EMF exposure affects me very directly . My symptoms are irregular heart beat and micro-clotting of the blood, both putting me at high risk of heart attack or stroke. I cannot travel or live in a normal house, but can only survive in a house that has been protected from EMF's in every way possible.
Good day -
As an over 8.5-year target of government weaponization, I can assure you that many things most would assume as relegated to and specific of science fiction, are sometimes and unfortunately, objectively true.
In fact, when Arthur C. Clark made a statement about 'any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic,' he was probably imagining or considering some of the technologies that we see utilized - and sometimes for illegal, nefarious purposes - today.
More specifically, when one considers the government as (in effect) an organism, and that the prime directive of any organism is to survive and grow, then it is not so hard to extrapolate to the notion that when such institution has a history of dubious decisions and behavior, and thinks that such would be harmful to its prospects of long-term survival if exposed, that those (such as activists or whistleblowers) who were starting to or effective at such exposure, might find themselves on a soil whose government has now taken an adversarial position against them.
Indeed, as Targeted Individuals know, the tactics subsequent to such an illegal, due process-flouting decision (secret listing, probably in the Terrorist Screening Database) by state actors and/or their co-conspirators, can be quite painful and damaging.
While this is not the specific place to get into all of the absurdities and illegalities directed at targeted citizens, suffice it to say that patents do exist for the technologies that so many of them (us) complain about.
For instance, U.S. patent #4345220 is for a weapon termed the Vircator, and the features/technologies within such are certainly capable of producing various symptoms (such as burning of the skin, headaches, concussion-like symptoms, etc.) that many are increasingly complaining about.
Certainly, there are also various and related technologies which can do milder things, such as interfere with one's electronic devices.
But in closing, other than organized stalking (which I have been subject to for many years), I would guess that having "invisible weapons" pointed at oneself and one's property is the most common, consistent, and damaging horror faced by Targeted Individuals.
Thank you (and thanks for any action which can be taken to shut down this program, by anyone reading this).
I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned and someone who is on the board of a nonprofit organization where we research the effects of toxins in our food and environment on child development, about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. Cell Towers should not be legally allowed to be on schoolgrounds across America, yet they are in my town. I joined the School Health Advisory Council to address this issue as the head of the Student Environmental Health Subcommittee. However, it's an uphill battle, but if you make a law that cell towers can't be on school grounds, then the school district would have no choice but to take these cell towers down.
I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development.
Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure.
Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects.
I ask HHS to:
•Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups.
•Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest.
•Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools.
•Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient.
Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.
I am concerned about the massive proliferation of LED lights in all areas of our lives, but particularly with respect to automobile headlights and street/outdoor lighting.
The harsh blue-white color temperature of these LEDs (say, 6000K and above) is dazzling to the eye at night. When I drive past cold white headlights, my vision takes longer to return to normal than when driving past even bright halogen headlights. In addition, my area has mostly replaced sodium street lighting with bright white LEDs. Rather than casting a diffuse glow that makes it easy to discern shapes at night, LED streetlights provide a bright area of light, while the area beyond if not illuminated as well appears even darker in comparison because the eye has to adjust to the bright and harsh LED lighting.
Next, bright white LED street lighting shines through (my) residential windows at night and makes it impossible for me to sleep without an eye mask, meaning I can no longer wake up to sunlight because I need to cover my eyes to block the bright light from the street lights. Harsh/bluish lighting has already been proven to disrupt the circadian rhythm of humans and wildlife alike.
Automotible headlights now are extremely bright to the point of causing temporary blindness at night. I feel far more unsafe driving at night now than I did ten years ago. I also am frequently blinded as a pedestrian when cars shine their headlights on me. I'm also under 30 with 20/20 vision. This is not a problem limited to those with poor eyesight.
I have also noticed that even when LEDs in public aren't necessarily too bright, they are often very intense light sources coming from small points that tend to be dazzling/blinding when you look directly at them. Street and vehicle lighting should, in my opinion, not only have a limit on the color temperature and brightness of lighting, but there should be a surface intensity light emission limit as well. For the same overall amount of light, a larger light fixture or one with a diffuser will be far easier on the eyes and less blinding than a light fixture or headlight that emits the same amount of light from a very small surface area.
I am severely affected by wireless radiation. It happened when I was in my car using my cell phone and trying out my newly received hearing aids with their blue tooth connection, Right afterwards whenever I passed a telephone line I noticed I felt a lot of pressure on my head and it wase extremely uncomfortable. After that I could not be around telephone lines, cell phones, cell towers, mortems, and other types of EMF sources. In fact I had to sleep in my car away from all these sources.
Someone told me about a neurotoxicologist who knew about this problem. He didn't have any answers at that time, but was researching the problem. Later someone told me to contact him again, which I did. The doctor had come out of retirement to research a medicine that had helped someone else. He gave me the same prescription to try and it cut my reactions to the EMF's by about half, but then again, he needed to retire. The Dr. was 96 or 97 at the time and his name is Dr. Gunnar Heuser or maybe Hueser. I could not have him help me anymore as I mentioned as he had retired again, Dr. Heuser may not be alive by now--that was about 4 years ago, but my regular doctors know about my problem.
Even though the medicine Dr. Heuser gave me cut my reactions about half, my life is still very affected. I now have a landline and can only use my cell phone in emergencies, cannot be around most other people's phones or computers, cell towers, and most modems which means there are many events I cannot attend, eat out unless far away from others phones, or spend anytime in my car if parked by a type of car that has high EMF output.
I have met other people also affected EMF's, and I am especially concerned for children who live or go to schools near cell towers I do not want ANYONE to go through what I have been though. Also I would like people who carry their phones which are always on, on their bodies or anyone else that may be affected by the EMF outputs knew about these risks.
Please help us!
Sincerely
Elsie Heather Reed email: hreed95959@yahoo.com
I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices.
I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development.
Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure.
Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects.
I ask HHS to:
•Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups.
•Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest.
•Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools.
•Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient.
Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.
I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices.
I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development.
Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure.
Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects.
I ask HHS to:
•Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups.
•Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest.
•Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools.
•Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient.
Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.
Exposures to EMF's & wireless radiation have caused severe headaches and tinnitus and made my eyes hurt.
Research has shown such exposure causes rouleau blood formation [blood cells clump together] and can lead to cancer and death. Suggest seeing books by Dr. James and Ora James--Handy Way to Cook Your Brain and Cellular Radiation which include PHOTOS of animal birth damage & rouleau & blood brain permeability etc.