Reproduction & pregnancy

I have had and am still having so much sensitivity to EMF's and it has disabled me. I started working in a county office in Coconino County AZ, where we had a cell phone tower dressed up to look like a pine tree. It was at the end of the parking lot from where I sat at my desk. I did not feel the radiation while working there but believe that this is what over sensitized me, starting my condition of EMF hypersensitivity. I gradually became more and more sensitive to EMF's from 2013 onwards until I was unable to tolerate being around electricity in general. Radio frequencies, including cell phones, cell phone towers, wifi routers, blue tooth, etc all are very uncomfortable and even cause me physical pain. I was homeless for quite a while because I was unable to tolerate living in a house with even electricity, as the electric and magnetic fields from those became unbearable to me as well. (While I was living in Tucson AZ, it had become really bad as we had a cell phone tower installed at the top of our street as well as one down at the bottom of our neighborhood. And also had our house encircled with people with solar instillations which also put off a high dirty electricity filed, and then we had 5G put down our alley, smart meters on every house, and I then was unable to tolerate living there. During this time several of my older neighbors began falling more often and eventually one broke their hip and the others mild dementia became severe, the one who broke their hip passed away from complications, and then the one with mild dementia who became severe needed to live in a care facility and passed away quickly. My mom had several heart attacks after their putting in the increased radio frequency generating devices, I had neurological issues that started during that time period and we disabling, as well as several others in my neighborhood had neurological issues begin and many had heart related conditions with another on my street passing away within months of the "upgrade". I can still feel radio frequencies and I find myself turning my head and looking at them as I pass by cell /data towers, not intentionally, it is just something that happens. I eventually built a tiny house out of a shipping container as a faraday cage to be able to handle living in their new modern environment with supposed "high tech" surroundings, towers, wifi etc everywhere. And at least now I have a safe place to live that doesn't hurt my body. I also back in 2017 had developed a breast tumor and cancer in my right breast because I always had my cell phone resting in that area tucked into my breast pocket. And then I started to learn and understand how dangerous that was, and now keep it in airplane mode every night and keep it away from my body at all times as to not be irradiated. These things are not safe and they are destroying our health. We used to be afraid of the higher SAR ratings that cell phones had when they were first coming out but now they have been deemed "safe" and in doing so people give them to their little children, and keep them in their pockets, and hold them directly against their heads unaware of the dangers of radio frequencies and in doing so are creating tremendous health consequences. Oh my goodness, I almost forgot to tell you that my sister Jennifer, has had a brain tumor that she had to have operated on that grew as a result of her having her phone against her head all the time for years and that was before they became as powerful as they are currently. I hope you are able to bring more awareness and reform to this issue and bring more safety to others so that we don't end up sterilizing our next generations. And for people like myself so we can be out in public more without ending up in pain.

I submit this as an individual consumer and family member, relying on peer-reviewed research, federal reports, and court findings cited below (Qs 2, 3). Concern (Qs 5, 6): FCC's RF limits date to 1996 and address only short-term tissue heating, not chronic exposure, pulsed/modulated signals, multi-source cumulative exposure, or children's thinner skulls. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court found the FCC failed to justify that its limits protect against non-cancer harms, citing unaddressed evidence on children and long-term exposure, and remanded the issue. HHS, not FCC, should lead on the health basis for any standard. Evidence below current limits (Q12): NTP's $30M study (2018) found "clear evidence" of heart schwannomas and "some evidence" of brain/adrenal tumors in RF-exposed rats, with DNA damage reported in a follow-up (Smith-Roe et al. 2020). Italy's Ramazzini Institute independently found the same rare tumor at lower exposures comparable to cell tower emissions (Falcioni et al. 2018). IARC classifies RF-EMF as "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B, 2011). Reviews report oxidative stress (Yakymenko et al. 2016), reduced sperm quality (Adams et al. 2014), and DNA strand breaks (Lai & Singh 1995; REFLEX project 2004). Technologies changing cumulative exposure (Q13): 5G/small cells near homes and windows; Wi-Fi transmitting continuously in classrooms; smart meters installed on homes, often without real opt-out, pulsing near bedrooms; satellite broadband (e.g., Starlink) creating a new planet-wide RF source; networked cameras (e.g., Flock) on public poles with cellular modems and no resident notice; wireless earbuds transmitting inside the ear canal for hours daily, especially in teens; EVs producing low-frequency magnetic fields in cabins where children ride (IARC links this field type to childhood leukemia); AI data centers driving new high-voltage lines near communities; LED/"smart" lighting suppressing melatonin (AMA 2016) and adding RF transmitters with little safety study. Environmental effects (Q14): Thielens et al. (2018) found insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, the direction 5G/6G are heading. Levitt, Lai & Manville (2021–22) reviewed reported effects on birds and insects, noting no federal environmental RF standard exists. Sensitive populations (Q11): Children, pregnant women, and implant recipients need separate risk evaluation. France restricted Wi-Fi for under-3 childcare settings in 2015. Disclosure (Q9): Residents deserve public antenna/exposure maps, advance notice before installations near homes and schools, clear device transmission labeling, and a genuine no-fee smart meter opt-out. Research priorities (Qs 10, 16, 17): Fund independent long-term cohort studies with real exposure measurement, especially in children; commission NTP follow-up at current 5G/mmWave frequencies; build a national RF/EMF environmental monitoring network; create an adverse-event reporting pathway; direct FDA to test consumer devices under realistic body-contact conditions. This research must be free of industry funding. Conclusion (Q18): We have deployed unprecedented, involuntary population-wide EMF exposure without proving it safe. Credible research has found cancer signals, DNA damage, oxidative stress, and reproductive effects. I ask HHS to investigate this independently and thoroughly, and prioritize human and environmental health over the pace of commercial deployment.

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public urging HHS to undertake a comprehensive, independent investigation into the potential human and environmental health effects of the rapidly expanding electromagnetic environment created by modern technology. My concern is not based on the assumption that every wireless technology has been proven harmful. Rather, it is that society has dramatically increased the intensity, density, duration, proximity, and variety of electromagnetic exposures while the long-term biological consequences of this cumulative exposure remain incompletely understood. Today, people can be exposed simultaneously and continuously to Wi-Fi, 4G/5G and future 6G infrastructure, cell towers and small cells, Bluetooth and wireless headphones, smartphones, smart meters, wireless cameras and security systems, wearables, smart-home devices, connected and electric vehicles, wireless medical devices, satellite communications such as Starlink, and the rapidly expanding infrastructure supporting AI and data centers. The central question should therefore not simply be whether each individual device complies with an existing exposure limit. HHS should determine whether current standards adequately address real-world, cumulative, lifelong exposure from multiple sources operating simultaneously. I respectfully ask HHS to investigate potential effects on: sleep and circadian biology; hormonal and endocrine function; reproductive health and fertility; pregnancy and fetal development; neurological and cognitive function; immune and metabolic function; oxidative stress and cellular signaling; DNA integrity, repair and epigenetic processes; cancer and other chronic diseases; and children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Research should specifically examine effects that may occur below existing exposure limits and should evaluate frequency, power density, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, proximity to the body, duration, and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies. HHS itself identifies these factors as important areas for investigation. I am particularly concerned about involuntary residential exposure. Smart meters, nearby wireless infrastructure, small cells, and other continuously operating devices can expose people inside their own homes regardless of whether they personally choose to use wireless technology. Americans should have meaningful information and reasonable options for reducing unnecessary exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. HHS should also investigate the rapidly changing exposure environment created by 5G, future 6G, satellite networks, IoT devices, autonomous vehicles, wireless charging, electric vehicles, smart cities, and other emerging technologies before assuming that older exposure research adequately represents these systems. The investigation should extend beyond human health. HHS should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies to examine potential effects on wildlife, birds, insects, pollinators, livestock, plants, and ecosystems. HHS specifically requests information concerning environmental effects and wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, and livestock. Independent research is essential. Federal research should be transparent, independently replicated, and protected from conflicts of interest. Long-term studies should measure actual exposure rather than relying solely on estimates of device use. The government should develop standardized methods for measuring individual and neighborhood exposure and consider longitudinal health studies, environmental monitoring, occupational monitoring, disease registries, biomonitoring, and adverse-event reporting. I also urge HHS to improve public transparency. Consumers, parents, schools, workers, and communities should have understandable information about the emissions and realistic exposure characteristics of wireless devices and infrastructure. The scientific evidence contains established findings, conflicting findings, emerging research, and significant uncertainty. That uncertainty is not a reason to dismiss public concern; it is a reason to investigate more rigorously. We should neither assume that modern wireless technology is harmless nor assume that every health problem attributed to EMF has been scientifically proven to be caused by EMF. We should measure the exposures, study the biology, monitor health outcomes over time, investigate potential risks, and make the evidence publicly available. The unprecedented proliferation of wireless and electrically powered technology should be matched by an equally serious commitment to understanding its long-term consequences for human health and the environment. I urge HHS to make cumulative, real-world EMF/RF exposure and its potential biological effects a significant federal research priority.

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Perspective (Q1): Individual / adult educator in a community Lifelong Learners setting. Not a physician. I teach practical exposure-reduction, not products. Q8 — What should be disclosed People need plain-language facts at the point of use: phones are radio transmitters; distance drops exposure sharply; night-time household wireless can be switched off; wearables and routers add to the load even when you are not “on a call.” Federal consumer and school guidance should say that in one page, without a store attached. Q10 — Sensitive populations Exposure assessment should treat children, pregnant women, and those with implants or unexplained symptoms as groups that may need extra caution while the science is incomplete — not as proof of a single disease. Schools and childcare should have the option of wired connections and phones stored off the body. Q11 — Evidence below current U.S. limits IARC classified RF electromagnetic fields as *possibly carcinogenic to humans* (Group 2B, 2011). The National Toxicology Program reported tumor findings in male rats after long-term RF exposure. The D.C. Circuit in *Environmental Health Trust v. FCC* (2021) found the FCC had not adequately explained its decision to retain 1996-era limits in light of subsequent evidence on children and long-term exposure. Those three items are enough to justify a current HHS evidence review. They are not, by themselves, a diagnosis of any person. Q15 — Research priorities Highest gaps: real-world *cumulative* exposure (phone + Wi-Fi + infrastructure), non-thermal biological endpoints, pediatric and in-utero cohorts, and independent replication of NTP-type work at current waveforms (including 5G). Coordination: NIH for biology, FDA for device emissions and labeling, CDC for school/community guidance. Practical recommendation While agencies update the science, HHS can publish the same three habits already used in many public-health pages: increase distance, take the phone off the body, turn household transmitters down or off at night. That does not require a new standard to be finished first. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

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 concerned parent animal advocate. The FCC is trying to pass laws that will allow the invasive placement of 5/6G towers in very critical animal habitat and next to residential homes. Why did the United States government STOP testing the effects of these deadly frequencies? These frequencies have been shown to kill trees close to them, interrupt mating cycles of animals, sickness and DEATH!!! There has been a 5/6G tower placed close by my house and ever since this happened, roughly a year ago, my ears are ringing off the charts. STOP POISONING HUMANS AND ANIMALS WITH DEALY FREQUENCIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME! BAN THESE TOWERS THAT ARE NOT FOR BETTER CELL RECEPTION - THEY ARE SIMPLY A CONTROL MECHANISM FOR THE GLOBAL PLAN FOR SMART CITIES TO CONTROL AND TRACK EVERY PERSON ON EARTH! 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. 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. Sincerely from a Concerned American Patriot, Dana Fortson

My name is Alexis Butler. I live in Phoenix AZ. I am concerned about the lack of studies proving EMF's safe. Specifically regarding, wearables, wireless devices on the laps, in the ears and in the pockets of my kids. Is this going to affect their fertility? Is this just a myth? There is no science saying it is safe. In the meantime many companies spout EMF free blankets, mats, headphones, cell phone cases etc. BUT where is the research? Money is a limited resource. The anecdotal stories are compelling. If there is reason to limit, avoid, and protect, then why is there a 5G tower at my church, at the school, EMF emitting electric panel on my house? WIFI routers that boast strong signal who is accountable to make sure these are safe?

I have several anecdotal stories to share. The first dates back to summer of 1993. I was a healthy college grad working for minimum wage on a farm in Newburg, MD. Farm laborers stayed in a little cabin directly under high tension power lines. This was just at the inception of the internet. No 3G or 4G or 5G radiation yet vibrating. For the 4 months I stayed on the farm, I continued to be generally healthy, but my menstrual cycle changed from 27-28 days to 23-24. That's about 3 weeks to do 4 weeks worth of hormonal work. After I left the farm (end of harvest season), the very first month I was away from those power lines, my cycle bounced back to 28 days. I thank God that I was under that influence for only a few months. And for what it may be worth, the farmer's wife had stayed in that same cabin while pregnant and her child was born 8 weeks premature. Of course there are many reasons babies are born early, but it's hard for me not to think the constant exposure to EMF's so close to her developing fetus could have influenced the pregnancy. From what I've read and listened to from those who actually investigate the scientific studies into health effects of EMF's, these kinds of changes are quite common with nearby exposure. Please trust scientists who are calling out the potential and known health effects based on unbiased rigorous scientific research. Much of this literature is decades old, but still valid. Unfortunately, much more is being done as our collective exposures have only increased without government regulations and without morality based corporate self-restraint. Sincerely concerned, Jennifer C Darling