Biological mechanisms & metabolism

After suffering from a brain injury as flight crew in 2017 I began experiencing reactions around wireless technology. Since then it is impossible for me to leave my home without suffering from symptoms of migraine, vertigo, latent sleep disorder, and even at times seizures. Thankfully I can function on my own property without wi-fi as I was able to switch to wired internet. Sadly though, every year it seems the intensity of my neighbor’s wireless networks increases, causing me to suffer mild symptoms on a round the clock basis. If I am so affected by these frequencies, what might they be doing to the developing child’s brains or to our pets and wildlife? After deep diving into published research, it is clear that the literature shows wireless technologies are neuro-toxic to biology via neurotransmitter changes and Voltage Gated Calcium Channel dysfunction. With our current uptick in maladies such as cancers of all kinds, infertility, neuro-degeneration, Cardiovascular Disease, ASD, Hoshimoto’s Thyroiditis, Type 2 Diabetes, and more, we should be asking why this is happening exponentially as we increase the rate of our wireless radiation exposures. On top of the physiological effects, our population's mental health is also suffering. It appears from psychological studies this is largely due to the overload of communications and information. Our governing bodies have not performed their due diligence in investigating potential harms from wireless technology. Focusing on the thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation does not suffice in assuring the public you are required to protect that these technologies are safe. At the very minimum, while we continue to perform long-term studies on the non thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation exposures on humans and the environment, I propose that we: .Re-introduce wired phone lines and ethernet connections in homes, businesses, and public places. . Require all wireless technologies sold in the US to have an “offline mode” which completely disables all wireless functions. . That all wireless functions of all devices be required to be in their offline mode at our schools, parks, public buildings, places of gathering, hospitals, public transportation, and the like. . That cell phone towers, power stations, and other facilities or antenna that emit ELF, EMF, or RF be required to be positioned a mile or more away from buildings, public spaces, and areas of residence OR require informed consent from all potentially affected parties as to the exposures and their unknown possible effects. . That public warnings be instituted regarding the unknown or possible harms of using wireless devices. . That our governing bodies and manufacturers be held responsible for any adverse effects from their approved devices, products, or the infrastructure of wireless technologies.

DA 26-997 Released: September 17, 2026: FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON RF EXPOSURE ISSUES SUBJECT TO D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST V. FCC, ET Docket No. 13-84. I am Robert J. Berg, the founder and principal of the Law Office of Robert J. Berg PLLC. My law firm specializes in wireless telecommunications law. My firm is one of the very few law firms which primarily represents the interests of residents of communities where wireless carriers are seeking permits to install and operate personal wireless communications infrastructure. My firm also represents local governments which seek expert counsel as they consider applications for such wireless facilities. I, personally, have been practicing law for 43 years. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, receiving my JD and MBA degrees in 1983. For most of my career, I have litigated complex multi-party litigations, and specialized in complex class action litigation in the federal and state courts nationwide. Over the past several years, however, I have focused my practice nearly exclusively on wireless matters. I am fully familiar with the Environmental Health Trust v. FCC action in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and I have represented Environmental Health Trust on certain filings following the Court of Appeals decision in 2021. I am submitting this Public Comment in response to the FCC’s DA 26-997 Released: September 17, 2026: FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON RF EXPOSURE ISSUES SUBJECT TO D.C. CIRCUIT REMAND IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST V. FCC, ET Docket No. 13-84. In my experience, the FCC has a long and ignoble history of disserving the American people as a captured agency beholden to the industry it is supposed to regulate in the public interest. The agency has been captured for decades – under both Republican and Democratic administrations. But under the leadership of corrupt and conniving Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC has reached a new nadir. The instant disingenuous Request for Public Comment represents a pathetic response to the Order of the DC Circuit requiring the FCC to respond to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense with the DC Circuit this past Spring. Petitioners filed for writ of mandamus after the FCC contemptuously ignored for 4 ½ years the mandate from the DC Circuit to reconsider most of the FCC’s unreasoned and arbitrary 2019 ruling refusing to conduct a rule-making procedure to update its 1996 RF exposure guidelines. The DC Circuit’s landmark decision in EHT v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), dealt a humiliating blow to the FCC. The panel eviscerated the FCC for its utter lack of reasoned decision-making on all the significant health and environmental issues raised, except for cancer, which the panel found that the FCC at least set forth a reasoned basis – without opining on the merits of the FCC’s reasoning. The DC Circuit excoriated the FCC for relying on the utterly conclusory and unreasoned statement of FDA Dr. Jeffrey Shuren that scientific studies do not show health risks from exposure to low level RF radiation. The DC Circuit held that Dr. Shuren’s statements were so conclusory and lacking in substantiation that reliance thereon is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious as a matter of law. The FCC, which lacks any scientific expertise of its own with respect to the human health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation exposure, necessarily must consult with and rely upon other agencies having such expertise, ruled the DC Circuit. Instead, by relying on Dr. Shuren’s unsubstantiated conclusory assertion of no health impact, the FCC acted as arbitrarily and capriciously as Dr. Shuren, and the DC Circuit held that two wrongs don’t make a right. After the DC Circuit issued its opinion, the NY Times later revealed that Dr. Shoren handled numerous matters at the FDA involving clients represented by his wife, an attorney, matters from which the law and FDA rules required him to recuse himself from considering. Dr. Shuren retired from the FDA before formal ethics investigations into his conduct were instituted. Given the FCC’s sordid ethical standards, it’s no surprise that the FCC would rely extensively on conclusory, unsupported statements of an unethical scoundrel like Dr. Shuren to justify maintaining archaic RF exposure guidelines that are not protective of human health and fail to reflect current independent scientific research untainted by industry money and influence. Yet, even in the present Notice for Public Comment, the FCC is unbowed by its public humiliation by the DC Circuit. Instead, this Notice blithely misstates the DC Circuit opinion, and intentionally solicits public comment based on its wrong and constricted interpretation of the EHT decision. The EHT mandate is about assuring that the FCC’s 1996 RF emissions guidelines adequately safeguard the health of the public today – thirty years later. The 1996 FCC guidelines were issued in a rush at the dawn of the wireless age when hardly any cell phones, no less a plethora of wireless devices, existed, and the number of cell towers and other wireless communications facilities around the country were minimal. Today, there are approximately 500,000 cell towers and other wireless communications facilities in the US, all transmitting RF radiation 24/7. Meanwhile, virtually every person in the country possesses a cell phone and/or other wireless devices. Human exposure to wireless radiation is ubiquitous and constant. In 1996, the telecommunications industry effectively lobbied (bribed) Congress to pass Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits State and local governments from denying wireless carriers permits to construct and operate wireless facilities on the basis of the health risks of wireless radiation exposure. But there’s an important caveat to this provision – the federal preemption applies so long as the wireless facility at issue transmits at levels within the FCC’s RF guidelines. Thus, Congress has circumscribed State and local governments’ traditional zoning powers with respect to health in reliance on the FCC’s assurance that the FCC’s wireless emissions guidelines protect human health. Congress also mandates that the FCC guidelines protect against other environmental concerns, which means that wireless radiation exposure should not negatively impact flora and fauna. The 1996 guidelines were weak and seriously flawed from the outset. But now, 30 years later, they are a laughingstock to serious independent scientists who are not on the industry payroll. Literally thousands of peer reviewed published studies demonstrate statistically significant linkages between exposure to wireless radiation from wireless devices and wireless transmission facilities and serious negative health impacts to humans. While the exact etiology has not definitively been determined for all diseases and negative health impacts, persistent wireless radiation exposure appears to lead to oxidative stress which is well known to precipitate a cascade of negative human health conditions. Similarly, serious scientific studies of the impact of wireless radiation exposure on flora and fauna are ongoing, and already numerous studies show negative impacts on birds, bats, bees, and flora. Fortunately, in response to this request for public comments, many of these contemporary studies are being introduced into the administrative record for the FCC’s consideration. The problem is that under Chairman Carr’s reign, the agency takes a wholly dismissive view of the dangers of wireless radiation exposure to both humans and flora and fauna. Even under his Democratic predecessor, the FCC failed to take the DC Circuit’s mandate seriously. It has done nothing at all for 4 ½ years. The panel should find the FCC in contempt of court. That deserved outcome is unlikely. Equally unlikely is the FCC giving the submitted evidence herein an objective review and a fair shake. However, what’s new and what gives practitioners like me some hope is that HHS has also opened a proceeding requesting public comment on essentially the same issue. HHS actually has expertise in examining the health impacts of wireless radiation exposure to humans – or at least in studying the issue and coming up with informed conclusions and recommendations. I understand that HHS will study the issue – and hopefully issue well-informed recommendations which the FCC will have to follow inasmuch as the FCC has no internal expertise. My experience in dealing with the FCC on various cell tower matters is that the FCC has operated entirely against the public interest. Its rulings in the matters in which I have been involved have always been conclusory and are sloppy and usually contain seriously errors of fact. Most federal agencies in my experience are filled with people trying to do good for the public at large. The FCC is interested only in protecting the revolving door between the industry and the agency and thus, protects only the industry’s interests. Respectfully, Robert J. Berg

Posting for a Friend that wishes to remain anonymous. We'll call the person Jade. Here is Jade's Story: I was comfortable and healthy. In 2010, when my area switched from analog to radio utility meters (aka "SMART" meters), and T.V.s were switched form analog to digital, I went from feeling comfortable in my bedroom and in the world, to very uncomfortable. It took a while to figure out what was going on. I met others that were suffering and felt great dis-ease with this technology. Also more towers and antennas were added to the hill outside my bedroom window. I learned that by turning off or unplugging electronics, I felt well again. Also re moving myself to a healthy location, I immediately felt well again. This horror/toxic trespass has changed my life. Can you imagine how difficult it can be to find a safe and healthy place to live and to work? I did a count of 100 people in my everyday life. It turns out 20% of them felt ill around this technology, ie. man-made, toxic non-ionizing radiation. I figured that probably about 2x as many (40%) are not feeling well around it. They were just not aware of the symptoms of radio poisoning. Not connecting the dots. I later read that scientists that had studied the matter came up with the same results (40% of the population suffering in an obvious way)! We have over 50,000 published peer-reviewed studies showing harm from these non-native emfs, including pollinator collapse, childhood leukemia, and cancerous tumors, ill health of insects and animals and plants, problems affecting the brain, the heart, the blood, the DNA, due to this technology. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people. A Swedish oncologist, in the early 1900's, wisely said that Anything that is harmful to one living cell is harmful to all living cells. I think this is true. Never put tracking devices on insects or animals! These days my symptoms around too much radio/microwave frequency include: stress, fatigue, pain in the ears and head, feeling frazzled, heart palpitations, and general discomfort. How many are feeling ill and not connecting the dots? How many doctors are not connecting the dots? We must take an honest look at this non-native and harmful technology now. We must protect life on Planet earth for all to thrive.Landlines, ethernet, cable and wired technology are much safer than wireless. Let's use and encourage wired tech as much as possible. If not now, when will you take your fiduciary responsibilty seriously, and mindfully curb and regulate this technology, so that life may thrive once again? Thank you for hearing us, Anonymous Jade

Posting for a Friend that wishes to remain anonymous. We'll call the person Jade. Here is Jade's Story: I was comfortable and healthy. In 2010, when my area switched from analog to radio utility meters (aka "SMART" meters), and T.V.s were switched form analog to digital, I went from feeling comfortable in my bedroom and in the world, to very uncomfortable. It took a while to figure out what was going on. I met others that were suffering and felt great dis-ease with this technology. Also more towers and antennas were added to the hill outside my bedroom window. I learned that by turning off or unplugging electronics, I felt well again. Also re moving myself to a healthy location, I immediately felt well again. This horror/toxic trespass has changed my life. Can you imagine how difficult it can be to find a safe and healthy place to live and to work? I did a count of 100 people in my everyday life. It turns out 20% of them felt ill around this technology, ie. man-made, toxic non-ionizing radiation. I figured that probably about 2x as many (40%) are not feeling well around it. They were just not aware of the symptoms of radio poisoning. Not connecting the dots. I later read that scientists that had studied the matter came up with the same results (40% of the population suffering in an obvious way)! We have over 50,000 published peer-reviewed studies showing harm from these non-native emfs, including pollinator collapse, childhood leukemia, and cancerous tumors, ill health of insects and animals and plants, problems affecting the brain, the heart, the blood, the DNA, due to this technology. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people. A Swedish oncologist, in the early 1900's, wisely said that Anything that is harmful to one living cell is harmful to all living cells. I think this is true. Never put tracking devices on insects or animals! These days my symptoms around too much radio/microwave frequency include: stress, fatigue, pain in the ears and head, feeling frazzled, heart palpitations, and general discomfort. How many are feeling ill and not connecting the dots? How many doctors are not connecting the dots? We must take an honest look at this non-native and harmful technology now. We must protect life on Planet earth for all to thrive.Landlines, ethernet, cable and wired technology are much safer than wireless. Let's use and encourage wired tech as much as possible. If not now, when will you take your fiduciary responsibilty seriously, and mindfully curb and regulate this technology, so that life may thrive once again? Thank you for hearing us, Anonymous Jade

Public Comment to the Federal Communications Commission Re: ET Docket No. 13-84 — Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies I am submitting this comment as a concerned resident and parent regarding the serious imbalance between federal telecommunications policy, public health protections, and the rights of local communities to determine whether wireless telecommunications infrastructure should be constructed near their homes and schools. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 fundamentally altered the ability of local governments to protect their communities from unwanted wireless infrastructure. Under Section 704, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), local governments are prohibited from regulating the placement, construction, or modification of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions when those facilities comply with FCC regulations. For nearly three decades, this restriction has placed residential communities in an extraordinarily difficult position. Residents may express concerns about long-term RF exposure, proximity to children, cumulative exposure from multiple installations, or the adequacy of existing safety standards, yet their elected local officials are severely restricted in their ability to consider those concerns when deciding whether to approve a tower. In practical terms, federal law has deprived communities of meaningful local authority over one of the very issues that matters most to them: whether continuous, involuntary RF exposure near their homes and schools presents an acceptable risk. As a resident in a suburban neighborhood marketed to buyers as a "healthy living" community, I have seen the number of cell towers near my home grow from approximately 40 towers four years ago, to over 100 towers currently. This includes three currently in progress, which were forced through administrative approvals without opportunity for public notifications and public hearing. Wireless communications development companies are abusing the liberal policies established under the Federal Telecommunications Act, forcing tower construction upon residential neighborhoods, against the will of the local community. Not only does this deprive the community of an opportunity to voice opposition, but it also takes away freedom of choice for exposure to something that the American Cancer Society cannot definitively declare "safe" or that it does not cause cancer, due to lack of long term studies to substantiate that it does not cause cancer. Further, the limited studies that exist, are based upon estimated exposure levels and not actual exposure levels, and are limited to exposure from one towers RF emissions, rather than considering the collective level of exposure from all sources. If someone already has 5 towers within 1,000 yards from their home, adding an additional tower is not necessarily within tolerable safety limits because the estimated exposure from the new tower does not consider the cumulative levels emitted from all towers and sources. Because populated areas have limited spaces to erect these towers, the wireless communication companies are aggressively targeting unincorporated areas, public utility easements, and even school grounds. Many school districts in Austin TX are entering into lease agreements with wireless communications companies, erecting towers on top of schools, which poses a risk to student health. My own children have a cell tower right on top of their middle school. I personally have a BRCA mutation and I am more susceptible to DNA damage from RF. I may have passed my gene to my children. It is wrong that there is RF exposure continually forced upon us in our own backyard, and we should have the right to refuse. There should be a moratorium on new cell tower construction in residential areas and school zones until such time that there is long term safety data definitively proving that it is completely safe with no risk. I recognize that reliable wireless communication is important. However, the public's need for connectivity should not automatically outweigh the rights of residents, parents, and communities to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their immediate living environments. I am particularly concerned about the placement of wireless infrastructure on or near school properties. Schools should be places where children's health, safety, and welfare are the foremost considerations. Yet school districts and telecommunications companies may enter into arrangements allowing wireless infrastructure on educational property, potentially generating revenue while exposing surrounding families and students to an installation they may have little practical ability to oppose on RF health grounds. The fact that a telecommunications facility complies with existing FCC exposure limits should not automatically end the public health discussion, especially when those limits themselves are the subject of ongoing scientific and regulatory scrutiny. The 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC illustrates why public confidence cannot rest solely on the assertion that existing standards are adequate. The court found deficiencies in the FCC's explanation for retaining its RF exposure limits in light of issues raised in the administrative record, including noncancer health effects, children's health, and long-term exposure. Communities should not be legally prevented from considering potential RF health impacts while the federal agency responsible for establishing the governing exposure limits is still addressing questions concerning the adequacy of those standards. This creates a fundamental accountability problem: federal law restricts local governments from considering RF health concerns, while residents must rely on federal standards that they have no meaningful ability to challenge through the local tower approval process. I urge the FCC to take the following actions: Conduct a comprehensive, transparent, and independent reassessment of RF exposure standards, including long-term exposure, potential nonthermal biological effects, children's health, and cumulative exposure from multiple wireless installations. Give particular consideration to wireless facilities located near residences, schools, childcare facilities, and other locations where children and families spend substantial amounts of time. Require meaningful public disclosure of proposed antenna configurations, operating frequencies, projected RF exposure, and cumulative exposure from existing nearby facilities before new installations are approved. Establish stronger public participation and independent exposure-assessment procedures for wireless infrastructure proposed near residential neighborhoods and schools. Recommend that Congress revisit the preemption provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that local governments can meaningfully consider RF exposure and public health concerns when evaluating proposed wireless facilities. Ensure that the burden of demonstrating compliance with scientifically justified safety standards rests with wireless infrastructure operators, rather than requiring individual residents to prove harm after a facility has already been constructed. I am not advocating for the elimination of wireless communication. I am advocating for a regulatory framework that recognizes that technological advancement and public health protections are not mutually exclusive. The wireless infrastructure landscape has changed dramatically since 1996. The number, density, configuration, and proximity of wireless installations to homes and schools have evolved, and federal oversight must account for those changes. No community should be forced to accept a wireless installation near its homes or schools without meaningful consideration of health and safety concerns simply because federal law prevents local officials from evaluating those concerns. The FCC has an obligation to ensure that the standards relied upon to override local decision-making are supported by a thorough, transparent, and current scientific assessment. I respectfully urge the Commission to address these concerns and to recognize the consequences that federal preemption has had on residential communities and families across the country. Thank you for considering my comment.

Posting for a Friend that wishes to remain anonymous. We'll call the person Jade. Here is Jade's Story: I was comfortable and healthy. In 2010, when my area switched from analog to radio utility meters (aka "SMART" meters), and T.V.s were switched form analog to digital, I went from feeling comfortable in my bedroom and in the world, to very uncomfortable. It took a while to figure out what was going on. I met others that were suffering and felt great dis-ease with this technology. Also more towers and antennas were added to the hill outside my bedroom window. I learned that by turning off or unplugging electronics, I felt well again. Also re moving myself to a healthy location, I immediately felt well again. This horror/toxic trespass has changed my life. Can you imagine how difficult it can be to find a safe and healthy place to live and to work? I did a count of 100 people in my everyday life. It turns out 20% of them felt ill around this technology, ie. man-made, toxic non-ionizing radiation. I figured that probably about 2x as many (40%) are not feeling well around it. They were just not aware of the symptoms of radio poisoning. Not connecting the dots. I later read that scientists that had studied the matter came up with the same results (40% of the population suffering in an obvious way)! We have over 50,000 published peer-reviewed studies showing harm from these non-native emfs, including pollinator collapse, childhood leukemia, and cancerous tumors, ill health of insects and animals and plants, problems affecting the brain, the heart, the blood, the DNA, due to this technology. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people. A Swedish oncologist, in the early 1900's, wisely said that Anything that is harmful to one living cell is harmful to all living cells. I think this is true. Never put tracking devices on insects or animals! These days my symptoms around too much radio/microwave frequency include: stress, fatigue, pain in the ears and head, feeling frazzled, heart palpitations, and general discomfort. How many are feeling ill and not connecting the dots? How many doctors are not connecting the dots? We must take an honest look at this non-native and harmful technology now. We must protect life on Planet earth for all to thrive.Landlines, ethernet, cable and wired technology are much safer than wireless. Let's use and encourage wired tech as much as possible. If not now, when will you take your fiduciary responsibilty seriously, and mindfully curb and regulate this technology, so that life may thrive once again? Thank you for hearing us, Anonymous Jade

Hi. I suffer from Electro Hypersensitivity, which has limited my life drastically, caused the end of my marriage, and caused me 3-4 decades of illnesses no one had any diagnosis for. I now know what it is caused by. After seeing ear specialists, due to the unrelenting tinnitus, and neurologist for the malignant insomnia and migraines, and no one could find anything wrong with me. I had to begin to look out of the box for other explanations. I found this is more common than I had any idea, and millions like me are suffering from this sensitivity and are simply canaries in the coal mine. We are showing how harmful this out of control ubiquitous RFR is. I live in a shielded home and use only wired communications. It took me over 10 yrs to learn how to remediate my environment to get as well as I seem to be able to get. I have lost my freedom to travel or even go to visit a friend at their home. I fear needing to go into a hospital with WIFI, as it makes me instantly very sick. I feel there needs to be a total new perspective on the well know adverse health effects of Manmade Radiofrequency Radiation or RFR, and a complete revamping of our safety standards. Our old standards set in 1996 are BEYOND outdate and totally wrong. The declassified Naval Military Research documents easily available on the internet, on the subject of how man made radiation affect the human body, are from the 50's and again in the 1970's clearly showing evidence of damage to every system of our bodies from this radiation. Also the study done a few years ago by the National Toxicology Institute shows clear evidence of RFR causing cancer in rats. There are thousands of studies showing this is harmful, and most other first world countries have much more rigid standards. The toxic nature of these emissions and devices needs to be told to the population so they can make informed decision about wiring their homes and using wired communications, if we want to see cancer and a host of thousands of other illness on the rise start to decline. We also need to make safe hospital and doctors offices ASAP so those of us who already are suffering this dis -ease, have a safe place to go for health care. We urgently need to listen to the research that shows carcinogenicity and cellular damage WAY below current standards of heating!! We need to start to regulate and educate about this horrific global poisoning, proliferating at lightening speed out of control and causing skyrocketing suffering, diseases, and deaths. If our doctors and our public are kept from this info, our regulatory agencies are essentially killing our population. There are thousands of valid studies showing harm from RFR. http:bioinitiative.org , https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones , "Zapped" By Ann Gittelman (book) and many more. Please work to change legislation so that our populations are protected. You are the people who can and must work to reverse the skyrocketing diseases that are directly related to the installations of cell towers near homes and schools and hospitals, and our fire stations which are hotbeds of cancer! We need updated safety regulations to protect and educate folks on not carrying these devices on one's body and choosing wired communications being healthier than wireless. It is not until our governments stand up for us and protect us from this that most of the population will listen sadly. We need this as cancer and all kinds of neurological disorders ect are on the rise due to this ubiquitous toxin escalating daily our of control in our world. Debby L. Baskin D.C. Sent from my Wired Computer.

My first experience with EMFs was in the year 2000 when I purchased my first cell phone it was a 2g/3g. The adverse effects I began experiencing was trouble sleeping and headaches. So, I decided to remove the cell phone from my bedroom and the problems with sleeping and waking up with headaches stopped. As an IT professional, I asked the question why and started doing some research. Distance is key to reducing exposure and learning simple convenience changes. I began studying and researching the biological effects that man-made EMF exposures have on humans and other living organisms for years. My studies and research with health care professionals, scientists, researchers, journalists , EMF Mitigation professionals and Building biologists. We are bioelectrical systems and environmental exposure to artificial EMFs interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body and all life on this planet for example the BEEs. My next major challenge was in 2011, I could no longer work in electronic environments, because of my sensitivity to all of the electro-pollution that has now filled our environments. I cannot take airplane trips, be in large crowds, and going into to town is overwhelming on my nervous system. I live in Rural area in Nature where this is little exposure to the EMF toxins. I can feel the difference when I am in a Natural harmonic environment vs the city full of electro-pollution. I am living with Electro-hypersensitivity. When I am overwhelmed, it takes days for me to recover. I have experienced the following symptoms: Trouble Sleeping Headaches and migraines difficulty concentrating dizziness irritability Heart palpitations, irregular heartbeats, fast heartrate fatigue weakness depression ringing in the ears the phone when it rings sends a painful shock through my body I now help people with EMF mitigation support, education as to source awareness, safer products, potential Health and well-being consequences, EMF mitigations and simple things they can do to reduce their health and well-being exposure. We have to consider EMFs as just one of the many possible factors in the Rising wave of chronic illness. I also provided data to this website as Citizens Scientists: https://globalemf.net/ Sources: Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27012122/ Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3780531/ Blank, M. (2014). "Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other WiFi-Age Devices." Seven Stories Press. Bijlsma N, Conduit R, Kennedy G, Cohen M. (2024). "Does radiofrequency radiation impact sleep? A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study." Frontiers in Public Health, 12. Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12179773/ Impact of electromagnetic radiation on human reproduction health: Causes, consequences, and potential therapeutic approaches https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850725007228 LIVING WITH ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY A Survival Guide http://www.weepinitiative.org/livingwithehs.html Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields cause DNA strand breaks in normal cells https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3897901/ Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7642138/ Neurophysiologic effects of radiofrequency and microwave radiation. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1807758/ Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies https://www.healthandenvironment.org/latest-research/blog/health-hazards-of-wireless-technologies Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/w/2010/wireless-tech-health-outcomes.ashx?la=fr Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355 “Dr Martin L. Pall MD, MSc, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, he points out that there are eight distinct and primary ways that man-made EMFs can cause harm, which he outlined in 5G Risk: The Scientific Perspective – Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them."

Here's a three minute video containing data that is published science, testing results, or public standards including the serious detrimental effects of these over-powerful man-made radiation frequencies. Please watch it. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1748284186236212 In my home office I experienced disabling head pain, frightening heart palpitations, shortness of breath and brain fog leading to an inability to think. It took me AVOIDING my office to figure it out. After spending nearly two years refusing Xcel Energy access to install a smart meter, Xcel and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission FORCED US TO INSTALL THE SMART METER, A RADIATION EMITTING DEVICE, or Xcel Energy would shut our electric power off. When Xcel threatened us I was desperate to learn how to protect our live bodies. Constant research about radiation frequencies, including dirty electricity that's inherent in our power grid from 42% wind and solar power delivered to our house... I purchased SaticShield and Aulterra products to shield, filter and "retune" the POWERFUL man-made smart meter radiation and technology frequencies constituting interference with our natural live electrical bodies; including the wifi router, cell phones, laptop, desktop and big screen tv. We applied individual products to the technology devices, a whole house filter to our electrical lines and each of our automobiles. We wear the protection on our bodies as well. Finally the buzzing in my head reduced some and sleep was improved some. We shielded the FORCED UPON US smart meter from pulsing extremely heavy loads of radiation into our kitchen where we stand to cook and walk past EVERY DAY. What do people do that can't afford to mitigate the harmful health effects? Or those that don't know a silent killer is frequenting them every day practically all day and all night? I can't imagine the terror moms and dads have over their young children being constantly bombarded by man made radiation frequencies that disturb the young and old alike and do damage to the DNA level to every live member of mankind, animal kind and plant kind! Yes, the radiation frequencies did not raise my body temperature but they certainly harmed my everyday life!!! The radiation and dirty electricity are sneaky. People are unaware of the huge dirty electricity readings caused by led lights, dimmers, florescent lights, and all those aforementioned technological devices. I'm absolutely appalled by a small town in Iowa where family lives... placing frequency devices DIRECTLY ON all the town's people's WATER TOWER!!! Are you kidding? The corporate officials that took money to do that ought to be ousted in the public square! Those frequencies directly on the water tower destroy the structure of water so desperately needed by every living thing. Stop this madness. Denial is the problem because there's too powerful much money to be made by continuing down this path! The truth is not hidden from the All Mighty. The number one job of "government" is to protect the people and their assets. DO IT.

PUBLIC COMMENT — HHS DOCKET HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Submitted by: Slowphone Brasil Slowphone Brasil advocates for healthier and safer use of technology. We urge the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards, consider the scientific evidence already available, and prioritize public health and the protection of life over commercial interests. 1. REASSESS EXPOSURE LIMITS Current radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards should be independently reassessed in light of peer-reviewed research reporting biological effects and potential health concerns below existing guidelines. The review should address voltage-gated calcium channels, oxidative stress and peroxynitrite pathways, blood-brain barrier permeability, and tumors, including gliomas and schwannomas. HHS should evaluate the US National Toxicology Program studies and the Ramazzini Institute's 2018 findings alongside epidemiological research, systematic reviews and subsequent evidence. Animal findings and proposed mechanisms should be distinguished from proven human causation, without dismissing relevant evidence because scientific uncertainty remains. 2. ENSURE SCIENTIFIC INDEPENDENCE HHS should examine conflicts of interest, funding sources, professional affiliations and evidence-selection methods in organizations whose recommendations inform exposure standards, including ICNIRP. Relevant concerns should be assessed through verifiable documents, declarations of interest and transparent review procedures. Independent experts should evaluate the full body of evidence, including findings that challenge existing assumptions. 3. ADOPT MORE PROTECTIVE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS We propose an international outdoor RF reference level of 100,000 µW/m² (0.1 W/m²) for consideration and scientific evaluation. HHS should compare US standards with current regulations in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Poland, Italy and Israel, identifying more protective approaches and the rationale behind them. Comparisons must specify frequency, averaging periods, measurement conditions and whether values are binding limits or precautionary targets. 4. REDUCE EXPOSURE AT SOURCE HHS should promote a comprehensive strategy to reduce unnecessary exposure while maintaining essential communications. Wireless routers should provide effective low-emission modes, adjustable transmission power and automatic reduction of unnecessary transmissions. JRS ECO technology may serve as a technical reference, subject to independent testing. Public institutions, schools, hospitals, childcare facilities and workplaces should prioritize wired Ethernet connections where practical, reducing dependence on Wi-Fi in locations occupied for long periods. Wireless networks should be deployed only where needed, with access points configured to avoid unnecessary transmission power. Consumers should have access to mobile phones with low specific absorption rates (SAR), transparent and comparable exposure information, and easy-to-use settings that reduce unnecessary transmissions. Hands-free use, speakerphone use and keeping active devices away from the body when practical should be encouraged. HHS should also evaluate exposure from cellular infrastructure, small cells, Internet of Things devices, wearables, smart meters and emerging wireless technologies. Infrastructure planning should consider exposure in homes, schools and other sensitive locations. 5. PROTECT CHILDREN AND SENSITIVE SETTINGS Public-health guidance should give particular attention to children, pregnancy and fetal development. Schools and childcare facilities should favor wired connections where feasible and adopt practical exposure-reduction measures. Public procurement policies should consider low-emission connectivity options and transparent technical specifications. 6. ADDRESS DIRTY ELECTRICITY HHS should support independent, reproducible research on high-frequency electrical noise conducted through wiring, sometimes called dirty electricity. Proposed filters should be assessed through standardized measurements before and after installation; health benefits should not be presumed without reliable evidence. Measurement methods and units must be clearly defined. 7. WARN AND INFORM THE PUBLIC HHS should consider prominent graphical health-information labels on RF-emitting devices and products, inspired by tobacco warnings. Labels should explain that exposure and scientific uncertainty exist and provide practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. A broad public-awareness campaign, drawing on documented initiatives in Cyprus, should explain exposure sources, research findings, uncertainties and preventive options. Environmental measurements should be publicly accessible and report RF in µW/m², electric-field strength in V/m, and magnetic-field strength in nT. Dirty electricity requires separate, clearly defined measurement methods. 8. GLOBAL ACTION AND TRANSPARENCY The United States should encourage international cooperation on independent research, standardized environmental monitoring, public disclosure of measurement results and periodic reassessment of exposure limits. Publicly funded research should disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources, publish results regardless of outcome, and enable independent verification. OUR PRINCIPAL REQUESTS 1. Reassess existing RF exposure limits and evaluate an international outdoor reference level of 100,000 µW/m². 2. Implement a broad public-awareness campaign and promote practical exposure-reduction measures worldwide. 3. Introduce prominent graphical warnings on RF-emitting products and strengthen protections in schools and other sensitive settings. Public health and the protection of life must take precedence over commercial interests. HHS should act on existing evidence, improve scientific transparency and advance proportionate preventive measures without waiting for every uncertainty to be resolved. REFERENCES IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Monographs, Volume 102 (2013). https://publications.iarc.who.int/126 US National Toxicology Program. Technical Reports 595 and 596 (2018). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/apptoxres/cartox Italy. Law No. 36 of 22 February 2001. https://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/01036l.htm