Reproduction & pregnancy

Comment* EMF's are bad for humans. This has been abundantly clear for a couple of decades. Go to the following link - https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms - for over 1,000 papers detailing EMF harms, including 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). I would also heavily recommend reading the book, 'The Invisible Rainbow' by Arthur Firstenberg. Many thanks.

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.

I. Introduction As an individual consumer and parent, I am submitting this comment to urge regulatory authorities to adopt a strict precautionary framework regarding human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency radiation (RFR), and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF). While public communications often claim there is "no evidence" of harm from non-ionizing radiation, a rigorous evaluation of the published literature reveals a substantial body of pooled epidemiological and experimental data. To support the need for updated, biology-based safety limits, this submission highlights the quantitative findings of multiple peer-reviewed meta-analyses spanning brain tumors, childhood leukemia, general carcinogenesis, reproductive health, and neurodegenerative decline. II. Summary of Evidence from Peer-Reviewed Meta-Analyses 1. Mobile Phone Radiation & Brain Tumors (Gliomas and Neuromas) Pooled data demonstrates a statistically significant increase in brain tumor risks correlated with long-term or ipsilateral (same-side) mobile phone usage: • Yang et al.: Found that mobile phone use extending to 10 years or more is associated with an elevated risk of glioma. This risk increases for same-side (ipsilateral) use and low-grade glioma. • Hardell et al. Reported that 10+ years of same-side mobile phone use doubled the risk for glioma and more than doubled the risk for acoustic neuroma. • Myung et al.: Identified an overall tumor risk increase for 10+ years of use. Notably, the authors found that methodologically superior, blinded studies clearly identified harm, whereas unblinded studies showed a false "protective" effect. • Wang et al.: Noted that while ever-use was not statistically significant, the data indicated an increased risk trajectory specifically for long-term users. 2. Childhood Leukemia & Magnetic Fields The vulnerability of developing children to ambient magnetic fields is documented in high-scale pooled controls: • Zhao et al.: Analyzing 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls, researchers found that exposure to magnetic fields of 0.4 microtesla or greater (compared to <0.1 yielded a significant risk elevation for leukemia. The risk escalated sharply for acute lymphocytic leukemia. • Wartenberg: Calculated that if an association exists, approximately 175 to 240 childhood leukemia cases per year in the United States could be directly attributed to magnetic field exposure. 3. General Cancer Risks & ELF Fields • Zhang et al.: Aggregated 42 studies (13,259 cases, 100,882 controls) and found a positive association overall. The risk was higher in United States cohorts and notably elevated for residential exposures. 4. Breast Cancer Risk Elevation • Chen et al.: Identified an elevated risk of breast cancer associated with exposure, which rose slightly higher for estrogen-receptor-positive configurations. • Zhao et al.: Found a pooled OR of 1.10 for breast cancer, which increased significantly among premenopausal women. 5. Reproductive Health & Sperm Quality • Adams et al.: Meta-analysis of 1,492 samples demonstrated that mobile phone exposure is significantly associated with a decrease in sperm motility by -8.1% and viability by -9.1%. This effect was consistent across both in vitro experimental setups and in vivo observational studies. • Liu et al.: Confirmed clear biological harm and degradation in in vitro and animal models, though human observational data in their pooled subset remained null. 6. Neurodegenerative Diseases & Occupational ELF-MF Exposure • Jalilian et al.: Found a substantial relative risk increase for Alzheimer’s disease among workers with high occupational ELF-MF exposure. • Huss et al. (Bioelectromagnetic, 2018; PMID: 29350413): Found an elevated risk for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) overall, which jumped sharply for individuals working within electrical occupations. III. Conclusion & Regulatory Recommendation The argument that there is "no evidence" of biological harm from ambient electromagnetic and magnetic fields is contradicted by the extensive epidemiological data compiled above. Regulatory agencies cannot rely solely on short-term thermal absorption models (like SAR) to determine human safety. Because these meta-analyses demonstrate clear patterns of increased risk - particularly regarding chronic, long-term exposure, residential proximity, and early-childhood vulnerabilities - I request that the agency: 1. Implement the Precautionary Principle across all updated safety regulations. 2. Establish lower, biology-based exposure limits that account for non-thermal, chronic biological mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress, DNA transcription changes). 3. Incentivize and prioritize wired telecommunications and localized power mitigation infrastructure over widespread, high-density ambient wireless radiation. Thank you for reviewing the data and incorporating public health research into your regulatory process. Respectfully, Nina Martin

The second biggest mistake we can make when evaluating wireless radiation is assuming that because something doesn't heat us, it cannot affect us. The biggest is electrifying the entire biosphere based upon that assumption. Life is bioelectric before it is biochemical. Decades before 5G towers, orthopedic surgeon and researcher Dr. Robert O. Becker investigated the electrical properties of living tissue. His work on regeneration, injury currents, and direct-current electrical signaling challenged the notion that biology could be understood exclusively through the reductionist chemistry. In his 3 books, Becker warned about the consequences of introducing artificial electromagnetic environments without adequately understanding how living organisms respond to them. His central thesis deserves renewed attention especially as we further develop wireless technology. He argued that biological electrical signaling is not incidental. It participated in tissue repair, development, and physiological regulation. Yet modern wireless safety assessments remain heavily focused on thermal effects, leaving an incomplete framework for investigating a fundamentally electrical organism. Cell membranes maintain voltage gradients, neurons communicate through electrochemistry, mitochondria depend on proton gradients, and calcium signaling regulates a wide rage of processes from neurotransmission to gene expression. There is growing evidence that everyday wireless exposure disrupts these electrical systems, and the inconvenient concerns have been dismissed throughout our safety standards. Consider the National Toxicology Program's $30 million radiofrequency research program. Its 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. Some evidence was also reported for malignant brain gliomas. Although these exposures cannot be simply extrapolated to ordinary cellphone use, the assumption that preventing tissue heating settles the safety question is obviously flipped on its head with this. This is exactly why more research is required for the bioeffects of cellphone EMF on humans. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Scientists are evaluating a rapidly changing electromagnetic environment using incomplete long-term exposure data. Real-world exposure is not a single frequency delivered under an isolated laboratory environment. A child sleeping beside a wireless router, a technician working around transmitting equipment, and an adult occasionally using a cellphone do not share identical exposure profiles, and will not experience identical effects. HHS should prioritize independent investigations into chronic, cumulative, and developmentally sensitive exposures, including realistic 5G and Wi-Fi conditions. These studies should examine sleep physiology, nervous system function, reproductive outcomes, oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, and electrophysiological signaling, while carefully controlling temperature and other confounding variables. Absence of conclusive evidence is not a substitute for comprehensive investigation. Finally, technological convenience should not require universal, involuntary participation in an increasingly wireless environment. Families should have meaningful choices in this. Schools should be able to prioritize wired internet. Communities should have access to transparent exposure measurements. Consumers should receive understandable information about their devices. Federal research must be insulated from industry influence, with transparent funding, open data, independent replication, and meaningful public participation. We should prioritize reducing unnecessary exposure without having to prove that every transmitter causes disease. Becker's legacy was not that he answered all the questions surrounding the harmful effects of EMF exposure. It was that he recognized that we could not fully answer them yet in good faith. HHS now has a serious oppurtunity to answer those questions. Study biology as an integrated electrical, magnetic, optical, hydrated, chemical, and environmental system. Investigate plausible mechanisms without overstating or understating them. Protect the scientific independence, and give communities the ability to make informed decisions. Public health should not require people to surrender control over their electromagnetic environment simply because wireless infrastructure has become ubiquitous. The burden of responsible innovation is to demonstrate safety through transparent, independent, and continuously updated science; not merely to demonstrate connectivity.

Increased exposure to EMFs has increased my testosterone levels. I am now ready to join the Department of War and use my warrior ethos.

I have been feeling homosexual impulses since I got access to wifi. I am worried it might be affecting my testosterone

I have experienced physical assault by electromagnetic radio frequency weapons used by the Tulsa Police and Bay county police departments. They used this weapon to cause me breast lumps on my left breast. They then used the same weapon to attack me while I was a remote student at Full Sail University and Clary Sage College. The weapon causes my body to be intolerant to certain foods such as breads/grains and lactose. The police are so insecure about the weapon, they have disabled me from family planning since possibly 2016 after my former husband and I decided to get birth control for us because he had applied for Oklahoma unemployment after losing his job at Harley Davidson. I have several different documents that may support these EMF/RF symptoms including Florida-Bay county Pancare medical documentation (mammogram) IHS medical documentation, Oklahoma unemployment phone call interview/witness recording, victim of crime documents and more. I feel and believe the wireless weapon used to stalk me has caused symptoms I have not educated to ask about at the doctor.

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. RFI on EMFs, RF radiation, and wireless exposure. U.S. radiofrequency limits need a comprehensive health review. That review should be run with the Department of Defense and the medical and scientific teams already investigating directed-energy bioeffects (DEBE), Havana syndrome, and anomalous health incidents (AHIs). It should cover non-ionizing RF, thermal and non-thermal, and it should not ignore ionizing radiation, which the public is also entitled to have explained in plain terms. Citizen health should not be traded for corporate convenience or an outdated heating-only rule. Russia set much lower public RF limits than the United States, and did so from chronic, non-thermal studies rather than from a six-minute heating test. The history of those standards is in Repacholi, Grigoriev, and colleagues, Bioelectromagnetics 2012. Soviet and Russian public power-density limits have long been on the order of 10 microwatts per square centimeter. The FCC public limit above 1.5 GHz is about 1,000 microwatts per square centimeter, roughly 100 times higher. I take that gap as evidence that RF is under-controlled here and is a credible contributor to neurological and chronic disease that has been explained away for years. HHS should test that claim. It should not leave it to the licensing agency. The mechanism file already exists inside the U.S. government. The National Academies (2020), An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, found directed, pulsed RF energy the most plausible mechanism for the acute, directional AHI cases. Dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, cognitive deficit, and memory loss were also consistent with known RF effects. A 2022 intelligence-community experts panel likewise found pulsed electromagnetic energy plausible. The 2023 assessment that a foreign weapon was unlikely is an attribution finding, not a finding that pulsed RF cannot injure tissue. Pakhomov and Murphy (2000), written for the Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, reviewed 114 Russian experimental studies and reported that pulsing, not average intensity, was treated as the dominant factor in low-intensity effects. Frey (Aerospace Medicine 1961; J Applied Physiology 1962) showed that pulsed microwaves produce a sound inside the head by thermoelastic expansion, a bioeffect set by the pulse, not by core heating. Cancer evidence below a meaningful thermal story: NTP TR-595 (2018), an HHS study, found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannoma and some evidence of malignant glioma in male rats exposed to 900 MHz GSM and CDMA. Falcioni et al., Environmental Research 2018 (Ramazzini), found the same heart tumor in male rats at far-field, base-station-like exposure near 0.1 W/kg, close to the FCC whole-body public limit of 0.08 W/kg. IARC Monograph 102 (2013) classifies RF as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic, on limited evidence for glioma and acoustic neuroma. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court held that keeping the 1996 limits was arbitrary and capricious because non-cancer evidence was not addressed. I want objective studies across major disease categories, not another thermal reassurance. Priority is Parkinsonian and Lewy-body syndromes: tremor, rigidity, autonomic failure, cognitive decline, and the overlap with AHI brain injury. Existing power-frequency meta-analyses do not show a clear Parkinson's association (Huss et al., Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015, summary RR about 1.05; Gunnarsson and Bodin, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, EMF RR about 1.02 for Parkinson's, higher for ALS and Alzheimer's). That is not a study of pulsed or modulated RF. Yakymenko et al., Electromagn Biol Med 2016, found oxidative stress in 93 of 100 low-intensity RF studies. Oxidative and mitochondrial injury is a shared pathway into nigral and Lewy-body disease and should be tested directly. Lai and Singh (Bioelectromagnetics 1995, 1996) reported DNA strand breaks in rat brain after low-intensity microwaves. Salford et al., Environ Health Perspect 2003, reported blood-brain barrier leakage and neuronal injury after GSM exposure at non-thermal SAR. Request: a joint HHS-DoD-AHI evidence review; a public table of U.S. versus Russian limits and the biology each used; NTP restarted on pulsed versus continuous wave at equal average SAR, at or below 0.08 W/kg; disease-category studies, led by Parkinsonian syndromes, neurodegenerative disease, cancer, cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive outcomes; a de-identified registry for acute neurological events tied to a measured RF source; and a plain-language correction of the claim that compliance with the FCC limit means no biological effect. Ionizing exposure should stay under its own regulators, but HHS should publish one map so the public can see thermal, non-thermal, non-ionizing, and ionizing evidence side by side.

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.

I submit this comment as someone concerned with the scientific evidence on RF/EMF health effects. HHS should prioritize independent research into nonthermal mechanisms (oxidative stress, DNA effects, neuroendocrine disruption, cumulative exposure), update assessment methods for real-world multi-source long-duration conditions, and evaluate whether current federal limits protect human and animal populations. I do not consent to further exposure from these improperly evaluated EMF technologies without adequate safety testing for optimal human health and longevity. My response draws on the research, clinical observations, and congressional testimony of Robert O. Becker, MD (1923–2008), orthopedic surgeon and bioelectromagnetics pioneer at Syracuse VA Hospital and SUNY Upstate. He authored over 150 papers, books including The Body Electric and Electromagnetism and Life, and testified to Congress and state commissions. Becker established that organisms generate and respond to minute electrical currents and EMFs regulating growth, CNS function, and biological cycles. Man-made EMFs far below thermal levels act as nonspecific biological stressors producing wide adverse effects. Key findings (Questions 5, 6, 11, 12): The “thermal-effects-only” doctrine is obsolete. Organisms have specialized mechanisms (including pineal sensitivity) tuned to Earth’s magnetic cycles. Chronic man-made fields disrupt these, inducing chronic stress with weight loss, diminished immunity, neuroendocrine changes, and altered brain function. Cellularly, exposure accelerates DNA production and alters chromosomes, raising growth rates and genetic abnormalities. Clinically this yields reduced fertility, low birth weights, higher infection/cancer susceptibility, birth defects (eg, Down syndrome), and psychological disturbances. Evidence includes: 60-Hz environmental fields causing stress hormonal/body-weight/blood changes across mouse generations (third-generation infant mortality 50% vs <5%); geomagnetic storm correlations with schizophrenia admissions in >16,000 patients; human reaction-time increases from low-strength VLF fields; animal findings of deficient bone healing, altered growth, and tumor-cell chromosome changes. Becker linked post-1900 power and communications EMFs, the most drastic alteration of Earth’s electromagnetic environment, to rises in birth defects, cancers, mental disorders, and teenage suicide. These fields act at fundamental levels rather than causing single specific diseases. U.S. limits rested on the inadequate thermal-only model. Military/regulatory responses often denied nonthermal effects or issued biased reviews (eg, Navy ELF studies). Becker called for independent research, free of industry/military conflict and risk-benefit decisions by the exposed population. Children, developing organisms, and those with preexisting conditions need particular attention due to higher cell-division rates and cumulative disruption. Cumulative exposures from power systems plus wireless technologies (phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, 5G/6G, IoT) have intensified. Precautionary reductions in unnecessary exposure, especially in schools, homes, and near infrastructure are warranted. Becker’s conclusion remains pertinent: man-made EMFs constitute a serious health hazard requiring urgent steps. I urge HHS to give substantial weight to this foundational evidence. References 1. Becker RO. Statement before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. October 6, 1987. https://www.robertobecker.net/PDFs/1987PowerlinesStatement.pdf 2. Becker RO. Statement of Robert O. Becker, M.D., to Subcommittee on Public Health of the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with hearings on H.R. 10790, Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1967. https://www.robertobecker.net/PDFs/BF037-HR10790Statement1967.pdf 3. Becker RO. The possible hazards of human exposure to magnetic fields. Consultant report for the Joint Technical Advisory Subcommittee 63.1.4. IEEE; 1968. 4. Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. William Morrow; 1985. 5. Becker RO, Marino AA. Electromagnetism and Life. State University of New York Press; 1982.