Reproduction & pregnancy

To whom this may concern, When considering the impact of EMF not only on the environment but on human physiology with regard to known cases of wifi sensitivity, I would first consider if said frequencies have an impact during human growth and development on the human brain in vivo or on the foetus. This information garnered with the least invasive method would probably be found in areas with high EMF saturation in comparison to low saturation as well other places where there is a higher population density with lower emissions standards on communication devices(e.g. India, developing nations). Also, a cross reference of brain scans and other data collected on bodily function pre-dating the introduction of certain EMF (e.g. 1920's to 1970's 1970's to pre-2000) and handheld technologies (cell phones, cellphone based applications) with a note to the size or shape of the Amygdala, Pre-frontal cortex, and Visual cortex if suspected frequencies/technologies may have impacted human behavior or memory not withholding the solar maximum and lunar cycle as variables due to possible synergism. Newer technologies capable of mapping the current level of saturation and providing heatmaps to attest to if said EMF radiation's propagation have or would ever pose a detriment to life beyond a certain threshhold; specifically, cellsites and surrounding areas with special consideration to the experimental EMF auctioned off during the Coronavirus by the FCC. Moving forward understanding if and when the threshhold of saturation would reach a danger to human or other life on Earth would seem to me to be immediate issue. A proposed idea is a device somewhat like a giegercounter/wifi analyzer connected to a drone with a program possibly pythonic capable of mapping time, date, altitude, geolocation, and EMF levels. These surveys then Federally mandated as requirements to Telephone Service and Internet Service providers similar to carbon emission standards in the Automotive industry. This may be a non-sequitur seeing as the current and projected electro-magnetic frequency spectrum saturation on our planet could be deemed non-hazardous at any level but so Science goes as they say. To a brighter future, Aaron X.

I know for a fact that Electro magnetic radiation from high tension wires near humans causes cancer tumors birth defects and many other problems in humans. I am 64 years old and remember either 60 minutes or another exposé TV show years ago in my youth showed how much radiation is in the air and they discussed how the federal government and the electric companies knew about the harm it can do and kept this secret for years. When I was around 30 I went to a buddy's house by a high tension wire next to his home. I began to tell him with a bunch of guys in his shed in the back of his house were he had a keg next to his motocross bike that the tension wires had high electro magnetic radiation that's not good for humans as was told on TV and the government and electric companies have covered it up for years. I told him about how the TV showed you can SHOW how much radiation is in the air by the TV show example how THEY showed the radiation by using an 8 foot flourescent light bulb tube and simply walked out in the field under the power lines and held it up to the sky at night and it lit up! I told my friend about this and asked if he had a flourescent bulb and sure enough, he pointed above us in his shed we were in. Myself and about 8 other guys all witness to this walked out into the field right next to his house and as I held the light tube horizontal to the ground one of my friends from Dundalk, Maryland, Gary, who I still speak with today said, "OH man I can see it starting to light up already!" It was very dimly lit. I said to him, "WAIT till you see what happens when I hold it towards the sky!" As every one gathered in the field, I said "Ready!? WATCH THIS SHIT!" I raised my hand with the 8 foot tube to the sky like Luke Skywalker holding a light sabre and sure enough, the bulb lit up in my hand and everyone was shocked! I explained what the TV show stated that I had learned. The electro magnetic radiation in the air was lighting the bulb! I had no idea but my friend who owned the house later would tell me, he went to his wife the next day and said, "WE'RE SELLING THE HOUSE! WE'RE MOVING!!!" And sure enough, he put the house up on the market and moved shortly after! His name was Dave Burrier. His wife is still alive. I talk with is Brother now and then. Dave would inform me months later that he told his wife the next day he was selling the home and he did it because of what I had showed him and told him about the electro magnetic radiation and how harmful it is to humans. He also would tell me something I did not know until that moment! His wife was pregnant in that house next to the powerlines after he got married to her and they had a baby. The baby was developed and born in that home next to the powerlines and the baby didn't last a month, it had all kinds of serious birth defective health problems. I don't know what they were, his brother could address that question as well as his still alive wife, but fact is, Dave attributed the death of his child and the problems that plagued the child that kept it in the hospital for about 3.5 weeks until the child died on those powerlines. Dave moved far away with his wife and bought a place in the woods away from powerlines and he and his wife had another baby and he's healthy and in his 20's today. Dave died during covid sadly. All of this is true. I can demostrate how you can light up a flourescent light bulb 8 foot long under powerlines even today from the high radiation coming off those power lines. So, the same goes for the 5G and cell phone towers. I would like this to be taken seriously and a study and research of this danger to society be conducted and exposed to the world so we can find a way to live safely around such highly dangerous radiation to humans. Please consdier this request to stop moving forward with this quick rush to technology and l protect human life first! I am a conservative and NOT an activist! But I know this info to be true because I showed it to be true back in the early 90's. I'm 64 today.

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397, responding to Questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18. Perspective (Q2): I am submitting as an individual, a citizen journalist with 16 years of independent investigative work, the last 10 on electromagnetic radiation and health. I am the author of The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs, host of the Smarter Tech podcast and director of the documentary Body Burden, and I have interviewed more than 100 scientists, physicians and engineers in this field. My comment focuses on research gaps (Q16). My perspective is that our RF safety standards rest on the wrong assumption, that only tissue heating matters, and that this assumption keeps the gaps open: it created a culture of "no effect" from the public to regulators to researchers, and the topic was systematically defunded. The research is completely inadequate to protect the public, while the technology rolls out faster than our ability to study it. The attached document gives the evidence and full references for each gap below. 1. Combined exposures and the exposome (Q16, Q18, Q5o). Almost all RF research tests one exposure at a time, while people live with RF alongside metals, pesticides and mold. Dr. Ronald Kostoff's work documents how other agents modify EMF effects. Exposome studies should include wireless exposure (ambient RF, home Wi-Fi, smartphone use and position) as a standard variable. 2. Real-world exposure measurement (Q7, Q8, Q5n). The U.S. has no national program measuring actual RF exposure in homes, schools and hospitals, no routine post-market SAR testing of devices in body-contact positions (GAO-12-771), and the FCC has said it lacks the resources to routinely monitor transmitter emissions. 3. Sleep (Q12, Q16). Pulse-modulated RF alters the sleep EEG below current limits. Sleep clinics, which produce our reference data on sleep, are full of Wi-Fi, wireless equipment and phones, so the baseline is polluted. Sleep studies should run with and without wireless, with RF recorded; children sleeping beside phones and routers need study. 4. The microbiome (Q16). A 2024 study found a 5G-band RF field altered the gut microbiome and 258 metabolites in mice. People keep phones, laptops and tablets very close to the abdomen for hours on end, yet human studies do not exist. 5. Antibiotic resistance, tested in hospitals (Q16). Laboratory studies report that Wi-Fi and phone radiation change bacterial antibiotic susceptibility, biofilm formation and gene expression. Hospitals combine resistant pathogens with dense wireless, and no one has studied that setting. This is urgent. 6. Pregnancy (Q11b). Dr. Hugh Taylor's Yale research found in-utero cell phone exposure caused hyperactivity and memory impairment in mice. Prospective birth cohorts with measured exposure are needed. 7. Fertility and phones in pockets (Q5p, Q9, Q11). Frequent phone use is associated with lower sperm concentration. Carrying position cannot be settled because nearly every young man carries a phone against his body. Female fertility is barely studied. 8. Cancers where phones are now carried (Q12, Q11a). If RF is a possible carcinogen at the head (IARC Group 2B), the concern does not stop at the head. Dr. De-Kun Li and Dr. Devra Davis have raised phones in pockets and bras as worth investigating alongside rising early-onset colorectal, testicular and breast cancers. No study has examined carrying position. 9. Devices in the ear and on the head (Q13f, Q11). AirPods and other Bluetooth earbuds, Bluetooth hearing aids, smart glasses and VR headsets place transmitters near the brain for hours a day. Their effects on tinnitus, enlarged lymph nodes, hearing loss, cognition and head and neck cancers are unstudied. Hearing experts should test whether loud sound does more damage when an RF transmitter, a source of oxidative stress, sits in the same ear. 10. Towers near schools, hospitals and sensitive populations (Q15a, Q15b, Q11). Studies in several countries report symptoms, DNA damage and cognitive effects near base stations. They need replication in the U.S. with measured exposure. Chile bars towers near schools and hospitals; Switzerland applies limits ten times stricter at sensitive places. 11. Pollinators and insects (Q14). To my knowledge no RF exposure standard considers wildlife. Insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, where 5G and 6G are heading, and field research on pollinators is almost absent. These answers will not come quickly, even with a massive research effort. Hundreds of scientists (the International EMF Scientist Appeal, the 5G Appeal) have asked governments to apply the precautionary principle: minimize exposure now and give the public informed consent. Instead, governments have a financial incentive to speed up wireless deployment. Further development of 6G, the Internet of Things and satellites needs guardrails in place first. Thank you for opening this question to the public. Nicolas Pineault, The EMF Guy

I experienced burning sensation throughout my body, loss of sleep, increased anxiety and depression. That developed into hormone inbalance and excessive uterine bleeding and ultimately loss of my uterus.

Department of Health and Human Services, The health impacts of wireless RF radiation. RF exposures are growing , cell towers and small cells, smart meters, 5G, and emerging 6G technologies. wireless RF radiation, extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from power lines, electrical grid equipment are critically bombarding children how are biologically developing, pregnancies in families who are also biologically developing and are both facing critical health traumas. Please respond to my Letter below/ Attached. Eric Barnard and Family.

Question 2: I am responding as an individual consumer, a mother, and a member of a household where both adults work from home. I am not a scientist or medical professional. My comments are based on my own experience. My husband has submitted a separate response describing his own experience and measurements. Question 3: From 2022 to 2024 we lived about 400 metres from a mobile phone base station that carried 5G. My husband’s meter readings outdoors facing the mast were much higher than at our current home. Our house also had a lot of wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, several smart speakers, and wireless smart lights, switches and sensors. I worked from home, using my mobile phone regularly, with my desk beside our Wi-Fi router for most of the working day. While living there I had two miscarriages. I also developed tinnitus, anxiety, pressure in my head and difficulty sleeping. When we became aware of possible risks, we removed all the wireless devices from the house after both miscarriages, and in late 2024 we moved to a home further from base stations, where we do not use Wi-Fi and indoor readings are very low. My symptoms went away completely after the move. We conceived without difficulty and I have had a successful pregnancy. In late 2025 my symptoms returned. Only afterwards did we notice that a nearby base station had been rebuilt taller, with six new antennas; the operator has since confirmed the site runs 5G. By late 2026 my symptoms had become unbearable. We now sleep inside a shielding canopy over the bed, and we have fitted shielding to our windows. I understand that miscarriage is common and has many causes, and that other things in our lives changed when we moved. I am not claiming that wireless exposure caused my losses or my symptoms, and I know my observations are not blinded. Some research exists on exposure in pregnancy, including mobile phone use and living near base stations. That gap is why I am writing. Question 11: Pregnant women and unborn children should be a priority population in research and exposure guidance. Simple advice, such as keeping routers away from where people sit for long periods and limiting wireless devices in the home, costs nothing and could be given now. Question 16: I would like independent, publicly funded research into reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage and fertility, in relation to everyday combined exposure at home and at work, using measured exposure rather than estimates based on phone use. Question 18: I am concerned about how quickly new wireless technologies are being installed outdoors and inside buildings, including Wi-Fi throughout schools, where children spend most of their day and have no choice about their exposure. Reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization found very little research on long-term exposure and cognition in children, and one Swiss study of adolescents found an association between mobile phone exposure to the head and poorer memory development, which the authors say needs confirming. I recommend that new technologies and frequency bands are independently assessed for health effects before widespread rollout, and that schools follow France’s approach since 2015: no Wi-Fi in spaces for children under three, Wi-Fi switched off in primary schools when not needed for teaching, and parents told before new wireless equipment is installed. All information in this response is from my own experience and is not peer-reviewed research.

Question 2: I am responding as an individual consumer, a mother, and a member of a household where both adults work from home. I am not a scientist or medical professional. My comments are based on my own experience. My husband has submitted a separate response describing his own experience and measurements. Question 3: From 2022 to 2024 we lived about 400 metres from a mobile phone base station that carried 5G. My husband’s meter readings outdoors facing the mast were much higher than at our current home. Our house also had a lot of wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, several smart speakers, and wireless smart lights, switches and sensors. I worked from home, using my mobile phone regularly, with my desk beside our Wi-Fi router for most of the working day. While living there I had two miscarriages. I also developed tinnitus, anxiety, pressure in my head and difficulty sleeping. When we became aware of possible risks, we removed all the wireless devices from the house after both miscarriages, and in late 2024 we moved to a home further from base stations, where we do not use Wi-Fi and indoor readings are very low. My symptoms went away completely after the move. We conceived without difficulty and I have had a successful pregnancy. In late 2025 my symptoms returned. Only afterwards did we notice that a nearby base station had been rebuilt taller, with six new antennas; the operator has since confirmed the site runs 5G. By late 2026 my symptoms had become unbearable. We now sleep inside a shielding canopy over the bed, and we have fitted shielding to our windows. I understand that miscarriage is common and has many causes, and that other things in our lives changed when we moved. I am not claiming that wireless exposure caused my losses or my symptoms, and I know my observations are not blinded. Some research exists on exposure in pregnancy, including mobile phone use and living near base stations. That gap is why I am writing. Question 11: Pregnant women and unborn children should be a priority population in research and exposure guidance. Simple advice, such as keeping routers away from where people sit for long periods and limiting wireless devices in the home, costs nothing and could be given now. Question 16: I would like independent, publicly funded research into reproductive outcomes, including miscarriage and fertility, in relation to everyday combined exposure at home and at work, using measured exposure rather than estimates based on phone use. Question 18: I am concerned about how quickly new wireless technologies are being installed outdoors and inside buildings, including Wi-Fi throughout schools, where children spend most of their day and have no choice about their exposure. Reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization found very little research on long-term exposure and cognition in children, and one Swiss study of adolescents found an association between mobile phone exposure to the head and poorer memory development, which the authors say needs confirming. I recommend that new technologies and frequency bands are independently assessed for health effects before widespread rollout, and that schools follow France’s approach since 2015: no Wi-Fi in spaces for children under three, Wi-Fi switched off in primary schools when not needed for teaching, and parents told before new wireless equipment is installed. All information in this response is from my own experience and is not peer-reviewed research.

HHS-OASH-2026-0397 RFI Questions 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 People should be able to rely on health protections without having to become scientists. When published research reports malignant tumours in exposed animals or damage to reproductive cells, the public has good reason to want those findings examined carefully. Understanding their implications matters to people who cannot assess the science for themselves. I offer the attached review, Health protection deserves clear answers, to help bring that evidence within reach. Important findings are scattered across technical journals and government reports. Their significance can be difficult to follow, especially for someone already worried about their own health or that of their family. This review gives concerned readers an accessible way into the original work, with the detail needed for scientific examination alongside it. A strong starting point is the cancer evidence, records RF-001 and RF-002. The US National Toxicology Program classified malignant heart tumours in male rats after prolonged whole-body radiofrequency exposure as "clear evidence" of cancer-causing activity. A separate lifetime experiment at the Ramazzini Institute reported a significant increase in the same rare tumour type at its highest exposure. These are disease outcomes in experimental animals. Their meaning for human protection deserves close attention, while recognising that these experiments alone cannot calculate the risk from everyday phone use. The reproductive findings, RF-006 to RF-008, are another important starting point. Experiments with isolated human sperm and whole-body-exposed mice reported impaired sperm function and DNA damage. Sperm movement and genetic integrity are directly relevant to reproduction. The findings warrant attention on their own terms; they do not establish infertility in people. The report explains the exposure conditions, identifies the related research groups and records what the experiments did and did not show. Other experiments examine whether radiofrequency exposure can influence tumour development in mice also given a cancer-causing chemical. They raise a distinct question about combined exposures and biological susceptibility. The review also covers brain-tissue observations, objective responses in blinded human experiments, and ecological findings. One prolonged-exposure experiment reported fewer bees returning home. These different outcomes each need to be understood under the conditions in which they were observed. The report is deliberately selective. It brings together published adverse findings, exposure-associated symptoms and biological responses potentially relevant to harm. It does not attempt to settle the overall balance of the literature. Animal disease, cellular damage and a measurable biological response carry different meanings; the review keeps those distinctions visible. Relevant nonconfirming follow-ups, corrections and publication notices are included. Abstract-level records and unfinished retrieval leads are clearly marked. Please begin with the short opening chapters and the coloured "Why this matters" panels. There is no need to master the technical detail before understanding why a study deserves attention. Clickable contents, bookmarks and indexes lead from those introductions to the study records and original sources. The attachment is intended to be useful to interested members of the public as well as to readers equipped to examine the science closely. My hope is that this contribution helps these findings receive serious consideration alongside the other evidence submitted, and informs the work of the public bodies on which people rely for protection. Cancer prevention and reproductive health give these questions an importance beyond specialist debate. Clear explanations of what the evidence means for protection would matter to many people. Simon Fox Director, Resonance Sciences Limited, UK Perspective and source basis (Q2): a public, literature-based contribution drawing on peer-reviewed original research and government technical reports.

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 patient. I have experienced several health related issues that were improved by reducing exposure to wifi and cell phone usage: 1. Our family got wifi around 2015. We had employed ethernet cables for internet up until then. Around 2017 I noticed my A1C levels had increased to 5.7 (up from 5.2-5.3.) I was 58 years old at the time and attributed it to my increasing age. In 2022 my A1C reached 5.8 despite efforts on my behalf- use of supplements, intermittent fasting and dietary modifications to keep my glucose levels down and regular exercise. At the time a friend recommended getting rid of wifi in our home or reducing the amount of time it is turned on. We began only having wifi turned on when we were actively using it. In a short time, a matter of months, my levels returned to 5.7. Several months later, we moved from the city of Lancaster to a rural setting in the county. We continued only turning on wifi when actively using it. Between moving out of an urban area and reducing wifi exposure in our home, my A1C levels returned to 5.3 in a matter of three months!! A year or so later a large warehouse was constructed within a mile and a half of our home, and I noticed a dramatic increase in the number of "available" wifi accounts when signing onto our computer. Sadly, after a period of at least 6 months (when I'd had them checked again...) my A1C levels were returned to 5.7 and have tenaciously remained there over the past year. 2. I have rheumatoid arthritis. My right knee was becoming increasingly stiff and sore so that it was becoming difficult to walk. Someone asked if I was in the habit of "wearing" my cell phone. I daily wore the phone in my righthand, front pocket. I stopped carrying the phone on my body and the symptoms nearly disappeared! I still experience stiffness in all my joints whenever the wifi is left "on" overnight or all day in our house. It makes a remarkable difference in my ability to move and I also experience accompanying discomfort. I have begun educating myself about the effects of cell phone and wifi radiation on the body in the wake of these experiences, which demonstrated to me in a very tangible way the reality of the effects these unseen waves and energy fields have on the human body. I have particular concern for the most vulnerable of our populations: pregnant women and their babies, children, the elderly and the seriously ill. For your own knowledge and more information on research findings, I would recommend interested persons to read: "Electromagnetic Fields of Wireless Communications: Biological and Health Effects" by Dimitris J Panagopoulos. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.