Children & vulnerable groups

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, employee & member of a community where exposure is outside my control. As someone who knows the health impacts of these frequencies, I do not think it is right that we cannot avoid them with our own discernment. I also am appalled that there continues to be rollout without care for the well being of others. There needs to be a stop to rolling out products where impacts have not been studied but if we begin seeing humans harmed in studies, we need to discontinue at all costs. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside evidence from studies using true scientific process. 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 have felt the effects of radiation on my health and the health of my children which include headaches, severe constant nausea, increased anxiety, hand tremors, disturbed sleep patterns, chronic fatigue, increased agitation. I started noticing a pattern of these symptoms over the past six years. It has affected my life in ways that you cannot even imagine. These cell phone towers are used as weapons on the American people and absolutely nothing you say will change my mind regarding that. I know of many patents that prove that is exactly what they are used for.

Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure — Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Submitted by: Charles J Foster II, amateur radio callsign KS0VO, Kansas Perspective (Question 2). I respond as a licensed amateur radio operator and an ARRL Volunteer Examiner — an individual with sustained, hands-on proximity to RF transmitters, and a volunteer who helps administer the licensing examinations through which new operators, including minors, enter the amateur service. My comments rest on operating experience and the published guidance of the amateur service, not on medical or laboratory research. I offer them on the practical questions: how exposure actually occurs, how it is measured, and what the public is told. Questions 5(p) and 8 — exposure assessment should reflect how transmitters are really used. Any classification or assessment system has to account for the characteristics that dominate real exposure: duty cycle, modulation, distance from the source, and cumulative exposure over time. In amateur operation alone, duty cycle runs from near-continuous (FM voice, some digital modes) to roughly a fifth of transmit time (single-sideband voice), and exposure falls off fast with a few feet of separation. Current assessment methods lean on standardized assumptions, and real-world measurement remains weak: a consumer or licensee who wants to characterize the exposure in their own home or around their own station has few affordable, calibrated options and no common standard to measure against. HHS should treat better real-world exposure characterization — including cumulative, multi-source exposure — as a methods and research priority. Questions 5(n) and 9 — disclosure. What should be disclosed, in plain language, is what a non-engineer needs to make sensible choices: a device's transmit power and duty characteristics, the separation distance it was tested at, and what its exposure numbers assume about how it is held and used. Today, SAR values sit in certification filings few consumers ever see, and manuals describe separation distances that ordinary use ignores. Standardized disclosure at the point of sale and in the device itself would cost little and would let families, schools, and employers act on real information instead of reassurance or alarm. Question 11(a) — children. Children merit separate assessment. There is no minimum age for an amateur license, and young operators' first transmitter is typically a handheld radio held at the face. Whatever HHS concludes from the evidence, children differ from the adults the current framework was built around: smaller bodies, developing tissue, and the longest remaining lifetime over which exposure accumulates. The assessment should say so explicitly rather than treating them as small adults. Question 13 — cumulative exposure. Exposure in 2026 is layered: commercial mobile and broadcast services, Wi-Fi, wearables, smart meters and appliances, and — in a home like mine — a licensed amateur station. Each source is assessed largely on its own; nobody's framework describes the total. HHS should characterize cumulative patterns as people actually experience them, including amateur and occupational sources alongside consumer ones. Question 16 — research gaps. The highest priorities from a practitioner's seat: (1) long-term studies using modern waveforms and realistic duty cycles rather than continuous-wave stand-ins; (2) standardized, reproducible dosimetry so studies can be compared and replicated; (3) research on portable devices used at zero separation distance, and on children. Question 17 — coordination. HHS should place its completed assessment into the record of FCC Docket No. 13-84, where the FCC is answering a court remand on these same exposure questions. The FCC is an engineering agency, not a health agency; its remand response should rest on a current, transparent health-agency record rather than on reviews that predate today's exposure environment. Question 18 — closing. Distinguish clearly, as this RFI promises to do, between established evidence, emerging findings, and open questions — and say plainly where the honest answer is "not yet known." That candor is what will make the eventual guidance worth trusting. Respectfully submitted, Charles J Foster II, KS0VO ARRL Volunteer Examiner Belvue, Kansas

I am an emf-sensitive person, my 10 year old is also sensitive. Traveling in hotels in the US has become difficult, we never can stay in a top floor rooms or neither of us will sleep. We toss and turn and feel like we're vibrating, it's terrible. We travel with wifi kill-switches when renting air bnbs for family vacations and sometimes need to move beds away from walls, after locating the routers in each space. In addition to the massive sleep disturbances, I'm not sure I understand why other entire countries do not allow WiFi in childcare centers and schools and in the US there are no rules/regulations protecting our children. I was shocked when moving to my state and seeing 5g towers in most public buildings-public schools, community centers, police stations, why? I am unable to have my child participate in our local community center programs because I will not subject him or myself to parking alongside a 5g tower-nausea and headaches ensue. I appreciate some states, like New York, passed a bill that a tower couldn't be built a certain distance from schools where children are learning and spending so much time of their childhoods. Can the US mandate this for all states, our children need to be protected! Thank you, thank you for taking the time to look into making these much needed changes in public spaces so those of us who suffer with the headaches, nausea and massive sleep disturbances can be helped. We've chosen to home school because there is no way my son could sit through an entire school year, year after year, with the constant wifi (why can't the rooms be hard-wired?!) and the public school in our neighborhood has the largest 5g tower in its parking lot. Why?! Again, thank you for looking into this, taking a look at how other countries are doing this differently and with caution (as we have NO long term safety data, why are our kids the guinea pigs?).

I know I am affected by EMF and even dirty electricity. As I sit to type this message my head is affected by all of it as I sit at the computer. It gives me a headache which is more described as a heavy feeling like I have been hit with a baseball bat. I really notice it when I leave the computer and even my balance is affected. It takes 30 minutes or more to get over the worst of it but it lingers longer. I think it affects me physically even when I do not notice as your cells are changed in the way they function. I have replaced my smart meter and pay monthly fees for analog type meter. I sleep in a shielded canopy over my bed to reduce exposure from neighbors equipment and their WIFI. I do feel taking these precautions has helped me recover from where I was before I detected that this radiation was causing my symptoms of fatigue and balance issues. I often feel affected at parks and taking walks since because of cell towers and the dirty electricity traveling under the ground . I am most concerned for the children who are growing up staring at the blue light screens and being exposed to all the WIFI in the schools and at home. It is sad to see there are people who care more for profit than the health of people. These children are going to grow up with many health problems. I am actually fortunate that I feel how it affects me but it also affects the whole population even tho they can not feel it yet. It surely is a contributor to this countries poor health. Please care more for the health of people and not profit. Thank you, Karen

Response to Questions 5, 8, 9 and 11 I am Erin Finegold, founder and CEO of StingRay Shields Corporation, a company developing passive antenna-related RF structures. My work gives me a direct professional interest in RF-exposure measurement and engineering approaches to reducing exposure. I urge HHS to recommend lower, more protective radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits and stricter Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compliance requirements. The FCC’s SAR limits were adopted in 1996. Wireless technologies and patterns of use have changed substantially since then. Protective requirements should address prolonged body contact, exposure involving multiple transmitting devices, and children’s use. Recommendations should lead to enforceable improvements in consumer protection, rather than stopping at calls for additional research. HHS should fully assess published findings of adverse biological effects and their relevance to human exposure, drawing on international research and examining funding sources and potential conflicts of interest. Consistent standards of scientific rigor should apply to all evidence. Scientific uncertainty should not be treated as proof that existing protections are sufficient. Compliance testing should include direct-contact body testing wherever such contact is reasonably foreseeable, including phones carried against the body. Any exceptions should be technically justified and publicly disclosed. Reports should distinguish head-contact testing from body testing, identify any separation gap, and explain how direct-contact exposure is addressed. Consumers should not bear responsibility for maintaining separation distances they may not understand or consistently observe. Children’s protection should be an explicit requirement. Test methods and exposure assumptions should account for relevant ages, anatomical differences and patterns of use. Where adult-derived models are used, manufacturers should demonstrate that those models adequately protect younger users. Public reports should document device configuration, operating frequencies, conducted transmit power, antenna placement, device-to-body separation, test methods and measurement uncertainty. Methods and results should be independently inspectable and reproducible, with clear disclosure of the conditions under which compliance was established and any limitations relevant to ordinary use. Consumer protection also requires effective enforcement after devices enter the market. France’s ANFR has required corrective measures, including software updates, market withdrawals and recalls, following findings of SAR noncompliance. I urge HHS to recommend routine independent testing of marketed devices, public disclosure of findings, and prompt mandatory corrective action, including sales restrictions and recalls where necessary. Manufacturers should remain accountable for compliance throughout the product’s marketed life. Stronger requirements should encourage engineering improvements that reduce exposure. Claimed reductions should be independently evaluated alongside their effects on radiated efficiency and communication reliability. Supporting references are provided in the attached PDF.

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 and mother of four. Wireless radiation has affected our entire family with increased headaches, POTS symptoms and moodiness amongst our four children-we have also noticed dizziness and nausea associated with long periods on cell phones or air pods and iPads needed to use for school. It can take several hours or more to go away and the moodiness can take up to three days to alleviate and the need to get off all electronics. These symptoms have happened with all our WiFi devices, but especially those closest to us, like cell phones and air pods/ipads/laptops. In addition, if we spend time near cell towers we have an increase in symptoms and POTS episodes, migraines and dizziness. Y We support people affected by wireless radiation and believe HHS should address this issue and make Verizon, Apple, and other wireless companies accountable for the use of their products and not allow 5G towers near schools, hospitals, residential areas or wildlife/oceans/natural areas. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. I am no fan of China, but they have banned cell phone use for young children and have time limits for exposure. We need to go back to hand held books for children so they are not on devices all day at school and then all evening for assignments that are all electronic. 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. The affects of these devices and towers should not be a hidden warning buried in our devices-they should come with black box warnings and studies on our mitochondria and emotional/physical health should be made priority. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

My comment is in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding both as a patient and a healthcare professional, who has been concerned about this issue for many years, and has read the scientific literature. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379738087_Investigation_of_the_Adverse_Health_Effects_of_Cell_Phone_Radiation_and_Propose_Solutions_to_Minimize_Them_A_Systematic_Review I developed hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation when I had another serious illness, and the effects of the wireless radiation made my overall symptoms worse. Those symptoms included brain fog, insomnia, anxiety and tinnitus. I removed all cordless phones from my home, and use wired phones and computers to help reduce the symptoms. My cell phone is turned off or on airplane mode most of the time to reduce my exposure. HHS is responsible for making sure the exposure to electromagnetic radiation is safe. Thus far, it has not been proven safe, and the exposures allowed in our country are magnitudes higher than that allowed in the EU. Please examine both the scientific evidence and people’s experiences regarding the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by the appropriate federal agencies with expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health. I urge HHS to identify gaps in current research, giving particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations. We need to establish appropriate federal research priorities and laws regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for considering these concerns. Kim Weeber, DPM, LAc

Filing HHS RF Comments 2026 Response to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking public input on the potential adverse health and environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, more commonly referred to as wireless radiation. All Links in text and any attached pdfs hereby incorporated by reference. [Summary statement appended at the end.} Filed on 10/18/26 Response to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking public input on the potential adverse health and environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, more commonly referred to as wireless radiation. All Links in text and any attached pdfs hereby incorporated by reference. For the record. To whom it may concern – The Human Cost of Ever-Increasing RF Exposure at Toxic Levels SUMMARY Statement: With respect to HEALTH EFFECTS, the province of HHS, and the failure of the FCC in not changing their RF safety standards, people today not only get exposed to different and more biologically harmful RF frequencies then did decades ago when they set those standards, and for far longer periods of time. The FCC has also failed to take into account the extremely adverse effects that research over the past three decades has shown that microwaves can have, and that as RF frequencies increase, and as wavelengths shorten and become more complex, and as it does with 5G, that harmful biological effects increase as well. Despite the promotional advertising claims of the telecom industry, with respect to 5G (or RF in any frequency) "no safety testing" and "proven safe" DO NOT mean the same thing - a clear violation of the precautionary principle. Important replicated effects, observed in many different laboratories at very low levels of RF exposure, includes neurological damage in animals such as leakage of the blood brain barrier. In February of 2020 Blue Cross Blue Shield released a report that provides strong supporting evidence of an unprecedented increase in early onset Dementia, confirming an increase in Early Onset Dementia or in Alzheimer’s in humans AS PREDICTED from this research. According to this report, in the 4 years between 2013 and 2017, early-onset dementia and Alzheimer’s disease combined diagnosis rates TRIPLED for adults aged 30 to 64, going up from 4.2/10,000 adults to 12.6/10,000 adults. Autism in children shows a similar unprecedented increase. According to National Health data released in 2020, autism incidence among Irish children is now at 4.3%, an 82% rise in five years. One in 16 boys is affected." And given the recent Covid-19 pandemic, it seems important to emphasize that having a leaky blood-brain barrier - at the same time as having a viral infection - does NOT seem a good thing, and may well explain the brain damage and inflammation reported in some Covid-19 cases. And as Panagopoulos has shown in his 2019 review, the extreme and unpredictable variability of real-life cell phone signals - which 5G will markedly increase - results in ever more complex and biologically harmful signals to living cells/organisms.”] Also, with respect to long term health effects, FCC has failed to take into account the extremely adverse effect that digital technologies such as the recent roll-out of 5G and now of AI data centers have had and will have on CLIMATE CHANGE. This issue, the impact that digital technologies have on climate change through its carbon footprint - almost entirely unreported by the media - includes the expected doubling of our human carbon footprint - from 4% to 8%, 2,400 million tons of CO2 by 2025. And worse, by 2028 the projected energy demands of AI predict that it could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of U.S. households, adding and at least as much, or more, environmental, pollution. Given the failure of the FCC to address this situation, despite the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research papers documenting the environmental and human health costs of human RF exposures and of the digital technologies now in common use, I urgently recommend that HHS address this problem in accordance with this research and give this task the highest priority. Thank you. Ed Kellogg, Ph.D. Attached Supporting Pdf Documents: “Attachment1_5G Surface FCC No. 19-226 Filing” a response to “Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission. Filed 10/1/2024 “Attachment2_Filing FCC Docket ET Docket No. 13-84 Kellogg,” a response to the FCC request for public comments as it responds to a federal court order requiring the agency to address evidence and concerns about the adverse health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation. Filed 10/18/2026

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct the same thorough independent review of exposure limits as other respondents have suggested, however. my most pressing concerns lie within groups of already compromised and vulnerable people. Any review undertaken by HHS needs to consider those most heavily exposed, the most severely impacted, and needs to examine effects beyond tissue heating. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. The papers by Melnick and Moskowitz (2026 analysis of animal data)(https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6), Lai and Levitt’s review of technical features of wireless exposures (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps with her proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583) warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups: especially vulnerable groups of people with a history of head injury. I ask that exploration be made into links between shearing injury (DAI, TAI, and CHI) and CTE (or TES, Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome) from exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation and the ensuing VGCC activation (indicated by Martin Pall, 2022 in"Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields Act via Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) Activation to Cause Very Early Onset Alzheimer's Disease: 18 Distinct Types of Evidence", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35114921 ). It is my personal observation that the causal relationship between RFR and Alzheimer's may extend to another Tauopathy, TES (or CTE). If I were to describe my experience after a shearing injury, it would be decades of pain and impairment via exposure to wireless, cellular, microwave, flickering lights operating in radio spectrum speed, and other RFR... decades of pain and impairment after exposure to radio frequency radiation, most probably because of VGCC activation, similar to post concussive syndrome. Or as frequently repeated post concussive events. Maybe that leads to CTE. Thank you for your attention.