Children & vulnerable groups

I am writing to provide feedback regarding my firsthand health experiences with RF/EMF exposure. Thank you to the HHS for seeking the feedback of individuals, as the current framework for regulating wireless radiation completely ignores the real-world biological experiences of sensitive populations. I have had numerous clear, neurological symptoms that are reliably triggered or exacerbated by heavy exposures of RF/EMF. Specifically, when subjected to elevated wireless environments, I experience a disturbing "foggy head" sensation that makes it difficult to concentrate. Furthermore, I have a long clinical history of migraines with aura. While I have multiple environmental triggers, I have identified heavy doses of EMF as a distinct trigger for these. In our home, we take steps to reduce our exposure, but it has become hard to avoid. The current safety guidelines enforced by the FCC offer no protections for individuals like me, or citizens with concerns, in general. The FCC’s standards, established in 1996, rely entirely on a narrow thermal paradigm. These guidelines assume that wireless radiation is only harmful if it is intense enough to literally heat human tissue. The cognitive fog and migraines I have experienced have occurred at exposure levels below this thermal threshold. This is clear evidence that the federal government's current stance fails to recognize or account for non-thermal biological mechanisms. Low-intensity, chronic RF/EMF exposure exerts systemic, non-thermal biological stress on the human nervous and vascular systems, which directly manifests as neurological symptoms in sensitive individuals, and likely is negatively effecting a lot more people in ways that are not understood. There have been studies linking chronic exposures to elevated blood sugar levels and increased insulin resistance. It also may impact human quality of sleep. These are all huge issues. The HHS should abandon the outdated 1996 thermal-only standard and to develop safety limits that protect citizens from chronic, low-intensity, non-thermal biological and neurological impacts. It should also immediately investigate the specific biological pathways linking RF/EMF exposure to central nervous system disruptions, including focusing on its role as an environmental trigger for migraines, blood-brain barrier permeability, cognitive fog, insulin resistance, and disturbances in sleep patterns. There have already been some studies on these issues, that the relevant government agencies seem to ignore. The FCC, that has commercial deployment goals, should not be the only department to regulate the wireless industry. There needs to be more control given to local populations to say no to continually increasing the population’s exposure to EMF/RF with more and more towers flooding people’s homes and workplaces. Also of concern are the ever increasing number of products used in the home that use and issue wireless radiation (the IoT), including baby monitors and home appliances. We are now in cars loaded with EMF/RF. And, of course, the now pervasive smart meters that emit radiation, not once a month, for billing purposes, but often every 15 minutes, and in some places practically continually. It is grotesque how callously this has and is all rolled out with so little understood about the impacts on human health.

My daughter was born with cancer. She was the first case in Puerto Rico. She was born on the day of my birthday without previous sings and it was one of the most aggressive cases. The name of the cancer was Rapdosarcoma. During the first months of pregnancy I was working with a metal detector and had to walk through it every day. My daughter lived for 7 months. I also had a coworker who was pregnant as well, with just one month of difference between the pregnancies. She had to go through the metal detector every day as well. A few months after she had her son, it resulted that he also developed cancer and ended up dying like my daughter. We were the only two pregnant women in that building and we both lost our babies.

My daughter was born with cancer. She was the first case in Puerto Rico. She was born on the day of my birthday without previous sings and it was one of the most aggressive cases. The name of the cancer was Rapdosarcoma. During the first months of pregnancy I was working with a metal detector and had to walk through it every day. My daughter lived for 7 months. I also had a coworker who was pregnant as well, with just one month of difference between the pregnancies. She had to go through the metal detector every day as well. A few months after she had her son, it resulted that he also developed cancer and ended up dying like my daughter. We were the only two pregnant women in that building and we both lost our babies.

I have no doubt that EMFs, RFs & other frequencies affect human health. I believe some people are more sensitive than others. I can report that my hands start tingling & burning after holding my cell phone for only 15 minutes. I also have sensations of internal vibrations, which I believe is my central nervous system reacting. I often get a headache when wearing Bluetooth headphones. What I’m also concerned about is the towers built on school property. What is this doing to the kids? If it’s confirmed that EMFs & RF / other frequencies affect human health, then how will we remedy this? I Faraday fabric is very expensive, I can’t afford a faraday cage or clothing! How do I protect myself?

We are exposed to unacceptable levels of EMF short-wave pollution. People have experienced headaches, dizziness, inability to function, fatigue, heart issues, insomia,tumors, cancer and more. These cell towers with 5G and other toxic EMF exposures are sick. Even it you do not experience the above knowingly, you are still exposed and building health issues. Wildlife, which includes plants are also negatively affected. In other words, life itself is attacked by these EMF non-ionizing radiation. The concept that only heat generates injury was incorrect. There are safe ways to improve communication, such as fiber optics. In 1996 Pres. Clinton exempted the communication industry from health, safety and environmental issues connected to this industry. That non-regulation needs to be stopped. This industry is out-of-control. Cell towers are built near schools, which is an absolute travesty. We are entitled to a safe environment without rogue industries such as the above operating unregulated, immune to lawsuits for the health and environmental destruction they cause. I appreciate your concern for the public. Another issue involves geo-engineering. The public is now noticing the obvious spraying of chemicals and maybe more in the atmosphere. Whatever is sprayed is pulled down to the earth via gravity. A life on the planet is adversely harmed, and we are seeing the results. We are told the spraying is for ameliorating "climate change", which makes no sense. This spraying needs to be stopped. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I appreciate the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to examine the scientific evidence regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation exposure. I strongly encourage HHS to approach this issue with scientific rigor, transparency, and a commitment to protecting public health, particularly the health of children. Wireless technologies have become an integral part of everyday life. Children are exposed to wireless devices, Wi-Fi networks, cellular infrastructure, Bluetooth devices, and other sources of electromagnetic fields from an early age. As exposure becomes increasingly widespread, it is important that our understanding of potential long-term health effects keeps pace with technological development. I respectfully ask HHS to prioritize the following areas: 1. Independent, long-term research Support well-designed, independent research into the potential short-term and long-term health effects of RF radiation and other relevant EMF exposures. Research should include long-term exposure, cumulative exposure from multiple sources, and potential effects that may not become apparent for many years. Funding and potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed transparently. 2. Protection of children and other potentially vulnerable populations Children should be a priority in research and public health policy. Their bodies are still developing, and their lifetime exposure may be substantially longer than that of today's adults. Research should specifically examine age-related differences in exposure and susceptibility rather than assuming that findings from adult populations fully apply to children. 3. Reassessment of exposure standards HHS should evaluate whether existing exposure limits adequately reflect current scientific evidence, including research on long-term exposure and potential biological effects beyond established heating effects. Standards should be reviewed periodically as new evidence becomes available, with clear explanations of the scientific assumptions and uncertainties underlying them. 4. Real-world and cumulative exposure Research should reflect how people actually live, work, travel, and learn. People are exposed to multiple sources of EMFs and RF radiation throughout the day, including smartphones, Wi-Fi routers, cellular networks, wearable devices, wireless accessories, and vehicle electrical systems. Evaluations should consider the combined exposure patterns people experience in homes, schools, workplaces, public spaces, and vehicles, rather than assessing each source only in isolation. 5. Transparency and accessible public information Families deserve clear, accessible, evidence-based information about wireless radiation exposure. HHS should provide practical guidance on exposure sources, the strength and limitations of the available evidence, areas of scientific uncertainty, and reasonable steps people can take to reduce unnecessary exposure if they choose to do so. Public guidance should neither dismiss legitimate questions nor create unnecessary fear. 6. A precautionary approach and exposure reduction Where meaningful scientific uncertainty remains, HHS should consider the precautionary principle and the concept of keeping exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), where appropriate and supported by the evidence. Practical measures that reduce unnecessary exposure without compromising essential communication or access to technology should be evaluated. Such measures may be particularly relevant in schools, childcare facilities, and other environments where children spend extended periods. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm should not be interpreted as proof that every possible long-term effect has been ruled out. Equally, potential risks should be investigated carefully rather than assumed. Public policy should distinguish established findings from preliminary results and unanswered questions. I urge HHS to conduct a comprehensive, independent, and transparent review of the available evidence, identify important research gaps, and develop clear, evidence-based recommendations that put public health first. Technological progress and public health protection should go hand in hand. Families should not have to choose between participating in modern life and having access to reliable information about potential environmental exposures. HHS has an important opportunity to advance scientific understanding, improve public confidence, and help ensure that decisions about wireless technology are informed by the best available evidence and an appropriate commitment to protecting future generations. Thank you for considering this comment.

Public schools have a WiFi router in the center of each classroom, usually fixed to the ceiling, and it is on 24/7. The teacher and the 20-28 students (avg.) per day assigned to each classroom are within 4-18 feet of this WiFi router for 6-7 hours each day (approx.) Please consider the health and behavioral affects this may have on those assigned to a classroom. Additionally, smart boards for teaching and learning. Guidelines on proximity and duration to protect the teacher and student populations is requested. Each student is assigned a computer and each teacher has 1-2 computers, which are on or charging in the classroom all day. What is the cumulative affect and total exposure to the potentially harmful EMFs that all of these devices in sum total emit to each person? What should the daily limit for each student/teacher/worker/human be? Shouldn't a sum total daily limit for human consumption include close proximity to above ground electric transmission towers? Estimation: approx. 3.8 million public school teachers, 49 million students, and millions of other citizens who are working in public schools. Request to examine physical health affects, daily limits, ways to mitigate, and behavioral and mental health affects.

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

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 encourage HHS to assess the evidence rigorously and transparently, distinguishing established findings from emerging or uncertain evidence. Public concern and personal reports deserve respectful consideration, while conclusions about cause and effect should be based on well-designed, reproducible research. I recommend that HHS prioritize independent research on real-world and cumulative exposures from multiple wireless sources, using validated exposure-measurement methods. Studies should examine long-term outcomes and consider children, pregnant people, older adults, workers with higher exposures, and people with implanted medical devices or relevant health conditions. Research protocols, funding sources, methods, and results—including null or conflicting results—should be made publicly accessible where possible. HHS should also compare U.S. and international exposure standards, explain the scientific basis and limitations of those standards in clear language, and identify where evidence is insufficient to assess potential risks. Federal agencies should coordinate research priorities and support independent replication of important findings. Please include ongoing public health surveillance and practical, evidence-based guidance that can be updated as research develops. The goal should be to address legitimate questions without overstating what current evidence can establish. Thank you for considering this comment.

I am sensitive and feel being close to a 5g tower has been detrimental to my health. Please help us and look into the seriousness of these towers being close to homes and schools.