Beyond the heat.
Bring biology into the record.

The day before the announcement

On September 16, 2026, RF Safe founder John Coates joined Freedom Hub for a discussion with Charles Frohman and the group’s hosts and audience. His message connected three issues that are too often discussed separately: how living systems use electrical signals, who is responsible for investigating radiation risks, and how communications engineering could reduce unnecessary RF exposure.

The following day, HHS announced its request for information on electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation. The notice was published on September 21, opening a formal route for personal experiences, clinical observations, research and technical recommendations. The sequence gives this conversation unusual relevance: a call for health-agency leadership was followed immediately by a public invitation to help shape that work. ^[1][2]

RF Safe welcomes the Trump administration and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. taking this step. Following through means more than collecting submissions. It means explaining the evidence, funding the unanswered questions and making public-health responsibilities measurable. An RFI begins that process; it does not itself change an exposure limit or enact a Li-Fi mandate.

The FCC has a separate proceeding in ET Docket 13-84 addressing issues remanded by the D.C. Circuit. These are two opportunities with different responsibilities. Submit to both. A comment filed with one agency does not automatically enter the other agency’s record. ^[3]

Biology runs on patterns, not just power

Coates’s central argument is that evaluating a field only through its capacity to heat tissue can leave important biological questions unanswered. Cells respond to voltage, chemical concentrations, receptor activity and the timing of signals. Calcium is an especially useful example: a sustained increase and a sequence of oscillations can produce different cellular responses. Frequency, amplitude, duration and location help determine what a calcium signal does. ^[8]

What RF Safe means by “low-fidelity biology”

In RF Safe’s framework, biological fidelity means the reliability with which a living system senses its surroundings, coordinates its processes and maintains repair. “Noise” means an unwanted perturbation relative to those functions. It could be structured or repetitive; it need not look random.

The proposed concern is that an external field could, under particular exposure and susceptibility conditions, alter an upstream signal and change a downstream response. Repeated disturbances might interact with oxidative stress, metabolic strain, inadequate recovery or other exposures. Adaptations that help a cell cope in the short term might then change the conditions under which it operates.

Coates calls the broader proposed loss of resilience a “meta-disease state”: a susceptibility framework that could affect several outcomes rather than map one exposure to one disease. This is RF Safe’s research hypothesis, not a validated diagnosis or a demonstrated consequence of ordinary wireless use. Its scientific value depends on defining measurable errors, exposure conditions, recovery patterns and outcomes that independent laboratories can test.

The cell’s context matters

This framing connects to RF Safe’s ceLLM model of cellular inference. DNA and chromatin provide inherited and acquired constraints; mitochondria, membranes, the cytoskeleton and neighboring cells help determine the local context. Cellular responses emerge from the whole working system. Calling this “inference” is a way to organize questions about adaptation; it does not establish that DNA is literally an artificial neural network.

A useful research question follows: does a defined exposure change a biological signal, does that change impair function, and can the effect be reproduced or reversed? Measuring only the amount of calcium, without its pattern, could miss one kind of response. Measuring a pattern change without testing function would leave a different question unanswered.

Separate the carrier, the pulse pattern and the biological response

The interview emphasizes low-frequency timing within wireless transmissions. A radio signal has a carrier frequency; its amplitude or traffic pattern can vary on much slower timescales. A commonly configured Wi-Fi beacon interval of 102.4 milliseconds corresponds to about 9.77 events per second. Classic GSM transmission can have a roughly 217 Hz repetition pattern. Those numbers describe particular signal structures, not a universal exposure signature for every device or every moment.

Household 60 Hz magnetic fields and a microwave signal whose envelope varies at a low rate are physically different exposures. An envelope frequency is not automatically a separate low-frequency field acting inside a cell. A proposed mechanism must explain the coupling or nonlinear detection, and specify field strength, waveform, tissue and dose.

That distinction makes RF Safe’s request more concrete: study modulation, duty cycle, bursts, cumulative exposure and recovery intervals alongside carrier frequency, absorbed energy and temperature. Matching a pulse rate to a biological rhythm alone does not establish interference. The experiment must show what actually reaches the biological target and what changes.

Three examples that sharpen the research agenda

Calcium timing: experimental work has long shown that calcium oscillation frequency can influence gene expression. This establishes the importance of signal patterns in biology; it does not by itself establish an RF hazard. ^[8]

CACNA1C and sleep: a 2025 randomized crossover study of 34 genotyped volunteers examined sleep EEG after controlled pre-sleep RF exposure. It reported a genotype-dependent spindle-frequency response, including an approximately 0.20 Hz increase after 3.6 GHz exposure relative to sham in T/C carriers. This was an exposure comparison within a genotype group—not proof that changing one DNA letter caused EHS. The small study supports replication and susceptibility research; it did not establish disease, accelerated aging or a clinical test for electromagnetic sensitivity. ^[9]

Cyb5b and an engineered gene switch: a 2026 Cell paper reported electromagnetic control of gene expression through a system involving Cyb5b and calcium oscillations. Coates points to this as a reason to investigate biological transducers. Its engineered system and defined magnetic exposure do not establish that ambient Wi-Fi produces the same response in people. Independent replication and exposure comparisons are essential next steps. ^[10]

The practical lesson is to ask for experiments that measure the receiver as well as the source. Genetics, physiological state and other stressors are variables worth investigating, not reasons to assume a causal answer in advance.

Take people’s experiences seriously—and investigate them carefully

Audience questions made this discussion more than an engineering presentation. Participants described difficulty working, making their homes usable and finding technologies they could tolerate. Others asked about vehicles, indoor networks and the lack of affordable alternatives. Those experiences explain why accessible reporting and follow-up matter.

A person does not have to prove a mechanism before describing symptoms or asking for research. A useful submission separates what happened, what was measured and what the person believes caused it. That makes the record more useful without diminishing the seriousness of the experience.

The conversation also touched on targeting claims, Havana syndrome and genetic associations. These subjects should retain their distinctions. A report of suffering is not proof of an attacker, and a gene associated with several traits cannot diagnose a commenter or establish the cause of their symptoms. The archive preserves people’s stated concerns while clearly attributing allegations and causal interpretations.

Read “The Receiver Matters”: susceptibility, biological fidelity and the research questions →

Public Law 90-602: make health-agency responsibility concrete

One of Coates’s most important points is institutional: a debate about communications infrastructure should not leave medical and biological evaluation in the background. Public Law 90-602, the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, established responsibilities now reflected in the electronic-product radiation provisions of federal law.

21 U.S.C. § 360ii directs the HHS Secretary to carry out a radiation-control program, support research, evaluate emissions and exposure conditions, and develop methods to minimize unnecessary exposure. Section 360kk addresses performance standards when the Secretary determines they are necessary for public health and safety. These provisions offer specific subjects on which the public can request an implementation plan. ^[5][6]

RF Safe’s position is that HHS and FDA should provide stronger, transparent health leadership rather than leave the public with an unresolved division of responsibility. That is different from saying the FCC has no legal role: federal law gives the FCC authority over RF exposure rules for its regulated transmitters, and the 1968 law does not erase other agencies’ functions.

Ask for deliverables, not another open-ended promise

• A funded, continuing RF/EMF research agenda with named responsible agencies and public milestones.
• Independent replication of consequential findings, including animal, mechanistic and susceptibility studies.
• Better measurement of cumulative and real-world exposure, including sensitive populations and recovery periods.
• Public explanations of how findings affect performance standards, guidance and exposure-reduction options.
• Coordination among HHS, FDA, NIH, CDC and the FCC, with clear accountability for unresolved questions.

These are actionable requests for a health agency. Supporting the administration’s decision to gather evidence and demanding rigorous follow-through belong together.

The FCC remand and Section 704: put the unresolved questions on record

In 2021, the D.C. Circuit required the FCC to better explain its treatment of relevant evidence, including non-cancer effects and concerns involving children and long-term exposure. The court remanded the matter without vacating the limits. It did not order a particular new exposure number or decide that all compliant exposure is harmful. ^[4]

The September 17, 2026 notice, DA 26-997, seeks comment in ET Docket 13-84. A strong submission addresses what the record needs: exposure assumptions, evidence quality, children’s use, chronic exposure, environmental concerns and the reasoning behind the agency’s conclusions. ^[3]

Why RF Safe wants Congress to revisit Section 704

The Telecommunications Act’s siting provision, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), limits state and local regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions when those facilities comply with FCC regulations. ^[7]

RF Safe argues that this restriction leaves communities overly dependent on the adequacy of federal limits and should be repealed or revised. It does not prohibit a citizen from speaking, filing a federal comment or advocating legislative change. Repeal requires Congress; an HHS RFI or an FCC comment cannot repeal the statute by itself.

Explain the practical issue in your submission: what happened in your community, what decisions were constrained, what evidence you believe was not addressed and what remedy you request. Ask Congress to change the law and ask the agencies to address the responsibilities they already have.

Li-Fi: change how the connection reaches the device

Coates’s proposed solution starts with a familiar observation: fiber may carry data to the building, yet the final connection to a laptop or tablet often becomes Wi-Fi. Li-Fi makes an optical wireless link available for that last connection. Wired Ethernet remains another option. The policy question is whether people should have practical choices built into the devices they use.

Light-based communication has a long history. Alexander Graham Bell and Sumner Tainter’s photophone dates to 1880. Modern Li-Fi is a distinct technological development, and IEEE 802.11bb-2023 brought light communications into the 802.11 standards family. Coates explicitly credits that history: he did not invent Li-Fi. His patents concern particular optical applications. ^[12][13][14]

What changes—and what a buyer still needs to check

• The local data link: compatible optical transmitters and receivers carry data using light. An all-optical local link can avoid an RF transmission for that connection.
• Room coverage: opaque walls generally block the optical path. Multiple rooms can require multiple access points and a wired backbone.
• Devices: adapters, operating-system support, mobility, coverage and power requirements all matter. Compatibility is not yet universal.
• Security: containing the signal can reduce some opportunities for interception, but windows, reflections, compromised endpoints and ordinary network security still require attention.
• Radio settings: verify the uplink and disable unnecessary Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or cellular radios if the goal is RF reduction. Adding Li-Fi does not automatically switch them off.

The audience asked whether equipment exists and why it costs more. Coates described an early-adopter kit priced around $1,499 during the discussion. That is a reported example, not a current price quotation or a promise of compatibility. Costs and performance should be checked against the intended installation.

“Native” light is a design perspective, not a safety certificate

RF Safe uses “native” and “non-native” to emphasize the difference between the natural electromagnetic environment and newer engineered exposures. That language expresses a design philosophy. Actual safety depends on wavelength, intensity, duration, modulation and the exposed tissue; natural origin alone cannot establish safety.

Visible light, infrared and far-UVC should not be treated as interchangeable. Their penetration and biological effects differ. An infrared Li-Fi installation needs appropriate optical safety evaluation. A germicidal far-UVC system needs its own exposure and spectral assessment. An optical link avoids RF energy from that link, but it still delivers optical energy.

Coates’s U.S. Patent 11,700,058 B2 concerns wireless communication using germicidal light frequencies. It illustrates his interest in combining communication and sanitation. The patent establishes the invention’s legal record; a particular prototype’s safety margin must be established from measured output, geometry and exposure time. Ordinary infrared Li-Fi does not require a germicidal emitter. ^[14]

A Clean Aether Act: use purchasing power to create better options

Coates proposes a “Clean Ether Act,” developed in RF Safe’s published Clean Aether Act of 2026 model statute. The comparison with clean-air policy is about incentives: public rules and purchasing requirements can encourage manufacturers to redesign products instead of leaving the entire burden on individual consumers.

His practical suggestion is a staged federal procurement requirement for Li-Fi compatibility, with schools and publicly funded devices among the priorities. A five-year transition was discussed as an advocacy target, not an enacted timetable or a completed feasibility assessment.

• Begin with controlled pilots in classrooms, offices and other suitable indoor settings.
• Require interoperability, accessible installation and usable wired or optical alternatives.
• Measure RF reduction, optical exposure, reliability and total cost rather than relying on marketing claims.
• Use procurement specifications and public reporting to support a competitive supplier market.
• Keep essential connectivity and accessibility available throughout the transition.

The argument is forward-looking: a government can investigate an exposure while also testing technologies that reduce unnecessary exposure. Li-Fi procurement is a policy proposal to evaluate on its merits, not a medical treatment.

The audience’s practical questions deserve practical experiments

Could plants help compare wireless environments?

Coates described plans to compare plant growth near a conventional router and a Li-Fi installation, drawing on earlier seed experiments. These were proposed experiments, not new published results. A useful comparison would control light, heat, water, humidity, distance and seed batch, use blinded measurements and repeat the experiment. A plant result would not automatically establish a human health outcome.

What about connected and autonomous vehicles?

The audience asked about radar, lidar, cabin radios and electric drivetrains. These are different sources with different exposure patterns. Coates argued for better placement, shielding where appropriate and optical cabin connections. Vehicle-specific measurements are needed; the discussion does not establish that a named vehicle exceeds an exposure limit.

Can an electromagnetic signal have a beneficial medical use?

Coates cited TheraBionic P1. FDA granted a humanitarian device exemption in 2023 for adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of first- and second-line therapy. That restricted indication and probable-benefit pathway should be stated precisely. A medically controlled exposure does not establish that ordinary wireless exposure is harmful—or that arbitrary exposure is therapeutic. ^[11]

What about privacy, reflections and the Internet of Things?

Moving a local link to light changes its propagation, not the entire digital economy. Apps, cloud services and devices can still collect information. Privacy requires consent, data minimization and security in addition to a choice of carrier. Reflections and obstruction are engineering questions for an optical system, not evidence of a particular health effect.

Questions about covert targeting and “Internet of Bodies” claims arose during the discussion. They should not be presented as established explanations for symptoms or as reasons to promise that Li-Fi prevents such attacks. The concrete proposal stands on its own: give people more control over their local network and investigate reported problems with transparent methods.

The interview also uses historical and environmental imagery, including Schumann resonances and Heinrich Hertz’s early work. Such analogies can prompt questions, but matching frequencies or a historical illness cannot establish a causal mechanism. The case for modern research is strongest when built on reproducible measurements.

Day two: more than 500 HHS comments, mapped for everyone

By RF Safe’s September 22, 2026, 5 p.m. update, its archive contained 502 official HHS comment records: 234 posted September 21 and 268 posted September 22. The latest export added 24 records. Of the total, 490 comment bodies had source-matched AI summaries and classifications; 12 attachment-dependent submissions remained pending. Attachments on 49 submissions had not been read. ^[15]

This is the HHS archive, not the FCC docket. Counts describe the supplied official exports and reviewed text at that snapshot, not a freshly checked live docket total. The Explorer connects topics to the actual stories and official record links.

What people are discussing most

• Neurological symptoms & sleep; 260 comments
• Research & federal duties; 197 comments
• Children & vulnerable groups; 183 comments
• Towers & siting; 170 comments
• Wi-Fi & indoor exposure; 137 comments
• Housing, work & access barriers; 97 comments
• Exposure limits & oversight; 91 comments
• Smart meters; 83 comments
• Electromagnetic sensitivity; 78 comments
• Cancer & tumors; 70 comments

These are overlapping topic counts across the 490 reviewed bodies. A comment can describe symptoms, mention children and request research at the same time. The largest primary-concern categories were neurological symptoms and sleep (93), electromagnetic sensitivity (65), and research and federal duties (51).

Where the record could use more specific evidence

Section 704 / TCA appeared in one reviewed submission; surveillance and privacy in 10; satellite exposure in 12; proposed biological mechanisms in 22; reproduction and pregnancy in 31; occupational exposure in 36. Li-Fi, fiber and alternatives appeared in 65. These numbers identify less-discussed subjects in this archive, not their relative health importance or a quota that citizens need to fill.

If you have relevant experience or expertise, make it specific. A telecom engineer can document waveforms or design alternatives. A clinician can describe observations and what would test them. A worker can explain exposure conditions. A parent can describe school arrangements and the options they were offered. A resident can explain how a siting decision and Section 704 affected their community.

Shared advocacy language is a normal part of public participation; each official comment remains separately counted. Personal accounts and repeated wording can coexist. AI categories organize the record—they do not establish diagnoses, causation or representative public opinion.

Make your voice part of both official records

A social post can bring attention to an issue. A formal submission gives an agency material it can consider in its proceeding. That makes public participation consequential: describe what you know, attach the evidence you can share and ask for a response that can be evaluated.

A strong comment can be straightforward

1. Say why you are writing. Identify the issue you know firsthand or the research you want the agency to assess.
2. Describe the circumstances. Include relevant dates, devices, locations at an appropriate level of detail, duration and changes observed. Distinguish estimates from measurements.
3. Provide support. Link the actual paper, report or dataset. Explain its result, limitations and relevance rather than attaching a list without context.
4. Request a specific action. Ask for a study, a published response, improved exposure measurement, accessibility measures or evaluation of wired and optical alternatives.
5. Review and submit separately. A helper prepares your text; it does not replace filing with the agency. Save each confirmation and a copy of your submission.

Share only information you are comfortable placing in a public record; remove unnecessary identifying information from medical documents and attachments. You do not need to publish your complete medical history to make a useful contribution.

RF Safe’s request is clear: investigate biological function as well as heating, make HHS’s existing responsibilities visible, address the FCC’s unresolved record and give families practical alternatives. The opportunity now is to turn that position into evidence, specific questions and proposals the agencies must consider within their respective responsibilities.

Watch the conversation. Find the issue you can document. Put your voice in the record.