Children & vulnerable groups

https://homeemftracing.com/shop/ols/products/contact-current-vs-body-voltage This document (website wouldn’t allow the upload) has the EPRI / NIEHS summary to affirm that 1 micro-amp of contact current exposure to a child is likely the cause of childhood Leukemia and numerous other cancerous conditions. This lays the groundwork for establishing a residential medical health standard for contact voltages at 2 mV, electric field exposures at 0.3 V/m, magnetic fields at 0.2 mG and radio frequencies at 1 uW per meter squared. The medical evidence has been confirmed by EPRI and associated with environmental electrical sources like the power grid, cell towers and home electrical wiring code violations. As a licensed electrician, read my story and the testimonials of many who have been cured and relieved of numerous hardships after removing the electromagnetic fields around them. Www.homeEMFtracing.com/testimonials I can provide much more hard science I have gathered on request. Thank you!

Electric vehicles (EVs) are replacing conventional cars worldwide, exposing a growing number of occupants daily to complex electromagnetic fields generated by high voltage batteries, cables, and motors. Some magnetic field levels measured inside EVs, particularly near the floor, footwell, and rear seats, overlap with exposure levels associated with adverse health outcomes in residential, occupational, and laboratory studies. Health protection efforts may need to focus on certain groups, including children, who often sit in the rear seats where field levels can be highest, and professional drivers and regular commuters, who are exposed repeatedly over time. Existing exposure guidelines (ICNIRP, IEEE) primarily address established short term effects (e.g., nerve stimulation) and offer limited guidance for interpreting the complex, variable exposure conditions unique to EVs or their potential long-term impacts, highlighting the need for refinement as EV-specific research accumulates. Federal guidance would benefit from adopting standardized, occupant-specific exposure assessments (e.g., following IEC 62764-1), studying frequent EV occupants, and giving closer attention to vulnerable groups such as children to support ongoing evaluations of safety standards.

People whether constituent or not, have a fundamental right to choice when it comes to how they power their lives and homes. Besides that, EMF exposure has been negatively impacting our communities for years. Psychological, cardiac, and electrical risks are only touching the surface. Please vote to reduce EMF as much as possible. MA 4 Safe Technology is a group in MA that holds educational and insightful seminars with many telling their stories. The "Smart Meter Opt Out" group on FB has a significant amount of testimonies also. Libraries in MA have already started including an EMF reader for their patrons, and things like EMF blocker hats, paint for walls, and EMF cages are only a few examples of how serious we take reducing EMF in our environment. Especially with children with developing brains, they are already so digitally in-tune, that schools had to start using devices for constant contact and assignments where they could easily get a book/paper. This starts the unhealthy cycle of EMF exposure. Not to mention the aesthetic impact that we complain about. I'm saying we because not only my family, but me going out of my way to participate in area groups on FB have also felt strongly regarding cell towers and smart meters.

I hate all of this wireless radiation that is an haphazard to my family. The technology is too much, I experience at certain times headaches, tiredness and agitation. The 5G cells tower expansion should be terminated because it surrounds schools and playgrounds in my area. These Tin Can voice generated call centers are a radioactive mess, the WIFI and High Definitions that has invaded the television/cable industry. There has to be a bipartisan effort between the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Congress to spend money on more important things like FUNDING WIRELESS RADIATION RESEARCH, instead of Ballrooms.

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 licensed Naturopathic Medical Doctor, Medical Director and Owner of Regenerate Health Medical Center in Santa Barbara, California. Environmental medicine is an important part of my clinical work, and I have worked with patients who report symptoms affected or exacerbated by EMF and wireless radiation exposure. This issue is also deeply personal to me. I am very sensitive to EMF and RF exposure. My concern developed through my own experience, my clinical work with patients, and years of continuing education and investigation into environmental exposures and their effects on human health. My reactions can be immediate. When I am around high levels of RF exposure (measured in microwatts per square meter), including from cell towers, Wi-Fi, or prolonged cell phone use, I develop headaches. With longer exposure, I can experience dizziness and nausea. These experiences have substantially changed how I live. I rarely leave my cell phone connected during the day. I turn it on when I need to check messages or use it for a specific purpose, then return it to airplane mode. My family and I have also gone to considerable lengths to reduce exposure in our home. We use hardwired Ethernet rather than Wi-Fi and avoid Bluetooth and wireless devices. We use dirty electricity filters and an EMF kill switch so we do not sleep in an electrical field. Our solar panels were intentionally placed only over non-sleeping areas. We also use graphite-based shielding paint and EMF-blocking window film. These choices require time, expense and planning. We make them because I can personally tell the difference. That experience also affects how I practice medicine. At Regenerate Health Medical Center, we take environmental exposures seriously when evaluating persistent or unexplained symptoms. We consider the environment in which a patient lives, sleeps, works and attempts to heal. I have encountered patients who report symptoms associated with EMF exposure or worsening of existing symptoms in higher-exposure environments. Their experiences deserve serious investigation rather than automatic dismissal. My perspective is therefore both personal and clinical. I know what it is like to experience these symptoms myself, and I also know what it is like to sit across from patients describing similar concerns. When patients repeatedly report changes in symptoms associated with their environment, physicians should be encouraged to investigate those patterns, not taught to disregard them simply because our understanding of the exposure is incomplete. I am particularly concerned by how difficult these exposures are to control. People can filter their water, remediate mold or stop using a particular chemical. Wireless radiation can come from neighboring Wi-Fi, cellular infrastructure, smart meters, schools, workplaces and public spaces. Even inside your own home, substantially reducing exposure requires actively working against how modern technology is designed. HHS should take a serious and independent look at this issue. People reporting sensitivity to wireless radiation should be documented and studied. Clinicians observing patterns among environmentally sensitive patients should be heard. Research should examine potential biological effects beyond tissue heating and investigate chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure from multiple sources. I also urge HHS to investigate potentially susceptible populations, including children and people reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and study whether reducing exposure is associated with measurable changes in symptoms, sleep, autonomic function and relevant biological markers. As a physician, I want better answers for my patients. As someone who personally experiences symptoms with higher EMF exposure, I want those experiences taken seriously and investigated. And as someone whose family has gone to considerable lengths to create a lower-EMF home, I want Americans to retain the ability to make meaningful choices about their exposure. HHS has an opportunity to examine this question through the lens where it belongs: human health. Please listen to patients, families, clinicians and researchers raising these concerns. Fund rigorous research reflecting modern exposure conditions, investigate those who report particular sensitivity, and give Americans better information and greater ability to make informed decisions about their exposure. Thank you for giving those of us who have experienced this issue personally and clinically an opportunity to be heard.

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, family member, and concerned member of the public.I have lived in my home since December 2002. At some point after that, a large cell tower was built just outside our neighborhood. There was no meeting, no notice, and no opportunity for residents to be heard. It felt as if it appeared overnight. We were not given a choice.After the tower went up, I began experiencing extreme headaches, a racing heart, ears popping and ringing, trouble sleeping, racing thoughts, and anxiety. Some days I feel very unwell, and I believe it is connected to the tower. My son and my father also get headaches. We have even had headaches at the same time.I do not believe this is safe. I am especially concerned that towers like this are placed next to neighborhoods and schools, where children and families live every day, without meaningful disclosure or consent. People should be told before infrastructure like this is sited so close to homes.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 expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health. 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. I also urge attention to siting, notice, and whether current limits adequately protect people living near wireless infrastructure.Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

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, families, health care providers, researchers and scientists with an opportunity to be finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

I am submitting this comment as a mother, a resident of rural Alaska, and a person living with a brain tumor diagnosis. In January 2025, I was diagnosed with an IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 2, in my left frontal lobe. I underwent an awake craniotomy and tumor resection in August 2025 and continue regular neurological and MRI surveillance. A new cellular communications tower is now nearing completion approximately 500–700 feet from my home in my small rural Alaska community. I am not claiming RF radiation caused my brain tumor or that this tower will cause recurrence. Instead, my diagnosis and the construction of this tower have led me to a question for which I have had difficulty finding adequate research: What do we know about long-term RF exposure in people who already have cancer? Much of the RF/cancer discussion focuses on whether RF exposure can initiate cancer. Cancer patients need another question investigated: whether chronic RF exposure has any measurable effect on existing tumor cells, tumor progression, recurrence, treatment response, neurological symptoms, or long-term outcomes. I urge HHS to specifically study RF exposure in people with existing cancer and cancer survivors, including patients with primary brain tumors. Research should examine tumor progression and recurrence, molecular and cellular effects, oxidative stress and inflammation, blood-brain barrier effects, tumor microenvironment, seizure activity, treatment response, and survival. If rigorous research demonstrates that typical environmental RF exposure has no meaningful effect on these outcomes, that information would itself be extremely valuable. Patients need reliable evidence either way. I also ask HHS to investigate whether medically vulnerable populations respond differently to chronic RF exposure and whether existing standards adequately protect people with cancer or neurological disease, children, and people experiencing decades of exposure. Children deserve particular attention because today’s children may experience wireless exposure throughout nearly their entire lives. HHS should investigate potential biological effects occurring below levels that cause significant tissue heating and determine whether any observed effects translate into clinically meaningful health consequences. Research should consider cumulative exposure from cellular towers, phones, Wi-Fi, small cells, connected devices, and future technologies. I also encourage HHS to examine infrastructure siting. When transmitting equipment is placed near homes, schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds, or healthcare facilities, communities should have independent, evidence-based health guidance, particularly when reasonable alternative locations exist. Small communities should also have access to independent RF expertise rather than relying primarily on information provided by telecommunications companies or citizens attempting to interpret highly technical research themselves. I strongly encourage meaningful post-installation RF monitoring. Distance from a tower alone does not determine exposure. Antenna height, orientation, frequencies, power, terrain, and other factors matter. Residents should have access to understandable measurements of actual RF exposure after equipment becomes operational. Finally, I ask HHS to clearly distinguish between evidence that an exposure is harmful, evidence that it is safe, and circumstances where sufficient evidence does not yet exist. For someone already diagnosed with a brain tumor, the question is not simply, “Can RF radiation cause cancer?” We also deserve an evidence-based answer to: “Does chronic RF exposure matter once cancer already exists?” I do not know the answer. That is precisely why I am asking our federal health agencies to investigate it. Wireless communication is important, particularly in rural communities like mine. Technological progress and public health do not have to be opposing goals. We can benefit from wireless technology while independently studying long-term exposure, identifying potentially susceptible populations, monitoring real-world exposure, and making thoughtful infrastructure decisions. As someone who may spend years living several hundred feet from a cellular tower while undergoing surveillance for progression or recurrence of a brain tumor, I want to know that this question has actually been studied rather than simply assumed. I respectfully ask HHS to make research involving cancer patients, brain-tumor patients, children, and other potentially vulnerable populations a priority. Thank you for considering my comment.

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 myself. My face gets hot when I hold my phone to my face. When I drive, I used to wear ear buds that plugged into my phone in order to keep the phone off my face. But my iPhone became outdated and the new updated iPhone I bought does not have the audio plug in for my earbuds. I do not want to use a bluetooth because it gives me headaches. This technology is dangerous and iPhone should provide an option on their phones to allow an audio port to allow for plug in headset or earpiece. I have friends who have cancer on their faces from using cell phones against their ears. 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.

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 myself. I am a truck driver and have had repeated cancer on the right side of my face since 2015. I am right handed and had always held my cell phone to my right ear. When I learned of bluetooth earpieces I bought one and wore it on my right ear. As a driver as well as a dispatcher for 7 other drivers I spent the greater portion of my day on the phone routing drivers. Due to the repeated cancer treatments that included my cheek, around my ear I moved the bluetooth to my left ear. This month I went in to my eye doctor because my vision driving at night has become blurry and headlights, especially blue ones give me headaches. My doctor reported that my left eye is perfectly fine but that my right eye has a cateract that should be removed soon as it affects my ability to drive my truck at night. 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.