Requests independent studies, transparent monitoring and public participation, with separate RF and low-f…

I submit this comment requesting independent scientific investigation, transparent environmental monitoring, and stronger public accountability regarding electromagnetic field (EMF), WIFI, and ELF exposure and its potential effects on human health, cellular function, neurological development, and future generations. The expansion of telecommunications and electrical infrastructure raises legitimate public-health and bioethical questions. Wireless RF radiation and extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields, including 60 Hz power transmission, have distinct physical characteristics and must be evaluated separately, including their potential cumulative and long-term effects. Located on schools, churches and parks. Children are stakeholders, not merely passive recipients of technological development. Their developing nervous systems, cellular processes, and longer potential lifetime exposures warrant specific scientific attention. Pregnancy, fetal development, infancy, and childhood represent critical periods during which environmental influences may have lasting consequences. Human health depends upon cellular homeostasis, mitochondrial bioenergetics, ATP production, DNA integrity, and coordinated neurological signaling. Disruption of these processes can contribute to disease and impaired development. Whether particular environmental EMF exposures adversely affect these mechanisms, and under what conditions, requires rigorous investigation rather than unsupported assumptions of either harm or safety. HHS should prioritize research examining oxidative stress, mitochondrial signaling, membrane potential, cellular repair, neurodevelopment, reproductive outcomes, and potential intergenerational effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation and evaluate exposure intensity, frequency, duration, developmental stage, and individual susceptibility. Existing epidemiological research has identified associations between certain residential ELF magnetic-field exposures and childhood leukemia, although a causal relationship remains unestablished. Such findings demonstrate the importance of continued investigation rather than premature dismissal of unresolved questions. The ethical question extends beyond whether an exposure meets current regulatory limits. It concerns whether those limits adequately account for developing biological systems, prolonged exposure, combined environmental conditions, and populations not sufficiently represented in existing research. Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, and intergenerational equity, the public deserves meaningful access to scientific findings and environmental exposure information. The burden of investigating potential public-health risks should not fall exclusively upon families who lack the resources to commission environmental testing or independent scientific evaluations. Communities should have access to infrastructure information, standardized exposure measurements, monitoring results, and understandable explanations of applicable safety standards. Public participation must be meaningful, particularly where infrastructure affects residential neighborhoods, schools, and vulnerable populations. I request that HHS: Support independent longitudinal studies evaluating RF, EMF and ELF exposures, particularly during pregnancy, infancy, and childhood. Investigate cellular and neurological mechanisms, including mitochondrial function, ATP metabolism, oxidative regulation, and neurodevelopment, using reproducible methods. Evaluate cumulative and chronic exposure patterns while distinguishing established effects from emerging hypotheses. Assess potential ecological consequences for wildlife, pollinators, vegetation, and interconnected environmental systems. Establish transparent public reporting of exposure measurements, research limitations, funding sources, and regulatory assumptions. Examine disproportionate environmental burdens and ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in research and policy development. Coordinate with the FCC, EPA, and relevant agencies to address scientific gaps and clarify oversight responsibilities. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not equivalent to conclusive evidence of safety under every exposure condition. Scientific uncertainty requires investigation, not speculation or complacency. Technological advancement carries corresponding responsibilities. Public-health protection should not depend upon proving widespread injury after exposure has occurred. Children, families, communities, ecosystems, and future generations are stakeholders in decisions affecting shared environments. Our responsibility is not simply to accommodate technological progress, but to ensure that progress does not compromise the biological integrity, developmental potential, and environmental inheritance of generations yet to come. Respectfully, Cherrish Castaneda Roots Indigenous Priory Sacramento County, California