All comment threads

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

I am a senior woman and have been Electrosensitive for over 25 years, starting with a Nokia analog cell phone. The radiofrequency prevalance has made my life exceedingly challenging, to the point where I could no longer find places to rent that I could tolerate because of the proliferation of Wifi and other wireless pharaphenalia. That forced me to live in a van for the last 4 years, not my first choice, but a survival necessity.

I have been aware of health risks from Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and RF wireless radiation for many years. Here is a website that has a list of research links for your consideration: https://ehtrust.org/send-science-to-the-fcc-govt-is-asking-for-evidence-you-can-help-now/ Because I have been aware of the dangers, to the best of my ability, I have created a safe environment for my husband, our son, and I where I can better control the RF wireless radiation levels inside of our home. We do not have WIFI in our home and haven't for years. We have internet but we have it safely hard-wired. We kindly ask anyone entering our home to please turn off their Cellular Data, Bluetooth, and WIFI on their phones and tablets as my husband and I do the same. Rarely do we need to use the internet on our phones but if we do, we do it quickly and away from our son and then once we are done, we make sure to turn it back off, immediately. We have asked our neighbors to apply faraday cages on their digital meters and they gladly obliged. We take all these measures, and I could go on listing more, because we are aware of the dangers of exposure to EMF and other sources of RF wireless radiation. We do the best we can, to control what we can, knowing once we leave our house, it's a battle zone of cell towers, cell phones, wireless and digital “smart” utility meters, public Wi-Fi, and other sources of RF wireless radiation. The last thing I want on or around my home and my child is a cell tower or wireless smart meter. I am completely opposed to 2-way wireless "smart" utility meters, digital utility meters, and opt-out fees. Wireless smart meters are data collecting devices that were forced on Americans and they emit harmful radiation. I have participated and continue to participate in state and national campaigns asking for utility meter choice legislation. I have collected signatures of Ohioans opposed to these meters and have sent them to state lawmakers. Here is a link for a national campaign for utility meter choice legislation: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community-forum/support-utility-meter-choice/ I have filed several complaints already about smart and digital meters with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to only be ignored. I do not like the wireless smart meter "opt out" option that we currently are offered because it cancels our own rights when we do so. With this option, we’ve had to AGREE to ALLOW utility providers and unknown 3rd party companies, to violate our constitutional rights – so we are legally consenting to being violated. Why should my "option" (opt out) be coercion to violate my own rights? That doesn't seem like an option to me. I have sent the CEO of my gas and electric utility provider, AES an Affidavit of Truth stating many points of intent to harm and multiple violations to my rights and I’ve received no rebuttal. Because I received no rebuttal, my affidavit stands as truth. Listed in the affidavit are my constitutional rights that have the potential to be violated, if I am forced against my will, into a smart or digital meter. I know my family’s health will 100% be affected by these types of meters. It’s not a matter of IF, but WHEN, we will be sick as long as we have it, being forever. We want old-fashioned analog meters but we have been forced to settle for digital meters (for which we pay opt-out fees) which are safer than smart meters but still not as safe as analog meters. Over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated serious adverse health effects from the wireless radiation coming from cell phones, cell towers, and the "smart" meters radiating our homes and other buildings 24/7. This includes DNA damage, infertility and reproductive damage, cardiac effects and arrest, neurological conditions (anxiety, depression, Alzheimer's), immune system dysfunction, and even cancer. The FCC was sued in 2021 for failing to update their safety guidelines for human exposure limits that were established in 1996 when we were using 2G wireless technologies, not the 4G and 5G we have today. The lawsuit was successful, but all these years later the FCC still has not responded to the courts and is refusing to regulate the Telecoms. The reality is NO ONE is measuring our cumulative daily human exposure of EMF “electro smog” coming from all of our current sources of wireless radiation including 4G/5G “mega” towers, 5G small cells, and the EMF pulsing Smart meters attached to our homes. https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/ I ask that HHS make more Americans aware of risks from wireless devices and infrastructure so they can create healthier homes and communities for their families too. Thank you for accepting my comment.

As an American physician, I am deeply concerned that U.S. electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards have not been updated since 1996 and address only thermal effects. In a rapidly evolving wireless environment, outdated guidelines warrant rigorous reassessment. Current permitted exposure levels exceed recommendations from building biologists and most other countries. As cell towers, 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, electric vehicles, and other wireless technologies proliferate, finding places with reduced exposure is increasingly difficult for sensitive individuals. Dismissing validated non-thermal effects simply because this radiation is non-ionizing ignores biologically important interactions. My own experience with electrohypersensitivity (EHS), since 2017, has included insomnia, migraines, lightheadedness, trigeminal neuropathy, and tinnitus, associated with nearby Bluetooth devices, cell towers or transformer stations. I reduce exposure to cope: avoiding housing near towers, limiting Bluetooth, using wired headphones and computer peripherals, keeping devices on airplane mode, disabling Wi-Fi overnight. I have had to leave certain hotels and forgo modern conveniences such as smart-home devices and electric vehicles. Even ordinary appliances increasingly incorporate unnecessary and unavoidable wireless or bluetooth connectivity (air filters, electric toothbrushes, etc), making exposure reduction difficult. The expansion of data centers is concerning due to EMFs from the facilities themselves and associated high-powered electrical infrastructure. Public participation in decisions about cell towers, power lines, and data centers is extremely limited (my own community fighting a data center build with the guise of public input,) leaving residents with little control over exposures. My patients have described a range of concerning experiences: man in his 40s with occupational exposure linked radiation-associated cancer; mid-aged female with cognitive decline and severe EHS after a transformer was installed near her home; a veteran whose military exposures have forced him into homelessness and food insecurity in Minnesota's winters as he can't tolerate electricity; and a couple with sudden insomnia after a smart meter was installed outside their bedroom, resolved after its relocation. In my clinical experience, commonly reported symptoms include insomnia, headaches, neuralgias and arrhythmias, which can substantially affect quality of life. These accounts warrant compassionate care and further investigation, not the ridicule and diagnosis of "functional" symptoms that have accrued. Specific absorption rate (SAR), commonly used to assess radiofrequency exposure, has serious limitations. Standardized testing doesn't represent real-world conditions- device position, body shape, tissue density, age, or differences between men, women and children. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of living in a highly connected environment remain insufficiently characterized. Exposure can come from multiple sources simultaneously, including phones, 5G infrastructure, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, computers, televisions, smart meters, electric vehicles, chargers, and electrical systems. Compliance with individual-device limits does not necessarily resolve questions about combined, long-term exposure. International exposure standards vary, and some countries impose magnitudes of power greater restrictions on EMF exposure limits and wireless infrastructure near sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals. National Toxicology Program animal studies have brought concerns of chronic cell-phone radiation exposure and cancer risk, the need for additional human research, and the outdated nature of U.S. standards. Resources such as Physicians for Safe Technology discuss these issues as well. Biological mechanisms of harm include changes in oxidative and nitrosative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, blood-brain barrier permeability, genotoxicity, immune-system effects, cell-membrane signaling, voltage-gated calcium-channel activity, inflammatory pathways, magnesium depletion, nitric oxide signaling, changes in neurotransmitters and receptors, including NMDA, dopamine, and serotonin, microbiome alterations, hepatic lipid metabolism and blood glucose regulation, mast-cell activation, depletion of antioxidants such as glutathione, oxidation of LDL cholesterol and altered prenatal brain development and fertility. These proposed mechanisms could have implications for neurological, cardiovascular, hormonal, metabolic, immune, and reproductive health. I urge updated, independent, and transparent reviews of standards regarding long-term, cumulative, and real-world exposures. Protecting public health requires neither dismissing patients' experiences nor the scientific data that exists. It requires rigorous science and standards that evolve alongside technology and it's unfathomable that no meaningful updates have been made in 30 years.

*See Attached: Non-thermal Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects.

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

1. & 2. I am responding as an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…) Bluetooth, Wifi, flying in airplanes (maybe due to wifi and all the devices?) 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years): I finally healed it and am no longer intolerant, except the radiation from flying in airplanes is still quite hard on me (thus I rarely fly). I keep Bluetooth turned off on my devices because it will still give me a headache. Ok with wifi now. 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced: Headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, vertigo, brain fog 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects: Yes, I had symptoms appear in 2018 after years of happily using technology. We discovered (after hiring a specialist to inspect our home with various meters) that we were directly in the path of a radar tower, and the house (big open kitchen/living room with huge windows in the Berkeley Hills) was being hit with radar every 12 seconds. I left that house and felt immediately better. Also good to add that I had extensive radiation from PET and CT scans during cancer treatment 2011-2013, so I think I was overdosed and that contributed to my heightened sensitivity/reaction to it. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis? I saw many doctors, and no one diagnosed it as EMF intolerance. I realized it on my own after getting away from all Wi-Fi, turning devices off, and finally feeling OK. Then I saw that when a device or Wi-Fi was nearby, symptoms returned. I met others with the same symptoms and was validated. Began my recovery process. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects? I had to move to a small cabin in the woods away from everything and quit my job (couldn't use a computer or phone), then was able to use a computer when hard-wired through Ethernet. I felt immediately better! 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information: I'd have to dig that up but can if you really want it. Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's: I believe that, for most people, EMF intolerance is a form of limbic system dysfunction. I don't think everyone reacts to it, but some people do. I was able to mostly recover. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects: wifi routers, phone and computer Bluetooth B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: N/A B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed: N/A B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy): N/A B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs, including wireless: History of cancer and treatment, radiation via scans. B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs, including wireless, but might be relevant: childhood trauma, so an already stressed nervous system and limbic system. Cancer at the age of 28. B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure: Absolutely, without a doubt, DNRS --Dynamic Neural Retraining System. Me and many others. Also, qi gong. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help: craniosacral therapy B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): N/A B3d. Treatments that had no effect: N/A B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse: N/A B4. What is your age range? 35-44 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields? 2018 B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields? Berkeley, California, USA

See comment attached. *See Attached Testimonial From Another Innocent Individual Injured By Wireless RF Radiation Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director CA Brain Tumor Assn Email: wirelessbiologicaleffects@gmail.com

*See Attached: Non-thermal Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects.

Comment of the Coalition of Mothers, Rebekah Ricks, President and Co-Founder, Winter Haven, Florida, in Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Our letter is attached. It responds to Questions 9 and 15(a) as numbered in the notice. Florida shows the gap. Florida now generally bars elementary and middle school students from using their own wireless devices during the school day (s. 1006.07(2)(f), Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 2025-109, Laws of Fla.). Our state has decided that a child's phone at school is a question of public policy. Yet the district's own wireless access points, which transmit whether or not a child's phone is off, are not addressed. We searched chapters 1001 through 1013 of the Florida Statutes and chapter 6A of the Florida Administrative Code and found no requirement that a district tell parents what wireless equipment operates in their child's classroom. A Florida mother can learn the school's rule on her child's phone. She cannot learn what is installed above her child's desk. Question 9. We ask the Department to recommend a short notice that schools and licensed child care providers post for parents, listing the wireless equipment in each classroom, when it operates, whether a wired option exists, and whom to call with questions. Disclosure makes no health finding. It treats parents as the decision-makers they already are in every other part of school life. Question 15(a). No federal agency publishes the number of transmitters within a defined distance of a school or licensed child care facility, and no federal agency has measured RF levels in an occupied American classroom. We ask the Department to make both a research priority, and to give particular attention to rooms serving the youngest children. We support the fuller comment filed in this docket by Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), which addresses the remaining questions with primary-source citations. Prepared by Rebekah Ricks. Contact: rricks@thecoalitionofmothers.com.