Reproduction & pregnancy

Thank you for taking our comments. In this commentary I will state my firsthand experiences with EMF exposure, and how my life is emphatically miserable regarding this exposure. It’s the nervous system. —EMFs are burning out my nervous system and dulling my reproductive organs. Full stop. Please review this opening statement, as it is the crux of this crucial topic. Thank you. Wi-Fi is one of the worst assailants, along with large rechargeable battery devices such as portable generators and electric vehicles, and cell phones with 3G and LTE enabled, and worse, 5G and hotspots. I single out these influences and devices because they are the most pervasive offenders in our everyday lives, to such an egregious extent. Wi-Fi literally electrifies the air we live in, eroding the nerve endings in my skin, eroding the sensitive tissue in my lungs, and disrupting the natural electromagnetic field around my heart. I base these emphatic claims on direct observation of myself rather than peer-reviewed studies. Physical exertion and exercise amidst Wi-Fi is exceptionally damaging to my body. Gyms with Wi-Fi are absolutely atrocious, as Wi-Fi simply erodes the infrastructure of my body. That’s it. I’ve summed it up in one sentence concerning Wi-Fi: Wi-Fi erodes the infrastructure of my body. I can feel it. It’s obvious to me. My body’s recovery after exercising in a Wi-Fi environment is longer, and my physical endurance while exercising in these environments is shorter and weaker. It’s harder to breathe in Wi-Fi, as Wi-Fi pollutes the air. Electricity in the air is burning out my lungs and heart. The air is not fresh. It’s not natural. It’s such a discomfort. — Rechargeable batteries give off “dirty electricity,” electrical fields that disrupt my own body’s natural electrical fields. Portable generators give off enormous amounts of disruptive fields that burn and singe my nervous system, specifically my lower body, my legs, and my reproductive organs. Electric cars have huge rechargeable batteries in them as well, and these batteries are just as destructive. My legs burn and feel inflamed when in proximity. They feel weak and arthritic, and their strength and sturdiness are lessened. My reproductive organs feel a burning sensation as well. Testicles burn and go numb, and arousal and the ability to be aroused are diminished. — Cell phones actively connected to 3G LTE, and worse, 5G and enabled hotspots give off a similar disruptive electrical field, but cell phones affect my heart’s field and my throat rather than my lower body as stated above. Close proximity to these devices, whether on my body or within a few feet, adversely affect my heart and nervous system. Inflammation in these areas becomes apparent, and my heart’s vigor and strength diminish to the point of feelings of heart failure. It’s terrible. EMF-blocking, silver-lined sleeves help to block this radiation, but are not full proof. While wireless, rechargeable earbuds burn out my ears and brain. Those are heavily shunned. Lastly, caffeine and processed sugar consumption, and excessive consumption of these inflammatory substances, exacerbate the negative effects of these EMF exposures. I’ve just about quit caffeine and sugar consumption altogether to better combat my struggle with EMF exposure. These are my observations and I thank you dearly for providing this opportunity for the public to voice our experiences with EMF exposure, and I hope solutions can be reached to allow people like myself to live more comfortably among electromagnetic frequencies. Thank you for reading. Chris Thorpe

Please address the concerns about cancer and reproductive toxicity that are raised in Melnick R and Moskowitz J, Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Please take account of Mevissen et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1646658220160735&set=a.336311797862057. Europe Tightens Cellphone Radiation Testing Standards, Requiring Devices to Meet Limits Against the Body by yourNEWS Media Newsroom | Oct 19, 2026 Listen to Article The European Union has adopted stricter cellphone radiation testing procedures that will require manufacturers to measure emissions with devices touching the body, while researchers and consumer advocates call for similar changes in the United States. By yourNEWS Media Newsroom. https://yournews.com/2026/10/19/7230167/europe-tightens-cellphone-radiation-testing-standards-requiring-devices-to-meet/ The revised standard, published Sept. 7, 2026, in the Official Journal of the European Union, establishes a zero-millimeter testing distance for body exposure, replacing procedures that previously permitted separation distances of up to 5 millimeters. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32026D2003 Now, in the age of cellular telephones, wireless routers, and the Internet of things, all of which use EMF, additional research is needed on practical ways to reduce exposures to EMFs. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can significantly increase mold growth, with studies showing that molds exposed to EMFs can produce mycotoxins at much higher rates compared to those shielded from EMF exposure. This suggests that EMFs may make molds more aggressive and reactive, exacerbating health risks associated with mold toxicity. pacificdecon.com vagusclinic.com. How EMFs Could Influence Mold Growth (and What That Means for Your Family’s Health) Post published: January 11, 2026 Post comments: https://healthyhouseontheblock.com/emfs-and-mold-growth-in-homes/. EMFs in hospitals can potentially exacerbate mold growth, as research indicates that electromagnetic fields may stimulate mold to produce more mycotoxins, which can worsen health issues for sensitive individuals. Proper management of both EMF exposure and moisture is crucial in hospital settings to mitigate these risks. airestech.com moldhelpforyou.com. The Impact of Electromagnetic Fields on Mold Toxin Production June 8, 2024 In an insightful experiment conducted by a leading mold researcher in Switzerland, the relationship between electromagnetic fields (EMF) and mold toxin production was explored. The researcher utilized a Faraday cage—a simple yet effective barrier made from silver-coated cloth resembling a mosquito net—to shield mold cultures from ambient electromagnetic radiation. Under this protective barrier, the mold’s production of mycotoxins, which are harmful toxins produced by certain fungi, was measured. Remarkably, once the Faraday cage was removed and the mold was exposed to the laboratory’s ambient EMF, including radiation from cell phones, the production of mycotoxins surged by over 600 times. Not only did the quantity of toxins increase, but the mold also produced significantly more virulent and dangerous mycotoxins in response to the electromagnetic exposure. https://www.rfsafe.com/the-impact-of-electromagnetic-fields-on-mold-toxin-production/. WHAT ABOUT THE POLICE AN THE EMF IN THEIR CARS WHERE IS THE STUDY, WHAT ABOUT THE EMF IN THE ELECTRIC CARS? WHAT IS THE EMF DOING TO THE WOMB>? WHAT LEVEL WILL YOU PUT YOUR ETERNAL SOUL ON THE LINE THAT IT IS SAFE IN ALL LEVELS AN ENVIRONMENTS? SOULS ARE ON THE LINE, AND THE POWER IS GREAT. GREATER THAN THOSE WHO WOULD PUT THOSE AT RISK FROM EMF EXPOSURE. THE NATIONAL DEBT IS A SCAM AN CURRENCY CAN BE ADDED TO RESEARCH AN PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM EMFS AN OTHERS. WHERE THERE IS A SOUL THAT WANTS TO BE ETERNAL, THERE IS A WAY. :). ALSO, GROUPS NEED TO BE RESEARCHED TO SEE WHO IS ABOUT KILLING OTHERS AN THINGS LIKE POPULATION CONTROL LIKE EUGENIC? GROUPS. DID VICE PRESIDENT VANCE SAY SOMETHING DEMONS IN SPACE OR SOMETHING? ARE VANCES DEMONS he talks about if the case, NOT WANTING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FOR SOME REASON? I WAS SCHOOLED ON EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. IS ANY ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, IN GOVERNMENT NOT WANTING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC OR TO MAKE MORE MONEY INSTEAD OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC. Make the world make sense again, or let's make it make sense. Why am i picking up wifi from others homes in my home, that is not using wifi? They are approaching in my space contaminating my space with their wifi correct? Why are their units so powerful that they reach into my home space. what about the terrorism aspects of turning up towers to kill those underneath and hackers?where is that protection an public able to walk up to a tower an see a digital readout

Non-thermal radiofrequency radiation is entropic waste. It is a fidelity stressor that disrupts the critical timing components of biology, and what it produces is bioelectrical dissonance and a meta-disease state. The evidence is already on the record. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute found the same rare heart tumor. The WHO-commissioned review rated glioma and heart schwannoma high-certainty. The FCC's own 2 mm tests hit 5.2 W/kg. Europe moves body testing to 0 mm by March 7, 2028. HHS should act now, and the end game is Li-Fi compatibility through the Clean Ether Act. Comment of John Coates on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Individual respondent. My full comment, with sources, is attached: It answers Questions 2 through 18, with every subpart, in order. THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY ON THE RECORD (Q6, Q12). - NTP and Ramazzini, two independent lifetime bioassays, found the same rare tumor, malignant heart schwannoma, in male rats. Germany's BfS called Ramazzini's exposures "at a comparable level to the basic limit values for humans." - The WHO-commissioned review: "The CoE for an increased risk in glioma was judged as high." Heart schwannoma was rated high too. - NTP held heating under 1 degree C, and NTP itself says: "The role of thermal changes on cancer development needs to be further investigated." GSM gliomas ran 0, 3, 3 and 2 per 90 across sham, 1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg. Heat does not draw that curve. HHS should fund the investigation NTP called for. - NTP's 1.5 W/kg is a whole-body average; the FCC's 1.6 W/kg limit is a 1-gram local peak. Different measures, but the numbers sit right on top of each other. The iPhone Air's 1.60 W/kg is the highest simultaneous-transmission value reported in its FCC grant. THE TEST MISSES THE BODY (Q5(p), Q7, Q8, Q9). - The FCC's own 2019 tests at 2 mm recorded up to 5.2 W/kg. - Europe moves body testing to 0 mm by March 7, 2028. The U.S. still certifies at typically 5 to 15 mm. - SAR averages away the timing biology reads: GSM bursts about 217 times a second, Wi-Fi beacons about ten times a second, DECT and 5G NR use 10 ms frames. - Require 0 mm testing, and disclose test distance and pulse structure with every SAR value. THE META-DISEASE STATE (Q10, Q12). RF does not need to cause one unique disease to matter. It only needs to reduce the fidelity of the systems that prevent many diseases. Bioelectrical dissonance is the process, low-fidelity biology is the state, and disease susceptibility is the consequence. The causal fingerprint is not one diagnosis. It is a shifted distribution of biological failure: rare becomes less rare, late becomes early, recoverable becomes persistent. S4-MITO-SPIN (Q12). The S4 helix of the VGCCs, including CACNA1C, is the bulk-calcium gate; Cyb5b is the internal-timing transducer (Kim et al., Cell, 2026: "an essential mediator likely acting as an EMF sensor"); mitochondria are the redox amplifier (95% of 131 non-thermal studies found oxidative effects); cryptochrome-to-flavins spin dynamics are the modulator. At matched SAR, pulse modulation, not the carrier, changed human EEG and blood flow. HHS should test whether pulsed exposure disrupts pulsatile insulin release, which runs on the same calcium machinery. SENSITIVE POPULATIONS (Q11). Development has no restore point. Children absorb higher local doses; NTP pups were born smaller; responses differ by CACNA1C genotype and mouse strain; aging neurons carry more L-type calcium channels. WHAT I ASK (Q5, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18). - Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. It is HHS's job. The Secretary "shall establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program" and develop techniques "for minimizing exposure." Publish the performance-standard determination and a public work plan; replace FDA's tumor-only 2020 review. - Run the meta-disease experiment: pulsed RF vs carrier-only vs sham at matched SAR, from the womb, measuring fidelity endpoints before pathology (NIEHS/NTP). - Fund Cyb5b, CACNA1C and organoid replication (NIH); build registries and measured-exposure cohorts (CDC); issue precautionary guidance now. - Repeal Section 704, which bars localities from weighing RF health effects in siting. - Pass the Clean Ether Act: fiber, Ethernet and Li-Fi on IEEE 802.11bb indoors, with pilots in Head Start, childcare, maternity and pediatric care, and HHS facilities. Invisible does not mean irrelevant. Non-ionizing does not mean non-biological. Legal does not mean safe. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 7 in 1977, with my left kidney removed at age 8, while my family lived near a radar installation on a military base. In 1995 my daughter Angel Leigh was born with anencephaly and did not survive. My daughter was the canary in the coal mine... and so was I. John Coates RF Safe

I urge the Department of Health and Human Services to take immediate, independent action to evaluate the potential health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. Regulatory inaction is unacceptable when scientific questions remain and public exposure continues to increase. We must not repeat the mistakes of the tobacco industry, where warnings and scientific concerns were met with years of delay while the public remained exposed. The comparison is about regulatory responsibility—not a claim that the evidence on wireless radiation is identical to the evidence on tobacco. Scientific evidence warrants serious attention. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s animal studies reported evidence of certain tumors associated with cell-phone RF exposure. More recent systematic reviews have found no clear increase in some cancers examined, underscoring the need for continued independent research rather than complacency. Research also raises questions about reproductive health and biological effects. A 2024 systematic review by Cordelli and colleagues examined RF exposure and male fertility, including evidence from animal studies and human sperm in vitro. Grimaldi and colleagues reported in 1997 that exposure to 50-Hz electromagnetic fields affected Epstein–Barr virus antigen expression in a laboratory cell model. These findings do not establish that everyday wireless exposure causes disease, but they demonstrate why biological effects deserve rigorous investigation. The scientific literature must be evaluated objectively, including evidence of harm, evidence of no effect, and uncertainties. Research should be independent of industry influence, transparent, reproducible, and sufficiently funded to address long-term and cumulative exposure. I call on HHS to take the following actions immediately: 1. Commission an independent, comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research on RF radiation and EMF exposure, including cancer, reproductive health, neurological effects, and other potential biological impacts. 2. Reassess whether current exposure limits adequately reflect the scientific evidence, including uncertainties regarding long-term and cumulative exposure. 3. Increase funding for independent research and long-term studies, with particular attention to children, pregnancy, and other potentially vulnerable populations. 4. Improve public education and transparency about exposure sources, scientific uncertainties, and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. 5. Establish clear timelines for review, public reporting, and regulatory action. The absence of definitive proof of harm is not proof of safety. HHS must not wait for incontrovertible evidence of widespread harm before acting responsibly. The public deserves transparent science, independent oversight, and precautionary policies that put health ahead of commercial interests. Relevant peer-reviewed research and sources • Baan R, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology. 2011;12(7):624–626. • National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of cell-phone radiofrequency radiation. Technical Reports 595 and 596, 2018. • Karipidis K, et al. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies. Environment International. 2024;191:108983. • Cordelli E, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies. Environment International. 2024;185:108509. • Grimaldi S, et al. 50 Hz electromagnetic fields induce changes in the expression of Epstein-Barr virus early antigens in a cell line. Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology. 1997;16(2–3):205–207. • Environmental Health Trust: Wireless Radiation Health Effects Research • National Toxicology Program: Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Studies I urge HHS to act now, prioritize public health, and ensure that wireless technology policy is guided by independent science rather than delayed until preventable harm becomes undeniable.

I am deeply concerned about the potential long-term health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and the increasing amount of wireless radiation exposure in our everyday environments. As a mother, I am particularly concerned about the cumulative exposure our children experience from an early age through cell phones, Wi-Fi, tablets, wireless devices, and technology in schools and homes. Children are growing up in environments where wireless technology is nearly constant, yet important questions remain about the effects of lifelong exposure. I recognize that current scientific evidence has not established that everyday wireless exposure within existing safety limits causes adverse health effects. However, I believe the remaining scientific uncertainties deserve continued independent investigation, particularly regarding long-term exposure, developing children, pregnancy, sleep, neurological health, and reproductive health. I am also concerned about whether current safety standards adequately reflect modern exposure patterns. People are no longer exposed to just one wireless device at a time. Many of us live and work surrounded by multiple sources of radiofrequency emissions throughout the day. I would like to see more research examining realistic, combined, and prolonged exposure rather than relying solely on short-term assessments. I strongly encourage federal agencies to prioritize transparent, independent, peer-reviewed research, including studies that examine potential effects beyond tissue heating. Research should also consider vulnerable populations and clearly communicate both established findings and areas where evidence remains inconclusive. I believe families deserve accurate information, meaningful choices, and practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure without fear-based messaging or having to give up essential technology. My request is for greater transparency, stronger long-term research, ongoing evaluation of safety standards, and a precautionary approach where scientific uncertainty remains. Protecting public health, especially the health of future generations, should remain a priority as wireless technology continues to expand.

My 22 year old son had a job this summer where he used an iPad for 12+ hours/day. He often held the iPad on his lap. After about 6 weeks he noticed a dull, constant pain in his testicles. He moved the iPad to a new spot and the pain improved. After the summer he saw our chiropractor who shared that he notices a lot of issues like this - especially a link to EMFs impacting hormones. I hypothesize that EMFs directly impact hormone function. (...Particularly based on the dramatic increase of perimenopause diagnoses at younger ages.) I also wonder if the chemicals released in the sky work to advance EMF's potency.

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.

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. There have been many scientists and studies regarding the harm of wireless frequencies. One harm occurs to the reproductive cells of The human beings in the range of the wireless frequencies. This damage may not be evident until the egg inside the human exposed becomes of age to reproduce themselves. At this point they may find it difficult to be able to have children. So it may take a generation. Another is to the wildlife such as bees etc. There are positive frequencies as well such as the Rife machine which information has been suppressed regarding. But, there are many negatives to wireless frequencies. I have known many people wearing earbuds for extended periods of time that have a white patch of hair behind their ear. It's killing the cells. It's right beside their brain. Something definitely needs to be done. I pray you'll be successful.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Santosh-Kesari/publication/263931015_Why_children_absorb_more_microwave_radiation_than_adults_The_consequences/links/53d8fee20cf2631430c38c88/Why-children-absorb-more-microwave-radiation-than-adults-The-consequences.pdf "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences" "Abstract Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless devices."