A parent supports wireless technology but requests precaution for children, independent long-term researc…

I am a parent of two elementary-school children, commenting on HHS-OASH-2026-0397. I support wireless technology. I do not support treating the absence of a settled harm finding as if it were a finding of long-term safety for children. Criminal law puts the burden on the state before it punishes a person. Chronic exposure of a whole generation is not that kind of question. Where exposure is widespread, begins in early childhood, and will continue for decades, the burden should be on showing that exposure below current limits is safe enough for developing brains and bodies. That is the precautionary principle, and it is the right standard for this RFI. U.S. radiofrequency limits are built primarily on avoidance of tissue heating and date to 1996. Children now grow up with phones, Wi-Fi, wearables, and nearby infrastructure that did not exist when those limits were set. A child’s head is smaller, the skull is thinner, and the same external field can produce a higher localized absorption than in an adult. That is an exposure fact, not by itself proof of injury. It is enough to reject adult-only limits as a sufficient account of childhood exposure. I am not asking HHS to declare a mechanism or to ban the technology. I am asking the Department to stop leaving parents with reassurance in place of evidence. The questions that matter for my children are still open. What is the evidence, for and against, that long-term radiofrequency exposure below current federal limits affects neurodevelopment, sleep, attention, and mitochondrial function? How should cumulative exposure from phones, routers, school networks, and nearby antennas be added together, rather than assessed one device at a time? Which international guidelines use lower limits or added precaution for children, what evidence those guidelines rest on, and why the United States does or does not follow them? I ask HHS to do four things. First, publish a plain-language comparison of U.S. radiofrequency limits with international guidelines that apply lower limits or additional precaution for children, and state the evidence each standard actually rests on. Second, fund independent research on long-term, low-level exposure in children and adolescents, with sleep, attention, neurodevelopment, and mitochondrial function as priority endpoints. Industry-funded work should be identified as such. Third, issue practical guidance for schools and families that reduces exposure without abandoning the technology: distance from the body, wired connections where feasible, routers and devices out of sleeping areas, and phones off the body and away from the bed. Fourth, treat childhood exposure near schools and in homes as its own assessment, not as a scaled-down version of occupational or adult-phone exposure. My children will live their entire development inside whatever standard this review leaves in place. A limited evidence base is a reason for precaution and better science. It is not a reason to treat the question as closed.