Children & vulnerable groups

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 patient and parent. I purchased my home 10 years ago and around 2020-2022 time frame I started suspecting that wireless radiation was affecting me as I was experiencing many of the symptoms that are common complaints: fatigue, couldn’t sleep, headaches. Around 2024-2025 I started feeling additional symptoms of dizziness, loss of balance, and skin problems. I started shutting my WiFi off at night and sleeping improved. Around the same time a 5G small cell tower was installed approximately 250 feet from my home without notification or say in the matter. Similarly, my utilities company stopped servicing my analog meters, and installed 7 smart meters on my row home without notice. I asked the utility company to bring back my analog meters and their answer was that ‘we can do it for you if you pay $75/mo plus get your 6 neighbors to agree to the same.’ Not reasonable at all. Now it’s 2026 and I’m diagnosed with an acoustic neuroma, usually benign but has already caused hearing loss and more vertigo. My symptoms improve when I’m away and come back when I return home. This is impacting my life significantly and has potential to be disabling and even require brain surgery. I am a single mom and the only one taking care of my child. I can’t be disabled or not work. HHS should address this issue asap. It will only get worse with 6G on the horizon. I am even more concerned about the impact this could be having on my child’s brain, short and long term. I would move but where is there to go to escape when they are allowed to build on any ROW without notifying and permission of the community. 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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

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 am responding from the perspective of a parent, family member, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public. 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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

As a trained EMF Consultant through "Geovital Institute" (30 yrs of safety from EMF's in Austria) KNOW the harm and have a costly $ Instrument that allows the radiation monitoring. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE NOISE EMITTED from a simple cell phone- or a router/modem. Then go by a cell tower & listen. I have an ACCOUSTIMETER & I'm sure you have funds to purchase one or a better one that is keeping up with the 5G higher frequencies. I also invite you to my FaceBoook Page "https://www.facebook.com/groups/874948352946284" ALL FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY I have used this for a "FILE" since fighting against I am an EMF Consultant trained by Geovital Institute - look it up- 30 yrs in this business. While fighting seemingly by myselF to an upgrade to a tower near a school/boys & Girls club & Rec center in Stevens Point, WISCONSIN. I/WE THE PEOPLE LOST. Now 6 yrs later that "File" grows every day & EVERY POST IS SOURCED. Also go to Environmental Health Trust & Childrens Health Defense. CATCH UP & DO THE RIGHT THING FOR WE THE PEOPLE - THANK YOU! also - I am affected neurologically when near ANY EMF's. How could we Not! I invite you to my Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/874948352946284 EVERY POST IS SOURCED AND PERTINENT Thank you- DO THE RIGHT THING & MEASURE EMF DAMAGES NOT HEAT!

My husband is a cancer survivor and we have three young children. We've made many life modifications to limit EMF exposure wherever reasonably possible; including moving, reducing screens/electronics, not moving into new tech waves (smart appliances, watches, airpods, etc). This was even a contributing factor to homeschool our children.

To: OASH HHS Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397-0001 Here are personal observations in regard to EMF, RF and high frequency signals in general. Like most responsible health concious beings we all are concerned with the adverse effects from such man made technology. This has been and continues to be well documented by science & technology. These are experienced by most everyone in developed urban areas or near such devices and infrastructures without full knowledge or consent. In 2020 I tele-visited with an Ayurvedic Practioner in the SVA lineage of Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra's family. These were master vaidya's serving Lord Krishna's family. When Vaidya Mishra arrived in the US from India he noticed a commonality in patient's pulses not seen in India. Their livers were hot and angry from over processed foods, pharmaceuticals and synthetic supplements. He also noticed 'lightening' in the pulse which he traced to EMF, RF exposure. The pracitioner who visited with me was told by Vaidya Mishra that she could help the sensitive ones. Her husband was an electrical and computer science engineer interested in indoor environment safety. He provided a complimentary consult with some tips for reducing my exposure. Use ethernet and turn off the wifi, turn off the smartphones when on person and do not hold them near the head or set any devices on the lap and several other useful tips to lessen risk. When wifi was switched off at the source and not broadcasting 2.4 or 5 ghz frequencies, I noticed a lessening of 'hotness' and general agitation during and after use. There are several studies measuring the effects of exposure on human tissues. My first knowledge of these reports were via the library of Blushield technology. Blushield is now in my small home and in my backpack wherever I go in urban areas. It is a personal preference for mitigating exposure. It is also in loved ones homes. As a grandparent endeavoring to protect the precious resorce that is our children, I am deeply concerned with how we inform and handle this in the modern world.

I am submitting this comment as someone who has experienced a profound sensitivity to electromagnetic environments for many years. I often describe myself as a “canary”—someone whose nervous system seems to register environmental changes more intensely or earlier than the people around me. Living this way has been incredibly difficult. Again and again, people who experience the world more viscerally are told that what we are noticing is imaginary, psychological, or simply “in our heads.” I believe there is an important lesson in listening to the canaries rather than dismissing them. I am not asking regulators to accept every interpretation of electromagnetic sensitivity as established scientific fact. I am asking for serious, independent investigation into the possibility that our rapidly increasing exposure to human-generated electromagnetic fields may have biological consequences that we do not yet fully understand. The question should not only be, “Can we prove that EMFs cause a particular disease?” We should also be asking: What are the cumulative effects of living, sleeping, working, and raising children in environments saturated with increasingly complex electromagnetic signals? Are there populations who are more sensitive? Are there biological effects that occur below the thresholds currently used to define harm? And are our existing standards adequately accounting for long-term, continuous exposure rather than only acute thermal effects? My own experience has led me to think about this in terms of the body’s relationship with its electromagnetic environment. Everything in the human body is ultimately physical, biochemical, electrical, and energetic. Our nervous system, brain, heart, cellular signaling, and biological rhythms all depend upon extraordinarily precise electrical and electromagnetic processes. From a more holistic perspective, I also understand health as a state of coherence and harmony—with our bodies, with one another, and with the natural electromagnetic environment in which human beings evolved. Modern technology has introduced electromagnetic frequencies and patterns of exposure on a scale and continuity that are profoundly different from the environments in which our biology developed. I believe we should be humble about what we may not yet understand about that interaction. For people like me, this is not an abstract debate. When my environment changes, I can experience changes in my ability to rest, regulate, concentrate, and feel at ease in my own body. Whether the eventual scientific explanation validates my interpretation or reveals something different, the experience itself is real and deserves investigation rather than ridicule. And I believe this issue extends far beyond people who identify as electromagnetically sensitive. The absence of an obvious immediate sensation does not necessarily mean the absence of a biological effect. Many environmental exposures have historically been understood only after years of research. The people who notice something first are not necessarily the people who are imagining it; sometimes they are simply the people whose systems are giving an earlier signal. I therefore urge the government to support rigorous, independent, transparent research into the biological effects of both existing and emerging electromagnetic technologies, including long-term and cumulative exposure. Research should consider neurological, cardiovascular, cellular, reproductive, sleep, endocrine, and other potential effects, as well as individual differences in sensitivity. Most importantly, I hope we can create a regulatory environment that does not require people to become sick enough—or scientifically convenient enough—to deserve protection. We have an opportunity to listen to the canaries. Please take seriously the people who are telling you that something in their environment feels different. Investigate it. Measure it. Study it without predetermined conclusions. And allow the science to lead us toward technologies and environments that support human health rather than assuming that everything technologically possible is automatically biologically compatible. Thank you for considering my experience and this perspective.

I'm writing to share how wireless radiation has affected my health and to raise a concern I don't think current policy accounts for: the layering of exposure inside and around our homes and office buildings. For years I lived with migraines, tinnitus, poor sleep, slow recovery, and a nervous system that struggles to settle. These aren't abstract complaints; they shape my life. When I began measuring the radio frequency levels in my home and reducing them, by hardwiring our network, scheduling the router off at night, and tracking down hidden sources, my body responded. The quality of my sleep has improved, although I still have day to day exposure and migraines have gotten worse, and the ringing in my ears hasn't stopped. What's most concerning is how pervasive the exposure is getting. A decade ago, a home might have had one wireless router. Today, radios are built into refrigerators, washers, thermostats, smoke detectors, televisions, sound systems, garage door openers, lighting controls, doorbells, and security systems, alongside routers, modems, and mesh repeaters. Many are boxed into walls and cabinets where homeowners can't see them, and many can't be turned off without disabling the appliance itself. People and pets absorb these signals around the clock, including while we sleep, when the body is meant to repair. Even after we deployed mitigation strategies, the highest reading in our house was in the hallway outside our bedroom, and it traced back to an alarm communicator mounted inside a closet wall. We didn't choose that exposure; we didn't even know it was there.The layers don't stop at our walls. Outside, 5G small cells now sit on streetlights and utility poles steps from bedroom windows, in addition to existing cell towers. Smart meters on each home relay signals to one another in a mesh network, so an entire neighborhood transmits as one connected system. License plate cameras at intersections and community entrances send their data over cellular connections, and satellite networks now beam service down from above. I can turn off my own router at night; I can't turn off my neighbor's smart meter, the small cell on the corner, or the camera at the end of my street. The public never consented to any of this and an informed public would surely not consent. Many of these systems also track where we go; geofencing lets companies and agencies draw a virtual boundary and collect data from every phone that crosses it. We weren't asked about the exposure or the tracking. Federal exposure limits were set in 1996 and evaluate single devices, not the cumulative load of dozens operating at once. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the FCC had failed to explain why those limits still protect people from harms unrelated to cancer, including effects on children and long-term exposure. The U.S. National Toxicology Program and Italy's Ramazzini Institute both found tumors in rats exposed to cell phone and cell tower radiation, and a Danish birth cohort study linked prenatal and childhood phone exposure to behavioral difficulties. Over the same decades that wireless exposure has multiplied, we've seen rising rates of autism, autoimmune disease, and chronic illness, and some researchers have raised questions about RF exposure and mold growth indoors. I'm not suggesting wireless radiation is the single cause of any of these; I'm asking that it be studied seriously rather than ruled out. Wireless radiation also doesn't reach us alone. Every day we're exposed to more synthetic building materials that off-gas, plastics in our clothing, children's toys, and household products, and chemicals permitted in our food and skincare. Each of these is approved on its own, and RF limits are set one device at a time, while our bodies take in all of it together. Little research has looked at how RF exposure interacts with this growing chemical load; until it does, I don't see how anyone can call the combination safe. I respectfully ask that you: 1. Update exposure limits to account for cumulative, long-term exposure from multiple sources, inside and outside the home, as the 2021 court ruling requires. 2. Require public notice and local input before new towers, small cells, smart meter networks, or surveillance cameras go up in residential neighborhoods, with a no-cost opt-out for smart meters. 3. Require that appliances and home systems with wireless radios offer a wired option or a simple way to disable the radio without losing core function. 4. Require clear labeling of wireless modules on appliances and building systems so families can make informed choices. 5. Fund independent research on chronic exposure and how it interacts with everyday chemical exposures, with attention to children, sleep, and the nervous system. Thank you for considering the people living with these exposures every day. Christy Wallace

My sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation has caused me to radically alter my lifestyle to reduce exposure. I keep my phone is a radiation case and don't use it at night because it keeps me from sleeping. My computer is hardwired and I carry a Blueshield device to harmonize EMF's. It's been 14 years since I've traveled by airplane. Meanwhile, I do everything possible to minimize exposure. By nature I am a sensitive person who has trouble with chemical odors and allergies. I am among the canaries in the coal mine at the moment because we are naturally more sensitive to everything. Surprisingly, about 20 percent of the population is in this predicament. There are so many conditions and health issues associated with this problem. Why the alarms aren't sounding for the increasing exposures for everyone, especially children, is mystifying! Please be proactive and forward thinking regarding the harm this is doing in our world. Corporate profits and greed should not be the governing factor here.