HHS has opened a public comment period on wireless radiation and health. It runs through October 21, and anyone can take part.
For nearly thirty years, federal wireless exposure standards have been rooted in guidelines established in the 1990s. The FCC adopted its current radiofrequency exposure limits in 1996, during a very different technological era, before smartphones, widespread Wi-Fi, wearables, connected homes, 5G networks, and the constant layering of wireless signals around us became part of everyday life.
That makes what happened this month worth paying attention to.
On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a formal Request for Information on electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, wireless exposure, and human health. The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 21, and public comments are being accepted through October 21.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. connected the effort directly to the Make America Healthy Again Strategy, saying, “Wireless technologies are part of daily life, and our science must keep pace.”
That is really the heart of the issue. Our exposure environment has changed dramatically over the last few decades, while the standards governing it were developed for a much simpler wireless world. At the same time, a substantial body of research has documented biological responses to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including effects that occur below levels associated with significant tissue heating.
The question is no longer whether EMF interacts with biology at all. The more important questions are how those interactions change across different frequencies, signal characteristics, exposure durations, individual susceptibilities, and the increasingly complex environments we now live in.
How we got here
This conversation has been building for a while.
When the Make America Healthy Again Commission was established in February 2025, electromagnetic radiation was specifically named among the environmental factors the Commission was directed to examine in relation to childhood chronic disease. That move brought EMF into a much larger federal conversation about environmental exposures and health, something we explored in more depth in our breakdown of RFK Jr.’s MAHA plan and the role of EMF in childhood chronic disease.
The September 2025 MAHA Strategy expanded on that directive, calling for HHS and other federal agencies to study electromagnetic radiation and human health and identify gaps in the research, particularly around newer technologies. That strategy marked another step toward formal federal review, which we covered in our MAHA Strategy update on EMF research and public health.
Earlier this year, HHS also confirmed that older FDA webpages discussing cell phone radiation had been removed while the department moved forward with its broader review. The newly announced Request for Information brings the public into that process and gives researchers, clinicians, industry experts, and everyday people an opportunity to contribute information.
Kennedy’s involvement with the subject also predates his role at HHS. Before becoming Secretary, he was part of the legal team in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had not adequately explained its decision to retain its existing RF exposure guidelines in light of evidence and comments submitted during its review.
His history with the issue stretches back years, and our deeper look at Kennedy’s EMF concerns provides more context around the legal and scientific questions that preceded this latest federal action.
What HHS is asking
The scope of this new inquiry is much broader than the question of whether a single device falls below an existing regulatory limit. HHS is asking about the wireless environment people actually live in today, including 5G, emerging 6G technologies, Wi-Fi, satellite communications, Internet of Things devices, wearables, smart homes, autonomous vehicles, wireless medical devices, and smart meters.
It is also looking at the way those exposures stack. Most people are no longer interacting with one wireless source at a time, so the review asks how cumulative exposure should be understood when multiple technologies and frequencies are operating around us simultaneously. Duration, distance from the body, frequency, modulation, pulsing, beamforming, and other characteristics of the signal are all part of that discussion.
One of the most important questions asks directly about scientific evidence of potential health effects at exposure levels below current federal limits. That question has been central to EMF research for decades because the biological conversation extends well beyond thermal exposure alone.
Researchers such as Leif Salford and colleagues at Lund University have investigated changes to blood-brain barrier permeability following radiofrequency exposure. Salford’s 2003 work on cell phone radiation and the blood-brain barrier remains one of the more frequently discussed studies in this area.
A large body of research has also examined oxidative stress as one of the biological mechanisms through which RF-EMF exposure may affect living systems. The 2016 review by Yakymenko and colleagues on oxidative stress and RF-EMF exposure provides an important look at that body of evidence.
The literature is complex, but complexity should not be confused with an absence of evidence. Research across cellular, animal, and human models has documented biological responses associated with RF-EMF exposure. Where the science continues to evolve is in understanding exactly how those responses vary across exposure conditions, which mechanisms are most important, which populations may be more susceptible, and what long-term cumulative exposure means in a wireless environment that looks nothing like it did when current federal limits were established.
The HHS review reflects that broader reality. It asks whether exposure should be considered differently for children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted medical devices, workers with higher occupational exposure, and people with preexisting medical conditions. It also looks beyond individual devices to wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, childcare facilities, healthcare facilities, and workplaces, along with broader questions about livestock and the environment.
For those who have followed this field for years, these are not new questions. Researchers have been studying many of them for decades. What is significant is that they are now being gathered as part of a formal federal review focused on whether our understanding and standards adequately reflect the wireless environment people are actually living in.
The quality of the evidence matters
HHS is asking respondents to be clear about the kind of information they are submitting. Peer-reviewed studies, government reports, technical data, clinical observations, industry information, and personal experiences all contribute different kinds of evidence and need to be understood within the appropriate context.
That matters because the conversation around EMF has often been reduced to an overly simple binary: either wireless technology has been conclusively proven dangerous in every circumstance, or there is nothing to be concerned about.
Science rarely works that way.
A substantial body of research already demonstrates that RF-EMF can interact with biological systems. The ongoing work is about understanding those interactions more completely, including the mechanisms involved, how effects change with frequency and signal structure, the importance of duration and cumulative exposure, differences between individuals, and how newer wireless technologies alter the exposure landscape.
A single study should never be treated as the final word, which is why replication and the weight of the broader literature matter. At the same time, evidence of biological effects should not be dismissed simply because every downstream consequence has not yet been mapped.
Wireless technology also evolves much faster than scientific research typically does. A study can take years to design, complete, publish, and reproduce, while the environment being studied continues to change. That lag makes ongoing research especially important as wireless networks become denser and our everyday exposure grows more layered.
For anyone looking to go deeper, our overview of landmark EMF studies and health evidence brings together many of the key areas of research that have shaped this conversation.
The public can participate
Researchers and institutions are not the only groups HHS wants to hear from. The Request for Information also invites input from parents, caregivers, healthcare professionals, workers, businesses, manufacturers, and members of the general public.
People can share personal observations alongside research and other supporting information, with HHS asking for useful context such as the type of technology involved, how often the exposure occurred, how long it lasted, when any reported effects appeared, and whether anything changed when the exposure conditions changed.
Personal experiences are different from controlled research, but they can still contribute to the larger picture. Patterns observed in real-world settings can help surface questions worth investigating more closely, especially when those observations are considered alongside existing scientific evidence.
How to submit a comment
The public comment period is open through October 21, 2026.
Comments can be submitted through Regulations.gov under docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397:
You can respond to one question or several. HHS asks commenters to include the question numbers they are addressing and explain the perspective they are writing from, whether that is as a parent, clinician, researcher, caregiver, worker, business owner, or someone with personal experience related to the issue.
Supporting research and citations are encouraged. The Aires Research Archive is a good place to explore published research related to electromagnetic fields, human biology, and the broader science behind this conversation.
Comments submitted through the federal docket become public, so personal identifying information, private health information, and other sensitive details should be left out. Anonymous submissions are also permitted.
Why this matters to Aires
Aires has spent years working at the intersection of electromagnetic environments, physics, technology, and biological research. Our position has always been rooted in the understanding that human beings are electrical biological systems and that the electromagnetic environment around us is biologically relevant.
That environment has become considerably more complex.
Exposure today rarely comes from one device operating in isolation. Most people move through environments filled with phones, routers, laptops, Bluetooth devices, wearables, vehicles, towers, smart-home systems, and connected infrastructure, often all operating at the same time.
Research has already given us reason to take those exposures seriously. The next stage is developing a much more complete understanding of how cumulative exposure, signal complexity, emerging frequencies, duration, and individual biology shape the response.
The scientific conversation around EMF should reflect the world people are actually living in rather than remaining anchored to assumptions and exposure models developed before most of today’s wireless technologies existed. Updating that conversation means building on what decades of research have already shown and pushing the science further as technology continues to evolve.
For anyone who wants to better understand the environment around them, the Aires EMF Map shows nearby cell towers and 5G infrastructure and offers a more tangible look at how dense the wireless environment has become.
The conversation is also about what we do with that reality. Aires takes a different approach to EMF than traditional blocking or shielding technologies, using a passive silicon resonator designed to interact with the surrounding electromagnetic environment. You can read more about the physics behind Aires EMF modulation and how that approach differs from simply trying to reduce signal strength.
Wireless technology has changed enormously since federal exposure limits were established in 1996, and our everyday electromagnetic environment has changed along with it. The research has continued to build during that time, giving us a much deeper picture of how RF-EMF can interact with biological systems and raising important questions about whether standards built around a much earlier technological era remain sufficient for the world we live in now.
HHS is now giving researchers, clinicians, industry, families, and the broader public an opportunity to contribute directly to that conversation.
The deadline is October 21, 2026.