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 [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. This is an important topic for the health of our community and children's future! These unseen radiation waves can cause unknown harm to living organisms and must be reviewed! 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.

How do we know that 5G cell towers are safe to be placed directly on school campuses, where for example an elementary student will be in close proximity to that cell tower for up to 7 years (pre-K, kindergarten, 1st-5th grade)? One study examined students attending schools near cell towers and found differences in certain cognitive measures, and a new 2026 study of 200 elementary-aged children at eight schools found an association between higher RF exposure and a biological marker of genomic instability. Neither study proves RF causes illness, but the important point is that **the long-term effects of continuous environmental RF exposure in young children aren't settled**, and much of the broader research relies on cellphone exposure rather than school-based tower exposure. When there is uncertainty, especially when children are involved, it is prudent to use caution when discussing health impacts, especially because children don't get to choose their school environment. 2018: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6775553/ 2026: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-60822-1 The 2026 article finds that the higher RF levels schoolchildren were exposed to, the more micronuclei they found in those children. What are micronuclei exactly? From a different article, “Micronuclei research has regained its popularity due to the realization that genome chaos, a rapid and massive genome re-organization under stress, represents a major common mechanism for punctuated cancer evolution.”

I am writing as a concerned citizen to urge HHS to take seriously the growing body of evidence linking chronic, low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields to measurable biological and health effects, including the condition now recognized as EMR Syndrome (Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome). Since the term was formally adopted in early 2025, awareness of this condition has grown rapidly, with an estimated 3–5% of the global population reporting symptoms ranging from headaches, insomnia, and cognitive impairment to heart palpitations, tinnitus, and neurological decline. These are not isolated or anecdotal complaints; they represent a pattern consistent with the peer-reviewed literature on non-thermal biological effects of EMR, including oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and disruption of calcium signaling. As the wireless environment becomes denser with 5G small cells, Wi-Fi 6/6E/7, IoT devices, and the coming deployment of 6G at millimeter and sub-terahertz frequencies, cumulative exposure is no longer a theoretical concern but a daily reality for millions of Americans. I respectfully request that HHS and the interagency community treat the coming 6G rollout as an opportunity to apply the precautionary principle rather than repeating the regulatory lag that allowed 5G to be deployed before adequate long-term safety data existed. Current FCC exposure limits were established in 1996 based solely on thermal effects and do not account for non-thermal mechanisms, pulsed or modulated signals, or the cumulative burden of multiple simultaneous sources. I urge the Department to (1) fund independent, long-term epidemiological and mechanistic research specifically addressing 6G frequency bands and signal characteristics, (2) review and, if warranted, lower current exposure limits to reflect the best available science, (3) require pre-deployment environmental and health impact assessments for new wireless infrastructure, and (4) provide clear, accessible public guidance on reducing personal EMF exposure in the interim. The health of the American public — and particularly children, whose developing tissues are most vulnerable — should not be an afterthought in the race to deploy the next generation of wireless technology. It is critical to understand what 6G actually is, because it is not simply a faster version of 5G. A defining architectural feature of 6G is Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC), which merges radar-style sensing and data transmission into a single radio front-end, waveform, and signal-processing chain. In practice, this means every 6G base station will simultaneously carry data and act as a radar probe — transmitting a dual-function waveform, then analyzing its reflections to detect, locate, and track objects in real time. Because the network is ultra-dense, with hundreds or thousands of access points per square mile, the result is a massive distributed radar system that can image the physical environment continuously, from street level to the upper atmosphere. On top of that sensing layer sits the Internet of Everything (IoE) — a paradigm that goes far beyond the Internet of Things by intelligently connecting people, processes, data, and physical objects into a single living system. In an IoE world, the network does not merely transmit packets; it perceives, reasons, and acts. It monitors air quality, tracks vehicle and pedestrian movement, manages energy grids in real time, and coordinates autonomous systems — all while bathing the population in a denser, more complex, and more persistent electromagnetic field than any previous generation of technology has produced. The combination of ISAC and IoE means that 6G will not be a network we use; it will be an ambient, always-on sensing and decision-making layer woven into the fabric of daily life. That is precisely why the health implications cannot be assessed after deployment. The exposure environment will be qualitatively different — more sources, more frequencies (including sub-terahertz bands with no prior human exposure history), more modulation complexity, and no meaningful "off" state. I respectfully insist that HHS treat this not as an incremental upgrade but as a fundamental shift in the human electromagnetic environment, and that the precautionary measures requested above be in place before the first 6G base station goes live.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is some information I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: PLEASE read these links then read my story. I wish I could tell you my whole story but hopefully this is enough for you to see the similarities. See the connection. See this is real. We are real. You want proof? Here I am... Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Exploring The Condition Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) - Review of mechanisms - PubMed

Please research harm from COIL WHINE, high sounds emitted by many electric items including some chargers, airpods, halogen light transformers, some electric bikes, and many others. I believe many people who complain if ehs actually sugger from hearing coil whine, and their central nervous system freaking out. A small percentage of adults with excellent/sensitive hearing like myself can hear this and are very troubled by it, with sleep disruption etc. It gets worse with dental restoration materials like a bridge and white composite filling material as well as eustachian tube dysfunction, which causes the sound to go through jawbone conduction to the inner ear, bypassing muffling in the earcanal, and small fibre neuropathy which means damaged nerve insulation, myelin, causing everything to come in louder and more painful. With so many electric items everywhere this is debliitating. I have suffered since 2019 and finally realise this is coil whine and I can block a lot of the sound wearing Loop Dream earplugs and earmuffs and using acoustic shielding and distance from the items..Worryingly babies and animals can hear this much better too more then most adults. Please save the children (and animals) from coil whine everywhere, including babymonitors like cuboai which people put close to baby. In many cases it is just a cheap product which can be replaced by better. Thank you souch for looking into these things.Wishing you many blessings Moniqueplaisier@outlook.com

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. Here is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745 The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: Our public schools are using FCC standards as guidance to support installing 5g towers near elementary, middle and high schools. Signing years long contracts and ultimately minimizing informed consent and risk as there are not sufficient studies saying there is ABSOLUTELY no risk. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

Our area is covered in microwave waves. I'm sick with stage 4 breast cancer. Please help our communities. It's too much. I get headaches, dizziness anytime I'm to close to Towers. They are on ball fields and places families and children are. These towers are all over our schools in Reno, Sparks, Minden. Everytime I'm near them I get so sick. My kids all had headaches in school everytime they were there. Now there is one .3 miles away from my home. It's located acrossed from a school and right next to a park and a neighborhood. They do not belong this close to us. Please help us feel safe in our neighborhoods.

Non-thermal radiofrequency radiation is entropic waste. It is a fidelity stressor that disrupts the critical timing components of biology, and what it produces is bioelectrical dissonance and a meta-disease state. The evidence is already on the record. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute found the same rare heart tumor. The WHO-commissioned review rated glioma and heart schwannoma high-certainty. The FCC's own 2 mm tests hit 5.2 W/kg. Europe moves body testing to 0 mm by March 7, 2028. HHS should act now, and the end game is Li-Fi compatibility through the Clean Ether Act. Comment of John Coates on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Individual respondent. My full comment, with sources, is attached: It answers Questions 2 through 18, with every subpart, in order. THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY ON THE RECORD (Q6, Q12). - NTP and Ramazzini, two independent lifetime bioassays, found the same rare tumor, malignant heart schwannoma, in male rats. Germany's BfS called Ramazzini's exposures "at a comparable level to the basic limit values for humans." - The WHO-commissioned review: "The CoE for an increased risk in glioma was judged as high." Heart schwannoma was rated high too. - NTP held heating under 1 degree C, and NTP itself says: "The role of thermal changes on cancer development needs to be further investigated." GSM gliomas ran 0, 3, 3 and 2 per 90 across sham, 1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg. Heat does not draw that curve. HHS should fund the investigation NTP called for. - NTP's 1.5 W/kg is a whole-body average; the FCC's 1.6 W/kg limit is a 1-gram local peak. Different measures, but the numbers sit right on top of each other. The iPhone Air's 1.60 W/kg is the highest simultaneous-transmission value reported in its FCC grant. THE TEST MISSES THE BODY (Q5(p), Q7, Q8, Q9). - The FCC's own 2019 tests at 2 mm recorded up to 5.2 W/kg. - Europe moves body testing to 0 mm by March 7, 2028. The U.S. still certifies at typically 5 to 15 mm. - SAR averages away the timing biology reads: GSM bursts about 217 times a second, Wi-Fi beacons about ten times a second, DECT and 5G NR use 10 ms frames. - Require 0 mm testing, and disclose test distance and pulse structure with every SAR value. THE META-DISEASE STATE (Q10, Q12). RF does not need to cause one unique disease to matter. It only needs to reduce the fidelity of the systems that prevent many diseases. Bioelectrical dissonance is the process, low-fidelity biology is the state, and disease susceptibility is the consequence. The causal fingerprint is not one diagnosis. It is a shifted distribution of biological failure: rare becomes less rare, late becomes early, recoverable becomes persistent. S4-MITO-SPIN (Q12). The S4 helix of the VGCCs, including CACNA1C, is the bulk-calcium gate; Cyb5b is the internal-timing transducer (Kim et al., Cell, 2026: "an essential mediator likely acting as an EMF sensor"); mitochondria are the redox amplifier (95% of 131 non-thermal studies found oxidative effects); cryptochrome-to-flavins spin dynamics are the modulator. At matched SAR, pulse modulation, not the carrier, changed human EEG and blood flow. HHS should test whether pulsed exposure disrupts pulsatile insulin release, which runs on the same calcium machinery. SENSITIVE POPULATIONS (Q11). Development has no restore point. Children absorb higher local doses; NTP pups were born smaller; responses differ by CACNA1C genotype and mouse strain; aging neurons carry more L-type calcium channels. WHAT I ASK (Q5, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18). - Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. It is HHS's job. The Secretary "shall establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program" and develop techniques "for minimizing exposure." Publish the performance-standard determination and a public work plan; replace FDA's tumor-only 2020 review. - Run the meta-disease experiment: pulsed RF vs carrier-only vs sham at matched SAR, from the womb, measuring fidelity endpoints before pathology (NIEHS/NTP). - Fund Cyb5b, CACNA1C and organoid replication (NIH); build registries and measured-exposure cohorts (CDC); issue precautionary guidance now. - Repeal Section 704, which bars localities from weighing RF health effects in siting. - Pass the Clean Ether Act: fiber, Ethernet and Li-Fi on IEEE 802.11bb indoors, with pilots in Head Start, childcare, maternity and pediatric care, and HHS facilities. Invisible does not mean irrelevant. Non-ionizing does not mean non-biological. Legal does not mean safe. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 7 in 1977, with my left kidney removed at age 8, while my family lived near a radar installation on a military base. In 1995 my daughter Angel Leigh was born with anencephaly and did not survive. My daughter was the canary in the coal mine... and so was I. John Coates RF Safe

I am extremely concerned that the information sought in this public comment forum will be used as some sort of factual documentation of the lack of EMF harm to promote a message that 765kv transmissions are "perfectly safe" when we have not had the scale that is being proposed,EVER in the US before to even study like we need to BEFORE this crazy level of new construction is approved by PJM. Are we going to experiment on people in the US and then realize like we did with lead and asbestos exposure how wrong we were? There are several countries that DO recognize the need for setbacks and this is what any governing body that cares about our kids and vulnerable population would be seeking for our citizens. There are other countries who have documented trends of leukemia for children living close to high voltage lines. Why is this not being researched and considered? Please do not use this study against the people of the US to push transmission lines on us and attempt to negate our concerns. Keep transmission lines away from schools, parks and houses. Keep them away from anywhere animals are living and grazing. Please at the very least use the feedback here to establish safe setbacks at a bare minimum of 1000 feet.

I don’t want 5G anywhere near my home or children! Keep it off on the phones always! Thank you for addressing this.