Occupational exposure

First and foremost, the entire concept of pooling average Americans, who don’t even understand how electricity gets to their toaster, let alone understand the complexities of the combined physics and physiology of how non ionizing electromagnetic radiation effects human tissue, is at best misguided and at worst purposefully intended to produce a biased outcome. But this is what happens when a politician with brain damage and no education in the sciences is placed in charge of a government agency wholly dependent upon science and technology. You get bad decisions and bad data. Any and all questions and concerns about currently in use RF technology is already settled science. The effects of every part of the electromagnetic spectrum from DC to daylight Has been researched, theorized, and tested for decades. This has been done by actual scientists in physics, medicine, and engineering. No input from the uneducated masses is valid or needed. I am far more educated and experienced than an average citizen in RF. I have worked in/with RF for decades both professionally and as a licensed amateur radio operator holding an Amateur Extra Class license. In 50 years of near field exposure, always following the FCC exposure limit guidelines, I have never had a single issue of any kind. This includes work with HF, VHF, UHF, and into Gigahertz applications. I have taught Amateur Radio theory to hundreds of students and those interactions demonstrated to me how little understanding of electrical and RF theory is held by otherwise well-educated people. It is my sincere belief that one purpose or result of this survey, will be to justify the termination of the entire Amateur Radio service and spectrum in the United States so that it may be monetized and licensed to commercial uses. This is what this administration is attempting to do with all public resources. Let the law suits begin!

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding as a concerned parent, researcher, and member of the public. I personally have not noticed any effects from wireless radiation in its various forms, such as cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, 4G, and 5G. However, I have researched this topic and understand that the energies involved can impact not only human health but also the health of plants, animals, and insects. As a precaution, I have limited my use of these technologies. I find it surprising that these technologies were initially tested solely for their ability to heat human tissue. Is that true science, or just a means to advance harmful technology for the profit of large corporations at the expense of the public? Those who rushed this technology into production decades ago seemed to care little for the well-being of the people who would live and work near these radiation emitters. I have read numerous accounts of individuals who struggled with unexplained medical symptoms, only to discover that moving away from a cell phone tower or turning off wireless networks in their homes resolved all their issues. Additionally, there are firefighters who have sued due to health problems linked to these emitters at their fire stations. While this technology cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, it can cause significant health problems. The power of these emitters has increased dramatically compared to when this technology was initially tested about 30 years ago. Can you imagine not testing products that emit large amounts of energy when held next to one’s head or against one’s body 24/7? We must bring this issue to light and conduct thorough testing on the effects of these technologies. Isn't this what the HHS is for? To study these subjects to protect the people? Isn't that what they are employed to do? 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 expect 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 and families with an opportunity to be heard.

Dear U.S. Government, My brother got a brain tumor from his cellphone out of nowhere., I have no proof, but I believe it's more than a coincidence that it was on the same side of his head where he always held his cellphone. He spent many hours on his cellphone building his land development business. We have no family history whatsoever of brain tumors either. He lost everything and now lives in a nursing home. EMF and wireless radiation should be shielded from the public. Sincerely, BP

See attached for my complete response to questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 18. 3. My experiences/adverse health effects associated with exposure to RF/EMFs: I first experienced adverse health effects from RF/EMF when my employer went wireless in the conference rooms. Hindsight sleep disturbances I had attributed to menopause went away after opting out of the automatic meter reader, precursor to the SMART meter. c) adverse health effects experienced: neurologic effects loss of fine motor skills left sided delays impaired concentration/foggy thinking vertigo heart palpitations thyroid nodules and increased vascularity difficulty regulating blood glucose tinnitus sleep disturbances electric feeling in hands and legs headaches fatigue during exposure insomnia following exposure d) When health effects appeared relative to exposure Thyroid abnormalities were first observed by ultrasound in October 2014, three months after my employer went wireless in the conference rooms. By October of 2017 ultrasound was showing two nodules (abnormal growths). In July of 2018 I move to an office in a remote location within the building and was attending all meetings virtually with wired technology. My November 2018 ultrasound showed the nodules were gone! f) steps taken to reduce exposure; subsequent changes in adverse health effects got rid of cordless telephone opted out of automatic meter reader, precursor to the SMART meter, and later the SMART meter attended work meetings virtually from my private office moved my office to a low RF/EMF location in the building and later telecommuted fromm home full time used vacation to create a three day weekend to recover from the adverse effects of RF/EMF so that I could continue working no longer own a cell phone avoid public places and try to limit trips to town to once a month drive back roads avoid major metro areas have no wireless devices in my home Reducing exposure in the workplace resulted in resolution of thyroid nodules which had developed subsequent to employer transitioning to wireless devices. Other adverse health effects also improved with avoidance of RF/EMF. g) supporting documentation I have thyroid ultrasound reports which document adverse changes in thyroid. I have taken meter readings when experiencing RF/EMF adverse health effects that are well below 0.1µW/m2. Research related to the effect of RF radiation on the thyroid: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451508/ 5. n) What changes would improve assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure? Regulation RF/EMF needs regulation, not just guidelines Biological harm needs to be addressed regulations need to be set based on how devices are actually used i.e. cell phones against the body and the multiplicity of exposure RF/EMF health and safety standards need to be based on long term exposure not just from individual devices but ambient levels The FCC is not a health organization. Establishing health safety standards for RF/EMF exposure should be transferred to HHS or NIH. They should work collaboratively with FDA, EPA and OSHA. Disclosure The American people deserve full disclosure. p) How should a classification system account for exposure-related characteristics, including operating frequency, power density, specific absorption rate (SAR), electric- and magnetic-field strength, modulation and pulse characteristics, duty cycle, beamforming, simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies, duration of exposure, distance from the source, proximity to the body, and cumulative exposure over time? All of these are important. The ones of greatest concern to me are: pulse modulated wave form including the peak amplitude simultaneous and cumulative exposure power density and duration of exposure frequency beam formation 11. Should exposure assessment or risk evaluation differ for sensitive populations? Yes, children’s skulls are thinner, their brains contain more fluid and are still developing. A failure to consider these differences would constitute gross negligence. 18. Please identify any additional scientific evidence, technical information, data, or recommendations that federal health agencies should consider when evaluating potential adverse health effects associated with RF/EMF radiation exposure. Federal health agencies should promote a precautionary stance. Wired technology should be encouraged whenever possible in homes, schools, medical facilities, workplaces, and other public businesses. Action should be taken to establish RF/EMF free areas in public places such as medical facilities similar to what was done for smoking.

See attached for my complete response to questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 18. 3. My experiences/adverse health effects associated with exposure to RF/EMFs: I first experienced adverse health effects from RF/EMF when my employer went wireless in the conference rooms. Hindsight sleep disturbances I had attributed to menopause went away after opting out of the automatic meter reader, precursor to the SMART meter. c) adverse health effects experienced: • neurologic effects ◦ loss of fine motor skills ◦ left sided delays ◦ impaired concentration/foggy thinking ◦ vertigo • heart palpitations • thyroid nodules and increased vascularity • difficulty regulating blood glucose • tinnitus • sleep disturbances • electric feeling in hands and legs • headaches • fatigue during exposure • insomnia following exposure d) When health effects appeared relative to exposure Thyroid abnormalities were first observed by ultrasound in October 2014, three months after my employer went wireless in the conference rooms. By October of 2017 ultrasound was showing two nodules (abnormal growths). In July of 2018 I move to an office a remote location within the building and was attending all meetings virtually with wired technology. My November 2018 ultrasound showed the nodules were gone! f) steps taken to reduce exposure; subsequent changes in adverse health effects • got rid of cordless telephone • opted out of automatic meter reader, precursor to the SMART meter, and later the SMART meter • attended work meetings virtually from my private office • moved my office to a low RF/EMF location in the building and later telecommuted fromm home full time • used vacation to create a three day weekend to recover from the adverse effects of RF/EMF so that I could continue working • no longer own a cell phone • avoid public places and try to limit trips to town to once a month • drive back roads • avoid major metro areas • have no wireless devices in my home Reducing exposure in the workplace resulted in resolution of thyroid nodules which had developed subsequent to employer transitioning to wireless devices. Other adverse health effects also improved with avoidance of RF/EMF. g) supporting documentation I have thyroid ultrasound reports which document adverse changes in thyroid. I have taken meter readings when experiencing RF/EMF adverse health effects that are well below 0.1µW/m2. Research related to the effect of RF radiation on the thyroid: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451508/ 5. n) What changes would improve assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure? Regulation • RF/EMF needs regulation, not just guidelines • Biological harm needs to be addressed • regulations need to be set based on how devices are actually used i.e. cell phones against the body and the multiplicity of exposure • RF/EMF health and safety standards need to be based on long term exposure not just from individual devices but ambient levels • The FCC is not a health organization. Establishing health safety standards for RF/EMF exposure should be transferred to HHS or NIH. They should work collaboratively with FDA, EPA and OSHA. Disclosure The American people deserve full disclosure. p) How should a classification system account for exposure-related characteristics, including operating frequency, power density, specific absorption rate (SAR), electric- and magnetic-field strength, modulation and pulse characteristics, duty cycle, beamforming, simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies, duration of exposure, distance from the source, proximity to the body, and cumulative exposure over time? All of these are important. The ones of greatest concern to me are: • pulse modulated wave form including the peak amplitude • simultaneous and cumulative exposure • power density and duration of exposure • frequency • beam formation 11. Should exposure assessment or risk evaluation differ for sensitive populations? Yes, children’s skulls are thinner, their brains contain more fluid and are still developing. A failure to consider these differences would constitute gross negligence. 18. Please identify any additional scientific evidence, technical information, data, or recommendations that federal health agencies should consider when evaluating potential adverse health effects associated with RF/EMF radiation exposure. Federal health agencies should promote a precautionary stance. Wired technology should be encouraged whenever possible in homes, schools, medical facilities, workplaces, and other public businesses. Action should be taken to establish RF/EMF free areas in public places such as medical facilities.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. Wireless radiation has affected me because I have been forced to allow smart meters be installed at my home. The electric meter was placed on the outside of my kitchen. I was told to allow them to install it or police would be called. My local health group sent many documents to the Kansas Corporation Commission and they have not helped to protect our health or property. One friend is sensitive to wireless radiation and avoids groups do to phone and other radiation. In 1970 my Father felt ill while working for KG&E the Electric Company at their substation. He died from a cardiac arrest before his buddy could get him to the hospital leaving my Mother to raise four young children on her on. I support people affected by wireless radiation because their health is important to me and I believe HHS should address this issue because the Kansas Corporation Commission has not protected Kansans. 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 and families with an opportunity to be heard.

John M. Endres Wireless Technology (EMF) Health Symptoms October 2, 2012 to present (2026) On October 2, 2012 a “smart” water meter was installed at the Biotechnology facility that I worked in. Approx 30 minutes after the “smart” water meter installation, I began to feel ill while working in our office area. My symptoms included: headache, nausea, difficulty focusing on my work, a metallic taste in my mouth, rapid vibration of my temple veins, and painful neck lymph nodes. I left the office area, and walked to my bench in our laboratory area. I stayed in the laboratory for the remainder of my work day. The painful symptoms subsided, and I left the building to go home. When home, I tried to make sense of what happened to me in my office area. I knew that there was a WiFi Repeater on the power cable approximately 15 feet from our office window. Could the WiFi Repeater somehow be interacting with signals from the “smart” water meter? There were over 20 scientists in our facility, but I was the only individual to experience adverse health symptoms. While at home, my symptoms disappeared. I began to document my symptoms. I returned to work the following day and while at my office desk the painful headache and other symptoms returned. I had to leave work and went home, and my symptoms slowly dissipated. Over the next 5 work days, I documented my symptoms at work and tried various shielding methods and finding safe areas (laboratories, break room, etc.). I began researching papers regarding health impacts of man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of wireless technology. I purchased a TENMARS TM-195 3-axis RF Field Strength meter, and EMF protective clothing from Less EMF, Inc. I measured the temperature of my head at various locations. I decided that I would be a “guinea pig” and record and document the EMFs at various locations in our facility. Brief summary of symptoms and measurements from my 5-day study Overall Symptoms while at work: headache, nausea, difficulty concentrating on tasks, shakiness, pain in the back of my neck at the base of my skull, rapid and painful vibration of my temple veins, stomach queasiness, pulse and heart rate variability, left eye pain sensations, shortness of breath, heat sensations around my head, “metallic mouth taste”, shakiness or quivering of my legs, etc. µW/m² range of values using the RF Field Strength meter, October 10, 2012 Background test of RF meter at home: 0--200 µW/m² Range of µW/m² values at my desk on 10/10/2012, 9:55 am to 11:15 am: 960.8 – 2,070 µW/m² At 11:15 am I left our facility as I was not feeling well and when I reached my car I had a seizure where I lost control of my legs. After a few minutes, I slowly made it back into our facility. I was taken immediately to our company Dr at our main facility and she confirmed that I had a very serious seizure and that I could not risk having another seizure (as it could cause very significant harm). Two months prior to my EMF symptoms, I had an annual medical exam and was given a clean bill of health. I had MRI and EEG exams after my seizure—they did not reveal anything of concern. Several days after my seizure, our department head walked into our office area and he asked me: “John, do you know that there is a WiFi router in the upstairs conference room, directly above your head?” Oh my goodness! I was not aware of the WiFi router directly above my head. This may explain a lot. I have been researching the health impacts of wireless technology ever since my experience with the “smart” water meter” incident at the biotech facility. I immediately found two books by Dr Robert Becker: “The Body Electric” and “Cross Currents”. In his book “The Body Electric”, on page 284, under the subheading “Fatal Locations”, Dr Becker writes in the 2nd paragraph six sentences that have stuck with me ever since my episode with the “smart” water meter: “The major problems come from extremely low frequencies (ELF), but higher frequencies have the same effects if pulsed or modulated in the ELF range. This is very often the case, for, to transmit information, microwaves or radio waves must be shaped. This is done by interrupting the beam to form pulses or by modulating the frequency or amplitude (size) of the waves. Furthermore, today’s environment is a latticework of crisscrossing signals in which there’s always the possibility of synergistic effects or the “construction” of new ELF signals from the patterns of interference between two higher frequencies. Therefore, experiments in which cells or organisms are exposed to a single unmodulated frequency, though sometimes useful, are irrelevent outside the lab. They’re most often done by researchers whose only goal is to be able to say, “See, there’s no cause for alarm.”

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS's Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding on behalf of Nevada County for Safe Tech (NCST), a community advocacy group of residents in Nevada County, California. NCST formed in 2025 when our county began updating its ordinance for cell towers and wireless facilities. Hundreds of residents have since commented to our Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. What we learned is that when residents raise health concerns about wireless facilities, no one in local government has the authority or expertise to answer them. What we have seen locally: • A resident near a tower activated in December 2025 reported headaches and insomnia beginning when the tower went live. The county had no way to require independent RF testing, and because the tower was approved under prior rules, no post-installation testing was required. • County staff acknowledged they lack the expertise to evaluate carrier RF compliance reports. A report can certify compliance without showing exposure levels at nearby homes. • Carrier predictive models can underestimate real-world exposure because of terrain, antenna orientation and multiple co-located transmitters. Consumer meters cannot measure 5G frequencies, so residents have no practical way to know their exposure. • Our county treats new small cells as a building-permit matter with no public notice. Residents may first learn of an antenna in front of their home when the crew arrives. • Elevated exposure is not only a ground-level issue. Arborists and maintenance workers can enter high-exposure zones at height. Federal law (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) bars local governments from regulating wireless facilities on health grounds when they meet FCC limits, and the FCC is proposing to narrow local enforcement further. The FCC is not a health agency. Communities are left with health questions and no health authority responsible for answering them. We ask HHS to: 1. Develop independent field-measurement protocols that cover all frequencies in use, including 5G and 6G, measure cumulative exposure from multiple sources, and test at ground and upper-story heights, so local health departments can verify exposure. 2. Recommend what RF information should be public for each facility, such as predicted exposure at nearby homes and schools. 3. Create a way for individuals and clinicians to report symptoms they associate with RF exposure, and guide local health departments on responding. 4. Prioritize research on chronic ambient exposure, effects below current limits, and vulnerable groups including children, pregnant women and people living close to facilities. 5. Advise the FCC on exposure limits and on health-protective distances between facilities and homes and schools. 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 and families with an opportunity to be heard.

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of an EMF DISABLED patient, parent /my daughter is also EMF harmed, I am a healthcare professional-Family Nurse Practitioner of 42 years, and a researcher / author and Anti-EMF advocate, & concerned member of the public. I had to leave my medical clinic 5 years ago because the landlord put WiFi Routers above and next to my clinic. Then the local electric company EWEB put a SMART Meter on the building. I became light headed, headaches, nausea, my blood pressure spiked and I became unsteady on my feet with fuzzy thinking. I could no longer see patients in my medical practice. I moved my Nurse Practitioner clinic home and had to let go my 3 staff. This rather wrecked my finances. My home had a safe analog electric meter, and I had thrown out my cell phone and got wired modems and a $3,500 Power Perfect device on my electric system to take out all dirty electricity from the power lines coming into my house. That worked until the dread Eugene Water and Electric company forced me and everyone else in town to get a digital SMART METER ON THE HOUSE. Five ex-military “Security people” from EWEB appeared and 3 of them were in body armor with a taser on one hip and a pistol on the other and told me they were here to take your meter lady”. Fabulous intimidation, I was 74 years of age were they expecting I would wrestle them to the ground? The day they put the SMART meter on my home I immediately had high pitched buzzing in my head ,chest pain, my blood pressure spiked, headaches and I was unsteady on my feet. I could not stay in the home so I slept in a friend’s shed with no power. I called EWEB the next day to see if they could give me another type of meter. They sent another armed guard and a bucket truck out and told me I had to keep this meter that I had or they could cut the power at the pole…...So they cut my power on Sept 27, 2024 because I could not live in a house with a Smart meter and be EMF Disabled. Two years later I am running off a solar generator and had to change out $55,000 in getting all new natural gas appliances for a refrigerator, heating stove, water heater,solar panels.My oven does not work since it is electric and I have been cooking all my meals on a Coleman camp stove for 2 years on a covered deck in all weather. I am now 75. Unfortunately I am still not safe living here due to more EMFs/ cell towers and my neighbor’s homes emitting RF and it was my “Forever home” of 20 years and it looks like I am to be forced out of here. I have one 30 watt non LED light bulb in the whole home that runs off a solar generator and my computer. I spend my evenings with candles or REI back packing lanterns for light in the home since the power was cut at the pole 2 years ago. I still have high pitched buzzing in my head, fuzzy thinking when it is high with awful fatigue that comes in waves. I can pick up 16 of my neighbor’s WiFi routers, and their SMART meters & a baby monitor on my EMF /RF meter. I have NOT slept through the night in 3 years now since the SMART meter roll out. I NEVER wake up refreshed no matter how many hours I am trying to sleep. I have come to hate nights due to the constant buzzing. My white blood count has dropped due to the EMF exposure and I am working myself up for auto immune problems and it has stirred up my in-remission Epstein Barr from 30 years ago. I now have all leather grounding shoes, 4 grounding mats to sit on, a grounding mat on my bed that is grounded on my mattress, I have grounding silver thread sheets and a $1,300 SILVER thread Faraday canopy over my bed. I have put aluminum radiant barrier on my bedroom walls/ ceiling and floor and have put 2 layers of aluminum screen over my bedroom windows and the mesh is grounded with a metal rod. All of this blocks some of the EMFs/ RF, but not enough. On the www.AntennaeSearch.com website my home comes up with 161 large 5G towers and 492 small cell antenna within 3 miles of my home. They have a new 5G 500 foot tower 0.2 miles from my home with 3 telecoms on it, I can see the tower from my back deck. When it was 4G it did not give me symptoms .“They” put in 15 large 400-500 foot towers during Covid when people were not looking/ distracted ,along the railroad track which curves so all 15 of these Damn towers are ¾ of a mile from my home. I am being COOKED and I feel rotten. If I go out into the country away from cell phone towers ALL the buzzing in my head goes away and my cognition totally clears up and I have energy again. The RF/ EMF/ 5G towers & cell phones and wifi routers made me sick. They are an invisible toxin that is permeating my walls, ceiling and windows and my yard, that I no longer enjoy being in since the buzzing in my head is worse outside. At 75 I have to find a new home.

Study shows an association between occupational exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields and cardiovascular outcomes reported in seven of the 14 studies included in this review: Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency fields and cardiovascular consequences: a systematic review Raeisi E, Maghare Dehkordi S, Yazdanirad S, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A. Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency fields and cardiovascular consequences: a systematic review. Public Health Rev. 2026 Sep 25;47:1609952. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2026.1609952. Abstract Objective: Exposure to extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields can have harmful effects on human health. The present systematic review study aimed to investigate the relationship between occupational exposure to ELF and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: Searches were conducted in six electronic bibliographic databases: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. This search included records up to August 19, 2026. The search strategy used two sets of keywords. Following the selection of proper studies, relevant data were extracted by the reviewers. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used. Results: Seven of fourteen studies (50 percent) showed that there is an association between ELF field exposure and cardiovascular outcomes. However, the available evidence is insufficient to establish causality. Some of the outcomes reported in the studies included acute myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, hematological parameters, coronary heart disease, and hypertension. Conclusion: Exposure to ELF fields may be associated with some cardiovascular outcomes. However, the confirmation of this relationship remains ambiguous, and it requires further investigations in future research. Excerpt Extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields are a type of electromagnetic field with frequencies from 1 to 300 Hz [1]. Exposure to these waves is common in occupational environments because it can occur during production, transfer, distribution, and use of electricity [2]. Some effects due to exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields include cerebral cancer, bladder cancer, breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, behavioral and mental problems, sleep and wake rhythm disorder, and changes in perception and memory [3]. Compared with these outcomes, the possible cardiovascular effects of ELF exposure have received less attention and remain less clearly understood [4]. Conclusions An association between occupational exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields and cardiovascular outcomes was reported in seven of the 14 studies included in this review. However, the findings were not consistent across the studies, and the current evidence is not sufficient to confirm a causal relationship. The differences in the results of the studies could be because of differences in exposure frequency, exposure duration, and exposure level to the ELF field. Some studies reported associations with acute myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, arrhythmia, blood pressure, and other cardiovascular-related changes, whereas others found no significant effects. Therefore, although a possible relationship between occupational ELF exposure and cardiovascular health cannot be ruled out, the strength and clinical importance of this association remain uncertain. The findings of this research may be useful to plan strategies to prevent cardiovascular diseases in different settings. However, more studies are needed to investigate the effect of the ELF electromagnetic field with the mentioned characteristics in various environments to confirm these results. Moreover, some confounding factors, such as personal, occupational risk, and psychosocial factors, may influence this association. The roles of these factors must be considered in future studies. Also, differences in these effects between various people with different factors should be examined in future research. Open access: https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/articles/10.3389/phrs.2026.1609952/full