HHS Seeks Public Input on Wireless Technology Safety, Scientists Urge Caution

The Department of Health and Human Services is asking scientists, clinicians, industry groups, and members of the public to weigh in on the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation from technologies including cell phones, Wi-Fi, wearable devices, and 5G. The request for information, published Sept. 21, will be used to examine existing safety standards and make recommendations to reduce unnecessary exposure, as well as assess the state of the science and identify priority areas for future research. The deadline to submit comments is Oct. 21.

“Wireless technologies are part of daily life, and our science must keep pace,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a press release, stating that the White House’s 2025 MAHA Strategy directed HHS to examine this issue, and “we are acting on that directive,” encouraging the public, as well as experts, to respond.

HHS’s focus on inviting people to share anecdotal evidence of the health effects they believe may be associated with RF/EMF exposure has drawn concern from researchers, with scientists telling FYI that such accounts should not be treated as equivalent to evidence from controlled studies and systematic reviews.

What the science says

Multiple scientific reviews and assessments, including by the World Health Organization and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, have concluded in the last decade that radiofrequency radiation exposure below recommended exposure limits is unlikely to cause adverse health effects. The Federal Communications Commission has said no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.

However, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011 based on limited evidence suggesting cell phone users may have an increased risk of brain tumors — a designation that still stands today. An IARC advisory group recommended reevaluating this classification in 2024 to consider new human and animal cancer studies.

Organizations that have drawn links between wireless radiation and health issues, such as Children’s Health Defense, Environmental Health Trust, Environmental Health Sciences, and Tech Wellness, have all encouraged people to respond to HHS’s RFI. No scientific membership organizations appear to have publicly shared the call for comments.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements told FYI that, while it does not plan to respond to this RFI, it will be providing a response to a separate request for comment from the Federal Communications Commission, which was also published this month and covers similar themes. That FCC request stems from a 2021 court ruling that ordered the agency to better explain its decision to retain its existing radiofrequency exposure limits.

Scientists question RFI’s focus on personal experiences

David Savitz, professor emeritus of epidemiology at Brown University, said that given the continued public concern about the potential health impacts of EMF exposure — particularly the relationship between radiofrequency exposure and child health outcomes — research in this area “may be of value as a service to the public even if it is unlikely to identify adverse health effects.” He does not, however, see this as a research priority “relative to many other more promising and urgent matters.” Savitz said that, for example, research on the collateral effects of digital devices, such as the mental health and behavioral effects of social media, “is a more compelling concern.”

The RFI’s focus on personal anecdotes is questionable, Savitz said, noting it is “hard to imagine how that would be helpful in addressing the scientific evidence or regulatory standards.” He continued, “If there is an interest in the public perception, a more methodical survey of such perceptions could be informative, but individual reports of health experiences is sure to elicit a very large number of anecdotal reports without any scientific value.”

Kenneth Foster, professor emeritus of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, expressed concern that HHS may give anecdotal responses to the RFI undue weight in their considerations. The public should be able to comment on these issues, he said, but the evidence they provide should be synthesized into existing knowledge about the health hazards of EMF through well-conducted systematic reviews that consider the quality of the evidence.

“Making public health decisions on the basis of unfiltered, albeit very deeply felt, opinions of the public can lead to very bad advice - witness what is happening with vaccines,” Foster said.

Foster said he does not see any urgent unanswered questions about health effects from RF exposure below current safety limits. If the federal government does fund more work in this area, it should emphasize high-quality confirmatory studies rather than adding more exploratory studies to an already large and uneven literature, he said. Areas that could merit further research include electromagnetic hypersensitivity; the cognitive effects of screen time, particularly in children; and the potential hazards of brief, very high-energy radiofrequency pulses, he continued. Foster plans to respond to the RFI as a member of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation.