Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives

On Christmas Day, 1991 I had my first encounter with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. My 2 yr old handed me a present-it was a flip phone.  When I made my first call, the energy vibrated up my arm & my head. My body had a strong, visceral reaction.  The moment's captured on video, so you can see my unplanned reaction. When I asked others how they could hold their phone to their ear while it zapped them, I realized I was an outlier. I started to connect my symptoms and use of the phone: extreme headaches, numbness, tingling, insomnia, anxiety-palpitations & brain fog.  When WiFi arrived it became extremely clear; WiFi nearby made me feel so unwell, it had to be turned off if I was within 50 ft. What began as a personal quest became a professional mission. For the past two decades, I have focused on public awareness & education in the area of digital wellness. Through websites, published articles, video content & public speaking engagements, I have informed audiences on the realities of how technology is affecting us and how to stay safer and healthier with it. I’ve had to build my whole life around accommodating the functional impairment of electrohypersensitivity (EHS). I don’t live close to cell towers. I don’t have a WiFi in my home, I have a wired ethernet connection. My home has a metal roof. I use RF-EMF blocking material, including a sleep canopy, and more. I drive a 2010 car with no wireless & use a EMF blocking cocoon wrap when exposure is unavoidable. Not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone knows they’re reacting. I’ve consulted hundreds of people who cannot break leases or move when they encountered the negative effects of RF-EMF. Many feel constantly surrounded by EMF without any relief from debilitating pain. The land of the free often presents as a prison for those who are most sensitive to EMF. My lived experience with EHS, is why I urge immediate consideration & protection for all sensitive groups, including children, people with chronic illness & people with EHS.  The reality is, even if someone does not physically feel the effects of EMF, that doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted at a biological level. In fact, there are already hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that link EMF to other negative biological effects like cancer, autism, thyroid nodules, insomnia, infertility. These scoping studies cannot be ignored (links below): The US National Toxicology Program claims on its Government site: Clear evidence of association with heart tumors male rats and some evidence of brain, and adrenal tumors. A 2025 review commissioned by WHO found Man-Made Wireless EMF Radiation causes Brain Cancer and Heart Cancer.  The evidence from 52 studies was assessed. The certainty of the evidence for an"increased risk of glioma or brain cancer, was judged as high.” The ICBE-EMF review revealed current safety limits for wireless EMF are severely inadequate to protect public health. Wydaeghe et. al. simulation of the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure showed that in the worst-case scenario, a 6 year old boy can absorb wireless energy from a typical cellphone tower that is 45% more than the current FCC limits actually allow. Simulated 5G towers found exposure could reach 158% of the limits. Chokeli et.al looked at genotoxic biomarkers in children that had cell towers 100 to 400 meters from their schools. The closer they were the more biomarkers related to DNA damage and cancer, the kids had. A recent study published in Cureus Journal of Medical Science found significant associations between levels of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure in the home and child development. I hear the same comment repeatedly from my community, “My kids don’t sleep well when the WiFi is on.” A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study points to the same conclusion: participants reported poorer sleep when exposed to radiation from a wireless baby monitor as compared to a “sham.” While more research is helpful, we already have more than enough convicting studies. Therefore the federal priorities at this point must employ risk management measures relying on current research, enacting laws to protect our youngest and most sensitive Americans while further studies are take place. As a mother with an adorable grandson, I often think, “Why does France care more about the effects of RF-EMF on children than my country does?”  For over a decade, children under 3 in France have been guaranteed a pre-school without the impact of WiFi.  For kids 3 to 11, parents are assured that the WiFi will remain off when it’s not used for digital education. Law #2015-136 also says any public establishment in France that has WiFi must clearly signal its presence.   An amazingly effective first step would be to pass a law like France’s. Imagine happier kids, more present teachers. This basic protection for kids is literally the least we can do. 

During the rollout of 5G in the town of Bedford, New Hampshire, of which I lived during December 2021, I developed tinnitus (ringing in the ear). Within 2 weeks, my husband who also lived in Bedford with me developed tinnitus. Neither of us had this issue before. To this day (October 19, 2026), we both still suffer from it. During the autumn of 2024, the neighborhood I lived in (Bedford, New Hampshire) was the center of some of the first fiber optic installation in the state of New Hampshire. Within weeks of this rollout, I experienced poor, interrupted sleep. Some nights I would only get 3 to 4 hours. This severely disrupted sleep cycle and its damaging effects continue to this day, along with accompanying and crushing fatigue.

I am writing this in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. My name is Carol Franks and I live in the UK. I am responding as an individual who suffers debilitating symptoms with exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am sure that, from all the studies and evidence gathered by independent bodies that we are all affected, but some of us are noticeably physically affected and this is very restricting on life style. Tests that my general practitioner had carried out, for the symptoms, showed no other reason for the nose bleeds, heart-rate changes, rashes; pains about my body and head; fatigue; nausea/digestive reactions among other symptoms particularly when in the vicinity of masts or mobile phones. The rashes especially from ankles up to knee can occur after riding on electric buses. They can last for up to a week and I find I need to refrain from riding on electric buses or being near Wi-Fi for up to that time as I feel unwell along with the rashes. If I ride on a longer journey on an electric bus with all the mobile phones of passengers or short journeys 2 days running I am unwell with symptoms of nausea and digestive issues the following day that cease if I remain at home without Wi-Fi. My life has been restricted since I had to give up my job several years ago because of the debilitating symptoms working with Wi-Fi. I am affected by all electricity, but can be on a wired computer for up to one hour without debilitating symptoms. I can have no Wi-Fi in the house. This, of course, has affected my husband, too, with living with me and my ability to live a normal family life with my daughter and family. She has Wi-Fi in her house and I can only stay for a short time and can’t visit her too often. She is aware, but uses a smart phone and I need to sit away in the conservatory when I visit her, but I still get symptoms afterwards. Two examples of experiences that were in the diary kept for my doctor are: The first was when I was walking to visit my Father. I was with my husband and we were chatting and walking through a hedge-lined lane about 2 miles from my home when suddenly all my energy started to drain from my body and I felt scared because I thought I was going to fall. My husband caught me to support me. I said to him, ‘I can’t understand it because I was feeling fine until now’. He replied ‘There is a mast just around the corner.’ There was a z bend in the lane so this was not visible from where we were with the high hedges. I replied, ‘I didn’t know that, show me where’ He said, ‘It is disguised as a tree.’ He continued, ‘I will help you to get past it and see if you feel better when we put some distance between us and the mast.’ We did so and as we walked further from the mast, my energy returned and I felt my strength return to finish the walk to see my father. The second example is: When we changed broadband providers, a new router was sent to us. My husband spoke to the company and asked if it could be wired not Wi-Fi, explaining why. The company assistant said it could be either and my husband said it must be wired as my wife is badly affected by Wi-Fi. My husband set it up when it arrived, but I didn’t know as I was out at the time. On returning, I went to use the computer. I was only working on it for about ten minutes when I started to feel quite ill – nauseous, dizzy, foggy in the head and disorientated. I felt frightened and anxious, so I told my husband. I said to him that I was going into the garden to see if I felt better and I did. I thought it could be the weather as I always felt slightly unwell before a storm, but this was much worse. I came back to my computer to carry on working, but this time I was only on it for a few minutes before the awful symptoms returned. I said to my husband that it must be something in the room. I indicated that I was going for a shower to see if that helped me. While I was in the shower, my husband called to me at the door saying that he thought he knew what the problem was – the new router. He said he had looked into it and he needed to go on to the Internet to de-activate the Wi-Fi. He said he would do that and when I came out of the shower, I could see if it was better. I went back to my computer again and I was on it for an hour and I was fine. I ask HHS to carefully evaluate experiences of people like me and the scientific evidence; identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to the young and other potentially vulnerable people. Please establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for reading my response.

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

See atta1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Wireless mouse, cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi. Anything wireless. 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):All wireless devices, every day for the past three decades or more. Also, living near high-voltage power lines for eleven years, ending four years ago (2011-2022) 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:Too many to list...neurological, including panic disorder, arthritis, brain-fog, and poor sleep. 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:Almost immediate after introduction of smart meters and use of cell phone. Later for wireless mouse and keyboard. High-voltage power lines after 2-3 months. Moving away helped almost immediately. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?Yes. Doctors deemed my maladies to be "panic disorder" and diagnoses of carpal tunnel and arthritis. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Wired mouse stopped hand/wrist problems. Keeping distance from cell phone and using Bluetooth (turned off unless in on a call) and no texting eased panic disorder. Keeping distance from smart meter helped with sleep and brain fog. Moving away from power lines helped me generally feel better. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:No Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's:I am very sensitive to all wireless devices. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:Cell Phone, smart meter, wireless mouse, Wi-Fi, being near high-voltage power lines. B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you:None B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed:None B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy):Wired, heated massager B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:Tinnitus...really loud B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant:Unknown B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure:Distance from smart meter, eliminating wireless mouse, keyboard and internet on PC (fiber or cable instead). Limiting use of cell phone (no data at all, no texting, using basic flip phone and Bluetooth combo). Distance from cell towers. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help:Move away from cell towers (I can't afford that) B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful):Drugs B3d. Treatments that had no effect:None B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:75+ B4. What is your age range?75+ B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?Can't recall year...right after cell phones came out. B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?Galveston, Texasched file(s)

Comment of Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), Amy Bohn, President, in Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Our full comment is attached. It responds to Questions 2, 5(n), 9, 11(a), 12, 13(c), 15(a), 16, and 17 as numbered in the notice. We file as a parent-led organization. Children in American public schools and licensed child care spend six to seven hours a day, roughly 180 days a year, inside wireless infrastructure that their parents were never told about and never asked to approve. That is the parent side of this docket, and it does not depend on how the science comes out. The FCC's exposure limits date to 1996 (11 FCC Rcd 15123). The D.C. Circuit held in 2021 that the FCC had not given a reasoned explanation on children, long-term exposure, and the spread of wireless devices, while taking no position in the scientific debate (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893). The FCC reopened that record only on September 17, 2026, while a mandamus petition was pending (In re Children's Health Defense, No. 26-1121). The FDA's 2020 literature review addressed cancer only. This notice itself says public concern has risen, particularly around children, schools, and long-term cumulative exposure. When the government cannot say the question is closed, the decision belongs with the parent, and a parent cannot decide without information. What changed since 1996: the FCC funded classroom Wi-Fi through E-Rate Category Two (FCC 14-99; 47 CFR 54.502); 88 percent of public schools now run one-to-one device programs (NCES, 2024-25); and Florida regulates the student's phone during the school day (s. 1006.07(2)(f), Fla. Stat.) but no Florida statute or State Board rule requires a district to tell parents what wireless infrastructure operates in a classroom. The only federal notice requirement attached to E-Rate concerns content, not equipment (47 U.S.C. 254(l)). We ask HHS to do four things. 1. Disclosure (Question 9). Issue a six-item notice format for schools and licensed child care providers: an inventory of transmitters by classroom; the operating schedule; device practices; any measurements taken; wired alternatives and how to request a lower-exposure placement; and a contact. France's 2015 law (Law No. 2015-136, art. 7) and Maryland's 2016 advisory council report already recommend practices of this kind, and Oregon (SB 283, 2019) and New Hampshire (HB 522, 2019) have put the question to study. 2. Guidance (Question 5(n)). Issue practical exposure-reduction guidance for schools and child care providers: wired connections where practical, access points off when not in use for instruction, devices off the body, and no wireless equipment in rooms for the youngest children. School network controllers in common use already support scheduled availability as a standard feature. 3. Measurement (Question 16). Fund a national study of RF levels in occupied classrooms and child care rooms during the school day. No federal agency has published such a dataset. The one government classroom measurement study we found is ARPANSA's 2017 study of 23 Australian schools. Add wireless infrastructure and parent notice questions to CDC's School Health Profiles, which ask nothing on the subject today. State whether the National Toxicology Program's RF research, listed as completed, will resume. 4. Coordination (Question 17). Open a standing channel with the Department of Education and the FCC, and ask that E-Rate Category Two recipients post the equipment disclosure at the internet safety hearing the statute already requires. We also ask the Department to state in its summary of this docket that schools and child care facilities are settings of involuntary, long-duration exposure for children, and that disclosure to parents is warranted on that basis whatever the outcome of the scientific review. PERK's September 2026 filings in Docket HHS-OS-2026-0332 rest on a survey of 664 parents. We offer to run a wireless version of that instrument, measuring notice and consent as parents experience them, with partner organizations across multiple states, and to provide the results to the Department in whatever form it designates. The instrument is available on request. This comment contains no personally identifiable or personal health information. Every factual claim in the attachment is cited to a primary source, with a Sources list at the end. Prepared by Rebekah Ricks, Senior Consultant. Contact: abohn@perk-group.com; Rebekah@PERK-GROUP.com.

World Council for Health (WCH) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information. WCH is an international health advocacy organisation committed to promoting informed consent, individual health sovereignty, scientific transparency, and the protection of human and environmental health. We believe that the rapid and largely unrestrained expansion of wireless technologies represents a significant public health and environmental policy concern that warrants urgent, independent and comprehensive scientific scrutiny. Over recent decades, wireless communications infrastructure has expanded dramatically, introducing increasingly widespread and persistent exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields. While technological innovation has brought considerable benefits, WCH is concerned that the pace of deployment has outstripped the assessment of potential long-term biological and environmental consequences, particularly in relation to chronic, cumulative and involuntary exposure. In 2023, WCH published its Policy Brief on the Effects of Unregulated Digitalization, examining the wider implications of rapidly expanding digital and wireless technologies for public health, human rights, democratic accountability and the environment. This body of work includes the recommendations of the late Dr Arthur Firstenberg, who devoted decades to investigating the biological and ecological effects of electromagnetic fields. His work brought together scientific publications examining possible effects on neurological function, cellular processes, reproduction, wildlife, biodiversity and ecosystem health. Of particular concern is the extent to which existing RF exposure standards have historically focused on established thermal effects, while questions concerning long-term exposure, non-thermal biological effects, signal modulation, vulnerable populations and ecological impacts remain contested or insufficiently resolved. WCH believes that public health policy must consider the full breadth of available evidence, including research findings that challenge prevailing assumptions about exposure thresholds and biological safety. We are particularly concerned about the implications for children, pregnant women, individuals reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and those who have little practical ability to avoid exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces or communities. The continued expansion of 5G telecommunications and wireless infrastructure including the introduction of new frequencies, network configurations and connected technologies raise further questions about aggregate exposure, long-term health effects and the adequacy of existing safety assessments. The potential environmental implications must also be considered. The Brief highlights research examining associations between anthropogenic electromagnetic fields and changes in the behaviour, development, reproduction and survival of insects, birds, plants and other organisms. These findings require careful evaluation, including consideration of study limitations and other environmental factors, as part of a comprehensive approach to ecological protection. WCH therefore calls for an independent, transparent and multidisciplinary review of the scientific evidence, free from inappropriate commercial or regulatory conflicts of interest. Such a review should address thermal and possible non-thermal effects, chronic and cumulative exposure, biological responses to modulation and pulsed signals, and the implications of exposure across the lifespan. We further urge HHS to consider the precautionary principle, particularly where exposure is involuntary, where vulnerable populations may be affected, and where meaningful opportunities to reduce unnecessary exposure exist. This includes serious consideration of practical alternatives such as wired communications infrastructure, greater public disclosure of exposure information, improved professional education, and individual choice. WCH encourages greater coordination between public health authorities, environmental agencies, independent researchers and affected communities, recognising that the potential implications of electromagnetic pollution extend beyond conventional telecommunications regulation. The protection of public health and the natural environment must remain central to technological policy, and not be treated as secondary considerations after widespread deployment has already occurred. We believe that responsible technological development must be guided by independent science, transparency, informed consent, the protection of vulnerable populations, and a commitment to safeguarding the health of both present and future generations. Yours sincerely Dr Tess Lawrie MBBCh, PhD Ambassador World Council for Health worldcouncilforhealth.org https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/what-is-5g-health-risks/

There are many reasons to research the impact of man-made non-ionizing radiation. First, we’ll start with cellphone and mobile base stations (MBSTS) effects on children (it should be noted these base stations are leased and pay the schools tens of thousands of dollars annually). A study involved parting a non MPBST (mobile phone base station) exposed group to an exposed group and comparing test scores after a period of 2 years’ time (Meo SA et all, 2018). The impact of the radiation showed memory and motor deficiencies of significant value. In the attached report you’ll see a significant difference in the study groups when it comes to learning and memory. I will say that I have measured the radiation from my cellphone in an otherwise zero EMR environment. The zero EMR environment registers 0.2 to .5 mW/cm2 (0.2 microwatts per meter squared), which is considered very safe. Comparatively, when you measure my phone with its Wi-Fi turned on (and no other connectivity signal), I get 189,000 mW/cm2. That’s an incredible difference. Other individuals of concern are those with preexisting medical conditions, especially those with weakened immune systems are more susceptible to the degrading effect EMR has on the blood brain barrier. The BBB is a semipermeable border that moves ions, oxygen and water between the blood and the central nervous system. It serves to block pathogens and toxins from entering the brain and these studies have found correlation between EMR and penetrability of the Blood Brain Barrier. Additionally, IARC (International Agency of Research on Cancer) have found cellphone users have a greater risk of cancer (MSD, 2016). Cumulative exposure is the biggest problem with EMR. It is very hard to determine the cause of issue when so many devices are involved. The various sources of cumulative exposure include 6G, 5G, Wi-Fi and wearable technology. 6G involves THz (Terahertz) frequencies that will have the ability to alter DNA and neurons. It has been determined that 5G and 6G and other high frequency radiation causes tissue and nerve damage (Minar, 2025). The IoT will magnify the effects of EMR as many appliances connect and communicate with each other. Wearable technologies concentrate EMR on the body and range up to 2.4 GHz, which is not advisable to wear and it is not fair to expose others to this device’s radiation (Revolutionhealth, 2025). Unless it is mandatory, wireless medical devices should not be worn (mdasafetech, 2026). It is also known that wireless devices can cause heart issues and it’s extremely ironic they are used to measure heart rate and other general health metrics. As for satellite-based communication, studies need to be made regarding its impact on the environment and biology. The WHO and FCC have already mentioned, in their former studies, that electromagnetic radiation devices are possibly carcinogenic. These same studies are decade’s old and needing review. It should be assumed that at this point, with the massive increase in man-made electrical fields, that scientific evidence is irrefutable and that it does cause harm (Johansson, 2026). Like tobacco and alcohol, outreach/education about the potential harmful impacts of wireless radiation should be readily available with warning labels. At this time, the cellphone and telecommunications companies are largely uninsurable due to the high risks of electromagnetic fields (ehtrust, 2026) (Complete Markets, 2026). Since we are discussing the need for HHS to reevaluate and none of the other branches, we can talk about the need to expand its epidemiological studies to cover the cancer and leukemia issues known to be associated with this as well as harm reduction in classes, libraries, hospitals and public spaces. Every technological product we use has a measurable field. These items should be 3rd party tested and sold with the readings provided and a warning label printed. The packaging should be sold with a label that states its level at microwatts per meter squared (mW/cm2) and each level should be color coded for quick recognition so that we can create a baseline chart that consumers easily understand. Much like the EMR test meters available on the markets, you’ll have Red, Orange, Yellow and Green and these colors correlate to the degree of signal on the object. The FDA will be responsible for labeling and verifying full disclosure is provided to consumers. Public spaces need to be measured and coded as well and if possible, provide Ethernet connections and lower their EMR signal to the minimum necessary. We already have thousands of well researched, published scientific articles online that have spanned 40-50 years. We don’t need to invent the cart; we just need some horses and a destination. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment on man-made electromagnetic radiation and its effects on health. Sincerely, Nicole Stallings

Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. I’m the mother of an 8 year old son with severe autism and PANDAS. It’s been a long journey of some terrible, terrifying, dark years. Last year, we invested in bio medical testing and discovered our son had mold and heavy metal toxicity. We live in Minneapolis. MN. We moved out of our moldy house and into temporary housing in a nearby suburb in Eden Prarie. Within a week, all my son’s most difficult symptoms disappeared. He became calm. He wasn’t having melt downs or injuring himself. He was sleeping through the night. He stopped wetting the bed. His bowel movements improved. He became easy going and was smiling and laughing again. Within a month, the change was miraculous. We moved into a new, mold-free apartment in Minneapolis. He wasn’t doing as well. His conatipation returned. He was agitated and struggling with transitions again. I started looking into the differences between the two locations and one possibility was EMF’s. I checked the cell tower maps. The temporary housing had six cell towers within three miles, and they were all at least one mile away. Our house and apartment in Minneapolis have hundreds and several within 1/2 mile radius! We also have solar panels on the roof which I learned is a huge issue. We started mitigating EMF’s in our apartment - hard wiring our phones and computers, and we got him an EMF blocking canopy for his bed. He improved greatly, but it is taking a lot more effort and interventions to maintain and build on what was coming easily in Eden Prarie. There is simply too much exposure living in the city, and with our apartment neighbors all having WIFI and Smart Appliances. This is a growing issue! I can’t even send my son to school because of mold and EMF’s with the cell towers being right on the school property! They don’t belong anywhere near residential areas. I’ve learned that EMF’s exacerbate mold growth and mycotoxin activity uo to 600x. We still have mold colonized in our bodies being activated by the EMF’s. I’ve also learned that if you have high heavy metals (which mold causes), your body attracts more of the radiation. We need legislation stopping this biological warfare.

My first experience with cell phone was with my ex-husband, who was so sensitive to the radiation that he couldn’t have it any where near his body or he would experience pain, redness and swelling. We opted out of smart meters as they were introduced and kept a wired internet. That was 20 some years ago and since that time I have continued to opt out of all wireless and Bluetooth gadgets, wire my internet and cellphone at home and keep my phone on Airplane mode when I am out and do not need to use it. When I do have to turn my phone on or use WIFI I can feel the energy sometimes immediately- heat, pressure, headache. I believe people get used to the feeling of being radiated and cannot distinguish it from a radiation pollution free environment. It is nearly impossible to find a place like that. We are being over-exposed to non-native radiation and the average person has no idea of the dangers or consequences nor do we have much of a choice as to that exposure.