSE&G energy company because I refuse to install a SmartMeter. SmartMeters release radiation that causes cancer and I have cancer. I offered to read or phone in the monthly meter readings but PSE&G refuses to remove the extra charge. They argue that they must send in a person to my district to remotely read my meter and they must spend gas money. They could send in an electric vehicle to save gas or a hybrid. There is no reason to charge me an extra $12.00 per month since I do not want a SmartMeter installed in my home. Please help me in this situation. Thank you. Susan Scherman, RN, BA, CSN, Certified NJ School Nurse & Certified Health Education Teacher

My name is Dr. Marion Van Horn. I am a neuroscientist and mother of three. I am submitting this comment because I believe there is an urgent need to reassess whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits adequately protect human health and the environment.

This issue recently came to our attention when our friend Alison Morrow Westover tried to stop a cell tower from being installed in her neighbour’s backyard.

What surprised us most was learning that, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, health concerns cannot be used as grounds to reject a proposed cell tower, provided it complies with FCC exposure limits.

But I was shocked to learn that the FCC’s RF exposure limits haven’t been substantially updated in nearly 30 years, despite ongoing scientific research in this area!

As a neuroscientist who has studied brain development, I know that early-life environmental exposures can profoundly influence the developing brain. These are critical periods of development, during which environmental influences can have lasting consequences.

While the long-term health effects of RF exposure remain an active area of scientific investigation, parents are absolutely justified in asking questions about the safety of placing a cell tower so close to where their children are growing up.

Given the evolving scientific evidence, I believe it is essential that the FCC undertake a thorough, independent review of its exposure limits, with particular attention to long-term exposure, children’s developing nervous systems, and potential environmental effects.

We should not have to wait for conclusive evidence of harm before asking whether our existing safety standards are sufficiently protective.

S October 20,2026 The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 RE: Public Comment on Request for Information (RFI) regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure (Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397) "I am responding as a patient under the Individual Consumer category to provide direct evidence regarding the adverse health impacts of RF/EMF exposure. While I am submitting a concise 20-page overview of my case today, this text is drawn from a comprehensive 1,000-page medical record and extensive technical review documenting clear clinical baselines, tracking diagnoses, and highlighting critical gaps in current public health surveillance." This information I am presenting is very brief due to my extreme disability from RF/EMF. I must advocate for reasonable accommodations for all disabled people. My research has told me that reasonable accommodations for this HHS process are not allowed or recognized under the law. In short, due to my injuries from RF/EMF, my ability to function takes about 32 times longer than an average healthy person, meaning it takes me 32 hours to work a full 8 hour day. Seldom does society’s institutions allow me reasonable accommodations. I needed to state this up front so that anyone from HHS or beyond listening to my testimony can try to comprehend what is behind it, and if I am approached for information, I would appreciate people who are trauma-informed and willing to work with me on reasonable accommodations. I have been gravely traumatized many times by various professionals, and it is a truly horrifying experience after my extensive RF/EMF injuries. I have established about 1,000 pages of medical records and many other forms of evidence regarding being harmed by RF/EMF. I believe that my medical file, records, research, and evidence is one of the most comprehensive in the United States. I hope that this can help science, medicine, and most of all other victims. From my own personal experience, and from seeing others severely injured and killed by RF/EMF, the average person in the United…

Read the full comment →

I approve of the HHS department working on updating the FCC communications act from 1986. Technology has changed drastically since then and we need to make changes.

Re: Radiofrequency Exposure Standards, Biological Effects, and Outstanding Research Gaps I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public regarding the adequacy of existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards. The central issue is not whether RF radiation can produce biological effects. Experimental research demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can interact with biological systems. The unresolved question is whether existing exposure standards adequately account for potentially adverse effects across different exposure conditions, particularly those involving modulation, pulsing, chronic exposure, and developing biological systems. Of particular interest is U.S. Air Force-funded research conducted by Drs. Gale Craviso and Indira Chatterjee at the University of Nevada, Reno (AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0377). Their 2008 final performance report documented apparent nonthermal alterations in catecholamine release from adrenal chromaffin cells exposed to pulsed microwave frequency sweeps, particularly between 5 and 6 GHz. Bulk temperature and pressure were monitored, although the researchers acknowledged that localized microscopic heating remained a possible explanation. Related experiments demonstrated that extremely brief, high-intensity electrical pulses could trigger intracellular calcium influx and catecholamine release. These experiments involved exposure conditions substantially different from ordinary wireless communications, but illustrate the importance of investigating biological responses to different electromagnetic exposure parameters. Separately, the National Toxicology Program's 2018 studies (Technical Report 595) reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation, alongside certain noncancerous tissue changes. Although these exposure conditions cannot be directly extrapolated to typical human wireless-device use, they warrant appropriate consideration in risk assessment. The scientific literature contains both positive and negative findings. Biological responses are not automatically adverse health outcomes, but neither should the absence of substantial tissue heating be…

Read the full comment →

I do not want cell towers near my home or school due to the health concerns with EMFs. EMFs disrupt the voltage gated calcium channels of the cell and by doing so harms human health:

I live within 500 feet of a cell tower and since I lived here I have gotten migraines, insomnia, tinnitus and an auto immune disease that is excruciatingly painful to live with. My life is over from these conditions but I would hope and pray that others can be saved, please update the regulations, people cannot and should not live like this. Thank you, Susan Emrick

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on EMFs, Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am very pleased with HHS's initiative and hope it will take action to to examine the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I also hope that my government of Canada will follow suit. I urge HHS to carefully examine the submitted experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research and give particular attention to children, and other vulnerable populations that are affected in different ways. Please do not delay in taking action. I was a healthy woman, leading a normal (and international) life until a RF communicating smart meter made me sick. Since 2016, my life and that of my family has been turned upside down. I had to move away from what is deemed 'normal' society. I do not consent to the continuous involuntary exposure to pulsed modulated, biologically active electrical and radio-frequency radiation. Thank you for providing an opportunity to be heard. 1. & 2. Responding as: an individual 3a. Type of sources: pulse-modulated RF radiation from: smart (utility) meters, Wi-Fi routers, any 'smart' tech including in cars; iPads/ laptops; earbuds/ hearing aids ; cell towers. Low frequency EMF's from wiring, electrical appliances, transmission lines, cars. 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, timing: Adverse health effects have changed over time: including severity of symptoms, timing of onset, - some with delay, others directly when exposed - and recuperation time after exposure. 3c. Adverse health effects: Symptoms experienced over the last ten years (difference in presence and severity over time) : Cardio-vascular (heart palpitations, tachycardia); eye sight, neurological effects including speech problems, memory, tinnitus; chest pain/tightened chest; sleep dysfunction/ head aches/ stabbing pains, tremors; sensations in thyroid and face/ jaw area, chills/ flu like symptoms. 3d. Time from exposure to appearance of adverse effects; did a change coincide with onset: In 2016 our family returned to Canada after living in Europe for some years. Upon our return I developed…

Read the full comment →

This comment shares my perspective as a private citizen of the United States. I am a 37-year-old male. Below, I address questions 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15 from the Request for Information. Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), Radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and Wireless radiation is a major environmental contributor to my own illness: chronic, neurologic Lyme disease, tick-borne co-infections, and related autoimmune complications. When exposed to this radiation, I suffer fatigue, brain fog, headaches, vertigo, and exacerbation of underlying neurologic illness. I have been a patient of a practitioner of orthomolecular and environmental medicine for the past 17 years. My symptoms increase in severity the stronger the radiation, the closer the source, and the longer my time of exposure. Two hours of driving in a car on a highway past cell towers induces mild to moderate fatigue and brain fog. An entire day of exposure to WiFi at a home, school, or hotel induces moderate to severe headache, brain fog, fatigue, and vertigo. Repeated exposures day after day in a workplace eventually contributes to severe episodes of head pain, debilitating vertigo, vision disturbances, and loss of ability to think and speak. I have had to leave jobs due to this inability to function. In hindsight, this was also a reason why I had to take multiple medical leaves while attending college on a campus covered with 24/7 WiFi. My family and I have remediated our home environment from wireless radiation by hard-wiring all of our computers, telephones, and electronic devices. We disable all wireless capabilities and do not use any “smart” devices or appliances. I do not use a cell phone. I am able to stay healthy in this low-EMF environment, and in outdoor environments in my semi-rural town. I cannot function for prolonged periods in city or densely-populated suburban environments with high radiation levels. I do not think of myself as “electrically-sensitive,” but simply as a living being who is aware of the harm that EMF, RF, and Wireless radiation cause me. The harms of this radiation to all of life on Earth are well documented in the scientific literature. Arthur Firstenberg…

Read the full comment →

See attached file(s)