Reproduction & pregnancy

I fear the results of electromagnetic fields from the data centers. I have grandchildren and hope they will have grandchildren but the evidence of lower sperm counts, DNA impairment, leukemia as well as a Multitude of other problems that are not investigated. This is insane.

I am a mother of four children, and our family moved into our home on October 1, 2025, approximately 0.2 miles (1,056 feet) from an active cell tower. Since moving here, we have noticed a significant worsening of health concerns within our household, including severe brain fog, frequent migraines, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, and emotional and behavioral dysregulation in our children. One of my daughters also has a serious autoimmune condition involving multiple relapses, hospitalizations, and extensive medical treatment. I worry about whether prolonged environmental exposure could be affecting her health or contributing to immune dysregulation. Beyond our current symptoms, I am deeply concerned about the potential long-term health consequences of continuous RF/EMF exposure, particularly cancer risk, neurological development, reproductive health, immune function, and the cumulative effects of exposure beginning in childhood. I recognize that there is no established causal connection between the nearby tower and our family’s health concerns, nor do we have evidence of cancer related to this exposure. However, the changes we have observed since moving here, combined with the uncertainty surrounding some long-term health outcomes, make me believe further investigation is important. I urge HHS to prioritize independent, long-term studies of residential exposure near cell towers, including cancer incidence, neurological and cognitive health, sleep disturbances, reproductive health, and autoimmune conditions. Families deserve transparent exposure measurements, continued evaluation of safety standards, and research that follows children over many years.

I request clear, evidence-based information about the possible health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless technologies. Please address exposure levels, duration, and multiple sources, as well as potential implications for children, pregnant individuals, and workers with frequent exposure. The assessment should distinguish established risks—such as tissue heating at high RF exposure levels—from possible long-term effects, including cancer risks, that remain uncertain or under investigation. Please also explain how current safety limits are established and recommend practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.

To HHS: wireless radiation is a serious Health Risk. I have personally dealt with severe chronic health issues for many years. I'm aware that Radiation exposure has effected my sensistive nervous system affecting sleep, thyroid issues, hormone imbalance, exhaustion, depletion etc... I go to great lengths to reduce exposure and protect myself. It is a constant, daily challenge in this world of increasing bombardment of Radiation Poisoning. I'm also aware it is absolutely possible to make technology safe for health and still effective Studies show oxidative stress (167 abstracts), DNA damage (82), male infertility (44), lipid peroxidation (43), cognitive decline (38), cancers (34), low sperm quality (33), brain cancer (28), headache (20), sleep disorders (15) and fatigue (14). Further down the list: childhood leukemia, acoustic neuroma, salivary gland disease, hearing disorders, ALS, Alzheimer’s, autism spectrum disorders, birth defects, hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease.... 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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

As digital infrastructure, mobile networks (5G/6G), Wi-Fi, smart devices, and wearable technology continue to expand rapidly into homes, schools, and public spaces, a transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date federal re-evaluation of human health impacts is both timely and necessary. Key Areas for Federal Focus 1. Vulnerable Populations and Children: Special attention must be directed toward children, adolescents, and pregnant women. Children have developing neurological and biological systems and higher relative absorption rates in head tissues from mobile devices. Federal research priorities should explicitly evaluate long-term, cumulative exposure patterns starting from early childhood. 2. Cumulative and Multi-Frequency Exposures: Most legacy safety guidelines evaluate single-source, short-term thermal effects. Modern living involves chronic, low-level, multi-frequency exposure from overlapping cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, and smart meters. HHS should prioritize research that mimics real-world, cumulative co-exposures rather than isolated laboratory conditions. 3. Independent Scientific Review and Regulatory Harmonization: Current U.S. exposure standards differ significantly from guidelines in other international jurisdictions. HHS should conduct an independent, transparent synthesis of peer-reviewed literature—differentiating independent scientific findings from industry-funded assessments—to determine whether current federal safety limits adequately protect public health. 4. Public Health Surveillance and Reporting Mechanisms: The department should establish clearer pathways for clinicians and citizens to report and document adverse health experiences potentially linked to chronic environmental or technological exposures, improving post-market surveillance. Thank you for opening this critical dialogue and inviting public input. I urge HHS to adopt a precautionary, evidence-based approach that prioritizes long-term biological safety, closes existing research gaps, and updates federal guidance to reflect modern wireless density.

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 2019 to 2023, I lived in a 3rd story apartment where I was unkowingly exposed to high chronic levels of emf. My husband and I moved there in 2019. Later that year, I started having inexplicable exhaustion, inflammation and body aches which have been worsening progressively while living there, despite me getting various therapies and lifestyle and dietary improvements. We also had unexplained infertility. In 2022, I decided to get an EMF meter. My husband and I were surprised to measure very high levels of radiation in specific zones that resembled 'beams' cutting through our apartment, even when our wifi was powered off. Certain locations in our living room where we worked from home, and the kitchen where we spend a lot of time cooking, were registering levels of radiation that were far above the normal threshold. In 2023, my husband was walking home and noticed a discreetly hidden cell tower in the parking lot a couple blocks from our apartment. He noticed that the positioning of the tower correlated uncannily to the angle of the beams in our apartment, entering from the side where we have a large glass patio balcony door. We think we have finally found the culprit for the ridiculous levels of emf we had been chronically exposed to, along with many other residents who may be suffering unknowingly because of it. At that time, I reached out to the city to ask who authorized the tower location and height, but received a response that they have very little regulatory control over it. I am so glad we are finally looking into this at a federal level. Can we better regulate the companies to require actual research proving the required clearances to avoid health effects? Can we also require ongoing monitoring since this is a new technology and start getting some longer term studies? Though we had lived in that area for many years and enjoyed its quiet and safe community, this issue has been so harmful to our health and quality of life that we decided to move out because of it. In 2024, I received laproscopic diagnosis for stage 4 endometriosis and adenomyosis. Looking back, I wish I didn't live in that apartment, or knew earlier so I could have moved out. Now I am living in a new place with a lot less EMF exposure. I do not get the chronic headaches or fatigue that I used to feel in that apartment. I am on the journey to recovering and feeling better. For the health and wellbeing of all US residents and citizens, please scrutinize the health impacts of these cell towers on the surrounding community. The proper location and height of these towers is so critical to the health of so many that could be impacted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32395207 Objectives: Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted from mobile phones may cause a deleterious effect on human health and may affect the male reproductive system., a carotenoid isolated from, is a phar¬macologically active component of saffron. So, this study was conducted to investigate the protective effect ofon the male reproductive system of 60 day old mice after EMF exposure. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four male BALB/c mice were randomly divided into 4 groups: 1. Em group (2100 MHZ); 2. Cr group (50 mg/kg); 3. Em+Cr group (2100 MHZ+50 mg/kg), and 4. Control group. Sperm parameters (count, and abnormal percent), testis weight index, testis volume, seminiferous tubule diam¬eter, germinal epithelium thickness, LH, FSH and testosterone serum level, testicular Heat shock protein A2 (HspA2) immunoreactivity, and apoptosis were evaluated. Results: HspA2 immunoreactivity, apoptosis in the germinal epithelium and abnormal sperm were increased in Em group compared with the control group

As a manufacturer of LED lighting devices since 2008 and consultant of exposures to magnetic fields, electrical fields, radio frequency fields and geophysical fields professionally for over 25 years I offer this article from Barrie Trower regarding the theory that certain exposure levels from certain identified microwave radio frequency fields will produce infertility and birth defects similar to Thalidomide.Barrie Trower is a British physicist and former member of the British Navy and Secret Service. He has opined on the negative health effects of exposure to microwave radiation for several years. His experience working in the British Secret Service exposed him to information from foreign spy’s that had pulsed electromagnetic frequencies that were developed to be used as weapons. Today he states that there are about 750 frequencies that are used both deliberately and accidentally in places that cause various negative health effects. According to Trower, 58% of the planet’s governments are taking avoidance action against this while 42% are not aware of the risks and taking no action. Seventeen countries are currently enacting legislation to restrict the deployment of microwave radiation.

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.