Children & vulnerable groups

I had to go to the emergency room back in 2019 right after my vacation. The first day I ever encountered five g wireless in a home at an air bnb rental in Florida. I asked the emergency room if they had seen this before from sensitivities. My skin opened up with ulcers all up and down my legs, and my belly button had a softball sized lump that exploded with pus. Ive since learned to cope but I see my children now affected im having to disconnect the modeum as much as possible and moved away from the city. Its terrible I pray for those making the wrong decisions for our planet to step up now before its too late.

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 husband and father. We live in a condominium community and there are 6 so-called "smart meters" on the other side of the wall of my son's bedroom. My son is autistic, has seizures and is non-verbal. I always suspected that wireless radiation was one of the causes of his condition. Right after with wireless meters were installed, I called con edison and asked them if they knew how safe they were. Their response was that the meters were approved by the FCC. That is their only answer to this day. Being a graduate of mass communications, I know a bit about FCC regulation. The FCC has nothing to do with people's health. They only check to see if devices interfere with other communication devices. They also told me that the previous meters had also been wireless, but a meter man had to drive alongside the meters to get the reading. I told con edison that I wanted to opt out of the wireless meters. It was almost useless because there are 5 other wirelessmeters on my son's wall, but I did it anyway. I am now charged extra money because I am concerned for my son's health and nobody in New York government (who gave con edison permission to install the meters) seems to care at all. A couple of days after the meters were installed, I was feeling unwell at work and started to drive home. For the first time in my life, I had heart palpitations. I didn't know what was happening so I called 911. An ambulance took me to the hospital. After following up with a cardiologist, he put me on Xanax and I have been on it ever since. There was also an uptick in my son's seizures. He is now on 5 medicines to help control the seizures and he is unable to make it to school regularly. I had planned for us to move out of here, because I had seen a couple of houses where the people moved the meters away from the house. I had planned the move to be for 2020. But then, the pandemic hit and real estate in Westchester got out of control and out of reach for middle class families. I want a way to measure the wireless radiation in our home. I did buy a small device, and it of course flashes "DANGER" around the wall adjacent to the meters. But we need professional, government approved proof of what is happening. Just last month, I made a formal complaint with New York state about it. All they did was have someone at con edison call me, and that person referred me to the FCC web site, which again is absurd because the FCC is only concerned about whether a communication device interferes with other communication devices. They have no concern for people whatsoever! 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.

Department of Health and Human Services, The health impacts of wireless RF radiation. RF exposures are growing , cell towers and small cells, smart meters, 5G, and emerging 6G technologies. wireless RF radiation, extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from power lines, electrical grid equipment are critically bombarding children how are biologically developing, pregnancies in families who are also biologically developing and are both facing critical health traumas. Please respond to my Letter below/ Attached. Eric Barnard and Family.

Dear Secretary of Health and Human Services, I urge you to make the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency radiation, and continuous wireless exposure a public health priority. Where is the comprehensive, independent, long-term research demonstrating that a lifetime of continuous wireless exposure is safe for human health at every stage of development? The absence of definitive evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety. Our children and future generations deserve answers, not assumptions. Quantum physics reveals that matter and energy are deeply interconnected, and the human body depends on intricate electrical and biochemical processes. Why, then, would we dismiss legitimate questions about how chronic exposure to external electromagnetic fields might affect biological systems? We must follow the science wherever it leads, free from industry influence. We are already dealing with a healthcare system that too often prioritizes managing disease over investigating its root causes. Too many people feel trapped in a system that relies on costly, patented pharmaceuticals while underinvesting in prevention and broader approaches to health. When financial incentives reward treating illness, we must ask whether enough attention is being given to preventing it in the first place. When will human health matter more than a business model? When will transparency matter more than profit? People deserve a healthcare system that serves them—not one in which financial interests overshadow prevention, scientific integrity, and public well-being. I call on HHS to fund truly independent, long-term research into wireless radiation and human health; disclose uncertainties honestly; protect children and other potentially vulnerable populations; and ensure that public health policy is never dictated by corporate interests. Our bodies are not merely markets. Our health is not a commodity. And our children's well-being must never be an acceptable gamble. The American people deserve truth, accountability, prevention, and a healthcare system that puts human life before profit. When will we finally make that our priority? Respectfully, Sara, a concerned citizen, and taxpayer!

i am not for cell towers, especially near schools, there is research, tests, studies, etc showing children develop problems when near these towers. At the present time, these cell towers are powerful enough to do damage to children as well as some adults. The signal, transmission, evolved from 1G, to 3G, to 5G, in other words the broadcast keeps getting stronger, imagine the future when it goes to 10 or 20G. When a cell tower worker goes to work on these towers why do they have to be shut off, it is obviously to protect the worker, to say its not doing damange is misleading.

Thank you for reaching out to the public on this very important matter affecting all Americans. Given the technology that has evolved, the 1996 FCC standards for RF/EMF are barely relevant, woefully inadequate and antiquated. I hope that based on the information received, the HHS can provide recommendations to FCC to enact some urgent practical steps to help residential neighborhoods and schools minimize exposure, pending some of the more complicated research issues. FCC should defer to HHS's expertise and judgment on such matters, since FCC has demonstrated scant, if any, concern for public safety over the last 30 years.

WALLINGTON, NJ: OUR CHILDREN LIVE INSIDE THE SIGNAL, 24 HOURS A DAY. Every person in Wallington lives within half a mile of a cell antenna installation. Most live within half a mile of two or more. I ask HHS to make Wallington a pilot site and to come see it. My full report is attached. ABOUT ME. Szymon Sikorski. Medical degree; 20 years in medical research analysis, the last five on cancer. Parent of a child in Wallington public schools. I write for no institution. For six years I lived and worked from home near the Hathaway Street Park cell tower. Day and night. Then I was diagnosed with cancer. Now I live with it, and with the fear of it getting worse. How much of it came from six years of round-the-clock RF and EMF exposure? No one can tell me. No one ever measured it. PEOPLE SEE ONE TOWER. WE HAVE SIX INSTALLATIONS. They carry more than 70 panels, most hidden in plain sight: on a water tank next to an elementary school, an apartment roof where families sleep directly under eight antennas, a self-storage building, an old water tower and a chimney. You may see a tower 2,000 feet away and miss the antennas much closer to home. Not one has ever been held to Wallington's own 500-foot rule. THE WARNINGS ARE NOT NEW. The World Health Organization's cancer agency (IARC) lists radio-frequency radiation, and magnetic fields from electrical equipment, as possibly causing cancer in humans. In 2019, and again in 2024, its advisers called a new cancer review a high priority. The American Academy of Pediatrics told the FCC its limits do not account for children and pregnant women, and a federal court ordered the FCC to explain how they protect children long term. Firefighters asked for a federal study of antennas on their stations in 2004. It was never done. WHY 1,500 FEET? In Germany and Israel, studies found more cancers among people living within about 1,150 to 1,300 feet of cell antennas. A 1,500-foot buffer covers that distance. Legislators keep proposing 1,500 feet or more from schools; in New Hampshire, 1,640 feet from homes and schools. In Wallington, 83% of homes are within 1,500 feet of an installation. 24 HOURS A DAY, NOT 30 MINUTES. FCC limits were set in 1996 to stop tissue heating, averaged over 30 minutes. They do not count years. Our exposure does not stop after 30 minutes. It never stops. THINK OF ONE WALLINGTON CHILD. She spends her school day at Gavlak Elementary, 180 feet from antennas on the water tank, with three installations within half a mile. Then she comes home, still within reach of more. She sleeps there. In the morning she goes back. Year after year, while her brain and body are still growing, her exposure adds up. No one has ever studied a child like her. Her teachers may spend whole pregnancies 180 feet from those antennas. No one has studied that either. WHAT I MEASURED. In neighbors' homes within 900 feet of the tower, RF read about 7 mW/m². In the park where children play, 20 to 33. Magnetic fields at the tower's base reached 45 mG. All far below FCC limits. Yet studies found effects at these levels: where RF was higher, students scored lower on memory tests, schoolchildren had more DNA damage markers, and residents reported more symptoms. Children in homes averaging above 4 mG had about double the leukemia risk. RISK VERSUS BENEFIT. The Borough collects about $80,000 a year from two of these sites. That is $6.78 per resident per year. About $41 over six years. $41. Against cancer. Against a parent's worry that never ends. THE TOWER COMPANY WILL NOT CARRY THE RISK. The company holding the Hathaway tower lease tells investors it has no significant insurance against RF health claims. Insurers have long excluded these risks. Why are they worried about liability? What do they know that we do not? TOWNS ARE REMOVING ANTENNAS, NOT JUST BANNING NEW ONES. In California, a carrier removed a tower from an elementary school after four students got cancer, even though it tested within federal limits. In New York, a 150-foot tower beside a public housing playground came down after residents objected. India's Supreme Court ordered a tower switched off for a cancer patient who said it hit his home 24/7 for 13 years. Here, no one was even told. Not residents, not parents, not the school. Everyone who understands this now carries one more worry, every day, especially parents. Home values and taxes suffer too; the report covers that. WHAT I ASK. (1) A health-based distance from schools and homes, and moving antennas that are too close, starting on public property. (2) Make every antenna's owner, frequencies and power public. (3) Link cancer and birth records to antenna history. (4) Study children exposed at school and at home, for years. (5) Come to Wallington.

Question 2: I am responding as an individual consumer, a mother, and a member of a household where both adults work from home. I am not a scientist or medical professional. My comments are based on my own experience. My husband has submitted a separate response describing his own experience and measurements. Question 3: From 2022 to 2024 we lived about 400 metres from a mobile phone base station that carried 5G. My husband’s meter readings outdoors facing the mast were much higher than at our current home. Our house also had a lot of wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, several smart speakers, and wireless smart lights, switches and sensors. I worked from home, using my mobile phone regularly, with my desk beside our Wi-Fi router for most of the working day. While living there I had two miscarriages. I also developed tinnitus, anxiety, pressure in my head and difficulty sleeping. When we became aware of possible risks, we removed all the wireless devices from the house after both miscarriages, and in late 2024 we moved to a home further from base stations, where we do not use Wi-Fi and indoor readings are very low. My symptoms went away completely after the move. We conceived without difficulty and I have had a successful pregnancy. In late 2025 my symptoms returned. Only afterwards did we notice that a nearby base station had been rebuilt taller, with six new antennas; the operator has since confirmed the site runs 5G. By late 2026 my symptoms had become unbearable. We now sleep inside a shielding canopy over the bed, and we have fitted shielding to our windows. I understand that miscarriage is common and has many causes, and that other things in our lives changed when we moved. I am not claiming that wireless exposure caused my losses or my symptoms, and I know my observations are not blinded. Some research exists on exposure in pregnancy, including mobile phone use and living near base stations. That gap is why I am writing. Question 11: Pregnant women and unborn children should be a priority population in research and exposure guidance. Simple advice, such as keeping routers away from where people sit for long periods and limiting wireless devices in the home, costs nothing and could be given now. Question 16: I would like independent, publicly funded research into reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage and fertility, in relation to everyday combined exposure at home and at work, using measured exposure rather than estimates based on phone use. Question 18: I am concerned about how quickly new wireless technologies are being installed outdoors and inside buildings, including Wi-Fi throughout schools, where children spend most of their day and have no choice about their exposure. Reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization found very little research on long-term exposure and cognition in children, and one Swiss study of adolescents found an association between mobile phone exposure to the head and poorer memory development, which the authors say needs confirming. I recommend that new technologies and frequency bands are independently assessed for health effects before widespread rollout, and that schools follow France’s approach since 2015: no Wi-Fi in spaces for children under three, Wi-Fi switched off in primary schools when not needed for teaching, and parents told before new wireless equipment is installed. All information in this response is from my own experience and is not peer-reviewed research.

Question 2: I am responding as an individual consumer, a mother, and a member of a household where both adults work from home. I am not a scientist or medical professional. My comments are based on my own experience. My husband has submitted a separate response describing his own experience and measurements. Question 3: From 2022 to 2024 we lived about 400 metres from a mobile phone base station that carried 5G. My husband’s meter readings outdoors facing the mast were much higher than at our current home. Our house also had a lot of wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, several smart speakers, and wireless smart lights, switches and sensors. I worked from home, using my mobile phone regularly, with my desk beside our Wi-Fi router for most of the working day. While living there I had two miscarriages. I also developed tinnitus, anxiety, pressure in my head and difficulty sleeping. When we became aware of possible risks, we removed all the wireless devices from the house after both miscarriages, and in late 2024 we moved to a home further from base stations, where we do not use Wi-Fi and indoor readings are very low. My symptoms went away completely after the move. We conceived without difficulty and I have had a successful pregnancy. In late 2025 my symptoms returned. Only afterwards did we notice that a nearby base station had been rebuilt taller, with six new antennas; the operator has since confirmed the site runs 5G. By late 2026 my symptoms had become unbearable. We now sleep inside a shielding canopy over the bed, and we have fitted shielding to our windows. I understand that miscarriage is common and has many causes, and that other things in our lives changed when we moved. I am not claiming that wireless exposure caused my losses or my symptoms, and I know my observations are not blinded. Some research exists on exposure in pregnancy, including mobile phone use and living near base stations. That gap is why I am writing. Question 11: Pregnant women and unborn children should be a priority population in research and exposure guidance. Simple advice, such as keeping routers away from where people sit for long periods and limiting wireless devices in the home, costs nothing and could be given now. Question 16: I would like independent, publicly funded research into reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage and fertility, in relation to everyday combined exposure at home and at work, using measured exposure rather than estimates based on phone use. Question 18: I am concerned about how quickly new wireless technologies are being installed outdoors and inside buildings, including Wi-Fi throughout schools, where children spend most of their day and have no choice about their exposure. Reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization found very little research on long-term exposure and cognition in children, and one Swiss study of adolescents found an association between mobile phone exposure to the head and poorer memory development, which the authors say needs confirming. I recommend that new technologies and frequency bands are independently assessed for health effects before widespread rollout, and that schools follow France’s approach since 2015: no Wi-Fi in spaces for children under three, Wi-Fi switched off in primary schools when not needed for teaching, and parents told before new wireless equipment is installed. All information in this response is from my own experience and is not peer-reviewed research.

Sivani Saravanamuttu, M.Phil., Ph.D. Independent Researcher and Author; Founder of Project Plain Talk I submit the following comments on the HHS RFI on Electromagnetic Fields, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. My perspective draws on my peer-reviewed 2013 review (Sivani & Sudarsanam, Biology and Medicine) previously filed as Exhibit 19 in FCC ET Docket 13-84, and my book - The Digital Pied Piper Effect (2018) - which treats RF-EMF health questions as a systems problem involving both biological responses and behavioural patterns that increase cumulative exposure, especially in children. Key points (detailed in the attached PDF): - Exposure and behaviour are entangled; studies should measure both and attempt to separate their effects. - Priority needs include real-use dosimetry, longitudinal cohorts from early life and transparent evidence syntheses. - Individual sensitivity (including EHS/IEI-EMF) requires better methods (e.g., proteomics approaches proposed by Leszczynski) rather than relying solely on self-report or short provocation studies. - EHS recognition and prevalence data are concentrated in high-income countries; comparative data from other regions are lacking. - Coordination across FDA, NIH, CDC and related agencies is needed, with attention to non-thermal mechanisms as hypotheses requiring further testing and to practical exposure-reduction options. The full response, with citations and mapping to specific RFI questions, is attached as a PDF.