HHS is asking for evidence about wireless radiation and health. Tell the agency to make long-term safety, children’s health, and real-world exposure a priority. Action Alert!
THE TOPLINE
- HHS has opened a public inquiry into wireless radiation and health, with comments due by October 21, 2026.
- Animal findings and new analyses raise questions about existing exposure limits, and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) since 2011.
- Help us urge a thorough, independent review and practical measures to reduce unnecessary exposure.
Your phone is beside you. A router sits across the room. In an apartment building, your device may show a long list of neighboring Wi-Fi networks. Wireless technology is woven into daily life—but how well do our safety standards address the way we actually live with it?
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Communication Commission have opened a request for information on electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless exposure. They are seeking scientific evidence and public input on health effects, exposure standards, and research priorities.
This is an opportunity to press for answers to questions ANH has raised for years. The inquiry itself changes no safety limits. What matters is whether it leads to stronger science, meaningful oversight, and better protection.
Broken Safety Standards
US limits on exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR)—the kind emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and wireless infrastructure—were set in 1996. These limits are based on a deeply flawed assumption: that RFR only harms the body by heating tissue. In other words, if radiation doesn’t raise your body temperature, regulators assume it’s safe.
That assumption ignores decades of scientific research showing non-thermal biological effects, including links to cancer, oxidative stress, neurological damage, and reproductive harm. Many of these effects occur at exposure levels far below the FCC’s so-called “safe” threshold.
Indeed, a 2025 policy review argues that US standards have failed to keep pace with research and modern exposure patterns. The review calls for independent research, stronger monitoring, and protections for vulnerable populations.
HHS and the FCC must be made to confront the reality that standards developed in 1996 no longer apply given modern exposures.
Warning Signs Deserve a Serious Review
The federal government’s own National Toxicology Program studies found clear evidence of malignant heart tumors in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation, and some evidence of brain tumors.
A 2026 analysis by Ronald Melnick, Joel Moskowitz, and ICBE-EMF adds to that concern. Using animal data, the authors calculated exposure levels intended to protect against cancer and male reproductive harm that were substantially below current limits. They called for an independent reassessment.
Taking meaningful action does not require pretending every scientific question is settled. It requires taking unresolved questions seriously.
New Exposures, New Questions
Humans evolved in a world of sunlight, natural electrical activity, and Earth’s magnetic field. Today’s wireless technologies have added a different pattern of exposure: engineered radio signals, repeatedly transmitted and often originating close to our bodies. The fact that electromagnetic radiation exists in nature does not, of course, establish the safety of these novel exposures. Especially given that square-form, digital waveforms offer completely different information to the body as compared with the smooth, sinusoidal waves form natural systems. Duration and intensity also vary greatly. This means their biological effects must be evaluated on their own terms—including how signals are pulsed, how strong they are, what kinds of biological effects they mediate, and how long exposures last.
Those who live in apartment buildings or neighborhoods can often find long lists of nearby networks. In our own homes it’s common to have several phones, tablets, routers, wearables, and other devices that increase our exposure to electromagnetic field radiation. We must press HHS to support independent research that measures those conditions accurately, follows people over time, and examines children and other potentially vulnerable groups.
The comparison with new-to-nature chemicals is useful as a precautionary principle. We generally don’t introduce new chemicals or substances into our daily lives without some degree of safety testing. Yet we’re doing precisely the opposite when it comes to radiation exposures from ubiquitous wireless devices.
Reduce Your Exposure
Simple precautions are therefore reasonable without implying that harm has been definitively proven, such is the complexity of establishing causal relationships. For example, use speaker mode or a wired headset for lengthy calls, avoid prolonged calls with poor reception, keep an actively transmitting phone away from the head and body when convenient, keep wireless routers some distance from bedrooms, children and work areas, and turn off wireless routers overnight. Distance reduces exposure sharply.
Make Your Voice Heard
Urge HHS to commission an independent assessment of exposure limits, strengthen long-term research, improve public exposure information, and evaluate practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure in homes and schools.
Families should have clear guidance and affordable options, including wired connections where practical. Protecting health should be part of technology policy from the beginning.
Use the form below to submit a comment under docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. We deserve connectivity backed by transparent science and accountable public health oversight.
Action Alert!
