Proposed biological mechanisms

I am submitting this comment as a patient with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) for docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. RF radiation is known to cause DNA strand breaks. We are all different in vulnerability. Some develop one disorder, others many: biochemical imbalances, leukemia, stroke, immune suppression, inflammation. This reflects individual differences in oxidative stress response and DNA repair capacity. All electric systems conduct and re-radiate wireless signals: modems, computers, TVs, power wiring, smart electricity and gas meters (169 MHz for gas). Conductive building materials increase indoor exposure: drywall is mounted on metal studs acting as antennas, and reinforced concrete with steel rebar reflects and traps RF inside homes, preventing recovery. EHS is not psychosomatic. It is recognized as a neurological pathology with objective biomarkers in the International Scientific Consensus: Belpomme D, Carlo GL, Irigaray P, et al. The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(14):7321. Supporting evidence from the EMP Victims European Appeal 2024-2025 bibliography (26 categories, >180 studies): - Zothansiama et al. 2017 Electromagn Biol Med - DNA damage and antioxidant status near base stations - Gulati et al. - genetic instability near towers - Dasdag & Akdag - 2100 MHz induced oxidative stress - Pei et al. 2024 - immune depression in mice - Hardell & Carlberg 2013 Pathophysiology - dose-response glioma - Foerster et al. 2018 Environ Health Perspect - memory effects in adolescents - BioInitiative Working Group 2012 - biologically-based limits In Europe, EHS is described as a humanitarian emergency. People lose housing, healthcare, work, and social inclusion. In Italy, smart gas and electricity meters are mandatory (ARERA), property of the distributor, and cannot be refused, even with medical certificate. Patients can only request relocation outside and deactivation of radio module. I urge HHS to: 1. Compare US FCC thermal-only limits (1996) with precautionary EU limits and evaluate non-thermal effects, DNA damage, oxidative stress 2. Fund independent research on biomarkers and imaging for EHS 3. Recognize right to white zones in every region, housing in non-conductive materials (stone, solid wood), wired infrastructure, and right to remove or deactivate smart meters and to have manual reading for health reasons 4. Issue moratorium on new antennas and 5G densification near homes and schools, including high-power TV transmitters >20km and radar, until limits are revised 5. Protect vulnerable populations with practical low-exposure guidance Thank you for giving patients a voice.

RFEMF is a broad spectrum toxicant with an astounding array of scientifically proven biological and physiological effects on all life forms. Biologically based standards must be developed ASAP (as opposed to thermal standards currently in use that are irrelevant to health). Inaction at this point, given the tens of thousands of research papers demonstrating the effects, would be highly negligent on the part of our government. Please see my affidavit below and associated research papers. Sharon Goldberg, MD Editorial Board Member, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Associate Professor, Medicine Community Faculty, UNM School of Medicine Course Director EMF MEdical Conference 2021

To whom this may concern, When considering the impact of EMF not only on the environment but on human physiology with regard to known cases of wifi sensitivity, I would first consider if said frequencies have an impact during human growth and development on the human brain in vivo or on the foetus. This information garnered with the least invasive method would probably be found in areas with high EMF saturation in comparison to low saturation as well other places where there is a higher population density with lower emissions standards on communication devices(e.g. India, developing nations). Also, a cross reference of brain scans and other data collected on bodily function pre-dating the introduction of certain EMF (e.g. 1920's to 1970's 1970's to pre-2000) and handheld technologies (cell phones, cellphone based applications) with a note to the size or shape of the Amygdala, Pre-frontal cortex, and Visual cortex if suspected frequencies/technologies may have impacted human behavior or memory not withholding the solar maximum and lunar cycle as variables due to possible synergism. Newer technologies capable of mapping the current level of saturation and providing heatmaps to attest to if said EMF radiation's propagation have or would ever pose a detriment to life beyond a certain threshhold; specifically, cellsites and surrounding areas with special consideration to the experimental EMF auctioned off during the Coronavirus by the FCC. Moving forward understanding if and when the threshhold of saturation would reach a danger to human or other life on Earth would seem to me to be immediate issue. A proposed idea is a device somewhat like a giegercounter/wifi analyzer connected to a drone with a program possibly pythonic capable of mapping time, date, altitude, geolocation, and EMF levels. These surveys then Federally mandated as requirements to Telephone Service and Internet Service providers similar to carbon emission standards in the Automotive industry. This may be a non-sequitur seeing as the current and projected electro-magnetic frequency spectrum saturation on our planet could be deemed non-hazardous at any level but so Science goes as they say. To a brighter future, Aaron X.

Society S33, a non-profit association from Slovenia, submits the attached comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Summary: exposure standards and studies describe the source (power, frequency, distance, duration) but not two factors that, according to our measurements, determine the effect on the human biological system: the location at which the device and the person are situated, and the shape of the device, the building and the objects around them, including power line pylons. Two uncontrolled variables of this kind would explain why studies in this field do not replicate. We recommend that location and shape be recorded as controlled variables in future research, and we offer to take part in a blinded trial whose design is a matter of agreement. The full comment is attached as a PDF. Boštjan Rode, President, Society S33 info@drustvo-s33.org

This FIRST PART of my submission contributes to the HHS document, "Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure: portion stating "identify research gaps and priority areas for future study," I have identified a mechanism of adaptation to RF exposure in living organisms which are genetically capable of making cholesterol inside their bodies (mammals, birds, and?) that I would describe as a "priority area for future study": HYPOTHESIS: Our bodies deposit extra cholesterol into our cell membranes to make them stiffer and more resistant to RF penetration. This works until cell membrane permeability is sufficiently impeded that nutrients cannot get into cells and wastes cannot get out of cells. At that point, the organism, i.e. person, "gets sick" with miserable symptoms, causes of which show on no medical diagnostic test. The syndrome is then pronounced "psychosomatic", psychoactive drugs are prescribed that only make the situation worse, the victim is abandoned, until death. METHODS: One way "science" could investigate this would be to biopsy skin of people with differing cumulative and ongoing RF exposures to compare differences in cellular cholesterol content between those with lowest exposure to those with highest exposures. The biggest problem I see with this, is finding people like me with low cumulative exposures. TREATMENT: As for reduction in cell membrane cholesterol content over time, the frequency 2770 Hz (using a positive offset square wave) appears to dissolve cholesterol. Soy bean lecithin in soy bean oil also dissolves cholesterol well; sunflower lecithin in sunflower oil seems to have a lesser effect. Dissolution OF cholesterol must be performed slowly because pathogens and toxins are likely to contaminate the cholesterol. Of course, if RF exposure remains high, the body will redeposit cholesterol into cell membranes as continuing defense. Duh. Of course, even if "science" would confirm this hypothesis, Big Telecom and the military would either ignore it, censor it, debunk it by pretending to duplicate it to deliberately fail from bad study design, or by discarding relevant data. LIMITATIONS: I do not think this phenomenon protects from electrical fields of sufficient intensity that overpower the electrical signals normally operative within a functioning organism. I do not think it protects from magnetic fields generated by flowing electrical current, particularly since our blood and tissues are filled with magnetizable iron and various paramagnetic minerals. It probably protects slightly from ionizing radiation, although retention of environmental lead surely protects more, until other well established systemic deleterious effects of lead neutralize the radioprotective effect. I developed this simple hypothesis using energy testing, largely rejected by modern "science", using a resonance testing method that previously eliminated all my allergies except one. It allows me to remove pathogens and toxic molecules, enabling me to do self care to the extent that I have rejected Medicare part B and D. Unfortunately, our modern system of progressing from ignorance to hypothesis to acceptance, demands many expensive double blind, case controlled studies of large groups of possibly affected individuals. Regrettably, this type of research is the only thing that might power change. Even then, human nature, especially of those with power, resists change, and at least one generation must pass before new ideas are possibly accepted. I believe the USA and other first world countries do not have that much time. As to "identify research gaps": RF effects on voltage gated calcium channels have already been researched by the work of Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Washington State University and his predecessors. It is my understanding that this is considered "controversial". What else is new? Whether further research would change this is debatable. The entire wireless industry will continue to be responsible for publishing fake research debunking anything that shows RF and other electromagnetic fields to be anything other than perfectly safe. I have encountered two instances where removing LED lighting alleviated an individual's Parkinson's symptoms. This should be investigated. The SECOND PART of my submission, PERSONAL EFFECTS, is attached because this space is too small.

What is the true intent behind this inquiry? Is the goal simply to find out whether—and in what way—one’s own creditors have already perceived this technology as a threat, or is it merely to be able to claim afterward that one has always taken this issue seriously? No (military) technology has been researched more extensively over the past hundred years than this one. None has ever been deployed so successfully or decided the outcome of wars. None can be concealed so effectively (as a false flag) and, moreover, offers such a wide range of diverse (invisible) mechanisms of action that extend far beyond the potential biological risks to humans. Judging by the countless patents and based solely on the existing research and medical information that has been released to the public so far, EMF technology is and remains, without a doubt, the jack-of-all-trades for those who strive for power and control. Have we already forgotten Chernobyl and the Duga, for example? Or that, diagnostically speaking, flu symptoms are virtually indistinguishable from the symptoms of EMF exposure? Dead exosomes are merely the result of cellular damage and cannot possibly be the root cause or even evidence of anything, not even if you put a "crown" on it. So, do we all get an infection every year, or are we simply being exposed to a little more EM-radiation? Maybe we should start by addressing that? What about indirect factors (caused by EMFs); factors that, for example, negatively impact our living conditions and thereby harm humans? People are wondering why landscapes are either drying up or being flooded? Or why a global temperature change—which is minuscule when viewed in the context of Earth’s overall evolution—should directly cause the entire weather system to go haywire; in a natural system that strives for balance, where “differences” are immediately counterbalanced? How could such extremes even develop naturally? Or why do clouds suddenly start to visibly display “Doppler signatures” everywhere? Where else could these come from, if not from the thousands upon thousands of Doppler systems that are supposedly essential for weather forecasting—systems that, unfortunately, haven’t improved one millimeter despite quadrillions in investments over the past 50 years? Why is there a patent for “hurricanes caused by EMFs” if no one would ever use it? Why, in fact, are there no known hurricanes from the time before EMFs? And weren’t chemtrails even developed specifically to compensate for evaporation effects caused by increased atmospheric energy density—because otherwise it probably wouldn’t rain at all in some places anymore? This brings us to the next point. The effects of exposure to electromagnetic frequencies depend on far more than just power output; the problem is that there are no limit values at all for the other criteria. No one takes biological frequency ranges (such as those of the brain) into account, and this really raises the question: Why—on purpose?! ... A 70-hertz wave, for example, can cause disorientation, since the brain uses precisely this frequency range to coordinate perception. This is primarily due to the fact that the ELF frequencies used by the military are also pulsed, at approximately 7–8 hertz ! Just kidding? No! ...but who do we tell that to... And what are those who are actually responsible for protection doing? The »terribly independent« Commission (of the ICNIRP) consistently denies and ignores any form of athermal symptoms associated with radiation exposure. Its recommended exposure limits are set so high that we’re just barely avoiding getting burned (like a rotisserie chicken)! The failure to account for non-thermal symptoms creates a legal vacuum for all kinds of harm caused by EMFs before or without burns even occurring! Why? Furthermore, the extremely high power peaks in pulsed signals are not taken into account in any limit values; instead, the argument is based on the average power of continuous-wave signals. Why? 99% of the output power of EMF signals is absorbed as heat. ...and the world wonders why temperatures are rising. Spot the mistake. We could go on like this for hours, but that’s not necessary to understand the pattern behind it. In any case, this inquiry should be expanded to include the far more compelling question: Who will be held liable for the unimaginable consequences resulting from the use and (government) abuse of this technology?! The truth will always prevail, and when it does, the time will come for those who will be held accountable. Amen. Your Creditors

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397, responding to Questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18. Perspective (Q2): I am submitting as an individual, a citizen journalist with 16 years of independent investigative work, the last 10 on electromagnetic radiation and health. I am the author of The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs, host of the Smarter Tech podcast and director of the documentary Body Burden, and I have interviewed more than 100 scientists, physicians and engineers in this field. My comment focuses on research gaps (Q16). My perspective is that our RF safety standards rest on the wrong assumption, that only tissue heating matters, and that this assumption keeps the gaps open: it created a culture of "no effect" from the public to regulators to researchers, and the topic was systematically defunded. The research is completely inadequate to protect the public, while the technology rolls out faster than our ability to study it. The attached document gives the evidence and full references for each gap below. 1. Combined exposures and the exposome (Q16, Q18, Q5o). Almost all RF research tests one exposure at a time, while people live with RF alongside metals, pesticides and mold. Dr. Ronald Kostoff's work documents how other agents modify EMF effects. Exposome studies should include wireless exposure (ambient RF, home Wi-Fi, smartphone use and position) as a standard variable. 2. Real-world exposure measurement (Q7, Q8, Q5n). The U.S. has no national program measuring actual RF exposure in homes, schools and hospitals, no routine post-market SAR testing of devices in body-contact positions (GAO-12-771), and the FCC has said it lacks the resources to routinely monitor transmitter emissions. 3. Sleep (Q12, Q16). Pulse-modulated RF alters the sleep EEG below current limits. Sleep clinics, which produce our reference data on sleep, are full of Wi-Fi, wireless equipment and phones, so the baseline is polluted. Sleep studies should run with and without wireless, with RF recorded; children sleeping beside phones and routers need study. 4. The microbiome (Q16). A 2024 study found a 5G-band RF field altered the gut microbiome and 258 metabolites in mice. People keep phones, laptops and tablets very close to the abdomen for hours on end, yet human studies do not exist. 5. Antibiotic resistance, tested in hospitals (Q16). Laboratory studies report that Wi-Fi and phone radiation change bacterial antibiotic susceptibility, biofilm formation and gene expression. Hospitals combine resistant pathogens with dense wireless, and no one has studied that setting. This is urgent. 6. Pregnancy (Q11b). Dr. Hugh Taylor's Yale research found in-utero cell phone exposure caused hyperactivity and memory impairment in mice. Prospective birth cohorts with measured exposure are needed. 7. Fertility and phones in pockets (Q5p, Q9, Q11). Frequent phone use is associated with lower sperm concentration. Carrying position cannot be settled because nearly every young man carries a phone against his body. Female fertility is barely studied. 8. Cancers where phones are now carried (Q12, Q11a). If RF is a possible carcinogen at the head (IARC Group 2B), the concern does not stop at the head. Dr. De-Kun Li and Dr. Devra Davis have raised phones in pockets and bras as worth investigating alongside rising early-onset colorectal, testicular and breast cancers. No study has examined carrying position. 9. Devices in the ear and on the head (Q13f, Q11). AirPods and other Bluetooth earbuds, Bluetooth hearing aids, smart glasses and VR headsets place transmitters near the brain for hours a day. Their effects on tinnitus, enlarged lymph nodes, hearing loss, cognition and head and neck cancers are unstudied. Hearing experts should test whether loud sound does more damage when an RF transmitter, a source of oxidative stress, sits in the same ear. 10. Towers near schools, hospitals and sensitive populations (Q15a, Q15b, Q11). Studies in several countries report symptoms, DNA damage and cognitive effects near base stations. They need replication in the U.S. with measured exposure. Chile bars towers near schools and hospitals; Switzerland applies limits ten times stricter at sensitive places. 11. Pollinators and insects (Q14). To my knowledge no RF exposure standard considers wildlife. Insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, where 5G and 6G are heading, and field research on pollinators is almost absent. These answers will not come quickly, even with a massive research effort. Hundreds of scientists (the International EMF Scientist Appeal, the 5G Appeal) have asked governments to apply the precautionary principle: minimize exposure now and give the public informed consent. Instead, governments have a financial incentive to speed up wireless deployment. Further development of 6G, the Internet of Things and satellites needs guardrails in place first. Thank you for opening this question to the public. Nicolas Pineault, The EMF Guy

I currently life in a residence in line of sitecto 4g, 5g and medical emergency antwnna arrays atop the Kerchikan medical center. It was lowered there a few years ago by military type helicopter. another high telecommunications tower looms across the hoadley creek and on a prominence. My duplex also comes with 2 smart meters and besides wired ethernet thecother rwntal chooses mesh wifi around the clock. we also use copper landline, as it is sluced into the kpu fiber optic unit on the outside. I have informed kpu by mail of my health concern for there forcing a 5g tower upon the neighborhood. please perform a full review of detrimental non native electrical environment that compromises mitochondrial health on a quantum rather than chemical level. research is coming out that implicates cell towers wifis and smart meters with impaired circadian compliance. thank you

My comments to potential adverse health and environmental effects of RF radiation I live in Sweden and am posting this comment because I suffer from the disability known as electrohypersensitivity (EHS), which is well documented in the form of medical certificates, confirmed in a double-blind scientific test in Germany and, not least, through the constant ‘blind tests’ that occur in everyday life. My reactions to a wireless wifi router have been documented in a scientific double-blind stress test in which heart rhythm (HRV) was clearly disrupted at a level as low as one millionth (0.000001) of the Swedish limit value of 10,000,000 μW/m² established by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Many of my friends here in Sweden, like me, feel very unwell and are struggling to escape the radiation from wireless technology. In 2015, the general public in Sweden were asked by the Public Health Agency of Sweden (Folkhälsomyndigheten) whether various environmental factors affect health. 5.2 per cent of respondents said that they were bothered by car exhaust fumes more than once a week. In large cities, 10–12.2 per cent reported being very or extremely disturbed by traffic noise. Questions about “electromagnetic fields from, for example, mobile phones and antennas” and “electromagnetic fields from, for example, electrical appliances and power lines” had also been asked. 4 However, the results were not published in the same way as those for noise and car exhaust fumes. Following a request, the results were provided to the Swedish Association for the Electrohypersensitive. 35.2 per cent of respondents said that their health is negatively affected and 10.6 per cent said that their health is significantly affected by mobile phones and masts. Overall, 45.8 per cent reported a negative or significantly negative impact.5 This shows that the problem of ill health caused by radiation from wireless technology needs to be taken seriously and is considerably greater than many other serious environment-related health problems. I am also deeply concerned about the growing number of research reports finding that the artificial radio waves used for wireless communication – which are extremely much stronger than natural background radiation – harm plants, insects and other animals. This fact in itself poses a serious threat to human survival on this wonderful planet. Is radiation from wireless technology harmful? I believe the question is misguided and should instead be phrased as follows: How is it possible that humans and other forms of biological life could tolerate these environmentally alien radio waves, which have never before existed in the course of evolution? After all, a prerequisite for the life and health of biological beings is that we function and communicate internally using electric fields that are so incredibly much weaker than those from wireless communication. Brain waves can be measured externally using an EEG. Naturally, the electromagnetic fields from wireless technology also penetrate the body, interfere with our own signals and cause disruption. Thank you for your initiative in looking more closely at this issue; it gives me a glimmer of hope in the darkness! Ann Rosenqvist Attachments My Very Restricted Life as Someone Sensitive to Wireless Technology My symptoms related to electromagnetic fields and radio waves Scientific Testing for Wireless Wi-Fi in Germany Long-term EMF studies on humans Do the EMF exposure limits work? Here is the European public’s verdict Research into how EMFs affect insects

I have already submitted my comment . Need to add the following Url for the microwave auditory effect . This is valid science and if the cell towers have emitters speed > 2.4 Ghz and SAR ( specific absorption rate > 1.6 kW/kg A person who is exposed with such an emission condition that is this high speed WIFI signal may experience auditory effect. Targeted Individual or Havana effect people who experience such violations should look into this matter as well. ( Just blaming the weapon systems won't work ) They may be ignoring the obvious cell towers with high speed energy range as another cause for their syndrome. Here is the science for Microwave auditory effect https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/979546 The science paper is 1961 discovery conducted with low speed emission and clicks as control experiment setup used in 1961. We are now in 2027 with very high frequency used with the 5G network speed upto 75 Ghz. We are using more than 2.4Ghz speed for our consumption which is way above the threshold mentioned in the scientific experiment !The exposure for satellite launchers, ground satellites, high speed IOTS are all causing health issues and V2k Syndrome as well. Please look into this