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 person who has dealt with multiple health issues due to environmental toxicities. I don't know the extent to which EMFs have affected me. I don't know the extent it may continue to impair already challenging health concerns. And that is the point. There is simply not enough information about how something so new to human interaction how these levels/types of radiation are affecting us. And until that is properly understood, guard rails need to be put on the expansion of these energies and protections from what is already here. Until we know for sure, it is your responsibility to know how dangerous this technology is--to protect the people who rely on you to do so. 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 mother and person who is effected by EMR. Too much exposure stops my family from sleeping and healing. I have to turn everything off at night and NEVER use Bluetooth on my phone or other devices. If not, we cannot sleep and become ill. I see how it affects my children's behavior as well. 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 to HHS's request for personal experiences with RF/EMF exposure and for input on disclosure, exposure standards, and research priorities. I am writing as an individual and as a husband and father in a household of five, including three children. I am a Navy veteran who served as a Hospital Corpsman, and I now work in technology, so I am comfortable with the devices involved and with tracking my own physiological data. What follows is based on personal experience and my own wearable data, not on clinical research. I first noticed a problem in 2008 while using a wireless gaming controller. Gaming sessions consistently left me feeling unwell, and only after that pattern repeated did I search online and find that other people were describing similar reactions. The symptom came before I had any idea that others were reporting it. I likely had been affected before that point without recognizing the cause. The effect I experience is a stressed, overactivated nervous system. I track this with an Oura ring. With Wi-Fi present, my deep sleep drops from more than an hour per night to about 30 minutes, and my average heart rate variability falls steadily from 50 to 60 ms to the high 20s or low 30s. When this stress persists, I get sick more often and my mood becomes less stable. In heavy Wi-Fi environments my sleep is affected that same night, and I often become dizzy to the point of needing to lie down. In 2008, we removed Wi-Fi from our home. I felt noticeably calmer almost immediately. Over the following [weeks/months], my children argued and fought much less, and my wife's frequent migraines stopped and her mood stabilized. Removing the router was not enough. Many household products contain Wi-Fi or Bluetooth radios that transmit continuously or keep searching for a connection even when they are not in use, and most give the owner no way to turn them off. To get our home to a low exposure level, I had to physically remove the wireless chips from our television, garage door opener, gaming consoles, and remote controls. Most households could not do this, and most people would not know these devices are transmitting at all. Based on that experience, I would ask HHS to consider two things. First, products should clearly disclose every radio they contain, whether it transmits while idle, and how often. Second, consumers should have a reliable way to disable those radios, ideally a physical switch, without losing the product's basic function. Right now the only way to opt out is to take the device apart, which is not a realistic choice for families, schools, or people who believe they are sensitive. I would also ask HHS to look closely at cumulative exposure in suburban areas. In communities near me such as Fishers, Indiana, 5G infrastructure has been deployed densely into residential neighborhoods. Residents now live with that infrastructure on top of their neighbors' Wi-Fi routers and the phones, tablets, and computers in every home. No single source may exceed federal limits, but no one is measuring or accounting for the total. Because federal law prevents local governments from denying these installations on health grounds when they meet FCC limits, residents have no local recourse. The federal standard is effectively the only protection they have. Other countries have chosen more precautionary limits. Switzerland and Italy, for example, set much lower limits in places where people live, sleep, and spend long periods of time, including homes and schools. HHS should examine these approaches and the evidence behind them as it advises on whether current U.S. limits, which date to 1996, are adequate. Finally, I would encourage research into whether biological effects depend on how signals are transmitted, not only on how much power they carry. Modern wireless signals are pulsed and modulated in complex ways. If certain modulation or pulsing patterns turn out to matter more than others, that knowledge could guide the development of wireless protocols that are more compatible with human biology while still delivering the connectivity people rely on. Wearable HRV and sleep trackers could offer a low-cost way to study this in real-world settings, especially where participants do not know whether a transmitter is on. In short, I ask HHS to support clear disclosure of every radio in consumer products along with a reliable way to turn them off, to evaluate cumulative neighborhood exposure rather than single sources, to review the more protective limits used in countries like Switzerland and Italy, and to fund research on whether modulation and pulsing patterns drive biological effects.

I am a mother of three children. My middle child, has autism. When I was pregnant with him, I slept in a room with the WiFi router right next to my bed for my entire pregnancy. My son also slept in a bassinet in the same room near this WiFi router for the first year of his life. At the time I had no idea the negative effects of emf on the body and brain. I think research should look into how emf impacts a developing fetus and a child’s brain in the first year of life. I’m not sure whether this contributed to my sons autism, but if there is a link to autism it should be studied so future families know the risks.

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. Best, Michelle Mainieri

In 2020 our neighborhood was one of the pilot locations for the first 5G millimeter wavelength internet/phone service. It was a P.U.D. community including condos, homes, townhomes, all in a gated neighborhood. My wife and daughter complained of headaches and an inability to concentrate. I felt comfortable on the outside and hot inside while at home. We went camping nearly every weekend for a year in the Hoosier National Forest where there is no 5G, and very little cell service or radio transmissions. We felt relief in less than a day and felt all symptoms return within minutes of being back home. We sold that home and moved to an area without 5G and have been comfortable sense.

Question 2 I am an individual representing myself. Question 3 Multiple sources with different experiences, listed below. Bluetooth: I experience physical pain when bluetooth devices, such as wearables, are in direct contact with my body. It typically take a couple hours to show up, increases with time, then begins decreasing the minute I take the device off, going back to zero pain within an hour. Wifi: I experience worse sleep when wifi is on. I am more anxious and irritable when wifi is on. Same with my family. EV chargers: When I am near (within about 100 feet) EV chargers for about 30 minutes to an hour, I feel anxious and wired and a sense of "something is wrong." I feel like I need to leave the area and the longer I stay, the greater this feeling gets. After leaving, it takes about 2 hours for these symptoms to dissipate. With each of these symptoms listed, I did not want it to happen and I was not anticipating it happening. After noticing it, I then A/B tested my experience, to the best of my abilities, to minimize the possibility of a placebo effect. Here is what I did for each: Wifi is simple: my wife can turn on the wifi and not tell me and I can feel it within a few hours. (We have a wifi router that has a button that allows us to easily disable/enable the wifi.) We also sometimes turn it on, then forget to turn it off at night. We all say, "Wow I slept horribly..." then think to check the wifi and, lo and behold, someone left it on. Bluetooth devices are similar: sometimes I would forget to put them on airplane mode (such as an Apple Watch) and within a couple hours I would experience pain. EV chargers were a true surprise. I have a coffee shop I love that installed them a few months ago. It had always been a place I love and enjoy. I researched EMFs around EV chargers and the research says that there are near-zero EMFs, even when cars are charging. I believed it. Then, I kept noticing myself feeling wired and uncomfortable and hating that coffee shop. I could not figure out what it was, but noticed if I walked around, there were places further from the charging stations that felt "peaceful." My best guess, given the "research" (if it is true) is that the charging stations are causing some kind of change in the electric grid itself. It seems plausible that the "tests" were performed in perfect conditions on modern grids. But when installing the charging stations on existing grids, the conditions are not perfect. Just a guess. Not perfect testing, but the best I could do. Regarding whether I sought medical help... who would believe me? What would be done, other than removing the devices, which I've already done? Question 6 I find this one to be particularly interesting (and concerning): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-014-0175-5 Question 11 Yes, absolutely assess risk for children differently. They should be broken out in 2-3 year increments when young. It would also be good to assess risk using "hypersensitive" types. Not that they represent the overall population, but if you mix in all the normal folks, the signal gets much weaker. These "hypersensitive" people are canaries in the coal mine and should be at least referenced as an early signal of what could be harming the masses. For example, I don't know anyone else who feels physical pain when in contact with bluetooth devices. But it's real and should be taken as a sign that bluetooth should be studied for potential harm.

**Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 — RF/EMF Exposure, Reproductive Health, Mitochondrial Function, and Emerging Wireless Technologies** **Questions 2–3: Personal Perspective** I am a 43-year-old woman experiencing unexplained infertility. For more than half my life, I have lived in metropolitan environments with extensive cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi networks, and wireless devices. Although I cannot establish that these exposures contributed to my infertility, I question whether the long-term biological consequences of widespread RF exposure have been adequately investigated, particularly regarding reproductive health, mitochondrial function, and developing children. **Questions 5, 6, and 11–12: Reproductive and Mitochondrial Health** I urge HHS to examine whether current RF exposure standards adequately address reproductive and developmental outcomes, including potential biological effects beyond tissue heating. A 2024 systematic review by Cordelli et al. identified potential adverse reproductive effects in experimental studies, although evidence remains uncertain. A 2024 review by Meyer et al. examined oxidative-stress biomarkers and found very low-certainty evidence. Mitochondrial function is fundamental to cellular energy production, fertility, and healthy development. I request independent studies investigating whether chronic RF exposure influences mitochondrial respiration, oxidative stress, egg and sperm quality, implantation, pregnancy outcomes, or childhood development. Research should prioritize women attempting conception, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and children, using objective measurements of real-world, cumulative exposure. **Question 13: 5G and Emerging 6G Technologies** Emerging 6G systems may use higher-frequency spectrum, including sub-terahertz frequencies, to support greater bandwidth and data capacity. Advanced beamforming and denser wireless infrastructure may also alter exposure patterns. Although higher frequency alone does not establish greater biological harm, expanding these technologies without adequate long-term biological research raises legitimate public health questions. I urge HHS to independently evaluate the biological implications of emerging frequencies and exposure patterns before widespread deployment wherever feasible, rather than assuming existing standards adequately address every new technology. **Questions 14–15: Environmental Health** Potential RF effects on pollinators, birds, plants, and other organisms also warrant investigation, particularly concerning reproduction, development, behavior, and ecosystem health. **Questions 9, 16–17: Federal Research Priorities** I respectfully request that HHS: 1. Fund independent, longitudinal studies examining fertility, pregnancy, childhood development, and mitochondrial function. 2. Investigate biological endpoints beyond tissue heating, including oxidative stress and cellular energy metabolism. 3. Measure realistic, cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources, accounting for frequency, intensity, duration, and proximity. 4. Establish transparent research priorities for 5G and 6G, with independent replication and disclosure of funding conflicts. 5. Provide accessible exposure data and evidence-based guidance to families seeking to minimize unnecessary exposure. **Conclusion** Technological advancement should be accompanied by equally rigorous public health research and accountability. As a woman struggling to conceive, I believe reproductive health, mitochondrial integrity, and the biological consequences of lifelong environmental exposure deserve serious federal attention. Scientific uncertainty should motivate independent investigation, transparent risk assessment, and reasonable precaution—not premature assurances of safety or unsupported claims of harm. **Selected References** Cordelli et al. (2024). *Environment International*, 185, 108509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108509 Meyer et al. (2024). *Environment International*, 194, 108940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108940

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 a mom, an engineer with a passion for understanding how the body works. Bioelectricity is fundamental to cellular function. External electromagnetic fields interact with biological tissues. Certain exposure conditions can alter physiology and, at sufficient intensities, cause harm. A key question is lower exposure over prolonged periods of time. As well as impact to growing babies / kids vs adults. Can external EMFs alter the electrical gradients and signaling mechanisms that cells need to function? Do particular electromagnetic exposures measurably alter nervous-system function, and are some individuals more responsive? There are enough concerning findings in this report to warrant further research - Zorach Glaser's Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation, originally published in 1971 and revised in 1972. 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. Wireless radiation significantly impacts the environment we live in compared with our ancestors. And may be a key factor in increased health issues. 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, personally, feel heart palpitations and eye irritation anytime I am near wireless towers and/or 5G small cells or small-cell antennas. They are popping up all over and are causing great dis-regulation. 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. Sincerely, Keren O. Kalimian