Children & vulnerable groups

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.

Dear Sirs/Madams, I am requesting that the same level of consideration be given to persons with the functional impairment of electromagnetic sensitivity that would be accorded to any other disabled person. I know that doing so would disrupt great plans, but workarounds have been found for people with other disabilities. The argument that electromagnetic sensitivity does not exist and is just a figment of the sufferers imagination has been debunked numerous times. I attach two studies that I have on hand. I also request that the health of children, in particular, be considered in the deployment of wireless equipment. Prof. Oleg Grigoriev of Russia's committee on non-ionizing radiation protection has said that, while he does not oppose the use of wireless communication, every home should have at least one room with low levels, and that room should be the children's room. Children should also limit the amount of time they spend engaging in high-exposure activities. Wired Internet connections can be installed in schools to reduce children's exposure there. Thirdly, the environment needs to be considered. We face an extinction crisis due to many factors, all of which come back to human activities. I have witnessed a stepwise reduction of biodiversity in my neighborhood as new radiating infrastructure is introduced. The most notable reductions occurred shortly after smart electric meters were installed in the neighborhood and after 5G transmissions began. I attach my most recent observations in rural Japan, which include links to similar observations elsewhere. Most importantly regarding the future of our environment and humanity itself, people are noting a loss not only of pollinators, but of pollen itself, resulting in failure to fruit and sterile seeds when they do develop. The use of wireless radiation should take the environment into consideration and be limited to local urban centers, again ensuring that the full range of necessary services are available to persons who cannot tolerate or who should otherwise be protected from high-EMR environments.

Please help our small community in Brookfield, Connecticut despite over 200 signatures from residence to stop the building of 175 foot cell tower literally across the street from private townhouses with hundreds of people and children play and walk and live. We have 3 to 4 towers about 3 miles from here on this community. We do not need a cell tower. It’s not even for our town of Brookfield. It’s for the town of Bridgewater across a beautiful lake that will also be impacted not to mention the bald eagles and the wild animals that we have here. The Sitting Council of Connecticut has approved it without any of our concerns has that answered any of our questions regarding the environment and the danger to the wildlife, not to mention the impact it will have on the health of hundreds of people, especially children. There’s a piece of private land that it’s being built on smack in the middle of all community literally across the street cell towers should never be built among people. Please help us stop the cell tower. We live at Lake Lillanonah Shores in Brookfield CT

I am submitting this comment to express my serious concern about the potential health effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, particularly for children, pregnant women, and future generations. We live in an increasingly connected world in which people are exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from cell phones, wireless devices, Wi-Fi networks, cell towers, and other wireless technologies. Children are growing up surrounded by these technologies and may experience exposure throughout their lives, beginning during pregnancy and continuing through childhood and adolescence. Given this increasing and prolonged exposure, I believe it is essential that the federal government carefully examine the potential short-term and long-term health consequences. **A particular concern is the potential relationship between EMF exposure and cancer.** The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. This classification does not establish that exposure causes cancer, but it does indicate that the scientific evidence warranted concern and further investigation. Research examining possible associations between radiofrequency exposure and brain tumors and other cancers deserves continued, independent scrutiny. I am especially concerned about children because their bodies and brains are still developing, and their lifetime exposure may be substantially longer than that of previous generations. It is important to determine whether existing exposure standards adequately account for children's developmental stages, potential differences in vulnerability, and the cumulative effects of exposure over many decades. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm should not be interpreted as definitive proof that all potential long-term risks have been ruled out. I respectfully urge the federal government to take the following actions: 1. **Conduct and support independent, long-term research** into possible associations between EMF exposure and cancer, neurological development, reproductive health, sleep, and other relevant health outcomes. 2. **Give special attention to children and pregnancy**, including studies that examine prenatal exposure, childhood exposure, and potential effects over the course of a person's lifetime. 3. **Reassess existing exposure standards** in light of the latest scientific evidence, including whether those standards adequately address prolonged exposure, real-world exposure patterns, and potentially vulnerable populations. 4. **Ensure transparency and independence in scientific reviews**, including disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, research limitations, and disagreements among qualified researchers. 5. **Provide clear, accessible public information** about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical measures individuals and families can take to reduce unnecessary exposure if they choose to do so. 6. **Apply a prudent, precautionary approach** while scientific uncertainties remain, particularly when considering children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Reasonable exposure-reduction measures should be considered where feasible without overstating what the evidence establishes. I recognize that wireless technologies provide significant benefits and that scientific research has not established that ordinary environmental EMF exposure causes every health condition of concern. Nevertheless, the widespread and increasing use of these technologies makes it especially important to investigate potential risks rigorously, independently, and continuously. Protecting public health requires more than waiting for absolute scientific certainty before investigating a possible risk. It requires a commitment to transparent research, careful evaluation of emerging evidence, and appropriate safeguards when the health of children and future generations may be at stake. I urge the relevant federal agencies to give this issue serious consideration, ensure that the scientific evidence is evaluated comprehensively, and prioritize the long-term health and well-being of the public. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment and for considering these concerns. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): The 2011 classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). This is a hazard classification, not a conclusion that everyday exposure necessarily causes cancer. National Cancer Institute: Its overview of cell phones and cancer discusses epidemiological research, biological evidence, and the limitations of existing studies. World Health Organization (WHO): Its research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields addresses the evidence on possible health effects and the need for continued evaluation.

With the proliferation of cell phone towers, smart meters, smart home devices, data centers and wireless devices in our environment, additional research needs to be conducted on the harmful effects of wi-fi, RF and EMF. As a concerned family member and caregiver, I believe human health experiences and clinical observations need to be taken into account. Exposure standards need to be reevaluated to limit human and animal exposure to wireless radiation and electromagnetic fields. Exposure measurement needs to be reevaluated in real-world situations, as humans use their cell phones by directly touching them and are often exposed to multiple sources of wi-fi simultaneously. Sensitive populations exposed to wi-fi, RF and EMF need to be studied such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, those who wear hearing aids with wi-fi or blue-tooth, those with implanted or wearable devices, workers with elevated exposure and those with preexisting conditions. It is imperative that existing scientific evidence be examined and additional research be conducted to study the adverse health effects of wi-fi, RF and EMF on humans and our environment. Please see attached studies. Thank you.

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 member of the public. I'm concerned about the huge amount of EMF and RFR in our environment. We humans haven't been exposed to this until recent years, and who knows what the long-term health effects will be? When I had my first cell phone and put it up next to my head while talking, afterwards my head would feel hot and uncomfortable on that side. I was suspicious about the health risks from that point on. There's plenty of research from scientific organizations showing the damage of EMF and RFR, especially for children. I know many adults are also sensitive to this, and they shouldn't be forced to be exposed to it 24/7. 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 a mother submitting this comment in response to HHS's Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am writing as a parent and consumer. Below I describe what my husband and I have experienced: the exposure, the symptoms, what we changed, and what happened. I cannot prove cause, but the pattern is consistent. We should not have to guess whether any of these are connected. It is also worth stating that I founded a company that makes EMF-shielding apparel for women, which I started because of my experiences below. My exposure: In 2020, when I started working from home during the pandemic, I suddenly spent hours a day with a wireless laptop on my lap and my phone within reach. Symptoms: Within months, I developed tingling and numbness in my face and lips, joint pain that radiated up my arms, trouble concentrating, impaired memory, severe panic attacks, and poor sleep. My general practitioner listened to my symptoms and recommended antidepressants. When the pain in my hands became unbearable, I saw a rheumatologist for testing. She didn't find arthritis but offered to prescribe painkillers, which I declined. What I changed: I took the laptop off my lap, wired my computer and TV, kept my phone off my body and out of reach, used airplane mode often, turned off Bluetooth and WiFi on devices that didn't need them, and turned off the WiFi router at night. Result: My symptoms eased to a manageable level. They return when I hold a Bluetooth device against my body and when I spend time in high-EMF environments, like airports and homes run by smart home systems. My exposure: Driving and riding in our two 2026 hybrids, an SUV and a crossover. Symptoms: Immediately, I experience severe aching and burning in my hands and feet, nausea, fatigue, intermittent shooting pains in my abdomen and chest, and a short-circuiting feeling in my brain when I try to finish a sentence. What I changed: I drive as little as possible and rent a gas-powered car for any drive longer than 20 minutes. After parking, I ground myself as soon as I can. Result: My symptoms fade slowly after I turn off the car and get out, and they ease noticeably faster when I ground. My husband’s exposure: Sleeping with wireless earbuds in. Symptom: A lump about the size of a dime under his ear. What he changed: He stopped wearing earbuds to bed. Result: The lump went away. I support HHS examining the health impact of wireless radiation, and ask that HHS treat children and pregnant women as distinct populations in its research priorities. Research priorities include long-term studies of children exposed from birth; pregnancy and reproductive outcomes; the health effects of cell towers near homes and schools, and how that evidence should guide where towers are allowed; exposure in schools and vehicles; and the effects of 5G and 6G on our health and the environment. The experiences of individuals and families who report being affected by, or who are concerned about, potential health effects from EMF, RF, and wireless radiation exposure should be considered alongside the scientific evidence, to help identify gaps in current research and to establish appropriate safety parameters for wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for including individuals and families in your request for information.

I am a wife and mother of two adult daughters. I have a B.S. in Elementary Education and K-12 Art Education. My husband and I have home schooled and graduated both daughters, ages 20 and 22. Early in 2021 we began to struggle with comprehension and recall. At first I thought it was burnout, but after several months we had an opportunity to leave the city of Billings, MT for vacation in a more rural area with only minimal cell phone coverage and no 5G. The brain fog cleared within a couple of hours, along with exhaustion, muscle fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness and headaches. That was when I began to suspect the connection with the roll-out of 5G. Since then, we've been searching for help with the increasing severity of these symptoms, trying different methods of shielding, health support, reduction of exposure, mold elimination, heavy metal detox, etc. We have been unable to attend church services for several years, though we meet our pastor once a month for communion, privately. We pushed through the brain fog, fatigue, etc. until 2 1/2 years ago, when we were forced to give up weekly horse riding and piano lessons. At that time I also realized it was unsafe for me to continue driving, as my abilities to focus and process were seriously impaired. Though we graduated our daughters and are confident in their abilities to continue their education at some point, it is currently impossible. They have never been well enough to have jobs or learn to drive. Leaving the house is very difficult, making an obvious social barrier. We are currently working with a specialist in bio-resonance and have come to the conclusion, through this therapy, that our emf sensitivities are not caused by some other injury, such as mold, but are just a part of who we are. I am also convinced that many people may be misdiagnosed, based on similar symptoms, when the cause is our society's sudden immersion in a dense electromagnetic smog. In summary, 5G has isolated us from family, friends, and church community, deprived us of the ability to work, learn, and recreate, and consumed thousands of dollars. It hurts my heart to think of how many people may be suffering similar or worse circumstances, being misdiagnosed with mental health illness or labeled with disorders, and feeling despair over failing health, when the answer is so clear; we're being poisoned by 5G!

I am a 64-year-old man whose family owns a vacation home in Hillman Township, Michigan. A cell tower developer is seeking to construct a massive telecommunications tower just feet from my property. Like others who live nearby, we purchased and maintained this home to enjoy peace, privacy, and the natural environment -- not to face the prospect of significant, long-term exposure to high levels of wireless radiation emissions. This is not a matter of NIMBY-ism. This is a matter of public health and the responsible, thoughtful sitting of powerful industrial equipment. I urge HHS to prioritize research into the biological mechanisms of harm. Federal research should investigate the effects of RF radiation on cellular signaling, oxidative stress, DNA damage and repair, neurological function, and reproductive and developmental health. HHS should fund independent, replicated laboratory studies, long-term animal research, and prospective human studies examining chronic and cumulative exposure, including levels below current federal limits. Research should also examine particularly vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and older adults. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2013 Monograph Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation, children absorb up to ten times more wireless radiation in the bone marrow of the skull compared to adults due to their thinner skulls, smaller heads, and higher brain conductivity. I urge HHS to recommend that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reassesses and lowers its existing RF exposure limits. Current RF exposure limits are so permissive that they’re essentially the equivalent of a 500-mph speed limit. No wonder people are getting sick! The FCC must reconsider the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM) model used to assess cell phone RF exposure. SAM is based on a simplified model of a standardized adult head and was developed to assess localized RF energy absorption under specified testing conditions. It does not adequately represent the full range of human anatomy, including children, differences in head and body size, or the complexity of real-world phone use and exposure. A compliance test based on a standardized model cannot, by itself, establish that all users are adequately protected under all realistic conditions. HHS should encourage independent evaluation of SAM's limitations and support improved testing methods that better reflect diverse users, realistic usage patterns, and modern wireless devices. I am not opposed to telecommunications technology. I am asking that public health receive the same serious consideration as infrastructure expansion. I respectfully urge HHS to lead a coordinated federal research effort, further investigate the biological mechanisms of RF-related harms, recommend stronger FCC exposure limits, and support more scientifically representative cell phone testing methods. Americans deserve nothing less. Thank you for your consideration of my comment. Respectfully submitted, Chris Caswell

Cell towers do not belong in school grounds where children spend a majority of their time! Towers belong in vacant areas far from schools and residential homes!!