Reproduction & pregnancy

Thank you so much for your efforts to study the long overdue topic. The association of EMF radiation and negative health outcomes is the most important public health issue in modern days. My personal experience suggests the positive correlations. I experienced symptoms of dry mouth, dry eyes, fatigue, palpitation, poor appetite, low energy -- all the so called nonspecific symptoms that could be caused by anything. Once I began wear EMF protective vest, all the above symptoms resolved when I went to the same environment for days. My suggestions to the HHS approaches: 1. study the associations between EMF exposure and health issues (energy level, cardiac symptoms, blood pressure, infection rates, nutritional status, etc) 2. study the intensity of such association to see if there is a dose relations 3. identify high risk populations, e.g., those with lower BMI, lower fat tissues, lower muscle mass, immunocompromised, etc) 4. high risk organs, such as reproductive systems (ovaries, epidermis), cardiovascular system, GI system, central nervous system, neck area (with multiple glands), etc. 5. preventive measures, such as EMF protection gears 6. measures to easily check environmental EMF exposures to alert population 7. regulations to mandate city or government to publish EMF exposure data There are many wonderful and ethical scientists around, but there are also many scientists who are under the influence of political ideologies. participating scientists need to declare conflict of interest in full and take full personal responsibility if breaching conflict of interest. To prevent plagiarism or fabrication, I suggest that all process of data collection, data analysis and methodology to be monitored by 3rd party. Thank you again for the thoughts and proposals. Your efforts to improve public health is truly appreciated.

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 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.

Lots of veterans served in the Iraq and Afghan wars. These soldiers and sailors served with high powered radios in vehicles alongside electronic warfare equipment that was meant to suppress radio and other waves. Lots of men developed cancer. Weird cancers I’ve never heard of like stage 3 follicular and lots of men became apparently infertile or only seem to have daughters. I think that there is constant damage to the service members in these vehicles and units that are around them, along with people that live near high powered power lines.

I am submitting this comment as a private citizen and parent documenting our family’s multi-year experiences with symptoms that temporally correlate with increased exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile devices, home hotspots (MiFi), Wi-Fi networks, surveillance cameras, and proximity to cellular infrastructure. These observations are offered to assist HHS in evaluating real-world health experiences associated with RF/EMF exposure, particularly among families and potentially vulnerable individuals. Our family previously lived for three years in Astoria, Oregon, without nearby cell towers and without a continuous home hotspot. During that period we experienced none of the symptoms described below and no longer required pain-management care. We also lived earlier at Mile 10 of Eagle River Road in Alaska, again without close cellular infrastructure, and similarly reported nearly none of the same issues. In August 2024 we moved into an apartment in Anchorage, Alaska, located approximately three blocks from two cell towers (one AT&T and one believed to be Verizon) at 7th Avenue and Karluk Street. Concurrently, our household has used mobile devices, an iPad, and a home MiFi hotspot. The apartment building also maintains seven surveillance cameras connected to continuous basement Wi-Fi whose signals reach our unit day and night. Since relocating, multiple family members have developed new or markedly worsened symptoms that improve under specific exposure-reduction conditions and worsen under higher-exposure conditions. All relevant medical evaluations (bloodwork, emergency-room assessments) have returned normal results, including statements that my cardiac findings appear among the healthiest the treating physicians have seen. Observed Symptoms and Correlations * Sleep disruption and nightmares: Frequent awakenings (sometimes several times per night) occur if phones are not placed in airplane mode. Nightmares intensify without a silver-infused beanie and appear more pronounced once permanent winter snow cover is present. Silver-infused bed sheets and a grounding mat with ground-plug connection have provided partial relief. * Headaches: My wife experiences significant headaches that began after the move and proximity to the towers. * Blood-pressure elevation and chest pain: Both my wife and I experience elevated blood pressure and chest pain, especially in later winter months, or when the home hotspot lacks aluminum-foil shielding properly directed away from the core living area. Emergency evaluations yield normal cardiac bloodwork. * Cognitive and mood effects in a child: After extended iPad use, our son exhibits mood swings, severe forgetfulness of simple information, confusion, and frustration. A silver-infused beanie reduces these symptoms when worn. * Pain, body aches, and brain fog: These symptoms led both adults to resume care with a pain-management physician after years without such treatment. Symptoms lessen when the building’s basement Wi-Fi and cameras are offline. * Menstrual irregularities: My wife, in perimenopause, experiences cycles that can last a full month; laboratory bloodwork remains normal. * Seasonal and environmental modifiers: Symptoms intensify with continuous snow cover and diminish under reduced RF exposure (airplane mode, shielding, offline Wi-Fi). We have implemented multiple mitigation and health-support measures: silver-infused beanies and bed sheets, aluminum-foil shielding of the hotspot, a grounding mat, dietary avoidance of artificial sweeteners, gelatins, and processed beef/pork, regular use of ZeroWater filters, upgraded bath and shower filters designed to remove heavy metals, chlorine, chemicals, and fluoride, and supplements (silica, sea moss, oregano oil, etc.) intended to support heavy-metal clearance. Despite these steps, the listed symptoms persist in correlation with RF/EMF sources. Symptoms were largely absent in residences without nearby cell towers and continuous high-level indoor wireless sources. Symptoms appeared or intensified after moving within three blocks of two cell towers and into a building with continuous basement Wi-Fi-linked cameras. Temporary reductions in exposure (airplane mode, shielding, offline Wi-Fi) produce measurable short-term improvement in sleep, pain, blood pressure, and cognitive clarity. Medical work-ups consistently return normal laboratory and cardiac findings, leaving the temporal and exposure-linked patterns unexplained by conventional diagnostic results. I request that HHS consider these documented family observations - alongside clinical reports from other citizens and healthcare providers - when assessing the state of the evidence on RF/EMF health effects, potential research gaps and the adequacy of current exposure guidelines for real-world, multi-source environments. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

The present state of regulation address only short term thermal effects from RF radiation. Non-thermal and long term effects are not addressed. However when they occur they are actually short term. Symptoms may vary from potentially causing tumor, by different effects from braking DNA, over oxidative stress that cause many sorts of disturbances. Further is associated to EHS or electro hypersensitivity syndrome, such as headaches, memory loss, tinnitus, problems of concentration, sleeping disorder, anxiety, depression and the other variety of symptoms. The last but not least is the impact on fertility. Studies on moused have indicated strong correlation. My personal opinion is when located in the large city on strong infrastructure, ther use to be tinnitus, when going to the small place on the seaside with lower exposure levels, tinnitus release significantly. The present sate of limits is to ICNIRP up to 10 W/m2 power flux for the general population. However that level is the limit for thermal effects, the non thermal appear at much lower levels in extended time of exposure, such as commonly considered levels over 10 microW/m2. That it difference in exposure of million times under official limits or 60 dB. Recommended levels by independet science are even lower and are considered additionally 100 times or 20dB lower. That may be close to levels that existed before massive base stations deployment, when only TV transmitters were available. Still todays exposure levels to limits are 100 million billions times higher then the natural radio frequency background levels or up 170 dB higher as to some research. That does not match the evolutionary adaptation. The main problem are mobile phone base stations as they present non-stop exposure and they are not a matter of personal choice. On the other hand mobile phones, WI-FI or DECT phones can present some higher levels of exposure on short distance, but they are the matter of personal choice and time of exposure could be chosen on functional preference. As to deployment of wi-fi for schools it is important to note that they cause in vicinity the same radiation as base stations on about 50 meters distance. Many studies on base stations like those done in Minas Gerais Brazil, in the Naila Germany that effects are most dominant in distances up to 500 meters and they even indicated correlation of symptoms by the distance. So the question is how could modern technology like those radiation emitters improve the quality of life if it cause insomnia, tinnitus, depression, sleeping disturbance or any other more severe diseases? If only the infertility rates are increase it can endanger national security as to the possible loss of domestic population. The solution to the problem is to use landlines and cable internet, as all functions can be done, even better, as optical internet is much safer and more reliable then wireless also the classic cable phone instead of mobile or DECT as it completely solves the functional need at any stationary location. Wireless communication makes sense only for airplanes, ships and satellites as the only option. In the car mobile phones are not allowed for use. The other question is where is such emergency that the average person should be in access at any moment? The average person is not ambulance, fireman or police for a need to instant access. Additionally constant exposure to information and access is related to significant stress and reduction in mental health, besides the radiation. As the degraded health can no more be purchased for money, the trade of health for money by the use of radiation exposure devices is not a good deal. They are prone to cause addiction, stress, loss of personal communication, physical and mental health degradation, there is no justification for its use, as all the rational jobs can be done on desktop computers, classic phone and landline internet, without radiation exposure. Costs of health in long term can significantly increase and the trick used by agencies is there is no evidence for side effects in the short term as from those protect the regulation. Actually the regulation protects industry from law suites rather then people from the radiation effects. In the attachement the excellent and wide coverage study from the Austrian health department and Austrian medical chamber, by Dr. Oberfeld, the great exert on environment and independent radiation research. In hope for better public education on risks from radiation exposure and removal of radiation exposure sources. Kind regards, Robert Markusic, ing.med.radiology & mag.oec.

See attached file(s) A Narrative Review on the Influence of Electromagnetic Fields Below 100 kHz on the Endocrine System 2026 Abstract Background: Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs), generated mainly by power infrastructure and household devices, have raised scientific interest due to their potential impact on the endocrine system. Animal research consistently shows effects on melatonin secretion, stress hormone levels, thyroid activity, and reproductive function—largely mediated by oxidative stress and calcium ion imbalance. In contrast, human studies remain inconsistent, often hindered by methodological limitations and insufficient exposure characterization. Objective: This review synthesizes experimental and epidemiological studies examining low-frequency electromagnetic field exposure (≤100 kHz) and its influence on hormonal regulation. Methods: A bibliometric analysis highlights focused interest on specific endocrine targets, particularly the pineal gland. Importantly, many experimental studies use field strengths above those found near high- voltage power lines, limiting direct applicability. Conclusions: While a definitive causal link has not been established, the widespread exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields justifies precautionary considerations. Several important research gaps remain, many of which are identified in this review. The topic of low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the endocrine system requires more rigorous, long-term human studies with accurate exposure assessment. Keywords: electromagnetic field; endocrine system; hormones; cancer; EMF exposure

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 am submitting this comment as someone concerned about the health effects of wireless radiation as well as the effects on the environment. AI Overview: Wireless devices emit low-intensity radiofrequency (RF) radiation (a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields) to transmit data. Major health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration state that current scientific evidence does not conclusively prove that low-level RF exposure causes adverse health effects or cancer. However, independent researchers, public health groups, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer note several potential and debated risks. Main Health Risks and Studies • Carcinogen Classification: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B "possible carcinogen" based on limited evidence in humans and animal studies linking heavy, long-term cell phone use to certain brain tumors (such as malignant gliomas and non-malignant acoustic neuromas). • Animal Studies & DNA Damage: The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found clear evidence of heart tumors (schwannomas) and some evidence of brain and adrenal gland tumors in male rats exposed to high levels of cell phone RF radiation, along with signs of cellular DNA damage. • Oxidative Stress: A large portion of peer-reviewed laboratory studies indicate that low-intensity RF radiation can trigger oxidative stress (an imbalance of free radicals and antioxidants), which may lead to cellular or tissue inflammation and disrupted cell signaling. • Symptom Reports: Some individuals report physiological symptoms—such as headaches, chronic fatigue, sleep disturbances, agitation, and tinnitus—that they attribute to close or prolonged exposure to mobile phones, Wi-Fi routers, and cellular base stations, though conditions like "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" are not formally recognized by mainstream health consensus as directly caused by EMF fields. • Reproductive & Developmental Concerns: Certain studies point to potential drops in sperm count and motility from carrying phones in pants pockets, as well as possible developmental or behavioral impacts tied to early-life exposure. Vulnerable Populations • Children and Pregnant Women: Children absorb proportionally higher amounts of RF radiation into their brain tissue and bone marrow than adults because they have thinner skulls, smaller head sizes, and higher tissue water content. I hope that HHS will use this opportunity to create a comprehensive report on the current medical, biological, and public health knowledge regarding these effects and take action on the findings. Please consider the experiences of those affected by this radiation as part of what is reviewed to come up with what should be the scientific underpinnings to actual protective standards and action by the federal government.

There are many studies regarding wireless radiation. Here are two for your consideration. The public deserves to be informed of dangers, and deserves to learn ways to mitigate cellular damage, especially for children, who are more effected because their brain cells are still developing. Thank you or looking into the dangers of wireless radiation. God Bless! A Narrative Review on the Influence of Electromagnetic Fields Below 100 kHz on the Endocrine System https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/10/4910 Due to the ubiquity of low-frequency electromagnetic fields in everyday human environments, exposure to them is largely unavoidable. Their biological effects are still not fully understood. This work analyzes the relationship between low-frequency electromagnetic fields and the human endocrine system. As the endocrine system is responsible for regulating and maintaining the human body, its potential dysregulation may result in significant adverse health effects. This manuscript summarizes the existing studies addressing this topic and highlights several promising directions for future research. Mobile telephony radiation exerts genotoxic action and significantly enhances the effects of gamma radiation in human cells https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38099580/ Experimental animal studies and in vitro (cell culture) investigations constitute the majority of the research indicating that EMFs can influence hormone secretion and alter various cellular processes [2]. These controlled environments offer significant advantages, allowing for precise control over exposure conditions, including frequency, intensity, duration, and waveform, and enabling detailed investigation of underlying biological mechanisms at the cellular and molecular levels [4]. Consistent observations from these models include: • disruption of melatonin secretion from the pineal gland [13], • alterations in HPA axis activity and levels of stress hormones such as corticosterone and ACTH [4], • changes in thyroid hormone production, specifically fT4 [17], • adverse impacts on reproductive function, encompassing disruptions to the estrous cycle, changes in sperm quality, and altered hormone levels [2], • identification of underlying cellular changes, such as increased oxidative stress, altered ion channel activity, and DNA damage, which provide mechanistic explanations for the observed endocrine disruptions [3]. The consistency of findings across numerous animal and in vitro studies, particularly regarding specific endocrine disruptions and underlying cellular mechanisms like oxidative stress and ion channel modulation, establishes a strong mechanistic plausibility for ELFEMF effects on the endocrine system.