All comment threads

See comment attached. *See Attached: Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects SINCE 2019. Susan Foster, CEO Rocky Mountains for Safe Technology Email: susan.foster04@gmail.com

See comment attached. *See Attached: Electromagnetic Field studies demonstrating harmful effects SINCE 2019. Susan Foster, CEO Rocky Mountains for Safe Technology Email: susan.foster04@gmail.com

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 the mother of an autistic child. I wrote the piece below that shows plenty of reasons why we should be more cautious about EMFs. It won't happen without regulation. You are going to have to stand up to big tech. But, I belileve it is neccessary for human survival.

This comment synthesizes peer-reviewed evidence detailing the biological effects of non-ionizing radiofrequency (RF) and extremely low-frequency (ELF) EMFs on living tissues. Relying exclusively on thermal paradigms to assess exposure risks leaves critical gaps in public health frameworks. Existing Evidence: Cellular, Biochemical, and Neurological Mechanisms(Qs 12 & 18) Scientific literature demonstrates that EMFs interact with biological systems through non-thermal mechanisms: Neurological and Brain Function Impacts: EMF exposure alters brain electrical activity and neuron behavior. External magnetic fields can change brain EEG (Bell et al., 1992) and disrupt hippocampal rhythms critical for memory (Bawin et al., 1996). Weak fields also directly interfere with nerve growth factor-induced neurite outgrowth (Blackman et al., 1995). Voltage-Gated Ion Channels and Oxidative Stress: Man-made EMFs can cause forced oscillation of mobile ions, leading to voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction. This mechanism is linked to the induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and oxidative stress, which are primary pathways for adverse cellular impacts. Protein Synthesis and Cell Differentiation: EMFs demonstrably influence gene expression. Low-frequency fields alter polypeptide and fibroblast protein synthesis (Goodman & Henderson, 1988; McLeod et al., 1987), while power frequency fields promote cell differentiation and transforming growth factor-beta 1 expression (Aaron et al., 1999). DNA Synthesis and Ionic Currents: Time-varying magnetic fields directly affect DNA synthesis (Liboff et al., 1984). Endogenous ionic currents and DC electric fields are also highly responsive to external fields, playing a crucial role in multicellular tissue development (Nuccitelli, 1992). Environmental and Wildlife Impacts (Question 14) The deployment of wireless communication technologies has a documented ecological footprint: Flora and Fauna Sensitivity: Ambient levels of non-ionizing EMFs represent a continuous, biologically active environmental factor. Certain species exhibit high sensitivity to exogenous EMFs due to unique physiological traits, triggering complex endogenous reactions. Impact on Insects: Systematic reviews underscore the biological effects of EMFs on insects. The cumulative impact of multiple low-dose environmental toxins and EMFs on organism behavior suggests these exposures must be weighed heavily in ecotoxicology frameworks. Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment (Question 5) Current guidelines (e.g., ICNIRP) rely almost exclusively on thermal thresholds (tissue heating). Because modulated EMFs cause distinct non-thermal biological effects, acute continuous-wave limits are inadequate for long-term health protection. HHS must re-evaluate limits by integrating non-thermal biological data. Federal Research Priorities (Questions 16 & 17) Federal health agencies should prioritize longitudinal studies examining the long-term, cumulative effects of low-dose, non-thermal EMF exposures on cellular mechanisms, neurology, and environmental health. Establishing exposure standards that comprehensively account for pulse characteristics, duty cycles, and modulation is critical for science-informed public health decision-making. References: Aaron, R. K., et al. (1999). Power frequency fields promote cell differentiation coincident with an increase in transforming growth factor-b1 expression. Bioelectromagnetics, 20: 453-458. Bawin, S. M., et al. (1996). Extremely low frequency magnetic fields disrupt rhythmic slow activity in rat hippocampal slices. Bioelectromagnetics, 17: 388-395. Bell, G. B., Marino, A. A., & Chesson, A. L. (1992). Alterations in brain electrical activity caused by magnetic fields. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 83(6): 389-397. Blackman, C. F., et al. (1995). Frequency-dependent interference by magnetic fields of nerve growth factor-induced neurite outgrowth in PC-12 cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 16: 387-395. Goodman, R., & Henderson, A. S. (1988). Exposure of salivary gland cells to low-frequency electromagnetic fields alters polypeptide synthesis. PNAS, 85: 3928-3932. Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna. Rev Environ Health. Liboff, A. R., et al. (1984). Time-varying magnetic fields: effect on DNA synthesis. Science, 223: 818-820. McLeod, K. J., Lee, R. C., & Ehrlich, H. P. (1987). Frequency dependence of electric field modulation of fibroblast protein synthesis. Science, 236: 1465-1469. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2023). Mechanism of Ion Forced-Oscillation and Voltage-Gated Ion Channel Dysfunction. Electromagnetic Fields of Wireless Communications. Thill, A., Cammaerts, M. C., & Balmori, A. (2023). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Environ Health.

I believe my targeting began around April 28th 2026 and it is until present. Ringing, popping, clicking in my ears. Light sensitivity and nausea. Please contact for more information.

Waterford Consultants, LLC submits the attached comments in response to the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure, Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Waterford is a radiofrequency engineering and compliance firm. For more than twenty years our principal business has been the practical measurement and assessment of radiofrequency exposure in the field, and we also develop engineering software used across the industry for predictive exposure assessments. We take no position on the health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Our comments address the availability and quality of exposure data. The central issue we raise is the absence of a standardized, longitudinal record of measured radiofrequency environmental conditions in the United States, what such a record must carry to be scientifically usable, and three recommended actions. The attached document addresses questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Contact: regulatory@waterfordconsultants.com, telephone (703) 596-1022, extension 140.

EMFs cause health problems. Please see the attached study 'Mobile phone specific radiation disturbs cytokinesis and causes cell death but not acute chromosomal damage in buccal cells: Results of a controlled human intervention study'

I've been a victim of EMF radiation and DEW attacks and need help. My best friend lived across from a fusion center and we have the attacks on camera. We cannot get a diagnosis from doctors because we are followed by agents to every doctor's appointment and every hospital visit. Thank you for this chance to comment

I am providing documentation proving that mind-brain control technologies have been in use for decades.

My name is Joel Wright. I am in my 20s and am a U.S. citizen. At 18, I began suffering extreme health complications which I believe are directly caused by exposure to modern telecommunications equipment. I ask HHS to research the biology of my condition and set conservative emissions standards to protect future generations and allow people like me to rejoin society. I offer my testimony for any official proceedings. My hypothesis is simple: current ambient levels of non-ionizing radiation are unsafe. The environmental levels of ten years ago were high enough to collapse my health, and they have only intensified in the years since. The collapse was sudden and violent. I started college and a small business at 14; at 16 I earned Eagle Scout; at 18 I had a top ACT score. Yet, within months of graduating high school in 2017, that life ended. Bedridden, I suffered from agonizing neurological pain, memory loss, chronic fatigue, and extreme muscle spasms, among other symptoms. At times, I lost the ability to speak and walk. I was forced to abandon a full ride scholarship. We discovered in 2020 that the world’s most powerful technology was destroying my young body. There was no escape; the dangerous radiation emanates from homes, vehicles and every person’s purse or pants pocket. When the COVID lockdowns began and people fled an invisible virus, I fled invisible radiation, isolating from society in search of respite. The world adapted and reopened, but I persist in my lockdown. My current health comes at enormous cost. Until six months ago, this meant near-total isolation. I left home perhaps twice a year. I could not even attend church. The life my peers never consider, walking into a store, sitting in a crowd, carrying a phone, is for me a series of calculated risks. I follow strict regimens of diet and medication, controlling for stressors down to caffeine and sugar. Even now, visitors must leave their phones at the door, a request which I know sounds unreasonable, costing me standing each time I ask. Maintaining my dignity spends that same dignity in the eyes of others; to be young without a phone is unthinkable. It has cost me opportunities, friendships, dating, and my youth, all spent trying to heal. My condition is doubted not because of contradictory evidence, but because for decades agencies like the HHS and FCC declined to study whether this exposure is safe. RF exposure is nearly inescapable. I can leave a building, but I cannot control what passes through its walls into my body. Radio frequencies are integrated into everything, leaving no room for choice. Whatever the truth, this exposure has been imposed for decades - untested, unquestioned and ubiquitous. That is what I am asking HHS to change. The scientific case is stronger than ever. For decades, inaction rested on one claim: fields too weak to heat tissue could not affect us. That no longer holds. In 2026, a CRISPR screen identified a protein, Cyb5b, that transduces electromagnetic fields into cellular calcium oscillations through a voltage-gated calcium channel (Hwang 2026), confirming a mechanism proposed years earlier (Pall 2013). These fields act on cells without heating them, and calcium signaling governs DNA repair, oxidative balance, and cell death. A field that reliably disturbs it is biologically active, with a threshold where its effect becomes harm. This harm does not require extreme exposure. At the low environmental levels of everyday life, below federal limits, RF induces oxidative stress - a driver of inflammation and cellular damage - and disrupts a vertebrate nervous system (Yakymenko 2016; Engels 2014; ICBE-EMF 2022). Yet FCC limits still assume only heating can harm, a premise a federal court found inadequately justified (EHT v. FCC 2021). The gap is widest for developing bodies. In-utero exposure altered neurodevelopment in animals, dose-dependently (Aldad 2012); birth cohorts link prenatal exposure to childhood behavioral problems (Divan 2008); and in nearly 700 adolescents, cumulative RF brain dose tracked reduced memory development (Foerster 2018)-consistent with children absorbing more RF, more deeply, than adults (Gandhi 2012). Limits built on brief adult-animal tests cannot be assumed to protect a brain developing from birth. These conditions-below the limits, over a lifetime, from childhood-remain unstudied. I ask HHS to fund the mechanistic and long-latency research they demand, before exposure grows. I can comment only because I recovered, a rare gift. The comments HHS receives come from those well enough to find and respond to this request. Those still bedridden and impaired, as I was, cannot respond. I’ve included health journals from before I suspected RF, untainted by expectation, to show the truth. I survived as much by luck as by effort. I am asking HHS to act so that survival is not left to chance, to act so people like me and those still trapped, unable to speak, may live once more.