Environmental effects

Good morning, I never hold my phone to my ear, I don’t want brain cancer. There are hidden things about RF and EMF that are detrimental to our health and for sure I don’t trust the regulators, they are bought with lots of money to keep the bad behind closed doors. How about telling us the truth and find safety mechanisms for us and our children, animals and our land. Not all inventions are brilliant. I will not buy an electric car for health and environmental reasons. Please make it all safe for all of us. I don’t even use a microwave. I suppose I read too many good articles to be aware of the bad out there. Please fix it for humans, animals and our earth! Thank you Marlies

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 concerned member of the public. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. 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.

HHS, I would like to comment on non-ionizing man-made radiation that the citizens of the U.S. are daily exposed to, which negatively impacts our health though they may not be aware of it. I am personally negative impacted with adverse health effects when exposed to man-made radiofrequency (RF) made radiation as I am more sensitive to it than others. As a result of being significantly affected by the non-ionizing radiation produced man-made devices, I found a physician to address to issue and was subsequently diagnosed as having electromagnetic hypersensitivity. (EHS). We are exposed daily by devices such as cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fis, Wireless Access Points (WAPS), Bluetooth and AirPod devices, etc. In addition, there are low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wiring and equipment in homes and businesses. Animals and plants are also negatively affected by man-made EMFs and radiation. A huge problem is that the FCC is NOT adequately protecting the citizens of the U.S. based on their old outdated man-made EMF standards based on the heating effect and not the biological effect. The FCC is obviously an industry captured agency and they have so far refused to update their standards even though on August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious." On the Children's Health Defense (CHD) website, it says, "In a motion filed today [August 6, 2025] with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), CHD urged the agency to collaborate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set wireless radiation exposure limits that protect public health." This is an excellent move by the CHD. The HHS should set the man-made radiation standard, not the FCC. Asking the FCC to do it is like having the fox guard the hen house. I am aware of no action yet taken by the FCC to revisit the old EMF radiation standards or that the FCC is collaborating with the HHS to update the EMF radiation standards. It is unconscionable that the FCC is doing nothing as far as I know to help make sure the citizens are not exposed to man-made radiation that negatively impacts their health. The new standards must be based on the biological cellular effect, not on the old outdated heating effect. This new standard, if based on the many scientific studies that are not biased in any way will help increase the U.S. citizens' health as many are negatively affected by man-made EMFs but they do not correlate negative health effects with the EMFs. All of the U.S. government agencies need to do things that prove they are focused on public health issues, not just talk about it. Remember MAHA.

THIS CONSTANT BARRAGE OF CHEMICALS SPRAYED ON OUR EARTH IS RIDICULOUS. WE KNOW IT IS AN ENCLOSED SYSTEM AND THAT MEANS THIS SPRAY STAYS HERE AND CONTINUES TO DAMAGE US. YOUVE DAMN NEAR KILLED ALL OUR BEES WITH THE ALUMINUM SPRAY AND YOU KNOW IT. YOUVE STUDIED IT. WITHOUT BEES EARTH AND THE INHABITANTS DIE. MUST BE YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL COZ ITS WORKING.

I strongly urge HHS and its selected scientists to review the effects, symptoms, and published studies and report on non-thermal effect and take these into consideration. I have been conducting assessments for AC electric and magnetic fields and wireless radiation (RF) with professional calibrated instrumentation in residential, commercial and institutional buildings for over 30. I can attest that in many cases were individuals reported unspecific health problems and symptoms; once the source was eliminated, exposure reduced or shielded improvements were clearly noted. The current regulatory exposure limited need to be revised and significant reduced, especially in sensitive aeras such as but not limited too kindergartens, schools,...... I am encouraged that HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. 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.

I am a retired environmental attorney and currently a Professional Engineer in Washington and California (RCE). I have participated in proceedings before the FCC regarding the harms to humans and other protected animals of non-ionizing EMF including radiofrequency and wireless radiation. The FCC has been unresponsive to these harms. I greatly appreciate the HHS addressing this issue. These harms are addressed in the attachments submitted as part of this comment. A good summary of these harms is provided in Sage, Cindy (2007-2014) (attached hereto). There has been an International Appeal (2015) (attached hereto) seeking to get reasonable regulation of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). I attach other articles that address this issue, including Pall, Martin L. (2015); Yakymenko, Igor (2014); and Levitt, B. Blake (2010). Cell towers not only adversely impact humans, but also have adverse impacts on protected wildlife. Albert Manville is an expert on the adverse impacts to protected wildlife and I attach several articles from a Manville Report that give guidance. Please address mitigation of the harms addressed herein. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted,

I have an acoustic neuroma for to 5G radiation. My head pain started while watching the towers go up around me. My neighbour who shared a common wall has exactly the same thing. Six hours of neurosurgery and 90 mins of gamma knife radiation, I still have it but hopefully the cells are no longer active. I had a terrible few years of suffering and pain. These need to go worldwide!! They're all over and harming kids, adults and animals. I can't sleep when I'm near one and start shaking and having neurological issues. Hear pain, nausea, dizziness, brain fog and general malaise. Just awful.

I submit this as an individual consumer and family member, relying on peer-reviewed research, federal reports, and court findings cited below (Qs 2, 3). Concern (Qs 5, 6): FCC's RF limits date to 1996 and address only short-term tissue heating, not chronic exposure, pulsed/modulated signals, multi-source cumulative exposure, or children's thinner skulls. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court found the FCC failed to justify that its limits protect against non-cancer harms, citing unaddressed evidence on children and long-term exposure, and remanded the issue. HHS, not FCC, should lead on the health basis for any standard. Evidence below current limits (Q12): NTP's $30M study (2018) found "clear evidence" of heart schwannomas and "some evidence" of brain/adrenal tumors in RF-exposed rats, with DNA damage reported in a follow-up (Smith-Roe et al. 2020). Italy's Ramazzini Institute independently found the same rare tumor at lower exposures comparable to cell tower emissions (Falcioni et al. 2018). IARC classifies RF-EMF as "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B, 2011). Reviews report oxidative stress (Yakymenko et al. 2016), reduced sperm quality (Adams et al. 2014), and DNA strand breaks (Lai & Singh 1995; REFLEX project 2004). Technologies changing cumulative exposure (Q13): 5G/small cells near homes and windows; Wi-Fi transmitting continuously in classrooms; smart meters installed on homes, often without real opt-out, pulsing near bedrooms; satellite broadband (e.g., Starlink) creating a new planet-wide RF source; networked cameras (e.g., Flock) on public poles with cellular modems and no resident notice; wireless earbuds transmitting inside the ear canal for hours daily, especially in teens; EVs producing low-frequency magnetic fields in cabins where children ride (IARC links this field type to childhood leukemia); AI data centers driving new high-voltage lines near communities; LED/"smart" lighting suppressing melatonin (AMA 2016) and adding RF transmitters with little safety study. Environmental effects (Q14): Thielens et al. (2018) found insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, the direction 5G/6G are heading. Levitt, Lai & Manville (2021–22) reviewed reported effects on birds and insects, noting no federal environmental RF standard exists. Sensitive populations (Q11): Children, pregnant women, and implant recipients need separate risk evaluation. France restricted Wi-Fi for under-3 childcare settings in 2015. Disclosure (Q9): Residents deserve public antenna/exposure maps, advance notice before installations near homes and schools, clear device transmission labeling, and a genuine no-fee smart meter opt-out. Research priorities (Qs 10, 16, 17): Fund independent long-term cohort studies with real exposure measurement, especially in children; commission NTP follow-up at current 5G/mmWave frequencies; build a national RF/EMF environmental monitoring network; create an adverse-event reporting pathway; direct FDA to test consumer devices under realistic body-contact conditions. This research must be free of industry funding. Conclusion (Q18): We have deployed unprecedented, involuntary population-wide EMF exposure without proving it safe. Credible research has found cancer signals, DNA damage, oxidative stress, and reproductive effects. I ask HHS to investigate this independently and thoroughly, and prioritize human and environmental health over the pace of commercial deployment.

I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public urging HHS to undertake a comprehensive, independent investigation into the potential human and environmental health effects of the rapidly expanding electromagnetic environment created by modern technology. My concern is not based on the assumption that every wireless technology has been proven harmful. Rather, it is that society has dramatically increased the intensity, density, duration, proximity, and variety of electromagnetic exposures while the long-term biological consequences of this cumulative exposure remain incompletely understood. Today, people can be exposed simultaneously and continuously to Wi-Fi, 4G/5G and future 6G infrastructure, cell towers and small cells, Bluetooth and wireless headphones, smartphones, smart meters, wireless cameras and security systems, wearables, smart-home devices, connected and electric vehicles, wireless medical devices, satellite communications such as Starlink, and the rapidly expanding infrastructure supporting AI and data centers. The central question should therefore not simply be whether each individual device complies with an existing exposure limit. HHS should determine whether current standards adequately address real-world, cumulative, lifelong exposure from multiple sources operating simultaneously. I respectfully ask HHS to investigate potential effects on: sleep and circadian biology; hormonal and endocrine function; reproductive health and fertility; pregnancy and fetal development; neurological and cognitive function; immune and metabolic function; oxidative stress and cellular signaling; DNA integrity, repair and epigenetic processes; cancer and other chronic diseases; and children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Research should specifically examine effects that may occur below existing exposure limits and should evaluate frequency, power density, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, proximity to the body, duration, and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies. HHS itself identifies these factors as important areas for investigation. I am particularly concerned about involuntary residential exposure. Smart meters, nearby wireless infrastructure, small cells, and other continuously operating devices can expose people inside their own homes regardless of whether they personally choose to use wireless technology. Americans should have meaningful information and reasonable options for reducing unnecessary exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. HHS should also investigate the rapidly changing exposure environment created by 5G, future 6G, satellite networks, IoT devices, autonomous vehicles, wireless charging, electric vehicles, smart cities, and other emerging technologies before assuming that older exposure research adequately represents these systems. The investigation should extend beyond human health. HHS should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies to examine potential effects on wildlife, birds, insects, pollinators, livestock, plants, and ecosystems. HHS specifically requests information concerning environmental effects and wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, and livestock. Independent research is essential. Federal research should be transparent, independently replicated, and protected from conflicts of interest. Long-term studies should measure actual exposure rather than relying solely on estimates of device use. The government should develop standardized methods for measuring individual and neighborhood exposure and consider longitudinal health studies, environmental monitoring, occupational monitoring, disease registries, biomonitoring, and adverse-event reporting. I also urge HHS to improve public transparency. Consumers, parents, schools, workers, and communities should have understandable information about the emissions and realistic exposure characteristics of wireless devices and infrastructure. The scientific evidence contains established findings, conflicting findings, emerging research, and significant uncertainty. That uncertainty is not a reason to dismiss public concern; it is a reason to investigate more rigorously. We should neither assume that modern wireless technology is harmless nor assume that every health problem attributed to EMF has been scientifically proven to be caused by EMF. We should measure the exposures, study the biology, monitor health outcomes over time, investigate potential risks, and make the evidence publicly available. The unprecedented proliferation of wireless and electrically powered technology should be matched by an equally serious commitment to understanding its long-term consequences for human health and the environment. I urge HHS to make cumulative, real-world EMF/RF exposure and its potential biological effects a significant federal research priority.

My dad ended up dying of brain cancer. He was left-handed and he got the brain tumor on the left side of his head near his ear where he held his cell phone and all of us are convinced that's why he got brain cancer. In many ways wireless radiation really ruined my life. I have MCS multiple chemical sensitivity and everybody like me has a lot of problems processing chemicals and a sensitivity to electromagnetism. Usually they display one of the two a little bit more than the other one, but both sensitivities are always both present and no one seams to knows why. I have to pick houses based on how far they are away from the cell towers. Trying to get at least 2 miles away is almost impossible now and I use this website called antennasearch.com to help me. I can't be in the room with wireless routers and I always plug in the ethernet of my computer to avoid Wi-Fi because it really hurts me. When I was younger, I didn't feel electromagnetism and slowly overtime It's become a huge problem in my life. I don't know if I just have heavy metal toxicity and it's resonating inside me or what happened. For all of human history humans were only exposed to background radiation and then we upped that by billions of times and expected that there was no consequence when there really was. The thermal threshold argument for wireless safety clearly doesn't apply to me because it ruined my life. In the future we can use quantum physics and entanglement to do all the things we're doing wirelessly but without the non-ionizing radiation that's hurting me so eventually we might grow out of this problem. I remember seeing people that were studying all of these worms underneath a giant leaf and how all 30 worms would curl and uncurl all together and the people studying it thought it was some mating ritual or some thing, but then they realized it was actually a radar tower and whenever it's spun around and was facing the worms from miles and miles away is when they all would curl up at the same time and then they would uncurl when the radar faced away from them as the radar dish turned around. Wireless technology creates a magical and convenient world, but unfortunately it comes with problems that nobody wants to acknowledge that eventually ruins your life like me or gives you brain cancer like my dad and kills you. Just because it's non-ionizing radiation doesn't mean that there isn't consequences from using it the way humans are and my life is proof of that. If we use quantum entanglement instead of non-ionizing radiation we can have infinite bandwidth at any distance and so the benefits of moving on from this technology to the next thing is really high. Just know that people with MCS multiple chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic sensitivity are not making this up in a psychosomatic way. In the real world people don't want to pretend that their life is ending. Their lifes are actually ending from the stimulus of chemicals and the stimulus of electromagnetism and society just pretends that they're making it up as if it's not true. We put cell towers on the sides of hospitals, churches, and schools, and this is a huge mistake. It's causing an invisible stress on the body and overtime it's destroying people at a massive scale. Society isn't going to give up the convenience and magic that comes with wireless technology so the answer is to just move to the next technology with quantum physics and entanglement. Using things like nitrogen vacancy nanodiamonds we can probably have room temperature quantum effects and changed the world forever starting in the next couple years. Here's my dad's obituary so you know I'm not lying... https://tucson.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/article_231262e2-2d0e-11e9-ac12-c75c99f75ff8.html