Proposed biological mechanisms

Victoria Marshall Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket #.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397; Federal Register Notice: 91 FR 59792 (Sept. 21, 2026) Dear Ms. Marshall and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health: This is an abridged version. The full version is attached as a PDF. I worked in satellite communications in the late 1980s. The field was new; we transmitted live sports via audio then video within 18 months. The company grew from ~23–24 to ~350 employees in five years. I worked under the executive VP overseeing engineering. Safety was taken seriously—rigid line and transmission equipment were tested and kept within then-applicable exposure margins. Despite this, I was chronically ill the entire time. I have had multiple RF, wireless, and magnetic exposures (satellite RF, extreme magnetic fields exceeding accepted standards, ordinary/not ordinary wireless). I may be more sensitive than average. One can literally feel the low-level “noise” of these emanations as continuous low-level stress on the body, separate from any bio-field or optogenetic-type effects. RF/wireless/magnetic safety limits have not been meaningfully updated in ~30–40 years. FCC limits adopted in August 1996 (based on ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 and NCRP) remain essentially unchanged (reaffirmed 2019). They rest on a ~4 W/kg whole-body SAR threshold linked to roughly a 1 °C core temperature rise, with large safety factors yielding a public limit of 0.08 W/kg. The safety exposure levels for RF, wireless, microwave radiation have not been meaningfully updated in roughly 40 years. The current U.S. FCC limits were adopted in August 1996, based on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard and NCRP recommendations which was studied in the 80’s which govern the frequency range from 3 kHz – 300 GHz. Those numerical limits (and their thermal-only basis) have remained essentially unchanged; the FCC reviewed and explicitly reaffirmed them in 2019. The foundational threshold is approximately 4 W/kg whole-body average SAR, associated with roughly a 1 °C rise in core body temperature (and with the behavioral disruption seen in earlier animal studies that was attributed to heating). Large safety factors are then applied—reducing the occupational limit to 0.4 W/kg and the general-public limit to 0.08 W/kg. Military development and fielding of RF/microwave directed-energy systems as non-kinetic tools is itself proof that governments know these fields can produce physical effects. They would not have researched and deployed such systems if they believed the fields were inert. The same applies to medical and commercial remote-sensing tools. For 30 years, medical, military, and commercial sectors have been using and further developing methods to sense and influence the body via RF, wireless, magnetic, and related pathways. IEEE 802.15.1–.6 (including Body Area Network standards) define networks in which the human body itself functions as a node and essential backbone. Without living bodies as nodes, the systems do not function as designed. This has occurred under SMART/IoT/IoB, and many other Io'X' labels without clear public disclosure that the architecture depends on human bodies. Absence of consent is criminal. I have found no clear independent studies showing that continuous use of the body as a communications node does not affect cellular energy, molecular/photonic processes, or long-term health. Robert O. Becker, M.D. (Army Medical Corps, VA orthopedics, The Body Electric), documented the body’s intrinsic DC electrical system (currents of injury, perineural control, piezoelectric bone) and its sensitivity to external fields well below thermal levels. The body is an electrical organism. Are there rigorous studies showing that treating it as a network node does not disrupt those systems? Every person in range of expanding sensor/wireless infrastructure should be informed of the body’s role as a network node and given a practical ability to opt out of remote/wireless/magnetic access or use of their body as a network element by any party when no onboard or near-body device is present and no consent has been given. This inquiry is decades overdue. If Making America Healthy Again is to be taken seriously, RF, magnetic, wireless, and related exposures—including use of the body itself as network infrastructure—must be examined alongside diet and traditional medicine. Best Regards,

Greetings! Concerning question 18: 1) A better measurement for rf-EMF is necessary, since SAR lumps together situations with extremely different potential for biological effects: SAR measures simply the absorbed energy over 6 minutes in standard cubicles of different sizes. It ignores peaks and modulations of the signal. The problem with that is that modulations might lead to resonance-like effects in biological molecules like Proteins (ion channels, enzymes,) even DNA. The peak intensities in suitable modulation and orientation in space might be responsible for „throwing the switch“ in those molecules, leading to ion influx and disturbed signalling in cells, or impaired mitochondrial funcion. Effects on voltage gated ion channels or the respiratory chain could explain the symptoms of people with EHS to a great extent. Panagopoulos states that in studies with real mobile telephony-exposure, over 95% of the studies find biological effects even below current limits where as continuous-wave exposure with the same SAR, and even „simulated exposure“ with highly repetetive modulation yield ambiguous results. He states that the polarisation and the variability and the modulation in the ELF/VLF-range are responsible for the biological effects, not the SAR. (as stated in the european parliament-workshop). Panagopoulos tested the hypothesis in Drosophila oogenesis and did find different results in different exposure settings with similar SAR. It is deeply concerning that public agencies like the BfS are caught in the circulatory reasoning that due to difficulties with dosimetry in real-mobile-telephony-settings, those studies are excluded for methodological flaws. Therefore, only studies with a small likelyhood of biological effects are considered, which acts as confirmation that there is no danger at all at this SAR. Therefore, no further exploratory research seems necessary.. 2) When testing for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) in provocation studies, it is crucial to take into account: In almost all EHS people, reliable symptom onset is delayed, sometimes by hours, and more so in high-adrenaline-situations like a provocation study. Likewise, symptom-offset is extremely delayed, often by a day or longer. This makes provocation studies hard to do: Required would be: max 1 test per day, without need to travel through traffic or public spaces or places with higher EMF, a daylong reporting-window, and several days of recovery are needed, as well as using real signals as described above. Some backup for my requests: The inadequacy of SAR can be seen when comparing exposure with the same SAR but different signal charactersistics as seen here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.03.003 (bigger numbers would be nice, but funding seems to be hard to come by). A very good source of information is this workshop of the European Parliament (4 hours): (english starts after a few seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Kn7pGy3CI Both Panagopoulos (talking about the above points) and Yael Stein provide important insights, if you have only limited time to skim. Yael Stein is a md and proposes different stages of sensitivity - the early stages are characterized by late onset of symptoms and light symptoms overall, the later stages of late offset of symptoms even hours after the exposure has ended, and the symptoms are severe. __ That effects can occur even theoretically can be seen in this preliminary model: (autoimmune d) - this also points to a lack of funding for testing the effects of shielding during sleep on autoimmune disease in a double blind study. This does not take away from the simulation of the vit D-receptor and the result that at least in theory, mobile phone radiation might lead to functional vit D deficiency in humans in general, with very small SAR values. Models like this for the voltage gated ion channels (sodium an calcium might be of highest interest) could be very useful, but so far we don’t have a complete model of those channels (according to the German Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz/FCC-equivalent). Some personal motivation: I know several people who are extremely sensitive to Wifi and mobile phones in use and phone masts, which has led me to look into possible reasons for their reactions (headaches, brainfog, fatigue, clenched muscles, altered circulation in the face - red and white spots). From my experience with them, I can rule out nocebo, since in a place where we had measured extremely low fields, they both had symptoms without expecting them (when they insisted, we measured again and found a switched-off IPAD with strong intermittent signals for location when lost, which had been brought in after the first measurement). I'm afraid the technology also hurts nature and the normal population.(see athem3, bee-fi). Thank you for your consideration. People with EHS suffer greatly and unnecessarily, and might be the canary in the coal mine for the rest.

I have been intolerant to pulsed radio frequencies since 2004. I get lancing pain through my brain on exposure to certain phones (certain frequencies), burning pain in the soles of my feet. I have had a microneurography test done which shows altered amplitude on a Rasta chart on exposure to mobile phones. Microneurographer says it is likely to be through the Somato sensory pathway. This would be in accordance to my research and other ion channel tests done showing hyperexcitability in ion channel variants. No allowance for people with peripheral nerve sensitivity. ICNIRP acknowledge these are from extremely low frequencies. Public Health England acknowledge 2.08hertz and 8.34 hz from mobiles 10 hz from WIFI. This can be demodulated from the signal via a non-linear system. As per attached you see that the cell membrane is calculated as linear when in fact it should be non-linear which is one mistake. Another is the staircasing error. Instantaneous peaks are then smoothed out by computer algorithms but they are not like this in real life which all lead to a false picture on what is really going on with the nerve system as in real life the nerves will spike. Acoustic blasts will also be experienced as thernoelastic bursts but these also are averaged out per 6 minute intervals. Again not a real life scenario. As an EHS sufferer I experience vasodilation all the blood goes to my feet away from my heart and brain on exposure which has been witnessed at the hospital. I get brain fog where it's like I am drunk - thinking overload of glutamate or ammonia. My memory is like it is completely wiped near a mobile or router. I have extensive research and written a thesis on the matter when I am not in an emf area I can function but I cannot function around WIFI or mobile phones. It has taken away the best years of my life.

I am submitting this account as a mother, patient, and caregiver whose entire family experienced years of serious illness while living in a home subsequently found to have an open neutral on the electrical utility’s primary distribution system underneath our home. After leaving that home, my daughter RH, now 19, then lost 5 years of substantive education, friendships, social development, and independence due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which is a sensitivity to everyday wireless signaling. I, too, continue to experience this sensitivity. RH and I have debilitating physical reactions with continued exposure to wireless signaling, including skin burns, blistering, rashes, boils, hidradenitis suppurativa, swelling, migraines, neuropathic pain, muscle tightness, dizziness, cognitive impairment, memory and processing difficulties, brain fog, exhaustion, and systemic inflammatory symptoms. For RH, attempts to return to school and ordinary activities after her year of medical leave were ineffective because of wireless signaling throughout the community. Our family moved into our Chapel Hill, NC, home in 2015. Over the following years, we developed serious neurological, cognitive, dermatological, and systemic illnesses. RH suffered profound cognitive deterioration, with neuropsychological scores in the first percentile; I developed cognitive impairment and small fiber neuropathy. After a year of our begging in 2020, Duke Energy discovered their corroded line improperly buried beneath our property. Magnetic field measurements exceeded 100 milligauss, beyond our meters’ range, and we experienced electrical shocks from metal surfaces. Unlike the electrical failure, which could be identified and escaped, wireless environments are virtually impossible to avoid. It is persistent sensitivity after moving from the home, not the history of our electrical exposure, that I am asking HHS to prioritize investigating. Without EHS, RH could have returned to life. Instead, she required medical leave, homebound education, and extensive accommodations under Section 504. Friends’ electronic devices and wireless networks became barriers to participation. She lost not only classroom instruction but 5 years of the friendships, independence, belonging, and ordinary experiences through which children become adults. Her medical history includes subsequent traumatic brain injuries, significant physical illness, and severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her PTSD developed amid years of debilitating symptoms, inadequate medical understanding, and exclusion from ordinary life. Her PTSD is not, in our understanding, the explanation for her electromagnetic sensitivity; it is among the consequences of prolonged illness, uncertainty, and isolation. Her reactions to wireless signaling, the repeated disruption of her recovery, and the possible contributions of those experiences to her neurological and developmental trajectory need to be investigated. My own professional life has been profoundly altered. I loved my corporate career, but working in an office surrounded by wireless networks and electronic devices is incompatible with the symptoms I experience there. Our family is not alone. We have dear friends in two other families who also suffer EHS. Unlike our family, neither has a known electrical exposure. Yet they, too, experience debilitating symptoms associated with everyday wireless signaling. Physicians lacked validated diagnostic tools, treatment protocols, and clinical guidance. We sought treatment for individual conditions, yet no medical specialty could offer an effective strategy for the recurring illness we experienced in wireless environments. Again and again, doctors told us, “There just isn’t the data.” My response has always been the same: “We are the data! Why are we being dismissed rather than researched?” Our medical records, neurological evaluations, dermatological diagnoses, hospitalizations, educational accommodations, and years of documented attempts to recover constitute a substantial clinical history worthy of investigation. We need research directed toward treatment: whether wireless radiofrequency exposure can produce measurable inflammatory, oxidative, neurological, or cellular changes in susceptible individuals; whether repeated episodes are associated with cumulative biological injury; and what interventions might prevent, reduce, or reverse those effects if demonstrated. Research should investigate objective biomarkers, possible differences between people with and without unusual electrical exposure histories, and safe, effective therapies. Avoidance is not sustainable when the places to avoid include schools, hospitals, workplaces, and nearly everywhere people gather. I ask HHS to investigate the mechanisms and treatment of EHS so that other children and families do not spend years searching for answers while their health, education, relationships, and ordinary lives slip away.

This has got to STOP!!!2026 A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women Chronic paternal Wi-Fi RF-EMR exposure impairs placental efficiency and fetal growth: Association with sex-dependent histone modification patterns in mice Impact of ELF EMF exposure on sleep quality and mental health in a Tunisian power plant: a cross-sectional study Prenatal 3.5 GHz radiofrequency exposure induces renal histological changes and DNA damage in 6-month-old rats Testicular heat-shock protein expression in rats following 3.5 GHz and 24 GHz RF-EMF exposure Radiofrequency fields at 2.45 GHz reprogram mitochondria–lysosome crosstalk and modulate the survival/death of macrophages exposed to LPS and/or the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Environmental and auto-induced RF-EMF adult and children far-field exposure simulations between 450 MHz and 26 GHz Interpretation of epidemiological studies on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer Disruptive effects of brief radiofrequency noise exposure on migratory bat navigation The Effect of 2.45 GHz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Components of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis in Male Rats

See attached file(s) Katie Webb, QuantaX Technology HHS-OASH-2026-0397 HHS must act now to reduce unnecessary wireless radiation exposure and protect biological fidelity: the precision with which living systems develop, regulate energy and information, repair damage, and recover. I support and present John Coates's complete comment, included in the attached PDF with my position statement and our illustrated plausible pathways. Low-fidelity biology is the upstream vulnerability HHS must investigate and prevent. Mistimed calcium signals, mitochondrial and redox mismatch, impaired repair, and persistent compensation can reduce the reserve needed for healthy development and later challenges. The S4–Mito–Spin framework connects these processes through specific molecular targets and measurable functions. A standard based on average absorbed energy cannot, by that number alone, characterize biological timing, recovery, or developmental susceptibility. The cancer evidence demands action. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute reported malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. The WHO-commissioned animal review rated evidence for increased glioma and heart schwannoma as high certainty. Melnick and Moskowitz (2026), applying EPA risk-assessment methods, calculated that the public whole-body limit is 15–900 times above modeled exposure levels for one additional cancer per 100,000 people, depending on daily exposure duration, and 8–24 times above their male-reproductive protection estimates. HHS and EPA must derive health-based limits and reduce avoidable exposure while completing that assessment. Put the Yale developmental findings at the center. Aldad and colleagues found hyperactivity, impaired memory, and altered prefrontal-cortex synaptic transmission in mice exposed prenatally to cellular-phone radiation. Yale's senior author described the experiment as showing that prenatal cell-phone exposure caused ADHD-like behavioral problems in mice. Cakir and colleagues subsequently identified delayed radial-glial differentiation and BET-mediated developmental effects in human cortical organoids. A developing child gets one chance at each developmental window. HHS must respond with prenatal protection and a funded developmental research program. Test the full pathway. Measure the S4/channel and CYB5B interfaces, calcium timing, mitochondrial reserve, spin-sensitive chemistry, chromatin responses, and later function together. Kim and colleagues' CYB5B gene-switch study identifies a molecular route from a defined field to rhythmic calcium-dependent gene regulation. The CACNA1C sleep study identifies genotype-dependent response. Use sham, carrier-only, and pulsed exposures at matched SAR with temperature control, then apply molecular blocking, rescue, and timed replay to establish the sequence. Protect future generations now. RF experiments already warrant offspring follow-up: Yan and colleagues reported sex-specific offspring growth and metabolic changes after paternal RF exposure. Separate diet and toxicant experiments demonstrate molecular transmission through sperm RNA and persistence of environmental effects across generations. HHS must directly test RF-associated germline transmission, following maternal gestational lines through F3 and paternal preconception lines through F2, with unexposed descendants and molecular mediation tests. Also measure repeated direct exposure across successive pregnancies. Continued exposure and inherited effects are distinct routes that both require investigation and prevention. My requests are concrete: 1. Publish a federal quantitative RF risk assessment using current cancer and reproductive evidence and established EPA methods. 2. Restore sustained NTP research, independent replication, prospective pregnancy cohorts, and multigenerational studies linked to early fidelity measurements. 3. Reduce unnecessary exposure in pregnancy, childcare, schools, healthcare, and sleeping environments. Fund practical wired and optical alternatives. 4. Require realistic body-contact testing and disclosure of test distance, dose averaging, active radios, and waveform conditions. 5. Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. Ask Congress to place RF health-protection standards under HHS/EPA and repeal Section 704's health-based siting restriction. 6. Advance the Clean Ether Act through interoperable optical networks, wired-first procurement, independently evaluated pilots, and measured reductions in unnecessary transmissions. Publish a ninety-day work plan, a one-year assessment and research program, named responsible officials, and annual results. The accompanying 5,000-word statement, pathway images, and John Coates's complete comment provide the evidence and implementation requests. Protect biological fidelity before the developmental window closes. Katie Webb QuantaX Technology

As a qualified scientist that has done a lot of research in this area, it is crucial that head and body resonance is legitimately used in the determination of the safety standards. The fact that it is not, and that this goes against the obvious science, is very questionable, and I'd say in even stronger terms that it's actually very suspicious. Some research from Grok 4.7 Extra High references this obvious science: "Head size sets the radiofrequency dose. Standards and most of the research behind them use one adult size. That misses what decides how much energy is absorbed, and where in the brain it lands. The head works as an antenna. Size sets the frequency it absorbs most strongly, and which parts of the brain receive that energy. Head size changes greatly from infancy to adulthood, and among people of the same age. The FCC does not measure this. Phones are tested on a single adult head. The environmental limits are tightest where an adult body resonates, and they loosen where the head resonates. The ARRL RF Safety Committee states it directly. "The adult head, for example is resonant around 400 MHz, while a baby's smaller head resonates near 700 MHz. Body size thus determines the frequency at which most RF energy is absorbed." The same guidance puts a grounded adult body near 35 MHz and an insulated adult near 70 MHz, with further resonances near 1 GHz at the body surface. An adult and a baby are not the same antenna. Absorption peaks when head size matches the wavelength in tissue. The field inside the skull then forms a standing wave, so some parts of the brain absorb several times more than others. A head about 10 percent smaller peaks about 10 percent higher in frequency. Circumference is about 35 cm at birth and 54 to 58 cm in adults, a factor of roughly 1.6. Applied to the adult figure, 400 MHz moves to about 640 MHz, beside the ARRL figure of 700 MHz for a baby head. At one age the spread is still several centimeters, about a 10 percent shift, enough to move a peak on or off a band in real use. A small adult and a large child overlap. Age is not a stand-in for head size (Nellhaus, Pediatrics 1968; Rollins, Collins, and Holden, J Pediatr 2010; CDC and WHO growth charts). Calculated models show the same size dependence, and a second peak a uniform head misses. Kritikos and Schwan (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1972) found internal hot spots in a tissue-like sphere, the frequency of strongest heating set by radius. Joines and Spiegel (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1974) modeled the skull in layers, skin through brain, at 7 and 10 cm radius, to cover different skull sizes. The layered head has a broad peak near 2.1 GHz. A uniform head of the same size does not. At that peak the field is a standing wave that shifts with frequency. Weil (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1975) mapped layered heads from 2 to 12.5 cm radius, and the hot spots move with size. The 400 and 700 MHz resonances and this peak near 2 GHz are different. Both move with head size. One adult size sees neither one. The FCC tests a phone at the ear on one shell, the SAM phantom required by IEEE 1528 and FCC KDB 865664. It is the 90th-percentile adult male from the 1988 Army survey (Gordon et al., Natick/TR-89/044, 1989), filled with uniform liquid, which misses the layered peak. It is not a child, a small adult, or the spread at one age, and it cannot compare 400 MHz with 700 MHz. SAM was meant as a cautious overestimate for older handsets (Beard et al., IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 2006). Later work finds designs where an anatomical head, including a child's, exceeds SAM (Lee and Choi, ETRI Journal 2019). Papers disagree on the size of that gap (Gandhi, Lazzi, and Furse 1996; Christ et al. 2010). One shell measures neither side. Away from the phone, the limits (47 CFR 1.1310; OET Bulletin 65) are strictest from 30 to 300 MHz, at 0.2 mW/cm2. The ARRL states why they loosen above 300 MHz: higher power densities are permitted "based on the concept that the body will not be resonant at those frequencies and will therefore absorb less energy." The head resonances sit in that range. At 700 MHz the limit is f/1500, about 0.47 mW/cm2, more than twice the 30 to 300 MHz limit. A smaller body resonates higher as a whole. The University of Florida newborn model resonates at 240 MHz, with a second peak near 800 MHz, and at resonance the public reference level does not hold the whole-body dose to the basic restriction (Dimbylow, Bolch, and Lee, Phys Med Biol 2010). The same shortfall appears for 1-year and 5-year models (Dimbylow and Bolch 2007). A study or a limit built on one adult head assigns the wrong frequency, and the wrong place in the brain, to children and to many adults. The effect happens where the energy lands, and those peaks move when head size changes. A certification number is the result for one large adult shell. Research and standards need the resonant frequency and the internal pattern across real head sizes, including people of the same age."

S 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) "I am responding as a patient under the Individual Consumer category to provide direct evidence regarding the adverse health impacts of RF/EMF exposure. While I am submitting a concise 20-page overview of my case today, this text is drawn from a comprehensive 1,000-page medical record and extensive technical review documenting clear clinical baselines, tracking diagnoses, and highlighting critical gaps in current public health surveillance." This information I am presenting is very brief due to my extreme disability from RF/EMF. I must advocate for reasonable accommodations for all disabled people. My research has told me that reasonable accommodations for this HHS process are not allowed or recognized under the law. In short, due to my injuries from RF/EMF, my ability to function takes about 32 times longer than an average healthy person, meaning it takes me 32 hours to work a full 8 hour day. Seldom does society’s institutions allow me reasonable accommodations. I needed to state this up front so that anyone from HHS or beyond listening to my testimony can try to comprehend what is behind it, and if I am approached for information, I would appreciate people who are trauma-informed and willing to work with me on reasonable accommodations. I have been gravely traumatized many times by various professionals, and it is a truly horrifying experience after my extensive RF/EMF injuries. I have established about 1,000 pages of medical records and many other forms of evidence regarding being harmed by RF/EMF. I believe that my medical file, records, research, and evidence is one of the most comprehensive in the United States. I hope that this can help science, medicine, and most of all other victims. From my own personal experience, and from seeing others severely injured and killed by RF/EMF, the average person in the United States with the average means does not stand a fighting chance. This is horrifying to me and has shaken me to the core of my soul and beyond… I was an extremely healthy adult male at age 58 years old before my accident exposure happened with RF/EMF in October 2023. Within a period of between 4 minutes to 4 days, I became severely injured by RF/EMF to the point that I became gravely and permanently disable soon after with continued exposure. I had no idea, and no comprehension that such energy existed or was possible!!! To establish firmly the meaningful relevance of the onsite of my injury, illness, and accident is absolutely critical that each healthcare provider, scientist, and institution dealing with this information on RF/EMF know that immediately, I became a victim-patient with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) withing a time frame of 4 minutes to 4 days!!!! Additionally in a period of 4 minutes to 4 days, I became swollen with edema as a result of my lymph system flooding my body almost instantaneously!!! These two key pieces of information – SIRS and severe edema – are grossly overlooked by most medical doctors!!! Finally, my ankles became suddenly sore, not to mention swollen, so that it felt like I had sprained my ankles from an athletic injury or from an occupational injury – like jumping from my pickup truck – which clearly was not the case. I had no such injury in both ankles before this sudden accident, injury, and illness took place!!! The soreness I believe was primarily from the severe edema and secondarily from the SIRS. I have divided the SIRS down into approximately 100 key steps on a micro-level and a macro level which shows how RF/EMF can suddenly in a period of 4 minutes to 4 days bring on a cascade collapse of a person’s cellular system creating an emergency “all hands on deck” response. I am skeptical that I will be able to include this information into this crucial expose report because of my severe disability at this time and the fact that I have not been offered reasonable accommodations. Excerpt #2: . Further into this expose report, I will list approximately 30 diagnoses and 50 neurological symptoms given to me by many medical specialists – credible medical doctors – forensic expert subject matter witnesses. ee attached file(s)

Re: Radiofrequency Exposure Standards, Biological Effects, and Outstanding Research Gaps I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public regarding the adequacy of existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards. The central issue is not whether RF radiation can produce biological effects. Experimental research demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can interact with biological systems. The unresolved question is whether existing exposure standards adequately account for potentially adverse effects across different exposure conditions, particularly those involving modulation, pulsing, chronic exposure, and developing biological systems. Of particular interest is U.S. Air Force-funded research conducted by Drs. Gale Craviso and Indira Chatterjee at the University of Nevada, Reno (AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0377). Their 2008 final performance report documented apparent nonthermal alterations in catecholamine release from adrenal chromaffin cells exposed to pulsed microwave frequency sweeps, particularly between 5 and 6 GHz. Bulk temperature and pressure were monitored, although the researchers acknowledged that localized microscopic heating remained a possible explanation. Related experiments demonstrated that extremely brief, high-intensity electrical pulses could trigger intracellular calcium influx and catecholamine release. These experiments involved exposure conditions substantially different from ordinary wireless communications, but illustrate the importance of investigating biological responses to different electromagnetic exposure parameters. Separately, the National Toxicology Program's 2018 studies (Technical Report 595) reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation, alongside certain noncancerous tissue changes. Although these exposure conditions cannot be directly extrapolated to typical human wireless-device use, they warrant appropriate consideration in risk assessment. The scientific literature contains both positive and negative findings. Biological responses are not automatically adverse health outcomes, but neither should the absence of substantial tissue heating be treated as sufficient evidence that all biologically relevant effects have been excluded. I respectfully request that federal agencies prioritize independent, reproducible research evaluating: 1. Biological effects of RF modulation, pulsing, frequency sweeps, and peak versus time-averaged exposures. 2. Potential neurological, endocrine, reproductive, and cellular effects, including calcium signaling and oxidative stress. 3. Long-term, cumulative, and simultaneous exposures from multiple wireless sources. 4. Vulnerability during childhood and development, alongside realistic device-use conditions. 5. Whether existing SAR-based compliance procedures adequately characterize relevant exposure parameters. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (2021), the D.C. Circuit required the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation concerning noncancer health effects and related shortcomings in its assessment. Compliance with an existing exposure limit is not, by itself, proof that every potentially relevant biological effect has been investigated or excluded. I urge federal agencies to transparently identify unresolved questions, evaluate the evidence according to methodological quality, and support targeted research before making categorical assurances about the safety of current and emerging wireless technologies. Relevant sources: Craviso & Chatterjee, Final Performance Report FA9550-06-1-0377 (2008); Vernier et al., Bioelectrochemistry 73, 1–4 (2008); National Toxicology Program, Technical Report 595 (2018); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

I do not want cell towers near my home or school due to the health concerns with EMFs. EMFs disrupt the voltage gated calcium channels of the cell and by doing so harms human health: