Children & vulnerable groups

Thank you for opening this RFI. As a parent and regular person living in a world full of wireless devices, I’m glad HHS is finally taking a closer look at RF/EMF exposure and health—especially for kids. The science isn’t black and white. Most large studies and reviews (including recent WHO ones) don’t show clear harm from everyday exposures under current limits. But there are still real gaps: the NTP animal studies raised questions, kids absorb more radiation than adults, and we don’t have enough long-term data on constant low-level exposure from phones, Wi-Fi, 5G, and everything else we’re surrounded by. I’d like to see more independent research focused on children, better exposure measurement in real homes and schools, and simple practical advice families can actually use while the science catches up. Current limits are old. It would help to compare them honestly with other countries and decide whether they still make sense. Please keep the process transparent and put kids first. Wireless tech isn’t going a

We do not want this near or children or homes. Putting them up at schools is criminal and also unnecessary do to recent phone bans in schools.

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 who is very concerned about children’s constant exposure to cell towers that are now installed in many parks, on school properties and residential neighborhoods without having safety records. 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 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.

We recently moved to a new home. We have a water smart meter inside our house. I contacted the utility company asking for an opt out option. They refuse to provide the option but did ask for further scientific information to help educate them on why homeowners want an opt out option. I provided a lot of info on the safety issues of smart meters, especially having one within the home. Children are most at risk as their bodies are still developing and growing. I have not heard back from the utility company. If there is a potential risk, a home owner should always have the option to opt out. Especially with a meter is inside the home.

Please continue to research and fund studies on exposure to EMF/RMF and our children’s long term development

Our whole family is sensitive to Wi-Fi and 5G. My husband and I have insomnia if the Wi-Fi is on, so we turn it off at night. My husband and our oldest daughter have thyroid issues since 5G went up in our city. My son has behavioral issues when we leave the Wi-Fi on all day. Our youngest has trouble sleeping. We are desperate for not going 6G. We definitely don’t need faster internet! Please consider not building more AI data centers. They are going to use all the water faster than rain can replace it. Thank you

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THESE FREQUENCIES ARE DOING TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD CHILDREN MYSELF AND MY COUNTRY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THESE CELL PHONE TOWERS ARE DOING TO MY HEALTH.

Public Comment Submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Advocacy for Neuro Rights Inc. (A4NR) respectfully submits the attached white paper, Pathway to Freedom: A Neuro-Rights Framework for Emerging Brain-Computer Interfaces, Artificial Intelligence, Wireless Body Area Networks, Physiological Telemetry Systems, and Emerging Neurotechnologies. This submission is based upon years of advocacy, case management, registry development, multidisciplinary evidence review, public-health analysis, and support provided to individuals reporting complex neurological, physiological, sensory, toxicological, and legal concerns. Through this work, our organization identified recurring questions involving informed consent, participant protections, cognitive liberty, mental privacy, neuro-autonomy, physiological monitoring technologies, and future governance of emerging neurotechnologies. The purpose of this submission is not to establish proof of a specific technological mechanism, device, exposure source, or causal relationship. Rather, it seeks to encourage proactive public-health discussion, scientific inquiry, and ethical oversight concerning rapidly evolving technologies, including artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, physiological telemetry networks, Medical Internet of Things systems, Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs), and future neurotechnologies. The attached white paper proposes that the foundational principles established within the Belmont Report remain highly relevant but may require modernization as emerging technologies become increasingly capable of collecting, processing, transmitting, and analyzing physiological and neurological information. It further recommends consideration of cognitive liberty, mental privacy, neuro-autonomy, informed consent modernization, enhanced protections for vulnerable populations, and increased transparency regarding technologies capable of interacting with human biological systems. Advocacy for Neuro Rights respectfully recommends continued discussion regarding: Cognitive Liberty Mental Privacy Neuro-Autonomy Brain-Computer Interface Governance Artificial Intelligence Accountability Physiological Telemetry Oversight Wireless Body Area Network Governance Medical Internet of Things Transparency Human Subject Protection Modernization Federal Neurotechnology Policy Development The goal of this submission is to support a future in which scientific innovation advances alongside human dignity, informed consent, participant protections, transparency, public trust, and fundamental rights. Public Submission Disclaimer This submission is provided as part of a public Request for Information process. All observations, recommendations, and conclusions are presented for scientific, ethical, public-health, and policy discussion purposes. No original participant files, medical records, protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable information (PII), or confidential client records are included in this submission. Any organizational observations referenced within the attached materials are presented as de-identified registry observations, analytical summaries, and policy-oriented findings intended to support discussion regarding public health, human-subject protections, neuro-rights, and emerging technology governance. The submission does not establish proof of a specific technological mechanism, device, exposure source, or causal relationship. Rather, it identifies research gaps, governance considerations, ethical questions, and areas that may warrant additional scientific investigation and public-health review. Respectfully Submitted, Lewis Scott Rowe Chief Executive Officer Research Director Advocacy for Neuro Rights Inc. (A4NR) ORCID: 0009-0008-4947-2558

I am Sarah Starr. My work includes space-weather forecasting, astrology, consciousness education, and exploration of non-human intelligence. I urge HHS to include space weather in its investigation of electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, wireless exposure, and human health. We cannot fully understand the electromagnetic environment people encounter by studying phones, towers, and electronics alone. Natural conditions belong in that investigation too. I want HHS to connect observations of solar activity and geomagnetic disturbances with exposure measurements, health research, and public-health preparedness. Space weather changes Earth's electromagnetic environment. Solar storms affect the magnetosphere and ionosphere, altering currents, fields, and the propagation of radio signals. They can disrupt communications, navigation, satellites, and power systems. These hazards affect public health, emergency response, and national security. Our reliance on technology makes understanding those consequences essential. Wireless infrastructure, personal devices, and high-power transmitters such as HAARP should receive independent exposure assessment. Each source has its own operating characteristics. I ask HHS to investigate the natural conditions surrounding these systems and the people who use them. Measure what happens during both quiet periods and space-weather events, rather than assuming that one set of conditions represents every situation. I am interested in changes in Earth's magnetic field and the wider reach of auroral displays during strong storms. Regional magnetic weakening, strengthening elsewhere, and unusually southern auroras are reasons to examine local conditions. They should prompt coordinated measurements of fields, particles, and radiation, rather than a single assumption about exposure everywhere. Natural radiation also deserves attention. Solar energetic particles, cosmic radiation, and gamma rays from atmospheric events involve different sources and exposure pathways. Ground-level particle detections and observed thunderstorm gamma-ray bursts show why research should capture brief events as well as averages. Establishing their relevance to people requires measuring location, altitude, shielding, energy, and duration. These distinctions make an investigation more useful: they identify the hazard and the protection it requires. My request is to study these conditions together without treating every form of radiation as interchangeable. A disrupted radio signal is different from an increased dose to a person. A change in the magnetic field is different from gamma exposure. We need measurements that establish those connections where they exist and distinguish them where they do not. The health questions deserve sustained attention. Published research has reported associations between geomagnetic activity and cardiovascular measures or mortality. I want independent studies to determine whether these findings hold across populations, what mechanisms explain them, and whether simultaneous wireless exposure changes the outcomes. Include sleep, cognition, mood, and prospectively reported symptoms alongside measurements. My interests also include consciousness and changes in human experience. I want these concerns approached respectfully and investigated through defined neural, cognitive, and subjective outcomes. Laboratory findings of brain responses to magnetic-field changes offer specific questions for replication. They should lead to careful investigation of human sensitivity, rather than assumptions about what every reported experience means. Wildlife and ecosystems belong in this discussion. Research on magnetic navigation and electromagnetic interference gives us reasons to examine orientation, migration, and other functions organisms depend on. Study realistic exposures and determine whether observed changes affect survival, reproduction, or ecological health. I ask HHS to coordinate with NOAA, NASA, USGS, FAA, FCC, and me. Support studies across multiple locations that pair environmental records and personal RF monitoring with standardized health measures. Account for weather, pollution, sleep, medications, and expectations. Include appropriate studies of children, pregnant people, older adults, implant users, and exposed workers. Publish methods, uncertainty, and null findings as openly as positive results. Preparedness must accompany research. Evaluate how power failures, communications disruption, and interrupted medical care affect communities, and people who depend on electricity for treatment. These indirect pathways deserve attention alongside direct biological questions. My attached paper explains the evidence I reviewed and proposes a coordinated research program. I ask HHS to give space weather an explicit, sustained place in its research agenda and to examine the connections that separate monitoring programs can miss. Sarah Starr