Exposure limits & oversight

I have struggled to be around EMF's, RF, Hot spots/bluetooth/routers, dirty electricity, geopathic stress etc etc. I have some much trouble visiting my son in Baton Rouge (he lives near LSU) where their is a RIDICULOUS number of towers etc. I have trouble visiting my son in Dallas for same reasons. This industry is OUT OF CONTROL. I used to buy low S.A.R. rating phones but its very very difficult now. Samsung used to make them but they stopped caring I guess because they stopped. Even with a Safe Sleeve case, I cant talk on the phone for long with my boys when they call because i feel sicker as the call goes on. Europe has regulations to limit S.A.R. on cell phones. Their should be regulations that NOTHING can be put up within 1 to 1/2 miles of a residential zones. AND their should be limits. Just because they can invent the technology, doesn't mean its a good thing overall. MONEY is not everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But health and sanity is. i have heard and witnessed myself that plants keep dying when planted over some sort of stressor under the ground (geopathic stress). i have shrubs die along my house where the electric box and other wiring is. All the other shrubs were fine. AND the massive amount of Mechanical stress and RF/EMF's coming out of XBOXs (read about Ryan Sternagel, the father of a child diagnosed with neuroblastoma before he turned one- the rocking chair was by the xbox), smart Tv's, Smart Thermostats, smart refrigerators, smart security systems etc. Its very hard for me to go on vacation- hotels or Air b n b's. PLEASE do lots to help us. And their should be a lot of public service announcements (or however you get things out to the public) on dirty electricity. Electric vehicles increase this, electric vehicle charging stations in home garages increase this in a home, solar panels increase this. But every regular house has it as well. NO one should be using grounding mats/sheets in their house unless they have zero dirty electricity. I use Greenwave dirty electricity filters to mitigate the DE in my house. i bought a meter from them to determine which electrical outlets have a problem and then i check once the filter is on the outlet to see if it went down as much as i like to see if i need to add 2 filters to the outlet. my friend was sick for decades. she said it felt like her chest was buzzing. i helped her put DE filters in her house (which had very high DE- thats with no solar panels, etc) and it radically changed her life. Please at least do what Europe does, whatever that is. Will Satellite phones be better for us that are sensitive to the RF's etc from cell phones?

Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 — EMF and Wireless Radiation Exposure To Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Thank you for examining EMF health effects. I write to you as a registered nurse with over 20 years of experience, a parent, an independent researcher, and a certified clinician in whole-food nutrition. My priorities are preventing disease, protecting all ages and future generations, and preserving our environment. Expanding wireless infrastructure requires rigorous RF research, transparency, public participation, and enforceable safeguards. Questions 2–4: Observations I have personally become aware of an alarming increase in children being diagnosed with brain tumors. Research should routinely follow up on diagnoses of brain tumors, cancer, and infertility to assess and report relevant exposures, including pesticides, mold, and wireless networks or towers near homes, schools, and workplaces, while accounting for other possible causes. Questions 12–13: Research Please evaluate these studies: 1. Gautam et al., Andrology (online 2025; print 2026): Rats were assigned to control, sham-exposed, and exposed groups (six each). The exposed group received 35.5 GHz exposure for two hours daily for 60 days. Researchers reported reduced sperm count and viability, testicular tissue changes, increased lipid peroxidation, reduced antioxidant measures, and increased DNA damage by comet assay. Exposure intensity, absorbed dose, temperature control, and replication require careful evaluation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40798928/ 2. Wang et al., Biology (2024): Mice exposed at 4.9 GHz and 50 W/m² for one hour daily for 35 days showed changes in 104 brain metabolites and 61 brain proteins, including glycerophospholipid metabolism. These demonstrate molecular differences under the experimental conditions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39452115/ 3. Human brain-organoid study (2024): Human-derived brain organoids exposed to GSM at 1.84 GHz, approximately 2.1 V/m, for one hour daily for five days showed reduced expression of certain proliferation, cell-cycle, and cellular-activity genes during differentiation. Appearance and measured apoptosis/senescence genes did not significantly change but it was only done for one hour for 5 days. This supports further developmental research. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanpr.2024.1357649 Frequency, power density, SAR, modulation, duration, temperature, species, and whole-body versus localized exposure all matter. Questions 5, 7–11, 14–18: Safeguards I ask HHS, the FCC, and environmental agencies to: • Require public assessments of evidence, realistic exposure, research gaps, and safeguards before widespread deployment of materially new frequencies or exposure patterns. • Fund independent, preregistered research with sham controls, blinding, adequate samples, temperature monitoring, accurate dosimetry, and replication; include positive and null findings. • Compare 3G, 4G, 5G, and proposed 6G at comparable absorbed doses and under realistic conditions. • Prioritize developmental, reproductive, and long-term cancer research and validated human organoid models of brain, heart, liver, kidney, reproductive tissues, and placenta. • Require independent exposure assessments before and after major diagnosis’s, infrastructure changes, publicly reporting combined exposure and verifying high-traffic conditions. • Offer wired connections and reduce unnecessary wireless transmission and cell towers in schools, childcare, and healthcare settings. • Establish enforcement, reassessment, mitigation, and restriction criteria for exceeded limits or credible evidence of adverse effects. • Study pollinators, birds, wildlife, livestock, and plants under habitat-relevant exposures. Question 5: International examples France restricts fixed wireless-internet equipment in designated spaces for children under three and requires primary-school Wi-Fi to be disabled when not needed for education (legifrance.gouv.fr; ecologie.gouv.fr). Germany recommends wired connections and keeping access points away from prolonged-use areas (bfs.de). Switzerland combines precautionary requirements for certain fixed installations with national exposure monitoring (bafu.admin.ch). Please evaluate these approaches for the United States. We are called to care for the people, animals, and land God has entrusted to us. Technological progress must include responsible stewardship, independent science, and protection of health and wellbeing for present and future generations. God bless America and God bless our world with love, peace, and health. Dannin Grosso, RN, CCWFN

Thanks for this opportunity. I have suffered from microwaves since I was strongly exposed 15 years ago. Today I am not able to be more than an hour in rooms with many people due to their mobilphones on WiFi or mobildata. I get a stressfeeling in my head and reduced ability to concentrate. I live in Denmark where we follow the much too high limits. I also see what they are doing to other people and nature. Regards

I have followed the expansion Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Radiation since 1997, and have witnessed the effect this type of radiation has concerning 1G,2G, 3G, 4G & 5G on the human nervous system and have through the years contacted radio stations, tv stations, politicians etc..... to no avail. The politicians quite frankly don't give a damn anymore who or how many they damage and have thrown all previously current safety regulations out the door.

My name is Michele G. I have towers all over my neighborhood. More here than anywhere else in Buffalo ny and the suburbs where I live in the town of Hamburg NY. There is a tower at least every two miles. I have one down the street from me. I have had three cancers in the past five years. I was tested and they are not genetic. The radiation that comes off those towers are very strong. And I am not the only one here with cancer. Every other house someone has cancer. Birds have disappeared. And I get ringing in my ears quite a bit. We do not need these towers. I feel bad for the people that have them right over their heads. No one asked us to put the towers up. Seems just like spraying the skies. We are tired of this government doing what ever it pleases. Without our consent. They need to be taken down. The RADATION from just one tower is causing headaches and many other health issues. Thank you for letting me voice my concerns

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 parent and concerned member of the public. Personally, I have been severely affected by EMF's and Wireless Radiation Exposure as well as my son. I've had horrible tinnitus for a few years now and have done almost everything to stop it or at least to try and lessen it. I notice when I shut off my wifi router it's a lot better but there are 5G towers everywhere and now with the smaller extenders on street posts it's horrible. We know how it's unhealthy and there needs more regulation. 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.

Comment submitted in response to Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Category: Public Experiences and Reported Potential Health Effects (with relevance also to Categories 2–4) I am submitting this comment as a private individual residing in Naha City, Okinawa, Japan. I am not a scientist or physician. I am submitting this as a firsthand, timestamped case record, because the domestic health and administrative authorities in my own country have declined to investigate it, and because this RFI explicitly requests real-world clustering data of the kind described below. 1. The core factual record On August 4, 2021, I experienced a left-hemisphere hemorrhagic stroke while at my workplace, an office building belonging to a regional electric utility company in a dense commercial and administrative district of central Naha City, Okinawa. Three months earlier, on May 9, 2021, a female coworker of the same age, working in the same building, suffered a stroke and subsequently left her position. I want to state this timeline as precisely as possible: my hemorrhage occurred before I received any COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose. I received my first dose during hospitalization, after the hemorrhage had already occurred. This sequence removes vaccination as a possible cause of the initial event and isolates it as a pre-vaccination, environmentally-exposed case — which I believe gives it particular evidentiary value for isolating non-vaccine environmental factors, including RF/EMF exposure. To summarize the cluster: Same workplace (a single office building) Same calendar year (2021) Same age cohort (both employees born around 1972) Two cerebrovascular events, three months apart (May and August 2021) 2. The infrastructure context The district in which this workplace is located underwent a concentrated buildout of 5G small-cell and telecommunications infrastructure during 2020–2021. A major regional telecommunications/data-center facility was completed in the immediate vicinity in November 2021, and I understand from published construction timelines that test transmissions from that facility likely occurred during the summer and fall of 2021 — a period overlapping with both cerebrovascular events described above. I want to be transparent about the limits of my own documentation: I have not been able to obtain conclusive public records confirming the exact installation date of any small-cell antenna on my own workplace building. I state this as an open, unresolved question — not as a settled fact. 3. Why I am submitting this I am not asking HHS to conclude that RF/EMF exposure caused these two cases. I am submitting this record because: It is precisely the kind of "public experience" and "workplace cluster" data this RFI's Category 1 explicitly invites. It is, to my knowledge, a comparatively rare pre-vaccination case — meaning it may be useful as a data point for isolating environmental (non-vaccine) contributing factors in cerebrovascular events. No domestic institution in Japan — municipal, prefectural, or national — has been willing to examine or record this cluster. I am placing it into this federal public record because I believe a factual account, however small, should exist somewhere on the public record rather than nowhere at all. 4. Specific points relevant to the RFI's other categories Exposure standards (Category 2): I would respectfully urge that any revised framework consider occupational and workplace RF exposure in dense commercial office environments — not only residential or personal-device exposure — as a distinct exposure category worth separate evaluation. Surveillance (Category 3): I would suggest that same-workplace, same-timeframe clustering of cerebrovascular or neurological events be considered a surveillance signal worth systematic, structured tracking — similar to how occupational disease clusters are tracked in other contexts — rather than being dismissed case-by-case as coincidence. Existing evidence (Category 4): Current exposure standards based solely on short-term thermal effects (SAR) do not, to my understanding, address the kind of chronic, non-thermal, clustered occupational exposure described in this case. I thank HHS for opening this process to public and international input, and I hope this record is useful in identifying the research gaps this RFI seeks to find. Respectfully submitted, NOBUO TAIRA Naha City, Okinawa, Japan

Commprehensive Government Study of the Potential Health Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation and Wireless Technologies To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to respectfully request that the appropriate government health and public-safety agencies undertake, support, or commission a comprehensive, independent study of the potential long-term health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the many wireless technologies now used routinely by the public. Wireless technology has become an integral part of everyday life, and people may be exposed to multiple sources simultaneously and for extended periods. These sources include, but are not limited to: 5G and other cellular networks and infrastructure Cell phones and smartphones Wi-Fi and wireless internet routers Bluetooth devices Wireless earbuds and headphones Wearable wireless devices and smartwatches Wireless home and office equipment Cellular towers and small-cell installations Other consumer and telecommunications RF-emitting devices I recognize that there is substantial scientific research concerning RF and EMF exposure, and that regulatory agencies have established exposure limits based on currently available evidence. However, given the rapid expansion of wireless technologies and the increasing duration and complexity of everyday exposure, I believe it is appropriate for the government to periodically reassess the evidence using current technology, exposure patterns, and epidemiological data. I respectfully request that any such study examine, among other issues: Long-term population health effects of chronic exposure to RF and other relevant portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Cumulative and combined exposure, including simultaneous exposure from cellular networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, phones, wireless earbuds, wearable devices, and other sources. 5G and newer wireless technologies, including whether differences in frequencies, modulation, signal characteristics, network architecture, and exposure patterns warrant additional research. Cell-phone use, including long-term and heavy-use patterns and exposure associated with devices held close to the body or head. Wireless earbuds and Bluetooth devices, particularly because some devices may be used for many hours each day and in close proximity to the head. Children and adolescents, including whether developing bodies or patterns of lifelong exposure warrant separate study. Potential neurological, cognitive, reproductive, developmental, cardiovascular, sleep-related, and other health outcomes, while distinguishing established evidence from preliminary or uncertain findings. Cancer and other long-latency outcomes, including sufficiently long-term epidemiological follow-up to identify effects that may not become apparent for many years. Individual susceptibility and exposure differences, including whether certain populations may experience different effects from comparable environmental exposures. Real-world exposure levels, rather than relying solely on theoretical or laboratory conditions, including measurements of aggregate exposure in homes, schools, workplaces, public transportation, and other environments. Adequacy of existing exposure standards, including whether current limits sufficiently account for chronic, low-level, cumulative, or simultaneous exposure from multiple technologies. Independent scientific review, with appropriate disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, methodologies, raw data where possible, and the full range of relevant peer-reviewed evidence. I also request that the government make the findings of such research readily accessible to the public and clearly distinguish between findings that are well established, findings for which evidence remains mixed or uncertain, and questions requiring further investigation. This request is not based on an assumption that wireless technologies are harmful. Rather, it is a request for continued, independent, evidence-based surveillance and research as exposure patterns and technologies evolve. Given the widespread use of wireless devices and the potentially large population affected by any long-term health consequences, continued monitoring and rigorous research appear to be an important public-health responsibility. I respectfully ask that this request be forwarded to the appropriate federal and/or state agencies, scientific advisory bodies, and public-health authorities for consideration.

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to share my personal experience with radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi and 4G/5G transmitters in my surroundings. I live in Norway, and I am concerned about the increasing level of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation to which people are exposed. I am also concerned that safety limits and assessments may rely heavily on information and research connected to the telecommunications industry itself. I own and operate a company in Norway. We have several computers and a Wi-Fi system at our premises, and the company has been operating for more than ten years. During the first few years, we used desktop computers connected to the internet exclusively through Wi-Fi. In 2017, I received a new desktop computer, which was positioned close to my right foot. Shortly afterwards, I began noticing an unusual sensation along the right side of my body. It felt like a persistent tingling, irritation or discomfort that started in my lower right leg and extended upwards to slightly above my right hip. This continued for several months—possibly four or five months. I consulted a chiropractor because I thought the symptoms might be caused by a trapped nerve or a similar problem, but the treatment did not help. Some time later, we installed a wired internet connection at the premises, significantly reducing our reliance on Wi-Fi. Within approximately one week of installing the wired network, the tingling and irritation on the right side of my body disappeared. To test whether the change might be connected to the Wi-Fi, we disconnected the wired network approximately two weeks later and returned to using Wi-Fi. After a few days, the tingling sensation returned. It was not painful, but it felt like an irritation deep inside the muscles, similar to the sensation of a compressed or irritated nerve. Since that experiment, we have used only a wired internet connection at the company, and I have not experienced those symptoms again. I still use a mobile phone and have Wi-Fi in my home. I am not frightened or distressed by wireless technology in my daily life. However, I am concerned that the telecommunications industry may have too much influence over the standards used to determine which exposure levels are considered safe. Based on the timing of my symptoms, their disappearance after switching to a wired connection, and their return when we temporarily resumed using Wi-Fi, I am convinced that radiofrequency exposure from the Wi-Fi equipment caused my body to react. I have also noticed that vegetation surrounding some 4G and 5G towers in Norway appears to show poorer growth when trees are located very close to the transmitters. I cannot establish the cause based on observation alone, but it adds to my concern that prolonged exposure at close range may have biological effects. When the industry presents this technology as entirely harmless, without what I consider sufficient independent long-term research, I become sceptical. I believe experiences such as mine deserve to be documented and investigated through genuinely independent scientific research. I hope that health authorities will continue to examine the possible biological effects of long-term radiofrequency exposure and ensure that public safety standards are based on precaution, transparency and research that is independent of the telecommunications industry. Sincerely, Geir Loseth Norway

To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The work to understand the harmful effects of excessive electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation has already been done.  The science is well established, and waiting for additional literature to be published is time wasted and more illness and deaths produced.  Feel free to contact me should you desire numerous citations from refereed, professional journals providing the evidence for immediate action. Here's just one systematic review to start from (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28213724/) or Neurol Sci. 2017 May;38(5):797-810.doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8. Epub 2017 Feb 17:  Title: Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Conclusion:"for mobile phone use of 10 years or longer (or >1640 h), the overall result of the meta-analysis showed a significant 1.33 times increase in risk" with "Studies with higher quality showed a trend towards high risk of brain tumour, while lower quality showed a trend towards lower risk/protection."  In fact, I'm wondering why the U.S. government hasn't acted more quickly on addressing the issue, but then again, it has to deal with the massive influence of corporations demanding that nothing - including the public's health - get in the way of their profits.  In response to public alarm, the offending companies create pseudo-scientific "studies" of very low quality to confuse everyone and, in the short-term, it usually works. Meanwhile, people die unnecessarily.  Remember how long it took government to regulate tobacco, benzene, asbestos, PCBs, DES, SO2, TBT antifoulants and CFCs (to name a few)?   The answer is that it took government up to one-hundred years, in some instances, to act.  Historically, government has been economically conservative (on preserving profits) and sluggish on protecting the public: there's little to no use of the Precautionary Principle, merely "let's allow the private sector to do as they please and when the bodies start piling up and we get a lot of complaints we'll start looking into it. Again, the time to act to stop people from dying from brain tumors and other costly, nasty diseases was long before "yesterday" with regard to EMFs and non-ionizing radiation.  The work on legislation has already been done, as well.  Perhaps, start by considering the implementation of the European standard as set forth under Resolution 1815 (2011). Thank you for your consideration.