Reproduction & pregnancy

'The number of studies showing adverse effects on living organisms induced by different types of man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased tremendously. Hundreds of peer reviewed published studies show a variety of effects, the most important being DNA damage which is linked to cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, reproductive declines etc. Those studies that are far more effective in showing effects employ real-life Mobile Telephony (MT) exposures emitted by commercially available mobile phones. The present review - of results published by my group from 2006 until 2016 - compares DNA fragmentation induced by six different EMFs on the same biological system - the oogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster - under identical conditions and procedures. Such a direct comparison between different EMFs - especially those employed in daily life - on the same biological endpoint, is very useful for drawing conclusions on their bioactivity, and novel. It shows that real MT EMFs are far more damaging than 50 Hz alternating magnetic field (MF) - similar or much stronger to those of power lines - or a pulsed electric field (PEF) found before to increase fertility. The MT EMFs were significantly more bioactive even for much shorter exposure durations than the other EMFs. Moreover, they were more damaging than previously tested cytotoxic agents like certain chemicals, starvation, dehydration. Individual parameters of the real MT EMFs like intensity, frequency, exposure duration, polarization, pulsing, modulation, are discussed in terms of their role in bioactivity. The crucial parameter for the intense bioactivity seems to be the extreme variability of the polarized MT signals, mainly due to the large unpredictable intensity changes. The number of published peer review studies showing DNA damage and related effects induced by Radio Frequency (RF)/microwave Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), especially by Mobile Telephony (MT) EMFs, on a variety of organisms/cell types under different experimental conditions is increased considerably in recent years [1–36], in spite of attempts to dispute some of them [37–39]. Specifically, the damage on reproductive cells of different animals found in several of the above studies explains other findings connecting microwave EMF exposure with insect, bird, and mammalian (including human) infertility [40–48], or reduction in bird and insect (especially bees) populations during the past 10–15 years [49–53]. The effects on DNA and reproduction reported by different labs on a variety of animals demonstrate a remarkable similarity. For example, Sharma and Kumar [47] found a large decrease in reproduction (egg laying) of bees after exposure to mobile phone radiation, which was identically observed before in fruit flies [15,16,41,42] and birds [49–51]. The recorded decreased reproduction is strongly corroborated by very similar effects in amphibians [54,55], rats [17,46], and human sperm [44]. This unique similarity of effects in different organisms found by different research groups can be explained by the observed cell death induction in reproductive cells due to DNA damage found for Drosophila ovarian cells [15,16], human sperm cells [22], mice and rat sperm cells [10,17], and chick embryos [36]. It is evident that such a similarity of findings is not a coincidence. It is important to note that the exposure levels in the majority of the above studies were below the officially accepted exposure limits [56] and only in a few of them [4–6,13] they were slightly exceeding these limits.' [...] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331661949_Comparing_DNA_Damage_Induced_by_Mobile_Telephony_and_Other_Types_of_Man-Made_Electromagnetic_Fields

insect-pollinated agriculture is about 35% of food crops and include nuts; microwave and cellular/wifi frequencies decrease insect reproduction rates and 5G additionally occurs at a millimeter and centimeter wavelength which can cook insects of that size (and cells) due to a resonance effect. 'A shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%. This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 'Microwave radiation is known to kill insects and is already being used for insect control in stored grains and other foods. Studies in food and agriculture literature confirm this effect. (Yadav 2014) (Das 2013) (Geveke 2009) (Ponomaryova 2009) (Zhejiang 2004) (Geveke 2003) (Mishenko 2000)' https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/ 'Sharma and Kumar [47] found a large decrease in reproduction (egg laying) of bees after exposure to mobile phone radiation, which was identically observed before in fruit flies [15,16,41,42] and birds [49–51]. The recorded decreased reproduction is strongly corroborated by very similar effects in amphibians [54,55], rats [17,46], and human sperm [44]. This unique similarity of effects in different organisms found by different research groups can be explained by the observed cell death induction in reproductive cells due to DNA damage found for Drosophila ovarian cells [15,16], human sperm cells [22], mice and rat sperm cells [10,17], and chick embryos [36]. It is evident that such a similarity of findings is not a coincidence.' https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331661949_Comparing_DNA_Damage_Induced_by_Mobile_Telephony_and_Other_Types_of_Man-Made_Electromagnetic_Fields

We had a cell tower put up less then a mile from our house we were not aware of this when we bought our house it just appeared one day! We were trying to conceive our second at the time and had no trouble getting pregnant with our first! So it was such a sad time when we had two miscarriages back to back, and I believe the cell towers had somthing to do with it!

I moved into a home right across the street from a 5G cell tower over 2 years ago. Prior to moving here I got pregnant easily with no complications and had a healthy baby. Since living here I have had recurring miscarriages with no medical explanation. EMFs in and around my house are extremely high. I have no proof that my infertility is related to the cell tower, but it is the only lifestyle change I have made.

Response to Request for Information (RFI) on Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Health Due Date: October 21, 2026 Today’s Date: October 20, 2026 Dear Secretary and Review Committee, Thank you for opening this Request for Information. As someone who cares deeply about preventative health and public safety, I am relieved to see HHS stepping up to investigate the true human toll of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless radiation. For too long, federal agencies have looked the other way while chronic illnesses, neurological complaints, and reproductive issues have risen alongside the massive rollout of wireless infrastructure. As an individual managing the health of my household, I notice that many people in my community suffer from unexplained headaches, chronic fatigue, and sleep disruptions that improve noticeably when they distance themselves from high-EMF environments. I am asking HHS to lead with the precautionary principle and look closely at the peer-reviewed evidence regarding these specific priority areas: 1. Oxidative Stress and Chronic Disease: A staggering 91% of peer-reviewed radiofrequency radiation studies summarized by the BioInitiative Working Group found that low-intensity RF radiation induces severe oxidative damage. Oxidative stress is a well-known precursor to systemic inflammation, immune system deregulation, and chronic illness. 2. Reproductive Harm and Genotoxicity: Studies mapping out EMF exposure on human health have repeatedly demonstrated adverse effects on fertility, including altered parameters of sperm function, genotoxic damage, and increased risks of miscarriage. 3. The Threat of Cumulative Neighborhood Exposure: With the unmitigated density of 5G small cells and smart meters placed directly outside bedroom windows, the public is subjected to inescapable, continuous exposure. The concordance between the National Toxicology Program's finding of malignant tumors in rodents and the epidemiological data of human brain tumors cannot be ignored. HHS has a binding duty to protect human health over corporate interests. Please use your agency's authority to establish a transparent, multi-disciplinary task force to create real, health-protective federal exposure limits. Sincerely, Marcia Keizer Yelm, Washington

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, infertility and more! I am crying out: stop this madness now! It's been 30 years in the making but we now have an unprecedented short window with both the Federal Communications Commission AND Health and Human Services to build the public record and document the fallout.

Perspective I am submitting as an individual, a parent, and a family caregiver. I am also a public school teacher of 14 years. Experience Our home is within sight of commercial radio broadcast towers. Soon after we moved in, I suddenly developed significant metabolic dysfunction and systemic inflammation that no doctor has been able to resolve while we live here. This is not lifestyle. I eat as clean as possible, am extremely active, and changed nothing about my diet or lifestyle when these problems began. Both of my pregnancies were in this home. In my first, I had major complications during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum, and my child was born with significant birth defects requiring multiple surgeries. In my second, lab work confirmed metabolic and hormonal problems that affected my child's development and birth, and I again had major complications. These were not random or unexplained. These are all known issues from non-native EMF exposure from the broadcast towers and nearby power lines. After my first child's birth, a cellular antenna was installed about half a mile from our home, mounted on power lines. We received no notice and could find no public registration or record of it. We only knew it existed by seeing it. After it was installed, my postpartum recovery worsened. My metabolic and hormonal problems increased, my migraines got worse, and I developed slow wound healing. Many of these reflect impaired cellular repair, including autophagy, mitophagy, and overnight repair. My metabolic problems and inflammation continue to increase, raising my long-term risk of serious disease, including cancer. My husband has always been extremely healthy and active and still plays sports as an adult. Even so, his bloodwork now shows changes in his cholesterol patterns and markers associated with heart disease risk. Neither of us changed our diet, lifestyle, or anything else that would explain this. We both had the same bloodwork changes in the same month, right after the antenna was installed. My doctor has told me we have done everything we can medically, and since my health is not improving, we need to move. We are being forced to move, at significant financial cost, solely because of these health problems, which my doctor has confirmed are caused by our non-native EMF exposure. We are especially concerned for our infant and toddler, whose brains are developing every day they spend in this home. Placement Cell antennas, broadcast towers, and similar installations should not be placed near homes at all. Notice is not enough. It leaves families like ours with one option: to keep moving at our own expense. Many residents also do not know the risks, so they cannot protect themselves or their children. Every installation, including antennas on power lines or utility poles, should be listed in a searchable public registry. We had no notice, no say, and no record we could find. Surveillance There is nowhere for families to report experiences like ours. HHS should create a reporting system for health effects near wireless infrastructure, power lines, and broadcast towers, and study clusters of pregnancy complications, birth outcomes, and metabolic and cardiovascular changes near these sources. Sensitive populations, children, and schools Exposure assessment should be different for pregnant women, infants, and children. Exposure during pregnancy not only affects the mother's health during and after pregnancy, but can cause irreversible damage to the developing baby. Children absorb more of this radiation than adults, as their brains are not yet fully myelinated, which impacts their neurological development. Proximity to homes, schools, and childcare facilities is the most important factor HHS should consider. As a teacher, I see how much exposure children have during the school day. Schools need clear regulations: no electric vehicle chargers on campus or near playgrounds, and no children seated near Wi-Fi routers. HHS should also evaluate combined exposure from multiple sources rather than each source alone. Request This is not only a question for further study. These installations are being placed near homes and schools without residents' knowledge, affecting our health and our homes. Many families cannot afford to move. Others, like mine, only learn the consequences after serious harm has happened. I ask HHS to establish that these installations cannot be placed near homes, schools, childcare facilities, or playgrounds, to require a public registry of all installations, and to set clear limits on exposure in schools.

I have always worked in an office using PC's and then Laptops. I think my intolerance/symptoms to RF/EMF began when a Mobile phone signal booster was installed a few feet above my desk in an open plan office, but I didn't realise until a few years later. Around the same time, we had high power Fibre Optic Wi-Fi installed at home (we previously had no Wi-Fi at home). We also had boosters around the house using the electric wiring. Within weeks of the Wi-Fi installation I noticed I had Tinnitus (when at home only). I also noticed all my family seemed vaguely unwell, nothing serious just like a low-level virus that never cleared up, I didn't relate this to the Wi-Fi until my mother had the same system installed at her house a year or so later. She started getting horrible headaches and felt constantly under the weather. We both started to feel a burning/ringing on the left side of our head (around the ear). I began to notice if I worked in an office with 20/30 people in it and various Wi-Fi routers my head started to tingle (like little electric shocks across it) and these carried on after I went home, then would go away overnight. During this time, I started to suffer with bouts of uncontrollable anxiety (I had never had anxiety before) and feelings of impending doom. I had 3 miscarriages and irregular painful periods. I developed IBS, now if I turn my mobile phone on to Data or my laptop on in the morning, I suddenly need to go to the toilet, this doesn't happen on days I don't use my phone/laptop. I can still use my laptop for work but use plastic fibre optic connectors, I cannot just use ethernet cables. I still get tingly fingers where I hold the mouse and if I work for too long or watch videos, I start to feel nausea (like motion sickness). We no longer have Wi-Fi at home and have been able to convince my employers that I need to work from home. If I spend too long in the shops or in a pub, I start to feel very uneasy, with a tight chest and palpitations, my skin starts to go very red and feels like it's on fire. When home I unable to sleep for hours no matter how tired I am and my legs won't stop jumping. Sometimes I then vomit the next morning. It’s a pretty grim existence for both me and my family, very few people believe it’s real. But I’m not the sort of person who enjoys being ill or wants attention, I just want to be normal again. To go out and to go on holiday's again. Thanks for reading.

https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec19_2012_Fetal_neonatal_effects_EMF.pdf Pregnant women with laptops close to their belly receive more EMF for the child than safety limits allow. But less so if the laptop is on a table. "Induced electric currents were estimated for both the pregnant woman and the fetus. Statistical values of the averaged current density were evaluated for body tissues including the body of the fetus, and the grey and white matter of the brain of the mother; the mother’s cerebellum, the mother’s cerebrospinal fluid and mother’s muscle tissue. In each case, the larger exposure was generated by the power supply rather than the laptop operation. Levels of induced current substantially exceeded ICNIRP public safety limits, assuming close proximity of the laptop to the belly of the pregnant woman (for the fetus, between 182% and 263.7% of the ICNIRP standard); and for the woman (between 346.7% and 483.5% of the ICNIRP standard). Simple measures to distance the laptop during use (placing it on a table or desk and not on the body of the user) will result in significant reduction of ELF-EMF exposure and induced electric current in both mother and fetus..." On how to reduce extremely low frequency EMF exposure in incubators. "To allow what is an essential medical intervention for the growing premature baby, or the sick infant who needs exceptional care following birth, at least two possible solutions to reduce ELF-EMF levels are:  Designing incubators with the motor far from the baby (some incubators already have adopted this measure) and  Using ELF-EMF absorbing panels to shield the baby’s body from emissions (like Mu metal)." ... Nurses get EMF near incubators. High EMF influences baby heart rate variability. "Another paper showed that nurses are also exposed to high EMF while working near incubators [ Bellieni, 2002]. Bellieni et al [2008] reported that the exposure to high electromagnetic fields can interfere with the sympathetic nervous system in altering babies’ heart rate variability. Heart rate variability (HRV) of 43 newborns in incubators was studied. HRV is an index of Autonomous Nervous System activity. The study group comprised 27 newborns whose HRV was studied throughout three 5-minute periods: 1) with incubator motor on, 2) with incubator off, and 3) with incubator on again, respectively. Mean HRV values obtained during each period were compared. The control group comprised 16 newborns but exposed to no source of ELF-EMF; they were exposed to changes in background noise similar to those provoked by the incubator motor (to reproduce the conditions of the first cohort). Mean total power and the high-frequency (HF) component of HRV increased significantly and the mean low-frequency (LF)/HF ratio decreased significantly when the incubator motor was turned off. Basal values were restored when incubators were turned on again. Changes in background noise did not provoke any significant change in HRV. We therefore concluded that ELF-EMFs produced by incubators influence newborns' HRV, showing an influence on their 8 autonomous nervous system. More research is needed to assess possible long-term consequences, since premature newborns may be exposed to these high ELF-EMFs for months." ... "Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits seem to be not sufficiently protective of public health, in particular for the young (embryo, fetus, neonate, very young child). The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified both ELF-EMF and RF EMF (wireless radiofrequency) as Possible Human Carcinogens (Group 2B). New, biologically-based public exposure standards are critically needed. Common sense measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RF EMF in these populations is needed, especially with respect to avoidable exposures like incubators that can be modified; and where education of the pregnant mother with respect to laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RF EMF are easily instituted. It is not in the public interest to wait: A precautionary approach may provide the frame for decision making where remediation actions have to be realized to prevent high exposures of children and pregnant woman."

913 pregnant women, 2.72 times higher chance of miscarriage with higher magnetic field exposure. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8 "Magnetic field (MF) non-ionizing radiation is widespread and everyone is exposed to some degree. This prospective cohort study of 913 pregnant women examined the association between high MF exposure and miscarriage risk. Cox (proportional hazards) regression was used to examine the association. After controlling for multiple other factors, women who were exposed to higher MF levels had 2.72 times the risk of miscarriage (hazard ratio = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.42–5.19) than those with lower MF exposure. The increased risk of miscarriage associated with high MF was consistently observed regardless of the sources of high MF. The association was much stronger if MF was measured on a typical day of participants’ pregnancies. The finding also demonstrated that accurate measurement of MF exposure is vital for examining MF health effects. This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that MF non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health."