Reproduction & pregnancy

All types of man-made EMFs/EMR – in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR – are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field. Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR. This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs. Scientific Literature: -The fetal stage of life is the most vulnerable to any toxic exposure. Kaiser researcher Dr. De-Kun Li (2017) performed a robust prospective cohort study of over 900 pregnant women revealing the strong association between exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from a variety of sources and miscarriage with nearly a 3 fold increase risk. This study supports and strengthens prior research. He states, “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that MF non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health.” -Relationship between the Exposure to Magnetic Fields during Pregnancy and Risk of Abortion: A Review Article. (2020) Ebadi A et al.INT J PEDIATRICS. Vol 8, August 2020. http://ijp.mums.ac.ir/article_16183.html -Association Between Maternal Exposure to Magnetic Field Nonionizing Radiation During Pregnancy and Risk of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Offspring in a Longitudinal Birth Cohort.(2020) Li DK et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e201417. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2763232?guestAccessKey=cda77a0a-bfb6-4f74-99e0-0bdd2909bdb2&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jamanetworkopen&utm_term=mostread&utm_content=olf-widget_03302020 -Risk of congenital heart disease due to exposure to common electrical appliances during early pregnancy: a case-control study. (2020) Zhao D et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 Sep 19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32949363/ -Mother’s Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields before and during Pregnancy is Associated with Risk of Speech Problems in Offspring. (2019) Zarei, S., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 9(1):61-68 (2019). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30881935 -Maternal cell phone use during pregnancy and child behavior problems in five birth cohorts. (2017) International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. 2017. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/isee/2016-o-021-4271/ -Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. (2017) Li et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 13;7(1):17541. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727515/ -Association between electromagnetic field exposure and abortion in pregnant women living in Tehran. (2016) Abad M et al. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2016 May; 14(5): 347–354. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910032 -Oxidative stress of brain and liver is increased by Wi-Fi (2.45GHz) exposureal.J Chem Neuroanat. 2015 Oct 28. pii: S0891-0618(15)00074-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26520617 -Maternal cell phone and cordless phone use during pregnancy and behaviour problems in 5-year-old children. Guxens M et al. (2013) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 May;67(5):432-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23386674 -Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. (2011) Li DK1, Chen H, Odouli R. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2011 Oct;165(10):945-50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810627 -A nested case-control study of residential and personal magnetic field measures and miscarriages. (2002) Lee GM et al. 2002 Jan;13(1):21-31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11805582 -A population-based prospective cohort study of personal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage. (2002) Li DK et al. Epidemiology. 2002 Jan;13(1):9-20. -Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Deborah Rice , Stan Barone. (2000) Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 3):511–533 (2000). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.281.957 -Neuronal Death and Oxidative Stress in the Developing Brain. Chrysanthy Ikonomidou. (2011) Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. April 2011, Vol. 14, No. 8: 1535-1550. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ars.2010.3581

Since October 2015, I have experienced persistent auditory symptoms or nonconsensual neural auditory harassment and abuse, including hearing voices and sounds, along with sleep disruption and other symptoms. In 2017 I commissioned a private electromagnetic field and radiofrequency survey called H-SCADA. It recorded low-level magnetic field readings and radiofrequency signals in the 2.5 GHz range. These investigators doing these radio frequency scans using JM-20 PRO or similar detect anomalous frequencies around specific areas of the scanned individual. Researchers can then use frequencies identified during radio frequency scans to search the Federal Communications Commission FCC Universal Licensing System for names and phone numbers and attorneys associated with registrations linked to affected individuals. Multiple scanning reports with these RF frequencies have been admitted as expert evidence of US courts of competent jurisdiction. An attorney I had a consultation with based in California stated that ULS traces in his clients’ cases led to Elon Musk’s private companies, the Department of War, Palantir Technologies and AI development programs sponsored directly or indirectly through a puppet private partnership by the US government, from which his clients are settling out of court. I am also a mother. One of my twin daughters was born May 2014 with auditory neuropathy and wears bilateral hearing aids. I do not know the cause, and I am not aware of research examining whether electromagnetic exposure during pregnancy or early life could play a role in conditions like hers. I raise it because I would like the question studied. Could whatever started causing me to get harassed with microwave auditory effect; V2K/Voice of God weapon October 2015 have actually been set up when I was pregnant with her in 2014, causing her to be born with this hearing loss? I am including some links to studies in rats showing electromagnetic waves damaging cochlea of inner ear which can lead to auditory neuropathy. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25836770/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9442804/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.231 https://news.miami.edu/stories/2018/12/findings-from-havana-embassy-phenomenon.html My concern is supported by the scientific record. The 2020 National Academies report identified directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy as the most plausible explanation for inner-ear and neurological symptoms among U.S. government personnel (the “Havana syndrome” cases), and a 2022 intelligence community expert panel noted “a dearth of systematic research” on how such signals affect humans. A 2018 University of Miami study of 25 affected embassy personnel found balance abnormalities and concluded the exposure responsible was unknown. Later NIH studies found no brain-imaging differences, which shows how much remains unresolved. Similar to the diplomats my daughter also suffered with balance and vestibular issues as well. I respectfully ask HHS to consider the following: 1. Establish a task force. Convene a time-limited task force or working group, led by HHS with FDA, NIH, CDC and FCC participation and independent clinicians, researchers and public members, to investigate civilian reports of unexplained auditory and neurological symptoms in people who believe they have been affected by radiofrequency or electromagnetic exposure. Its tasks should be to: • investigate the reports using standardized medical evaluation and exposure measurement; • hear from affected individuals and clinicians; • report findings publicly, including what could not be explained; and • recommend next steps, including research priorities and clinical guidance. 2. Fund independent research on auditory and nervous-system effects of low-level RF and ELF exposure. 3. Create a reporting pathway. Establish a way for the public and clinicians to document suspected exposure-related health effects, with clear coordination among agencies. 4. Clinical guidance and coding. Develop guidance for clinicians who see patients reporting unexplained auditory phenomena, including a standardized evaluation protocol and a working case definition. Support a request to the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee (CDC National Center for Health Statistics and CMS) to evaluate whether a diagnosis code for anomalous health incidents (AHI) or Havanna Syndrome is warranted, so that affected patients, civilian and government, can receive documented care and coverage. 5. Coordination. Clarify which agencies (HHS, FDA, NIH or NIEHS, FCC) are responsible for evaluating these concerns, and how a member of the public can bring one forward. I would be glad to provide additional documentation to the appropriate staff on request. Thank you for considering this comment. Sincerely, Allison Ireland Auburn, NH contact@neuroethicsnow.org

Children should not be treated as small adults in RF/EMF research or risk assessment. Pregnancy, infancy, childhood, and adolescence are periods of rapid growth including and not exclusive of neurological, immune, endocrine, reproductive, and metabolic development. However, children today are growing up in an electromagnetic environment that is not only fundamentally different from that experienced by previous generations, but are receiving extensive, undocumented and unstudied cumulative exposures. Wi-Fi, cell phones, tablets, Bluetooth devices, smart meters, wireless baby monitors, smartwatches, wireless classrooms, IVs, and increasingly wireless medical devices add to a child's overall exposure beginning very early in life (preconceptually and fetal exposures as well). The available pediatric research remains inadequate to answer some fundamental questions. A 2022 systematic review by Bodewein and colleagues examined 42 epidemiological and 11 experimental studies involving children and adolescents. Evidence regarding cognition, behavior, and subjective symptoms was judged low to inadequate, while evidence regarding early childhood development, brain activity, cancer, and physiological outcomes was considered inadequate for drawing conclusions. Investigators cautioned that these findings should not be interpreted as demonstrating that RF exposure is safe for children. An absence of demonstrated harm is not equivalent to demonstrated long-term safety. Those of us with concerns are neither 'anti-science' or 'anti-technology'. Wireless medical devices such as the continuous blood glucose monitor (CGM) require a more nuanced approach. I care for children with type 1 diabetes who depend upon CGMs. The clinical benefits of these devices are significant and potentially lifesaving. A medically necessary CGM should therefore not be treated as equivalent to a smartwatch simply because both use wireless technology. Looking at comparative dosimetry across common pediatric devices would help clinicians and families make rational decisions based upon actual exposure and benefit rather than fear. I also encourage HHS to examine exposures in electric and Waymo-type vehicles. A published study measuring extremely low-frequency magnetic fields in the rear seats of ten electric vehicles specifically considered children because their smaller bodies may place them closer to electrical systems beneath the vehicle floor. The measured magnetic fields were far below current international exposure limits, which is reassuring. This does not answer the question of long-term developmental exposure. Research must characterize passenger-compartment exposures by seating position and age, and evaluation the following conditions: acceleration, cruising, regenerative braking, and other real-world operating conditions. Manufacturers should be held to provide consumers and researchers with standardized measurements of the electromagnetic environment inside their vehicles. The most important research gap is cumulative exposure. Children do not experience wireless technologies one at a time. A child awakens in a Wi-Fi- home, wears a smartwatch to soccer practice, uses Bluetooth earbuds at the gym (I see this all the time in High Schoolers), carry an iPhone in their back pocket or bra, spend six hours in a wireless school environment, travel in an EV, return to a home containing numerous wireless devices including Alexa, and sleep near a phone or a phone under their pillow. A medically complex child can have additional wireless medical technology as mentioned. Please prioritize: -Longitudinal studies during pregnancy, following children through adolescence. -Pediatric dosimetry that reflects age, body size, individualized physiology, device placement, and real-world use. -Long-term studies of all physically wireless devices. -Comparative exposure studies of medically necessary versus discretionary wireless technologies. -Studies of cumulative RF/EMF exposure across the home, school, transportation, medical, and recreational environments. -Independent characterization of passenger exposures in electric and Waymo-type vehicles. -Public health educational programs including the use of nonessentials, like wi-fi baby monitors. Research examining biological effects below existing federal exposure limits, including mechanistic studies addressing oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, calcium signaling, inflammation, sleep, neurodevelopment, reproductive health, metabolism, and immune function, and effects on the microbiome while clearly distinguishing reproducible findings from preliminary or conflicting evidence. Precaution does not require panic, fear, or neuroses, nor does scientific uncertainty establish harm. But uncertainty should also not be mistaken for proof of long-term safety. Thank you for your serious investigation of this issue.

I believe that emf sensitivity is real and that it affects more people than we realize. I would love to see a comprehensive study on public health (long covid, miscarriage, still birth, chronic illnesses, cancer etc) in relation to 5 g towers, data centers, power plants, wind mill and solar farms and substations. God created this would perfect and were are detected from it (plastic everything) and its destroying our natural vibrational frequencies and causing mass issues across the board. We accelorated this when cell companies and data centers decided that there should be no safe space to be disconnected. "can you hear me now?" "Good" except was it good? is having artificial frequencies blasted at our heads 24 hours a day actually good for us? or could it be a major player in the massive epidemic of chronic illness sweeping the nation. I have attached a document answering many of the questions asked about. Please take the time to read. Thank you for considering this. Please help protect us and our children.

I, Morgan K, submit this filing as testimony and consideration the the HHS review of radio frequency and electro magnetic frequencies which include wifi routers, smart meters, cellular towers, 5g, 4g, 3g, 2.6g, all smart phones and cellular phones, fiber optics, wifi towers and antennaes. I am extremely concerned for the health of myself, my children, my pets and all humans who are subject to very detrimental and damaging frequencies that have been overtly studied and found to cause extreme disease, cancer and even death. I have been experiencing negative effects from RF since I was 18 years old when I began to notice terrible headaches any time I would use my celllular phone to my head. I soon began to notice that the DECT cordless phone would cause me to have insomnia if I did not unplug them and take the batteries out. Some of my primary concerns are cell towers, antennas and wifi towers within 5 miles of homes and schools. My children and I have suffered from RF exposure that caused headaches and migraines, dizziniess, inabiltiy to focus, learning difficulties and disabilities, insomnia, elevated cortisol levels, extreme heating to the head and more. Findings from many studies including the ones I have attached to this filing show without a down that these inorganic frequencies are causing these symptoms and more. They are also causing infertility, birth defects and long term impact on unborn children. As stated in the paper titled A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women (see attached), "It has been reported that chronic exposure to low-intensity GSM-like radiation (900 MHz) in female Sprague–Dawley rats shows mixed outcomes. There have been no pathological changes in Short-term studies, whereas long-term studies indicate significant reduction in survival (~9%)." So even lower frequencies as low as DECT 900mHz cordless phones pose a huge risk to humans and the environment. My mother has been effected by these dangerous frequencies when she was diagnosed with cancer. The correlation between RF and Cancer has been demonstrated by the studies I have attached to this filing as well as in many others. I strongly urge HHS and the FCC, under the weight and consideration of the scientific evidence, find the current RF exposure limits are deleterious and completely insufficient to public health and the environment. They should be dramatically lowered to reflect the science and the findings of science and people's irrefutable experiences from around the world that were previously dimissed and disregarded by the Commision. Thank you, Morgan K

I remember my first cell phone. My parents bought it for me when I was in fifth grade. It was a pink Razr Motorola flip phone. Little did I know at the time that a few years later, I would start working for an environmental health non-profit organization on Long Island where I’d learn about the seriously disturbing health effects linked to wireless radiation exposure emitted by devices like cell phones, WiFi routers, and even those big cell towers that we see on highways and near homes across America. On the first day of my internship with the non-profit, the organization’s Executive Director sat me down at the office dining room table and dropped a couple of three-inch binders, each overflowing with paper, right in front of me. The table shook due to the weight of the binders. She told me that every piece of paper in each binder was just a sliver of the scientific literature about the biological effects of wireless radiation exposure. DNA damage. Sperm damage. Oxidative stress. Cancer. The list of terribles went on. My eyes widened. I had been, and continue to be, a health-conscious person. I want a healthy family, and I want to live a long, happy life. It greatly angered me to realize to realize that I had handled wireless devices in a potentially unsafe way -- especially during some of my most important developmental years -- because I just didn’t know better. Before that day in the office, nobody had ever told me that wireless radiation is a health hazard. Where would I have learned such information? From the non-existent warning label on my cell phone? From health class? From the FCC -- a revolving door for telecom lobbyists and former industry insiders? From the media outlets that get their advertising money from Verizon and AT&T and T-Mobile? After years of working in the non-profit sector and learning as much as I could as quickly as I could about the wireless telecommunications industry and the scientifically documented adverse biological impacts of RF radiation, I became a staunch advocate for the responsible and thoughtful placement of wireless telecommunications infrastructure. But that wasn’t enough. I couldn’t just be an advocate. I needed a law degree. So, I went to law school so I could teach municipalities about the powers they have to enact wireless telecommunications ordinances that prioritize public safety and smart infrastructure siting. And I still enthusiastically do that work today with my brilliant father who has practiced law for over 43 years. I am genuinely encouraged that HHS has issued this RFI. I hope this marks the beginning of a fundamental shift in how our federal government addresses the health and environmental implications of wireless radiation. The FCC has had ample time to act, and its record speaks for itself. Clearly, it cannot do its job. HHS must now take a leading role in investigating the health effects of wireless radiation and ensure that public health drives federal policy. This is HHS’s big moment to be on the right side of science and history. Please seize it. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

I am a retired integrative medicine physician. After board certifications in Internal Medicine and Anesthesia and two decades of practice in Anesthesia, I went into Integrative Medicine to recover my own health and to help address the root causes of the increasing burden of chronic diseases. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Most regulatory agencies have betrayed the public trust (and our health) by failing to adhere to the Precautionary Principle. Industry has been allowed to proceed without providing evidence of safety. There are over 1000 studies on the harms of Electro Magnetic Fields, the abstracts of which are catelogued by Green Med Info at https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email AND yet, the FCC continues to ignore a 2021 court order to update its Electromagnetic Field safety studies. Meanwhile, rollout continues on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT, smart meters cell towers, and other sources of EMF exposure. The peer-reviewed record on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT and smart-meter exposures is not adequate for safety assessment (Simkó & Mattsson, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/, concluded available studies "do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment"). This is a gap. This is definitely not reassurance!(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/); Balmori, Sci Total Environ 2015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747364/). Since the HHS, through the FDA is the agency that is positioned to supply the health-science information that the court found missing, I ask for a federal evidence review that holds agencies and industry to the Precautionary Principle. Here are 6 meta-analyses that give evidence of harm effects at or below current limits: Effects at or below current limits Zendehdel R, et al. DNA effects of low level occupational exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (50/60 Hz). Toxicol Ind Health. 2019. Utility workers at median 0.85 µT — below the ACGIH TLV — showed significantly increased DNA strand breaks. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31138035/ Esmailzadeh S, et al. Exposure to electromagnetic fields of high voltage overhead power lines and female infertility. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2019. Residence within 500 m: adjusted OR 4.44 (95% CI 2.77–7.11). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30685773/ Zhao L, et al. Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leuk Res. 2014. ≥0.4 µT: OR 1.57 (1.03–2.40); ALL: OR 2.43 (1.30–4.55). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24388073/ Wartenberg D. Residential EMF exposure and childhood leukemia: meta-analysis and population attributable risk. Bioelectromagnetics. 2001. If causal, 175–240 U.S. childhood leukemia cases attributable. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11170120/ National Toxicology Program. Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies, TR 595/596 (Nov. 2018). "Clear evidence" of malignant heart schwannomas and "some evidence" of malignant gliomas in male rats. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones Broom KA, et al. Early-life exposure to pulsed LTE radiofrequency fields causes persistent changes in activity and behavior in C57BL/6 J mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 2019. SAR-dependent behavioural changes at 0.5–1 W/kg. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31522469/

As a mother and a longtime Santa Monica resident, I want families to have clear, trustworthy information about wireless radiation and health. Technology is part of everyday life, and I want federal agencies to examine potential risks carefully and explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical steps are justified by the evidence. I submit this comment as an individual member of the public, not as a scientific expert. My requests are informed by the peer-reviewed review cited below. I ask HHS and the FCC to conduct transparent, independent assessments of radiofrequency exposure that consider children, long-term and repeated exposure, and realistic conditions of device use. Mevissen and colleagues (2025) reviewed experimental animal cancer studies and reported high-certainty evidence for increased glioma and malignant heart schwannoma in male rats. The authors also emphasize that extrapolating these findings to human risk is complex. These findings warrant careful evaluation; they do not, by themselves, establish that everyday wireless exposure causes cancer in people. Please assess this review alongside its 2026 corrigendum, the underlying studies, and relevant human research, including findings that do not show harm. I respectfully request that the agencies: 1. Publish an accessible assessment that distinguishes biological changes from adverse health outcomes, animal findings from human evidence, and established conclusions from uncertainty. Explain study quality, exposure levels, limitations, and conflicting results. 2. Explain whether current exposure limits and compliance testing adequately address children, long-term use, and devices used close to the body. Identify where evidence supports current practices and where additional testing or research is needed. 3. Prioritize independent, reproducible research on developmental and neurological outcomes, reproductive health, and cumulative exposure, with transparent funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures. 4. Provide practical guidance on reducing unnecessary exposure where warranted, while preserving access to communication, education, and assistive technology. For HHS, please use this request for information to identify concrete research priorities and public-health guidance needs. For the FCC, please provide a reasoned response to the evidence relevant to the court-remanded issues, including non-cancer outcomes, children, and testing procedures. The cancer review cited here is offered as broader scientific context, not as proof of non-cancer effects or a substitute for addressing the specific remand record. Families deserve decisions supported by rigorous science and explanations they can understand. Thank you for considering my comment.

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.

A Detailed analysis of hundreds of EMF studies with recommendations and current state of research with suggested paths forward for better understanding and exploration: Executive Overview: Many questions remain unanswered related to Non-Native EMF (nnEMF) and the biological effects that result from exposure. The USA is the sickest it has been in decades. Photos of people on US beaches in the 1970s compared to 2020s shows a drastic difference. Obesity is prevalent. Early research indicates health impacts are coming food sources and other aspects of the standard American lifestyle, however not all are being given the same level of review. nnEMF is one of the areas of research that has been neglected. Some research exists but is by no means comprehensive. Established studies show that heat from high-power radiofrequency energy is real, and Federal exposure limits exist because of it. Across whole populations, the best pooled studies show no overall rise in brain cancer as phone use became nearly universal, however the benchmark of testing positive for having brain cancer, or any cancer should not be the benchmark for a negative health impact. nnEMF has become so ubiquitous that it makes study challenging due to every day exposure, but this does not mean the research is not essential. Leaded gasoline was another universal exposure that was later deemed to be dangerous and phased out. Wi-Fi, 5G and other cellphone bands, Electric Vehicles, Home appliances with AC currents, bluetooth, are sources of exposure every day. If discoveries are made that these devices do impact human biology in a substantive manner, then considerations around how hospitals and healthcare institutions adopt and utilize these technologies in the patient journey should also be considered. A 1% or 5% or 10% impact on overall longevity (aging sooner) with impacts to memory, behavior, IQ, fertility, that may go unseen because cancer does not present would still be a major revelation. The net impact from a 5% increase in adult working years would have a massive benefit to US GDP, strengthening national security and economic security. Healthy people create less economic drag for tax payers as they age. The field of biological nnEMF impacts deserves to be studied in pursuit of the MAHA goals of overall wellness improvements for Americans. Studies indicate that nnEMF research has not yet been explored to completion. First, the National Toxicology Program, a research program, found "clear evidence" of a rare malignant heart tumor in male rats exposed to high whole-body levels of 2G/3G-type radiation. A 2025 review commissioned for the World Health Organization rated the animal evidence high certainty for that heart tumor and for malignant gliomas, while warning that moving from animal tumor results to human risk is unusually difficult. Second, and separately, a 2016 count found oxidative-stress effects reported in 93 of 100 low-intensity studies, but the 2024 WHO-commissioned systematic review rated the oxidative-stress literature very-low certainty: most of the studies were small and at high risk of bias. And no cohort has yet followed heavy phone users from a young start through a full adult lifetime. Three conclusions match the evidence: everyday exposure is low, a health effect at ordinary levels has not been established, and the missing studies are worth doing.