Exposure limits & oversight

It's a well documented scientific fact that wireless radiation of all kinds is dangerous for a myriad of reasons and hasn't been held to the scrutiny it should, considering it's impact on all adults and especially children with growing brains and bodies. There hasn't been adequate safety testing or accountability by those who push it's unlimited use. This is unbelievable in 2026, since it's dangers have been well known for years, falling on mainly deaf ears. .

EMFs are a grave concern for my (our) children's future health. Disappointed to know that the FCC is guilty of ignoring 11,000 pages of evidence of harm. You have the evidence. Please address.

I support a ban on high-intensity LED headlights because their excessive glare has become a major safety hazard on our roads. The intense, blue-rich light emitted by modern LEDs, especially when mounted high on large SUVs and trucks, frequently blinds oncoming drivers, causing painful eye strain and creating dangerous blind spots. While visibility for the driver behind the wheel is important, it should not come at the expense of everyone else's safety. Until strict regulations are enforced to control luminance, fix proper beam cutoffs, and eliminate blinding aftermarket bulbs, these headlights simply do not belong on public roads.

I am deeply concerned about the potential long-term health effects of chronic RF radiation exposure from wireless infrastructure placed close to homes and schools. In summer 2025, a Verizon cellular antenna was installed directly outside my home without my consent. My family, including my children, now lives in close proximity to this equipment, and I have personally noticed feeling physically different when the antenna appears to be operating, although I cannot establish causation. I urge HHS to prioritize independent, long-term research on cumulative RF exposure, particularly in children, and to require greater transparency, monitoring, and public notification when this infrastructure is placed near homes and schools.

I am a member of the public concerned with the unaddressed potential health and environmental risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices. I have been reactive to wireless radiation and I urge you to review the scientific evidence in full. Accordingly, I strongly urge the Commission to, under the weight of the scientific evidence, find that the current RF exposure limits are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They should be lowered to reflect the science previously disregarded by the Commission.

I am submitting this comment as an individual member of the public because I have personal concerns and experiences involving electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, wireless technology, and possible effects on health. For around five years, I have considered myself a so-called “targeted individual.” I believe I have been subjected to electromagnetic exposure that I associate with what I perceive as targeting, including exposure I believe may come from 5G infrastructure and satellites. I understand that I cannot independently prove the source of these exposures or establish that they are deliberately directed at me. I am asking HHS to investigate concerns like mine seriously rather than simply dismissing them. During this period I have experienced symptoms including skin rashes, dizziness, memory problems, difficulty sleeping, and problems with concentration. These experiences have affected my daily life. I have sought medical help and diagnosis, but I felt that the healthcare professionals I encountered were not sufficiently informed about possible electromagnetic exposure. I felt that some of the approaches taken did not address the concerns I was trying to explain. I have also used an RF meter in my home. I observed what appeared to me to be significant RF readings even when I was not aware of a nearby 5G tower and mainly knew of Wi-Fi or other wireless equipment in the area. I understand that a consumer RF meter reading alone cannot identify the exact source of a signal, determine whether an exposure is harmful, or prove that exposure caused a symptom. However, these observations made me concerned about how much wireless radiation people may actually encounter in their homes and local communities. I believe there needs to be more independent research into long-term and cumulative exposure to RF and EMF. Research should look at real-world exposure, including 5G, future 6G systems, Wi-Fi, satellites, smart meters, wireless medical devices, wearable technology, Internet of Things devices, smart homes, and other sources people encounter every day. I would like HHS and other relevant agencies to examine whether current exposure standards adequately reflect long-term, repeated, and combined exposure from many wireless sources. Exposure should also be measured in a consistent and transparent way so people can better understand what they are being exposed to in homes, workplaces, schools, and communities. I believe healthcare professionals should have access to balanced information about electromagnetic exposure. This information should clearly distinguish what is established, what remains uncertain, and how people reporting symptoms can be properly evaluated without automatically assuming that EMF exposure is either the cause or not the cause. I am also concerned about privacy and the possibility of unwanted surveillance or monitoring. I have concerns that government agencies or other organizations could potentially use technology in ways that people do not understand or consent to. I recognize that concerns about government surveillance are not the same as verified evidence that surveillance is occurring. I believe these issues should still be subject to appropriate legal safeguards, oversight, transparency, and independent investigation. I do not believe people who live peacefully and have committed no crime should be subjected to secret technological monitoring or interference. Government use of advanced technologies should have clear legal authority, meaningful oversight, accountability, and protections for individual privacy and civil rights. I also believe we should consider whether every new wireless technology is necessary and whether wired alternatives can be used where practical. People should have meaningful choices about how much wireless technology they use in their homes and workplaces. My concerns are not only about children. I believe the entire population deserves clear information about environmental exposure to RF and EMF. Research should also examine whether different groups may experience different levels of exposure or sensitivity. I would also like more research into possible environmental effects, including effects on wildlife and ecosystems, as wireless infrastructure continues to expand. Most importantly, I am asking for independent, transparent, long-term research. I am not asking HHS to accept my personal interpretation as established scientific fact. I am asking for my experience, and the experiences of other people reporting similar concerns, to be treated as information that can be investigated properly. The public deserves clear information about electromagnetic exposure, better ways to measure it, honest communication about uncertainty, stronger privacy protections, and research that is independent from commercial or other conflicts of interest. Thank you for providing members of the public with an opportunity to comment on this issue.

I experience heart palpitations from wireless modems and other wireless devices that emit strong current. They are uncomfortable and potentially dangerous heart arrhythmias that reliably happen when I am quite near a strong wireless source. For that reason, I have to avoid using wireless in my house, which is getting increasingly difficult. I would appreciate policy that requires essential systems like utilities and internet to be accessed through hard wiring as well as wireless, and requires hard wire options to be built into essential electronics like phones, printers,TVs, computers, and especially medical equipment. And allows wireless emission to be turned off on those devices that use it, rather than have it be continuous and unremitting. I would also appreciate policy that allows for local zoning of any cell transmission stations/towers and regulates placement of 5G transmissiom sources to be at reasonable distance from residences. It is especially dismaying that the FCC is allowing discontinuation of copper landlines. I have several health conditions that require occasional emergency treatment and without in-home wireless service cannot rely on my mobile phone in an emergency. In storms local cable and FIOS are not reliable and not having a landline available will seriously endanger my health. I am also dismayed to find if I want to refuse a new smart meter installation by National Grid, I have to pay an additional monthly fee of $29, a rather coercive disincentive considering the enormous profits this company enjoys. This is a hardship for a senior on fixed income as I am. Thank you.

Everyday I commute at 5am in the morning. I am 54 years old and have been doing this for 25 plus years. I work in the Audio Video field as an expert professional specializing in video projection, and have watched the technology evolve from xenon bulb to LED and Laser. So I know what im talking about when I say I have noticed a growing trend on the roads. The latest and greatest from the car companies has become the use of LED headlight technology. While the technology is impressively bright it doesnt throw the light out as far as tradition halogen bulbs. So viewing the LED head on at oncoming traffic it is extremely bright. Automotive Manufacturers are haphazardly using this technology with no limits because there a currently no laws regulating LED technology. Oncoming traffic with newer vehicles have very high output of perceived light. As a result I am constantly bombarded by intense light during my morning commutes. The intensity appears to be more prevalent in specific makes and models. Hyundai, Ford, and Subaru appear to have the most extreme outputs followed by the latest Toyota vehicles. As you may know the UK has already begun the legislation process of regulating this technology, and I hope other countries including the U.S. follow suite.

I wholeheartedly urge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to take meaningful action to reduce public exposure to wireless electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as much as possible. Wireless infrastructure has gotten out of control. People often have little to no practical control over continual exposure to wireless emissions when cellular towers, small cells, and other transmitting equipment are installed near their homes, workplaces, schools, and public spaces. Residents should not be expected to simply accept involuntary, around-the-clock exposure without meaningful transparency, independent health review, or practical options. In my view, wireless radiation levels and the density of wireless infrastructure have become seriously too high. The government has a responsibility to apply the precautionary principle, support truly independent research on long-term and cumulative exposure, improve public disclosure and measurement requirements, and establish stronger protections for homes, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations. HHS and other federal agencies should also strongly encourage wired connectivity wherever it is practical. Fiber, Ethernet, and other wired systems can provide fast, reliable communications while reducing unnecessary wireless exposure. Federal policy, grants, building standards, and public-infrastructure programs should prioritize wired connections over defaulting to more wireless transmitters. Please treat reducing unnecessary wireless EMF exposure as a public-health and consumer-protection priority.

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 a senior citizen who is relatively informed about about these matters, but from the perspective of a concerned member of this world without a background in this field. Although I believe I have been adversely affected by these technologies, predominantly with chronic insomnia and a general feeling of malaise, I think my symptoms pale in comparison to many others. I have attended informational meetings and listened to people who were experiencing far more severe symptoms. One person had to move out of his apartment, struggled to find a suitable and affordable rental, and was staying with friends and family, which did not bring him relief. Parents were concerned for their children. My biggest concern is for the children, wildlife, and all sentient beings. These technologies are adversely impacting all creatures. Plus, the equipment and towers are an eyesore. The FCC doesn't seem to care and neither do most of our elected representatives. If they cared, they would take action and ameliorate the situation. 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.