Children & vulnerable groups

Hello, I am a concerned mother. I believe the HHS must look into wireless radiation exposure to protect our children. Currently, the regulatory oversight on this matter is insufficient to protect the public. We need more information regarding safe doses, along with research on the cumulative effects of wireless radiation exposure. Children are particularly vulnerable to this radiation, yet every school has an iPad in every child's lap. They have WIFI boosters in the halls. We need to know what exactly these EMF waves are doing to our children, what's safe, and how to protect ourselves from harmful exposure.

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.

My daughter was hospitalized with a blood condition, nearly died, needed emergency therapy flown in from Sioux Falls. We found a smart meter above her room. My wife has iron issues, a symptom associated with wireless exposure. Our trees are dying on the tops next to the new LED light poles. Why? We measure and report using an RF safety meter so we can quantify the damages to our family. This is insane.

My child and I are being tortured by these horrible weapons or frequencies..We are experiencing almost all the symptoms literally…..Haven’t slept good in months…Extremely bad headaches ,,irritability issues,moodiness,facial structure/pigment slowly changing …loss of appetite,extreme burning sensations,,Sweating profusely especially overnight,,Loss of thought patterns,,Always have some type of weird pain,,tooth rapidly decaying,,Tiredness,restless,sleepy through out the day when not supposed to be and even more than this etc..We didn’t consent to be experimented on nor did we consent to endless torture like this..It has caused enormous amounts of stress and depression and has torn my little family that I built apart…This is inhumane and highly criminal and illegal

There needs to be strong regulations on wireless technology. Cell phone towers are at the top of the list. People living within close proximity are at risk for health issues. Especially the young. In addition, use of 5G with cell phones are putting people at risk with long term exposure. Symptoms include headaches, nervous system reactions, and possible brain tumors. This is especially important on trains, airplanes, and public transportation where people who travel a lot can be accumulating symptoms, which over time can be dangerous to their health.

We need to be conscious of where the towers are placed in relationship to homes, schools, parks, daycares. Radiation is very real and we have increased headaches and lethargy when near cell towers.

https://bioinitiative.org/ Why are towers always placed by schools and parks? The bee population around my neighborhood has declined and there is a shocking amount dead bees. Tinnitus started when several towers were place around the neighborhood. Honestly, how can anyone claim these towers are safe. The exposure is detrimental to our DNA.

Perspective: Member of the public and parent. Responding to Questions 10, 11, 16, and 18: historical animal pathology records as an overlooked data source. I ask HHS to examine a long-running record that, to my knowledge, has never been studied for its relevance to electromagnetic exposure: the autopsy archive of the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. The zoo's Laboratory of Comparative Pathology (later the Penrose Research Laboratory) was founded in 1901. From 1916 to 1964, directors Herbert Fox and Herbert L. Ratcliffe kept complete autopsy records on more than 13,000 mammals and birds. Their published reviews describe a striking change: - In 1923, Fox described arterial lesions as "exceedingly rare," found in under 2% of autopsies. By 1964, arteriosclerosis was found in about 25% of mammals and 35% of birds. - No coronary artery disease appears in the records before 1945. The first heart attacks were recorded in 1955. By 1963, over 90% of mammals and 72% of birds that died had coronary disease. Heart attacks had struck 24% of the mammals and 10% of the birds, often young animals. - A 1959 Penrose report compared 1901-1934 with 1935-1955. Malignant tumors rose 2- to 20-fold across nine mammal families, and benign tumors rose even more. Among 7,286 birds, malignant tumors rose 2.5-fold and benign tumors 8-fold. - The changes spanned 45 families of mammals and 65 families of birds. The investigators considered the usual explanations. Diets were improved in 1935 and then held constant through 1964, yet coronary disease emerged only after 1945. Population density and exercise were reported as stable. Ratcliffe suggested social stress from breeding programs begun in 1940. That cannot explain the arterial disease of the 1930s, or the continued rise in animals that were not being bred. Similar rates were later reported at the London Zoo (1960) and the Antwerp Zoo (1962). I learned of these records from Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow. Firstenberg notes that this period coincides with rapid electrification and, after World War II, a large rise in environmental radiofrequency radiation from radar, broadcasting, and industrial RF equipment. The records contain no exposure measurements, and I am not claiming they prove a cause. But they are a rare, consistent, multi-species dataset covering decades in which diet, crowding, and activity were reasonably stable. The main explanation offered at the time does not fit the data. Captive animals do not change their own habits, which makes them valuable sentinels. Two broader points. First, any population shows a spectrum of responses to an environmental factor. Even if the median person and above notice little effect from RF exposure, safety standards should be built with the most sensitive people in mind, not the average. A limit that protects the typical adult may not protect the bottom quartile. Second, exposure drops off sharply with distance from the source, so simple awareness goes a long way. Turning off Wi-Fi at night, or simply not keeping a router two feet from your bed, is not Luddite thinking. It is a reasonable, no-cost precaution that most people have never heard of. My requests: 1. (Q16) Fund a re-analysis of the Philadelphia Zoo pathology archive and comparable long-term zoo and veterinary records. Pair it with historical reconstruction of local electrical and RF exposure, such as power distribution and nearby broadcast and radar installations. 2. (Q10) Treat zoo and wildlife pathology programs as a standing sentinel surveillance system for environmental exposures, including RF, with exposure monitoring at those sites. 3. (Q11) Because the disease in these records so often struck young animals, give particular attention to children's cumulative exposure as wireless devices multiply in homes and schools. 4. (Q9, Q11) Publish plain-language public guidance on reducing exposure through distance and nighttime habits, and make sure exposure standards account for the most sensitive members of the population, not just the average. References: Fox H. Disease in Captive Wild Mammals and Birds. Lippincott, 1923. Ratcliffe HL, Cronin MTI. Changing frequency of arteriosclerosis in mammals and birds at the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. Circulation 1958;18:41-52. Ratcliffe HL, Yerasimides TG, Elliott GA. Changes in the character and location of arterial lesions in mammals and birds in the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. Circulation 1960;21:730-38. Lombard LS, Witte EJ. Frequency and types of tumors in mammals and birds of the Philadelphia Zoological Gardens. Cancer Research 1959;19(2):127-41. Firstenberg A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Chelsea Green, 2020.

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.

not enough testing was done on all these cell towers and radiation causing EMFs. they are everywhere, near schools, daycares, homes ! people spends their entire day right next to them and even sleep near them ! do we really need all these cell towers? what about the link to cancer ? and other health issues? stop prioritizing corporations over health !