Reproduction & pregnancy

Is this a poll to see how gullible we are? EMF disrupts mitochondrial signaling, our microbiomes, and virtually every physical and emotional system. It disrupts fetal development, and lowers IQ in children. EMF towers can be used to send frequencies to aluminum-aerosol particles to manipulate the weather. Why would you even patronize us to ask whether we wanted this or not? You can't be serious. Just take a poll and see what you can get away with? Have you no morals or respect for human dignity? Why would we

I am a retired naturopathic physician with over 40 years of clinical practice, both in the EU and in the US. During the last years of my practice, I have seen the increase of various health issues due to exposure to frequencies. Many symptoms such as migraines, insomnia, difficulty to concentrate, brain fog, nervousness, pain and deep fatigue have been resolved or considerably diminished with drastically cutting the time spent on cell phone and switching from wifi to wired Ethernet. I am electro-sensitive myself and I understand the burden that EMF's represent for many. That is the reason why I was able to give recommendations to many patients with MS, Lyme disease, and other chronic disorders, as these frequencies made their daily life miserable. Great caution is recommended regarding pregnant women, babies and children. Their brain is developing and these frequencies affect its development. Some doctors have emitted the possibility that autism has a lot to do with the exposure to these frequencies during pregnancy. Also, it is harder and harder to find trails and spaces in our Parks and National Forests without these ubiquitous cell towers that not only disfigure the landscape but create an enormous amount of frequencies pollution. Thank you, France-Marie Martikonis ND

Wireless devices and infrastructure must be regulated to ensure safety is the priority especially for the most vulnerable of our population including pregnant women and children. HHS is the regulatory body protecting humans from the greed of the wireless industry. The health and safety of our population is extremely fragile and we are trusting this agency to protect us, and all living creatures of this beautiful planet we call home, earth.

I was sensitized to electromagnetic radiation after having an occupational exposure at an MRI center in 2002-2003. Since then I have contacted innumerable government representatives and agencies regarding this issue, the FCC's constant failure to protect us and their increasingly aggressive pursuit of higher and higher levels of RF radiation while in violation of a 2021 federal appellate court ruling to consider approx.11,000 pages of scientific research demonstrating biological NONTHERMAL effects of RF at very low levels, update its pathetic 30-year old THERMAL ONLY "safety guideline" for an adult male exposed to a single emission source for a short time - not the 24/7 bombardment from all directions (including space) that we are currently being exposed to and to perform required NEPA studies (never done) for small cells. I have NO protection under the ADA even though my neurologist of over 30 years has specified in writing that I have become sensitized to RF/EMR, there are medical ICD-10 codes for health effects of EMR, and the Social Security Administration at least recognizes EMR syndrome as an occupational disability (i.e., electrical engineer/technician, etc.). I have spent untold thousands of dollars trying to mitigate EMR in my home (which is now the only relative safe place I can occupy) and consulting medical practitioners about my conditions and options. I no longer have any faith in ANY US government agency. The US has among the worst RF standards in the world. The EPA was going to study the issue and establish a BIOLOGICAL (not thermal-only) standard for RF radiation but was defunded before being able to complete the appropriate research. The fix was in! The FCC became the designated responsible agency. The FCC is now almost if not completely a "subsidiary" of the telecom industry (in the revolving-door placement of industry-to-government personnel) and does NOT represent the best interests of the American people in terms of their health or the health of the environment. The FCC would have my neighbors being paid to put a 5G antenna on their roof with UTTER DISREGARD for the consequences to my health and well being or that of children, the elderly, immune compromised, pregnant, already sick and/or disabled and the environment. The FCC MUST comply with the appellate court order (the court has given them 30 days now after being brought back to court for their previous utter failure lasting since 2021) and perform UNCONFLICTED environmental impact studies outlined in the original court decision. I think we already know why they have stalled and disobeyed the court - they know the studies prove there are harmful health effects of RF radiation at levels so much lower than current exposure levels and the previous single-source thermal emission standard set for an adult male only - and that there are harmful environmental effects (seen all over the world now) - otherwise, why not review (with independent, unconflicted scientists) the scientific studies submitted and perform the required NEPA studies and put the matter to rest? They can't because the studies/reviews will prove the opposite (if performed by unconflicted scientists). The burden of proof should not be put on the sick and already injured! The FCC is derelict in its duty to protect the American people and continues to flagrantly ignore its obligations and responsibilities. However, the FCC should NEVER have been given SOLE authority over this matter - I BLAME CONGRESS FOR THAT as well as the EPA and the FDA for ignoring the NTP 10-year, $25 million study demonstrating CLEAR EVIDENCE OF HEART CANCER-the highest standard, evidence of gliomas (brain cancer), adrenal and other tumors, etc. from NONTHERMAL RF radiation (performed underground to rule out ambient radiation and under strict thermal controls). I am exhausted from this fight and the exponentially (seemingly without limits) increasing exposure to RF radiation. It was determined that I become a total insomniac due to RF exposure from an AT&T modem (in the home office next to my bedroom years ago) in which the wireless antenna (which was set to "off" by AT&T) accidentally reset to "WiFi enable" unbeknownst to me, apparently due to a power surge. My bedroom is now a room with metal roof, metal shutters, mostly silver fabric curtains and a silver fabric canopy so I can sleep, all of which cost me a small fortune (not tax deductible by the way). I exist only on faith in a higher power, as I have lost all faith in the corrupt system in which I find myself including "foxes in all of the hen houses" of the US government. What a pathetic, sorry state of affairs it is. Children are now being exposed to unprecedented levels of RF radiation from before birth! Will anyone protect them?

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 parent of a disabled child and a concerned member of the public. I first became aware of the issues with wireless radiation when my son, who has brain damage from a vaccine injury just as he turned one, began walking around holding his ears and complaining about a buzz. This coincided with the people starting to use wifi in our apartment complex. I began to look into this and came across the studies by Dietrich Klinghardt MD, Ph.D. He found that wireless radiation has serious adverse affects on individuals, some more than others, or some manifest or experience symptoms more than others. In particular he was concerned about the developing fetus, infants and small children with their more permeable and still developing brains being exposed to wifi in the home, through their parents cell phone use, in cribs with the baby monitors, etc. He felt it could be a cause of autism and other neurodevelopmental problems. As with the vaccine industry who for decades has failed to conduct responsible safety and efficacy studies, the telecommunications industry is similarly culpable. They are exposing us to higher and higher levels of EMFs, without the studies that would indicate if these levels are safe. I was so concerned about my son with the wifi situation rising in my society, that I took him out of school, age 9, and we moved to the cloud forest of Costa Rica and lived off the grid for four years. This was extremely beneficial to both of us. He became more verbal. We both slept so much better, and our stress level reduced significantly. We are now back in the country. I am a university English professor, and needed to return or lose my job. When we returned, we rented a small basement studio apartment of a household who agreed to use corded connections for their devices. However, I came home one day to discover that a smart meter had been installed on the house, 5 yards from my son's bed! From that moment I realized that I had to purchase our own small home so that I could control the situation better. We were able to buy a small house in our community. It had already installed a smart meter, however. I threatened legal action against the electric company, sent letters verifying the dangers of the smart meter, to our health, as well as to our house, since the lack of surge protection could result in the house being burned down. I told them my son's disability required them to instead give us an analog meter. But they refused. The smart meter was attached to the garage, on the other side of the house from the bedrooms, but still I feel the affects of this meter. I have serious problems settling down for a restful night's sleep. It is the only issue with our house, since I have internet that uses a corded connection to the router. We have no wifi. I have no cell phone. We have a land line phone. I have a gauss meter. When I moved in, aside from the repeated and destabilizing pulsing from the exasperating smart meter, my house readings were quite good, generally in the green range. However, over the past seven years, since buying our house, the readings are more in the yellow range. I attribute this to the ever increasing amount of EMFs in our environment. EMFHelpCenter.com is a good site for information and strategies for how to legally insist on the Electric Company replacing the smart meter with an analog meter. 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.

Manmade electromagnetic radiation exposure has radically altered the trajectory of my life. In the early 2010s, I achieved my dream career of a firefighter-paramedic. Paradoxically, my health began to suffer. This seemed strange to me as I was young, healthy, and eating an extremely healthy paleo diet and working out daily. But brain fog, skin rashes, eye fatigue, ringing in my ears and aches/pains became the new norm for me. Firefighting can be a high-stress job, but that alone didn't account for my symptoms. Doctors had no answers for me. My performance on the job, and as a husband and father back home, began to suffer. Eventually, I saw the writing on the wall and left that career that had been acquired at such a dear cost. It was a heartbreaking decision but I thought it the best thing for me and my family long-term. Unexpectedly, my symptoms began to improve with no interventions besides leaving the firefighting lifestyle behind. This was the dawn of the podcast era, and on health-focused podcasts, I began to hear a bit about "EMF" both natural and artificial, and the research on their impacts on human health. Several things began to click for me as I researched the topic further. #1 The firefighting world exposed me to a variety of very powerful manmade EMF sources, primarily radio frequency, or "wireless" communications of walkie-talkies, cell phones, pagers, and supporing equipment within the forestation. #2 The firefighting world, by frequently keeping me up during the night, was disrupting my circadian rhythm, and reducing my ability to rest and recover. Armed with this new understanding of the world, I recovered quickly, and took steps within my home to protect my family from EMF. Not long after, my mother was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of brain cancer. She passed within 8-months. It was an incredibly difficult few years around her passing. However, in thinking about how she used technology, I saw a link to her cancer. For example, she was incredibly social, and had many friends. As a result she used her cell phone multiple hours every day. Her tumor was on the same side of her head that she held her phone up to. As the dust settled around her passing, I realized there was a significant lack of awareness in the world about EMF exposure. I felt compelled to do something about it, so that others might avoid the pain I had experienced in losing a treasured career, and loved one. I discovered people were doing this work in the world, through the Building Biology Institute. I signed up for their training and In just a few short years, I had become certified and began working with clients to uncover the EMF exposures in their homes, coaching them through practical remediations to reduce their exposures. My work as a Building Biologist is incredibly rewarding. It is also an uphill battle as slick marketing, tech creep, and biased research dilute the links between human made EMF and health. Technology does wonderful things for us, but not without a biological cost. The public needs to be made aware of this, so that they can make informed choices on their exposures to EMF. Here are several ways the government could help accelerate this change: #1 Stop the revolving door between Big Wireless and regulation bodies like the FCC. #2 The FCC must update their 1996 exposure guidelines without industry influence. Greater exposure protection for sensitive populations like children and pregnant mothers should the minimum outcome. #3 The precautionary principle should be the starting point for technologies that use electromagnetic forces to function. Industry must provide a reasonable degree of safety and assurance prior to rolling out new products.

I am submitting this comment because the United States needs to stop confusing regulatory compliance with proof of biological safety. A wireless device can “pass” an RF exposure test under specified laboratory conditions and still leave unanswered the real public-health question: what happens to living tissue after years or decades of real-world exposure? Real life does not resemble a single-device laboratory test. Children, adults and pets are surrounded by phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, laptops, Bluetooth devices, wearables, smart appliances and nearby antennas, often operating simultaneously and for many hours every day. Current standards do not adequately reflect chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure. Exposure changes with distance, signal strength, device position, frequency, modulation, data transmission and the number of sources present. Yet our regulatory framework has relied heavily on specific absorption rate and power-density limits rather than long-term biological monitoring of actual populations. The question should not simply be, “Does this device stay below a SAR limit?” It should be, “What happens biologically to cells, tissues, organs and developing nervous systems under realistic exposure conditions?” HHS should independently investigate oxidative stress, cellular signaling, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, sleep, development, endocrine effects and cancer. Absence of substantial heating should never be treated as automatic proof that there are no biological effects. Children deserve special attention. They are not small adults. Their bodies and nervous systems are still developing, and today’s children may experience wireless exposure from infancy through an entire lifetime. Yet the long-term evidence for lifelong exposure beginning in childhood remains limited. That is a serious knowledge gap, not reassurance. Animals and the environment also deserve attention. Pets spend long periods inside homes near routers and wireless devices. Wildlife, insects, birds and plants are now exposed to an increasingly dense RF environment. The evidence is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent, but that is precisely why rigorous independent research is needed. The National Toxicology Program reported cancer findings in RF-exposed animals, including malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and some evidence of malignant gliomas. Human studies have produced mixed results. These differences should not be used to declare the issue settled in either direction. “Not conclusively proven harmful” is not the same thing as “proven safe.” The regulatory process itself also deserves scrutiny. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had not adequately explained why its RF exposure limits protected against harmful non-cancer effects and had not sufficiently addressed evidence involving long-term exposure, children and environmental effects. A communications regulator should not be the final authority on complex questions of toxicology, developmental biology, neurology and public health. Other countries have taken more precautionary approaches. Switzerland applies lower precautionary limits at certain sensitive locations, and France conducts post-market SAR testing of phones. The United States should not assume that decades-old limits remain adequate simply because they are familiar. HHS should establish a truly independent research program with transparent funding and strict conflict-of-interest protections. Research should examine chronic and cumulative exposure, multiple simultaneous sources, direct body contact, pregnancy, children, pets, vulnerable populations, modern 4G/5G/Wi-Fi technologies, and biological outcomes at the cellular, tissue, organ and whole-body levels. Public confidence cannot rest on assurances from agencies or industries. It must rest on independent science, transparent data, reproducible findings and standards that reflect how people actually live. A compliance test is not a safety study. HHS has an opportunity to replace assumptions with modern, real-world health research and to protect children, families, animals and the environment using evidence that reflects actual exposure.

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, healthcare professional, and concerned member of the public. I personally can not sleep with the 5G wifi router on. Having researched this issue, I have found overwhelming evidence about the health dangers of on our health, fetuses, children and animals. I am requesting that this issue be taken seriously.

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, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. 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, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. I am commenting on EMFs and RF. My life/health is very affected by cell phones and wifi. I do not use a cellphone at all. I get an immediate headache and brain fog if I use one for even 5 minutes. I do not have wifi in my home. My laptop is connected with ethernet, and my modem does not even have wifi capabiliity. I am fortunate to live some distance away from cell towers. I have researched wifi and cellphones and understand they pose a great danger to everyone's health. Especially to children. Fetuses are affected from the mother's exposure. I believe that this technology is one of the most toxic things in our lives. It is beyond me why it has been allowed to be ever present everywhere.

I strongly support a thorough and independent review of human and environmental exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation. I personally suffer from the radio waves from wireless devices. It is uncomfortable. Our exposure to wireless radiation has increased dramatically with the expansion of cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, antennas, 5G infrastructure, connected appliances, and other wireless technologies. Yet questions remain about the potential effects of continuous, cumulative, and long-term exposure, particularly when people may be exposed twenty-four hours a day in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. I believe public health standards should be based not only on whether RF radiation produces heating effects, but should also continue to evaluate research concerning possible biological effects associated with long-term, low-level exposure. This review should consider children, pregnant women, older adults, people who report sensitivity to electromagnetic exposure, and individuals who may receive unusually high cumulative exposure. It should also examine potential effects on animals, birds, insects, pollinators, plants, trees, and other living organisms. Human health cannot be considered entirely separately from the health of the environment in which we live. I encourage the government to support independent research that is free from industry influence; examine cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources; evaluate whether present exposure standards adequately address modern technologies and long-term exposure; and consider practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. Where reasonable alternatives exist, people should also retain the ability to choose lower-exposure options—including wired connections and non-transmitting utility meters—without being penalized for doing so. Wireless technology provides important benefits, but technological convenience should not replace careful scientific evaluation and prudent public-health protections. When scientific uncertainty exists and exposure is widespread, a precautionary approach is appropriate. I respectfully request that this review be comprehensive, transparent, independent, and attentive to both human health and the health of the natural environment. I deliberately made this **firm but scientifically defensible** rather than saying that all EMF or RF exposure is already proven to harm every living cell. That will make your comment harder to dismiss and, in my view, more effective.