Children & vulnerable groups

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public urging HHS to undertake a comprehensive, independent investigation into the potential human and environmental health effects of the rapidly expanding electromagnetic environment created by modern technology. My concern is not based on the assumption that every wireless technology has been proven harmful. Rather, it is that society has dramatically increased the intensity, density, duration, proximity, and variety of electromagnetic exposures while the long-term biological consequences of this cumulative exposure remain incompletely understood. Today, people can be exposed simultaneously and continuously to Wi-Fi, 4G/5G and future 6G infrastructure, cell towers and small cells, Bluetooth and wireless headphones, smartphones, smart meters, wireless cameras and security systems, wearables, smart-home devices, connected and electric vehicles, wireless medical devices, satellite communications such as Starlink, and the rapidly expanding infrastructure supporting AI and data centers. The central question should therefore not simply be whether each individual device complies with an existing exposure limit. HHS should determine whether current standards adequately address real-world, cumulative, lifelong exposure from multiple sources operating simultaneously. I respectfully ask HHS to investigate potential effects on: sleep and circadian biology; hormonal and endocrine function; reproductive health and fertility; pregnancy and fetal development; neurological and cognitive function; immune and metabolic function; oxidative stress and cellular signaling; DNA integrity, repair and epigenetic processes; cancer and other chronic diseases; and children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Research should specifically examine effects that may occur below existing exposure limits and should evaluate frequency, power density, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, proximity to the body, duration, and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies. HHS itself identifies these factors as important areas for investigation. I am particularly concerned about involuntary residential exposure. Smart meters, nearby wireless infrastructure, small cells, and other continuously operating devices can expose people inside their own homes regardless of whether they personally choose to use wireless technology. Americans should have meaningful information and reasonable options for reducing unnecessary exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. HHS should also investigate the rapidly changing exposure environment created by 5G, future 6G, satellite networks, IoT devices, autonomous vehicles, wireless charging, electric vehicles, smart cities, and other emerging technologies before assuming that older exposure research adequately represents these systems. The investigation should extend beyond human health. HHS should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies to examine potential effects on wildlife, birds, insects, pollinators, livestock, plants, and ecosystems. HHS specifically requests information concerning environmental effects and wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, and livestock. Independent research is essential. Federal research should be transparent, independently replicated, and protected from conflicts of interest. Long-term studies should measure actual exposure rather than relying solely on estimates of device use. The government should develop standardized methods for measuring individual and neighborhood exposure and consider longitudinal health studies, environmental monitoring, occupational monitoring, disease registries, biomonitoring, and adverse-event reporting. I also urge HHS to improve public transparency. Consumers, parents, schools, workers, and communities should have understandable information about the emissions and realistic exposure characteristics of wireless devices and infrastructure. The scientific evidence contains established findings, conflicting findings, emerging research, and significant uncertainty. That uncertainty is not a reason to dismiss public concern; it is a reason to investigate more rigorously. We should neither assume that modern wireless technology is harmless nor assume that every health problem attributed to EMF has been scientifically proven to be caused by EMF. We should measure the exposures, study the biology, monitor health outcomes over time, investigate potential risks, and make the evidence publicly available. The unprecedented proliferation of wireless and electrically powered technology should be matched by an equally serious commitment to understanding its long-term consequences for human health and the environment. I urge HHS to make cumulative, real-world EMF/RF exposure and its potential biological effects a significant federal research priority.

I have been dealing with EMF issues for 6 years now. I'm 76yrs old and have a 90 yr old husband that I have been trying to take care. There is so much to eexplain. But. Unfortunately I can't be on this cell phone long enough. But thank God your doing research. Maybe people like me will get some help with the EMF issues. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy!

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Perspective (Q1): Individual / adult educator in a community Lifelong Learners setting. Not a physician. I teach practical exposure-reduction, not products. Q8 — What should be disclosed People need plain-language facts at the point of use: phones are radio transmitters; distance drops exposure sharply; night-time household wireless can be switched off; wearables and routers add to the load even when you are not “on a call.” Federal consumer and school guidance should say that in one page, without a store attached. Q10 — Sensitive populations Exposure assessment should treat children, pregnant women, and those with implants or unexplained symptoms as groups that may need extra caution while the science is incomplete — not as proof of a single disease. Schools and childcare should have the option of wired connections and phones stored off the body. Q11 — Evidence below current U.S. limits IARC classified RF electromagnetic fields as *possibly carcinogenic to humans* (Group 2B, 2011). The National Toxicology Program reported tumor findings in male rats after long-term RF exposure. The D.C. Circuit in *Environmental Health Trust v. FCC* (2021) found the FCC had not adequately explained its decision to retain 1996-era limits in light of subsequent evidence on children and long-term exposure. Those three items are enough to justify a current HHS evidence review. They are not, by themselves, a diagnosis of any person. Q15 — Research priorities Highest gaps: real-world *cumulative* exposure (phone + Wi-Fi + infrastructure), non-thermal biological endpoints, pediatric and in-utero cohorts, and independent replication of NTP-type work at current waveforms (including 5G). Coordination: NIH for biology, FDA for device emissions and labeling, CDC for school/community guidance. Practical recommendation While agencies update the science, HHS can publish the same three habits already used in many public-health pages: increase distance, take the phone off the body, turn household transmitters down or off at night. That does not require a new standard to be finished first. Thank you for this opportunity to 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 a parent who wants a safe beautiful world for my children and grandchildren. 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 a concerned parent animal advocate. The FCC is trying to pass laws that will allow the invasive placement of 5/6G towers in very critical animal habitat and next to residential homes. Why did the United States government STOP testing the effects of these deadly frequencies? These frequencies have been shown to kill trees close to them, interrupt mating cycles of animals, sickness and DEATH!!! There has been a 5/6G tower placed close by my house and ever since this happened, roughly a year ago, my ears are ringing off the charts. STOP POISONING HUMANS AND ANIMALS WITH DEALY FREQUENCIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME! BAN THESE TOWERS THAT ARE NOT FOR BETTER CELL RECEPTION - THEY ARE SIMPLY A CONTROL MECHANISM FOR THE GLOBAL PLAN FOR SMART CITIES TO CONTROL AND TRACK EVERY PERSON ON EARTH! 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. Sincerely from a Concerned American Patriot, Dana Fortson

Tinnitus arrived the day the neighboors had the AMF-antennas installed in their houses, which I did not know untill the day after. 8 years later, I still have tinnitus, but after 5G coverage started, I started having an additional, darker tone, so now I have 2 different ones. I really could not believe this had to do with EMF exposure, but experiencing like a spear through my brain when one of the neighboors plugged in their electric car charger and hearing a car-charger-park like thousends of screams (I did not manage to have a conversation because of how it affected my brain) I finally had to admit this was a cause to my health problems. I experience pains in my head and in my body, brain fog, difficulties finding words, fatigue, anxiety and heart pulpifications after exposures to wifi, Bluetooth, 4G, 4G+, 5G. We now have had wifi 6 at work installed, along smart heating owens, the latter 50 cm from my desk. I teach middle school, and sometimes there are 28 active computers in the room, along a smart TV or a projector using Bluetooth and an access point placed on top of the entrance door. About 50 meters from our school is a cluster of at least 3 5G antennas. Most ceiling lights have also been changed info LED, they give me immidiate headaches. At home I have no wifi, I am now using my cell phone through a cable. The blue light is turned down as much as possible, and I have a protective shield across the screen. I also turn on the flightmode when I have the phone in my hands. I never use it to my ear. A few hours after coming home from work, the health issues weakens. In the beginning, before I turned off the wifi, and while others were living with me in the house (using their own phones), I also had major sleeping disturbances. If I ever take an electric taxi, my joints and muscles start hurting after a few minutes.

My name is Alexis Butler. I live in Phoenix AZ. I am concerned about the lack of studies proving EMF's safe. Specifically regarding, wearables, wireless devices on the laps, in the ears and in the pockets of my kids. Is this going to affect their fertility? Is this just a myth? There is no science saying it is safe. In the meantime many companies spout EMF free blankets, mats, headphones, cell phone cases etc. BUT where is the research? Money is a limited resource. The anecdotal stories are compelling. If there is reason to limit, avoid, and protect, then why is there a 5G tower at my church, at the school, EMF emitting electric panel on my house? WIFI routers that boast strong signal who is accountable to make sure these are safe?

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, grandparent and concerned member of the public. Exposure to wireless radiation has increased my nervous system dysregulation and I see its effects on my grandchildren where they cannot settle but are constantly wired (I understand wireless radiation is not the only contributor). My husband can no longer tolerate his cell phone in his pocket as the heat generated now is to such a degree it's uncomfortable. When we turn our Wifi off at night or have a power outage, we all sleep more peacefully. 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 also support HHS examining carefully those individuals chosen to take an active role in these endeavors that they have no conflicts of interest and receive no kickbacks nor have financial ties to the wireless industry. I support the exclusion of these individuals from participating in any measure. 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.