Children & vulnerable groups

See attached file(s)I am submitting the attached comprehensive public comment and three supporting research reports in response to HHS Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397, concerning electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, wireless technology, and human health. My submission addresses biological and ecological research, natural bioelectrical processes, cumulative and involuntary exposure, children and vulnerable populations, emerging satellite-to-cellular technologies, relevant patents, and the need for independent long-term safety investigations. I respectfully request that HHS review the complete attached document, including its scientific references, findings, and recommendations. Sincerely, Willa Brenden New Mexico, U.S.A.

Personal Perspective and Health Experience I am submitting this comment as an individual consumer sharing my experience with potential health effects that I believe have been associated with radiofrequency (RF) exposure from wireless technology. I am also a Certified Building Biologist with specialized training as an Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist through the building biology platform. In 2012, I was diagnosed with Lyme disease and spent years pursuing n endless variety of treatments. Despite making progress, I continued to experience daily headaches, difficulty sleeping, fatigue, and brain fog. In 2020, a friend suggested having my home assessed by a building biologist. The findings were shocking. Although our electric and magnetic field readings were acceptable, RF readings were extremely high in several areas. Despite having no nearby cell towers, readings reached approximately 100,000 µW/m² at our stove and 19,000 µW/m² at our kitchen sink and island, attributed in the assessment report to an Orbi Wi-Fi extender. Our office readings reached 50,000–70,000 µW/m² near my computer, and testing my cell phone revealed intermittent spikes reaching approximately 1,000,000 µW/m². I had never imagined that everyday wireless devices could produce such high readings in the spaces where we cooked, worked, and spent time with our family. I became particularly concerned about cell phones and children's exposure, especially when phones are carried on their bodies. Reducing Exposure and Changes in My Health Following the assessment, we hardwired our home, eliminated wireless devices, discontinued Wi-Fi, replaced wireless computer peripherals and our printer with wired alternatives, and made our bedroom a sanctuary free of electronic devices. I also use airplane mode when appropriate to reduce wireless transmissions. My health improvements were gradual, not immediate. Over the following months, I noticed meaningful improvements in my sleep, headaches, fatigue, and mental clarity. After years of struggling despite numerous treatments, I gradually began feeling more like myself again. The combination of high initial readings, substantially reduced readings after changing our environment, and subsequent health improvements was a major turning point. I believe reducing my RF exposure was an important part of my recovery. This experience motivated me to become a Certified Building Biologist and Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist so I could help others evaluate potential environmental exposures. Through my work, I have met people struggling with persistent health problems who have also reported improvements after reducing environmental exposures. These accounts cannot independently prove causation, but I believe people's experiences deserve to be heard and investigated rather than dismissed. The public deserves accessible, balanced information about RF exposure and the current scientific evidence. Recommendations for Further Research 1.Long-term exposure: Real-world RF exposure in homes, workplaces, schools, and sleeping environments, including the placement of cell towers on or near school properties and potential implications for children. 2.Multiple exposure sources: Combined and repeated exposure from Wi-Fi routers and extenders, cell phones, Bluetooth, wearable devices, wireless peripherals, smart-home technology, and cellular infrastructure. 3.Individual differences: Whether age, underlying health conditions, immune status, or other factors may influence individual responses to RF exposure. 4.Potential health effects: Possible associations with headaches, sleep disturbances, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or mental clarity, while considering alternative explanations. 5.Exposure reduction: Whether reducing RF exposure produces measurable improvements in symptoms or other health outcomes for some individuals. 6.Children and vulnerable populations: Developmental differences, exposure patterns, and whether additional research or precautionary measures may be warranted. 7.Wildlife and ecosystems: Potential effects of electromagnetic fields on birds, bees, and other wildlife. Bees rely on environmental cues for navigation, foraging, and returning to their hives. Given pollinators' essential role in ecosystems and food production, potential effects on their behavior and survival deserve careful scientific investigation. Closing Statement My experience taught me that our home and sleeping environments deserve greater attention when investigating persistent health concerns. After years of searching for answers, I discovered unexpectedly high RF readings, made substantial changes, documented significantly lower levels, and gradually experienced meaningful improvements in sleep, headaches, fatigue, and mental clarity. Thank you for this opportunity to share my experience. Please research!

The current human evidence does not establish that ordinary, limit-compliant exposure to 5G, Wi-Fi, cell towers, or smart meters causes cancer or other illness. This is not proof of zero risk. HHS should use reproducible evidence and measured exposure, not fear or anecdotes. A 2024 WHO-commissioned systematic review examined 63 epidemiologic articles from 22 countries. Mobile phone use was not associated with increased glioma risk (pooled relative risk 1.01; 95% CI 0.89–1.13), meningioma risk (0.92; 0.82–1.02), or acoustic neuroma risk (1.03; 0.85–1.24). The review also found no association between modeled exposure from fixed-site transmitters and childhood leukemia or pediatric brain tumors. A 2025 peer-reviewed UK field study measured RF emissions at 56 active 5G base stations across 30 publicly accessible locations. Worst-case estimates were at most 5% of ICNIRP 1998 public reference levels; 5G accounted for less than 10% of total measured RF exposure on average at those sites. HHS should maintain science-based, enforceable exposure limits; independently verify compliance; publish understandable measurements of actual exposure; and continue research into long-term exposure, higher-frequency 5G, children, and other understudied groups. Protect against established high-exposure hazards and study uncertainties. Do not portray compliant 5G, Wi-Fi, or smart meters as proven hazards without evidence.

Get the towers away from schools! In Illinois several districts have cell towers on school property or right next to a school! Get them away from children!

Re: HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields and RF Radiation My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc. I hold a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow and Glasgow School of Art. I submit this comment as a medical visualisation specialist and an individual reporting severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). 1. Health Experiences and Functional Impairment My experience of ES has profoundly affected my ability to work, travel, obtain healthcare, maintain housing, and participate in society. I experience migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, nausea, burning sensations, and disrupted sleep that I associate with nearby wireless devices and infrastructure. I have invested in wired Ethernet, removal of wireless equipment, electrical mitigation, and RF shielding. These observations do not establish causation, but the functional limitations warrant clinical investigation. Scientific uncertainty should not justify dismissing patients or overlooking reasonable accommodations. 2. Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment Current RF limits focus on established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. Questions remain about chronic, modulated, and cumulative exposures. The National Toxicology Program (2018) reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. These results cannot be directly extrapolated to everyday human exposure but merit further study. HHS should independently review whether current standards adequately address long-term outcomes and susceptible populations. 3. Exposure Measurement and Surveillance Real-world exposure includes simultaneous sources such as cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and connected devices. Measurements should document frequency, power density, field strengths, modulation, duty cycle, duration, and cumulative exposure. HHS should develop protocols combining personal dosimetry, environmental measurements, clinical observations, and longitudinal data. A voluntary ES registry could support epidemiological studies. 4. Potentially Sensitive Populations Children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted devices, occupationally exposed workers, and individuals reporting ES warrant focused study. Clinical evaluations should be multidisciplinary and respectful, investigating alternative explanations without dismissing symptoms. 5. Biological Mechanisms and Scientific Evidence Human tissues are intrinsically bioelectrical. Membrane potentials, ion gradients, and endogenous electric fields are fundamental to cardiac and neurological activity, cellular communication, and homeostasis. This does not establish that environmental RF causes injury, but supports investigation of possible interactions. Research should examine membrane electrophysiology, ion channels, oxidative stress, autonomic regulation, blood-brain barrier integrity, and cellular homeostasis. Anatomically registered medical visualisation could help integrate exposure data with physiological measurements. 6. Federal Research Priorities HHS should coordinate NIH, NIEHS, FDA, and CDC to: 1. Fund independent, reproducible studies of biological effects, including exposures below current limits. 2. Standardise clinical assessment of reported ES. 3. Support prospective studies combining dosimetry, physiological measurements, symptoms, and appropriate controls. 4. Investigate chronic and mixed-source exposures. 5. Evaluate wired telecommunications and non-transmitting utility alternatives as accommodations. 6. Publish methods, findings, funding sources, and conflicts of interest. Conclusion Scientific uncertainty must not become institutional indifference. For affected individuals, these questions concern housing, employment, healthcare, and participation in society. HHS should pursue rigorous, independent research that distinguishes established findings from hypotheses while taking functional impairment seriously. The objective is neither to presume harm nor presume safety, but to develop evidence-informed public health policy. Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Colorado, USA Reference: National Toxicology Program (2018), Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at 900 MHz, NTP TR 595. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595

EMF and RF and wireless radiation is unregulated near homes schools or places people can become negatively affected . Switzerland has far more stringent requirements and the United States is allowing far more radiation to its citizens. In addition HAARP NOAA release harmful amount of energy that negativly affect citizens. Meters that measure this energy should be present in homes schools and places people gather. HAARP and NoAA should be dismantled.

“I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on that. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.” The absolute profusion of wifi signals has inhabited nearly every facet of American life, and the assumption of safety after a few, short term studies is not enough. The American public deserves safe, studied, and careful technology, not just what the tech industry can pump out as fast as possible. It is time to look with care, scientific, and critical eyes what is inhabiting our homes, schools, and businesses.

Should not be allowed within a certain distance from schools. There are 3 very close to my kids elementary school.

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 submit this comment as someone concerned with the scientific evidence on RF/EMF health effects. HHS should prioritize independent research into nonthermal mechanisms (oxidative stress, DNA effects, neuroendocrine disruption, cumulative exposure), update assessment methods for real-world multi-source long-duration conditions, and evaluate whether current federal limits protect human and animal populations. I do not consent to further exposure from these improperly evaluated EMF technologies without adequate safety testing for optimal human health and longevity. My response draws on the research, clinical observations, and congressional testimony of Robert O. Becker, MD (1923–2008), orthopedic surgeon and bioelectromagnetics pioneer at Syracuse VA Hospital and SUNY Upstate. He authored over 150 papers, books including The Body Electric and Electromagnetism and Life, and testified to Congress and state commissions. Becker established that organisms generate and respond to minute electrical currents and EMFs regulating growth, CNS function, and biological cycles. Man-made EMFs far below thermal levels act as nonspecific biological stressors producing wide adverse effects. Key findings (Questions 5, 6, 11, 12): The “thermal-effects-only” doctrine is obsolete. Organisms have specialized mechanisms (including pineal sensitivity) tuned to Earth’s magnetic cycles. Chronic man-made fields disrupt these, inducing chronic stress with weight loss, diminished immunity, neuroendocrine changes, and altered brain function. Cellularly, exposure accelerates DNA production and alters chromosomes, raising growth rates and genetic abnormalities. Clinically this yields reduced fertility, low birth weights, higher infection/cancer susceptibility, birth defects (eg, Down syndrome), and psychological disturbances. Evidence includes: 60-Hz environmental fields causing stress hormonal/body-weight/blood changes across mouse generations (third-generation infant mortality 50% vs <5%); geomagnetic storm correlations with schizophrenia admissions in >16,000 patients; human reaction-time increases from low-strength VLF fields; animal findings of deficient bone healing, altered growth, and tumor-cell chromosome changes. Becker linked post-1900 power and communications EMFs, the most drastic alteration of Earth’s electromagnetic environment, to rises in birth defects, cancers, mental disorders, and teenage suicide. These fields act at fundamental levels rather than causing single specific diseases. U.S. limits rested on the inadequate thermal-only model. Military/regulatory responses often denied nonthermal effects or issued biased reviews (eg, Navy ELF studies). Becker called for independent research, free of industry/military conflict and risk-benefit decisions by the exposed population. Children, developing organisms, and those with preexisting conditions need particular attention due to higher cell-division rates and cumulative disruption. Cumulative exposures from power systems plus wireless technologies (phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, 5G/6G, IoT) have intensified. Precautionary reductions in unnecessary exposure, especially in schools, homes, and near infrastructure are warranted. Becker’s conclusion remains pertinent: man-made EMFs constitute a serious health hazard requiring urgent steps. I urge HHS to give substantial weight to this foundational evidence. References 1. Becker RO. Statement before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. October 6, 1987. https://www.robertobecker.net/PDFs/1987PowerlinesStatement.pdf 2. Becker RO. Statement of Robert O. Becker, M.D., to Subcommittee on Public Health of the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with hearings on H.R. 10790, Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1967. https://www.robertobecker.net/PDFs/BF037-HR10790Statement1967.pdf 3. Becker RO. The possible hazards of human exposure to magnetic fields. Consultant report for the Joint Technical Advisory Subcommittee 63.1.4. IEEE; 1968. 4. Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. William Morrow; 1985. 5. Becker RO, Marino AA. Electromagnetism and Life. State University of New York Press; 1982.