Children & vulnerable groups

While the Tech is incredible, yes, the EMF is something to consider. It's important we safeguard ourselves and our children's futures moving forward.

Public Comment on HHS Request for Information: EMF/RF Exposure and Human Health Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I submit this comment as a concerned consumer urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to put public health, independent science, and informed consent ahead of commercial interests when evaluating radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF/EMF) exposure from wireless devices and infrastructure. Wireless technology is everywhere, from phones and Wi-Fi to wearables, smart meters, and cellular networks. Consumers cannot assess safety when exposure information is hard to find and testing may be funded by companies that profit from the products. The public deserves transparent answers. I do not claim every RF/EMF exposure causes illness or that every alleged harm is established. HHS should identify what is known and unknown, without treating uncertainty as proof of safety or speculation as proof of harm. Policy must follow transparent, reproducible science, free from commercial or advocacy pressure. I urge HHS to prioritize these actions: 1. INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY TESTING. Require qualified labs independent of manufacturers and telecom companies to test devices and infrastructure. Disclose funding, conflicts, methods, calibration, exposure conditions, analyses, and full results. Publish positive and negative findings and make testing reproducible. Industry-funded research must not be the sole basis for declaring a product safe. 2. REAL-WORLD AND CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. Assess ordinary and high-use scenarios, multiple devices together, and long-term exposure in homes, workplaces, schools, childcare facilities, and neighborhoods. Consider distance, duration, frequency, signal strength, and actual use. Measurements must be independently verifiable and explained plainly. 3. LONG-TERM HEALTH RESEARCH. Fund adequately powered, independently replicated long-term human studies, systematic reviews, and laboratory research on reported concerns involving cancer, cognition, sleep, reproduction, development, cardiovascular outcomes, and other effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation, address confounding factors, publish protocols and null findings, and share data when ethical and privacy rules permit. 4. PROTECT VULNERABLE GROUPS. Assess whether added precautions are warranted for children, pregnant people, older adults, people with medical conditions, exposed workers, and users of medical devices. Include schools and childcare facilities. 5. CLEAR CONSUMER DISCLOSURES. Require accessible disclosures of emissions, limits, independent test results, test conditions, limitations, and uncertainty. Explain implications for normal and cumulative exposure. Create a searchable public database of test and adverse-event reports. Marketing must not substitute for evidence. 6. PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING. Create privacy-protecting systems to report suspected health effects. Investigate credible patterns with validated exposure measurements and clinical assessment. Reports should prompt investigation, not prove causation automatically. Coordinate research and publish findings. 7. ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN HARM IS ESTABLISHED. If reliable evidence shows that a company's product, emissions, concealment, or failure to comply with safety requirements caused or materially contributed to injury, consumers should have meaningful remedies. Congress and regulators should consider requiring responsible companies to cover reasonable medical evaluation, treatment, ongoing care, and appropriate compensation. Companies that knowingly conceal credible safety findings, falsify results, or obstruct required disclosures should face meaningful penalties. Responsibility must be determined fairly, based on evidence, causation, and applicable law. 8. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. Disclose conflicts, publish the basis for conclusions, invite independent peer review, and explain how conflicting evidence is weighed. Review standards as technology and science evolve. Publish who funded studies, what was measured, and why conclusions were reached. Consumers deserve information about possible risks, and should not bear the full financial burden if evidence establishes preventable harm. Transparency encourages safer design, honest communication, and better science. I urge HHS to establish rigorous, independent, publicly accountable RF/EMF research and oversight. Where evidence identifies a risk, take proportionate action. Where evidence is uncertain, fund better research and communicate uncertainty honestly. Where evidence does not support an adverse effect, explain that conclusion and the strength and limits of the research. Commercial confidentiality should never hide information essential to public health. The public deserves independent testing, accessible data, protections for vulnerable populations, and medical and financial remedies when harm is demonstrated.

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 healthcare professional, researcher, and advocate. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects. 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 parent, family member and 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.

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Question 2 – Perspective This comment is submitted by an individual with an interest in evidence-based public health. It draws on peer-reviewed literature, government and international agency assessments, and systematic reviews. Established findings are distinguished from emerging or uncertain evidence. Questions 5, 6, and 12 – Exposure standards, risk assessment, and evidence regarding effects at or below current federal limits Federal health agencies should consider the following established frameworks and evidence: • ICNIRP 2020 guidelines: The only substantiated adverse health effects of RF-EMF are those caused by tissue heating (thermal effects). The guidelines protect against all established adverse effects, including those relevant to 5G and other modern technologies. No adverse effects below the thermal threshold have been consistently substantiated in human populations at typical exposure levels. • U.S. FCC RF exposure limits (47 CFR 1.1310) and FDA assessments: These are based primarily on thermal effects (SAR). FDA has stated that the weight of scientific evidence does not support a causal link between RF exposure below these limits and cancer or other adverse health effects. • WHO-commissioned systematic reviews (2023–2025): Reviews of human observational studies on cancer (including glioma), cognition, reproduction, and non-specific symptoms generally found no or only small effects associated with RF-EMF exposure, with moderate certainty of evidence for the absence of increased brain tumor risk from mobile phone use. Confidence is lower for many other outcomes due to limited high-quality data. • IARC 2011 classification: RF-EMF is Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”) based on limited evidence linking heavy mobile phone use to glioma and acoustic neuroma. This classification has not been upgraded. • NTP rodent studies (2018): These reported carcinogenic signals in male rats at high whole-body exposures well above typical human levels. Findings were not consistent across sexes or species, and methodological limitations have been noted by expert bodies. The results do not directly translate to typical human exposures below thermal limits. Established finding: At exposure levels below current thermal-based limits, there is no consistent, high-quality evidence of causal adverse health effects in the general population from everyday RF/EMF sources. Areas of uncertainty: Long-term effects beyond most study follow-up periods; cumulative multi-source real-world exposures; potential subtle non-thermal biological effects; and whether any subgroups experience effects not captured in population-level data. Question 11 – Sensitive populations Children warrant careful consideration due to potentially higher relative absorption in some tissues and longer lifetime cumulative exposure. Current evidence does not demonstrate harm at typical levels, but data specifically addressing developmental stages remain limited. Targeted research with personal dosimetry is warranted. Question 13 – Cumulative exposure patterns 5G, Wi-Fi, IoT, wearables, smart meters, and denser infrastructure create complex multi-source exposure patterns. Average levels generally remain well below thermal limits. Evidence on how these real-world combinations affect cumulative dose or health outcomes is still limited. Improved multi-source exposure characterization is needed. Question 16 – Highest-priority research gaps 1. Long-term prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with individually measured personal RF exposure. 2. Improved real-world dosimetry for cumulative, multi-source exposures (including 5G characteristics). 3. Independent replication and mechanistic studies of any non-thermal signals using realistic exposure parameters. 4. High-quality blinded investigation of reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Question 17 – Coordination HHS (FDA, NIH, CDC) should coordinate with FCC and international bodies (WHO, ICNIRP) to prioritize independent research that can meaningfully update risk assessment. Question 18 – Additional recommendations Maintain clear public communication that distinguishes established thermal effects and the absence of confirmed adverse effects below limits from areas of residual uncertainty. Support practical exposure-reduction options for those who prefer them without implying established harm. Ensure any future guidance is driven by high-quality evidence.

Good afternoon I am writing on behalf of my 29 year disabled non verbal son. First off I would like to personally thank you for even looking into the harm that this technology can possible effect future generations of American children and for taking parents and care givers opinions serious and not dismissing our concerns. I will try to keep it to a specific time frame but the dates may not be exact. Approximately 9 years ago before the roll out of 5G technology I believe they may have been testing the rollout and my son was reacting to it. I can't prove it but he changed dramatically in that time frame. I have videos of body movement disorders that he had never experienced before, mind you he has always had a seizure disorder but these were different. He started to experience dystonic body movements that were so severe no one should ever experience anything like that in their lifetime and I fear for future generations of American children's lives may be at stake. I went all the way to the top of Neurology at the University of Washington and I was completely dismissed and gaslighted by that department of medicine and was told that my son had all of the sudden out of the blue developed "tics" and offered blood pressure medication to control them. I begged to differ and later learned that they had lied about his medication not causing movement disorders when I brought up his medication Tegretol and Amitriptyline they vehemently denied it. Whenever I would drive by a cell tower my son would have one of these severe attacks in the vehicle. It got so bad that he would not leave the house for 3 years. We are currently transitioning him over to cannabis in the state of Washington to help manage his movement disorder. I know geo fencing is coming and I am not naive to the fact that they want to contain citizens to certain zones and silence any one that speaks out against a future like this but at what point and the health and well being of future American children will we allow this technology to hurt and harm our children. As his nature path put it plainly my child is "the canary in the coal mind" and from what I witnessed as a mother I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy let alone future American children. Thank you for giving concerned American parents a vouce!

Hello I would like the government regulatory dept to conduct an analysis of radiation exposure from wireless transmission. I am sensitive to radiation poisoning as I’m sure millions of citizens are also. It is concerning for our youth and society to have to always worry about protecting ourselves from our agencies not looking into third party testing before going ahead and installing. This is problematic as it is too late when the government steps in.

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 as a concerned parent, researcher, and member of the public. I personally have not noticed any effects from wireless radiation in its various forms, such as cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, 4G, and 5G. However, I have researched this topic and understand that the energies involved can impact not only human health but also the health of plants, animals, and insects. As a precaution, I have limited my use of these technologies. I find it surprising that these technologies were initially tested solely for their ability to heat human tissue. Is that true science, or just a means to advance harmful technology for the profit of large corporations at the expense of the public? Those who rushed this technology into production decades ago seemed to care little for the well-being of the people who would live and work near these radiation emitters. I have read numerous accounts of individuals who struggled with unexplained medical symptoms, only to discover that moving away from a cell phone tower or turning off wireless networks in their homes resolved all their issues. Additionally, there are firefighters who have sued due to health problems linked to these emitters at their fire stations. While this technology cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, it can cause significant health problems. The power of these emitters has increased dramatically compared to when this technology was initially tested about 30 years ago. Can you imagine not testing products that emit large amounts of energy when held next to one’s head or against one’s body 24/7? We must bring this issue to light and conduct thorough testing on the effects of these technologies. Isn't this what the HHS is for? To study these subjects to protect the people? Isn't that what they are employed to do? 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 expect 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.

l am very concerned about this topic of EMFs, RF and wireless radiation exposure! I am a grandmother and have worked with children for years! This technology is dangerous to the health and wellbeing of people in general, but l’m especially concerned for our children’s future! We need to put the wellbeing of our children first and foremost!

Hello, my name is Rosa. My children and I are victims of these technological psychotronic weapons. They use 5G antennas and cell towers to direct radio frequencies, electromagnetic waves, radiation, and microwaves straight at our brains, organs, bodies, and skin. I live in the city of Baldwin Park, California, and my home has become an electromagnetic field; I am subjected to these frequencies constantly, day and night. My body—my face, my brain, and my entire frame—shakes as a result of these attacks. My face and arms are burned, and my skin has been destroyed by this radiation; it feels like my skin is on fire. I find myself hiding inside my own home just to protect myself from these weaponized attacks. Please, help us! These antennas, towers, and satellites are using Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and even household appliances to target us—please, put an end to this madness!