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 mother, wife and member of society. I along with many others am sensitive to EMFs. Headaches and general not feeling well. Please don’t go to 6G as we already have problems. I believe that children’s brains can be affected. Please conduct extensive research before doing anything else for the good of everyone. 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 member of the public. I am concerned about my own health but especially what happens to children. I have been attempting to protect myself by using emf protection to help reduce radiation. Friends and relatives are doing the same especially those near 5g towers. I limit smart devices and appliances and have no smart phone. 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 member of the public. When WiFi became popular I was onboard. Shortly afterward I noticed that I no longer felt well on an every day basis. After doing extensive research I discovered that the radiation from WiFi and cellular phones use EMF radiation and is damaging to humans, animals, bees and plants, and every progression, from 3G to 4G and finally 5G (which uses millimeter waves, the same type of waves that are used by the military in their radar and microwave-based and wireless weapons) became more dangerous and more damaging to humans, animals, bees and plants. Once I eliminated the sources of EMF radiation in my home I began to fell better almost immediately and almost immediately my health improved. The industries that profit from this technology has always claimed that the technology was harmless without ever doing honest independent studies to prove what they were saying. The only studies that they quote was VERY HEAVILY and intensionally biased in their favor. When truly independent studies were finally done it debunked that biased studies and honestly and accurately proved that the EMF radiation was without a doubt harmful to humans, animals, bees and plants!!! It is long overdue to heavily regulate this technology and ban the placement of towers and other devices that capture and/or relay this EMF radiation within at least 500 feet of homes, schools and other buildings where people and animals are found and an IMMEDIATE ban and removal of ALL so called Smart Meters that have been installed where people and animals reside MUST be put in place!!! 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 [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. PERSONALIZE YOUR COMMENT HERE: Tell HHS how wireless radiation has affected you, your child, your family, or someone you care about. You may describe the source and duration of the exposure, health effects experienced, when they began, whether reducing exposure made a difference, and how these experiences have affected daily life. If you are an ally, describe why you support people affected by wireless radiation and why you believe HHS should address this issue. 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 member of the public. HHS should address this issue. 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 was Scientific Director and Scientific Advisor of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna until 2023, now retired. From 1981 to 2001, I worked closely with Professor Cesare Maltoni, an internationally renowned oncologist; then I was Scientific Director of the same Institute. I am expert in the study of agents that can determine cancers and other environmental pathologies; among them ionizing radiation, low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). I paid particular attention to the issue of the risks related to simultaneous exposure even to small doses of chemicals or physical agents, alone or associated to multiple exposures, especially during embryonic and foetal life, as well as in childhood. I am the principal investigator of the RF-EMF large study performed by the Ramazzini Institute since 2006 up to the publication of data. We published the results of the carcinogenicity study in 2018 (Falcioni et al, 2018)1, when the US NIEHS/NTP technical report on RF-EMF (NTP, 2018)2 was also published. And, surprisingly, using the same experimental model, we obtained the same results: a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas and an increase in brain gliomas (statistically significant in the NTP study). We studied very low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels, simulating human exposures to radio base station antennas, the NTP studied SAR much higher, and in this case the exposure responses were higher. The two studies were evaluated in the systematic review commissioned by WHO (Mavissen et al, 2025)3 , which concludes.: “The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” Based on the experimental results cited, and due to the enormous diffusion of radio frequency technologies, I am strongly and scientifically convinced that in assessing risks to the human population, policy makers must at least adopt a principle of caution by lowering exposure to limits compatible with the health of thI was Scientific Director and Scientific Advisor of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna until 2023, now retired. From 1981 to 2001, I worked closely with Professor Cesare Maltoni, an internationally renowned oncologist; then I was Scientific Director of the same Institute. I am expert in the study of agents that can determine cancers and other environmental pathologies; among them ionizing radiation, low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). I paid particular attention to the issue of the risks related to simultaneous exposure even to small doses of chemicals or physical agents, alone or associated to multiple exposures, especially during embryonic and foetal life, as well as in childhood. I am the principal investigator of the RF-EMF large study performed by the Ramazzini Institute since 2006 up to the publication of data. We published the results of the carcinogenicity study in 2018 (Falcioni et al, 2018)1, when the US NIEHS/NTP technical report on RF-EMF (NTP, 2018)2 was also published. And, surprisingly, using the same experimental model, we obtained the same results: a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas and an increase in brain gliomas (statistically significant in the NTP study). We studied very low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels, simulating human exposures to radio base station antennas, the NTP studied SAR much higher, and in this case the exposure responses were higher. The two studies were evaluated in the systematic review commissioned by WHO (Mavissen et al, 2025)3 , which concludes.: “The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” Based on the experimental results cited, and due to the enormous diffusion of radio frequency technologies, I am strongly and scientifically convinced that in assessing risks to the human population, policy makers must at least adopt a principle of caution by lowering exposure to limits compatible with the health of the exposed population, practically the entire population of the globe. See attached file(s)

Please examine the relationship between the effects of EMF, RF, and wireless radiation on the hormones, development, and mental health of pre-teen and teenage chuldren. Premature and neurosensitive children in particular may suffer mental distress frequently m chronic exposure. The lack of meaningful research is stark in relation to the proliferation of internet and social media is a public health crisis and irresponsible governance. Thank you for asking for 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 concerned member of the public. There are simply too many EMF-producing antennas popping up around our city, state, and country without any idea of the potential harms they can cause us. Technology cannot trump human health. 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 responding as a patient, advocate, and concerned member of the public. Ques.3(a)–(g) Personal Experience Six years ago, my environmental health physician diagnosed me with EMR syndrome. My exposures included extensive computer use in college, working in a Wi-Fi-equipped building with computer labs and a Smartboard, making hundreds of photocopies daily, and living near a cell tower. Combined with mold exposure and stress, these factors coincided with years of debilitating illness. Symptoms I have experienced from RF/EMFs include tinnitus, headaches, burning throughout my body, facial burning after watching an iPhone video, gum mucoceles/cysts after cell phone use, tingling teeth/jaw, hip pain while wearing a cordless FM-microphone battery pack, nausea after dental X-rays, and anxiety. I manage symptoms with a low-RF/EMF lifestyle: silver-lined clothing, an RF-shielding canopy when living near a cell tower, an RF Safe cell phone QuantaCase, a BluShield plug-in device, and use corded technology when possible. An EMF building biologist assessed my home with meters and helped reduce exposure. I also take calcium, magnesium, and supplements intended to support glutathione production and replenish minerals. Ques. 11(a), (f), and (g) Sensitive Populations I am particularly concerned about children. The Epoch Times article, How Screen Time Affects Different Organs, by Arsh Sarao (11/1/25), reports that excessive screen time may reduce gray matter in brain areas involved in decision-making and emotional regulation. I have observed irritability, aggression, hyperactivity, and obstinance in children after screen use, and anger, agitation, and depression in adults following wireless exposure. I have noticed calmer behavior after consuming mineral water and calcium-rich foods. These observations deserve further investigation. Ques. 13(f), (j), and (k) Cumulative Exposure Research should assess cumulative close-to-body RF exposure from wireless earbuds, smartwatches, hearing aids, and health monitors, including devices tracking atrial fibrillation and diabetes; some communicate continuously via Bluetooth and smartphones. Consumers should retain the option of analog electric meters instead of RF transmitting smart meters. Landlines do not emit RF and should remain available, with funding to maintain copper lines. Incandescent bulbs should remain an option, and electromagnetic interference from LED/fluorescent lighting should be studied. Ques. 14 Environmental Effect Research should examine possible links between RF/EMF exposure, mold, and mycotoxin illness. Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt’s research, referenced in the July 2014 Townsend Letter (attached; p. 10), reportedly states that molds exposed to high EMF levels release up to 600 times more mycotoxins and also proliferate faster. These effects could potentially exacerbate symptoms in individuals already suffering from mold-related illness. Ques. 16 Federal Research Priorities I respectfully urge HHS to review Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy’s "The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields" (attached). Goldsworthy proposes that electromagnetic fields may increase cell-membrane permeability, allowing calcium ions to leak into cells. Calcium regulates nerve signaling, muscle contraction, and inflammation; disrupted balance could affect multiple body systems and explain reported multisystem symptoms. Goldsworthy’s work deserves serious consideration and further study. In addition, The EMF Medical Conference 2021 recordings (see References) provide valuable research and clinical observations from physicians and RF/EMF experts and should be reviewed. Ques. 18 Recommendations I recommend that HHS consider the following: -Promote public service announcements and safer-technology education, especially for children, using Environmental Health Trust materials (see References). -Set school health standards for responsible technology use. -Expand public access to RF/EMF meters and detectors for purchase or rental. -Add EMF building biology tracks to college/university environmental science programs. -Encourage schools, workplaces, hospitals, and residential facilities to use qualified EMF building biologists for assessments and remediation. -Recommend that municipalities employ EMF building biologists to assess cumulative emissions from smart meters, cell towers, and other RF infrastructure. -Investigate exposure-reduction approaches discussed by Goldsworthy, including Balanced Signal Technology and resonance/scalar-frequency methods. -Limit X-rays and other imaging to medical necessity and explore tracking patients’ cumulative imaging exposure. Conclusion I respectfully ask HHS to investigate these concerns with scientific rigor, consider affected individuals’ experiences, and develop practical measures to protect public health while allowing people to make informed choices about technology. Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and views.

Canser striked as soon as 5g was installed on the nighbour bilding ... And why are they all located near kindergardens and achool is out of my mind...