Reproduction & pregnancy

Hi. I am a sovereign American citizen who is concerned about the effects of people’s health from these radiation devices. Why is it for many years America was the only country who refused to test study the radioactivity? It has been a proven fact that Bee hives are destroyed that are in close proximity of the frequencies so what does it do to people? The animals respond to it, they even sense they are bad. Do you think you and your loved ones will be protected from the health problems like headaches, miscarriage's, tumors, cancer, and even death to name a few that this causes or do you plan on living in a underground bunker? I’m just asking because why would you want to expose yourself, or your family or anyone to the damage they cause. Look at how plants and trees act around them…. That side of the tree dies. Seeds will barely grow. If it does this to living plants it will do the same to us. No one will be immune to the effects including you. Think wisely

I am a Medical Doctor and I treat patients with ElectromagneticHypersensitivity, (EHS). From a fireman sleeping only 60 feet from a cell tower in the firestation, after 13 years, he developed a brain tumor that needed surgery and then a shunt, he developed insomnia and anxiety, he became infertile with a very low sperm count, he got depressed and confused, all thought to be from cell tower non-ionizing radiation exposure.

After I got married, we moved into a townhome that was a couple hundred feet from a 5G tower. The Wi-Fi installers installed the Wi-Fi router in our bedroom and we had no idea that that was not recommended so we were sleeping with a literally by our heads for the four years that we lived in this house. Soon after getting married, we got pregnant. My first pregnancy was very difficult. I had placental insufficiency and my baby was born via induction at 37 weeks because my placenta was failing her. We did genetic testing and never found a reason for an extremely small placenta. She was luckily diagnosed with IUGR in utero and we were tracking her consistently so we caught that she was in distress in the womb and saved her via urgent induction. For my second pregnancy. We kept an eye on his weight as well, just in case, and halfway through the pregnancy, he completely stopped growing. He came spontaneously at 37 weeks exactly and my placenta was a more average size, but both babies were around 5 pounds with no health or genetic indication as to why that should have happened. After our second baby was born, we moved to a different state and chose a house that was not near a 5G or cell tower. We also installed the Wi-Fi router as far away from the bedrooms as possible. Soon after moving, we got pregnant with our third child. I didn't change anything significant about my health and we still have received no answers from doctors as to why my placenta could have been insufficient for my previous pregnancies, but we trusted God with a third. To our shock, our third baby grew at a completely normal curve and hit every milestone of growth all throughout the pregnancy. Although he was born at 37 weeks as well, he was over 7 pounds at birth! His placenta was perfectly normal and he continues to be our most average size child. The only thing we can attribute the differences in my baby sizes and placenta health is environment - specifically the 5G tower we were living within a stones throw from. I can't wait to see more progress made in awareness and safety precautions of EMF exposure during pregnancy!!!

I was Scientific Director and Scientific Advisor of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna until 2023, now retired. From 1981 to 2001, I worked closely with Professor Cesare Maltoni, an internationally renowned oncologist; then I was Scientific Director of the same Institute. I am expert in the study of agents that can determine cancers and other environmental pathologies; among them ionizing radiation, low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). I paid particular attention to the issue of the risks related to simultaneous exposure even to small doses of chemicals or physical agents, alone or associated to multiple exposures, especially during embryonic and foetal life, as well as in childhood. I am the principal investigator of the RF-EMF large study performed by the Ramazzini Institute since 2006 up to the publication of data. We published the results of the carcinogenicity study in 2018 (Falcioni et al, 2018)1, when the US NIEHS/NTP technical report on RF-EMF (NTP, 2018)2 was also published. And, surprisingly, using the same experimental model, we obtained the same results: a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas and an increase in brain gliomas (statistically significant in the NTP study). We studied very low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels, simulating human exposures to radio base station antennas, the NTP studied SAR much higher, and in this case the exposure responses were higher. The two studies were evaluated in the systematic review commissioned by WHO (Mavissen et al, 2025)3 , which concludes.: “The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” Based on the experimental results cited, and due to the enormous diffusion of radio frequency technologies, I am strongly and scientifically convinced that in assessing risks to the human population, policy makers must at least adopt a principle of caution by lowering exposure to limits compatible with the health of thI was Scientific Director and Scientific Advisor of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna until 2023, now retired. From 1981 to 2001, I worked closely with Professor Cesare Maltoni, an internationally renowned oncologist; then I was Scientific Director of the same Institute. I am expert in the study of agents that can determine cancers and other environmental pathologies; among them ionizing radiation, low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). I paid particular attention to the issue of the risks related to simultaneous exposure even to small doses of chemicals or physical agents, alone or associated to multiple exposures, especially during embryonic and foetal life, as well as in childhood. I am the principal investigator of the RF-EMF large study performed by the Ramazzini Institute since 2006 up to the publication of data. We published the results of the carcinogenicity study in 2018 (Falcioni et al, 2018)1, when the US NIEHS/NTP technical report on RF-EMF (NTP, 2018)2 was also published. And, surprisingly, using the same experimental model, we obtained the same results: a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas and an increase in brain gliomas (statistically significant in the NTP study). We studied very low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels, simulating human exposures to radio base station antennas, the NTP studied SAR much higher, and in this case the exposure responses were higher. The two studies were evaluated in the systematic review commissioned by WHO (Mavissen et al, 2025)3 , which concludes.: “The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” Based on the experimental results cited, and due to the enormous diffusion of radio frequency technologies, I am strongly and scientifically convinced that in assessing risks to the human population, policy makers must at least adopt a principle of caution by lowering exposure to limits compatible with the health of the exposed population, practically the entire population of the globe. See attached file(s)

While EMFs affect all ages, children are uniquely vulnerable and deserve special consideration. They are exposed to wireless radiation at increasingly young ages, often beginning during pregnancy and continuing throughout childhood and adulthood in their homes, schools, communities, and workplaces. The widespread use of screens and wireless devices has become normalized and encouraged, while questions about hazardous, long-term and cumulative exposure effects remain routinely ignored by federal regulatory agencies and government authorities. The FCC’s current RF exposure guidelines were established in 1996 and are fundamentally flawed and outdated. Wireless technology and infrastructure has exploded since the guidelines were introduced, and yet the industry has actively suppressed the extensive body of scientific literature that clearly demonstrates harm to people and the environment. Furthermore, federal regulatory agencies have yet to demonstrate to the public that the FCC’s decades-old RF exposure guidelines adequately protect children, other vulnerable populations and the environment from the risks of exposure. Rather than continuing to dramatically expand population-wide wireless radiation exposure, we should exercise a precautionary approach when it comes to wireless and take this opportunity to thoroughly examine the current state of scientific literature and conduct new studies that appropriately consider the long-term consequences of ubiquitous and cumulative exposure to current and future wireless environments. That means supporting independent research into the health and developmental effects of RF radiation, particularly the effects on children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, it is equally critical that federal regulatory agencies are transparent about the body of scientific literature that is used to establish exposure standards, and must ensure that they are based on biologically-relevant models. This scientific literature must be independent of industry influence and any entity that has a financial interest in continued wireless deployment. It is of utmost importance that HHS and other public health agencies play a central role in evaluating the evidence and identifying where research gaps remain. We must not allow yet another generation of children to be harmed by the effects of wireless radiation. For the sake of our children and their future, we must consider independent science, exercise transparency, and implement the necessary protections to make safer, and more responsible decisions about the wireless environment in which they are growing up. I urge HHS to prioritize rigorous, independent, and transparent research into the health and developmental effects of wireless radiation, particularly for children and other vulnerable populations. As wireless technologies become increasingly embedded in our daily lives, we have a responsibility to ensure that their widespread use is guided by sound science and accompanied by safeguards that fully protect children’s health and development.

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.

EMF exposure is very concerning because the health effects are not being considered. My daughters have been dealing with anxiety which we believe is linked to the amount of wireless they are exposed to at school. My father carried his cell phone in his shirt chest pocket and developed arrythmias causing him to need a pacemaker placed. There are many documented health risks from wireless exposure. I believe Germany and now France have been taking these issues more seriously. In France they banned wireless from schools. Our safety limits are too high since documented health effects occur at much lower levels. Children especially are in a mass experiment... the increase in childhood cancers, miscarrages, tyrbo cancers, colon cancer in young adults (where do young kids/adults carry cellphone? In pocket) need to be considered. Something like 50% of teens or more facing anxiety (my daughters have very high anxiety and I believe there is a connection) Clearly need to consider not placing towers in neighboorhoods with family homes or apartments or near schools, parks and playgrounds.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment. I absolutely oppose the 2-way wireless radiation emitting smart meters and digital meters that have been forced on Americans’ homes, including mine. Additionally I am very concerned about increasing levels of other sources of electromagnetic radiation and how exposure will affect all Americans, especially my family, as well as the enviroment. Over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated serious adverse health effects from the wireless radiation coming from our cell phones, cell towers, and "Smart" meters radiating our homes 24/7. This includes DNA damage, infertility and reproductive damage, cardiac effects and arrest, neurological conditions (anxiety, depression, Alzheimers), immune system dysfunction, and cancer. Environmental Health Trust provides a list of scientific evidence on this webpage that I am including with my submission. https://ehtrust.org/send-science-to-the-fcc-govt-is-asking-for-evidence-you-can-help-now/ The FCC was sued in 2021 for failing to update their safety guidelines for human exposure limits that were established in 1996 when we were using 2G wireless technologies, not the 4G and 5G we have today. The lawsuit was successful, but now over 5 years later the FCC still has not responded to the court and is refusing to regulate the Telecoms. The reality is NO ONE is measuring our cumulative daily human exposure of EMF “electrosmog” coming from all of our current sources of wireless radiation including 4G/5G “mega” towers, 5G small cells, and the EMF pulsing Smart meters attached to our homes. https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/ Because I am aware of the health risks, I have tried my best to create a safe healthy environment in my home. We do not have WIFI in our home and haven't for years. Instead we use hard-wired internet. We kindly ask anyone entering our home to please turn off their Cellular Data, Bluetooth, and WIFI on their phones and tablets as my husband and I do the same when we are in our home. Rarely do we need to use the internet on our phones but if we do, we do it quickly and away from our son and then once we are done, we make sure to turn it back off, immediately. We have asked our neighbors to apply faraday cages on their utility meters and they gladly obliged. We take all these measures, and I could go on listing more, because we are aware of the dangers. We do the best we can, to control what we can, knowing once we leave our house, it's a battle zone of cell towers and cell phones. I ask that HHS do everything in its power to better protect Americans from increasing sources of “electrosmog.”

I am writing as a psychologist – and as an individual concerned about the health of myself and others. Today we are exposed to massive amounts of frequencies to which we are biologically not adapted through our prior millions of years of evolution. The impacts on our health and wellbeing are many. Psychologically, common manifestations include increases in depression, anxiety, ADHD, learning disabilities and cognitive decline. Brain development and function is affected prenatally and onward throughout life, particularly with repeated and prolonged exposures. The entire nervous system, which strongly influences virtually every bodily function, is disrupted and compromised. See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923024002247. Cell towers in particular are associated with increases in DNA damage, blood-cell abnormalities, compromised immeunity and cancer. (https://www.ehn.org/cell-tower-radiation-health-effects) Additional symptoms of exposure (which can adversely affect health and personal functioning over time) may include headaches and disturbed sleep. Even the devices we use as individuals are hazardous, giving us additional, targeted exposure to abnormal electromagnetic fields.

I request a comprehensive, independent evaluation of the potential health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from wireless technologies, particularly for children, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and communities near wireless infrastructure. As cell towers, small-cell antennas, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and mobile devices become increasingly widespread, public health protections must keep pace. HHS should assess whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term, cumulative exposure and potentially vulnerable populations. 1. Cancer and long-term exposure I urge HHS to review evidence concerning RF-EMF exposure and cancer, including brain tumors and childhood cancers. Research should consider exposure duration, intensity, frequency, age at first exposure, and proximity to transmitting infrastructure. HHS should distinguish established findings from unresolved questions and identify gaps requiring further long-term research. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm in one exposure scenario should not be interpreted as proof that all scenarios have been adequately studied. 2. Pregnancy, birth defects, and fetal development I request an evaluation of human and experimental evidence concerning RF-EMF exposure and miscarriage, congenital abnormalities, fetal growth, premature birth, and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research should account for confounding factors, accurately assess exposure, and clearly explain limitations. Pregnant women deserve transparent, evidence-based guidance on known risks, uncertainties, and reasonable exposure-reduction measures. 3. Children’s brain development Children warrant particular consideration because their brains and nervous systems are developing and their potential exposure may span decades. HHS should prioritize research into possible effects on neurological development, cognition, memory, attention, learning, behavior, and sleep. Studies should distinguish prenatal, childhood, and adolescent exposure and examine cumulative exposure from multiple sources. Long-term studies using objective exposure measurements, appropriate comparison groups, and independent oversight are essential. 4. Setback distances from schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, and homes HHS should evaluate whether minimum separation distances or additional siting safeguards are scientifically justified for cell towers, small-cell antennas, rooftop antennas, and other wireless infrastructure near schools, daycares, hospitals, maternity facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Specifically, HHS should: * Review studies linking proximity to transmitting infrastructure with health outcomes, accounting for measured exposure and antenna characteristics. * Compare U.S. exposure standards and siting practices with international standards and precautionary policies. * Evaluate cumulative exposure from multiple transmitters. * Consider additional protections for children, pregnant women, neonatal units, and other potentially vulnerable populations. * Recommend pre-installation assessments and independent post-installation exposure measurements, with results publicly accessible. * Determine whether minimum setbacks are justified and, if so, recommend distances appropriate to the facility type and exposure conditions. I recognize that distance alone does not determine exposure. Nevertheless, HHS should explicitly evaluate whether distance-based protections are warranted. Where evidence is insufficient, the agency should identify research gaps and consider proportionate precautionary measures while further studies are conducted. 5. Review of current exposure standards HHS should assess whether current U.S. RF exposure limits adequately address prolonged exposure, realistic living conditions, multiple simultaneous sources, and different stages of human development. The review should distinguish established effects from possible effects under investigation and findings that have not been consistently replicated. Compliance testing should reflect realistic conditions in homes, schools, workplaces, and healthcare facilities. 6. Independent research and transparency HHS should prioritize rigorous, independently funded research with transparent conflict-of-interest disclosures. Priorities should include cancer, reproductive outcomes, prenatal development, childhood neurological health, cumulative exposure, and the effectiveness of exposure-reduction and siting measures. HHS should publish its assessments, explain how conflicting findings are evaluated, and make results accessible to families, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments. Thank you for considering my comments.