Children & vulnerable groups

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6034947/ "Abstract Background and aims This study aims to examine the mediating effects of insomnia on the associations between problematic Internet use, including Internet addiction (IA) and online social networking addiction (OSNA), and depression among adolescents. Methods A total of 1,015 secondary school students from Guangzhou in China participated in a cross-sectional survey. Levels of depression, insomnia, IA, and OSNA were assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Young’s Diagnostic Questionnaire, and Online Social Networking Addiction Scale, respectively. Logistic regression models were fit to test the associations between IA, OSNA, insomnia, and depression. The mediation effects of insomnia were tested using Baron and Kenny’s strategy. Results The prevalence of depression at moderate level or above (CES-D ≥ 21), insomnia, IA, and OSNA were 23.5%, 37.2%, 8.1%, and 25.5%, respectively. IA and OSNA were significantly associated with depression (IA: AOR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.71, 4.55; OSNA: AOR = 3.27, 95% CI: 2.33, 4.59) and insomnia (IA: AOR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.72, 4.65; OSNA: AOR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.61, 2.96), after adjusting for significant background factors. Furthermore, insomnia partially mediated 60.6% of the effect of IA on depression (Sobel Z = 3.562, p < .002) and 44.8% of the effect of OSNA on depression (Sobel Z = 3.919, p < .001), respectively. Discussion The high prevalence of IA and OSNA may be associated with increased risk of developing depression among adolescents, both through direct and indirect effects (via insomnia). Findings from this study indicated that it may be effective to develop and implement interventions that jointly consider the problematic Internet use, insomnia, and depression."

Young people, adolescents and children in Sweden have largee increase in sleep issues. Screen usage and RF mentioned. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/14/1/25 "Increasing Numbers of Persons with Sleeping Problems in Sweden" "Abstract Objectives: This study investigated sleeping problems in the Swedish population based on the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare’s national patient register on numbers of patients in specialized outpatient care diagnosed with codes for sleeping problems. Methods: Numbers of patients per year and per 100,000 inhabitants in various age groups: 0–4, 5–19, 20–39, 40–59, and 60+ years diagnosed each year between 2001 and 2024 with the ICD codes G47 (sleep disorders) or F51 (non-organic sleep disorders) as main diagnosis were assessed. Results: The highest increase for sleep disorders was seen among children, adolescents, and young adults. All results are given per 100,000 persons. In the age group 0–4 years, the numbers of sleep disorders (G47) increased from 41.5 in 2001 to 215.8 in 2024. The corresponding results in the age group 5–19 years were 13.8 and 235.6, respectively. In the age group 20–39 years, 40.4 were diagnosed in 2001 and 220.9 in 2024. For subjects aged 40–59 years, 169.5 were diagnosed in 2001 and 362.8 in 2024, and for persons aged 60+ years, 116.4 were diagnosed in 2001 and 322.9 in 2024. No major changes in the numbers of persons with F51, non-organic sleep disorders, were observed. Conclusions: Sleeping problems can be caused by several factors; however, the rapid increase in recent years has temporally coincided with an increase in the public’s exposure to microwave radiofrequency (RF) radiation and increasing use of screens. RF radiation and use of screens may negatively impact sleep."

In as much as the Department of Health and Human Services has issued a request for input from the public on the health impacts of radiofrequency radiation, I am submitting my request that the RF limits be revisited and lowered in view of thousands of papers and studies indicating the adverse effects of RF on human, animal and plant health. (See the BioInitiative Report https://bioinitiative.org/) I am responding both as the spouse of an individual with electromagnetic radiation syndrome (EMR Syndrome) and as a medical professional. I am a family and emergency medicine physician, MD, with more than 40 years of experience. I have watched my wife suffer for years when exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Just going to church and being exposed to the Wi-Fi there and and cell phones of other church members will cause my wife to have a headache and brain fog for several days that does not respond to any analgesics. We keep our house level of electromagnetic radiation below 100 micro watts per meter squared, as measured by our Safe and Sound Pro II meter. We did this by hardwiring our home and keeping our cell phones on airplane mode with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth turned off. in addition, we keep our cell phones under a Swiss shield protective cloth which reduces any radiation that the phones might emit. We have no “Smart” appliances, In this environment, she does not have headache or brain fog. Every time my wife leaves home she is harmed to some degree. When she leaves the house to go to church or store or anywhere else, she wears a shawl that is 50% silver fibers to try to minimize her exposure. This it helps to some extent, but she still has to be careful and not spend any significant amount of time near cell phone towers or individuals who are on their cell phones. We have opted out from a smart meter to keep the radiation level low in our home. If we were to be forced to have a smart meter on our home, we would almost assuredly have to move because the radiation level would be harmful to my wife. My wife has been evaluated by neurology, ENT, and primary care physicians. she has had an MRI of her head as well as other diagnostic studies. The only treatment that has been helpful is avoidance of electromagnetic radiation. There is considerable scientific literature on EMR syndrome. An excellent review article is “Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring understanding and approaches in health care” McCredden, et al., Front. Public Health, 19 Dec 2022, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.986315/full EMR syndrome is now recognized as a disability and has an ICD 10 billing code W90.0 for exposure to radiofrequency radiation. As an MD, I have watched patients with chronic medical conditions, such as autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, endocrine diseases etc, fail to respond to appropriate treatment until they reduce radiation level by turning off their Wi-Fi and cell phone antennas. Once they do this, their body can begin to heal. I also have a daughter who has ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. My research in peer review literature shows that this condition is associated with exposure to multiple toxins including electromagnetic radiation. By hardwiring her house and keeping cell phones out of her room, as well as addressing mold toxicity, heavy metal toxicity, glyphosate and other toxicities, her loss of function has now stopped for over a year. Health effects on children is extremely important. Numerous studies have shown that higher exposure to RF impairs learning. This is one review article that sites multiple studies that show adverse effects from radiation on children “Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children” Jin-Hwa Moon, Nov 2020 Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics 62 (11):422-428. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341653064_Health_effects_of_electromagnetic_fields_on_children Studies also show a relationship with emotional and behavioral problems in children who are exposed to radiation. An example study is “Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone usage and emotional and behavioral difficulties” Sudan, et al, J Epidemiology Community Health. 2016 Dec;70(12):1207-1213. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27217533/ WiFi and cell phones must be prohibited in schools to maximize learning and minimize behavioral problems. In view of the extensive scientific evidence, I strongly urge the Commission to find that the current RF limits are insufficient to protect human, animal, and plant health. The limits should be lowered to reflect the overwhelming evidence that exists of RF harms. Sincerely, David K Calderwood, MD 1313 Shadow Ridge Dr. SE Huntsville, AL 35803 256-883-8022

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4668509/ "Research shows that teenagers are far more likely to become dependent on mobile phones as compared to adults [2,5]. Studies show that MPD in adolescents interferes with their school and personal activities, and leads the teenagers to develop social and relationship problems [1,20]. There has been an upward swing in the younger age groups [19,23] with increasing trend of use of mobile phones among students [7,22,24,25]."

Please do not put cell towers and other emf emitting items close to homes and schools. They need to be away from humans to avoid emf exposure

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/157/1/e2025072941/205716/Smartphone-Ownership-Age-of-Smartphone-Acquisition?autologincheck=redirected "Smartphone Ownership, Age of Smartphone Acquisition, and Health Outcomes in Early Adolescence Available to Purchase" "RESULTS At age 12 years, compared with not owning a smartphone (n = 3849), smartphone ownership (n = 6739) was associated with higher risk for depression (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05–1.63), obesity (OR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.20–1.63), and insufficient sleep (OR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.46–1.79). Younger age of smartphone acquisition was associated with obesity and insufficient sleep (for each earlier year of acquisition, OR 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16, and OR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02–1.12, respectively). At age 13 years, among 3486 youth who did not own a smartphone at age 12 years, those who had acquired a smartphone in the past year (n = 1546) had greater odds of reporting clinical-level psychopathology (OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.12–2.20) and insufficient sleep (OR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26–1.77) compared with those who had not (n = 1940) after controlling for baseline mental health and sleep. Results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS Smartphone ownership was associated with depression, obesity, and insufficient sleep in early adolescence. Findings provide critical and timely insights that should inform caregivers regarding adolescent smartphone use and, ideally, the development of public policy that protects youth."

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12888-019-2350-x.pdf PSU = Problematic Smartphone Use "Nonetheless, recent years have seen an explosion in research considering the prevalence of problematic smartphone use (PSU), which has been operationa- lised in such a way that it maps onto concepts of be- havioural addiction: tolerance, withdrawal (dysphoria when the battery dies), preoccupation, neglect of other activities, subjective loss of control and contin- ued use despite evidence of harm [13–18]. Other be- havioural addictions, such as problem gambling, show robust associations with common mental disorders such as depression [19],where sporadic gambling does not. If a distinctive problematic pattern of smart- phone use can be demonstrated to be prevalent, and if this pattern of use is associated with harm, there is value in identifying children and young people with this pattern of use and potentially addressing it clinic- ally. Given the large increase in research studies using tools to estimate the prevalence of PSU (and examine mental health associations), it is now appropriate to evaluate the evidence" ... "Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE of the evidence" ... "...PSU associated with mental health outcomes PSU has been consistently associated with measures of poor mental health, in particular relating to depression, anxiety, stress, poor sleep quality, and day to day func- tional impairment demonstrated by poor educational at- tainment. Of the studies included, 20 investigated the relationship between PSU and mental health amongst CYP. This is summarized in a qualitative synthesis (See Additional file 1: Table S6)"

See attached document for my comments. 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.

As a mother and a longtime Santa Monica resident, I want families to have clear, trustworthy information about wireless radiation and health. Technology is part of everyday life, and I want federal agencies to examine potential risks carefully and explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical steps are justified by the evidence. I submit this comment as an individual member of the public, not as a scientific expert. My requests are informed by the peer-reviewed review cited below. I ask HHS and the FCC to conduct transparent, independent assessments of radiofrequency exposure that consider children, long-term and repeated exposure, and realistic conditions of device use. Mevissen and colleagues (2025) reviewed experimental animal cancer studies and reported high-certainty evidence for increased glioma and malignant heart schwannoma in male rats. The authors also emphasize that extrapolating these findings to human risk is complex. These findings warrant careful evaluation; they do not, by themselves, establish that everyday wireless exposure causes cancer in people. Please assess this review alongside its 2026 corrigendum, the underlying studies, and relevant human research, including findings that do not show harm. I respectfully request that the agencies: 1. Publish an accessible assessment that distinguishes biological changes from adverse health outcomes, animal findings from human evidence, and established conclusions from uncertainty. Explain study quality, exposure levels, limitations, and conflicting results. 2. Explain whether current exposure limits and compliance testing adequately address children, long-term use, and devices used close to the body. Identify where evidence supports current practices and where additional testing or research is needed. 3. Prioritize independent, reproducible research on developmental and neurological outcomes, reproductive health, and cumulative exposure, with transparent funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures. 4. Provide practical guidance on reducing unnecessary exposure where warranted, while preserving access to communication, education, and assistive technology. For HHS, please use this request for information to identify concrete research priorities and public-health guidance needs. For the FCC, please provide a reasoned response to the evidence relevant to the court-remanded issues, including non-cancer outcomes, children, and testing procedures. The cancer review cited here is offered as broader scientific context, not as proof of non-cancer effects or a substitute for addressing the specific remand record. Families deserve decisions supported by rigorous science and explanations they can understand. Thank you for considering my comment.

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 a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. 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. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.