Proposed biological mechanisms

Patient Advocate for Victims of RF/EMF Exposure P.O. Box 1039 Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 692-4999 PatientAdvocateEMF@proton.me October 20,2026 The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 RE: Public Comment on Request for Information (RFI) regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure (Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397) RF/EMF Leverage Force Multipliers: 1. Burning from outside in 2. Burning from inside out 3. Surface-to-Core Thermal Latency Burn 4. Polonium and Hafnium Amplification 5. Polonium and Hafnium Signatures 6. Polonium and Hafnium Targeting 7. Pulsating wattage to avoid detection 8. Pulsating wattage for entrainment of the body-brain electrical system 9. Electrical Injury Syndrome (EIS). 10. Social isolation and sensory deprivation 11. Diagnostic Overshadowing: This occurs when healthcare professionals attribute a patient's physical symptoms to a pre-existing or suspected mental health condition, leading to the physical injury being ignored or misdiagnosed. 12. Medical Mimicry: This is a general clinical term for a physical illness that "mimics" a psychiatric disorder. For example, brain injuries or neurological damage can cause personality changes, irritability, or confusion that look like mental illness but are actually biological. 13. Subclinical or functional injuries in general 14. Cumulative Biological Load (Allostatic Overload) Systemic Allostatic Failure. Neuro-Endo-Immunological (NEI) Dysregulation. It acknowledges that the Nervous (Entrainment/FND), Endocrine (Cortisol/Diabetes), and Immune (Lyme/Bartonella/Inflammation) systems are a single, interconnected web. When one is hit by RF/EMF, all three collapse together. 15. Knowledge deficit created diagnostic gap for subclinical injuries 16. Toxicological Steganography—hiding one harm inside another. 17. Systemic Neuro-Psychological Attrition 18. Vicarious trauma to others 19. Vicarious terror to primary victim by seeing or hearing others injured or killed. 20. Inflammation of the brain and nervous system. 21. Duration – How long an unsafe RF/EMF wave contacts a victim patient is proportional to the damage or lack of damage that RF/EMF wave causes. In other words, it is not just intensity (power), frequency, but also duration of the impact penetration into the human body.

I am a health provider in Toronto Canada. I have seen a number of patients, who present with sensitivity in varying degrees, to EMF/RF. We ran some unscientific experiments and trackings, a few had recently bought new cars (with wifi readings around 2V) they suddenly developed a racing heart and feelings of anxiety and panic anytime they were in their car (heart rate at 150 +bpm), we had them drive other older cars and they were fine. Others had severe muscle twitches in their apt suddenly - violent and visible - when we investigated turned out the building added new access points thruout. One of my clients sadly ended her life (medically assisted dying) because she could not escape the towers, there is no longer any 'safe space', her skin would blister and she was unable to sleep because she would jolt awake as soon as she fell asleep, she described it as being connected to electrodes that someone just turned the dial up on. She had had a hip replacement years ago and another patient had a tennis injury that required rotator surgery with pins, a few others had knee replacements, I wonder if having hardware in the body increases the sensitivity to EMF, ages and sex varied. One client had her hair start to shed, very visible balding (she lived near 16 towers in Toronto), she moved to her small hometown in Alaska and never experienced it again. Thank you for looking into this. I suspect for every anecdotal letter you receive there are hundreds more that are suffering and 1. didnt know about this request for submission or 2. haven't made the connection to this invisible irritant (and people think you're crazy when you mention it could be the towers/wifi). Please do not let your time in office end without some change.

There are many reasons to research the impact of man-made non-ionizing radiation. First, we’ll start with cellphone and mobile base stations (MBSTS) effects on children (it should be noted these base stations are leased and pay the schools tens of thousands of dollars annually). A study involved parting a non MPBST (mobile phone base station) exposed group to an exposed group and comparing test scores after a period of 2 years’ time (Meo SA et all, 2018). The impact of the radiation showed memory and motor deficiencies of significant value. In the attached report you’ll see a significant difference in the study groups when it comes to learning and memory. I will say that I have measured the radiation from my cellphone in an otherwise zero EMR environment. The zero EMR environment registers 0.2 to .5 mW/cm2 (0.2 microwatts per meter squared), which is considered very safe. Comparatively, when you measure my phone with its Wi-Fi turned on (and no other connectivity signal), I get 189,000 mW/cm2. That’s an incredible difference. Other individuals of concern are those with preexisting medical conditions, especially those with weakened immune systems are more susceptible to the degrading effect EMR has on the blood brain barrier. The BBB is a semipermeable border that moves ions, oxygen and water between the blood and the central nervous system. It serves to block pathogens and toxins from entering the brain and these studies have found correlation between EMR and penetrability of the Blood Brain Barrier. Additionally, IARC (International Agency of Research on Cancer) have found cellphone users have a greater risk of cancer (MSD, 2016). Cumulative exposure is the biggest problem with EMR. It is very hard to determine the cause of issue when so many devices are involved. The various sources of cumulative exposure include 6G, 5G, Wi-Fi and wearable technology. 6G involves THz (Terahertz) frequencies that will have the ability to alter DNA and neurons. It has been determined that 5G and 6G and other high frequency radiation causes tissue and nerve damage (Minar, 2025). The IoT will magnify the effects of EMR as many appliances connect and communicate with each other. Wearable technologies concentrate EMR on the body and range up to 2.4 GHz, which is not advisable to wear and it is not fair to expose others to this device’s radiation (Revolutionhealth, 2025). Unless it is mandatory, wireless medical devices should not be worn (mdasafetech, 2026). It is also known that wireless devices can cause heart issues and it’s extremely ironic they are used to measure heart rate and other general health metrics. As for satellite-based communication, studies need to be made regarding its impact on the environment and biology. The WHO and FCC have already mentioned, in their former studies, that electromagnetic radiation devices are possibly carcinogenic. These same studies are decade’s old and needing review. It should be assumed that at this point, with the massive increase in man-made electrical fields, that scientific evidence is irrefutable and that it does cause harm (Johansson, 2026). Like tobacco and alcohol, outreach/education about the potential harmful impacts of wireless radiation should be readily available with warning labels. At this time, the cellphone and telecommunications companies are largely uninsurable due to the high risks of electromagnetic fields (ehtrust, 2026) (Complete Markets, 2026). Since we are discussing the need for HHS to reevaluate and none of the other branches, we can talk about the need to expand its epidemiological studies to cover the cancer and leukemia issues known to be associated with this as well as harm reduction in classes, libraries, hospitals and public spaces. Every technological product we use has a measurable field. These items should be 3rd party tested and sold with the readings provided and a warning label printed. The packaging should be sold with a label that states its level at microwatts per meter squared (mW/cm2) and each level should be color coded for quick recognition so that we can create a baseline chart that consumers easily understand. Much like the EMR test meters available on the markets, you’ll have Red, Orange, Yellow and Green and these colors correlate to the degree of signal on the object. The FDA will be responsible for labeling and verifying full disclosure is provided to consumers. Public spaces need to be measured and coded as well and if possible, provide Ethernet connections and lower their EMR signal to the minimum necessary. We already have thousands of well researched, published scientific articles online that have spanned 40-50 years. We don’t need to invent the cart; we just need some horses and a destination. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment on man-made electromagnetic radiation and its effects on health. Sincerely, Nicole Stallings

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.

As a physiotherapist who is also electro-hypersensitive, I spent 25 years in private practice—15 of which were in a dedicated professional space I had built in my own garden. I shielded this space so that I could continue to practice my profession and treat individuals who, like me, were electro-hypersensitive and had become lost within the medical system. My neurosensory approach allows me to explain why we are all electrosensitive and why any of us could potentially become electro-hypersensitive. I practice the Dicke and Teirich-Leube reflex massage—which focuses on the skin’s connection to the nervous system—and I employ a holistic, behavioral approach to the body (utilizing the Mézières method and the GDS muscle chain system). To understand this, one must look to embryology: the skin and the nervous system share the same embryonic origin. Lacking any natural shielding, the skin is regularly subjected to hyperstimulation from the artificial electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by the wireless technologies and the pervasive electrical infrastructure now found throughout our living environments. The nervous system, under constant assault by these EMFs, becomes unable to maintain the body’s homeostasis. This leads to a breakdown, manifesting in a wide range of symptoms: headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, hyperacusis, neuromuscular and joint tension, skin issues, heart palpitations, anxiety, a sense of oppression, digestive and gynecological disturbances, neurodegenerative diseases, chronic illnesses, and cancer—as well as cognitive impairment, insomnia, exhaustion, and physiological depression. Any neurosensory cell can become a source of pain when subjected to persistent aggression. Certain cells are particularly sensitive to these constant vibrations—for instance, Pacinian corpuscles, which respond to frequencies between 30 and 1,500 Hertz. These waves cause surges within the body; the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems are not designed to handle such frequencies. I invite you to explore my document on point26.com regarding bodily sensations and somesthesia: https://poem26.com/le-ressenti-du-corps-en-presence-des-ondes-electromagnetiques-artificielles/ This is a dossier I submitted to ANSES (the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety) when I joined—on behalf of my association, Poem26, of which I am president—the "Radiofrequency and Health" dialogue committee in Maisons-Alfort. It is also urgent to consider the differences between men and women regarding these artificial electromagnetic fields; our neurosensory system is more reactive than that of men. While men also possess this system, they tend to be less attuned to their own bodily sensations, yet the resulting symptoms can be far more severe and serious—such as heart attacks, strokes, colorectal cancer, or infertility. For women, it is crucial to examine the issue of endometriosis; our blood—as women—reacts very poorly to these artificial electromagnetic fields, which may be the root cause of gynecological problems such as amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, or endometriosis. I personally experienced significant issues with low frequencies: my ferritin levels rose to 900. In cases of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, one may observe a marked increase in ferritin levels—or, conversely, very low levels—depending on whether or not the individual has reached menopause. The only way to determine if you are electro-hypersensitive is to spend several days in an "electromagnetic dead zone" (an area free from such waves) and to monitor biological markers both before and after exposure to electromagnetic fields. Humans have been on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years; yet, in just 30 years, we have altered our electromagnetic environment through high-frequency (radio-frequency) fields, and over the last 200 years, we have transformed our electrical and magnetic environment through low-frequency fields. The human body cannot adapt to such changes in such a short period of time. I remain at your disposal for further discussion. Catherine Neyrand, October 18, 2026 Physical Therapist, Electrosensitive (EHS) President of the association Poem 26 (https://poem26.com/) Mother of a young adult who was severely electrosensitive (EHS) during her adolescence

I submit this comment requesting independent scientific investigation, transparent environmental monitoring, and stronger public accountability regarding electromagnetic field (EMF), WIFI, and ELF exposure and its potential effects on human health, cellular function, neurological development, and future generations. The expansion of telecommunications and electrical infrastructure raises legitimate public-health and bioethical questions. Wireless RF radiation and extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields, including 60 Hz power transmission, have distinct physical characteristics and must be evaluated separately, including their potential cumulative and long-term effects. Located on schools, churches and parks. Children are stakeholders, not merely passive recipients of technological development. Their developing nervous systems, cellular processes, and longer potential lifetime exposures warrant specific scientific attention. Pregnancy, fetal development, infancy, and childhood represent critical periods during which environmental influences may have lasting consequences. Human health depends upon cellular homeostasis, mitochondrial bioenergetics, ATP production, DNA integrity, and coordinated neurological signaling. Disruption of these processes can contribute to disease and impaired development. Whether particular environmental EMF exposures adversely affect these mechanisms, and under what conditions, requires rigorous investigation rather than unsupported assumptions of either harm or safety. HHS should prioritize research examining oxidative stress, mitochondrial signaling, membrane potential, cellular repair, neurodevelopment, reproductive outcomes, and potential intergenerational effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation and evaluate exposure intensity, frequency, duration, developmental stage, and individual susceptibility. Existing epidemiological research has identified associations between certain residential ELF magnetic-field exposures and childhood leukemia, although a causal relationship remains unestablished. Such findings demonstrate the importance of continued investigation rather than premature dismissal of unresolved questions. The ethical question extends beyond whether an exposure meets current regulatory limits. It concerns whether those limits adequately account for developing biological systems, prolonged exposure, combined environmental conditions, and populations not sufficiently represented in existing research. Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, and intergenerational equity, the public deserves meaningful access to scientific findings and environmental exposure information. The burden of investigating potential public-health risks should not fall exclusively upon families who lack the resources to commission environmental testing or independent scientific evaluations. Communities should have access to infrastructure information, standardized exposure measurements, monitoring results, and understandable explanations of applicable safety standards. Public participation must be meaningful, particularly where infrastructure affects residential neighborhoods, schools, and vulnerable populations. I request that HHS: Support independent longitudinal studies evaluating RF, EMF and ELF exposures, particularly during pregnancy, infancy, and childhood. Investigate cellular and neurological mechanisms, including mitochondrial function, ATP metabolism, oxidative regulation, and neurodevelopment, using reproducible methods. Evaluate cumulative and chronic exposure patterns while distinguishing established effects from emerging hypotheses. Assess potential ecological consequences for wildlife, pollinators, vegetation, and interconnected environmental systems. Establish transparent public reporting of exposure measurements, research limitations, funding sources, and regulatory assumptions. Examine disproportionate environmental burdens and ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in research and policy development. Coordinate with the FCC, EPA, and relevant agencies to address scientific gaps and clarify oversight responsibilities. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not equivalent to conclusive evidence of safety under every exposure condition. Scientific uncertainty requires investigation, not speculation or complacency. Technological advancement carries corresponding responsibilities. Public-health protection should not depend upon proving widespread injury after exposure has occurred. Children, families, communities, ecosystems, and future generations are stakeholders in decisions affecting shared environments. Our responsibility is not simply to accommodate technological progress, but to ensure that progress does not compromise the biological integrity, developmental potential, and environmental inheritance of generations yet to come. Respectfully, Cherrish Castaneda Roots Indigenous Priory Sacramento County, California

The current fairly unregulated use of EMFs via the abundant towers is unacceptable for the general health of all people and especially children. There is enough research at this point to acknowledges that the current EMF frequencies are harmful to everyones health and general well being. Some have mentioned the destruction of the mitochondria and the inability of the body to adjust to the firing and perpetual bombardment of frequencies not compatible with humans and probably any animals. These frequencies can probably be made more harmonious for all living beings but have not been. The question is why not? Cell phones have been linked with brain tumors and the current views of some doctors is that 50% of people will develop Alzheimers. One contributor is most likely cell phones and the lack of awareness of the dangers of using them next to the head. Why is there no information presented with the purchase of these devices. this needs to changes as well as once again the frequencies being used.

Our environment is a shared, communal resource. The air we breathe, the land we inhabit, and the spaces where our children grow are not the exclusive property of industry, companies, utilities, or stockholders. Yet corporations profit from infrastructure that introduces electromagnetic exposures into environments shared by families with little opportunity to object. Telecommunications providers, SMUD, PG&E, and Comcast benefit economically from expanding electrical and wireless infrastructure. Meanwhile, children and communities may bear environmental and health risks without informed participation, compensation, or adequate long-term scientific assurances. The profits are privatized, while potential risks are distributed across the public. As a mother, I invest my body, time, resources, and energy into my children's health. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, nutrition, education, and medical care are investments in their neurological development, cellular health, and future well-being. Why should corporations introduce additional environmental exposures without adequately demonstrating their long-term safety for developing children? Children are stakeholders. They cannot negotiate exposure conditions, commission independent studies, or participate in infrastructure decisions. Their inability to consent creates a greater ethical responsibility for adults, corporations, and government agencies. The long-term neurological effects of chronic RF exposure, particularly during critical developmental periods, warrant independent investigation. I am concerned about mitochondrial function, cellular homeostasis, oxidative stress, neurological signaling, reproductive development, and potential intergenerational consequences. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm does not establish safety under every exposure condition. There is also a serious security concern. Telecommunications and electrical infrastructure are increasingly interconnected with digital control systems. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities, unauthorized access, deliberate interference, and malicious manipulation deserve independent assessments. These systems should be protected against misuse, including intentional disruption or hazardous operation. What safeguards prevent infrastructure designed for communication and electrical distribution from being deliberately misused to harm the public? I request transparent cybersecurity oversight, independent vulnerability assessments, enforceable security standards, and public accountability without disclosure of sensitive security details. Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, intergenerational equity, and responsible stewardship, government must consider every affected stakeholder—not merely infrastructure owners, investors, and commercial beneficiaries. The public should not have to finance private environmental testing, establish individual medical causation, or suffer injury before legitimate concerns receive investigation. I request that HHS recommend a precautionary pause on further wireless infrastructure expansion in residential and child-centered environments pending independent review of long-term developmental risks. I also request evaluation of removal or relocation of existing towers where site-specific evidence demonstrates unacceptable exposure or safety risks. I request independent longitudinal research, publicly accessible exposure measurements, meaningful community participation, and regulatory coordination among HHS, FCC, EPA, and appropriate state authorities. I do not consent to my children being treated as involuntary experimental subjects in an environment where long-term exposure questions remain unresolved. Environmental exposure does not automatically constitute human-subjects research under federal law. However, widespread exposure under scientific uncertainty raises profound ethical questions about informed participation, precaution, and justice in distributing potential harm. No corporation should receive the economic benefits of technological expansion while transferring potentially preventable health and environmental costs to children and future generations without accountability. Our children are not collateral costs of technological progress. Their neurological development, cellular health, bodily integrity, and environmental inheritance deserve consideration before additional infrastructure is approved. I demand that public-health protection take precedence over unchecked expansion, that existing infrastructure be independently evaluated, and that future generations receive the protection and representation they cannot yet demand for themselves. Respectfully submitted, Cherrish “I Do Not Consent” Castaneda Mother of Three | Student of Law and Bioethics Sacramento County, California

As an American physician, I am deeply concerned that U.S. electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards have not been updated since 1996 and address only thermal effects. In a rapidly evolving wireless environment, outdated guidelines warrant rigorous reassessment. Current permitted exposure levels exceed recommendations from building biologists and most other countries. As cell towers, 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, electric vehicles, and other wireless technologies proliferate, finding places with reduced exposure is increasingly difficult for sensitive individuals. Dismissing validated non-thermal effects simply because this radiation is non-ionizing ignores biologically important interactions. My own experience with electrohypersensitivity (EHS), since 2017, has included insomnia, migraines, lightheadedness, trigeminal neuropathy, and tinnitus, associated with nearby Bluetooth devices, cell towers or transformer stations. I reduce exposure to cope: avoiding housing near towers, limiting Bluetooth, using wired headphones and computer peripherals, keeping devices on airplane mode, disabling Wi-Fi overnight. I have had to leave certain hotels and forgo modern conveniences such as smart-home devices and electric vehicles. Even ordinary appliances increasingly incorporate unnecessary and unavoidable wireless or bluetooth connectivity (air filters, electric toothbrushes, etc), making exposure reduction difficult. The expansion of data centers is concerning due to EMFs from the facilities themselves and associated high-powered electrical infrastructure. Public participation in decisions about cell towers, power lines, and data centers is extremely limited (my own community fighting a data center build with the guise of public input,) leaving residents with little control over exposures. My patients have described a range of concerning experiences: man in his 40s with occupational exposure linked radiation-associated cancer; mid-aged female with cognitive decline and severe EHS after a transformer was installed near her home; a veteran whose military exposures have forced him into homelessness and food insecurity in Minnesota's winters as he can't tolerate electricity; and a couple with sudden insomnia after a smart meter was installed outside their bedroom, resolved after its relocation. In my clinical experience, commonly reported symptoms include insomnia, headaches, neuralgias and arrhythmias, which can substantially affect quality of life. These accounts warrant compassionate care and further investigation, not the ridicule and diagnosis of "functional" symptoms that have accrued. Specific absorption rate (SAR), commonly used to assess radiofrequency exposure, has serious limitations. Standardized testing doesn't represent real-world conditions- device position, body shape, tissue density, age, or differences between men, women and children. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of living in a highly connected environment remain insufficiently characterized. Exposure can come from multiple sources simultaneously, including phones, 5G infrastructure, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, computers, televisions, smart meters, electric vehicles, chargers, and electrical systems. Compliance with individual-device limits does not necessarily resolve questions about combined, long-term exposure. International exposure standards vary, and some countries impose magnitudes of power greater restrictions on EMF exposure limits and wireless infrastructure near sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals. National Toxicology Program animal studies have brought concerns of chronic cell-phone radiation exposure and cancer risk, the need for additional human research, and the outdated nature of U.S. standards. Resources such as Physicians for Safe Technology discuss these issues as well. Biological mechanisms of harm include changes in oxidative and nitrosative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, blood-brain barrier permeability, genotoxicity, immune-system effects, cell-membrane signaling, voltage-gated calcium-channel activity, inflammatory pathways, magnesium depletion, nitric oxide signaling, changes in neurotransmitters and receptors, including NMDA, dopamine, and serotonin, microbiome alterations, hepatic lipid metabolism and blood glucose regulation, mast-cell activation, depletion of antioxidants such as glutathione, oxidation of LDL cholesterol and altered prenatal brain development and fertility. These proposed mechanisms could have implications for neurological, cardiovascular, hormonal, metabolic, immune, and reproductive health. I urge updated, independent, and transparent reviews of standards regarding long-term, cumulative, and real-world exposures. Protecting public health requires neither dismissing patients' experiences nor the scientific data that exists. It requires rigorous science and standards that evolve alongside technology and it's unfathomable that no meaningful updates have been made in 30 years.

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…) Bluetooth, Wifi, flying in airplanes (maybe due to wifi and all the devices?) 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years): I finally healed it and am no longer intolerant, except the radiation from flying in airplanes is still quite hard on me (thus I rarely fly). I keep Bluetooth turned off on my devices because it will still give me a headache. Ok with wifi now. 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced: Headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, vertigo, brain fog 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: Yes, I had symptoms appear in 2018 after years of happily using technology. We discovered (after hiring a specialist to inspect our home with various meters) that we were directly in the path of a radar tower, and the house (big open kitchen/living room with huge windows in the Berkeley Hills) was being hit with radar every 12 seconds. I left that house and felt immediately better. Also good to add that I had extensive radiation from PET and CT scans during cancer treatment 2011-2013, so I think I was overdosed and that contributed to my heightened sensitivity/reaction to it. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis? I saw many doctors, and no one diagnosed it as EMF intolerance. I realized it on my own after getting away from all Wi-Fi, turning devices off, and finally feeling OK. Then I saw that when a device or Wi-Fi was nearby, symptoms returned. I met others with the same symptoms and was validated. Began my recovery process. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects? I had to move to a small cabin in the woods away from everything and quit my job (couldn't use a computer or phone), then was able to use a computer when hard-wired through Ethernet. I felt immediately better! 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information: I'd have to dig that up but can if you really want it. 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 believe that, for most people, EMF intolerance is a form of limbic system dysfunction. I don't think everyone reacts to it, but some people do. I was able to mostly recover. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects: wifi routers, phone and computer Bluetooth B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: N/A B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed: N/A B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy): N/A B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs, including wireless: History of cancer and treatment, radiation via scans. B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs, including wireless, but might be relevant: childhood trauma, so an already stressed nervous system and limbic system. Cancer at the age of 28. 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: Absolutely, without a doubt, DNRS --Dynamic Neural Retraining System. Me and many others. Also, qi gong. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help: craniosacral therapy B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): N/A B3d. Treatments that had no effect: N/A B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse: N/A B4. What is your age range? 35-44 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields? 2018 B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields? Berkeley, California, USA