Children & vulnerable groups

I worry constantly about wireless radiation and its affects on the human body. I feel like my ears ring a lot more and I worry about the affects especially on children. I really wish there was more regulation on this as the trust in this kind of technology is not very high. I do not want this close to homes or schools.

The present state of regulation address only short term thermal effects from RF radiation. Non-thermal and long term effects are not addressed. However when they occur they are actually short term. Symptoms may vary from potentially causing tumor, by different effects from braking DNA, over oxidative stress that cause many sorts of disturbances. Further is associated to EHS or electro hypersensitivity syndrome, such as headaches, memory loss, tinnitus, problems of concentration, sleeping disorder, anxiety, depression and the other variety of symptoms. The last but not least is the impact on fertility. Studies on moused have indicated strong correlation. My personal opinion is when located in the large city on strong infrastructure, ther use to be tinnitus, when going to the small place on the seaside with lower exposure levels, tinnitus release significantly. The present sate of limits is to ICNIRP up to 10 W/m2 power flux for the general population. However that level is the limit for thermal effects, the non thermal appear at much lower levels in extended time of exposure, such as commonly considered levels over 10 microW/m2. That it difference in exposure of million times under official limits or 60 dB. Recommended levels by independet science are even lower and are considered additionally 100 times or 20dB lower. That may be close to levels that existed before massive base stations deployment, when only TV transmitters were available. Still todays exposure levels to limits are 100 million billions times higher then the natural radio frequency background levels or up 170 dB higher as to some research. That does not match the evolutionary adaptation. The main problem are mobile phone base stations as they present non-stop exposure and they are not a matter of personal choice. On the other hand mobile phones, WI-FI or DECT phones can present some higher levels of exposure on short distance, but they are the matter of personal choice and time of exposure could be chosen on functional preference. As to deployment of wi-fi for schools it is important to note that they cause in vicinity the same radiation as base stations on about 50 meters distance. Many studies on base stations like those done in Minas Gerais Brazil, in the Naila Germany that effects are most dominant in distances up to 500 meters and they even indicated correlation of symptoms by the distance. So the question is how could modern technology like those radiation emitters improve the quality of life if it cause insomnia, tinnitus, depression, sleeping disturbance or any other more severe diseases? If only the infertility rates are increase it can endanger national security as to the possible loss of domestic population. The solution to the problem is to use landlines and cable internet, as all functions can be done, even better, as optical internet is much safer and more reliable then wireless also the classic cable phone instead of mobile or DECT as it completely solves the functional need at any stationary location. Wireless communication makes sense only for airplanes, ships and satellites as the only option. In the car mobile phones are not allowed for use. The other question is where is such emergency that the average person should be in access at any moment? The average person is not ambulance, fireman or police for a need to instant access. Additionally constant exposure to information and access is related to significant stress and reduction in mental health, besides the radiation. As the degraded health can no more be purchased for money, the trade of health for money by the use of radiation exposure devices is not a good deal. They are prone to cause addiction, stress, loss of personal communication, physical and mental health degradation, there is no justification for its use, as all the rational jobs can be done on desktop computers, classic phone and landline internet, without radiation exposure. Costs of health in long term can significantly increase and the trick used by agencies is there is no evidence for side effects in the short term as from those protect the regulation. Actually the regulation protects industry from law suites rather then people from the radiation effects. In the attachement the excellent and wide coverage study from the Austrian health department and Austrian medical chamber, by Dr. Oberfeld, the great exert on environment and independent radiation research. In hope for better public education on risks from radiation exposure and removal of radiation exposure sources. Kind regards, Robert Markusic, ing.med.radiology & mag.oec.

Comment on HHS-OASH-2026-0397, Request for Information on EMFs, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Respondent: Sam Galiatsatos, Austin, Texas Perspective (Q2): Individual consumer and family member Questions addressed: 2, 5(n), 5(p), 9, 13(a), 13(d), 15(a)-(d), 16, 17, 18 Summary: HHS should treat network architecture as a way to reduce unnecessary exposure, and should favor a satellite-to-gateway-to-fiber build in federal health and broadband policy. How a network is built decides how many transmitters sit near homes, schools and clinics. The recommended build has four layers: 1. Low Earth orbit satellites reach places fiber cannot reach at reasonable cost. 2. Gateway ground stations, a few fenced sites, hand satellite traffic straight to fiber. 3. Fiber trunks carry that traffic into cities and rural hubs. Fiber carries light and emits no RF. 4. Inside homes, schools and clinics, people get wired connections and low-power Wi-Fi they can switch off. Q13 and Q15: Short-range 5G bands need more sites mounted close to streets and homes, so neighborhood exposure depends on site count and distance. With satellite broadband, the serving transmitter is in orbit, and home terminals and gateways aim their main beams at the sky. HHS should classify satellite direct-to-cell service separately, since the phone itself is the transmitter near the body. Exposure evidence should record distance to homes, schools and clinics, cumulative neighborhood exposure, and transmitters per square kilometer. Q5(n) and 5(p): Report transmitter density and backhaul type alongside device limits. Coordinate with NTIA and the FCC so broadband funding counts lower neighborhood transmitter density as a public health benefit. Add beam direction, site density and service role (everyday versus backup) to any classification system. Q9: Publish transmitter site maps for residents and local governments, notify schools and childcare facilities of nearby installations, and tell subscribers how their service reaches the home. Q16 and Q17: Start with measurement. Compare real-world exposure in neighborhoods served by dense small cells, fiber to the home, and rural satellite. FDA, NIH and CDC should coordinate with the FCC and NTIA on joint exposure mapping. Q18: Under the revised BEAD program, about two-thirds of funded locations will get fiber, so this build matches where federal dollars already go. ARPA-H's STACK program aims to bring clinical trials to rural patients, and those clinics need stable fiber connections. Limits: This comment does not claim that exposure below current federal limits causes harm. It recommends reducing exposure the network does not need while HHS reviews the evidence. The attached PDF contains the full comment, an illustrated diagram of the four layers, and linked sources for every figure cited.

Data doesn’t exist in the United States to tell whether high voltage power lines are going to harm our children or our livestock when exposed to them long term, but in that lies the problem. There is, however, data from the UK. Over 29,000 children within 200 meters, roughly 650 feet, of a high powered line had a 67% increase in childhood leukemia compared to those living more than 600 meters away. (2005. Oxford University. British Medical Journal). What was the common denominator? Exposure to electromagnetic EMF. More data is needed to get a definitive answer. That data has not been obtained because no study has been completed to a measurable end. Other countries have implemented safety guidelines regarding power lines and long term exposure as a safety measure. Belguim has even bought homes from citizens too close to a high voltage power line out of precaution. The United States has not implemented such guidelines in fact on the contrary, we just keep building them. Dr. David Carpenter, of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and WHO Collaborating Centre has researched non-ionizing EMF for decades. He concludes there are increased health risks including leukemia, brain cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease that have been replicated in other countries. My problem is we are asked to approve solid infrastructure that we don’t understand the effects it will have on the health of the people who live around it. Thirty years ago we had safe levels of lead in paint. We thought that was fine. Now there’s no approved safe limit of lead. It doesn’t exist. Why? Research. We assume that something isn’t dangerous and we find out later that we were wrong. Going back and changing things after the fact isn’t possible. Living with the decision to approve something you aren’t sure is safe is irresponsible to the people who have to live with the consequences. Transparency is a problem. Since there are no guidelines, federal or state, on power lines, there is no reason for the utility companies to disclose any information. This includes positive or negative. It’s probably why Grid Growth Ventures is not responding to any of the questions my neighbors and I have been submitting. We received your submission, is the only reply. We need regulations and transparency.. We need reform to ensure safety. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are outdated and inadequate and are only set up for short term exposure in an industry setting. These guidelines date back to 2010 with an addition in 2015 to exclude subjects whose job requires them to be in constant contact with radiation like an x-ray tech, radiation tech or other like professions. My response is to prove that the lines are safe. Nothing can be 100% safe, but do work. Do the real research. Take engineering time. Third party testing and researching. Research and testing should be done by third party investigators not by the electrical utilities or the data center facilities paying to get a certain result. Where is our reassurance now? That my family or my neighbor’s family won’t get sick. That our livestock won’t be killed or infertile. That the beautiful wildlife I enjoy watching at sunrise and sunset won’t leave or be harmed. We will have all these high voltage lines and a substation that we will be responsible for. It seems like money over people. Why have other ways to transmit power not been investigated? Burying power lines are more suitable and resilent for a source to power the growing needs of communities. It can withstand severe weather conditions, fire and other elements better than high voltage power lines that are 17 stories tall. Would you buy a toy for your grandchild if the label said it might be safe? Would you buy a car if the sticker said it followed no federal guidelines in the making of this vehicle? Probably not, but we are being asked to trust a system with no guidelines who have not done any research and can’t even be transparent enough to answer our questions to keep us safe. My question is simply, can you prove it’s safe? The answer should not be that it hasn't been proven to be harmful. Take the time to really prove it. https://ehsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/EMF-Power-Line-Health-and-Safety- Briefing.pdfhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178725002267#:~:text=In%20this%20paper%2C%20we%20investigate,built%20or%20upgraded%20transmission%20lines. https://www.scenic.org/take-action/resources/undergrounding-resources/undergrounding-resources-and-white-papers/undergrounding-case-study-undergrounding-to-support-data-center-demand-growth/

These EMF's, Radiofrequency Radiation and Wiress Radiation Exposure, you know the FAKE 5G Towers. They are all over the place. By homes, schools, daycare and you can see them on the freeway too. They appear during the day, and nobody seems to care that they are built at night. My ears are ri ging all the time, people on the freeway especially on motorcycles go over 100 miles per hour, and there are never any state highway patrol or police officers on the freeway at all. And what is the government going to also do about the chem trails in the sky, my car is so dusty from all the stuff that is bring put in the sky. And the government is not doing anything about that either. The pictures I have attached are from Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The seriousness of this can be summed up easily and we need to put a stop the massive infrastructure being built asap. Health>Money “The brain is an electromagnetic. A cell tower is an electromagnetic transmitter operating at a frequency, modulation, and duty cycle the brain does not produce. Exposure from a tower is continuous and involuntary. A limit written only to prevent heating does not answer whether that field alters the electrical activity the brain depends on.” This comment is against cell towers, base stations, and small cells. The exposure they produce is involuntary, continuous, and aimed at homes, schools, and workplaces. A person can put a phone down. No one can opt out of a tower. Human beings are electrical. Nerve conduction, cardiac rhythm, and the voltage across cell membranes are measurable processes. A tower is an electromagnetic transmitter running all day, at a frequency and modulation the body does not produce. Federal limits address heating only. The tower studies looked past heating and found tumors. The study built as a base-station experiment is Falcioni et al., Environmental Research (2018), from the Ramazzini Institute. It exposed 2,448 rats from before birth until natural death to a 1.8 GHz GSM far-field signal at 5, 25, and 50 V/m, 19 hours a day, meant to resemble an antenna rather than a handset against the head. Male rats at 50 V/m had a statistically significant increase in malignant heart schwannomas. Schwann-cell hyperplasia rose in both sexes at that dose. The estimated whole-body absorption at 50 V/m was about 0.1 W/kg, far under the 1.6 W/kg phone limit, and the field strength sits under the FCC public limit of 10 W/m² in that band. The cancers appeared at exposures the current rules allow. The National Toxicology Program’s 2018 reports found the same tumor under near-field, phone-like modulation: clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and some evidence of brain gliomas, plus DNA damage in brain tissue. Two designs, near-field and far-field, produced the same heart tumor. Mevissen et al., the World Health Organization systematic review of the animal cancer studies (Environment International, 2025), rated the evidence high certainty for an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats and high certainty for an increase in glioma. Those are the tumors the International Agency for Research on Cancer cited in 2011 when it classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, on limited evidence of glioma and acoustic neuroma. Acoustic neuroma is a schwannoma of the vestibulocochlear nerve. People living near antennas show the same direction of effect, in smaller studies. Eger et al. (2004), in Naila, Germany, found new cancer cases about 3.4 times higher within 400 meters of a base station in the five years after it began operating, and patients diagnosed about 8.5 years younger. Wolf and Wolf (2004), in Netanya, Israel, reported cancer incidence about 4 times higher within 350 meters. Dode et al. (2011), in Belo Horizonte, found cancer mortality about 1.35 times higher within 100 meters of a base station, falling with distance. Balmori’s 2022 review of 38 studies of people living near base stations reported effects in 28 of them, including radiofrequency sickness, cancer, and biochemical changes. These are not large prospective cohorts. They are the human record that exists for towers, and it does not show safety. In 2021 the D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s decision to keep its 1996 limits (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC). The court held that the agency had not explained effects other than cancer, effects on children, long-term exposure, the spread of transmitters since the limits were written, or the environment. Towers are the environmental exposure. Children in schools and homes nearest the antennas have no say in it, and they will carry it for decades. HHS should tell the FCC, state health departments, and local governments the following. No new tower, macro site, or small cell, school, childcare center, or playground. Existing sites inside that distance should be disclosed, measured at the property line and in the nearest classrooms, and removed or powered down where a wired alternative exists. Cumulative exposure from every antenna on a structure counts, not one site at a time. Backhaul and school networks should be wired. Thermal compliance is not a health finding. The far-field experiment already produced the tumor at a level the rules permit. Refrences attached

See attached file(s) ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND HUMAN HEALTH. FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH SEPTEMBER, 17-24, 2002 MOSCOW - SAINT PETERSBURG, RUSSIA 1. THE GENERAL PROBLEMS OF EMF INVESTIGATION CONCEPT OF INFORMATION SUPPORT FOR MOBILE PHONE USERS SAFETY ON THE BASIS OF PRECAUTIONARY POLICY REALISATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES. Grigoriev O.A.1, Vasiliev O.A.2, Bichelday E.P.1 1National fund for non-ionizing radiation protection, Moscow, Russia 2Russian Ministry of public health department for State epidemiological inspection, Moscow, Russia Mobile telecommunication is rapidly developing as an element of social technological infrastructure. However none of the specialised scientific organisation could confirm, that mobile phones EMF is unharmful for human health. Numerous researches reveals more questions than answers. World health organisation consider, that the consequences from mobile phones’ EMF exposure of individuals as well as human population in whole aren’t known enough , therefore we have to continue the scientific researches and provide the precautionary policy. According to precautionary principle we have to make all efforts to decrease the risk for human health, even finally unproved. Mobile telecommunication systems drastic increasing, though we have no final results of EMF biological influence researches. It means that mobile phones’ value for society is more important factor, comparing with real and possible risks for human health. Refer to the law project “About the basis of technical regulation in Russian Federation” sellers should provide goods safety for consumers, this means that mobile phones’ sellers and manufactures have to confirm their equipment safety. However it takes time to adopt the law and work out the mechanism of its realisation. In such conditions we consider that the most actual and rather fast method to provide the population safety is let to know the objective and actual information that allows to generate own opinion and make realised choice in all aspects of the problem «Mobile phones and health». Such programs should be aimed to mobile phones services’ consumers (voluntary risk group) as well as to other population who don't use mobile phones, but exposed by mobile telecommunication EMF (involuntary risk group. Now authors are developing the information support complex for population “Mobile telecommunication and human health”, which includes the web-site (www.ecopole.ru), popular scientific book and several leaflets names as “Mobile phones”, “Base stations”, “To children up to 16 is not recommended ” THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION AND PROBLEM OF ELECTROMAG- NETIC SAFETY OF THE POPULATION Grigoriev Yu.G. $9,90 #080,7. 03970 3899:90 41 458.8 .3897 41 0,9 #:88,3 0/07,943 Moscow, Russia Now Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection carries out (spend) the constant analysis of achievement of scientific community on a problem of electromagnetic safety of the population, as well as recommendations of the World health organization (WHO) and International commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). We also make an estimation of a real situation in the country. The committee recognizes presence of a problem of probable adverse in- fluence EMF on health of the population. For last 35-40 years we have a sufficient material giving an opportunity to establish dose dependence EMF, as well as influence frequency characteristics EMF on bioeffects. However, now there is the important establishment fact of cumulation of bioeffects in conditions repeated and chronic EMF exposure of small inten- sity. Pays on itself attention a completely new situation in connection with wide use of cellular communication. The large group of the users by cellular telephones has daily EMF irradiation of structures periphery of nervous system and head brain, on the one hand, and the overwhelming part of the population is exposed to a constant compulsory EMF irradiation from base stations, on the other hand. There is till now unsolved problem of a role of EMF modulation in development of bioeffects. This problem practically is not taken into account in definition MPE of EMF. The members of Committee give the large attention to a scientific substantiation and development of sanitary rules for EMF and harmonization of them with the international recommendations and standards, and also the decisions a WHO are taken into accoun

See attached file(s) The Possible Role of Contact Current in Cancer Risk Associated With Residential Magnetic Fields 2000 Residential electrical wiring safety practices in the US result in the possibility of a small voltage (up to a few tenths of a volt) on appliance surfaces with respect to water pipes or other grounded surfaces. This ``open circuit voltage'' (VOC) will cause ``contact current'' to flow in a person who touches the appliance and completes an electrical circuit to ground. This paper presents data suggesting that contact current due to VOC is an exposure that may explain the reported associations of residential magnetic fields with childhood leukemia. Our analysis is based on a computer model of a 40 house (single-unit, detached dwelling) neighborhood with electrical service that is representative of US grounding practices. The analysis was motivated by recent research suggesting that the physical location of power lines in the backyard, in contrast to the street, may be relevant to a relationship of power lines with childhood leukemia. In the model, the highest magnetic field levels and VOCs were both associated with backyard lines, and the highest VOCs were also associated with long ground paths in the residence. Across the entire neighborhood, magnetic field exposure was highly correlated with VOC (r 0.93). Dosimetric modeling indicates that, compared to a very high residential level of a uniform horizontal magnetic field (10 mT) or a vertical electric field (100 V/m), a modest level of contact current ( 18 mA) leads to considerably greater induced electric fields (> 1 mV/m) averaged across tissue, such as bone marrow and heart. The correlation of VOC with magnetic fields in the model, combined with the dose estimates, lead us to conclude that VOC is a potentially important exposure with respect to childhood leukemia risks associated with residential magnetic fields. These findings, nonetheless, may not apply to residential service used in several European countries or to the Scandinavian studies concerned with populations exposed to magnetic fields from overhead transmission lines. Bioelectromagnetics 21:538±553, 2000. ß 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Key words: magnetic fields; childhood leukemia; power lines; open circuit voltage

I have been negatively affected by wireless radiation. I had to leave my medical career due to not being able to work with all the wireless infrastructure surrounding me. Please take steps to lessen the toxic nnEMF in workplace environments, schools and neighborhoods. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.

As a concerned healthcare practitioner, parent and citizen,I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. In the past 20 years, my healthcare practice has shown a drastic increase in patients with chronic insomnia along with all the other chronic disease that shows up in the human body when it does not get to repair itself from a decent night’s sleep. Most people wake up now about 3 am as a result of the data dump on smart meters. Then everyone continues to get assaulted by all the EMF pollution in our homes, cars, places of work and cities we live in for the rest of the day. Even going out in nature has radiation humming. There is no escaping EMF pollution currently. Removing people from their immediate environment is a temporary fix. There are certainly ways to lower EMF pollution in the home, which shows drastic improvement in symptoms for those affected. We shouldn’t have to do that. We should have our federal agencies looking out for human health so we don’t have to take such drastic measures. I personally have watched many friends become aware of this unavoidable pollution throughout the years as well. I look forward to seeing HHS hiring the best scholars in medicine, biology, epidemiology and public health and examining the large body of evidence exposing the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Alongside these studies, individual experience of the detrimental effects citizens are reporting should be examined closely and brought to light. HHS responsibility is to protect the health of our citizens, especially the children and other vulnerable populations from any health insult, especially the big ones that have already done so much damage like wireless radiation. Thank you for giving the public a chance to tell HHS our experiences, research and opinions so that we may be heard and you may step up. I so look forward to you turning the tide in this critical health issue.