Reproduction & pregnancy

Thank you Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the staff of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for at long last offering the general public as well as medical and scientific professionals the opportunity to inform you of the many adverse effects of RF/EMF infrastructure and devices. I am a U.S. citizen, writing as an individual consumer, who has been researching these adverse effects (with others who are equally knowledgeable and pro-active) for 7 years. I have written a number of Op-Ed submissions to my local newspaper, as well as made oral and written comments to my city council, RI General Assembly representatives, and to my federal Representative and Senators. Rather than summarize all of this work, I will attach them to this public comment. I will be addressing the following numbers as delineated in the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure: #3. a.—focusing on cell tower placement, small cell antennas on utility poles in front of homes and schools, Wi-Fi, smart phones, cordless phones, so-called Smart Meters, and the wireless mesh required to run these meters #5—the total inadequacy of the 1996 FCC exposure guidelines (as well as the ICNIRP guidelines) to protect the public and the organic environment #9—exposure-related information should be disclosed to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments #10—the need for disease registries and environmental monitoring and reporting #11—pregnant women, embryos/fetuses, children, adolescents, adults, the elderly, those with implanted devices, and those with preexisting medical conditions all need to be considered #12—scientific evidence has existed for decades that establish harm from exposure many times lower than the 1996 guidelines Please read and consider all of the testimony presented to you and acknowledge that the FCC’s1996 radiation exposure guidelines must be revised to protect human health and the organic environment. Attachments: White Paper on Scientific Evidence of Harm from Smart Meters Links to Op-Ed Submissions Written and Oral Comments to the RI Department of Environmental Management/Office of Air Resources Re: Sources of Air Pollution on the Pastore Center Campus

I am submitting this comment in my capacity as CEO of Children’s Health Defense to express serious concerns regarding the potential public health consequences of the rapid expansion of wireless infrastructure, particularly as they relate to children. For years, Children’s Health Defense has heard firsthand from and worked with families who experience serious health challenges associated with increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from wireless technology. Stories like those of Amelia Gilardi from Pittsfield, MA, who became seriously ill when a cell tower was activated in her neighborhood, remind us that wireless technology and infrastructure do not come without a cost. Behind the promise of greater connectivity are real children and families suffering from debilitating health issues—and too often, it is our children who pay the price. Children are uniquely vulnerable and deserve special consideration. They are exposed to wireless radiation at increasingly young ages, often beginning during pregnancy and continuing throughout childhood and adulthood in their homes, schools, communities, and workplaces. The widespread use of screens and wireless devices has become normalized and encouraged, while questions about hazardous, long-term and cumulative exposure effects remain routinely ignored by federal regulatory agencies and government authorities. The FCC’s current RF exposure guidelines were established in 1996 and are fundamentally flawed and outdated. Wireless technology and infrastructure has exploded since the guidelines were introduced, and yet the industry has actively suppressed the extensive body of scientific literature that clearly demonstrates harm to people and the environment. Furthermore, federal regulatory agencies have yet to demonstrate to the public that the FCC’s decades-old RF exposure guidelines adequately protect children, other vulnerable populations and the environment from the risks of exposure. Rather than continuing to dramatically expand population-wide wireless radiation exposure, we should exercise a precautionary approach when it comes to wireless and take this opportunity to thoroughly examine the current state of scientific literature and conduct new studies that appropriately consider the long-term consequences of ubiquitous and cumulative exposure to current and future wireless environments. That means supporting independent research into the health and developmental effects of RF radiation, particularly the effects on children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, it is equally critical that federal regulatory agencies are transparent about the body of scientific literature that is used to establish exposure standards, and must ensure that they are based on biologically-relevant models. This scientific literature must be independent of industry influence and any entity that has a financial interest in continued wireless deployment. It is of utmost importance that HHS and other public health agencies play a central role in evaluating the evidence and identifying where research gaps remain. Children’s Health Defense will continue to advocate for the responsible deployment of wireless infrastructure prioritizing public health above wireless expansion and industry profits. We believe that families and communities deserve meaningful opportunities to understand and address these risks and will continue to advocate for the best interests of people, public health, and the environment. We must not allow yet another generation of children to be harmed by the effects of wireless radiation. For the sake of our children and their future, we must consider independent science, exercise transparency, and implement the necessary protections to make safer, and more responsible decisions about the wireless environment in which they are growing up. I urge HHS to prioritize rigorous, independent, and transparent research into the health and developmental effects of wireless radiation, particularly for children and other vulnerable populations. As wireless technologies become increasingly embedded in our daily lives, we have a responsibility to ensure that their widespread use is guided by sound science and accompanied by safeguards that fully protect children’s health and development. Sincerely, Mary S. Holland, Esq. President / Chief Executive Officer Children’s Health Defense

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 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 retired nurse. When I retired three years ago, my wish was to cut expenses as my income was fixed. I gave up cable TV as one of my monthly expenses that was very pricey. My cable provider provided WIFI I had always seen the " towers" and I knew that the phone companies used these towers and I never thought twice about their use. About 6 months after switching to WIFI, I began to experience serious joint pain. My knees, ankles and hips began to be an issue, not relieved with OTC pain medication. I started to read everything that I could on joint inflammation. I stumbled across something called Grounding. It was very ancestral...walking barefoot on grass, touching trees and foliage. I continued to research and came across "Grounding Sheets" I read that they were made especially for painful joints due to EMFs. They can be purchased over the internet. Unfortunately they are very expensive and it really is unknown their effectiveness over time.Not to mention that they aremade in CHINA The wire from the sheets are plugged in to the grounding hole on an outlet. I purchased and was truly amazed how effective they are .Unfortunately they do wear and in the past year or so I have purchased the sheets three times .I have actually thought about going back to Cable as it is the only way to .eliminate the extreme discomfort. The sheets are too expensive. Im hearing that the plan is to increase the wifi to 7G. If my joints are affected, what else is? Could be my brain. How about pregnant women? I'm looking for someone to come up with a solution about this very unknown situation

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.

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.

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.