I am writing to provide feedback regarding my firsthand health experiences with RF/EMF exposure. Thank you to the HHS for seeking the feedback of individuals, as the current framework for regulating wireless radiation completely ignores the real-world biological experiences of sensitive populations.
I have had numerous clear, neurological symptoms that are reliably triggered or exacerbated by heavy exposures of RF/EMF. Specifically, when subjected to elevated wireless environments, I experience a disturbing "foggy head" sensation that makes it difficult to concentrate. Furthermore, I have a long clinical history of migraines with aura. While I have multiple environmental triggers, I have identified heavy doses of EMF as a distinct trigger for these. In our home, we take steps to reduce our exposure, but it has become hard to avoid.
The current safety guidelines enforced by the FCC offer no protections for individuals like me, or citizens with concerns, in general. The FCC’s standards, established in 1996, rely entirely on a narrow thermal paradigm. These guidelines assume that wireless radiation is only harmful if it is intense enough to literally heat human tissue. The cognitive fog and migraines I have experienced have occurred at exposure levels below this thermal threshold. This is clear evidence that the federal government's current stance fails to recognize or account for non-thermal biological mechanisms. Low-intensity, chronic RF/EMF exposure exerts systemic, non-thermal biological stress on the human nervous and vascular systems, which directly manifests as neurological symptoms in sensitive individuals, and likely is negatively effecting a lot more people in ways that are not understood. There have been studies linking chronic exposures to elevated blood sugar levels and increased insulin resistance. It also may impact human quality of sleep. These are all huge issues.
The HHS should abandon the outdated 1996 thermal-only standard and to develop safety limits that protect citizens from chronic, low-intensity, non-thermal biological and neurological impacts. It should also immediately investigate the specific biological pathways linking RF/EMF exposure to central nervous system disruptions, including focusing on its role as an environmental trigger for migraines, blood-brain barrier permeability, cognitive fog, insulin resistance, and disturbances in sleep patterns. There have already been some studies on these issues, that the relevant government agencies seem to ignore.
The FCC, that has commercial deployment goals, should not be the only department to regulate the wireless industry. There needs to be more control given to local populations to say no to continually increasing the population’s exposure to EMF/RF with more and more towers flooding people’s homes and workplaces.
Also of concern are the ever increasing number of products used in the home that use and issue wireless radiation (the IoT), including baby monitors and home appliances. We are now in cars loaded with EMF/RF. And, of course, the now pervasive smart meters that emit radiation, not once a month, for billing purposes, but often every 15 minutes, and in some places practically continually. It is grotesque how callously this has and is all rolled out with so little understood about the impacts on human health.
I am a physician and have many patients who report EMF sensitivity. Their symptoms include, increased fatigue, cognitive difficulties, neurological symptoms. fasciculations, headaches, insomnia, tachycardia, and more when exposed to RF waves. I have examined the literature and there is a plethora of published research demonstrating mechanisms that explain that EMF sensitivity is a true phenomenon. With the potential for DNA breaks when exposed to RF levels that are lower than modern cell phones, it would be worth evaluating whether the increased exposure to RF that our modern society has compared to just 2004 may be a contributor to increased cancer rates we are seeing in all ages.
I fear the results of electromagnetic fields from the data centers. I have grandchildren and hope they will have grandchildren but the evidence of lower sperm counts, DNA impairment, leukemia as well as a
Multitude of other problems that are not investigated. This is insane.
As a person that depends on a pacemaker to survive, am concerned of the safety these Emissions may have on my physical health. We know the body also uses electrical impulses to maintain cellular activity. Will these cellular activities be disrupted by the excessive use of frequencies and EMFs in our environment?
1. The study needs to evaluate induction from power lines as well to set a standard for distance per kw future homes should be built to power lines.
2. The study should look at mitochondria health and the ability to recover. The body is resilient and human effects will show in symptoms such as low energy, poor sleep, and being sick more often. These effects might be seen as “normal “ and not related to EMI/EMF. So the study should include pre and post evaluation of mitochondria health during exposure.
To HHS: wireless radiation is a serious Health Risk. I have personally dealt with severe chronic health issues for many years. I'm aware that Radiation exposure has effected my sensistive nervous system affecting sleep, thyroid issues, hormone imbalance, exhaustion, depletion etc... I go to great lengths to reduce exposure and protect myself. It is a constant, daily challenge in this world of increasing bombardment of Radiation Poisoning. I'm also aware it is absolutely possible to make technology safe for health and still effective
Studies show oxidative stress (167 abstracts), DNA damage (82), male infertility (44), lipid peroxidation (43), cognitive decline (38), cancers (34), low sperm quality (33), brain cancer (28), headache (20), sleep disorders (15) and fatigue (14). Further down the list: childhood leukemia, acoustic neuroma, salivary gland disease, hearing disorders, ALS, Alzheimer’s, autism spectrum disorders, birth defects, hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease....
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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.
2.I am responding as a healthcare provider. The federal limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996. n 2013 the FCC itself asked whether the limits should be revisited. In 2019 it answered: no. Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense and others sued. On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court found the Commission had failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer,” had failed to address the impacts on children, long-term exposure, and the ubiquity of wireless devices, and had shown “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm.” It noted roughly 200 comments from people reporting illness or injury that the agency had not addressed. It sent the matter back to the FCC with instructions to explain itself. (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, No. 20-1025) 18. (https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms)
The FCC had relied on the Food and Drug Administration’s assurance that the limits were fine. The court said an agency cannot lean on another agency’s conclusion if that conclusion comes without an explanation. 3g. Five years later, no explanation has been produced. https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms Recommendations (m). I recommend (1) a validated clinical intake instrument for suspected RF/EMF-related complaints; (2) a federal adverse-event intake comparable to MedWatch; (3) biomarker studies in symptomatic patients following the oxidative-stress findings of Irigaray, Caccamo & Belpomme (Int J Mol Med 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30015864/); and (4) exposure-measurement studies that do not rely on self-report, following Bogers et al. (Environ Int 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30227317/).12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/ (Adams et al., Environ Int 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24927498/; Liu et al., Andrology 2014, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700791/) and exposure reduction is low-cost. The peer-reviewed record on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT and smart-meter exposures is thin (Simkó & Mattsson, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/, concluded available studies "do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment"). This is a gap, not a reassurance.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/); Balmori, Sci Total Environ 2015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747364/).
You need to start your hypothesis with the fact that all biological bodies radiate a biomagnetic/bioelectromagnetic field the electromagnetic interference of which modulates the physiological capacity of the life emitting it and all lives exposed to such. The biomagnetic/bioelectromagnetic field extends outward infinitely from a body and saturates the planet's field such that any one life on the planet is permanently exposed to the biomagnetism/bioelectromagnetism of every other life on the planet. Furthermore you need to understand that Earth's/Gaia's lightning resonance field is responsible for the enforcement of oxidative stress originating from biomagnetic/bioelectromagnetic emissions that are phase-misaligned & destructively interfering with its field; to word this another way - all biomagnetic/bioelectromagnetic activity - and therefore any artificial magnetism/electromagnetism that is brought into existence by it is bound primarily by the biomagnetic/bioelectromagnetic activity that is driving its "production" - are governed by Earth's/Gaia's oxidative stress-stabilizing lightning resonance field. Key to understand regarding this is that the primary issue is with psychophysiologically-bound behavior, sentiment, tone, and attitude that is assocated with modes of thought that are destructively interfering & non-globally resonant in nature and therefore do not recruit the oxidative stress-stabilizing effects provided by Earth's/Gaia's lightning resonance field. What you must understand is that the effect you are "concerned about" - which may be known as biological oxidative stress or biological free radical emission - have only a second order dependence on the underlying electromagnetic interference of the biomagnetism/bioelectromagnetism involved which contain the first order effects. You must understand that it is the very thought to develop & brainwaves involved in developing artificial magnetism/electromagnetism that is phase-misaligned & destructively interfering with earth's/gaia's oxidative stress-stabilizing lightning resonance field and which therefore poses the most significant threat to bodily physiology. In sum: you will *not* be able to quantify the effect of an artificial magnetic/electromagnetic field without quantifying the lightning resonance phase-aligned or phase-misaligned biomagnetic/bioelectromagnetic interference that precedes & underlies its development.
In this exploratory study by Sally Fallon Morell (2015), ten human subjects were exposed to a cell phone radiation stressor. Their blood was examined under a dark-field microscope to look for changes, if any, from the cell phone microwave frequency. This study shows a consistent condition in ten test subjects of red blood cells going into rouleaux condition of clumping when exposed to 45 minutes of an energized phone carried in a back pack. When the test subjects were instructed to hold the phone in front of them for 45 minutes with two 5 minutes calls with the cell phone next to their ear, their red blood cells exhibited significant deterioration of the cell walls and nucleous. Clearly, this type of cellular deterioration is detrimental to a persons health. Many of us aware of this have requested warning notices to be affixed to all phones that advise the users of these possible neggative health effects