Reproduction & pregnancy

In response to the Request for Information announced by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on September 17, 2026, the Advocacy Team at Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is submitting this comment to address growing concerns that the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure and technology is outpacing our understanding of the harms it may pose to health and the environment. The FCC regulates communications and technology, but HHS and its agencies have the public health and scientific expertise needed to evaluate the health effects of wireless radiation exposure. The FCC’s current radiofrequency (RF) guidelines were established three decades ago in 1996— with no updates since. Wireless technology and the densification of wireless infrastructure has increased dramatically since the standards were first established. Yet the FCC has not provided the public with an adequate justification that its RF radiation guidelines are protective of public health in today’s highly dense exposure environments. CHD has heard directly from and worked with several people that have experienced significant health issues they associate with wireless radiation exposure. In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, lawyers working on behalf of CHD represented residents who reported serious health effects directly following the installation and activation of a cell tower in their neighborhood. Many of these individuals were forced to leave their homes as a result, often without meaningful notice or opportunity for community input. It is of utmost importance that these experiences are not dismissed as they warrant serious and independent scientific investigation. We have also heard from numerous parents concerned about the growing presence of wireless devices and screen-based technology in schools. Screen use and wireless connectivity have become a normal part of the school day, exposing vulnerable children to this invisible toxin. This is the first generation of children who will experience cradle to grave exposure. We must not wait for another generation of children to grow up before determining whether existing protections adequately address long-term, cumulative, and developmental exposure. CHD also works with practitioners who report treating patients experiencing symptoms of Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (EMR-S). Symptoms include headaches, nausea, dizziness, brain fog, heart palpitations, insomnia, tinnitus and more serious diseases like cancer, neurological issues, and infertility. These individual experiences may be a warning of the widespread public health crisis that may result from the continued, uncontrolled deployment of wireless infrastructure and technology must not be dismissed or excluded from consideration. Furthermore, their experiences give us important insights into potential areas of scientific investigation.. Federal preemption presents an additional concern because it prevents communities from considering the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation exposure . Communities deserve transparency and a meaningful opportunity to raise legitimate concerns about infrastructure that may affect their neighborhoods and create unavoidable long-term exposure to wireless radiation. CHD urges HHS to support independent, transparent scientific investigation on the health effects of RF radiation exposure, including impacts on children, pregnancy and fertility, long-term consequences, cumulative exposure, and environmental impacts. Research should be independently funded and free from industry influence. We cannot assume that the FCC’s RF radiation guidelines established in 1996 adequately protect public health, simply because they remain in place. Wireless technology itself, the densification of wireless infrastructure, and the nature and duration of exposure have all changed dramatically since the guidelines were adopted 30 years ago. Our scientific understanding must keep pace. Our children should not be the guinea pigs for this nationwide experiment. We urge HHS to investigate the evidence, identify the research gaps, and fund the independent science necessary to determine whether existing protections are still relevant and adequately protect public health. Sincerely, Stephanie Locricchio Senior Advocacy Manager Children’s Health Defense Michael Kane Director of Advocacy Children’s Health Defense

I am responding as a parent and concerned member of the public who is deeply concerned about the potential health and wellbeing effects of wireless radiation exposure on my children and family. As a parent, I am increasingly concerned that my children’s exposure to wireless technology is becoming unavoidable. They are exposed to wireless devices and networks both at school and at home, often for extended periods, with limited ability to control or reduce their exposure. This raises concerns about the cumulative effects of prolonged exposure during childhood, a critical period of growth and development. My concerns extend beyond screen time to the radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless devices, including wireless earbuds such as AirPods, which are heavily marketed to children and teenagers. These devices sit directly in the ears, close to the head, yet the potential health implications of frequent and prolonged use are not made sufficiently clear to consumers. I am concerned about possible long-term effects and believe these products warrant independent research and clear, accessible safety information. Similarly, phones, tablets, Chromebooks and laptops are used against or very close to the body for extended periods. Phones may be held against the head during calls, tucked into bras against breast tissue, carried in pockets near reproductive organs, or placed on the lap or chest while using a laptop or tablet. I am particularly concerned about potential effects on reproductive health, including fertility and the developing reproductive systems of children and teenagers. These concerns deserve rigorous scientific investigation rather than assumptions that everyday exposure is necessarily harmless. Wireless devices are marketed to young people as essential for education, communication and entertainment, yet meaningful safety warnings are often difficult to find, buried in user manuals or printed in tiny text. Consumers should not have to search through fine print to understand potential risks associated with the products they and their children use daily. I believe manufacturers should be required to display prominent, standardised warning labels directly on wireless devices and their packaging, clearly explaining radiofrequency emissions, recommended precautions and relevant uncertainties in the scientific evidence. These warnings should be visible before purchase, not hidden in instruction manuals. Legislation should ensure that no device is sold without clear and conspicuous safety information, particularly where children and teenagers are the intended users. My concerns also include potential effects on sleep quality, energy levels, concentration and overall wellbeing, alongside questions about long-term health and reported associations between radiofrequency exposure and certain tumours. While research continues to evolve, families deserve transparent information and independent investigation into these potential risks. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate the scientific evidence, investigate gaps in current research, examine cumulative and long-term exposure, and prioritise children and other potentially vulnerable populations. I also urge greater transparency, public education, precautionary measures and enforceable consumer protections. Our children should not be expected to bear the consequences of widespread wireless technology use without adequate research, transparent information and meaningful safeguards. Their long-term health, safety and wellbeing must come first. Thank you for providing families with an opportunity to have their concerns 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 a [patient, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. Wireless radiation has affected me by bringing back my period, the issue goes away when I'm not exposed to it as much which took me awhile to figure out the problem was most noticeable when I went from a 4 G phone to a 5 G phone, and got a new modem and computer all within the same month. Reducing my exposure has helped, but being in a small apartment i'm not able to get very far from it. 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. Neurosurgeon Dr. Jack Kruse views wireless radiation—cell phones, Wi-Fi, 5G, and other man-made “non-native electromagnetic fields” (nnEMF or non-native EMF)—as a major driver of modern disease through disruption of mitochondrial function, cellular water structure, circadian timing, and quantum biological processes. Robert O. Becker's work found proved these same drivers of disease. Kruse emphasizes non-thermal (not just heating) effects and links them to quantum biology: Mitochondrial dysfunction and water disruption: nnEMF impairs mitochondrial water production, causes cellular dehydration, increases reactive oxygen species, raises mitochondrial heteroplasmy, and reduces energy efficiency. Water is described as a carrier of electromagnetic information from the sun into cells; microwaves and nnEMF disrupt this. Stress response and signaling: It triggers a massive cellular stress response mimicking leptin resistance, a heart attack, or panic attack. It can cause chronic sympathetic nervous system overdrive (“microwave sickness” described in older Russian literature), leading to poor sleep, adrenal issues, cardiovascular problems, and more. Calcium signaling, DNA, and other effects: Interference with calcium secondary messengers, non-linear DNA damage, disruption of synchronization with the Earth’s magnetic field, and impaired cellular timing/coherence. Reproductive and developmental impacts: Kruse specifically warns against keeping phones in front pockets, citing potential effects on sperm, testosterone, and germ cells (with implications for offspring). He has discussed fertility concerns more broadly in the context of device proximity and urban/wireless environments. Kruse frequently references the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) animal studies (showing associations with certain tumors in rats from cell-phone-type RF radiation) and older Russian research on microwave effects, arguing that safety standards based only on thermal effects are inadequate. the negative health impacts of wireless radiation are real and proven. 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.

This comment is regarding EMF's, RF's and wireless radiation exposure. I'm just a concerned citizen because years ago I read about the exposure from EMF's in microwave oven's and never put one in my house. There is far too much exposure from all of these now especially to the young children. We don't really now how it will affect them when they are older or even now. Will there be more cancer's, new cancer's and what about young adults having trouble getting pregnant. There seems to be more of that now. Is that from the exposure and what will it do to the young children that had exposure while invitro. There needs to be more testing on what is really happening to the public in all of this. Why wait until the damage is done! This affects everyone, even your family members.

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.

From the book The Non-tinfoil Guide to EMFs by Nicholas Pineault: As Martin Blank, PhD reports in Overpowered: since 1990, Lai has been tracking the studies of the health effects of RF radiation on humans published around the world. He has hundreds of studies in his data base. Approximately 30% of the studies were funded by the wireless industry and 70% are funded by other sources that are presumably more independent. Of the industry-funded studies, 27% demonstrated a biological effect in human resulting from RF exposure vs. 68% for the independents. Lai explains that “a lot of the studies being done right now are purely as PR tools for the industry.” The US & Canada FCC limit for RF radiation is 61.4 Volts/meter. The next closest is Belgium (21), Russia, China, Italy, Luxembourg, & Switzerland (6), and Austria (.02). Sleep disturbances resulting in fatigue can occur from as low as .047 V/m. REM sleep is affected at 13.72 V/m. Male fertility is affected as low as .036 V/m with testosterone being negatively affected at 43.42 V/m. Brain function is affected at .14 V/m (headaches, behavioral problems), .55 V/m (memory), 1.94 V/m (blood-brain barrier leakage), 11.07 (oxidative stress on the cornea), and 13 V/m (oxidative stress on the brain). Heart function is affected at .05 V/m (cardio vascular problems in general), 1.19 V/m (calcium metabolism in the heart), and 20 V/m (blood pressure, heart rate). Children are affected starting at .11 V/m (headaches, inattention), .33 V/m (ADHD), .78 V/m (memory), .87 V/m (leukemia), 2.17 V/m (kidney development problems), and 25 V/m (bone growth problems). This is going to be the fate of mankind wherever 5G is used. I wouldn’t want that on my conscience.

Where to even begin... 30 years ago cancer was listed as number 10 on the list of mortality causes and today in 2026 it is listed in the number one spot as the top way someone will likely die. One in three people in our country today have cancer. Why is this? It only seems logical that the only thing that has changed within the last 30 years is the introduction of electromagnetic fields of radiation into our lives 24/7 365 via cell phone cell phone towers and Wi-Fi. Shortly after my son was born I had crippling pains in my GI tract that took years to finally realize it was from using my computer with Wi-Fi. After hardwiring my computer to ethernet I no longer have these GI issues at all and can comfortably use the computer. I did an experiment of keeping my cell phone turned off for several weeks not using it at all and just from doing that for the first time ever I had absolutely no PMS symptoms at all and absolutely no issues with my ovulation. Upon turning the cell phone back on immediately I started getting a headache and having chest pains. Just getting away to smaller towns where there is still LTE towers I feel so much better lighter happier more energetic and then immediately when I return to the city where all the 5G towers are I get tired fatigued irritable headache heart palpitations... The ONLY thing that has provided me with relief (besides avoidance) are BluShield devices. Without BluShield devices I could not function and would be bedridden. I long for the days when I could go to dinner be out and about in public go to the ballet go to the city to the art galleries etc and be able to live a normal life without being in so much pain and discomfort because of all of the cell phone towers Wi-Fi and cell phones being used. I'm seriously looking into moving to the national radio quiet zone near the green Bank observatory to get some relief. Sadly, though, it appears that school there is starting to use Wi-Fi now so it will be curious to study the results of that for example if the kids are now absent many more days due to illnesses as they were not sick before the introduction of wi-fi.. to look into the numbers of that in some kind of study and to study the connection between EMF and the horrifying rise in autism and ADHD to look and compare communities such as the Amish who do not use technology and their cancer rates to the rest of the country where cell phones and Wi-Fi are used.. I desperately want to go back to the days such as in the 90s where all we had was landline or even the early 2000s where it was hardwired internet I just want to feel good and have energy and be able to connect with the world and people without having to put myself at risk of getting cancer to do so. Unfortunately, 99.99% of the population seems absolutely addicted to their cell phones. If they can't give up their addictions even if it means they are destroying their health maybe a viable solution would be to install giant BluShield devices right by cell phone towers... "Where there is risk there must be choice" but, unfortunately, we have no choice because cell phone towers and the radiation they admit is everywhere. You simply cannot get away from it. We need to be able to have a choice! We need places/ cities where there are no cell phone towers and no wi-fi so people can make a CHOICE for themselves whether they want to live in a safe zone or not a safe zone- we need those choices!

My name is Joel Wright. I am in my 20s and am a U.S. citizen. At 18, I began suffering extreme health complications which I believe are directly caused by exposure to modern telecommunications equipment. I ask HHS to research the biology of my condition and set conservative emissions standards to protect future generations and allow people like me to rejoin society. I offer my testimony for any official proceedings. My hypothesis is simple: current ambient levels of non-ionizing radiation are unsafe. The environmental levels of ten years ago were high enough to collapse my health, and they have only intensified in the years since. The collapse was sudden and violent. I started college and a small business at 14; at 16 I earned Eagle Scout; at 18 I had a top ACT score. Yet, within months of graduating high school in 2017, that life ended. Bedridden, I suffered from agonizing neurological pain, memory loss, chronic fatigue, and extreme muscle spasms, among other symptoms. At times, I lost the ability to speak and walk. I was forced to abandon a full ride scholarship. We discovered in 2020 that the world’s most powerful technology was destroying my young body. There was no escape; the dangerous radiation emanates from homes, vehicles and every person’s purse or pants pocket. When the COVID lockdowns began and people fled an invisible virus, I fled invisible radiation, isolating from society in search of respite. The world adapted and reopened, but I persist in my lockdown. My current health comes at enormous cost. Until six months ago, this meant near-total isolation. I left home perhaps twice a year. I could not even attend church. The life my peers never consider, walking into a store, sitting in a crowd, carrying a phone, is for me a series of calculated risks. I follow strict regimens of diet and medication, controlling for stressors down to caffeine and sugar. Even now, visitors must leave their phones at the door, a request which I know sounds unreasonable, costing me standing each time I ask. Maintaining my dignity spends that same dignity in the eyes of others; to be young without a phone is unthinkable. It has cost me opportunities, friendships, dating, and my youth, all spent trying to heal. My condition is doubted not because of contradictory evidence, but because for decades agencies like the HHS and FCC declined to study whether this exposure is safe. RF exposure is nearly inescapable. I can leave a building, but I cannot control what passes through its walls into my body. Radio frequencies are integrated into everything, leaving no room for choice. Whatever the truth, this exposure has been imposed for decades - untested, unquestioned and ubiquitous. That is what I am asking HHS to change. The scientific case is stronger than ever. For decades, inaction rested on one claim: fields too weak to heat tissue could not affect us. That no longer holds. In 2026, a CRISPR screen identified a protein, Cyb5b, that transduces electromagnetic fields into cellular calcium oscillations through a voltage-gated calcium channel (Hwang 2026), confirming a mechanism proposed years earlier (Pall 2013). These fields act on cells without heating them, and calcium signaling governs DNA repair, oxidative balance, and cell death. A field that reliably disturbs it is biologically active, with a threshold where its effect becomes harm. This harm does not require extreme exposure. At the low environmental levels of everyday life, below federal limits, RF induces oxidative stress - a driver of inflammation and cellular damage - and disrupts a vertebrate nervous system (Yakymenko 2016; Engels 2014; ICBE-EMF 2022). Yet FCC limits still assume only heating can harm, a premise a federal court found inadequately justified (EHT v. FCC 2021). The gap is widest for developing bodies. In-utero exposure altered neurodevelopment in animals, dose-dependently (Aldad 2012); birth cohorts link prenatal exposure to childhood behavioral problems (Divan 2008); and in nearly 700 adolescents, cumulative RF brain dose tracked reduced memory development (Foerster 2018)-consistent with children absorbing more RF, more deeply, than adults (Gandhi 2012). Limits built on brief adult-animal tests cannot be assumed to protect a brain developing from birth. These conditions-below the limits, over a lifetime, from childhood-remain unstudied. I ask HHS to fund the mechanistic and long-latency research they demand, before exposure grows. I can comment only because I recovered, a rare gift. The comments HHS receives come from those well enough to find and respond to this request. Those still bedridden and impaired, as I was, cannot respond. I’ve included health journals from before I suspected RF, untainted by expectation, to show the truth. I survived as much by luck as by effort. I am asking HHS to act so that survival is not left to chance, to act so people like me and those still trapped, unable to speak, may live once more.

As a substitute teacher in various school districts, I'm concerned by the cellphone addiction I see by my students. It's disruptive to getting schoolwork done and I worry about the effects of cellphone exposure on their mental and physical health. I'm concerned about cellphone use affecting risks of cancer, neurological and neurocognitive effects (including developmental outcomes, sleep disturbances and reproductive outcomes.