Reproduction & pregnancy

I am submitting this comment as someone who has experienced a profound sensitivity to electromagnetic environments for many years. I often describe myself as a “canary”—someone whose nervous system seems to register environmental changes more intensely or earlier than the people around me. Living this way has been incredibly difficult. Again and again, people who experience the world more viscerally are told that what we are noticing is imaginary, psychological, or simply “in our heads.” I believe there is an important lesson in listening to the canaries rather than dismissing them. I am not asking regulators to accept every interpretation of electromagnetic sensitivity as established scientific fact. I am asking for serious, independent investigation into the possibility that our rapidly increasing exposure to human-generated electromagnetic fields may have biological consequences that we do not yet fully understand. The question should not only be, “Can we prove that EMFs cause a particular disease?” We should also be asking: What are the cumulative effects of living, sleeping, working, and raising children in environments saturated with increasingly complex electromagnetic signals? Are there populations who are more sensitive? Are there biological effects that occur below the thresholds currently used to define harm? And are our existing standards adequately accounting for long-term, continuous exposure rather than only acute thermal effects? My own experience has led me to think about this in terms of the body’s relationship with its electromagnetic environment. Everything in the human body is ultimately physical, biochemical, electrical, and energetic. Our nervous system, brain, heart, cellular signaling, and biological rhythms all depend upon extraordinarily precise electrical and electromagnetic processes. From a more holistic perspective, I also understand health as a state of coherence and harmony—with our bodies, with one another, and with the natural electromagnetic environment in which human beings evolved. Modern technology has introduced electromagnetic frequencies and patterns of exposure on a scale and continuity that are profoundly different from the environments in which our biology developed. I believe we should be humble about what we may not yet understand about that interaction. For people like me, this is not an abstract debate. When my environment changes, I can experience changes in my ability to rest, regulate, concentrate, and feel at ease in my own body. Whether the eventual scientific explanation validates my interpretation or reveals something different, the experience itself is real and deserves investigation rather than ridicule. And I believe this issue extends far beyond people who identify as electromagnetically sensitive. The absence of an obvious immediate sensation does not necessarily mean the absence of a biological effect. Many environmental exposures have historically been understood only after years of research. The people who notice something first are not necessarily the people who are imagining it; sometimes they are simply the people whose systems are giving an earlier signal. I therefore urge the government to support rigorous, independent, transparent research into the biological effects of both existing and emerging electromagnetic technologies, including long-term and cumulative exposure. Research should consider neurological, cardiovascular, cellular, reproductive, sleep, endocrine, and other potential effects, as well as individual differences in sensitivity. Most importantly, I hope we can create a regulatory environment that does not require people to become sick enough—or scientifically convenient enough—to deserve protection. We have an opportunity to listen to the canaries. Please take seriously the people who are telling you that something in their environment feels different. Investigate it. Measure it. Study it without predetermined conclusions. And allow the science to lead us toward technologies and environments that support human health rather than assuming that everything technologically possible is automatically biologically compatible. Thank you for considering my experience and this perspective.

Title: Oxidative Stress: The Cause of Autism and Disease in General. Author: Martin T. Moore M.S. Professor of Kinesiology. Institutions: USC, UWM, Dallas College, Tarrant County College. Presented at The Brain Foundation Annual Symposium. August 22-25, 2025. A plethora of triggers can induce oxidative stress. Whether it is related to emotional stress, birth stress, ionizing radiation, non-ionizing radiation (cell phones), or cosmic radiation, high altitude hypoxia, parasites (both tropical and temperate zone) all causes have likely become more prevalent in the last 45 years. Our human body still has to deal with traditional oxidative stress triggers, like bacterial and viral infections as well as accidents. A review of literature indicates that many researchers have confirmed that oxidative stress (OS) not only correlates with neurological disease but may cause disease. (1,2,4). While many individuals that undergo oxidative stress may escape the cellular damage or death which leads to a disorder, it seems to be determined quite often by the activity of HIF (Hypoxia Inducible Factor) (3). The oxidative stress created by mitochondrial dysfunction can affect gene expression and development of the immature brain (20, 21). Oxidative Stress causes are numerous, especially given the changes in lifestyle during the last 45 years. The focus of this paper is the prevention of disease by safeguarding against the triggers of OS detailed in this review. Prospective parents and especially mature adults should become familiar with OS causes and make their best effort to reduce the risk of OS during pregnancy for the mother, in the child post birth, and adults as they age. Testing for OS during illness or testing routinely is a reasonable screen to perform, as detailed in this Pilot Study. Hydrogen Peroxide is a ROS (reactive oxygen species which accompanies OS and inflammation (13,14, 20, 21, 23) and maybe an easy in-home test to perform for a cost of approximately 45 cents per test! Hydrogen Peroxide toxicity is being studied internationally in relationship to DNA mutation and numerous chronic diseases. Harvest saliva with a pipette. Apply to a test strip until saturated. Wait one minute and compare any color change to the chart provided. More than .3 ppm requires immediate medical attention. Color chart measures may vary by manufacturer, so I regard any color change post application as a medical emergency. For more information, bibliographies, and updates on the research, email the author at lockmtm@gmail.com

I became aware of emf's after being diagnosed with mold illness, then later a rare auto immune disease that photosensitivity is a common symptom off. It may be multiple forms of radiation sensitivity and/or visible light. Blue light also impacts health and skin. I lost my insurance license worked so hard to get because I could not work on phone and pc without effects on skin. I can no longer work or fly and even car travel by so many towers causes issues. I follow many sites that have done scientific experiments on the effects and heard that China requires pregnant women to cover their bellies to protect unborn. Other countries much stricter guidelines especially for children, while we just keep adding towers near schools. Remember don't stand in front of the microwave? Now we wear them and siti in frot of the radiation many hours a day. And we wonder why the unhealthiest of all time?

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.

This comment is submitted by Cindy Sage, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports 2007 and 2012 (and Updates) on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group. The BioInitiative Report link is www.bioinitiative.org and is incorporated by reference due to its file size. The BioInitiative Report is an internationally acclaimed scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency/microwave radiation. In 2007, the BioInitiative Working Group released a 650-page report citing more than 2000 studies that document health effects of EMFs from all sources. The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former Presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Membership in the BioInitiative Working Group includes Sweden (6), USA (10), India (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Canada (2), Denmark (1), Austria (2), Slovak Republic (1), Russia (1) The BioInitiative Report was produced for publication to the broadest possible audience, hence placed on the Web and offered for free. Much of the BioInitiative Report content, including updated chapters and new chapters was later published in a special two-volume issue of the journal Pathophysiology to verify the quality of its science (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3). In 2013, the BioInitiative 2012 chapter on Autism and EMF was also published in two parts, in the peer-reviewed journal Pathophysiology. The BioInitiative 2012 Report concludes that the evidence for health risks from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by wireless technologies have substantially increased since 2007. A review of over 1800 new scientific studies indicates current guidelines are inadequate to protect the public from chronic exposure to very low-intensity (non-thermal) electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (EMF and RFR). In twenty-four technical chapters, the BioInitiative 2012 Report discusses the content and implications of about 1800 new studies since 2007. Overall, these new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers - particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9); carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on the fetus, neonate and offspring (Section 18 and 19); effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18); and findings in autism spectrum disorders consistent with EMF/RFR exposure effects. Global precautionary actions that have been taken in countries around the world, and recommended by medical and research experts are documented in Section 22. Use of the Precautionary Principal and its relevance are presented in Section 23. Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations are in Section 24. Attached file: Pathophysiology Full Edition.pdf (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3)

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 and someone who is on the board of a nonprofit organization where we research the effects of toxins in our food and environment on child development, about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. Cell Towers should not be legally allowed to be on schoolgrounds across America, yet they are in my town. I joined the School Health Advisory Council to address this issue as the head of the Student Environmental Health Subcommittee. However, it's an uphill battle, but if you make a law that cell towers can't be on school grounds, then the school district would have no choice but to take these cell towers down. 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.