Housing, work & access barriers

People who have mold illness and chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) often report that they also develop EMF sensitivity. Whenever they are near 5G Wi-Fi, cell phone towers, or antennas, they report headaches, brain fog, and fatigue. These symptoms persist until the exposure stops. This significantly affects their quality of life, and many say they stay on 4G because it feels more tolerable and less harsh. Communities have raised concerns, too. In 2019, CBS Sacramento reported that parents at Weston Elementary in Ripon, California, blamed a cell tower on campus after a fourth student there was diagnosed with cancer, including a student with brain cancer ("Parents Blame Elementary School's Cell Tower After 4th Student Diagnosed With Cancer," March 12, 2019). The tower was removed. There are also reports that a researcher in Switzerland found mold released more mycotoxins when exposed to EMF. The experiment is unpublished but is often cited by German doctor Dietrich Klinghardt. People who are sensitive to mold and mycotoxins may be more affected as cell towers and base stations are placed near where people live, work, and go to school. While wireless communication is important, it should not come at the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans trying to go to school, work, or live safely in their homes. Many are exposed constantly and may not connect their symptoms to the frequencies around them. I ask that unbiased scientific research be done, independent reports be aggregated, and accommodations be considered for people with these sensitivities. 6G should be put on hold and not released until this is studied further and 5G may need to be rolled back to 4G. Thank you for your attention to this. I am a concerned citizen and I hope something can be done to protect people's health and quality of life.

I am electrohypersensitive and I really feel bad when I'm near a phone with an active internet connection, and also near wifi and antennas, and in general in places with a lot of people and active connections. I develope: headache, tiredness, weakness and bad mood. My muscles also hurt. When I have the opportunity to stay in safe places (such a rare thing!), like for istance in the nature, I feel really good, without any problem. When I come back to the exposition it is very disturbing. I think we could avoid a lot of exposition using the cable (I do in my home) and having a better consciousness of the problem. And also using the wireless connection very much better and less than now.

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 a patient and victim of what feels like intentional harm to my wellbeing and that of other human beings. In 2017, I became extremely ill from exposure to Wifi frequencies, electric and magnetic fields. I was in my late 50’s and forced into an early “retirement”. I could no longer keep any job and function anywhere near other people, electronics and modern buildings, shopping centers, basically most public environments. I lost all contact with friends, family members and others due to the fact I had to remove myself from location where cell phones, laptops, wifi networks were in use. I went to the best clinic in the nation that does double-blinded clinical trials on EMF hypersensitivity and was officially diagnosed and told the only way to recover my health was to exit basically society and find a remote place to live. My symptoms included brain fog so bad my short-term memory was gone, nausea, panic attacks, a buzzing sensation in my legs that lasts for days, bone pain, the feeling of internal heat and red skin, skin rashes, extreme constant fatigue not helped by any amount of sleep, the desire to way overeat, total lack of energy to do any household chores or exercise, depression, increased blood pressure. The only thing that has helped has been to remove myself from society, turn off the electricity, use ethernet cables (no wifi) and sit far away from a desktop computer. I do not use a cell phone nor any “smart” modern devices. I can’t ride in any modern cars full of EMF fields and are constantly bouncing signals of cell towers and other cards on roadways. You don’t seem to understand that this EMF technology is fueling all types of diseases – making them happen faster. As long as you focus on the symptoms instead looking at the core body’s reaction to being assaulted by frequencies that are not natural in ever increasing strength you will never resolve anything. Almost 10 years later, I have only recovered slightly and exposure to modern cars, public spaces, people’s homes full of toxic EMFs still triggers intense symptoms to include intense immediate pain, nausea, migraine headaches, edema, buzzing in the nervous system (lasts for days), brain fog and panic attacks. The increase in 4G to 5G is easily felt in my body and has intensified the response to exposure from this technology. It is a complete lie to say that this type of radiation does not affect the body. I am dumbfounded that a recognized disability with ICD-10 coding produces zero accommodation from the ADA department of the government. I feel like people like me, our lives, mean absolutely nothing to a modern society on a path to the internet of things – all living things to be incorporated into some global network. Modern people have become so addicted to their devices that it is tearing apart our society, families are being broken apart. Children think their parents are insane for asking cell phones be turned off. I have met many people personally who are in the same situation of all ages. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Yet I do not hold out much hope as our society has placed dollars, governmental controls, winning some global tech race over human beings, animals, plants and the natural order of creation, against the very Creator of all life. I urge HHS to carefully consider the environment it operates in. What good is any research if the other branches of our government, other agencies, are bought by industry and global interests? Will your efforts to do any more research do any good? So many research studies already exist pointing to this technology’s harmful biological effects and yet it has had zero impact on slowing down the march to technological destruction of the biological life by those that want to create a new race of people that are hybrid human beings.

I have gradually become increasingly sensitive to mobile phones and Wi-Fi. I only use my mobile for text messages, and at home, I have a wired internet connection. Being in places where many people are using mobile phones is uncomfortable, even for short periods. I get headaches and feel sluggish and tired. I’ve become the person who frequently has to step outside for some fresh air. I am aware of the nocebo effect, and I try very hard to convince myself that I can tolerate some level of radiation. Without that, it would be impossible to live in today’s society.

I am submitting the attached document, “Frequencies as Levers: Observations from 30 Years at the Intersection of Building Systems and Human Physiology,” to offer a perspective developed through architectural engineering, decades of investigating electromagnetic environments, personal experience with electromagnetic sensitivity, and my work as an Autonomic Response Testing (ART) practitioner and health coach. My central question is whether our current approach to electromagnetic exposure adequately captures its relationship to human physiological functioning, particularly in individuals already managing substantial environmental and biological burdens. Through ART, I investigate how specific exposures correspond with changes in autonomic regulation and other physiological indicators, and how those responses change as an individual’s health improves. These observations raise questions about cumulative exposure, baseline autonomic function, individual susceptibility, and the limitations of brief, isolated exposure studies. The attached submission also addresses the consequences of electromagnetic sensitivity for access to healthcare, transportation, commerce, and community life. Ultimately, I believe the most useful research question extends beyond whether electromagnetic exposure produces acute toxicity. It is whether the electromagnetic environments we create support or interfere with people’s ability to regulate, recover, and function at their biological potential. I welcome investigation that connects environmental measurements, physiological responses, and real-world functional outcomes.

Personal experiences and additional information - Questions 2, 3, 5, 16 and 18, HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Dear HHS Review Team, In response to your request for information, I would like to share my personal experiences with Kangen Water and emGuarde, two products offered by the Japanese company Enagic. I am writing in a personal capacity as a user based in the Netherlands. I began drinking Kangen Water in 2019. The changes I experienced prompted me to learn more about the water. Only afterward did I become an independent Enagic distributor. Similarly, I began using emGuarde myself in June 2024 before sharing information about it with others. Personal experiences - Question 3 Before discovering these products, I had experienced longstanding health difficulties that limited my daily activities. In 2019, I began drinking Kangen Water: alkaline ionized water, referred to in the scientific literature as ERW (Electrolyzed Reduced Water). Various scientific publications about this type of water can be found on PubMed using this term. During electrolysis, molecular hydrogen gas is produced, some of which remains dissolved in the water. Within two weeks, I noticed changes in how my body felt, and my longstanding fatigue began to subside. Within three months, I could cycle again without needing to rest for the remainder of the day. I began sleeping much better, my bowel function improved considerably, much of the sensory overload I experienced daily disappeared, and my allergy symptoms disappeared. The sensitivity I associated with electromagnetic exposure also became less pronounced. For example, I found it easier to spend time in shops and other public spaces containing electronic equipment. In June 2024, I began using emGuarde. Within minutes of switching it on, I noticed a change, particularly in how my head felt. With continued use, I noticed that I no longer experienced tingling in my hands while working at the computer. During car journeys, I felt much less tired, and my legs no longer developed that very heavy, numb feeling. I continued to spend approximately the same amount of time working at the computer and traveling by car, but I now find these activities much easier to sustain. I can now be near electronic equipment without difficulty when I carry emGuarde with me. I also take emGuarde into public spaces. I find it easier to spend time in restaurants, shops, and other environments with considerable noise and electronic equipment. I continue to drink Kangen Water and use emGuarde daily. Through my work as an independent distributor, I also receive positive accounts from other users. My own experience is therefore not an isolated account. As an independent distributor, I must take regulatory restrictions on medical claims into account. Through this submission, I would like to share my experiences and provide information for your assessment. Technical context and research priorities - Questions 5, 16 and 18 According to the manufacturer, emGuarde is designed to suppress or harmonize specific high-frequency electromagnetic noise within the 3-1000 MHz range. While exploring this explanation, I came across information from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In OET Bulletin 65, the FCC explains that the most restrictive exposure limits fall within the 30-300 MHz frequency range because, under certain conditions, the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently in this range. Through my work, I notice that attention regarding radiation often focuses on 5G. I also find that the FCC's information about efficient RF energy absorption in the 30-300 MHz range is often unfamiliar, even to people who present themselves as 5G specialists or electromagnetic radiation experts. For this reason, I would particularly like to bring this frequency range to your attention. FCC - information on radiofrequency exposure and safety: https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety Relevant section: WHAT LEVELS ARE SAFE FOR EXPOSURE TO RF ENERGY? emGuarde - research page, including information about research involving participants reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS): https://emguarde.com/research-standards/ The attached PDF contains my full submission, including additional references and links to video presentations. I respectfully ask HHS to consider my experiences and this information when identifying research priorities. I would be happy to provide further clarification should you have any questions regarding my submission. Thank you for giving members of the public the opportunity to contribute their experiences and information. Sincerely, Johanna Koopman The Netherlands

Dear Department of Health and Human Services Officials, I am writing as the sister of a nurse whose health and life have been profoundly affected by exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR). I have seen the toll these challenges have taken on her and her family. I urge you to take seriously the experiences of people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity and investigate the potential health effects of our increasingly wireless environment. My sister is an RN, BSN, with 19 years of experience in ICU, case management, and integrative wellness. She began to experience health issues after Wi-Fi was introduced in her ICU workplace and nurses were required to wear body-mounted wireless communication devices throughout their shifts. Wireless exposures also increased in her neighborhood around the same time. She began experiencing headaches, burning and ringing ears, head pressure, and a wired/shaky sensation. Her previously mild, intermittent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) worsened dramatically, and she developed non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). She subsequently developed mast cell activation syndrome. A day spent at a remote state park without cellular service or Wi-Fi brought striking relief from her symptoms. She repeatedly compared how she felt at the park, at work, and at home, and used an RF meter to assess environmental exposures. Sure enough, her symptoms and heart rhythm disturbances were associated with her increased exposure at work and in her neighborhood. Ultimately, she had to leave her in-hospital nursing career to protect her health. As her sister, it has been deeply troubling to see someone with so much medical experience, compassion, and dedication forced to make such life-altering decisions. She and her family made enormous financial sacrifices to find a place where she felt better. They purchased land and downsized to a small, older home near the state park, where they could reduce exposures and obtain an electric utility arrangement permitting smart-meter opt-out. Even with these sacrifices, finding a suitable environment was difficult and expensive. Many Americans simply cannot afford to leave their jobs, relocate, or purchase lower-exposure homes. No one should have to choose between earning a living and protecting their health, or between access to essential services and the ability to reduce exposures they believe are making them ill. Families should not bear the entire financial and personal burden of finding solutions to potential environmental health problems. I urge HHS and lawmakers to take the following actions: Investigate potential health effects. Support rigorous, independent research into non-thermal effects of RFR and extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, including possible cardiac, neurological, oxidative stress, mast-cell-related, and metabolic effects such as insulin resistance. Reassess exposure standards. Review current safety limits in light of the full scientific literature, including research on biological effects beyond tissue heating, cumulative exposures, long-term effects, and vulnerable populations. Protect people in essential environments. Evaluate wireless exposures in hospitals, schools, workplaces, and residential neighborhoods. Provide lower-exposure spaces and practical alternatives for people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity, without requiring them to sacrifice employment, education, or medical care. Protect informed choice. Support reasonable smart-meter opt-out provisions and alternatives to unnecessary wireless technologies, where technically feasible, without undue financial penalties or loss of essential services. Listen to researchers and affected individuals. Invite independent scientists, medical professionals, and people reporting symptoms to testify. Review the BioInitiative Report (https://bioinitiative.org/) and consider inviting its contributing researchers and Andrew Marino, MD, PhD, to discuss research concerning RFR and electric and magnetic fields. I am also concerned about the implications for children and future generations. Wireless technology is increasingly present in schools, hospitals, homes, and public spaces. We need responsible investigation and evidence-based safeguards rather than assuming existing standards address every possible risk. I recognize that my sister's experience alone cannot establish scientific causation. However, her experience deserves serious consideration alongside the broader scientific literature. People reporting these symptoms deserve compassion, appropriate medical evaluation, research, and environments safe for their health. Please use your authority to ensure HHS thoroughly investigates these concerns, supports independent research, and develops evidence-based policies that protect public health without placing the burden of exposure avoidance solely on affected individuals and their families. Thank you

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 a concerned member of the public and sufferer of EMRS. This issue matters to me personally because, though I am otherwise totally healthy, I suffer from 'Electro-Magnetic Radiation Syndrome' (EMR-S), a condition affecting millions of Americans and covered under the American Disabilities Act. Whenever I get near a cell tower or high-powered wifi router (same radiation), I start to get a headache and feel dizzy. Within minutes of me moving away, I fully recover. I have to live in a house away from this radiation in order to survive. And when I travel, I have to sleep inside a Faraday tent in order to actually sleep. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

HHS Public Comment — Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Questions 2, 3, 5–13, 15–18 I submit this comment as an individual with approximately 14 years of lived experience with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS/EMR-S) and as a licensed clinical social worker. Q2–3: Personal Experience and Health Effects For approximately 14 years, I have experienced symptoms associated with electromagnetic exposure, including sleep disruption and inability to sleep, burning skin, skin redness and mottling, intense pressure around my head as though it were in a vice, squeezing sensations in my chest, heartbeats that feel erratic, and difficulty concentrating. These experiences have affected my sleep, ability to use my home, work, finances, independence, and daily life. At times, I have felt driven to sleep in my car rather than remain in an environment where I was experiencing symptoms. These are significant effects on my life, not abstract concerns. HHS should take reports of EHS seriously, investigate symptoms under real-world exposure conditions, and provide practical assistance to affected individuals. Q5–8, 12–13, 15–16: Standards, Exposure, and Research Independently review whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term and cumulative exposure, real-world conditions, and potentially susceptible individuals. Compliance with existing limits should not automatically end investigation of reported symptoms. Research should evaluate multiple simultaneous sources, exposure patterns over time, and conditions in occupied homes and everyday environments. Include the National Toxicology Program's radiofrequency studies and the Ramazzini Institute study in a transparent evaluation of the evidence. Identify research gaps and prioritize independent research into EHS and practical exposure-reduction options. Q9–11(g): Disclosure, Surveillance, and EHS Residents deserve understandable information about wireless sources in or near their homes, including their characteristics and operating patterns. HHS should support privacy-protective reporting of symptoms and exposure circumstances and explicitly consider people with EHS among populations who may uniquely experience adverse effects. URGENT: SMART METERS AND INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE Communication-enabled utility meters deserve specific, urgent attention. They may be installed on or immediately adjacent to homes, leaving residents little control over exposure. Because utilities are essential services, people may face fees, barriers, or penalties for requesting an alternative. For people with EHS, this can mean having a wireless transmitter at home without a meaningful ability to opt out. HHS should investigate meter transmission characteristics, real-world indoor exposure, placement near occupied rooms, and cumulative exposure alongside other wireless sources. Work with utility regulators to promote transparent disclosure, feasible non-wireless alternatives, fair accommodations, and protection against unreasonable fees or loss of essential service. This lack of choice requires action now, not research alone. EVERYDAY PRODUCTS AND THE RISK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION The problem extends beyond utility meters. Cars, appliances, and an increasing range of everyday products incorporate microprocessors, electronic circuitry, and wireless technologies that people with EHS may have difficulty tolerating. As wireless technology becomes embedded in more necessities, finding usable products can become increasingly difficult and expensive. People may face the frightening prospect of being progressively pushed out of ordinary social life because transportation, household equipment, housing, and other necessities become inaccessible. What are people with EHS supposed to do as everyday life becomes harder to access? HHS should investigate these barriers and promote transparent product information, practical accommodations, and affordable alternatives. People should not be expected to withdraw from society or bear the entire burden of finding workable options themselves. Q14, Q17–18: Environmental Effects, Coordination, and Accountability Coordinate among FDA, NIH, CDC, and relevant regulators. Examine environmental effects and establish clear responsibility for follow-up. Research and standard-setting must be transparent and independent, with safeguards against conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, and undue industry influence. After approximately 14 years of living with these effects, I am asking for more than acknowledgment that further research is needed. People experiencing EHS need practical help now, alongside independent research and meaningful protections. No one should have to choose between essential services and a reasonable opportunity to reduce unwanted exposure. Please treat EHS as an urgent public-health, accessibility, accommodation, and consumer-protection issue.

HHS Public Comment — Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Questions 2, 3, 5–13, 15–18 I submit this comment as an individual with approximately 14 years of lived experience with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS/EMR-S) and as a licensed clinical social worker. Q2–3: Personal Experience and Health Effects For approximately 14 years, I have experienced symptoms associated with electromagnetic exposure, including sleep disruption and inability to sleep, burning skin, skin redness and mottling, intense pressure around my head as though it were in a vice, squeezing sensations in my chest, heartbeats that feel erratic, and difficulty concentrating. These experiences have affected my sleep, ability to use my home, work, finances, independence, and daily life. At times, I have felt driven to sleep in my car rather than remain in an environment where I was experiencing symptoms. These are significant effects on my life, not abstract concerns. HHS should take reports of EHS seriously, investigate symptoms under real-world exposure conditions, and provide practical assistance to affected individuals. Q5–8, 12–13, 15–16: Standards, Exposure, and Research Independently review whether current exposure standards adequately address long-term and cumulative exposure, real-world conditions, and potentially susceptible individuals. Compliance with existing limits should not automatically end investigation of reported symptoms. Research should evaluate multiple simultaneous sources, exposure patterns over time, and conditions in occupied homes and everyday environments. Include the National Toxicology Program's radiofrequency studies and the Ramazzini Institute study in a transparent evaluation of the evidence. Identify research gaps and prioritize independent research into EHS and practical exposure-reduction options. Q9–11(g): Disclosure, Surveillance, and EHS Residents deserve understandable information about wireless sources in or near their homes, including their characteristics and operating patterns. HHS should support privacy-protective reporting of symptoms and exposure circumstances and explicitly consider people with EHS among populations who may uniquely experience adverse effects. URGENT: SMART METERS AND INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE Communication-enabled utility meters deserve specific, urgent attention. They may be installed on or immediately adjacent to homes, leaving residents little control over exposure. Because utilities are essential services, people may face fees, barriers, or penalties for requesting an alternative. For people with EHS, this can mean having a wireless transmitter at home without a meaningful ability to opt out. HHS should investigate meter transmission characteristics, real-world indoor exposure, placement near occupied rooms, and cumulative exposure alongside other wireless sources. Work with utility regulators to promote transparent disclosure, feasible non-wireless alternatives, fair accommodations, and protection against unreasonable fees or loss of essential service. This lack of choice requires action now, not research alone. EVERYDAY PRODUCTS AND THE RISK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION The problem extends beyond utility meters. Cars, appliances, and an increasing range of everyday products incorporate microprocessors, electronic circuitry, and wireless technologies that people with EHS may have difficulty tolerating. As wireless technology becomes embedded in more necessities, finding usable products can become increasingly difficult and expensive. People may face the frightening prospect of being progressively pushed out of ordinary social life because transportation, household equipment, housing, and other necessities become inaccessible. What are people with EHS supposed to do as everyday life becomes harder to access? HHS should investigate these barriers and promote transparent product information, practical accommodations, and affordable alternatives. People should not be expected to withdraw from society or bear the entire burden of finding workable options themselves. Q14, Q17–18: Environmental Effects, Coordination, and Accountability Coordinate among FDA, NIH, CDC, and relevant regulators. Examine environmental effects and establish clear responsibility for follow-up. Research and standard-setting must be transparent and independent, with safeguards against conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, and undue industry influence. After approximately 14 years of living with these effects, I am asking for more than acknowledgment that further research is needed. People experiencing EHS need practical help now, alongside independent research and meaningful protections. No one should have to choose between essential services and a reasonable opportunity to reduce unwanted exposure. Please treat EHS as an urgent public-health, accessibility, accommodation, and consumer-protection issue.