Reproduction & pregnancy

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.

It is strongly suspected that regularly carrying a cell phone in one's back pocket results in colon cancer because of the radiation associated with your cell phone constantly checking for the closest cell tower when the phone is on. You would think the cell phone companies would only start checking for the closest tower when you make a call. See study below. Colon and rectal cancers – often called colorectal cancers – are the third most common cancers and the second leading cause of deaths from cancer across the globe.1 While they are usually found in older people, younger people have been increasingly affected over recent decades. Recently researchers suggested that this might have something to do with where people carry their mobile phones. In a paper presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology, De Kun Li reported the results of a study he and his team conducted on 100 volunteers. In it, he looked at the link between carrying a mobile phone below the waist and people’s risks of colorectal cancer.2 The results showed a clear association. People with the most hours of carrying mobile phones below their waists had over four times the risk of early onset colorectal cancer compared to people with the least hours. People who carried their mobile phones on the same side of their body on which their tumour was located had over 12 times the risk of early onset colorectal cancer. By contrast, people who carried their mobile phones on the opposite side of the body from the tumour had just over one and a half times the risk of early onset colorectal cancer. ‘A longer duration of cellphone carrying below the waist is associated with an increased risk of EOCRC [early onset colorectal cancer],’ the researchers said. They pointed out that carrying a mobile phone in a pocket causes ‘extensive exposure’ of the colon and rectum to radiofrequency radiation. How could this affect the body? The authors say that epithelial cells of the intestine are extremely sensitive to this radiation. For years, researchers have been advising men not to carry mobile phones in their pockets to avoid irradiating their testes, given the harmful effects of mobile phone radiation on sperm. The current study suggests this may be good advice – and not just for protecting men’s sperm. Colorectal cancer, 25 August 2024, ISEE 2024: 36th Annual Conference of the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology, Is Cellphone Carrying Below the Waist (Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation) Contributing to the Rapid Rise in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer?, De Kun Li, Jeannette Ferber, Andrew Hirst, Roxana Odouli, Charles Quesenberry, and Thoedore Levin, ISEE Conference Abstracts, Volume 2024, Issue 1.

I am a mother of three children. My middle child, has autism. When I was pregnant with him, I slept in a room with the WiFi router right next to my bed for my entire pregnancy. My son also slept in a bassinet in the same room near this WiFi router for the first year of his life. At the time I had no idea the negative effects of emf on the body and brain. I think research should look into how emf impacts a developing fetus and a child’s brain in the first year of life. I’m not sure whether this contributed to my sons autism, but if there is a link to autism it should be studied so future families know the risks.

**Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 — RF/EMF Exposure, Reproductive Health, Mitochondrial Function, and Emerging Wireless Technologies** **Questions 2–3: Personal Perspective** I am a 43-year-old woman experiencing unexplained infertility. For more than half my life, I have lived in metropolitan environments with extensive cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi networks, and wireless devices. Although I cannot establish that these exposures contributed to my infertility, I question whether the long-term biological consequences of widespread RF exposure have been adequately investigated, particularly regarding reproductive health, mitochondrial function, and developing children. **Questions 5, 6, and 11–12: Reproductive and Mitochondrial Health** I urge HHS to examine whether current RF exposure standards adequately address reproductive and developmental outcomes, including potential biological effects beyond tissue heating. A 2024 systematic review by Cordelli et al. identified potential adverse reproductive effects in experimental studies, although evidence remains uncertain. A 2024 review by Meyer et al. examined oxidative-stress biomarkers and found very low-certainty evidence. Mitochondrial function is fundamental to cellular energy production, fertility, and healthy development. I request independent studies investigating whether chronic RF exposure influences mitochondrial respiration, oxidative stress, egg and sperm quality, implantation, pregnancy outcomes, or childhood development. Research should prioritize women attempting conception, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and children, using objective measurements of real-world, cumulative exposure. **Question 13: 5G and Emerging 6G Technologies** Emerging 6G systems may use higher-frequency spectrum, including sub-terahertz frequencies, to support greater bandwidth and data capacity. Advanced beamforming and denser wireless infrastructure may also alter exposure patterns. Although higher frequency alone does not establish greater biological harm, expanding these technologies without adequate long-term biological research raises legitimate public health questions. I urge HHS to independently evaluate the biological implications of emerging frequencies and exposure patterns before widespread deployment wherever feasible, rather than assuming existing standards adequately address every new technology. **Questions 14–15: Environmental Health** Potential RF effects on pollinators, birds, plants, and other organisms also warrant investigation, particularly concerning reproduction, development, behavior, and ecosystem health. **Questions 9, 16–17: Federal Research Priorities** I respectfully request that HHS: 1. Fund independent, longitudinal studies examining fertility, pregnancy, childhood development, and mitochondrial function. 2. Investigate biological endpoints beyond tissue heating, including oxidative stress and cellular energy metabolism. 3. Measure realistic, cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources, accounting for frequency, intensity, duration, and proximity. 4. Establish transparent research priorities for 5G and 6G, with independent replication and disclosure of funding conflicts. 5. Provide accessible exposure data and evidence-based guidance to families seeking to minimize unnecessary exposure. **Conclusion** Technological advancement should be accompanied by equally rigorous public health research and accountability. As a woman struggling to conceive, I believe reproductive health, mitochondrial integrity, and the biological consequences of lifelong environmental exposure deserve serious federal attention. Scientific uncertainty should motivate independent investigation, transparent risk assessment, and reasonable precaution—not premature assurances of safety or unsupported claims of harm. **Selected References** Cordelli et al. (2024). *Environment International*, 185, 108509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108509 Meyer et al. (2024). *Environment International*, 194, 108940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108940

I am submitting this comment with my perspectives in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from several perspectives: as a software engineer with extensive experience working with technology and electronic systems; as a person who has experienced significant symptoms that I associate with exposure to electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation; and as a professional who has spent the past several years measuring and documenting electromagnetic field exposures in my home and other environments. In January of 2022 I eliminated wireless technologies completely from my personal environment and whenever feasible reduced or distanced myself from electric and magnetic emissions. These changes improved my health and allowed me to reengage with the world. Unfortunately, avoidance of wireless technologies required changes that permanently affected my career, family, and personal life. It is impossible to avoid being exposed to all wireless and electromagnetic emissions. Radio frequency exposures from sources which are not my own continue to aggravate my symptoms and limit my life. I don’t want to feel these symptoms anymore when doing normal things like working in an office, walking into a store with an overpowered mesh / wifi system, going to a concert, restaurant, bar, or visiting family or friends. Over the last few years, I learned more about detection, identification, measurement, and mitigation to electromagnetic emissions. My sister became a Building Biology Institute-certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist (EMRS). Together we develop practical methods for detecting, measuring, documenting, and reducing electromagnetic exposures. Using these strategies we have significantly improved my functionality and not only am I back at the computer, but I have developed a web application that shows electromagnetic emissions and measurement statistics spatially. I have become particularly concerned that consumers are uninformed about the specifications of a product’s wireless features and have limited or no control over those features. Technology will continue to develop faster than long-term health research and regulatory processes can reasonably keep pace with it. Additionally, the way RF exposure is evaluated does not always reflect the conditions people experience in their daily lives. I therefore encourage HHS to consider these particularly practical areas for regulatory and technology standards: Wireless devices should provide a genuine, user-accessible means of turning off wireless emissions, rather than merely hiding wireless functionality or placing a device into a mode in which emissions continue. Cellular phones should support calls and text messaging when the phone is connected through a wired Ethernet connection to a router, so that consumers who choose a wired network connection can use their phones for these functions without requiring an active wireless connection. Products should be required to display prominently on the packaging standardized consumer-facing RF exposure information, similar in concept to other standardized product information that allows consumers to compare products and make informed choices. the type, number, frequencies and transmission characteristics of a device; how to reduce unnecessary close-proximity exposure; how to use wired alternatives where available; how to disable wireless functions completely; whether a device continues transmitting while in standby or charging; whether simultaneous transmitters were evaluated; whether children or other populations were specifically evaluated; and what exposure conditions were and were not included in testing. I am particularly concerned about exposure involving children, infants, pregnancy, and other populations that may differ from those of a typical adult. Children may spend many hours in schools and childcare facilities surrounded by multiple wireless transmitters, sometimes at very close distances. Wireless devices are also increasingly incorporated into products used by infants and children. Federal research and exposure assessment should therefore specifically address age-specific and developmental exposure scenarios rather than assuming that adult testing adequately represents all populations. I also believe that federal research priorities should include long-term, independent investigation of cumulative and chronic exposure, children and pregnancy, reproductive and developmental outcomes, neurological and sleep-related effects, cardiovascular and other biological effects, environmental and ecological effects, and exposure associated with evolving technologies such as 5G, future wireless systems, IoT devices, wearables, smart homes, wireless medical devices, and increasingly dense wireless infrastructure. See attached file.

Public Comment on HHS Request for Information: EMF/RF Exposure and Human Health Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I submit this comment as a concerned consumer urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to put public health, independent science, and informed consent ahead of commercial interests when evaluating radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF/EMF) exposure from wireless devices and infrastructure. Wireless technology is everywhere, from phones and Wi-Fi to wearables, smart meters, and cellular networks. Consumers cannot assess safety when exposure information is hard to find and testing may be funded by companies that profit from the products. The public deserves transparent answers. I do not claim every RF/EMF exposure causes illness or that every alleged harm is established. HHS should identify what is known and unknown, without treating uncertainty as proof of safety or speculation as proof of harm. Policy must follow transparent, reproducible science, free from commercial or advocacy pressure. I urge HHS to prioritize these actions: 1. INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY TESTING. Require qualified labs independent of manufacturers and telecom companies to test devices and infrastructure. Disclose funding, conflicts, methods, calibration, exposure conditions, analyses, and full results. Publish positive and negative findings and make testing reproducible. Industry-funded research must not be the sole basis for declaring a product safe. 2. REAL-WORLD AND CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. Assess ordinary and high-use scenarios, multiple devices together, and long-term exposure in homes, workplaces, schools, childcare facilities, and neighborhoods. Consider distance, duration, frequency, signal strength, and actual use. Measurements must be independently verifiable and explained plainly. 3. LONG-TERM HEALTH RESEARCH. Fund adequately powered, independently replicated long-term human studies, systematic reviews, and laboratory research on reported concerns involving cancer, cognition, sleep, reproduction, development, cardiovascular outcomes, and other effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation, address confounding factors, publish protocols and null findings, and share data when ethical and privacy rules permit. 4. PROTECT VULNERABLE GROUPS. Assess whether added precautions are warranted for children, pregnant people, older adults, people with medical conditions, exposed workers, and users of medical devices. Include schools and childcare facilities. 5. CLEAR CONSUMER DISCLOSURES. Require accessible disclosures of emissions, limits, independent test results, test conditions, limitations, and uncertainty. Explain implications for normal and cumulative exposure. Create a searchable public database of test and adverse-event reports. Marketing must not substitute for evidence. 6. PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING. Create privacy-protecting systems to report suspected health effects. Investigate credible patterns with validated exposure measurements and clinical assessment. Reports should prompt investigation, not prove causation automatically. Coordinate research and publish findings. 7. ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN HARM IS ESTABLISHED. If reliable evidence shows that a company's product, emissions, concealment, or failure to comply with safety requirements caused or materially contributed to injury, consumers should have meaningful remedies. Congress and regulators should consider requiring responsible companies to cover reasonable medical evaluation, treatment, ongoing care, and appropriate compensation. Companies that knowingly conceal credible safety findings, falsify results, or obstruct required disclosures should face meaningful penalties. Responsibility must be determined fairly, based on evidence, causation, and applicable law. 8. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. Disclose conflicts, publish the basis for conclusions, invite independent peer review, and explain how conflicting evidence is weighed. Review standards as technology and science evolve. Publish who funded studies, what was measured, and why conclusions were reached. Consumers deserve information about possible risks, and should not bear the full financial burden if evidence establishes preventable harm. Transparency encourages safer design, honest communication, and better science. I urge HHS to establish rigorous, independent, publicly accountable RF/EMF research and oversight. Where evidence identifies a risk, take proportionate action. Where evidence is uncertain, fund better research and communicate uncertainty honestly. Where evidence does not support an adverse effect, explain that conclusion and the strength and limits of the research. Commercial confidentiality should never hide information essential to public health. The public deserves independent testing, accessible data, protections for vulnerable populations, and medical and financial remedies when harm is demonstrated.

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Question 2 – Perspective This comment is submitted by an individual with an interest in evidence-based public health. It draws on peer-reviewed literature, government and international agency assessments, and systematic reviews. Established findings are distinguished from emerging or uncertain evidence. Questions 5, 6, and 12 – Exposure standards, risk assessment, and evidence regarding effects at or below current federal limits Federal health agencies should consider the following established frameworks and evidence: • ICNIRP 2020 guidelines: The only substantiated adverse health effects of RF-EMF are those caused by tissue heating (thermal effects). The guidelines protect against all established adverse effects, including those relevant to 5G and other modern technologies. No adverse effects below the thermal threshold have been consistently substantiated in human populations at typical exposure levels. • U.S. FCC RF exposure limits (47 CFR 1.1310) and FDA assessments: These are based primarily on thermal effects (SAR). FDA has stated that the weight of scientific evidence does not support a causal link between RF exposure below these limits and cancer or other adverse health effects. • WHO-commissioned systematic reviews (2023–2025): Reviews of human observational studies on cancer (including glioma), cognition, reproduction, and non-specific symptoms generally found no or only small effects associated with RF-EMF exposure, with moderate certainty of evidence for the absence of increased brain tumor risk from mobile phone use. Confidence is lower for many other outcomes due to limited high-quality data. • IARC 2011 classification: RF-EMF is Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”) based on limited evidence linking heavy mobile phone use to glioma and acoustic neuroma. This classification has not been upgraded. • NTP rodent studies (2018): These reported carcinogenic signals in male rats at high whole-body exposures well above typical human levels. Findings were not consistent across sexes or species, and methodological limitations have been noted by expert bodies. The results do not directly translate to typical human exposures below thermal limits. Established finding: At exposure levels below current thermal-based limits, there is no consistent, high-quality evidence of causal adverse health effects in the general population from everyday RF/EMF sources. Areas of uncertainty: Long-term effects beyond most study follow-up periods; cumulative multi-source real-world exposures; potential subtle non-thermal biological effects; and whether any subgroups experience effects not captured in population-level data. Question 11 – Sensitive populations Children warrant careful consideration due to potentially higher relative absorption in some tissues and longer lifetime cumulative exposure. Current evidence does not demonstrate harm at typical levels, but data specifically addressing developmental stages remain limited. Targeted research with personal dosimetry is warranted. Question 13 – Cumulative exposure patterns 5G, Wi-Fi, IoT, wearables, smart meters, and denser infrastructure create complex multi-source exposure patterns. Average levels generally remain well below thermal limits. Evidence on how these real-world combinations affect cumulative dose or health outcomes is still limited. Improved multi-source exposure characterization is needed. Question 16 – Highest-priority research gaps 1. Long-term prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with individually measured personal RF exposure. 2. Improved real-world dosimetry for cumulative, multi-source exposures (including 5G characteristics). 3. Independent replication and mechanistic studies of any non-thermal signals using realistic exposure parameters. 4. High-quality blinded investigation of reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Question 17 – Coordination HHS (FDA, NIH, CDC) should coordinate with FCC and international bodies (WHO, ICNIRP) to prioritize independent research that can meaningfully update risk assessment. Question 18 – Additional recommendations Maintain clear public communication that distinguishes established thermal effects and the absence of confirmed adverse effects below limits from areas of residual uncertainty. Support practical exposure-reduction options for those who prefer them without implying established harm. Ensure any future guidance is driven by high-quality evidence.

I am submitting this comment as a licensed Professional Engineer (environmental engineering master’s degree), U.S. Navy veteran, and concerned citizen. Current federal exposure guidelines for RF/EMF from wireless devices, Wi-Fi, and 5G infrastructure are outdated, based primarily on thermal effects, and fail to adequately protect public health—especially children, pregnant women, and those with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Independent research, including the National Toxicology Program animal studies and multiple peer-reviewed papers, has shown clear evidence of biological effects at levels well below current FCC limits, including increased cancer risk, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and reproductive harm. These findings have been dismissed or minimized while industry-funded studies and captured agencies continue to claim “no proven harm.” This pattern mirrors other failures of public health agencies that prioritize corporate interests over independent science. I urge HHS to: Commission and fund truly independent research that examines non-thermal effects, cumulative exposure, and real-world chronic low-level RF from 5G small cells and densified networks. Update safety standards to account for biological effects, not merely heating of tissue. Require transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest in all studies relied upon by the agency. Support a precautionary approach: pause further dense 5G deployments near homes, schools, and hospitals until safety is demonstrated, and prioritize wired alternatives where feasible. Investigate and publicly report on the health impacts of the existing nationwide 5G infrastructure that has been rolled out with insufficient long-term data. The public has a right to accurate information and protection from involuntary exposure. Continuing to rely on 1990s-era thermal-only limits while saturating the environment with pulsed RF is not acceptable. I call on HHS to put human health ahead of industry expansion. Shelly Arnoldi Licensed PE | Navy Veteran | Virginia resident

I have been using cell phones as my primary phone since 1997. My oldest daughter has been using oldest daughter has been using one since 2013 and my youngest daughter has been using one since 2021. I don't think I have issues though I am a few years early for perimenopause. My oldest daughter had to have a hysterectomy this year at 22 years of age. And my youngest daughter has CPP - she started recognizably showing breasts at age 6 and has now been on a hormone blocker for the past 2 years. I'm interested to see if any of these are linked. Never thought about it much but my mother sent me this link.

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 on behalf of Nevada County for Safe Tech (NCST), a community advocacy group of residents in Nevada County, California. NCST formed in 2025 when our county began updating its ordinance for cell towers and wireless facilities. Hundreds of residents have since commented to our Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. What we learned is that when residents raise health concerns about wireless facilities, no one in local government has the authority or expertise to answer them. What we have seen locally: • A resident near a tower activated in December 2025 reported headaches and insomnia beginning when the tower went live. The county had no way to require independent RF testing, and because the tower was approved under prior rules, no post-installation testing was required. • County staff acknowledged they lack the expertise to evaluate carrier RF compliance reports. A report can certify compliance without showing exposure levels at nearby homes. • Carrier predictive models can underestimate real-world exposure because of terrain, antenna orientation and multiple co-located transmitters. Consumer meters cannot measure 5G frequencies, so residents have no practical way to know their exposure. • Our county treats new small cells as a building-permit matter with no public notice. Residents may first learn of an antenna in front of their home when the crew arrives. • Elevated exposure is not only a ground-level issue. Arborists and maintenance workers can enter high-exposure zones at height. Federal law (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) bars local governments from regulating wireless facilities on health grounds when they meet FCC limits, and the FCC is proposing to narrow local enforcement further. The FCC is not a health agency. Communities are left with health questions and no health authority responsible for answering them. We ask HHS to: 1. Develop independent field-measurement protocols that cover all frequencies in use, including 5G and 6G, measure cumulative exposure from multiple sources, and test at ground and upper-story heights, so local health departments can verify exposure. 2. Recommend what RF information should be public for each facility, such as predicted exposure at nearby homes and schools. 3. Create a way for individuals and clinicians to report symptoms they associate with RF exposure, and guide local health departments on responding. 4. Prioritize research on chronic ambient exposure, effects below current limits, and vulnerable groups including children, pregnant women and people living close to facilities. 5. Advise the FCC on exposure limits and on health-protective distances between facilities and homes and schools. 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.