Electromagnetic sensitivity

See atta1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Wireless mouse, cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi. Anything wireless. 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):All wireless devices, every day for the past three decades or more. Also, living near high-voltage power lines for eleven years, ending four years ago (2011-2022) 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:Too many to list...neurological, including panic disorder, arthritis, brain-fog, and poor sleep. 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:Almost immediate after introduction of smart meters and use of cell phone. Later for wireless mouse and keyboard. High-voltage power lines after 2-3 months. Moving away helped almost immediately. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?Yes. Doctors deemed my maladies to be "panic disorder" and diagnoses of carpal tunnel and arthritis. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Wired mouse stopped hand/wrist problems. Keeping distance from cell phone and using Bluetooth (turned off unless in on a call) and no texting eased panic disorder. Keeping distance from smart meter helped with sleep and brain fog. Moving away from power lines helped me generally feel better. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:No 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 am very sensitive to all wireless devices. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:Cell Phone, smart meter, wireless mouse, Wi-Fi, being near high-voltage power lines. B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you:None B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed:None B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy):Wired, heated massager B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:Tinnitus...really loud B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant:Unknown 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:Distance from smart meter, eliminating wireless mouse, keyboard and internet on PC (fiber or cable instead). Limiting use of cell phone (no data at all, no texting, using basic flip phone and Bluetooth combo). Distance from cell towers. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help:Move away from cell towers (I can't afford that) B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful):Drugs B3d. Treatments that had no effect:None B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:75+ B4. What is your age range?75+ B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?Can't recall year...right after cell phones came out. B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?Galveston, Texasched file(s)

World Council for Health (WCH) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information. WCH is an international health advocacy organisation committed to promoting informed consent, individual health sovereignty, scientific transparency, and the protection of human and environmental health. We believe that the rapid and largely unrestrained expansion of wireless technologies represents a significant public health and environmental policy concern that warrants urgent, independent and comprehensive scientific scrutiny. Over recent decades, wireless communications infrastructure has expanded dramatically, introducing increasingly widespread and persistent exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields. While technological innovation has brought considerable benefits, WCH is concerned that the pace of deployment has outstripped the assessment of potential long-term biological and environmental consequences, particularly in relation to chronic, cumulative and involuntary exposure. In 2023, WCH published its Policy Brief on the Effects of Unregulated Digitalization, examining the wider implications of rapidly expanding digital and wireless technologies for public health, human rights, democratic accountability and the environment. This body of work includes the recommendations of the late Dr Arthur Firstenberg, who devoted decades to investigating the biological and ecological effects of electromagnetic fields. His work brought together scientific publications examining possible effects on neurological function, cellular processes, reproduction, wildlife, biodiversity and ecosystem health. Of particular concern is the extent to which existing RF exposure standards have historically focused on established thermal effects, while questions concerning long-term exposure, non-thermal biological effects, signal modulation, vulnerable populations and ecological impacts remain contested or insufficiently resolved. WCH believes that public health policy must consider the full breadth of available evidence, including research findings that challenge prevailing assumptions about exposure thresholds and biological safety. We are particularly concerned about the implications for children, pregnant women, individuals reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and those who have little practical ability to avoid exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces or communities. The continued expansion of 5G telecommunications and wireless infrastructure including the introduction of new frequencies, network configurations and connected technologies raise further questions about aggregate exposure, long-term health effects and the adequacy of existing safety assessments. The potential environmental implications must also be considered. The Brief highlights research examining associations between anthropogenic electromagnetic fields and changes in the behaviour, development, reproduction and survival of insects, birds, plants and other organisms. These findings require careful evaluation, including consideration of study limitations and other environmental factors, as part of a comprehensive approach to ecological protection. WCH therefore calls for an independent, transparent and multidisciplinary review of the scientific evidence, free from inappropriate commercial or regulatory conflicts of interest. Such a review should address thermal and possible non-thermal effects, chronic and cumulative exposure, biological responses to modulation and pulsed signals, and the implications of exposure across the lifespan. We further urge HHS to consider the precautionary principle, particularly where exposure is involuntary, where vulnerable populations may be affected, and where meaningful opportunities to reduce unnecessary exposure exist. This includes serious consideration of practical alternatives such as wired communications infrastructure, greater public disclosure of exposure information, improved professional education, and individual choice. WCH encourages greater coordination between public health authorities, environmental agencies, independent researchers and affected communities, recognising that the potential implications of electromagnetic pollution extend beyond conventional telecommunications regulation. The protection of public health and the natural environment must remain central to technological policy, and not be treated as secondary considerations after widespread deployment has already occurred. We believe that responsible technological development must be guided by independent science, transparency, informed consent, the protection of vulnerable populations, and a commitment to safeguarding the health of both present and future generations. Yours sincerely Dr Tess Lawrie MBBCh, PhD Ambassador World Council for Health worldcouncilforhealth.org https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/what-is-5g-health-risks/

Please see the attached document: my response to the HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Radiation (HHS-OASH-2026-0397). I am an Electromagnetic Hypersensitive (EHS) person from Israel and an EMF/EMR awareness activist. My life, and my daughter's, have been deeply affected by exposure to EMF/EMR. Since 2006 I have supported EHS people in Israel and worldwide with exposure measurement and reduction, and I run the information site www.norad4u.com. My main points: 1. Many studies show biological and health effects of RF/EMF at levels far below current FCC and ICNIRP limits. 2. EHS is real and is caused and influenced by EMF/EMR exposure. Reducing exposure reduces symptoms. 3. Provocation studies with design flaws (such as Rubin et al., 2006) should not be used to dismiss EHS. 4. Exposure should be measured with fast-sampling meters showing peak values, not averages over minutes. 5. New, health-based exposure guidelines are needed, with special protection for EHS people, children and other sensitive groups. 6. Federal health agencies should track symptoms, EHS cases and exposure, and fund research on how, not if, EMF/EMR causes harm. The attached document answers the RFI questions (Q2–Q17) and includes a numbered list of 134 scientific references. Amir Borenstein Zichron Yaakov, Israel norad4u@gmail.com

I have a friend who is sensitive to wireless, she can feel it, and is unable to sleep near any RF like cell towers, wifi routers, cellphones, and more. I have seen this have a huge negative impact on her life and health, and she is unable to travel much and often has to drive distances to do normal activities. I am very concerned for the lack of science, studies and protocols to protect the public’s health, and that no real third party testing, science or disclosure about health has been done or shared for over 30 years. It’s hard to believe that we have been in the dark about safety, health and wireless exposure all this time, and that needs to change right now. There are people who are at risk most for health issues including children, and more research and transparency is needed now. Please make current testing, funding and appropriate scientific research required starting now, and public health conversations mandatory and mainstream. Corporations shouldn’t decide what’s safe for us, science and health should be the main focus, and the public process should be the priority. We need to closely examine non-ionizing wireless radiation and all RF. European and Scandinavian countries have done this- they prohibit cell towers near schools and homes for a reason. We need to follow their example. Put science and safety first before profit. Thank you. I am attaching relevant articles and studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1499499/full https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ ttps://www.techsafeschools.org/science https://www.babysafeproject.org/science https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposure-limits-EMREMF/

My first experience with cell phone was with my ex-husband, who was so sensitive to the radiation that he couldn’t have it any where near his body or he would experience pain, redness and swelling. We opted out of smart meters as they were introduced and kept a wired internet. That was 20 some years ago and since that time I have continued to opt out of all wireless and Bluetooth gadgets, wire my internet and cellphone at home and keep my phone on Airplane mode when I am out and do not need to use it. When I do have to turn my phone on or use WIFI I can feel the energy sometimes immediately- heat, pressure, headache. I believe people get used to the feeling of being radiated and cannot distinguish it from a radiation pollution free environment. It is nearly impossible to find a place like that. We are being over-exposed to non-native radiation and the average person has no idea of the dangers or consequences nor do we have much of a choice as to that exposure.

Oct 21, 2026 I am writing this at the deadline so it is abbreviated. There is NO question the RF has increased EVERYWHERE even at my rural residence in the woods. I am sensitive to wireless and moved out here to get relief. Unfortunately over the years unaware neighbors have moved in and they automatically use wireless when it's clear they can be hardwired saving themselves and others from over exposure to RF. The Federal goverment needs to encourage hardwiring WHENEVER POSSIBLE and mandate much lower RF maximum power and frequency from the manufacturers of wireless products, mainly routers. The US standards should be in line with the Europeans and the US based Building Biology Institute of less than 10 uW/m2 as the goal!! (www.buildingbiology.com) Another serious problem is malicious people using Wifi repeaters, commercial routers like ATEL and other devices to harass and harm others. They point these devices at unsuspecting people and their residences and pulsing them with harmful microwaves, disrupting their sleep, concentration and productivity completely contrary to how the manufacturer intended the device to be used. I am experiencing this now by someone LOCALLY in my neighborhood. Even though it's against the law, malicious actors know how difficult it can be to first of all understand what's happening, obtain an RF meter, document the evidence, contact an attorney and obtain some shielding to get some relief. Many of these devices can be modified to hack into computers using Tempest attacks and other means. There needs to be a whole police department established by the HHS and/or the FCC to investigate and enforce any current and future RF/EMF standards and laws including seizing equipment that violates those laws at the RESIDENTIAL level not just commercial. The harmful health effects are not just a result of power transmitted but by PULSE and FREQUENCY. The disruption to humans can be caused by low power but a negative pulse rate (frequency). This needs to be considered for any new laws. These harmful RF/EMF not only affect people but animals both domestic and wild. I can tell my cats are affected and try to ground themselves by laying on the dirt to get away from the negative RF. I've noticed how the bees and ants have almost disappeared in my yard. This is a serious problem that affects EVERY LIVING thing and the US needs to investigate the hundreds of studies that have proven this to be true and take ACTION to protect the American people. Thank you.

**Good morning,** My name is Ida Gally, I am 60 years of age and reside in Northern Italy. I suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity and chemical sensitivity. As a consequence of these conditions, I have been compelled to relocate to an extremely secluded setting, with serious repercussions for my day-to-day life. My home is quite literally situated in the middle of the woods. And yet, over the past year or so, I have observed a deterioration in my symptoms, which I attribute specifically to the raising of the maximum permitted exposure limits for electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This has given rise to a whole host of difficulties, affecting not only my personal life, but also my practical circumstances and financial well-being. I would respectfully urge you to give rather more careful consideration to the decision to raise these limits yet further. Such a course of action could have profoundly serious consequences for those living with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, but the implications extend well beyond this group. Healthy individuals, too, may be affected by the consequences of increased exposure. It is surely worth remembering that concerns surrounding excessive electromagnetic exposure should not be dismissed lightly. The absence of immediately apparent symptoms does not, in itself, establish the absence of risk, and the potential long-term implications merit the utmost consideration. I would therefore ask you, in the interests of public health and the well-being of all concerned, to exercise due caution before proceeding with any further increase in these limits. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours faithfully, **Ida Gally**

I am a 37-year-old man who is athletic and leads a healthy lifestyle. I have been suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity for nearly 5 years and had no specific medical issues prior to that. I had to do my own research and go through a two-year medical odyssey before realizing that this condition was linked to artificial electromagnetic waves. It all began in November 2021. I had previously been suffering from tinnitus, ringing in the ears, sleep disturbances, and dizziness amid a state of generalized anxiety, which led to cognitive problems, short-term memory issues, difficulty concentrating, and intermittent headaches. At first, I started by taking a step back and slowing down my pace of life. Despite this, I suffered an episode in October 2025 that left me unable to engage in any public activities. From anxiety attacks to chronic inflammation, along with breathing difficulties and poor blood circulation, I felt a general weakness and imbalance affecting my muscles, nerves, joints, and so on. In addition, I was prescribed medications such as neuroleptics (hypnotic antihistamines) and benzodiazepines. Since I’m not a fan of synthetic chemicals, after three months I began a detox and an intensive regeneration regimen to break out of this downward spiral. The list of health issues associated with that period could go on and on… Today, after nearly nine months, I’ve almost returned to normal thanks to this rigorous approach: targeted supplementation, an organic diet, chemical and electromagnetic detoxification (eliminating the most impactful sources), remineralization, and alternative, natural, and holistic medicine. Having escaped from that hell—which could have led to a much more serious, irreversible illness or even death—I wanted to share my story as an average French citizen whose life was suddenly turned upside down, but who, as a result, has become much more aware of environmental issues. This has helped foster and strengthen my resilience. Thank you for giving individuals and families the opportunity to be heard.

My name is Frédérique Laffont. I am a French woman, born in 1967, and I have been living with what is commonly referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or electrosensitivity, for many years. I am submitting this testimony because I believe that the experiences of people affected by this condition deserve to be heard, taken seriously, and investigated through independent scientific research. In 1993, France Télécom provided my partner and me with a Nokia mobile phone at no cost. At the time, we lived in Paris and worked in photography, film, and communications. My understanding was that this was part of an effort to assess how the public would respond to this new technology. As my partner worked from home, I was the person who used the phone most frequently, both at work and in the car. I had access to it until 1999, after which I also used a mobile phone through a paid subscription for professional purposes. Around 2002, I installed Wi-Fi in my home. In 2006, I began experiencing a range of health problems: tinnitus, circulatory problems, headaches, dizziness, digestive difficulties, sleep disturbances, unusually dry skin on my face, and unexplained itching. At the time, I did not understand what might be causing these symptoms. One day, a friend complained about the cables she needed for her internet connection. I suggested that she use Wi-Fi instead. She refused, explaining that she did not want to expose her three-year-old daughter, Jasmine, to it. Her response made me curious. I began searching the internet for information about the possible dangers of Wi-Fi. I came across descriptions of symptoms similar to mine. I decided to remove Wi-Fi from my own home and return to a wired internet connection. The improvement was almost immediate. After nights spent unable to sleep, I was finally able to sleep again. The unexplained itching I had been experiencing also disappeared. Approximately three weeks after I had switched off my own Wi-Fi, my neighbour, who lived directly above me, installed his own internet router. Until then, I had been sharing my internet connection with him, so he had not needed to pay for his own subscription. His new router was located directly above my bedroom, and he left the Wi-Fi switched on. Within three days, my sleep problems returned. Once again, I was unable to sleep. I used my computer to search for nearby Wi-Fi networks and identified my neighbour's network. I contacted his partner and explained what was happening. They subsequently switched off their Wi-Fi. I then regained normal sleep. For me, the sequence was striking: I had experienced an almost immediate improvement after switching off my own Wi-Fi; my sleep problems returned shortly after a new Wi-Fi source was activated directly above my bedroom; and I regained normal sleep after my neighbours switched theirs off. I understand that my personal experience cannot, by itself, establish scientific causation. Nevertheless, these events were clear and deeply significant to me. They have shaped my understanding of my condition and my need to avoid certain electromagnetic exposures. I have also experienced episodes of severe dizziness. I remember one occasion particularly clearly. I was speaking to my friend Laurence on a cordless DECT telephone when she told me that she was pregnant. I suddenly became so dizzy that I nearly fell. I have also repeatedly noticed changes in my tinnitus in relation to my surroundings. When I am near certain mobile-phone base stations, I perceive very high-pitched sounds. These sounds cease when I move away. My condition has profoundly restricted my life. I avoid public events, concerts, cinemas, and restaurants whenever possible. Social activities can be difficult, and I have increasingly withdrawn from social contact in order to avoid suffering. I have also had to stop flying because air travel makes me suffer to much. I have noticed a striking difference between two cars. My own car is a petrol-powered Mercedes coupé from 2002. My husband's car is a Mercedes B-Class from 2008, with more electronic equipment, including an automatic start-stop system that switches off the engine when the car stops at a traffic light. On longer journeys in his car, I suffer from severe pain in my knees and chest. I do not experience the same thing in my own car. These differences are part of what I have learned to pay attention to in my daily life. I now spend very little time in Paris. When I visit, I can generally manage for about two weeks, but no longer. This limitation affects my freedom of movement and my ability to maintain an ordinary social life. Thank you for your attention. Let us hope that protecting the population, and above all children, will become a priority. Frédérique Laffont France

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…)Wi-Fi, cellphones, 'Smart' meters, roadside antennas 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):I have been having noticeable and increasing adverse reactions to wireless radiation for about 15 years 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:I get heart palpitations, severe headaches, dizziness, nausea, and neurological impairments when exposed to wireless technology, as well as physical pain on direct contact. 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:Had been feeling some physical discomfort off and on around exposure to cellphones for several years, mostly headaches and pain running up my arm when touching a cellphone. When a bank of 'Smart' meters was installed on the side of the apartment building where I lived, within less than 30 feet from where I slept, my reactions worsened and became disabling. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?My primary doctor suggested some years prior that he thought I might be electromagnetically sensitized, but I didn't take him seriously. By the time I recognized that I was injured, he had retired, and I no longer had a doctor familiar with the effects. I briefly had a doctor who recognized the problem and helped alleviate some of the effects with craniosacral therapy. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?I began sleeping under a shielding canopy and started wearing a hat with non-conductive shielding fabric in it, which reduced the exposure to some extent. I eventually became homeless, and for a while I was able to stay in a 'quiet zone' in a rural area, where there was no wireless connectivity, and I felt a lot better, though heart and neurological effects never fully went away. I was unable to stay in that area and ended up back in an urban area, where I again am forced to spend most of my time under a shielding canopy, and my health has gotten worse again. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:I have since seen a number of scientific abstracts on RF radiation effects that match my experience. When I was in the rural area I rarely measured RF above 0.0005 mW/m2, maybe up to 0.0012 when an airplane or helicopter flew over, but in the urban area where I'm staying currently those measurements are many thousands of times higher. Inside the house where others use Wi-Fi and cellphones, and there are several 'Smart' appliances, I measure at best 0.9 mW/m2 when I keep some distance, but usually it's at least 1 to 3 mW/m2. In front of the washer and dryer, even when they're not running, and even though they are not connected to any devices, I measure up to 55 mW/m2 standing in front of them, and as much as 138 mW/m2 when I touch the machine. 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:Since being injured by the exposure to the bank of 'Smart' meters I've become increasingly housebound. With ever more antennas being installed throughout the city, I could no longer move freely around my neighborhood without getting sick. I stopped being able to ride any public transportation, not even paratransit for people with disabilities, because the radiation from cellphones, walkie-talkies, and other wireless tech used by drivers and other passengers increases as it bounces around inside the metal vehicles that act like Faraday cages. I've become trapped under my canopy, and have not been able to find safe, accessible housing because of other people's use of wireless technology, be that housemates or neighbors, or even businesses whose Wi-Fi penetrates the walls to where I've been able to find temporary shelter. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:All wireless technology, but especially Wi-Fi hubs and routers, cellphones, roadside antenna arrays, especially small cell antennas that are closer to the ground. B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you:There are no wireless sources whatsoever that I can be near without being harmed. I can be around LF from my wired laptop and air purifier, but have to keep some distance, and after a while get a headache regardless. B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed:I can not use any wireless sources without being harmed. I don't notice wired tech if it's at a distance and I limit my exposure time. B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy):There are no wireless or other EMF sources that I experience as beneficial or therapeutic.