Children & vulnerable groups

Title: Oxidative Stress: The Cause of Autism and Disease in General. Author: Martin T. Moore M.S. Professor of Kinesiology. Institutions: USC, UWM, Dallas College, Tarrant County College. Presented at The Brain Foundation Annual Symposium. August 22-25, 2025. A plethora of triggers can induce oxidative stress. Whether it is related to emotional stress, birth stress, ionizing radiation, non-ionizing radiation (cell phones), or cosmic radiation, high altitude hypoxia, parasites (both tropical and temperate zone) all causes have likely become more prevalent in the last 45 years. Our human body still has to deal with traditional oxidative stress triggers, like bacterial and viral infections as well as accidents. A review of literature indicates that many researchers have confirmed that oxidative stress (OS) not only correlates with neurological disease but may cause disease. (1,2,4). While many individuals that undergo oxidative stress may escape the cellular damage or death which leads to a disorder, it seems to be determined quite often by the activity of HIF (Hypoxia Inducible Factor) (3). The oxidative stress created by mitochondrial dysfunction can affect gene expression and development of the immature brain (20, 21). Oxidative Stress causes are numerous, especially given the changes in lifestyle during the last 45 years. The focus of this paper is the prevention of disease by safeguarding against the triggers of OS detailed in this review. Prospective parents and especially mature adults should become familiar with OS causes and make their best effort to reduce the risk of OS during pregnancy for the mother, in the child post birth, and adults as they age. Testing for OS during illness or testing routinely is a reasonable screen to perform, as detailed in this Pilot Study. Hydrogen Peroxide is a ROS (reactive oxygen species which accompanies OS and inflammation (13,14, 20, 21, 23) and maybe an easy in-home test to perform for a cost of approximately 45 cents per test! Hydrogen Peroxide toxicity is being studied internationally in relationship to DNA mutation and numerous chronic diseases. Harvest saliva with a pipette. Apply to a test strip until saturated. Wait one minute and compare any color change to the chart provided. More than .3 ppm requires immediate medical attention. Color chart measures may vary by manufacturer, so I regard any color change post application as a medical emergency. For more information, bibliographies, and updates on the research, email the author at lockmtm@gmail.com

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 and health advocate. At sufficiently high exposure levels, RF energy can heat biological tissue and cause harm. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). 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 an individual/parent/grandparent. Because EMF radiation has affected me so greatly for so many years I have been researching the damages it causes for the past 6 years. I have read 4 books on it ("EMF'd", "Radiation Nation", "Unplug", and "The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMF Radiation"), plus newsletters and articles from multiple sources. Here is my story: *I first noticed the problem in 2017 when a SmartMeter was installed right outside our bedroom window without our permission. That started disrupting my sleep greatly (couldn't get to sleep at all) so I had to start sleeping in the only bedroom that was not against that wall. *That helped somewhat but then I noticed that something was making my heart race. That is when I started studying the work of Martin Pall about how magnesium would help because it counteracts the VGCC’s (Voltage Gated Calcium Channels) that EMF’s open up. That eliminated the racing heart part as long as I didn't go near any source of EMF radiation after 5:00 p.m. *Then I started waking up every 2 hrs. to go to the bathroom. So my husband and I started turning off our WiFi at night. As long as the WiFi was turned off I could at least go back to sleep each time but waking up every 2 hours is not normal sleep! *It has been that way for the past 8 years until a month ago when I re-discovered something I learned from Dr. Mercola's book "EMF'd": Using molecular hydrogen water has had a PROFOUND effect on my sleep because it stimulates the Nrf2 pathway to neutralize free radicals that can lead to oxidative stress. Apparently my sleep problems were mostly due to the oxidative stress that EMF’s create. Now I only wake up once during the night! Yay! My husband’s story: *My husband used to have night terrors because he was sleeping against the wall where the SmartMeter is. He now sleeps with his head at the foot of the bed and that helped tremendously. He also recently had a mild stroke (called TIA) and the only cause we could trace it back to since he exercises, eats extremely healthy, takes multiple high-quality supplements, his blood work is perfect, we never put our cell phones up to our ears, and we have protective Defender Shield covers on our cell phones, is that: (a) his CPAP machine had been transmitting EMF's (we now use Airplane mode); (b) he had been doing consulting work in front of a computer for hours each day for 6 months; (c) his new hearing aids (purchased last year) had Bluetooth capability so he no longer uses that feature! I have learned from my research that EMF’s can cause blood clots and that oxidative stress can cause strokes! *Other stories from friends & loved ones: kids at school who say that they get terrible headaches after reading at school from an iPad for 3 or more hours each day, or kids who keep waking up during the night since there is an Alexa device near their head. One family friend was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 50 because she worked in front of a computer for 8 hours each day, and then at home she played on her cell phone a lot. Now her diagnosis is that her entire frontal lobe is gone! 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.

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from knowing something is happening in your body and repeatedly being told that there is no explanation. I know what it feels like to seek help because something does not feel right, explain what I am experiencing, ask questions, and hope someone will look beyond the surface. Instead, I kept encountering the same thing: a diagnosis of the symptoms, but not an investigation into the environment. I was looking for answers about exposure. I was looking for someone to take seriously the possibility that environmental electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency exposure could be relevant to what I was experiencing and I was looking for someone to consider the same question for EVERYONE BRINING THIS TO LIGHT. As energetic beings we can be incredibly sensitive to our surroundings, and as a mother, I cannot simply dismiss what I observe in my own children. As a DNM, I understand the human body is a biological and electrical system, and I’m no longer going to stay quiet for the sake of those who simply repeat paid-for, memorized scripts that fail to address the root cause. I did not expect everyone to automatically agree with me. WHAT I EXPECTED WAS INVESTIGATION. "Let's measure it." "Let's document the exposure." "Let's look at the frequencies, duration, distance, and intensity." "Let's compare what is happening in your environment with what you are experiencing." Instead, too often, the conversation ends at the diagnosis. A diagnosis tells you what your body is doing. It does not necessarily tell you WHY. I have gone directly to scientific and public-health literature because I do not want my concerns based solely on fear, social media, or personal opinion. The World Health Organization acknowledges electromagnetic fields as a widespread environmental exposure and states that research into possible long-term effects continues. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B) in 2011. That does not establish that cell towers cause cancer, and I recognize that current scientific evidence does not establish that ordinary wireless exposure causes every symptom people attribute to it. I am NOT asking anyone to accept an unproven conclusion. I AM ASKING WHY THE QUESTION IS NOT BEING PROPERLY INVESTIGATED. What are the actual measured exposure levels? What frequencies are present? What are the peak exposures? How far are people from transmitting equipment? What other RF sources contribute to the total environmental exposure? How often are these measurements independently verified? And most importantly: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PERSON REPORTS SYMPTOMS THAT THEY BELIEVE CORRESPOND WITH A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT? DO WE INVESTIGATE or simply assign another diagnosis and send that person home? My greatest concern is not theoretical. IT IS FAMILIES WELL BEING. I want OUR environment evaluated. I want objective measurements. I want qualified professionals to look at the complete picture, not just one organ system, one laboratory result, or one diagnosis. I want environmental medicine, conventional medicine, toxicology, physics, and other relevant disciplines to sit at the same table and examine the evidence together. If there is nothing harmful happening, OBJECTIVE TESTING SHOULD HELP DEMONSTRATE THAT. And if there is something we have not adequately understood yet, then we need the courage to discover it. I do not want to frighten parents. I do not want to make claims that cannot be substantiated. I WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN. I WANT ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN SOMEONE IS SICK. I WANT MEASUREMENTS INSTEAD OF ASSUMPTIONS. I WANT INVESTIGATION INSTEAD OF DISMISSAL. I want doctors to be willing to say, "We don't know yet." Because "we don't know, so let's investigate" is how science moves forward. OUR body deserves to be heard. Families deserve access to objective information. We should be able to ask questions without being ridiculed. We should be able to request objective environmental measurements. We should be able to investigate patterns of symptoms. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS A CONNECTION, EXAMINE IT. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES A CONNECTION, ACCEPT IT. BUT WE CANNOT DISCOVER THE TRUTH BY REFUSING TO INVESTIGATE THE QUESTION. People deserve more than a label. THEY DESERVE AN EXPLANATION. Our children deserve our attention. And our communities deserve a serious, evidence-based conversation about the environments in which people are expected to live, learn, work, and grow.

I became aware of emf's after being diagnosed with mold illness, then later a rare auto immune disease that photosensitivity is a common symptom off. It may be multiple forms of radiation sensitivity and/or visible light. Blue light also impacts health and skin. I lost my insurance license worked so hard to get because I could not work on phone and pc without effects on skin. I can no longer work or fly and even car travel by so many towers causes issues. I follow many sites that have done scientific experiments on the effects and heard that China requires pregnant women to cover their bellies to protect unborn. Other countries much stricter guidelines especially for children, while we just keep adding towers near schools. Remember don't stand in front of the microwave? Now we wear them and siti in frot of the radiation many hours a day. And we wonder why the unhealthiest of all time?

I am submitting this comment because I am deeply concerned about the potential health effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the lack of adequate consideration given to families who believe they have experienced negative effects from increased exposure. This is not an abstract issue for our family. We have personally experienced health concerns that have caused us to question whether our environment and cumulative exposure to wireless technologies and other sources of electromagnetic radiation may be contributing factors. Watching changes in our family's health and well-being has made me increasingly concerned about how little we know about the potential long-term effects of continuous, 24-hour exposure. What concerns me most is that exposure is no longer limited to occasional use of a cell phone or a single electronic device. Wireless signals are now present throughout our homes, schools, workplaces, vehicles, and communities. Children in particular can be exposed for many hours every day, beginning at a very young age. Families deserve to know that these exposures have been adequately studied, particularly with respect to long-term and cumulative exposure. I am not asking the government to dismiss technology or eliminate wireless communication. I am asking for a precautionary approach and for greater transparency, independent research, and meaningful consideration of the concerns being raised by families. Research should continue to examine potential effects of chronic, low-level exposure, including effects that may not be immediately apparent. At a minimum, families should have access to clear, unbiased information about EMF exposure and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure, especially for children. Government agencies should also continue to support truly independent research rather than relying solely on studies or standards that may not adequately address today's level of continuous exposure. Our family should not have to wonder whether the technology surrounding us could be contributing to health problems. We deserve better answers. I respectfully ask that you take these concerns seriously, support additional independent research, and apply a precautionary approach when establishing policies and exposure standards that affect the health of our families and future generations.

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.

Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/12/1207 "Results Children without emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 7 years, but who had cellphone exposures, had increased odds of emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 11 years..." ... "These results did not materially change when early adopters were excluded, or when children with emotional and behavioural difficulties at age 7 years were included in the analysis." Is it EMF? Screens? Software usage? EMF could play a role.

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 an active citizen in her eighties who lives alone and has recently recognized and is attempting to protect herself from EMF exposure harms, and who wishes to help spread the word about our societies need to protect citizens especially children from this growing toxin, I have lived with a modern wifi unit (Sonic) in my home for five years, and with an earlier generation of wifi (AT&T) for many years before that. In March 2026 after my yearly blood test, my nutritionist said that the pattern of change in my HbA1c test indicated likelihood of high EMF exposure. For the past 10 years since I've been her client the results have stayed between 5.2 and 5.4. Abruptly this past year it moved up to 5.7, the first number in the pre-diabetic category. As I said to her, I have not significantly changed my diet (no grains or refined sugar, lots of low starch veggies, some berries and citrus, grass-fed and finished meat, pastured eggs, fish). She recommended hard-wiring my computer and getting rid of wi-fi, which I have done. (I do not own a cell phone, smart or otherwise.) It's a distinct relief to not be bathing in wi-fi any more. I've long had tinnitus, which while not vanishing is much reduced, and I sleep better. I do think I may also be impacted by involuntary sources of EMF, namely cell towers and antennas. My nutritionist did a search and found about 2300 antennas and 1900 towers within a 3 mile radius of my house. I do have an EMF meter, and though the extremely high counts in my home are gone (they were in the millions), it still reads higher than 10 in my bedroom. So I am thinking of getting a bed canopy. I do look forward to the results of my next A1c test, hoping to see the numbers lower. I am very concerned about the effects of EMF on our human body health as well as impacts on animals, birds and insects, especially bees. The FCC has only measured the thermal impacts of RF, and that no more recently than 1996. For heaven's sake, there has been no attempt by the FCC to keep up with health impacts of cell phones and RF/EMF development since the pre-flip phone era! This seems a deliberate avoidance of the probable biological impacts on our cells and organs. We are after all electromagnetic beings. Much research has been done on this. Please look up Paul Heroux' work, published February 2026, on EMF and the development of diabetes. I strongly 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.