LED headlights & glare

BAN glaring headlights which arec3ven on DAY times..like many people including other members of my family who are much younger than me but have problems with eye 8ssues when subjected to glare I am totally against the led lights blinding vehicles and basically causing all drivers affected to hibernate in months where nights draw in in late afternoon..all my family have now given up night driving in summer and feel cannot drive safely due to vision being compromised by glaring lights in autumn winter . Basically as soon as sun starts to set all year round it's dangerous to drive..it imprison many drivers fir fear of accidents and its those huge unnecessary so cars taking up the width of roads and car parks with high up lights that are worse culprits plus roads are narrower due to bike lanes taking up huge chunks of roads abd bus lanes cropping up everywhere..even more dangerous wet days when glare is even worse due to reflection. All friends and family of ALL ages comment on the lights issues and its restricting lifestyle and imprisoning people in dark by restricting safe driving and affects hospitality as people don't want to go out at night if it entails a drive..pot holes. Huge S U V s.. bike lanes..L plate delivery bikes .. roads carved into with bike and bus lanes making them narrower and those horrific glaring blinding white led vehicle lights.. driving feels hugely restricted by extra danger on roads that wasn't there 6+ years ago

, , Safety and impact on eyes of oncoming drivers from LED headlights. Oncoming traffic's eyesight is temporarily blinded by oncoming LED headlights, especially tall pick up trucks'. ..I write to call attention to the negative impact of LED headlights on driving

We need more oversight regarding the proliferation of cell phone mast placement, directional accuracy, power density. We shouldn't have cell phone masts that are 300 ft from classroom like we do here at the local highschool. It's not necessary and it the amount of radio frequency radiation saturated the air keeps increasing all the time, so there really is no way to accurately study possible dangers. There is research out there showing harm from this technology, but it is buried by industry funded research. People are wising up to industry and government collusion. We can be so much smarter than we are being with the placement of towers. Adopt standards like other countries in Europe where you aren't allowed to have a tower within 500 meters of a school. Make the providers dial down power density of the cell masts so that areas are not "overpowered". Also, the whole idea that non-ionizing radiation is safe, is totally laughable. Again, there is research, buried under industry funded research, that demonstrates that non-ionizing radiation is not harmless. The people understand that the big telecom companies are getting a free pass, because of lobbying and "cozy" relationships and partnerships with government entities. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 hasn't been updated for safety. We only had 2G then. There was a bogus attempt to modify it in 2021 or 2022, effectively keeping it exactly the same in regards to safety. It's not just cell phone masts that are an issue. Wireless proliferation in classrooms is also out of control and the effects of it are unknown. Placement, power density, and directional accuracy can also come into play with wi-fi routers in the classroom, so the kids aren't in an "overpowered" environment. It's not supernatural that we are having so many neurodegenerative conditions amongst young people that cannot be explained away by saying our diagnostic tech and diagnostic capabilities have improved. Yes they have improved, but that doesn't mean that's the only reason we are seeing more cases of autism, adhd, anxiety issues. I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I knew one kid with anxiety issues. Now a majority of kids struggle with anxiety. I believe a big part of this is due to wireless radiation proliferation and unnatural light spectrum of newer lighting technologies like LEDs and older tech like fluorescent lighting. There's no intelligent reason that we have to live in an "overpowered" environment. Talk to utility engineers and RF engineers...it can be remedied.

Public Comment and Policy Recommendations Regarding Aggregate RF, EMF, Conducted Electrical Interference, and Child/School Exposure Please see the attached document for my full public comment. I am submitting these comments to address the critical public-health implications of prolonged, cumulative, multi-source radiofrequency (RF) and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, conducted electrical interference (dirty electricity), electrohypersensitivity (EHS), and lighting/electrical stressors in homes, schools, and communities. The attached document outlines specific concerns and actionable recommendations regarding: - Children and Educational Environments: The impacts of dense wireless infrastructure, school-mandated Chromebooks, and classroom lighting/dimmers. - Real-World Aggregate Exposure: The necessity of measuring cumulative environmental loads beyond isolated laboratory conditions. - Systemic and Neurological Health: Biological plausibility, mitochondrial health, sleep architecture, and the lived realities of electrohypersensitive individuals. - Practical Engineering Alternatives: Proximity reduction, wired Ethernet alternatives (USB-to-RJ45 adapters), manual wireless radio deactivation, and transparent parental disclosure in schools. Thank you for your time, independent research, and consideration of these public health safeguards. Respectfully submitted, Richard Anthony Individual member of the public / consumer / family and community perspective Docket No.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397

The intensity of the bulbs is the most difficult to deal with. When driving through a roadway with oncoming vehicles and meeting their headlights, from dusk until daylight, I experience a blindness. Once the headlights come towards me I find that it takes longer for my retinas to adjust and leave me with a brief period where what I look at ahead of me is not clear enough for a few moments. The intensity of these types of light are so strong that its difficult to not be impacted, even when diverting my focus to the lines along the side of the road as I pass the vehicles. Often one oncoming vehicle after another makes it harder becomes the intensity does not lessen for several minutes. I would have thought I had an eyesight deficiency that may be attributing except for the fact that it is general conversation that people around me state that it is difficult for them to see with oncoming and past these headlights as well. Therefore I can at least conclude that its something to do with the headlights. When this Ban Blinding Headlights petition began, I began reading all of the information being gathered on the subject which lead me to believe there is something not right and potentially dangerous about us using these bulbs and being exposed day after day to them. My question is what are they doing to our eyesight? In addition are these bulbs being used in the best way by serving as headlights? Thank you, sincerely for looking into this situation.

I knew that AC florescent lighting made me ill in first grade in 1966. I only recently became aware that this sensitivity may be due to the amount of "dirty electricity" associated with these lights or it might be the flicker. 60 years after this first became a problem I was diagnosed with Post Trauma Vision Syndrome. I came home from school every day in first and second grade with a headache and begged my mother to teach me at home instead. My mother didn't know that home schooling was an option. The next similar sensitivity that I noticed was to microwave ovens. When my mother got one, I found I had to back away from it when it was in use because it made me feel overwhelmed. As an adult from 1986-1998, I lived off the grid with DC solar power. I found I could tolerate DC flourscent light perhaps because of the lack of flicker or perhaps because dirty electricity is not a DC problem. In 1998 a modified sine wave inverter began to be used in my house. My health began to decline and in 2003 I became mentally ill. At some point wifi came into my house. I didn't know what it was, my husband or eldest step son would have been the ones who understood that it was present when it was first installed. I recovered my mental health through neurofeedback in 2007 and became a neurofeedback coach. When my mentor who owned one of the most powerful cell phones on the market at the time handed me his phone to speak with clients, I would find having his phone near me overwhelming. In order to be more easily reached by my clients, I bought a cell phone in 2007, we now had a local tower 2-3 miles away from where I was living. Mine was not as powerful a phone. Less overwhelming than my mentor's cell phone, I could not have long conversations on my cell phone without being thrown off balance physiologically. My next cell phone a 3G phone seemed to put out slightly less radiation, but was still a problem. I began texting when I got this phone. I noticed that my thyroid reacted to texting. It seemed that the way I held my phone to text sends the radiation up to my thyroid. AT&T kept sending me notices that they were not going to support my 3G phone any longer and sent me a refurbished smart phone, but I could not tolerate exposure to the smart phone, so I kept using my perfectly good 3G phone until AT&T killed it. The best option I could find at that time was a flip phone which was frustrating to operate compared to my 3G phone. My house was developing a mold problem around 2003 that became severe in 2006. I am aware that there is research showing that mold produces more toxins when exposed to wifi. This maybe because mold produces toxins when it feels threatened as a means of self-defense. Mold appears to be able to sense wifi and perhaps other forms of EMR. This along with home construction techniques and tightening up of homes, maybe why mold illness is becoming more and more common. Being highly sensitive to EMR, mold, chemicals and LED lighting (which may relate to dirty electricity) I am using the inheritance I received when my parents passed away in their mid to late 90s to build a non-toxic mold resistant, EMR safe house. I have an EMR consultant and a building biologist consultant. All the electrical wiring in my new house is in MC cable. I decided I needed to avoid the most highly efficient HVAC equipment because of the high amount of dirty electricity produced by variable speed motors. All lighting will be incandescent because that is the only type of artificial lighting that I can tolerate, even there I have to use low wattage and shades. I am being careful as I select appliances to avoid dirty electricity, wifi and other forms of radiation. My computers will be hard wired as they are in my current rental house. My roof and stainless steel counters will be grounded. There will be a whole house dirty electricity filter on the incoming power. I am avoiding solar power because of the dirty electricity from inverters. I will be grid tied. This is an expensive project, I am so fortunate to be able to afford this because of inheritance. Due to having been somewhat chronically ill for 23 years now, and not as resilient as the average adult prior to becoming clearly ill, I would not be able to afford this house otherwise. There is a dramatic shortage of housing that meets the needs of the highly sensitive. I once met a homeless woman in a parking who approached me because she guessed correctly that I was highly sensitive to chemicals because I had worn a respirator into the store. Social services was unable to provide her with housing that met her needs. I brought her home with me to see if she could camp out at my place in a tent, but that didn't work for her. I had to live outdoors for 18 months in 2006-2007 due to my sensitivity, so I understood her plight. Our government needs to recognize that sensitivity to indoor environments is a significant aspect of the homeless crisis.

See attached file(s) Scientific studies have conclusively proven that artificial light exposure, particularly fluorescent and LED light exposure: 1) shortens lifespan, 2) causes cancer and cardiovascular disease, 3) elevates one's levels of cortisol and ACTH to "stress-like" levels, and 4) causes other serious health problems. My attached "Replace Toxic Fluorescent Light with Natural Light Now!" article explains why such artificial lighting--lighting that no terrestrial life form, including humans, evolved under--must be avoided, and especially must NOT be used in settings, such as schools, where children are present. The article shows how in one experiment mice, which are mammals just like humans, who were exposed to fluorescent light lived only HALF AS LONG as mice who were exposed to daylight! In another experiment conducted by Hollwich and Dieckhues, and published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Ophthalmologica, experimental subjects exposed to fluorescent light for several days saw their stress hormones--ACTH and cortisol--rise alarmingly high to "stress-like" levels, but then return to normal levels after the fluorescent light exposure was stopped and was replaced with daylight exposure for several days. Hollwich and Dieckhues were so concerned over this finding that they remarked that the fluorescent light exposure explains the agitated mental state that school children in classrooms lit by fluorescent light develop. School children who are agitated are much more likely to misbehave, and the misbehavior problem is so great that the 600,000 school teachers who left the profession last year state that having to deal constantly with misbehaving students was the main reason for them quitting being a teacher. Meanwhile, although equally toxic LED light is slowly replacing fluorescent light in schools, still 78% of US educational institutions use fluorescent lighting as their classrooms' primary lighting source, and this harmful-to-health lighting also negatively impacts the ability of schoolchildren to focus and concentrate on their learning task--in short, it significantly lowers their academic performance level. This was proven by the attached "Daylighting in Schools" study, a study costing over $1 million that was sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission. This study's researchers compared the learning rate for Reading and Math for elementary school students who were either in classrooms lit by fluorescent light or in classrooms lit by daylight. The classrooms whose primary lighting source was daylight usually had the natural daylight delivered into the classroom via a diffused lens skylight (called Skylight Type A in the study; see page 10 for a photo of this diffused lens skylight) and/or more regular windows. A diffused lens skylight is common, spreads the natural light evenly throughout the classroom (not as a solid beam of light) and is just a normal skylight installation job. Dimming louvers are usually included with such a skylight, in case the teacher wishes to darken the classroom for some reason, such as to show the students a movie. Now, here is what the Director of HHS and the President need to understand. On page 12 of the study the researchers reported that STUDENTS IN CLASSROOMS WHERE DAYLIGHT WAS THE CLASSROOMS' PRIMARY LIGHTING SOURCE LEARNED THEIR READING AND MATH CURRICULUM 20-26% FASTER than students stuck in the classrooms lit by fluorescent light. Even though fluorescent light uses much less electricity than incandescent lighting, still its electricity use is not insignificant, as 30% of a school's electricity usage is devoted to lighting. However, for a classroom whose primary lighting source is daylight, it will see the lighting portion of its electricity bill be ZERO DOLLARS on most days, which will be the case especially for the large percentage of classrooms located in the Sunbelt states in the US. The solution to the problem of our nation's public schoolchildren having their mental and physical health, and academic performance level, significantly harmed by minute-after-minute, hour-after-hour exposure each school day to artificial light is simple. The attached "School Classroom Natural Light Act of 2026" describes the law or President Executive Order that could end the disastrous classroom learning environment that our nation's public schoolchildren and teachers have had to somehow survive for way too long. Please see to it that this comment of mine and its attachments are brought to the attention of the Director of HHS and the President.

I upgraded my router to 5gz wifi over the course of weeks i was finding i was not getting good sleep, i thought maybe it was the wifi? I turned off the wifi and my sleep improved. I tested this to make sure by turning it back on and my quality of sleep deteriorated. Since then i have abandoned wifi in my home to maintain better sleep and hardwired my home. i have read the work of Becker and a book of dirty electricity, i also have removed the LED lights from my home as they too were messing with my sleep. I have also changed to a job where no phones are aloud which has also helped my health and i get less ringing in my ears which i often get in town centers. The safe limits are based on heat and the idea that harms begin at ionizing radiation like switch is absurd when you consider the laws of physics and the electrical interference that will naturally occur within our bodies when nonnative EMF is introduced. There are thousands of studies on the harms of EMF on the BIOINITIATIVE website, it very clear that none native EMF is very harmful. I believe our institutions are captured by corporations and greed and have incentives to keep kicking the can down the road on this issue not to mention the governments interest in harvesting data and surveillance to the point i think even this survey will be rigged and we progress further with these toxic technologies.

We know there are deleterious health effects to EMFs. I have a meter so I could test my home environment and reduce what my son was exposed to growing up, and things are much worse now, and we are not given accurate information or choice in the matter which has to change. Please protect our children! Thank you for taking an honest look at all the research - FINALLY. Also, LEDs are also disrupting the EMF of our bodies - their takeover of everything from building hallways to headlights needs to be reevaluated. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE NEW HHS IS DOING!

because of the blinding headlights i half to wear a couple lairs of sunglass to compensate and even then it's not enough because some of those lights are worse than others and i also half to tilt my rear version minor to prevent being completely blind and I'm still some what blind even with the tinting of my minor by those lights and when the cars with those blinding headlights pass me on the right or left lane i still get blast by there headlights in the side version minor and with the lights being so bright that you can't see i don't feel safe on the road any more and i don't drive unless it's absolutely necessary like to work or the food store or other things like that and i won't go out side of my house because you can't be out side for even 5 min’s without being blasted by those kind of light so it's like I'm a prisoner in my own house because of those kind of light and there use to be a brights law but these new lights are many times brighter then are brights are so by them allowing them on these car the brights laws are not being enforce any more and any one that needs lights that are that bright just to see the road probably should be driving at night in the first place