Reproduction & pregnancy

I am submitting this as a concerned member of the public. We have a right to know what we are being exposed to. Current wireless radiation (RF/EMF from cell phones, Wi-Fi, 5G/6G, smart meters, cell towers, and everyday devices) is treated as if it is fully understood and safely managed. It is not. People cannot give informed consent when the information is incomplete, outdated, or buried. What must be made public and easy for ordinary people to access: Real-world exposure levels (not just laboratory SAR numbers), including cumulative and simultaneous exposure from multiple sources in homes, schools, workplaces, and public spaces. Clear, plain-language disclosure of potential biological and health effects reported in the scientific literature, including effects at levels below current FCC limits, especially for children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable groups. Exact locations, power levels, and frequencies of cell towers, small cells, and other wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, and playgrounds—updated in real time and without requiring FOIA requests. Independent (non-industry-funded) research summaries and the full underlying data, so the public can see what is known, what is uncertain, and where the gaps are. Practical ways people can reduce exposure, and the option to choose wired alternatives without penalty or loss of service. No one should be forced into continuous, involuntary exposure without transparent information and meaningful choice. Public health requires the precautionary principle when the science is still evolving and the exposure is universal. Please prioritize full disclosure, independent research, and genuine consent over industry convenience. Thank you for opening this process.

Here is what I know: if you take even minimal steps to reduce wi-if in the school, kids will be calmer and healthier. If health risks that doctors/scientists and thousands of studies do indeed exist, then we owe it to our children. We are bioelectrical beings, and wi-fi and cellular signals interfere with our cell-to-cell communication. Studies show wi-fi causes the cell membrane to leak, which produces a very destructive free radical and can contribute to cancer. Wi-Fi also has been shown to interfere with melatonin's ability to clean up free radicals. Other damages shown in the 1000s of studies performed: compromising the blood-brain-barrier (which keeps toxins out of the brain); cellular communication interference; damage to cell metabolism; single-and double-strand DNA damage; loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells; reduction in free-radical scavengers (particularly melatonin); abnormal gene transcription; neurotoxicity; carcinogenicity; damage to sperm morphology and function; and effects on behavior. This causes real damage to accumulate, especially in the small bodies of children. U.S. wireless radiation standards (set 20 years ago) based on a 6-foot, 200 pound healthy male? Why have no field studies been performed on children - and the child brain overall absorbs twice as much radiation as that of an adult, and their bone marrow absorbs 10x that of an adult. The following experts have said: • Dr. David Carpenter, M.D., public health physician educated at Harvard Medical School: "RF penetration is greater relative to head size in children, and they have a greater absorption of RF energy in the tissues of the head at WI-FI frequencies because their skulls area thinner, their brains are smaller, and their brain tissue is more conductive than that of adults since it has a higher water content and ion concentrations….Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, and limit exposure to background levels of WI-FI.” • Dr. Keith Black, Neurosurgeon, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center: “In children, the microwave radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain, and their cells are dividing at a much faster rate so the impact can be much larger.” As a side note, WiFi systems in school districts are usually much higher in strength than home systems because they are designed to operate hundreds of computers simultaneously and can be up to three times more powerful than a phone mast outside a school. This will be the first generation ever to spend 6-8 hours each day for years in industrial strength WiFi environment. Dr. George Carlo, who was the cell phone industry's Director of Research and was hired to run their $28 million dollar, 7 year research program to find out if cell phones were dangerous, is now an outspoken advocate of informing the public and calling for more research. We all love wireless. It has connected us, made life so much easier, and has brought information to our fingertips. I know the ease of cell phones, and the money behind cell phone companies is a powerful entity to fight, but if Dr. Carlo did the right things, so can we. Please I beg of you: we need strong leaders who care about the health of our children to step forward and protect them. Thank you for your time. Lauren Heller 74 Green Street, unit 1 Brookline, MA 02446

At 22 years old, I was diagnosed with a skull based Meningioma behind my right ear. I was studying in the university library when my left ear bud fell out of my ear and I couldn’t hear music in my right ear. My life would soon change forever. I first found out I was deaf in my right ear and then after an MRI showed a meningioma. I received a cell phone for my 13th birthday and the location of the Meningioma seemed to line up. We always wondered if it caused my brain tumor. It was extremely rare for a 22 year old to get that type of tumor, and rare that it was hard and sticky. This caused me to lose function of the right side of my body. I had to learn to walk again, read again, word finding and speech was difficult. I still managed to graduate college, and after 6 months of therapy, I went to graduate school and became a mental health therapist. At 34 I was pregnant with my first child, which most likely caused it to grow again. I am about to have a second surgery, and pray it goes better than the first. I also pray I can safely carry another pregnancy. More research needs done to ensure safety.

I am very concerned about the effects of EMFS, RF and wireless radiation on humans, animals and plants. The detrimental effects on reproduction, mitochondria, thyroid and numerous organs have been researched and documented. Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. Researchers have also found that exposure to these types of radiation increase the risk of various kinds of cancer. Even migratory birds were shown to be affected by exposure to cell towers. I personally know numerous people who are seriously adversely affected by exposure to wireless radiation in cell phones, cell towers and modems. I’ve attached documents and studies that provide evidence of harms from exposure to cell phones, wifi and EMFs. It's time for the HHS to take action to safeguard the public in regard to this important issue.

I appreciate HHS undertaking this important inquiry into electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and their potential effects on human health. My central concern is that the widespread deployment of wireless technologies has outpaced our understanding of the biological consequences of chronic, cumulative exposure. Compliance with existing exposure standards is not equivalent to demonstrating long-term biological safety. I urge HHS to address the following concerns: 1. Reevaluate safety standards beyond thermal effects. Current RF exposure standards have historically emphasized protection against tissue heating. Yet peer-reviewed research has reported biological effects involving oxidative stress, neurological function, reproductive health, and cellular processes at exposure levels that warrant investigation beyond heating alone. The National Toxicology Program’s 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to certain RF conditions. The Ramazzini Institute independently reported increased heart schwannomas in male rats. Although these findings do not establish cancer risks from ordinary human wireless exposure, they raise legitimate questions requiring further investigation. 2. Investigate cumulative, real-world exposure. Americans experience simultaneous exposure from Wi-Fi, cellular networks, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, and other wireless technologies. Research must examine long-term exposure to multiple sources, including potential effects of duration, frequency, modulation, and cumulative lifetime exposure. 3. Prioritize vulnerable populations. Children, pregnant women, developing fetuses, and individuals with neurological vulnerabilities deserve particular consideration. Children increasingly experience wireless exposure throughout their school day, often without meaningful alternatives. HHS should determine whether existing standards adequately protect developing biological systems rather than assuming uniform safety across populations. 4. Ensure independent research and regulatory transparency. The telecommunications industry has substantial financial interests in maintaining existing infrastructure and exposure standards. HHS should disclose how current limits were established, how conflicting scientific findings have been evaluated, and what role industry-funded research and representatives have played in regulatory decisions. Independent replication, transparent methodologies, and full disclosure of financial conflicts are essential to public trust. 5. Protect informed choice and individual autonomy. Americans deserve understandable information about wireless exposure and practical ways to reduce it. I urge HHS to support wired alternatives in schools and public facilities, greater transparency regarding infrastructure emissions, meaningful community participation, and reasonable accommodations for individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. 6. Apply the precautionary principle. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm must never be misrepresented as conclusive evidence of safety. Reasonable precautionary measures should not require absolute scientific certainty, particularly when exposure is widespread, continuous, and difficult to avoid. Specific Actions Requested I respectfully urge HHS to: 1. Independently reassess existing RF exposure limits, including potential nonthermal biological effects. 2. Commission replication and follow-up studies of significant National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute findings. 3. Fund long-term research examining cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources. 4. Prioritize research involving children, pregnancy, neurological health, sleep, and reproductive outcomes. 5. Require transparency regarding industry influence, research funding, and regulatory conflicts of interest. 6. Expand public access to real-world exposure measurements and meaningful consumer information. 7. Support wired alternatives and reasonable exposure-reduction measures. 8. Establish a transparent process for periodically updating exposure standards as scientific evidence evolves. Closing Statement Wireless technology provides undeniable convenience, but convenience must never substitute for rigorous public health evaluation. The burden of establishing reasonable safety should not rest entirely upon individuals after a technology has already been deployed throughout their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. The American public deserves an independent assessment that examines all credible scientific evidence, acknowledges unresolved questions, and places human health above commercial interests. I urge HHS to make this inquiry the beginning of meaningful scientific investigation and regulatory accountability rather than another exercise in reaffirming existing assumptions. Thank you for considering my comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. I am responding as an individual. I have adverse effects from smart meters, and all wireless radiation. In approximately 2011, unbeknownst to my family, a smart meter was installed on our home while we where away. Myself and other family members came home, and immediately became sick. Adverse health effects include heart palpitations, headache, pressure in the inner ear, earache, post-nasal drip, pressure in chest, "dry" agitated eyes, tinnitus, memory disruption/ loss, difficulty sleeping. Adverse effects were immediate. They stopped once the smart meter was removed, and replace with an analog utility meter. It was clear that the adverse health effects were caused by the smart meter. The smart meter was removed, and replaced with an analog electric meter, and the adverse health effects stopped immediately. Some supporting documentation and other relevant information: - Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days After 900 MHz Exposure to the Radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073 - Cell Death Induced by 900-MHz RF Radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045516 - Electromagnetic Radiation at 900 MHz Induces Sperm Cell Death:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523914/ - Maternal Exposure to a Continuous 900-MHz Electromagnetic Field Provokes Neuronal Loss and Pathological Changes in Offspring: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26391347 - Fetal RF Radiation Exposure From 900 MHz Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00312 - RF Radiation (900 MHz) Induced DNA Damage & Cell Cycle Arrest in Testicular Cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27738269 I experience adverse health effects from all wireless radiation and dirty electricity, as do others in my family. Cell phone towers, small cells, mobile phones, wi-fi, wireless printers (keyboards, etc.), bluetooth, smart devices, cordless phones, smart watches, fit-bits, etc. Years ago, we purchase a variety of RF and other EMF detection meters, and use them routinely. I have had to work with specialists ( Building Biologists) to help mitigate EMF/RF/EMF sources in my home. Summary: Wireless radiation (man-made EMFs) causes me great harm and suffering. Electrosmog (radiation from wireless devices and appliances) is more and more difficult to be away from. Even if I am careful to not use devices that emit wireless radiation, I suffer from wireless radiation from other devices, towers, routers, smart meters, mesh networks, etc., - similar to a non-smoker suffering from second-hand smoke. It is imperative that all people and nature are protected from wireless radiation. Even extremely low frequencies cause harm.

This has got to STOP!!!2026 A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women Chronic paternal Wi-Fi RF-EMR exposure impairs placental efficiency and fetal growth: Association with sex-dependent histone modification patterns in mice Impact of ELF EMF exposure on sleep quality and mental health in a Tunisian power plant: a cross-sectional study Prenatal 3.5 GHz radiofrequency exposure induces renal histological changes and DNA damage in 6-month-old rats Testicular heat-shock protein expression in rats following 3.5 GHz and 24 GHz RF-EMF exposure Radiofrequency fields at 2.45 GHz reprogram mitochondria–lysosome crosstalk and modulate the survival/death of macrophages exposed to LPS and/or the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Environmental and auto-induced RF-EMF adult and children far-field exposure simulations between 450 MHz and 26 GHz Interpretation of epidemiological studies on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer Disruptive effects of brief radiofrequency noise exposure on migratory bat navigation The Effect of 2.45 GHz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Components of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis in Male Rats

See attached file(s) Katie Webb, QuantaX Technology HHS-OASH-2026-0397 HHS must act now to reduce unnecessary wireless radiation exposure and protect biological fidelity: the precision with which living systems develop, regulate energy and information, repair damage, and recover. I support and present John Coates's complete comment, included in the attached PDF with my position statement and our illustrated plausible pathways. Low-fidelity biology is the upstream vulnerability HHS must investigate and prevent. Mistimed calcium signals, mitochondrial and redox mismatch, impaired repair, and persistent compensation can reduce the reserve needed for healthy development and later challenges. The S4–Mito–Spin framework connects these processes through specific molecular targets and measurable functions. A standard based on average absorbed energy cannot, by that number alone, characterize biological timing, recovery, or developmental susceptibility. The cancer evidence demands action. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute reported malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. The WHO-commissioned animal review rated evidence for increased glioma and heart schwannoma as high certainty. Melnick and Moskowitz (2026), applying EPA risk-assessment methods, calculated that the public whole-body limit is 15–900 times above modeled exposure levels for one additional cancer per 100,000 people, depending on daily exposure duration, and 8–24 times above their male-reproductive protection estimates. HHS and EPA must derive health-based limits and reduce avoidable exposure while completing that assessment. Put the Yale developmental findings at the center. Aldad and colleagues found hyperactivity, impaired memory, and altered prefrontal-cortex synaptic transmission in mice exposed prenatally to cellular-phone radiation. Yale's senior author described the experiment as showing that prenatal cell-phone exposure caused ADHD-like behavioral problems in mice. Cakir and colleagues subsequently identified delayed radial-glial differentiation and BET-mediated developmental effects in human cortical organoids. A developing child gets one chance at each developmental window. HHS must respond with prenatal protection and a funded developmental research program. Test the full pathway. Measure the S4/channel and CYB5B interfaces, calcium timing, mitochondrial reserve, spin-sensitive chemistry, chromatin responses, and later function together. Kim and colleagues' CYB5B gene-switch study identifies a molecular route from a defined field to rhythmic calcium-dependent gene regulation. The CACNA1C sleep study identifies genotype-dependent response. Use sham, carrier-only, and pulsed exposures at matched SAR with temperature control, then apply molecular blocking, rescue, and timed replay to establish the sequence. Protect future generations now. RF experiments already warrant offspring follow-up: Yan and colleagues reported sex-specific offspring growth and metabolic changes after paternal RF exposure. Separate diet and toxicant experiments demonstrate molecular transmission through sperm RNA and persistence of environmental effects across generations. HHS must directly test RF-associated germline transmission, following maternal gestational lines through F3 and paternal preconception lines through F2, with unexposed descendants and molecular mediation tests. Also measure repeated direct exposure across successive pregnancies. Continued exposure and inherited effects are distinct routes that both require investigation and prevention. My requests are concrete: 1. Publish a federal quantitative RF risk assessment using current cancer and reproductive evidence and established EPA methods. 2. Restore sustained NTP research, independent replication, prospective pregnancy cohorts, and multigenerational studies linked to early fidelity measurements. 3. Reduce unnecessary exposure in pregnancy, childcare, schools, healthcare, and sleeping environments. Fund practical wired and optical alternatives. 4. Require realistic body-contact testing and disclosure of test distance, dose averaging, active radios, and waveform conditions. 5. Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. Ask Congress to place RF health-protection standards under HHS/EPA and repeal Section 704's health-based siting restriction. 6. Advance the Clean Ether Act through interoperable optical networks, wired-first procurement, independently evaluated pilots, and measured reductions in unnecessary transmissions. Publish a ninety-day work plan, a one-year assessment and research program, named responsible officials, and annual results. The accompanying 5,000-word statement, pathway images, and John Coates's complete comment provide the evidence and implementation requests. Protect biological fidelity before the developmental window closes. Katie Webb QuantaX Technology

Re: Radiofrequency Exposure Standards, Biological Effects, and Outstanding Research Gaps I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public regarding the adequacy of existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards. The central issue is not whether RF radiation can produce biological effects. Experimental research demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can interact with biological systems. The unresolved question is whether existing exposure standards adequately account for potentially adverse effects across different exposure conditions, particularly those involving modulation, pulsing, chronic exposure, and developing biological systems. Of particular interest is U.S. Air Force-funded research conducted by Drs. Gale Craviso and Indira Chatterjee at the University of Nevada, Reno (AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0377). Their 2008 final performance report documented apparent nonthermal alterations in catecholamine release from adrenal chromaffin cells exposed to pulsed microwave frequency sweeps, particularly between 5 and 6 GHz. Bulk temperature and pressure were monitored, although the researchers acknowledged that localized microscopic heating remained a possible explanation. Related experiments demonstrated that extremely brief, high-intensity electrical pulses could trigger intracellular calcium influx and catecholamine release. These experiments involved exposure conditions substantially different from ordinary wireless communications, but illustrate the importance of investigating biological responses to different electromagnetic exposure parameters. Separately, the National Toxicology Program's 2018 studies (Technical Report 595) reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation, alongside certain noncancerous tissue changes. Although these exposure conditions cannot be directly extrapolated to typical human wireless-device use, they warrant appropriate consideration in risk assessment. The scientific literature contains both positive and negative findings. Biological responses are not automatically adverse health outcomes, but neither should the absence of substantial tissue heating be treated as sufficient evidence that all biologically relevant effects have been excluded. I respectfully request that federal agencies prioritize independent, reproducible research evaluating: 1. Biological effects of RF modulation, pulsing, frequency sweeps, and peak versus time-averaged exposures. 2. Potential neurological, endocrine, reproductive, and cellular effects, including calcium signaling and oxidative stress. 3. Long-term, cumulative, and simultaneous exposures from multiple wireless sources. 4. Vulnerability during childhood and development, alongside realistic device-use conditions. 5. Whether existing SAR-based compliance procedures adequately characterize relevant exposure parameters. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (2021), the D.C. Circuit required the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation concerning noncancer health effects and related shortcomings in its assessment. Compliance with an existing exposure limit is not, by itself, proof that every potentially relevant biological effect has been investigated or excluded. I urge federal agencies to transparently identify unresolved questions, evaluate the evidence according to methodological quality, and support targeted research before making categorical assurances about the safety of current and emerging wireless technologies. Relevant sources: Craviso & Chatterjee, Final Performance Report FA9550-06-1-0377 (2008); Vernier et al., Bioelectrochemistry 73, 1–4 (2008); National Toxicology Program, Technical Report 595 (2018); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

We are deeply concerned by the ample evidence of harm caused by radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to our own health and to public health in this country. Current exposure limits for RF radiation are based on numerous assumptions; however, research studies published over the past 25 years show that most of those assumptions are not supported by scientific evidence. Based on this abundance of scientific evidence we want strict laws to protect us and allow us to opt out of excess radiation, and provide local control for when and where to site infrastructure that causes radiation. We want better safeguards to limit RFR in all public spaces. We have personally experienced a reduction from symptoms of RFR exposure by turning off the wireless feature on our router and putting many our electronic devises on ethernet cables, and by reducing our cell phone use. The majority of the scientific literature related to RFR stems from cell phone studies. There is strong evidence that people who use a cell phone held directly to their ear for more than ten years are at significantly increased risk of developing gliomas of the brain and acoustic neuromas of the auditory nerve. There is also evidence that the risk of developing these cancers is greater in younger than older people. The May 2016 report from the US National Toxicology Program showing that rats exposed to cell phone radiation for nine hours per day over their life-span de- velop gliomas of the brain and Schwannoma of the heart (the same kind of cancer as acoustic neuroma) adds proof to the conclusions from the human health studies that radiofrequency radiation increases risk of cancer. While the strongest evidence for hazards coming from RFR is for cancer, there is a growing body of evidence that some people develop a condition called electrohypersensitivity {EHS). We are among these individuals that respond to being in the presence of RFR with a variety of symptoms, including headache, fatigue, memory loss, ringing in the ears, "brain fog" and burning, tingling and itchy skin. Some reports indicate that up to three percent of the population may develop these symptoms, and that exposure to smart meters is a trigger for development of EHS. Please find attached some relevant studies and references that relate to the dangers of RFR. There are thousands more listed at https://ehtrust.org/science/science-on-health-effects-of-cell-phone-and-wireless-radiation/?link_id=5&can_id=4e10ca07001c7ba173b2541d8c5cab8e&source=email-act-now-to-support-h3551-in-the-ma-legislature&email_referrer=email_3146404&email_subject=act-now-to-support-h3551-in-the-ma-legislature Please take the following actions to protect our family and the public from the dangers of RFR. • Governmental and institutional support of data collection and analysis to monitor potential links between RFR associated with wireless technology and cancers, sperm, the heart, the nervous system, sleep, vision and hearing, and effects on children. • Further dissemination of information regarding potential health risk information that is in wireless devices and manuals is necessary to respect users' Right To Know. Cautionary statements and protective measures should be posted on packaging and at points of sale. Governments should follow the practice of France, Israel and Belgium and mandate labeling, as for tobacco and alcohol. • Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity (e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and within the device. • IARC should convene a new working group to update the categorization of RFR, including current scientific findings that highlight, in particular, risks to youngsters of subsequent cancers. • Emerging human evidence is confirming animal evidence of developmental problems with RFR exposure during pregnancy. RFR sources should be avoided and distanced from expectant mothers, as recommended by physicians and scientists (babysafeproject.org). • Other countries should follow France, limiting RFR exposure in children under 16 years of age. • Cell towers should be distanced from homes, daycare centers, schools, and places frequented by pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy children, and the young.