All comment threads

I am a patient who lives with electro-hypersensitivity (EHS). This is my journey. Around 2007, my husband and I got WiFi. Within the week, I lost my ability to digest most foods: sugar, all fruits, some vegetables, dairy, etc. I lived on a very small range of foods (e.g., meat, eggs, rice, fish, oatmeal, lettuce). Every 6 months, I had new symptoms. They included burning sensations on my face (accompanied by red sunburn even when I didn't get exposed to the sun), aches and pains, brain fog, muscle twitches, heart palpitations, IBS, insomnia, etc. My doctor tried to diagnose me, but he could not. I didn't have lupus (despite a lupus rash), I didn't have fibromyalgia (despite the fact I could no longer walk or bike), etc. This went on for about eight years. In 2014, smart meters were installed in my neighborhood. A meter was put right outside my bedroom window. I soon developed tinnitus. The ringing in my ears was so loud I could not sleep. In 2015, my world collapsed. I could feel text messages sent by people who had cell phones near me, I could feel airplanes approaching the small airport near my home before I could hear them, I could feel Wi-Fi. It was pure pain. It felt like my head was in a vise. My heart would lose its rhythm. I could not concentrate. I wanted to die. I had to quit my job and live in a house without electricity. (My husband and I would turn it on for a few hours each day to keep the food from spoiling and to wash the clothes, and I would go outside.) My doctor refused to treat me. He said that if he diagnosed me with EHS, he would lose his job because the condition is not recognized by the AMA. I found an alternative doctor who would treat me. He told me I had to move away from the airport. My husband and I rented a home, and we had a building inspector come out and take measurements. He helped us lower the dirty electricity in the house. He told me to sleep with the power turned off in my bedroom. Doing both allowed me to live in a house with the electricity on. Once I was away from the smart meter and the radio traffic from the airport, I built up tolerance to being on my computer again using ethernet. IT WAS TORTURE. There was no help, no disability, no insurance, no money. I could not work. After six months, I could return to work, but being around cell phones made me sick. My face would flush, I would feel weak, I would get migraine-type headaches, and my muscles would twitch like I had Huntington's. I lasted less than a year before I quit my job and retreated to my rented house. I received treatment from two alternative doctors, neither of whom could heal my condition. They did, however, provide medicines that help manage symptoms. I am still at home. I can now walk around the neighborhood again. However, I cannot be in most public places because being around cell phones and WiFi makes me feel weak and brain-foggy, like I am recovering from the flu. I am still unable to hold a real job. I can be on my computer, provided I use ethernet. I can be on Zoom for about 90 minutes before I develop a headache. We would all be better off if we had a better scientific understanding of how electromagnetic frequencies affect the human being and used that information to inform public policy. Other countries are studying this matter. Ours should too. I would not wish my condition on my worst enemy.

If the mammalian nervous system responds to exposure to resonant field it is probable resonant field has environmental consequences. It is possible environmental exposure to near resonant RF radiation is a causal factor in demyelination disease, either through direct or responsive effect. In direct effect small sustained induced voltages would cause scaled electrolytic reduction of myelin; while a possible responsive effect is an induced neurochemical response to the presence of chemical species resulting from small scale electrolytic reduction of myelin. This response frequency may be near individually specific. If so, this would explain why only a small number of people within a large population group would be affected by identical exposure to specific frequencies. Quote "---the human body absorbs RF energy more effectively at a frequency where body length is about .4 the wave length and the body's long axis is aligned with the incoming electric-field polarization. This condition is known as "whole-body resonance." Further - "for an average male adult weighing about 70 kilograms and about 1.75 meters tall, the maximum RF energy uptake would be at about 60 MHz, close to TV channel 2, and not far removed from the 6- meter band." (2) End quote. The above gives the approximate values for "whole body" resonant frequencies, which could be interpreted to mean a cylindrical object with some conductive value. However, the nervous system (or components thereof) could be viewed as a much less massive subsystem of significantly different effective length and with a much higher Q value due to both structure and chemical composition. The "Q Value" being defined as the sharpness or reactivity of the system to field at or near specific resonant frequency. Although field density is most commonly sited as the measurement of environmental exposure, frequency has a much greater impact on resonant capable systems. Again, a long thin conductor will react like a high inductance RLC circuit when exposed to near resonant frequency. In computing values for a RLC circuit where the inductance is given as .1 Henry and solving for the capacitance to tune the circuit to an effective length of 68 inches; the tremendous effect frequency has on the induced power becomes clearly evident. First computing induced power at resonance and then changing the frequency (wave length as E/f) of the exposing field by a value corresponding to just .001 inch, the induced power changes by over 8 fold. At 173 MHz this corresponds to a difference of about 2500 HZ. This is a relatively small difference in frequency, or length of the resonator, for such a significant change in induced power. It is this fundamental and universal effect, electrical resonance, that could explain why only a small number of people, out of a large population group, would be affected when exposed to the same electromagnetic environment. Direct VS In-direct Cause. This topic is best addressed through a series of questions. Is it possible to electrolyze myelin, if so would the resulting reaction species trigger an autoimmune response? How does the mammalian nervous system respond to exposure to near resonant field? Does the response include a “boost” in neural signal potential? How do the results of high field/short term exposure compare to low field/long term exposure? The spinal cord alone presents a thin continuously conductive material. An example of this begins at the Foramen Magnum (extending from the brain stem) and continues down through the Vertebral Canal to the tapering point of the Conus Medullaris. This component is further lengthened by the Brain Stem at one end and Cauda Equina at the other. It can be inferred that the physical structure of the signal path remains continuously connected and insulated to the smallest terminal points. I propose that certain components of the human nervous system, alone and/or in continuously connected combination, will respond to near resonant field, that the frequency of resonant response will be a function of the length of electrical continuity and that very possibly, for some components, singularly or in combination, will correspond to a bandwidth commonly found in the environment. I suggest the length and inductance of the human nervous system is possibly individual specific and can be used much like a fingerprint. Further, that the “Q Value" of the nervous system, combined with the slight resonant print differences between individuals, would explain the low occurrence of detrimental effect when large population groups are exposed to the same electromagnetic environment. 1. College Physics - Fourth Edition-Complete Sears-Zemansky-Young 2. The ARRL UHF/Microwave Experimenter's Manual Power is in the hands of those who sought it; and the human psyche is capable of any conceivable action in its pursuit. See less

For the topic of 5g wireless towers, 5-G towers seem to only have a major health effects to people living within a mile of the nearest tower. If I were to recommend a regulation maybe push for a regulation to where 5g or higher towers must not be built in residential areas or anywhere humans are going to remain for a large period of time. 5g towers can reach far and a square mile of distance would do wonders in cancer prevention. We can move toward the future while maintaining our health.

EMF, 5G, smart meters, microwaves, we need more public awareness of these invisible frequencies affecting our health.

Finally! These towers need to be removed. I did not vote for them to be installed and the danger to our health with these towers was never put out to the people. WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TRANSPARENCY AND TRUTH.

Yes I’m interested please release all information regarding this topic.

When my son gets near any electrical towers, it not only affects his physical health but his mental health as well. I have seen him double over in pain ... for years. never knowing what causes it. Have taken him to doctors and they could never find anything. So they would say he is having convulsions. He hears voices and has so much confusion. We can t even listen to radio any more without even that affecting him.

Subject: Public Comment on RF/EMF Exposure and the Need for Stronger Public Health Protections Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I am submitting this comment as a concerned American citizen who believes our government must protect human health, future generations, and the environment from potentially harmful electromagnetic and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. I am deeply concerned about the expansion of cell towers, 5G infrastructure, wireless transmitters, and smart meters that contribute to continuous, involuntary RF exposure. Americans should not be subjected to increasing environmental exposure without rigorous, independent evidence establishing long-term safety. 1. Scientific Evidence of Potential Harm Substantial published research identifies potential biological effects associated with RF radiation. National Toxicology Program (2018): This major U.S. government investigation reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to certain cell phone RF signals. Researchers also identified other tumor findings. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595 Ramazzini Institute (2018): This independent study investigated long-term RF exposure representative of cell tower emissions and reported increased heart schwannomas among male rats at the highest exposure level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037 Hardell and Carlberg (2015): Researchers reported associations between prolonged wireless phone use and increased glioma risk, particularly with longer latency periods. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25466607/ These findings warrant further independent investigation rather than dismissal. 2. Outdated Safety Standards Federal RF exposure standards have not adequately kept pace with modern wireless technology or continuous exposure from multiple overlapping sources. Safety assessments must address cumulative exposure, long-term biological effects, and potential nonthermal effects. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals found that the FCC had failed to adequately explain its treatment of evidence concerning non-cancer effects, children, long-term exposure, and environmental impacts. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-1025/20-1025-2021-08-13.html 3. Stronger Restrictions on Wireless Infrastructure I urge federal officials to substantially strengthen restrictions on cell tower placement, density, and emissions, particularly near homes, schools, hospitals, and agricultural land. I specifically request: 1. Independent reassessment of federal RF exposure limits using current research and cumulative exposure measurements. 2. Stricter tower-siting and emission standards near residential communities and sensitive locations. 3. Independent RF monitoring with publicly accessible results. 4. Long-term research concerning children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations. 5. Investment in wired telecommunications and lower-emission alternatives. 6. Greater community involvement in tower placement decisions. 7. Investigation of potential effects on livestock, wildlife, pollinators, and ecosystems. 4. Industry Accountability and Independent Research Research establishing public safety standards must be transparent, reproducible, and free from undue commercial influence. I request disclosure of industry funding, conflicts of interest, unpublished findings, and underlying research data used in federal safety assessments. Studies identifying potential biological harm deserve serious evaluation regardless of commercial interests. 5. Public Health Must Come First Technological convenience and economic development should not automatically outweigh legitimate public health concerns. I support substantial reductions in unnecessary RF exposure, stricter wireless infrastructure limits, independent testing, and a precautionary approach wherever important safety questions remain unresolved. The American public deserves transparency, meaningful choices concerning involuntary exposure, and safety standards based on comprehensive scientific evidence rather than assumptions. I urge HHS to fully evaluate the research and establish stronger protections for human health, future generations, animals, and the environment. Thank you for considering my comment.

I would like to have more transparency regarding this topic.

This is the most hilariously lazy propaganda campaign. Release the Epstein Files and prosecute the President and the entire DOJ for their complicity in the coverup. Fuck outta here with this weak ass bullshit about cell towers.