WATCH / UNDERSTAND / PARTICIPATE
Wireless radiation. Public health. The standards we live with. Watch Secretary Kennedy’s announcement and John Coates’s Freedom Hub conversation—then tell the agencies what you want investigated and changed.
01 / THE FEDERAL INVITATION
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announces the Trump administration’s request for information on RF and EMF exposure. The invitation reaches families, clinicians, researchers and others with experiences, evidence or questions that deserve attention.
Watch directly on YouTube ↗02 / THE RF SAFE PERSPECTIVE
RF Safe’s founder discusses federal responsibility, exposure guidelines, the need for independent research, and optical alternatives such as Li-Fi. The Freedom Hub interview brings those concerns into a practical conversation about what the public can ask government to do.
Watch directly on Rumble ↗WHY YOUR COMMENT MATTERS
A public request for information gives people a route to put observations, research and policy recommendations before an agency. You do not need to be a scientist to explain what happened in your home, workplace, school or community.
Describe the exposure you are concerned about, what you noticed, and what would help resolve your questions. A clear account can identify a research gap, a measurement problem or an access barrier that deserves closer examination.
RF Safe welcomes this invitation from the Trump administration and Secretary Kennedy. Our request is follow-through: transparent evaluation, independent research and meaningful attention to the people contributing to the record.
RF SAFE’S POSITION
RF Safe advocates a broader investigation of real-world exposure and practical ways to reduce unnecessary RF transmission while preserving connectivity.
Ask about cumulative exposure, repeated pulses, modulation, multiple sources and long-term outcomes. Request measurements that describe what people actually experience, alongside appropriate temperature controls and dosimetry.
Request research on children, pregnancy, workers, people with implanted devices and people reporting sensitivity. Describe coexisting conditions and other stressors when relevant, without assuming the cause has already been established.
RF Safe asks agencies to investigate possible non-thermal pathways and physiological changes, including sleep, cellular signaling and oxidative stress. Studies should test mechanisms and health significance rather than assume every biological change is harmful.
RF Safe supports a sustained federal radiation-research program, stronger health-agency leadership, reassessment of exposure guidelines and legislative reconsideration of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act. These are advocacy proposals; filing a comment does not itself change the law.
Ask agencies to evaluate wired networks, fiber and Li-Fi where they can reduce unnecessary RF transmission. RF Safe’s proposed Clean Aether Act includes compatibility and procurement ideas intended to make those choices more available.
People describing symptoms or barriers deserve respectful documentation and rigorous investigation. In RF Safe’s framework, “low-fidelity biology” describes a proposed disruption of biological signaling; it is a research hypothesis, not a clinical diagnosis.
“Non-native EMF” is RF Safe’s term for human-made electromagnetic exposures. The label alone does not establish risk: frequency, intensity, timing, duration and biological context all matter.
A FEW MINUTES. A SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION.
Explain what happened, roughly when, the devices or setting involved, and the impact on daily life. Distinguish firsthand observations from information you learned elsewhere.
Include measurements, relevant records or research you choose to share. For a study, provide the title, link and finding that matters. Explain uncertainties and other possible contributors.
Name a concrete research, policy or design request: better monitoring, longer follow-up, independent replication, school connectivity alternatives or updated testing procedures.
Your own account does not need to sound like a legal brief. Be specific, respectful and accurate. If you use a template, personalize it. Review privacy choices and remove personal details you do not want in a public record.
Prepare my comment → Find relevant research →TWO AGENCIES / TWO SEPARATE SUBMISSIONS
Use the HHS request for information to share experiences, studies, exposure data and questions for federal health research.
Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397
Submit to HHS ↗Use the FCC proceeding to address RF exposure protections, testing, oversight and the agency’s response to the court remand.
ET Docket 13-84
Submit to the FCC ↗These are separate proceedings. Filing with one agency does not file with the other. Check each official notice for its current deadline, accepted materials and instructions. Save your confirmation after submitting.
WATCH. REFLECT. CONTRIBUTE.
Tell the agencies what you know, what you want answered and what you want them to do next.
Start with my own words →Video sources: HHS announcement · Freedom Hub interview · RF Safe’s companion article. This page presents RF Safe’s advocacy perspective and is not an official agency publication.
Community posts are reviewed before they appear. This is not an official HHS filing.
The community forum isn't reachable right now, so posting and hearts are paused. Please try again later.
RF SAFE® is a registered trademark of Quanta X Technology LLC (U.S. Reg. No. 6,592,188).
Quanta X Technology LLC · 8134 122nd St N, Seminole, FL 33772 · support@quantaxtechnology.com