Children & vulnerable groups

I appreciate the opportunity to submit formal comments in response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Request for Information (RFI) regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and Radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. As federal agencies evaluate modern wireless infrastructure, it is critical that public health guidelines shift from evaluating purely thermal, acute effects to addressing the mounting body of evidence surrounding non-thermal, chronic biological impacts. The systemic integration of high-density wireless technologies—including macro cell towers, small cell deployments, and widespread commercial wireless infrastructure—has fundamentally altered the ambient radiation environment. A rigorous, independent review of the current science reveals several critical areas of concern that the Department should formally address: • Non-Thermal Biological Effects: A significant body of independent, peer-reviewed literature demonstrates that chronic exposure to low-intensity, non-thermal RF radiation can induce biological stress. These documented effects include oxidative stress, cellular DNA damage, metabolic disruption, and changes to blood-brain barrier permeability, occurring at levels far below current federal safety thresholds. • Vulnerability of Developing Children: Regulatory safety margins must be updated to account for distinct physiological differences in vulnerable populations. Research indicates that children absorb higher relative doses of RF radiation into deeper brain tissue due to thinner skulls, higher tissue conductivity, and smaller physical stature. Chronic exposure near schools and residential zones represents an unquantified multi-decadal health risk. • Flaws in Aggregate Exposure Models: Current safety guidelines generally evaluate isolated exposure from a single device or antenna. They fail to model the cumulative, multi-frequency environment where individuals are simultaneously exposed to macro-towers, localized small cells, smart utility meters, and indoor Wi-Fi networks 24 hours a day. • Environmental and Wildlife Disruption: Beyond human health, the expansion of high-frequency wireless infrastructure introduces unique ecological pressures. Peer-reviewed studies suggest that ambient RF fields can disrupt the navigation, behavior, and reproductive health of critical insect populations, migratory birds, and bees. Recommendations for the Department: 1. Adopt the Precautionary Principle: Implement exposure guidelines that err on the side of public safety, rather than waiting for absolute definitive proof of widespread clinical harm. 2. Fund Independent Long-Term Studies: Commission comprehensive, epidemiological studies completely isolated from telecommunications industry funding or influence. 3. Establish Environmentally Safe Zones: Protect residential neighborhoods, medical facilities, and educational institutions by recommending strict structural setbacks from high-output wireless transmitters. Thank you for your rigorous attention to this pressing public health issue and for thoroughly evaluating the independent scientific data during this inquiry. Sincerely, Dawn Quirk

Public schools issuing Chrome Books or similar tablets to all students is one of the worst things to happen in public schools recently. Our youth are staring at screens for hours in addition the time they spend on their personal devices. This has contributed to an increase in mental health issues in juveniles and a decrease in actual learning. There needs to be a return to pencil and paper learning styles.

1. & 2. I am responding as: family member of an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Wi-Fi and Cell Towers 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):A few months, every night and when close to cell towers like for example those that happened to be by the park where my daughter was playing. 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:My daughter, who was 7 years old at the time complained of feeling a "bubble in her throat and seeing spots." 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:About a year. We moved into this new house and my daughter's bedroom, particularly where her twin bed was situated measured high EMF, especially where her head was. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?We took her to 4 different doctors. One of them suggested EMF home inspection and remediation. It was found that out of 4 of my kids at the time, the walls by her bed measured high EMF. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Once steps were taken to reduce her EMF exposure where she slept, her symptoms went away, although she still has some sensitivity if she is close to cell towers for too long. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:Yes, you can check with our doctor and see that all this took place. Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's:All of us in our family that get headaches, some of those correlate with too much cell phone exposure. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:Wi-FI, cell towers, cell phones, high electro magnetic output appliances. B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed: B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy): B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:None B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant:None B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure:A healthy diet, exercise. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help: B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): B3d. Treatments that had no effect: B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:18 or younger B4. What is your age range?18 or younger B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?2018 B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?Meridian, Idaho

I am a grandmother who worries about my grandchildren being around so much of these types of frequencies. They have all of this in the classroom, at home, in libraries, etc. Young developing minds and bodies are sensitive to all the rays they are being bombarded with. I have read that France stopped the I phone 16 from being available because of the hazards. More information on how it affects us all is needed. It should be done by a 3rd party impartial entity. Also, to many towers and antennas everywhere!

I urge the Department of Health and Human Services to take immediate, independent action to evaluate the potential health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. Regulatory inaction is unacceptable when scientific questions remain and public exposure continues to increase. We must not repeat the mistakes of the tobacco industry, where warnings and scientific concerns were met with years of delay while the public remained exposed. The comparison is about regulatory responsibility—not a claim that the evidence on wireless radiation is identical to the evidence on tobacco. Scientific evidence warrants serious attention. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s animal studies reported evidence of certain tumors associated with cell-phone RF exposure. More recent systematic reviews have found no clear increase in some cancers examined, underscoring the need for continued independent research rather than complacency. Research also raises questions about reproductive health and biological effects. A 2024 systematic review by Cordelli and colleagues examined RF exposure and male fertility, including evidence from animal studies and human sperm in vitro. Grimaldi and colleagues reported in 1997 that exposure to 50-Hz electromagnetic fields affected Epstein–Barr virus antigen expression in a laboratory cell model. These findings do not establish that everyday wireless exposure causes disease, but they demonstrate why biological effects deserve rigorous investigation. The scientific literature must be evaluated objectively, including evidence of harm, evidence of no effect, and uncertainties. Research should be independent of industry influence, transparent, reproducible, and sufficiently funded to address long-term and cumulative exposure. I call on HHS to take the following actions immediately: 1. Commission an independent, comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research on RF radiation and EMF exposure, including cancer, reproductive health, neurological effects, and other potential biological impacts. 2. Reassess whether current exposure limits adequately reflect the scientific evidence, including uncertainties regarding long-term and cumulative exposure. 3. Increase funding for independent research and long-term studies, with particular attention to children, pregnancy, and other potentially vulnerable populations. 4. Improve public education and transparency about exposure sources, scientific uncertainties, and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. 5. Establish clear timelines for review, public reporting, and regulatory action. The absence of definitive proof of harm is not proof of safety. HHS must not wait for incontrovertible evidence of widespread harm before acting responsibly. The public deserves transparent science, independent oversight, and precautionary policies that put health ahead of commercial interests. Relevant peer-reviewed research and sources • Baan R, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology. 2011;12(7):624–626. • National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of cell-phone radiofrequency radiation. Technical Reports 595 and 596, 2018. • Karipidis K, et al. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies. Environment International. 2024;191:108983. • Cordelli E, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies. Environment International. 2024;185:108509. • Grimaldi S, et al. 50 Hz electromagnetic fields induce changes in the expression of Epstein-Barr virus early antigens in a cell line. Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology. 1997;16(2–3):205–207. • Environmental Health Trust: Wireless Radiation Health Effects Research • National Toxicology Program: Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Studies I urge HHS to act now, prioritize public health, and ensure that wireless technology policy is guided by independent science rather than delayed until preventable harm becomes undeniable.

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 concerned citizen and I do not consent to the continued deployment of said technologies everywhere. Personal story of how wireless radiation has affected me. I recently lost my closest friend of over 40 years, her untimely death in part due to high EMFs that she could not escape. Can I prove this? No. But it is most certain. For years, she could not go out in public because of the high EMFs – RFs, cell towers, cars emitting painful frequencies, mobile devices, etc. As much as she tried to avoid the high EMFs, this non-native force took a toll on her body that finally did her in. I too know being around wireless technology zaps my mental energy and ability to think well. So, I whole heatedly 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 nd establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Pay particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations who do not have a voice but are deeply affected by this technology. And also consider our pets, wildlife, and plant life, all of which don’t have a voice but are being negatively impacted. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, Karen DeHaven

Dear Secretary Kennedy, Thank you for giving the public an opportunity to express our sincere concerns regarding EMF, RF, and wireless radiation exposure. As a mother of five children (ages 25, 23, 22, 19 and 11), I am truly concerned about the effects of EMFs and 5G radiation exposure. There are increasing reports of adverse effects from cell towers and 5G, and sadly, many of these towers are right next to our schools, playgrounds and in our neighborhoods. I live right behind a small elementary charter school on Big Pine Key, an island in the Lower Florida Keys. There is a large cell tower right next to the school and about .10 - .20 miles from my house. Not only am I concerned for the children at the school, but also for my own family, as I am sure the radiation emitted from the tower is not good for our health. We try hard to limit exposure in our home by using wired headphones and turning off the router at night, but I am sure there is still so much more we are exposed to than we should be. It is my understanding that 4G LTE is much safer and still widely used in Europe. Can we please look into safe alternatives for Americans? While I understand that it is not a popular idea, I feel that grounded or dial-up options may be much safer. Thank you for taking a look into this very important issue to our health.

The science shows that EMF's damage DNA. Children are at more of risk. They have these towers really close to schools which is insane. Protect our kids and the adults from over exposure. I'm a sensitive person and feel ill a lot now aways from it coming through my home. I leave and go where there isn't any EMPs form towers and I start feeling better.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure, especially through electric companies' smart meters. I am responding from the perspective of a healthcare professional and a concerned member of the public. In my acupuncture practice I saw several people who were sensitive to EMFs and wireless radiation. It is easy for people to write them off as a little crazy, or at least oversensitive, but I saw people have dramatic effects with increased exposures, and then saw their symptoms subside when they were able to reduce EMFs and wireless radiation in their environment. I personally am lucky enough not to have severe symptoms, but it is difficult to have so little control over my environment, especially when my electric company puts a wireless meter on the entry of my home without my consent. As someone with a history of dementia in my family, I do everything I can to control my exposures to anything which may be a neurotoxin. I feel we need to take this issue very seriously. 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 and possible victim. Living in an apartment complex, I am exposed to as many as 20 known EMF sources, coming from nearby wirless routers.The result is constant tinnitus whenever located at home; the Tinntus goes away as soon as I leave the premises. HHS should take 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.