Proposed biological mechanisms

Microwave ovens use 2.45 GHz frequency, which couples to the rotation frequency of water molecules, leading to strong heating. Other frequencies in the GHz range couple to other molecules in the body, with effects that have not yet been sufficiently studied. Those effects could include headaches, dizziness, muscle twitching, brain fog, others. The push to more and more transmitters and higher and higher frequencies because of the apparent need for faster and faster communication speeds comes at the expense of human health and well being. We live as far as we can from our local 5G antennas on purpose. I did an experiment once with 6G frequencies to ignite energetic materials. Works great! That result should give everyone pause. What do those frequencies do to humans??? My coworkers all complained about headaches during the experiment even from small amounts of reflected radiation. The health effects of wireless radiation MUST be studied before any further large scale deployment, but I'm not holding my breath. Sadly.

the microwaves cause the microplastics in our brains to congeal

The neural system runs on a tiny amount of electricity. RF produces a charge in electromagnetic material- and we are full of metal particulates. I lost myeyesight, most of my teeth, have suffered 'vertigo', 'tinnitus', going pain and am covered in painful lesions from RF being directed at me. I can tell when I am near a mast or an area saturated with RF because I can feel it. Please help us. Thank you.

Dear Secretary Kennedy, My name is Dr. Michael Halliday. After 45 years in chiropractic practice, I recently retired from clinical work, but not from what has been a major focus of my life: developing natural approaches and technologies intended to protect and improve human health. I have followed your decision to examine the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields with great interest. For more than 20 years, I have been working on this very problem — but particularly on the part of the discussion that I believe receives too little attention: What can we actually do about it? My work began with water and frequency-based technologies and later developed into mineral-based materials designed to mitigate the biological effects associated with EMF, Wi-Fi and, more recently, 5G exposure. Rather than attempting to block electromagnetic signals, our approach is designed to modify their interaction with the biological environment. We have developed applications for plastics, paints, textiles, mobile phones and other products, and have conducted blood-based testing that I would be pleased to share with your scientific team. I have also spent years investigating what I describe as “electrosmog,” including the possibility that electromagnetic environments may influence water and, consequently, biological systems. I am not writing simply to identify another potential problem. I am writing because I believe we have practical solutions worth investigating. The technology exists. We have developed it, tested it, and can demonstrate it. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity for a brief conversation with you or the appropriate members of your HHS team. Rather than trying to explain decades of work in a letter, I would prefer to present the technology, the observations behind it, the testing performed to date, and allow your experts to evaluate it independently. Additional information about our work is available at protxs.com. Thank you for your work on this important subject. I would welcome the opportunity to contribute. Respectfully yours, in health, Dr. Michael Halliday -- Dr. Michael Halliday Founder 616-881-6453 drmike@protxs.com

The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg is a book that traces the history of electricity and its impact on health - nearly always detrimental, especially to mitochondrial function, which causes a variety of serious diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, among others. YOU ARE KILLING AMERICANS with this onslaught of electricity everywhere without consent from those harmed. Turn back from this wrongdoing. WE OBJECT!

I am a practicing Internal Medicine physician with roughly 10 years' experience treating adult patients using "Integrative" strategies, ie, specific biologically precise strategies which fundamentally address the root causes of chronic illness. I also personally suffer from chronic illness, thus providing the opportunity to experience the results of many, if not all, of the strategies I employ. Roughly 10 years ago, I became aware of the possibility that I was personally being affected by wireless (ie, RF/EMF) radiation exposure in my own household. Specifically, it was suggested to me by my health coach that my difficulty sleeping (for the previous 5-6 years) might be due to RF/EMF exposure, at that time cell phones not powered off at night plus WiFi router exposure, both at my office as well as at night in my home. I somewhat skeptically agreed to a trial of powering off cell phones and WiFi router at night, and my sleep immediately improved dramatically enough for me to conclude clinically that the improvement was very likely due to this removal of RF/EMF exposure. We eventually permanently eliminated the WiFi router and hard-wired our house with internet cabling, along with powering off our cell phones at night. I also keep my personal cell phone on airplane mode continuously during the day, establishing connectivity only to receive and read texts. I don’t use my cell phone for calls at all. This has resulted in our home becoming a relatively “safe haven” for me from an RF/EMF perspective. In fact, I use only a landline in my home office to make calls, doing most of my clinical work from home, and go to my medical office only to see patients, maybe an hour or two a day. My medical office, even though also hard-wired to minimize RF/EMF, has EMF levels (ie, density) from 700 to 1500 microwatts per meter squared, presumably from wireless devices in adjoining tenants’ offices and perhaps from nearby cell towers and I typically experience difficulty sleeping if I’ve spent three or more hours in my office. I have done extensive RF/EMF measurements throughout various parts of my city, most of which have EMF density levels of at least 500, and often up to 2500 microwatts per meter squared. When I have prolonged exposure to an environment with these higher densities, such as my place of worship which reads 2000 to 3000 microwatts per meter squared, I always experience increased difficulty sleeping, along with increased daytime fatigue for the next two days. Perhaps an experience I had very early in the process of discovering my own reactions to wireless radiation will be helpful. I was attending a neighborhood meeting located on the top floor of a tall apartment building, roughly 20 stories tall. As participants got seated, the middle-aged woman next to me said that she was sensitive to RF/EMF, and that on the roof of this building (right above us) were situated an array of wireless antennae. She then proceeded to pull out an EMF meter to show me the readings, which were very high. In fact, she told me that she would need to leave the meeting before its conclusion to avoid excessive EMF exposure, which she did after thirty or forty minutes. I had never knowingly had this level of exposure, and was feeling no particular symptoms, so I attended the remainder of the two-hour meeting. Within a day or so, I felt exhausted, and it took another 3-4 days to fully recover. Surprisingly to me at the time, I began to notice similar symptoms whenever I was again exposed to excessive RF/EMF radiation. Clinically, it was behaving in a way familiar to any practicing physician; namely, now that my system had sustained injury, the injured system was more susceptible to that same type of injury. What follows is an explanation of how this process occurs on a microscopic level, with both a link to full explanation, as well as sound byte-style quick summary: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/09/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx • Exposure to microwave EMFs, like cellphones, causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction due to damage done by free radicals from peroxynitrite that also cause single and double stranded breaks in your DNA Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from cellphones and Wi-Fi networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility Excessive calcium signaling produced by EMF exposures also has important roles in producing pathophysiological effects of EMFs including each of the effects listed above In summary, exposure to nearly ubiquitous RF/EMF radiation has nearly confined me to my own home, essentially imposing upon me excessive fatigue whenever I venture out to the community at large.

The second biggest mistake we can make when evaluating wireless radiation is assuming that because something doesn't heat us, it cannot affect us. The biggest is electrifying the entire biosphere based upon that assumption. Life is bioelectric before it is biochemical. Decades before 5G towers, orthopedic surgeon and researcher Dr. Robert O. Becker investigated the electrical properties of living tissue. His work on regeneration, injury currents, and direct-current electrical signaling challenged the notion that biology could be understood exclusively through the reductionist chemistry. In his 3 books, Becker warned about the consequences of introducing artificial electromagnetic environments without adequately understanding how living organisms respond to them. His central thesis deserves renewed attention especially as we further develop wireless technology. He argued that biological electrical signaling is not incidental. It participated in tissue repair, development, and physiological regulation. Yet modern wireless safety assessments remain heavily focused on thermal effects, leaving an incomplete framework for investigating a fundamentally electrical organism. Cell membranes maintain voltage gradients, neurons communicate through electrochemistry, mitochondria depend on proton gradients, and calcium signaling regulates a wide rage of processes from neurotransmission to gene expression. There is growing evidence that everyday wireless exposure disrupts these electrical systems, and the inconvenient concerns have been dismissed throughout our safety standards. Consider the National Toxicology Program's $30 million radiofrequency research program. Its 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. Some evidence was also reported for malignant brain gliomas. Although these exposures cannot be simply extrapolated to ordinary cellphone use, the assumption that preventing tissue heating settles the safety question is obviously flipped on its head with this. This is exactly why more research is required for the bioeffects of cellphone EMF on humans. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Scientists are evaluating a rapidly changing electromagnetic environment using incomplete long-term exposure data. Real-world exposure is not a single frequency delivered under an isolated laboratory environment. A child sleeping beside a wireless router, a technician working around transmitting equipment, and an adult occasionally using a cellphone do not share identical exposure profiles, and will not experience identical effects. HHS should prioritize independent investigations into chronic, cumulative, and developmentally sensitive exposures, including realistic 5G and Wi-Fi conditions. These studies should examine sleep physiology, nervous system function, reproductive outcomes, oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, and electrophysiological signaling, while carefully controlling temperature and other confounding variables. Absence of conclusive evidence is not a substitute for comprehensive investigation. Finally, technological convenience should not require universal, involuntary participation in an increasingly wireless environment. Families should have meaningful choices in this. Schools should be able to prioritize wired internet. Communities should have access to transparent exposure measurements. Consumers should receive understandable information about their devices. Federal research must be insulated from industry influence, with transparent funding, open data, independent replication, and meaningful public participation. We should prioritize reducing unnecessary exposure without having to prove that every transmitter causes disease. Becker's legacy was not that he answered all the questions surrounding the harmful effects of EMF exposure. It was that he recognized that we could not fully answer them yet in good faith. HHS now has a serious oppurtunity to answer those questions. Study biology as an integrated electrical, magnetic, optical, hydrated, chemical, and environmental system. Investigate plausible mechanisms without overstating or understating them. Protect the scientific independence, and give communities the ability to make informed decisions. Public health should not require people to surrender control over their electromagnetic environment simply because wireless infrastructure has become ubiquitous. The burden of responsible innovation is to demonstrate safety through transparent, independent, and continuously updated science; not merely to demonstrate connectivity.

Re: HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields and RF Radiation My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc. I hold a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow and Glasgow School of Art. I submit this comment as a medical visualisation specialist and an individual reporting severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). 1. Health Experiences and Functional Impairment My experience of ES has profoundly affected my ability to work, travel, obtain healthcare, maintain housing, and participate in society. I experience migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, nausea, burning sensations, and disrupted sleep that I associate with nearby wireless devices and infrastructure. I have invested in wired Ethernet, removal of wireless equipment, electrical mitigation, and RF shielding. These observations do not establish causation, but the functional limitations warrant clinical investigation. Scientific uncertainty should not justify dismissing patients or overlooking reasonable accommodations. 2. Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment Current RF limits focus on established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. Questions remain about chronic, modulated, and cumulative exposures. The National Toxicology Program (2018) reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. These results cannot be directly extrapolated to everyday human exposure but merit further study. HHS should independently review whether current standards adequately address long-term outcomes and susceptible populations. 3. Exposure Measurement and Surveillance Real-world exposure includes simultaneous sources such as cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and connected devices. Measurements should document frequency, power density, field strengths, modulation, duty cycle, duration, and cumulative exposure. HHS should develop protocols combining personal dosimetry, environmental measurements, clinical observations, and longitudinal data. A voluntary ES registry could support epidemiological studies. 4. Potentially Sensitive Populations Children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted devices, occupationally exposed workers, and individuals reporting ES warrant focused study. Clinical evaluations should be multidisciplinary and respectful, investigating alternative explanations without dismissing symptoms. 5. Biological Mechanisms and Scientific Evidence Human tissues are intrinsically bioelectrical. Membrane potentials, ion gradients, and endogenous electric fields are fundamental to cardiac and neurological activity, cellular communication, and homeostasis. This does not establish that environmental RF causes injury, but supports investigation of possible interactions. Research should examine membrane electrophysiology, ion channels, oxidative stress, autonomic regulation, blood-brain barrier integrity, and cellular homeostasis. Anatomically registered medical visualisation could help integrate exposure data with physiological measurements. 6. Federal Research Priorities HHS should coordinate NIH, NIEHS, FDA, and CDC to: 1. Fund independent, reproducible studies of biological effects, including exposures below current limits. 2. Standardise clinical assessment of reported ES. 3. Support prospective studies combining dosimetry, physiological measurements, symptoms, and appropriate controls. 4. Investigate chronic and mixed-source exposures. 5. Evaluate wired telecommunications and non-transmitting utility alternatives as accommodations. 6. Publish methods, findings, funding sources, and conflicts of interest. Conclusion Scientific uncertainty must not become institutional indifference. For affected individuals, these questions concern housing, employment, healthcare, and participation in society. HHS should pursue rigorous, independent research that distinguishes established findings from hypotheses while taking functional impairment seriously. The objective is neither to presume harm nor presume safety, but to develop evidence-informed public health policy. Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Colorado, USA Reference: National Toxicology Program (2018), Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at 900 MHz, NTP TR 595. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595

Comment for the HHS RFI (docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397): I am submitting this personal account in response to HHS’s request for information on potential health effects associated with electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless exposure.I experience the following symptoms that I attribute to exposure from wireless sources, infrastructure, and electric vehicles: Cramping in the hands and stomach Sharp pain in the body and muscles Nausea specifically when riding in an electric vehicle Persistent low energy, fatigue, and tiredness Brain fog Anxiety Low heart rate Dissociation Tinnitus These symptoms appear or intensify in environments with higher wireless activity (Wi-Fi, cellular signals, smart meters, 5G infrastructure) and during or after time spent in electric vehicles. Reducing time near these sources or using mitigation strategies sometimes lessens the intensity. I request that HHS carefully evaluate reports of this nature alongside the existing scientific literature. Many individuals describe similar non-specific symptoms that they link to RF/EMF exposure. While major health authorities currently state that controlled studies have not established a causal relationship between exposures below guideline limits and these symptoms, the symptoms themselves are real and can significantly affect daily functioning. Further high-quality research into individual susceptibility, long-term cumulative exposure, non-thermal mechanisms, and practical exposure-reduction measures would be valuable. Thank you for soliciting public input on this issue.

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. RFI on EMFs, RF radiation, and wireless exposure. U.S. radiofrequency limits need a comprehensive health review. That review should be run with the Department of Defense and the medical and scientific teams already investigating directed-energy bioeffects (DEBE), Havana syndrome, and anomalous health incidents (AHIs). It should cover non-ionizing RF, thermal and non-thermal, and it should not ignore ionizing radiation, which the public is also entitled to have explained in plain terms. Citizen health should not be traded for corporate convenience or an outdated heating-only rule. Russia set much lower public RF limits than the United States, and did so from chronic, non-thermal studies rather than from a six-minute heating test. The history of those standards is in Repacholi, Grigoriev, and colleagues, Bioelectromagnetics 2012. Soviet and Russian public power-density limits have long been on the order of 10 microwatts per square centimeter. The FCC public limit above 1.5 GHz is about 1,000 microwatts per square centimeter, roughly 100 times higher. I take that gap as evidence that RF is under-controlled here and is a credible contributor to neurological and chronic disease that has been explained away for years. HHS should test that claim. It should not leave it to the licensing agency. The mechanism file already exists inside the U.S. government. The National Academies (2020), An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, found directed, pulsed RF energy the most plausible mechanism for the acute, directional AHI cases. Dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, cognitive deficit, and memory loss were also consistent with known RF effects. A 2022 intelligence-community experts panel likewise found pulsed electromagnetic energy plausible. The 2023 assessment that a foreign weapon was unlikely is an attribution finding, not a finding that pulsed RF cannot injure tissue. Pakhomov and Murphy (2000), written for the Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, reviewed 114 Russian experimental studies and reported that pulsing, not average intensity, was treated as the dominant factor in low-intensity effects. Frey (Aerospace Medicine 1961; J Applied Physiology 1962) showed that pulsed microwaves produce a sound inside the head by thermoelastic expansion, a bioeffect set by the pulse, not by core heating. Cancer evidence below a meaningful thermal story: NTP TR-595 (2018), an HHS study, found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannoma and some evidence of malignant glioma in male rats exposed to 900 MHz GSM and CDMA. Falcioni et al., Environmental Research 2018 (Ramazzini), found the same heart tumor in male rats at far-field, base-station-like exposure near 0.1 W/kg, close to the FCC whole-body public limit of 0.08 W/kg. IARC Monograph 102 (2013) classifies RF as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic, on limited evidence for glioma and acoustic neuroma. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court held that keeping the 1996 limits was arbitrary and capricious because non-cancer evidence was not addressed. I want objective studies across major disease categories, not another thermal reassurance. Priority is Parkinsonian and Lewy-body syndromes: tremor, rigidity, autonomic failure, cognitive decline, and the overlap with AHI brain injury. Existing power-frequency meta-analyses do not show a clear Parkinson's association (Huss et al., Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015, summary RR about 1.05; Gunnarsson and Bodin, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, EMF RR about 1.02 for Parkinson's, higher for ALS and Alzheimer's). That is not a study of pulsed or modulated RF. Yakymenko et al., Electromagn Biol Med 2016, found oxidative stress in 93 of 100 low-intensity RF studies. Oxidative and mitochondrial injury is a shared pathway into nigral and Lewy-body disease and should be tested directly. Lai and Singh (Bioelectromagnetics 1995, 1996) reported DNA strand breaks in rat brain after low-intensity microwaves. Salford et al., Environ Health Perspect 2003, reported blood-brain barrier leakage and neuronal injury after GSM exposure at non-thermal SAR. Request: a joint HHS-DoD-AHI evidence review; a public table of U.S. versus Russian limits and the biology each used; NTP restarted on pulsed versus continuous wave at equal average SAR, at or below 0.08 W/kg; disease-category studies, led by Parkinsonian syndromes, neurodegenerative disease, cancer, cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive outcomes; a de-identified registry for acute neurological events tied to a measured RF source; and a plain-language correction of the claim that compliance with the FCC limit means no biological effect. Ionizing exposure should stay under its own regulators, but HHS should publish one map so the public can see thermal, non-thermal, non-ionizing, and ionizing evidence side by side.