Occupational exposure

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 patient. I have been exposed to EMFs, RFs, and Wireless Radiation for years as a Police Dispatcher from the frequencies produced by the Centracom and multiple computers. I then was exposed at my current employer as the 5G Cell Tower sits right next to my building. I am suffering from Baroreflex Syndrome as my Baroreflex Receptors have been damaged from Radiation exposure. I now have dangerously low blood pressure that will spike at any moment. There is no cure for it. 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.

This public comment addresses legal scope, notice clarity, and preservation of objections. HHS describes the RFI as voluntary and nonbinding and may conduct public-health research. See 42 U.S.C. § 241(a); 21 U.S.C. §§ 360ii, 360jj. The solicitation alone is not necessarily ultra vires or reviewable final agency action. 1. CORRECT THE AUTHORITY CITATION. The notice says HHS is proceeding “under 21 CFR subpart J.” 91 Fed. Reg. 59792. The linked eCFR page resolves to 21 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter A, Part 1, Subpart J (food-recordkeeping), not radiological health. The relevant radiological-health grouping is 21 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter J. HHS should correct the link and identify the statutory and delegated authority actually relied on, including as applicable 42 U.S.C. § 241(a) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 360hh, 360ii, 360jj, and 360kk. This defect alone does not invalidate the voluntary RFI, which is not proposed rulemaking. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST IS A LIMITED FCC REMAND, NOT AN HHS MANDATE OR SCIENTIFIC FINDING. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court remanded the FCC’s 2019 order for a reasoned explanation on portable-device testing; children, long-term exposure, wireless ubiquity and technological developments; and environmental effects. The panel took “no position in the scientific debate”; it did not find injury below FCC limits, order new limits, vacate FCC rules, or direct HHS to issue this RFI. HHS’s authority must rest on HHS statutes. The FCC’s 2026 proceeding is limited by the FCC’s remand; that restriction does not automatically limit HHS’s independent research authority. 3. RESEARCH POWER IS NOT UNBOUNDED REGULATORY POWER. Sections 360ii and 360jj authorize an electronic-product radiation program, studies, information, and recommendations. Section 360kk permits electronic-product performance standards, but requires a regulation, APA procedures, statutory scientific and technical considerations, consultations, and committee consultation. This RFI cannot itself impose a standard or replace those procedures. Any ambient-exposure limit untethered to a defined electronic product, infrastructure operating rule, facility-siting restriction, or compulsory measure outside § 360kk must identify a separate affirmative statutory basis. The FCC does not displace all HHS authority; see 21 U.S.C. § 360hh note. 4. CLARIFY THE SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL SCOPE. Ordinary 50/60-Hz fields from power systems are power-frequency/extremely-low-frequency fields, not RF. HHS should separately assess power-frequency fields; RF from handheld/body-worn devices; RF from fixed infrastructure; occupational exposures; and medical-device compatibility. Distinguish measured from modeled exposure, source proximity from dose, and association from causation. Question 6 asks about health effects “caused by current exposure limits.” HHS should clarify whether it means effects associated with exposure at or below current limits—not effects caused by a regulatory limit. 5. MAINTAIN EVIDENTIARY DISTINCTIONS. Self-selected symptom reports may generate hypotheses but do not alone establish causation or population risk. A synthesis should distinguish reports, diagnoses, biological effects, hazard classification, and quantified risk; address dosimetry, confounding, replication, study quality, null findings, and uncertainty. The notice cautions against submitting PII/PHI; it should not imply identifiable medical records are required. REQUEST. HHS should: (i) correct the citation/link and identify its legal basis; (ii) confirm that the RFI itself imposes no compulsory requirement and is not a substitute for future rulemaking; (iii) not characterize Environmental Health Trust as a scientific finding or delegation to HHS; (iv) clarify Question 6 and separate exposure categories; (v) identify materials materially relied upon in any future consequential assessment to the extent required by law; and (vi) allow supplemental comment if a correction materially changes the stated legal basis or scope. See full file attached

I am submitting this comment to share my personal experience and urge the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate the potential health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and exposure to wireless infrastructure. Around 2020, I began experiencing tremors throughout my body while driving on highways. It took me some time to recognize a pattern. I noticed that these episodes seemed to occur when I was driving near cell phone towers. This raised serious concerns for me about whether my proximity to these towers might be contributing to the symptoms I was experiencing. My functional doctor told me that EMS sensitivity and fragrance sensitivity are common in people exposed to mold. Genetic tests show mitochondrial dysfunction. In 2024, my workplace relocated to a place directly across from a massive cell phone tower. After this relocation, I experienced debilitating symptoms, including intense headaches, difficulty sleeping, and an inability to concentrate effectively at work. I felt that my ability to think clearly, focus, and function as I normally would was being affected. These symptoms interfered with my daily activities and my ability to perform my job. Thankfully, my workplace's Human Resources Department was able to transfer me to another location because of the debilitating symptoms I reported in connection with working near the cell phone tower. I am grateful that my concerns were taken seriously enough for an accommodation to be made. I am sharing this experience because I believe that people who report potentially serious symptoms associated with environmental exposures deserve to be heard, taken seriously, and included in scientific research. I recognize that personal experience alone cannot establish the cause of a medical condition. However, I believe that these experiences warrant careful, independent investigation rather than dismissal without further examination. I urge HHS to support rigorous, independent research into the potential health effects of radiofrequency radiation, including possible neurological symptoms, headaches, sleep disturbances, and difficulties with concentration. Research should also examine individual differences in susceptibility, cumulative exposures, long-term effects, and potential impacts on children and other potentially vulnerable populations. People should not have to struggle to maintain their health and livelihoods without clear, evidence-based answers about the environmental exposures they encounter in their daily lives. I hope my experience will contribute to a broader effort to better understand these questions, protect public health, and ensure that future policies are guided by transparent, independent scientific evidence. Please review regulations to protect citizens and stop the permitting of cell phone towers a few meters away from residential homes, schools, and parks. It is scary the amount cell phones towers in the DFW area, especially in North Texas. Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience and concerns.

As a physiotherapist who is also electro-hypersensitive, I spent 25 years in private practice—15 of which were in a dedicated professional space I had built in my own garden. I shielded this space so that I could continue to practice my profession and treat individuals who, like me, were electro-hypersensitive and had become lost within the medical system. My neurosensory approach allows me to explain why we are all electrosensitive and why any of us could potentially become electro-hypersensitive. I practice the Dicke and Teirich-Leube reflex massage—which focuses on the skin’s connection to the nervous system—and I employ a holistic, behavioral approach to the body (utilizing the Mézières method and the GDS muscle chain system). To understand this, one must look to embryology: the skin and the nervous system share the same embryonic origin. Lacking any natural shielding, the skin is regularly subjected to hyperstimulation from the artificial electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by the wireless technologies and the pervasive electrical infrastructure now found throughout our living environments. The nervous system, under constant assault by these EMFs, becomes unable to maintain the body’s homeostasis. This leads to a breakdown, manifesting in a wide range of symptoms: headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, hyperacusis, neuromuscular and joint tension, skin issues, heart palpitations, anxiety, a sense of oppression, digestive and gynecological disturbances, neurodegenerative diseases, chronic illnesses, and cancer—as well as cognitive impairment, insomnia, exhaustion, and physiological depression. Any neurosensory cell can become a source of pain when subjected to persistent aggression. Certain cells are particularly sensitive to these constant vibrations—for instance, Pacinian corpuscles, which respond to frequencies between 30 and 1,500 Hertz. These waves cause surges within the body; the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems are not designed to handle such frequencies. I invite you to explore my document on point26.com regarding bodily sensations and somesthesia: https://poem26.com/le-ressenti-du-corps-en-presence-des-ondes-electromagnetiques-artificielles/ This is a dossier I submitted to ANSES (the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety) when I joined—on behalf of my association, Poem26, of which I am president—the "Radiofrequency and Health" dialogue committee in Maisons-Alfort. It is also urgent to consider the differences between men and women regarding these artificial electromagnetic fields; our neurosensory system is more reactive than that of men. While men also possess this system, they tend to be less attuned to their own bodily sensations, yet the resulting symptoms can be far more severe and serious—such as heart attacks, strokes, colorectal cancer, or infertility. For women, it is crucial to examine the issue of endometriosis; our blood—as women—reacts very poorly to these artificial electromagnetic fields, which may be the root cause of gynecological problems such as amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, or endometriosis. I personally experienced significant issues with low frequencies: my ferritin levels rose to 900. In cases of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, one may observe a marked increase in ferritin levels—or, conversely, very low levels—depending on whether or not the individual has reached menopause. The only way to determine if you are electro-hypersensitive is to spend several days in an "electromagnetic dead zone" (an area free from such waves) and to monitor biological markers both before and after exposure to electromagnetic fields. Humans have been on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years; yet, in just 30 years, we have altered our electromagnetic environment through high-frequency (radio-frequency) fields, and over the last 200 years, we have transformed our electrical and magnetic environment through low-frequency fields. The human body cannot adapt to such changes in such a short period of time. I remain at your disposal for further discussion. Catherine Neyrand, October 18, 2026 Physical Therapist, Electrosensitive (EHS) President of the association Poem 26 (https://poem26.com/) Mother of a young adult who was severely electrosensitive (EHS) during her adolescence

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I'm an attorney and I'll get straight to the point. As you may know, in the US, personal‑injury suits against telecom companies for harm from RF/EMF radiation have a very low success rate, and there is no well‑established "winning" strategy. The two walls that defeat most of these cases are (1) proving medical causation — courts require you to show your specific illness was caused by the radiation, and the US scientific record has not met that bar — and (2) federal preemption under Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which bars local/state regulation of towers based on health risk and has been used to preempt state tort claims. Government action is long overdue. There is much the HHS can do to help electromagnetic radiation (EMR) victims in the United States. To wit: 1. Upgrade the NTP carcinogen classification (biggest single lever) The National Toxicology Program (part of HHS) already found in 2018 that RF radiation is "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen" — the weakest tier in the Report on Carcinogens, based on a 10-year, ~3,000-animal rat study. If HHS upgraded this to "known" human carcinogen, it would: Give plaintiffs a federally endorsed causal finding to cite at summary judgment, directly attacking the #1 barrier (causation) Support failure-to-warn claims: if the government classified the hazard, defendants can't argue they "didn't know" Be hard for courts to ignore — federal agency findings carry substantial evidentiary weight 2. Fund and publish definitive human epidemiology NIEHS (NIH) could run or commission a large prospective cohort study of RF exposure and specific health outcomes. A published HHS finding of a dose-response relationship would be the strongest possible causation evidence. The current NIEHS position — "the probability that EMF exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small" — is what defense lawyers cite to kill cases. 3. FDA: set lower performance standards + require warnings FDA has authority under 21 CFR Part 1030 over RF-emitting electronic products. It could: Lower MPE limits below current FCC levels (which are based on thermal effects only, not non-thermal) Require warning labels on devices — this is critical because it converts a failure-to-warn theory from speculative to straightforward Require premarket chronic-exposure safety testing for new wireless technologies 4. CDC/ATSDR: issue a formal health advisory A CDC advisory stating that RF-EMF exposure is associated with specific health conditions would create a recognized standard of care that defendants deviated from. It would also give plaintiffs' medical experts a federal source to cite when opining on causation. 5. NIOSH: set occupational exposure limits NIOSH could issue recommended exposure limits for workers near towers and in wireless-intensive jobs. While advisory (OSHA enforces), these limits create a benchmark for what "reasonable" exposure looks like, supporting negligence claims. 6. Medical education and clinical guidelines HHS could direct that: EMF exposure history be taken as part of standard medical intake Clinical guidelines be developed for evaluating patients with RF-sensitivity symptoms Medical school curricula include EMF health effects This helps plaintiffs document their injury in a way courts currently find unconvincing (many plaintiffs' symptoms are dismissed as not medically recognized). The irony to note: Setting specific federal exposure limits could backfire by strengthening the implied preemption defense (courts argue that where the FCC has set a standard, state tort claims are displaced). The sweet spot for HHS would be to issue findings of harm and hazard classification without creating a new, detailed regulatory scheme that defendants can point to as "the FCC already regulated this." Bottom line: The single highest-impact action is upgrading the NTP carcinogen classification combined with FDA-mandated warning labels. Together, they attack both causation and failure-to-warn simultaneously, and they're within HHS's existing statutory authority. I have further thoughts regarding actions the HHS could take and legal strategy. If you'd like to follow up and continue the coversation please email emrlegal@protonmail.com

2: My perspective:myself & family 3a-c: WIFI mouse – rash on hand appeared after ~1yr. Wouldn’t go away until I stopped using it for a week. Rash came back upon return to use. Returned to wired mouse & rash hasn’t returned. AMR smart electric meter (precursor to AMI): Power company advised it transmitted data ~ 1-1:30 a.m., coinciding with same time I had begun awakening suddenly every night. I had the meter removed and replaced with a non-transmitting meter and now sleep through night (WIFI, bluetooth, & cell phone off also.) AMI smart electric meter (pulses every few seconds): installed without parents’ knowledge, on same wall where Dad’s (w/pacemaker) bed was. He experienced sudden decline in health, inexplicable bloodwork; Dr later said was very likely due to AMI meter (once that coinciding installation was discovered & discussed.) AMI meter replaced with a non-Smart meter and his blood work and health improved. AMI meters are also invasion of privacy with the data collection. WIFI & bluetooth(home): over time & exposure, several symptoms became regular occurrence: nervous tension, unexplained anxiety, heart palpitations, irritability, agitation, short-temper, brain fog, headaches, restless sleep (myself & family–bulk of/worst of symptoms alleviated when began keeping WIFI & bluetooth off most of the time, especially at night.) Still have some low-level symptoms; neighbors’ WIFI still infiltrates the house. WIFI (schools): mid-way through my child’s schooling, WIFI boosters were installed in the ceilings in the middle of classrooms. My child began to complain of headaches and agitation, and harder to focus. Symptoms would go away during Summer months & return when back in school. One of the schools was in very close proximity to a cell tower. Anecdotally, several cases of childhood leukemia and teachers with cancer have arisen over the yrs. WIFI + cell boosters (office): Installed ~every 30 feet on ceilings starting ~2018 & expanding throughout whole building complex during 2020-2024 era. Symptoms began shortly after installation and close daily exposure-i.e. creepy crawly sensation on skin, especially scalp/brain, low level to escalating headache and other symptoms including those noted above for WIFI at home exposure. Effects felt within about an hour of being in office. For a time, an accommodation to telework was allowed, but when up for review, it was refused. Since ADA doesn’t explicitly acknowledge EMF/EMR sensitivity as meeting the ADA guidelines for disability, the new management doesn’t either. 5G masts (around office complex) installed ~2020-2024 era: Walks of respite outside to give body a break from inside WIFI is no longer possible with the 5G masts. Electric vehicles: Even short infrequent rides in a friend’s electric vehicle gives me creepy crawly sensations and nervous system irritation. 3 doctors concur with EMF/EMR exposure as being the cause of the symptoms experienced. 5: The FCC should be compelled to comply with an order issued by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 2021 in the case Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC (DC Cir 2021, No. 20-1025), ordering the FCC to address 11,000 pages of evidence on adverse impacts of wireless radiation before ANY legislation favorable to telecom and broadband expansion is even considered. I fear what will happen when towns lose all control over tower, small cell, and in/on-home placements. The focus on broadband deployment should be on safe, reliable fiber to homes, schools, and offices with ethernet connections, not unreliable, harmful wireless permeating the air. Americans with Disabilities Acct (ADA) - EMF/EMR sensitivity needs to be added as a protected class under the act. Guidance for those sensitive to EMF/EMR/wireless/bluetooth technologies needs to be unburied, acknowledged, updated, and disseminated to employers and those with public access buildings. Offices and public buildings should be inspected and remediated by building biologists certified in Electromagnetic and Electro Radio Frequencies, such as the Building Biology Institute. 13: The growing proliferation makes it an extremely difficult and dismal future for those who are sensitive or have pre-existing conditions. Those who are not yet, could easily become so with increased exposures and intensities. 15: Cancer/health issue clusters/declines & symptomologies known to be related to EMF’s in relation to human and animal health; local animal, bird, insect population declines, health of native flora & fauna vs invasive proliferations, increases in molds. No wireless infrastructures should be in/around any of these places. Wired should be the norm. I submit what Sayer Ji has put together as evidence: https://open.substack.com/pub/sayerji/p/secretary-kennedy-asked-for-the-evidence?r=2ri5rr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Carcinogenicity of radio-frequency radiation in the occupational and military setting Prepared jointly by: Elihu Richter, ORCID 0000-0003-3218-7765 Michael Peleg, ORCID 0000-0002-7520-8741 peleg.michael@gmail.com A slightly longer and better formated version is attached as a PDF file. We took part in research reported in the papers in the reference list below. The research provides a strong indication of carcinogenicity of Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR). The research subjects: Groups of young cancer patients previously exposed to RFR in the military and occupational setting. The exposure: The exposure was from radio communication transmitters, from radar and from electronic warfare. The exposure was repetitive, typically over a year or more. The Israeli Defense Forces exposure levels are guided by the occupational standards set by ICNIRP which allow average power higher by a factor of 5 relative to the ICNIRP recommendations for the general population. Importantly, those standards almost do not limit the peak power of radar pulses provided the average power is within the limits. Power concentrated in strong pulses may be more bioactive as explained in the references. Research methods: The primary information was from the patients; most of them were trained operators, technicians and engineers. For small subgroups of patients, we knew the size of the whole exposed population and thus we were able to estimate cancer Risk Ratios (RR) relative to the general population. For most of the patients the size of the exposed population was not available. Therefore we examined also cancer characteristics since cancer characteristics which are very different from those of cancer patients from the general population indicate an additional carcinogen. We examined Percentage Frequencies (PF) of cancer types and proportion of cancer patients suffering from multiple primaries. The main results: The RRs for cancer in the small subgroups were very high, e.g. 8, and statistically significant. The PF of hematolymphoid cancers was about twice the value in the general population and statistically significant. The two results above are consistent with research results of other research groups in different countries, see table 7 and figure 4 in reference (4) and section 3.4 in reference (3). Proportion of patients suffering multiple primaries as reported in reference (3) was higher by a factor of 4.5 than the value expected in the general population. This indicates a potent carcinogen. Such a dramatic rise in multiple primaries was not observed in our next work (4). The latencies in (4) may not have been long enough to develop multiple primaries. Our recommendations: Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) should be recognized as a human carcinogen. Limit human exposure to low levels, for example 1μW/cm2 average level and 5μW/cm2 peak pulse level. The suggested level is in the range of known community levels. In the military and the occupational settings, reduce exposures to the lowest possible level, striving to the specifications above. Use Faraday barriers to reduce exposures at the source and personal level and any other means required. Document individual exposures and provide this information to all highly exposed humans. Provide the exposed humans with long-term periodical medical surveillance for cancer and for other health effects. Perform epidemiological cancer research on all known personnel exposed to significant levels of RFR. Please see the detailed recommendation section in reference (4). Acknowledgement: We thank the Environmental Health Trust for organizing, in Israel, two international conferences on RFR and EMF health aspects which enabled very useful information exchange among the participants. References: (1) Richter E, Berman T, Ben-Michael E, Laster R, Westin JB. "Cancer in radar technicians exposed to radiofrequency/microwave radiation: sentinel episodes." Int J Occup Environ Health. 2000 Jul-Sep;6(3):187-93. doi: 10.1179/oeh.2000.6.3.187. PMID: 10926722. (2) M. Peleg: "Report on a Cancer Cluster in an Antenna Ranges Facility", International IEEE Conference on Microwaves, Communications, Antennas and Electronic Systems, IEEE COMCAS 2009, Tel Aviv, 9-11 November 2009. (3) Michael Peleg, Or Nativ, Elihu D. Richter: Radio frequency radiation related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting, Environmental Research, Volume 163, May 2018, Pages 123-133, ISSN 0013-9351 (4) M. Peleg, E. M. Berry, M. Deitch, O. Nativ, E. Richter: On radar and radio exposure and cancer in the military setting, Environmental Research, Volume 216, Part 2, Jan 2023, 114610, ISSN 0013-9351 (5) Peleg M, Berry E M, Deitch M, Nativ O, Richter E. 'Carcinogenicity of Radio-Frequency Radiation: Similarities and Differences Between Outcomes of Two Studies'. Med Discoveries. 2025; 4(7): 1267

COMMENT ON SCOPE, AUTHORITY, AND SCIENTIFIC METHODS Formal Request for Transparency This comment raises material issues concerning HHS’s RF/EMF RFI. The notice says responses are voluntary and HHS will not comment on individual submissions. I do not claim HHS must answer each question now. If HHS, or other agencies involved in this RFI (e.g. FCC, and others), later relies on this record for reviewable action, HHS should disclose its basis and address material issues through the applicable process. 1. AUTHORITY. The notice cites “21 CFR subpart J” without a part or section. Give the exact citation and statutory authority. Distinguish research authority (42 U.S.C. § 241; 21 U.S.C. § 360ii) from binding electronic-product performance standards (§ 360kk). For power-frequency fields, consumer products, communications infrastructure, and occupational exposures, identify the authority and intended output. For sources outside “electronic product radiation” under § 360hh(1), identify the separate authority. 2. SCOPE AND LEGAL EFFECT. Will HHS separately evaluate power-frequency fields, consumer RF devices, communications infrastructure, and occupational exposures? Is the intended output research/nonbinding advice or binding requirements? Confirm the RFI itself does not change limits, testing, disclosure, or siting rules and cannot substitute for procedures required for later binding action. 3. CORRECTING QUESTION 6. The RFI asks about effects “caused by current exposure limits.” A limit is a threshold, not an exposure. Does HHS mean effects associated with exposures at or below applicable limits? How will it define exposure/outcome and distinguish measured from estimated exposure and association from causation? 4. REVIEW PROTOCOL. Before synthesizing evidence, will HHS disclose its search sources/dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, screening/extraction methods, and material protocol deviations? If no systematic protocol will be used, how will it guard against selective study inclusion? 5. STUDY QUALITY. What predefined criteria will assess confounding, exposure misclassification, statistical power, multiple comparisons, publication bias, replication, and conflicts? Will positive, null, and contradictory studies face the same criteria? Will human, animal, and mechanistic evidence be evaluated separately, distinguishing biological response, adverse outcome, association, and causation? 6. EXPOSURE MEASUREMENT. How will HHS validate dosimetry, report uncertainty, and distinguish SAR, power density, electric fields, and magnetic fields? Will it identify source, frequency, intensity, duration, and whether exposure was measured, modeled, or self-reported? 7. CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. What validated method permits aggregation across different sources, frequencies, units, and durations? Will HHS justify additivity or dose-equivalence assumptions? If no common metric is valid, will it report source-specific measures rather than sum unlike quantities? 8. STANDARDS COMPARISON. For each standard, identify issuer/date, binding or advisory status, frequency range, metric, averaging time, population, endpoints, and uncertainty. Explain material differences before comparing limits. 9. SUBGROUPS AND ENVIRONMENT. For sensitive groups, will HHS identify prespecified analyses, statistical power, and multiple-comparison limits? How will it treat personal/clinical reports as hypothesis-generating, not causal proof? For wildlife and infrastructure, will it distinguish proximity from measured/modelled exposure and address confounders and field-study gaps? 10. TRANSPARENCY AND AGENCY ROLES. Will HHS publish methods, evidence tables, exclusions, bias assessments, exposure characterizations, uncertainty, and gaps, as law permits? Will it avoid vote-counting and double-counting studies across reviews? How will it distinguish HHS functions from FCC authority over communications facilities? Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 360ii, 360kk; 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a, 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Thank you and God Bless.

I have become severely electromagnetically sensitive since early 2019. Symptoms began in the summer of 2018 when my hands began to tingle and burn when using my cell phone, especially if I was on the Internet. My symptoms became increasingly worse in April-May 2019. I was working in an office for several days a week for long hours and was surrounded by much office equipment—such as my computer, computer modem, high powered Wi-Fi router close by, copy machine, telephone/intercom system, adding machine, walkie talkie, space heater, florescent lighting, and antenna above me on the metal roof. Some of my initial symptoms were: burning/tingling/pain in my hands while holding all of the following—cell phone, landline telephone, adding machine, computer mouse. I also experienced major nerve pain and burning in my teeth and nasal passageways, my body overheating (worse than a heat flash), burning lips and eyes, brain fog, eye pain, irritation, insomnia, pressure headaches where it felt like my brain was being squeezed, and fatigue. I began to have trouble finding any place in my home where I could feel good or sleep pain-free. It got so bad that even the motor on my refrigerator running, cooking on my stove, or using my washer and dryer were bringing me physical pain. The increase in my symptoms and the severity of them developed quickly over a matter of weeks. I went to a functional medicine doctor. I also distanced myself from much of the technology that was giving me pain. I began unplugging Wi-Fi in our home, using my cell phone much much less, putting it on airplane mode often, and never carrying it in my pocket again. I also put it outside of the bedroom at night. Yes, even electrical appliances were affecting me. Very quickly my body became hyper sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. I can testify that this is real, and not something I created in my head. I am not afraid of technology nor my cell phone, but this technology has become a curse rather than a blessing to me. Most people cannot understand that this radiation is affecting them biologically in a very negative way until something like this happens to them. Or until the FCC makes people more aware of the dangers of what many people are facing as more and more become hyper sensitive by constant accumulation and overexposure. Then they may begin to take precautions. How I wish I had been more aware and more careful of what this toxic burden can do. Even young children are being over exposed to these frequencies in their homes and schools. These technologies have been with them from before birth and will be with them their whole lives. I fear for them and what they will face when their bodies cannot withstand the harms of these frequencies that are almost everywhere. If only their parents were aware of the harms and took precautions to protect their babies and children. I cry thinking about a baby or child experiencing the pain that I have daily and not being able to understand or explain what’s going on. I have researched this topic since 2018 and have read many well written and informative books from doctors about this environmental poison that we are all living in. Still too many people unaware. Still too many of the medical doctors tell us we are crazy. I have added a few links below that have been very well done and from experts about the harms of the radiation and m/w and radio frequencies, etc. Please have a good long look at the 2012 BioInitiative Report for valuable info. And please do tell me, why haven’t more safety studies been done, improved upon , updated and put out for the public consumers for almost 25 years? 24 years overdue. This is unbelievable and unacceptable. Where are the agencies within our governments who care about the health of its people, and especially our children? Not to mention the birds, bees, insects, animals and even plant life. These man-made frequencies are affecting all of life on earth. Please, please, please help those of us who are likened to the canaries in the coal mines, to make this world a much safer place for humans , animals and all of God’s created things. All we desire is to live in a place where we can be productive, pain-free, and live to our potential. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e10wCiI6Ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=F0NEaPTu9oI https://www.seekinghealth.com/blogs/education/emf-sensitivity-and-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-why-some-people-react-and-what-actually-helps https://drnatashaf.com/sensitivity-to-emfs/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513191/ https://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms https://www.positivehealth.com/article/environmental/the-neurological-impact-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf-beyond-headaches https://neurolaunch.com/emf-effects-on-the-brain/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l13WHrMoTXQ

In 2010, I was permanently injured by electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell towers during the 4G rollout and the analog-to-digital TV signal transition.. I was left unable to tolerate all forms of wireless, electricity, the sun for many years and even x-rays. As a 25-year airline pilot, I had to stop flying because I could no longer tolerate hotel Wi-Fi or aircraft radar. The radiation levels in my home where I was injured were 800 times higher than inside my aircraft. This injury cost me my career, health, travel capabilities, ability to have children, and millions of dollars in lost wages and pension. I face ongoing injuries inside and outside my home from cell towers, neighbours' Wi-Fi, TV/radio antennas, radar, satellites, and consumer devices. Because Canada lacks radio-free areas, I had to leave my family for years to live in the radio-free zone of Green Bank, WV. Prior to that , I met with Industry Canada, alongside Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft Canada, to establish a radio-free zone in Canada. Despite Port Franks, Ontario and its municipality agreeing to host Canada’s first radio-free zone, Industry Canada told us they would legally block any attempts to establish a zone, asserting that no area in Canada could be without cell service. This lack of accommodation has caused immeasurable suffering, leading to homelessness, suicide, and people now accessing MAiD. Those affected cannot access healthcare due to hospital and clinic Wi-Fi. Adults with serious forms of this injury cannot work, children cannot attend school, and the elderly cannot live in nursing homes. There is a lack of empathy and care for this inconvenient group of people who most definitely are reacting to electromagnetic radiation, even if our health authorities won’t investigate it and or act appropriately on their reports of injury. As a patient advocate in Ontario, I have helped hundreds of individuals with electromagnetic injuries globally. Regardless of underlying co-factors, all these injuries occurred following exposure to electromagnetic radiation. My Symptoms: My symptoms at the time of my permanent injury included: Tinnitus Diminished quality of sleep Profound and sudden vision loss Sudden unexplained progressive weight gain Skin pigment changes (loss of pigment in some areas, gaining of pigment in others) Total loss of freckles, which I had since childhood Lack of tanning with sun exposure when tanning was easy for me previously Hormonal changes (Extreme hair growth on arms, cystic acne for the first time in my life, extremely heavy periods) Tissue swelling accompanied by skin colour changes when exposed to radiation - turning my skin red and eventually purple if I didn’t reduce exposure Nausea and vomiting Immense fatigue Tissue heating of parts of my hands and arms when walking through one location of my home Repetitive strong shocking, carrying a large charge in my body New chemical allergies and severe allergic reactions to foods (including meat) Serious adrenal insufficiency - lack of cortisol production Looking back, I believe I was being thermally heated far below the Safety Code 6 levels, that led to my brain swelling, which put pressure on my pituitary gland and optic nerve, and resulted in many of my symptoms listed above. My observations of electromagnetic injures and co-factors which may have made people more vulnerable to injury: Exposures to radiation itself - For Example I met a couple who stayed over at a Canadian Airforce Base in Ontario, and they both became permanently injured from the radar on the same night. Exposures to Pesticides and other chemicals Taking Ciprofloxacin Having heavy metals in their body - For example, high mercury, aluminum, iron or copper levels. I have seen many vegetarians who became injured later, potentially from high levels of copper as they are missing zinc from not having meat in their diet. Being exposed to Lyme disease or West Nile Virus (previous encephalitis) Electrical Shock Gamma Scan exposures MRI exposures - Single to patient and cumulative to staff Mold Exposures Carbon Monoxide Exposures Concussions Genetic issues - For example, the inability to detox, the inability to process certain nutrients that might lead to lack of myelin, etc. Anything that has compromised the blood brain barrier Potentially Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or Connective Tissue Disorders - leading to MAST Cell Activation Syndrome I’ve also observed that the digitization of the frequencies themselves has led to injuries from electromagnetic radiation. For example, I used a 900 MHz analog cordless phone for 10 years with no problems, but I was not able to tolerate a digitized DECT phone at 2.5 GHz. Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments. If I can be of any help, please just ask me. Melissa Chalmers