Research & federal duties

I am writing to urge the Department of Health and Human Services to fully consider all available evidence and the real-world experiences of actual people concerning the health impacts of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and wireless radiation exposure on children and adults, as well as the impacts of long-term and cumulative exposure on wildlife and the environment. As our federal health agency, it is the duty and responsibility of the department to protect the public. This requires reviewing research already conducted, undertaking any additional studies as needed, and then clearly informing everyone of the health effects of the radiation and EMFs we are continually being subjected to without our consent. It also requires regulation of all corporations and any other entities responsible for the introduction and spread of these harmful technologies. They must not be allowed to jeopardize our health for their profit (or for any other reason). This issue matters to me personally because of the proliferation of cell towers, 5G installations, "smart" meters and wireless devices everywhere which we cannot get away from. The human body was not designed to cope with the effects of such frequencies. I am experiencing increased sensitivities to RF radiation and EMFs. These exposures have caused vertigo, brain fog, insomnia and other negative health consequences for me and my family members.

Please conduct thorough research and investigation into the effects of non-native EMF exposure and wireless radiation on human and environmental health. This technology has been implemented and forced onto all populations without proper informed consent and many people have discovered from their own personal health investigations that they are seriously impacted by this technology. Proper studies must be done and the public must have access to the results as well as policies made to protect human health.

I have experienced clear, reproducible adverse effects from RF, electric, and magnetic fields for over 10 years. For the past five years I have been able to document these effects with simultaneous RF measurements.One of the clearest examples occurred when our Starlink router automatically reset after an update and re-enabled its Wi-Fi radios (we normally run it on Ethernet only). Both my partner and I independently noticed increased irritability, poor sleep, heart palpitations, and inflammation. We did not initially realize the settings had changed. When we measured with a Safe and Sound Pro II meter (200 MHz–8 GHz), we found substantially elevated RF levels. Returning the router to Ethernet-only mode eliminated the symptoms. This sequence has repeated multiple times. Because the exposure change was objective, measurable, and unknown to us at the time symptoms appeared, it strongly indicates the effects are physiological rather than purely psychological.A similar pattern occurred when our HOA installed a public Wi-Fi network with a bridge antenna directed toward our home. The same cluster of symptoms returned. Temporary aluminum SCIF-grade shielding between us and the source reduced symptoms; subsequent deactivation of the device produced further improvement that correlated with a clear drop in measured RF levels. In our experience, levels above approximately 10 mW/m² produce noticeable symptoms.The symptoms themselves are not minor: heart palpitations, disrupted sleep, irritability, depression, increased anger, light-headedness, and reduced immune resilience. These meaningfully degrade quality of life. I am particularly concerned about people who experience these effects without knowing the cause. Persistent, unexplained physical discomfort of this type can contribute to severe distress and, in some individuals, elevated risk of suicidal ideation. This is a form of environmental exposure that is difficult to escape without specialized knowledge and resources that many people lack.Mechanistically, the work of Dr. Martin Pall provides a coherent, experimentally supported pathway. Non-thermal RF fields can activate voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). Excess intracellular calcium then drives increased nitric oxide and peroxynitrite formation, generating oxidative stress capable of damaging DNA and disrupting normal cellular signaling. This mechanism is documented in the peer-reviewed literature (Pall, J Cell Mol Med, 2013; PMID 23802593) and is consistent with the broader body of studies showing oxidative stress and related biological changes at non-thermal exposure levels.RF is not the only relevant source. Wiring errors can produce elevated magnetic fields associated in some epidemiological literature with long-term cancer risk. High electric fields from unshielded wiring commonly disrupt sleep and can produce tinnitus-like symptoms. Many people report that properly grounded shielding (creating a low-field environment) produces a subjective sense of calm and “quiet.” Dirty electricity—high-frequency voltage transients from smart meters, solar inverters, and other switching devices—is another reported contributor; some individuals note symptom improvement after installation of whole-house filters.I urge attention to sources that individuals cannot readily control: smart meters, cellular infrastructure, and radar systems. These can affect entire buildings, schools, and communities. I also encourage coordination with cellular carriers, utilities, and relevant government contractors to reduce population-level exposures where feasible.Looking ahead, SpaceX and others are developing space-based direct-to-cell services. Frequency selection matters biologically; 2.4 GHz, for example, coincides with a resonant range used in microwave ovens and is known to interact strongly with biological systems. It would be valuable for government agencies to evaluate whether certain frequency bands produce measurably lower (or even negligible) biological disruption compared with currently dominant bands, especially for systems that irradiate large ground areas from above.In summary, a decade of personal observation, repeated objective measurements correlating with symptoms, and the existing scientific literature leave me convinced that current ambient EMF exposures produce adverse biological effects in at least a subset of the population. Reducing the most pervasive uncontrolled sources, improving public education on practical mitigation, identifying particularly susceptible groups, and incorporating biological considerations into spectrum and infrastructure decisions would meaningfully improve population health and well-being. Key resources EMF-Portal database: https://www.emf-portal.org/en Research summaries compiled by Dr. Henry Lai / SaferEMR: https://www.saferemr.com/

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 and concerned member of the public. I first noticed symptoms of EMF emissions around 2013 when my electrical co-op installed smart meters for 4 adjoining townhouse units on the wall of my end unit outside my bedroom at the head of where my bed was located. I began experiencing sleep disturbances, headaches, and tinnitus that diminished when away from home and returned when at home. I would occasionally have dizzy spells. I had bouts of disorientation sometimes while driving usual routes. My doctor found no reasons for these symptoms. Between 2015 and 2018 I worked for a church which, unknown to me, had a cell tower hidden in their steeple. While working for them, I would experience tinnitus and headaches at work and began to have more frequent dizzy spells at work and home. On occasion, I had severe attacks of vertigo and nausea at work that required medication and time off from work. I suffered something like a mini-stroke that resulted in awakening to severe disorientation one morning. My doctor found no heart conditions, clotting issues, or hypertension issues. After learning of the cell tower at work in 2018, I began to suspect EMF could be causing my symptoms. I quit that job and moved to a more rural part of the state to avoid the growing number of cell towers near my condo. My symptoms decreased and I bought an EMF meter to monitor my home environment. I hard-wired my computer, and eliminated all wifi from my house. My symptoms have improved significantly. I still suffer from bleed over from my neighbors’ wi-fi and from the power lines running in front of my house. I recently spent about 2 ½ hours shopping in 3 adjacent stores within 200 yards of a newly installed cell tower and suffered the first severe bout of vertigo and nausea since leaving my job at the church with a cell tower. Since moving, I have worked at two different jobs requiring constant communication over VoiP phone systems causing constant tinnitus and headaches. 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. The biological effects should be studied without limit to thermal effects. I would like to see ELF become an additional priority as the magnetic fields from power lines increase my symptoms as much as RF. With data centers bringing increased need for more power and high-power lines being forced upon residential areas in nearby Virginia, I am deeply concerned about a growing cancer cluster among school children in that state just over the state line from me. The data centers also bring concerns about extremely low frequency effects on pollinators, farm animals and people. There is little existing research on these effects. 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. 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—for example, those like me with autoimmune thyroid disease and Lyme disease--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.

Perspective (Q2): State-licensed professional engineer; forensic engineer and expert witness. Background I am a state-licensed Professional Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering. I perform forensic investigations and evidence collection for causation analysis, and have prepared expert reports and been cross-examined on them. In 30 years of construction and civil engineering experience, I have managed the handling, cleanup, and legal disposal of a wide variety of environmental toxins, including PCBs, lead, asbestos, hazardous chemicals, and special waste. I have U.S. NRC radiation training and have performed engineering work at U.S. nuclear power facilities. Performed close interval surveys (CIS) and direct current voltage gradient (DCVG) surveys to determine elevated voltage potentials and stray current along utility corridors. Managed pipeline current mapping (PCM) projects using RF equipment to determine current leakage and pipe construction defects. Analyzed EMF field surveys, electromagnetic modeling, counterpoise design, and corrective actions by the local power provider and railway operator to mitigate induced AC voltages on commuter railroad tracks during repair and replacement operations, protecting railway worker health and safety. Managed development and installation of devices at nuclear power plants used to monitor buried pipe networks for cathodic protection effectiveness under NRC and industry integrity programs. Performed field evaluations at nuclear power plants and other industrial sites of piping systems for electrochemical corrosion and stray current using radio frequency and electrical resistance testing equipment. Q5(p), Q7, Q8: Exposure characterization Real-world RF/EMF exposure varies continuously in power, duty cycle, pulse modulation, and compounding multi-source overlap. Most lab and animal studies, including NTP, used artificial signals from laboratory signal generators at fixed parameters, not real device emissions. Time-averaged power density and whole-body SAR do not capture peaks, pulse characteristics, duty cycle, or cumulative multi-source exposure. Assessments should measure and report them. Industry-funded RF/EMF exposure surveys and compliance testing, including cell phone carrier site compliance reports, should disclose the instrument, bandwidth, detector type (RMS vs. peak), averaging time, calibration, uncertainty, and measurement locations. Reports that omit these cannot be independently reproduced or verified. HHS should give them no weight until raw data are available for third-party review. Power-frequency magnetic fields: developers and permitting agencies cite ICNIRP’s 2010 guideline (2,000 mG) as health-based. It protects only against acute nerve stimulation, not long-term exposure. IARC classified these fields Group 2B (2002) on childhood leukemia associations near 3-4 mG, about 500 times lower. It also does not protect implanted medical devices: ICNIRP states compliance “may not necessarily preclude interference with... cardiac pacemakers and implanted defibrillators.” Q6, Q12, Q16: Weighting negative studies In forensic practice, a test that could not have detected a condition does not prove its absence. Absence of evidence from an insensitive design is not evidence of absence. The 2026 Japan and Korea “validation” studies fail that test. They departed from the NTP design in three important ways (Melnick et al., Environ Health 25, 66, 2026): Omitted high dose. They tested a single exposure level (4 W/kg) and dropped NTP’s highest level (6 W/kg), where its carcinogenic effects were most pronounced. Departed from FDA and OECD guidelines. Both require at least three dose levels plus a control for dose-response trend analysis. A single-dose design cannot detect a dose-dependent trend. Overlooked signal. Despite limited power, the Korean study found heart schwannomas in 3% of exposed rats versus 0% of controls, matching NTP’s incidence at 3 W/kg, yet the authors dismissed it. These studies cannot override the 2018 NTP two-year study (TR-595), which found “clear evidence” of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and “some evidence” of brain gliomas and adrenal tumors. HHS should not treat a study as refuting a positive finding unless it matches or exceeds the original’s sensitivity: same animal model, comparable group sizes, multiple doses, and documented statistical power. Q16, Q17: Research priorities Fund new animal studies that repeat NTP at equal or larger scale with three or more exposure levels, run by scientists with no financial ties to the wireless industry or to the bodies that set the limits being tested. Fund exposure studies that replicate real-world conditions: variable signals from actual phones, routers, and towers, and compounding exposure from many simultaneous devices in high-occupancy settings such as classrooms. Require studies HHS relies on to disclose who funded and advised them.

The FCC is a captured agency whose revolving doors include commissioners that are former CEOs, lawyers and lobbyists of the telecom industry. The FCC has refused to update their safety standards since 1996, even though a $25 million dollar industry-funded research concluded that wireless radiation raised the risk of brain tumors. Those 1996 safety standards only considered the thermal effects of wireless radiation for brief exposure...no long term exposure to the exponentially stronger electromagnetic radiation of today's technologies. In August 2021, the FCC was ordered to update their safety standards in the federal case Environmental Health Trust,et. al. V FCC supported by over 11,000 scientific health and safety studies. Yet the wireless industry has proceeded as if this ruling never took place. Updated safety standards for human health are long overdue and must be integrated into systems to protect Americans NOW. The world's largest insurance companies have responded by excluding any liability coverage for claims "directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or contributed to, by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." Lloyds of London and Swiss Reinsurance Company have put wireless radiation in the highest risk category, next to smoking and asbestos. 30+ countries around the world including the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil have banned Chinese-made 5G technology because of national security concerns. Wireless broadband is not cyber secure, it's unreliable in bad weather, it's a proven fire hazard, it's untested for EMF safety, it uses much more energy than fiber-optic and its giant equipment is aesthetically offensive. Only fiber-optic cable direct to homes and businesses delivers speed-of-light internet connection that will meet the needs required for next generation programs and services, with no threat to cyber security because it can't be hacked and it poses no health risk to humans or the environment. Californians have already paid for fiber optic to their homes in their phone bills over a 20+ year period. The IRREGULATORS vs. FCC lawsuit in 2020 exposed the largest accounting scandal in American history where telecom corporations fraudulently funnelled the money already paid by their customers for fiber optic to the premises into wireless technology instead. Where is that TRILLION DOLLARS now? I implore you to update safety standards NOW, using third party testing, NOT funded by the wireless industry. Sincerely, Jeannie Ferrara Concerned Citizen For more eye-opening information, click on any of the links below for articles in the news and organizations that promote safe and responsible technology: https://sooke.civicweb.net; https://ourweb.tech/fires-and-collapses/ https://5GFreeCalifornia.org; http://www.Americans4RT.org/california; http://www.mdsafetech.com; http://www.bioinitiative.org https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/ https://scientists4wiredtech.com › cell-tower-installation... The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety

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 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. My experience began with a garmin smartwatch. It was a gift. I was hesitant to access the Bluetooth feature for the first year or two. When I got a new iPhone I connected it and decided to try the Bluetooth feature. After seven months I had three different skin issues on the back of my left hand. One of them was diagnosed as squamous carcinoma and required surgical removal. I stopped wearing my watch after the July biopsy. My sister also had squamous carcinoma on the back of her left hand. It would be wise for HHS to investigate these instances to protect individuals from unwittingly exposing themselves to potentially harmful situations. 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.

I hope someone is finally going to listen and hopefully fully investigate, update outdated laws and do something to something to help persons who are caught in these situations. I'm writing in regards and concerns about my husband's health. Several years ago we bought a home and poured our souls into fixing it up and making a nice home for ourselves. There was a substation behind our home that was not substantial at the time. Years later Indiana Michigan-AEP came in and significantly added to that along with putting up to very tall poles in our front yard. One of which sets entirely on my property. Nothing we could do as there was a easement in place since the 50's we were unaware of. These poles are horrible to look at but also are sitting across from our bedroom. Shortly after these poles were put into place and operational my husband started experiencing headpressure. Not a headache but pressure from the inside that makes his head feel like its going to burst. It has affected his life daily as its there 24-7 as well as his quality of life. He can't fly on a plane as altitudes increase it. We have tried for years to find the cause such as a neurologist,ENT, orthopedics, had his vision tested, multiple visits to family dr., er visits, MRI and multiple other test without any answers. He still suffers daily and we are lost on how to find a solution or a diagnosis. He shouldn't have to live his life this way! I seriously have to wonder if its something to do with the overhead lines and poles in such close proximity to our home. To make matters worse Indiana Michigan-AEP want to lease a section of land directly behind my home 350 feet to erect 186 ft. cell tower. You can imagine our concerns health as well as property value. I fought this and it was turned down for health reasons only for the city to be sued. Then it went before the local BZA once again. Again I fought. Drafted a petition , letters from local realtors, loads of other information. Unfortunately there are FCC laws from 1996 that prohibit a local BZA for turning down a permit due to health reasons. This is ridiculous. Cell phones were barely a thing in 1996. It's time to reevaluate as the technology as drastically changed in 30 years. This kind of infrastructure should not be allowed to be in this close proximity to residential areas. There are to many unknowns at this time and people like us are the guinea pigs. Protecting health shouldn't come after harm. It should come before it. Even Hud- US Department of Housing and Urban Development classifies cell towers as "hazards and nuisances". Because of this classification and their impact on marketability, Hudson guidelines require appraisers to consider the proximity of nearby cell towers when detetermining the valuation of single - family residential properties. This is all of great concern to my husband and myself. These undiagnosed health issues that plague him everyday of his life and the way they have destroyed the landscape of our property as well as devaluation. We have worked extremely hard and are not in a position where we can pick up and move. I urge you to do more research and update these out dated laws appropriately and to not benefit these large companies and consider the human life's that are drastically being affected in multiple ways.

My general practitioner noted my reactions on my General Practice Summary in 2012 after asking me to keep a diary for him for over a year. I am sure that, from all the studies and evidence gathered by independent bodies that we are all affected, but some of us are noticeably physically affected and this is very restricting on life style. Tests that my general practitioner had carried out, for the symptoms, showed no other reason for the nose bleeds, heart-rate changes, rashes; pains about my body and head; fatigue; nausea/digestive reactions among other symptoms particularly when in the vicinity of masts or mobile phones. The rashes especially from ankles up to knee can occur after riding on electric buses. They can last for up to a week and I find I need to refrain from riding on electric buses or being near Wi-Fi for up to that time as I feel unwell along with the rashes. If I ride on a longer journey on an electric bus with all the mobile phones of passengers and the chargers, or short journeys 2 days running I am unwell with symptoms of heart rate changes, disorientation, nausea/digestive issues, fatigue and others afterwards or the following day that cease if I remain at home without Wi-Fi. My life has been restricted since I had to give up my job several years ago because of the debilitating symptoms working with Wi-Fi. I am affected by all electricity, but can work on a wired computer for up to one hour without debilitating symptoms. I can have no Wi-Fi in the house. This, of course, has affected my husband, too, with living with me and my ability to live a normal family life with my daughter and family. She has Wi-Fi in her house and I can only stay for a short time and can’t visit her too often. She is aware, but uses a smart phone and I need to sit away in the conservatory when I visit her, but I still get symptoms afterwards. Walking helps me to feel grounded and more well Two examples of experiences that were in the diary kept for my doctor are: The first was when I was walking to visit my Father. I was with my husband and we were chatting and walking through a hedge-lined lane about 2 miles from my home when suddenly all my energy started to drain from my body and I felt scared because I thought I was going to fall. My husband caught me to support me. I said to him, ‘I can’t understand it because I was feeling fine until now’. He replied ‘There is a mast just around the corner.’ There was a z bend in the lane so this was not visible from where we were with the high hedges. I replied, ‘I didn’t know that, show me where’ He said, ‘It is disguised as a tree.’ He continued, ‘I will help you to get past it and see if you feel better when we put some distance between us and the mast.’ We did so and as we walked further from the mast, my energy returned and I felt my strength return to finish the walk to see my father. The second example is: When we changed broadband providers, a new router was sent to us. My husband spoke to the company and asked if it could be wired not Wi-Fi, explaining why. The company assistant said it could be either and my husband said it must be wired as my wife is badly affected by Wi-Fi. My husband set it up when it arrived, but I didn’t know as I was out at the time. On returning, I went to use the computer. I was only working on it for about ten minutes when I started to feel quite ill – nauseous, dizzy, foggy in the head and disorientated. I felt frightened and anxious, so I told my husband. I said to him that I was going into the garden to see if I felt better and I did. I thought it could be the weather as I always felt slightly unwell before a storm, but this was much worse. I came back to my computer to carry on working, but this time I was only on it for a few minutes before the awful symptoms returned. I said to my husband that it must be something in the room. I indicated that I was going for a shower to see if that helped me. While I was in the shower, my husband called to me at the door saying that he thought he knew what the problem was – the new router. He said he had looked into it and he needed to go on to the Internet to de-activate the Wi-Fi. He said he would do that and when I came out of the shower, I could see if it was better. I went back to my computer again and I was on it for an hour and I was fine. I ask the FCC to carefully evaluate experiences of people like me and the scientific evidence that there is plenty of, but I cannot spend any longer on the computer even though wired to send in evidence. Please identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to the young and other potentially vulnerable people. Please establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health.

On Christmas Day, 1991 I had my first encounter with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. My 2 yr old handed me a present-it was a flip phone.  When I made my first call, the energy vibrated up my arm & my head. My body had a strong, visceral reaction.  The moment's captured on video, so you can see my unplanned reaction. When I asked others how they could hold their phone to their ear while it zapped them, I realized I was an outlier. I started to connect my symptoms and use of the phone: extreme headaches, numbness, tingling, insomnia, anxiety-palpitations & brain fog.  When WiFi arrived it became extremely clear; WiFi nearby made me feel so unwell, it had to be turned off if I was within 50 ft. What began as a personal quest became a professional mission. For the past two decades, I have focused on public awareness & education in the area of digital wellness. Through websites, published articles, video content & public speaking engagements, I have informed audiences on the realities of how technology is affecting us and how to stay safer and healthier with it. I’ve had to build my whole life around accommodating the functional impairment of electrohypersensitivity (EHS). I don’t live close to cell towers. I don’t have a WiFi in my home, I have a wired ethernet connection. My home has a metal roof. I use RF-EMF blocking material, including a sleep canopy, and more. I drive a 2010 car with no wireless & use a EMF blocking cocoon wrap when exposure is unavoidable. Not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone knows they’re reacting. I’ve consulted hundreds of people who cannot break leases or move when they encountered the negative effects of RF-EMF. Many feel constantly surrounded by EMF without any relief from debilitating pain. The land of the free often presents as a prison for those who are most sensitive to EMF. My lived experience with EHS, is why I urge immediate consideration & protection for all sensitive groups, including children, people with chronic illness & people with EHS.  The reality is, even if someone does not physically feel the effects of EMF, that doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted at a biological level. In fact, there are already hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that link EMF to other negative biological effects like cancer, autism, thyroid nodules, insomnia, infertility. These scoping studies cannot be ignored (links below): The US National Toxicology Program claims on its Government site: Clear evidence of association with heart tumors male rats and some evidence of brain, and adrenal tumors. A 2025 review commissioned by WHO found Man-Made Wireless EMF Radiation causes Brain Cancer and Heart Cancer.  The evidence from 52 studies was assessed. The certainty of the evidence for an"increased risk of glioma or brain cancer, was judged as high.” The ICBE-EMF review revealed current safety limits for wireless EMF are severely inadequate to protect public health. Wydaeghe et. al. simulation of the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure showed that in the worst-case scenario, a 6 year old boy can absorb wireless energy from a typical cellphone tower that is 45% more than the current FCC limits actually allow. Simulated 5G towers found exposure could reach 158% of the limits. Chokeli et.al looked at genotoxic biomarkers in children that had cell towers 100 to 400 meters from their schools. The closer they were the more biomarkers related to DNA damage and cancer, the kids had. A recent study published in Cureus Journal of Medical Science found significant associations between levels of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure in the home and child development. I hear the same comment repeatedly from my community, “My kids don’t sleep well when the WiFi is on.” A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study points to the same conclusion: participants reported poorer sleep when exposed to radiation from a wireless baby monitor as compared to a “sham.” While more research is helpful, we already have more than enough convicting studies. Therefore the federal priorities at this point must employ risk management measures relying on current research, enacting laws to protect our youngest and most sensitive Americans while further studies are take place. As a mother with an adorable grandson, I often think, “Why does France care more about the effects of RF-EMF on children than my country does?”  For over a decade, children under 3 in France have been guaranteed a pre-school without the impact of WiFi.  For kids 3 to 11, parents are assured that the WiFi will remain off when it’s not used for digital education. Law #2015-136 also says any public establishment in France that has WiFi must clearly signal its presence.   An amazingly effective first step would be to pass a law like France’s. Imagine happier kids, more present teachers. This basic protection for kids is literally the least we can do.