Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives

I am the parent of an autistic adult who is fully dependent on my support. She was experiencing significant insomnia. Her heath care provider recommended she hard wire the house, turn off WIFI on the router, and eliminate WIFI and exposure to the cell phone in the bed room. This resulted in much improved sleep, including beginning to dream again. She was exposed beginning in ~2004, and had regular exposure to the cell phone as she did everything on it. The WIFI router was above her sleeping area. She experienced noticeable changes in her sleep which was much improved. It was recommended the house be remediated for EMF, so a building biologist was hired who identified ways to reduce the EMF load in the House. Smart meter was removed, dirty electricity remediation involved switching out fixtures, dimmers on lights were removed throughout the house, installing a sleep switch to turn on electricity in the sleeping areas, stopping electricity coming into the house on the water main, and other interventions. LED lights are NOT in allowed the house to avoid blue light. My doctor considers me EMF sensitive and will write letters to prevent me from unnecessary exposure to EMF. We do not let EMF emitting devices in the house and test the environment regularly with the Safe and Sound meter as new people come into house and new devices or appliances enter house. We relied on the building biologists many studies of harm from EMF exposure AND insomnia was a symptom that regularly was identified as a problem. The bedroom area and the house in general are not in the low EMF on the Safe and Sound meter. Studies can be found at: Regarding scientific support for negative health effects effects of EMF…. and included below in the attached document links to a website and a book. I also included them here, plus attached the color charts: i. The full Bioinitiative 2012 report can be found at: https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ ii. The attached are color charts below that list studies that looked at the biological effects of low exposure to EMF & is available at https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ iii. A book on the topics is at: https://www.routledge.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-of-Wireless-Communications-Biological-and-Health-Effects/Panagopoulos/p/book/9781032061764

I am a practicing Internal Medicine physician with roughly 10 years' experience treating adult patients using "Integrative" strategies, ie, specific biologically precise strategies which fundamentally address the root causes of chronic illness. I also personally suffer from chronic illness, thus providing the opportunity to experience the results of many, if not all, of the strategies I employ. Roughly 10 years ago, I became aware of the possibility that I was personally being affected by wireless (ie, RF/EMF) radiation exposure in my own household. Specifically, it was suggested to me by my health coach that my difficulty sleeping (for the previous 5-6 years) might be due to RF/EMF exposure, at that time cell phones not powered off at night plus WiFi router exposure, both at my office as well as at night in my home. I somewhat skeptically agreed to a trial of powering off cell phones and WiFi router at night, and my sleep immediately improved dramatically enough for me to conclude clinically that the improvement was very likely due to this removal of RF/EMF exposure. We eventually permanently eliminated the WiFi router and hard-wired our house with internet cabling, along with powering off our cell phones at night. I also keep my personal cell phone on airplane mode continuously during the day, establishing connectivity only to receive and read texts. I don’t use my cell phone for calls at all. This has resulted in our home becoming a relatively “safe haven” for me from an RF/EMF perspective. In fact, I use only a landline in my home office to make calls, doing most of my clinical work from home, and go to my medical office only to see patients, maybe an hour or two a day. My medical office, even though also hard-wired to minimize RF/EMF, has EMF levels (ie, density) from 700 to 1500 microwatts per meter squared, presumably from wireless devices in adjoining tenants’ offices and perhaps from nearby cell towers and I typically experience difficulty sleeping if I’ve spent three or more hours in my office. I have done extensive RF/EMF measurements throughout various parts of my city, most of which have EMF density levels of at least 500, and often up to 2500 microwatts per meter squared. When I have prolonged exposure to an environment with these higher densities, such as my place of worship which reads 2000 to 3000 microwatts per meter squared, I always experience increased difficulty sleeping, along with increased daytime fatigue for the next two days. Perhaps an experience I had very early in the process of discovering my own reactions to wireless radiation will be helpful. I was attending a neighborhood meeting located on the top floor of a tall apartment building, roughly 20 stories tall. As participants got seated, the middle-aged woman next to me said that she was sensitive to RF/EMF, and that on the roof of this building (right above us) were situated an array of wireless antennae. She then proceeded to pull out an EMF meter to show me the readings, which were very high. In fact, she told me that she would need to leave the meeting before its conclusion to avoid excessive EMF exposure, which she did after thirty or forty minutes. I had never knowingly had this level of exposure, and was feeling no particular symptoms, so I attended the remainder of the two-hour meeting. Within a day or so, I felt exhausted, and it took another 3-4 days to fully recover. Surprisingly to me at the time, I began to notice similar symptoms whenever I was again exposed to excessive RF/EMF radiation. Clinically, it was behaving in a way familiar to any practicing physician; namely, now that my system had sustained injury, the injured system was more susceptible to that same type of injury. What follows is an explanation of how this process occurs on a microscopic level, with both a link to full explanation, as well as sound byte-style quick summary: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/09/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx • Exposure to microwave EMFs, like cellphones, causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction due to damage done by free radicals from peroxynitrite that also cause single and double stranded breaks in your DNA Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from cellphones and Wi-Fi networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility Excessive calcium signaling produced by EMF exposures also has important roles in producing pathophysiological effects of EMFs including each of the effects listed above In summary, exposure to nearly ubiquitous RF/EMF radiation has nearly confined me to my own home, essentially imposing upon me excessive fatigue whenever I venture out to the community at large.

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.

I. Introduction As an individual consumer and parent, I am submitting this comment to urge regulatory authorities to adopt a strict precautionary framework regarding human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency radiation (RFR), and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF). While public communications often claim there is "no evidence" of harm from non-ionizing radiation, a rigorous evaluation of the published literature reveals a substantial body of pooled epidemiological and experimental data. To support the need for updated, biology-based safety limits, this submission highlights the quantitative findings of multiple peer-reviewed meta-analyses spanning brain tumors, childhood leukemia, general carcinogenesis, reproductive health, and neurodegenerative decline. II. Summary of Evidence from Peer-Reviewed Meta-Analyses 1. Mobile Phone Radiation & Brain Tumors (Gliomas and Neuromas) Pooled data demonstrates a statistically significant increase in brain tumor risks correlated with long-term or ipsilateral (same-side) mobile phone usage: • Yang et al.: Found that mobile phone use extending to 10 years or more is associated with an elevated risk of glioma. This risk increases for same-side (ipsilateral) use and low-grade glioma. • Hardell et al. Reported that 10+ years of same-side mobile phone use doubled the risk for glioma and more than doubled the risk for acoustic neuroma. • Myung et al.: Identified an overall tumor risk increase for 10+ years of use. Notably, the authors found that methodologically superior, blinded studies clearly identified harm, whereas unblinded studies showed a false "protective" effect. • Wang et al.: Noted that while ever-use was not statistically significant, the data indicated an increased risk trajectory specifically for long-term users. 2. Childhood Leukemia & Magnetic Fields The vulnerability of developing children to ambient magnetic fields is documented in high-scale pooled controls: • Zhao et al.: Analyzing 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls, researchers found that exposure to magnetic fields of 0.4 microtesla or greater (compared to <0.1 yielded a significant risk elevation for leukemia. The risk escalated sharply for acute lymphocytic leukemia. • Wartenberg: Calculated that if an association exists, approximately 175 to 240 childhood leukemia cases per year in the United States could be directly attributed to magnetic field exposure. 3. General Cancer Risks & ELF Fields • Zhang et al.: Aggregated 42 studies (13,259 cases, 100,882 controls) and found a positive association overall. The risk was higher in United States cohorts and notably elevated for residential exposures. 4. Breast Cancer Risk Elevation • Chen et al.: Identified an elevated risk of breast cancer associated with exposure, which rose slightly higher for estrogen-receptor-positive configurations. • Zhao et al.: Found a pooled OR of 1.10 for breast cancer, which increased significantly among premenopausal women. 5. Reproductive Health & Sperm Quality • Adams et al.: Meta-analysis of 1,492 samples demonstrated that mobile phone exposure is significantly associated with a decrease in sperm motility by -8.1% and viability by -9.1%. This effect was consistent across both in vitro experimental setups and in vivo observational studies. • Liu et al.: Confirmed clear biological harm and degradation in in vitro and animal models, though human observational data in their pooled subset remained null. 6. Neurodegenerative Diseases & Occupational ELF-MF Exposure • Jalilian et al.: Found a substantial relative risk increase for Alzheimer’s disease among workers with high occupational ELF-MF exposure. • Huss et al. (Bioelectromagnetic, 2018; PMID: 29350413): Found an elevated risk for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) overall, which jumped sharply for individuals working within electrical occupations. III. Conclusion & Regulatory Recommendation The argument that there is "no evidence" of biological harm from ambient electromagnetic and magnetic fields is contradicted by the extensive epidemiological data compiled above. Regulatory agencies cannot rely solely on short-term thermal absorption models (like SAR) to determine human safety. Because these meta-analyses demonstrate clear patterns of increased risk - particularly regarding chronic, long-term exposure, residential proximity, and early-childhood vulnerabilities - I request that the agency: 1. Implement the Precautionary Principle across all updated safety regulations. 2. Establish lower, biology-based exposure limits that account for non-thermal, chronic biological mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress, DNA transcription changes). 3. Incentivize and prioritize wired telecommunications and localized power mitigation infrastructure over widespread, high-density ambient wireless radiation. Thank you for reviewing the data and incorporating public health research into your regulatory process. Respectfully, Nina Martin

The second biggest mistake we can make when evaluating wireless radiation is assuming that because something doesn't heat us, it cannot affect us. The biggest is electrifying the entire biosphere based upon that assumption. Life is bioelectric before it is biochemical. Decades before 5G towers, orthopedic surgeon and researcher Dr. Robert O. Becker investigated the electrical properties of living tissue. His work on regeneration, injury currents, and direct-current electrical signaling challenged the notion that biology could be understood exclusively through the reductionist chemistry. In his 3 books, Becker warned about the consequences of introducing artificial electromagnetic environments without adequately understanding how living organisms respond to them. His central thesis deserves renewed attention especially as we further develop wireless technology. He argued that biological electrical signaling is not incidental. It participated in tissue repair, development, and physiological regulation. Yet modern wireless safety assessments remain heavily focused on thermal effects, leaving an incomplete framework for investigating a fundamentally electrical organism. Cell membranes maintain voltage gradients, neurons communicate through electrochemistry, mitochondria depend on proton gradients, and calcium signaling regulates a wide rage of processes from neurotransmission to gene expression. There is growing evidence that everyday wireless exposure disrupts these electrical systems, and the inconvenient concerns have been dismissed throughout our safety standards. Consider the National Toxicology Program's $30 million radiofrequency research program. Its 2018 studies reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. Some evidence was also reported for malignant brain gliomas. Although these exposures cannot be simply extrapolated to ordinary cellphone use, the assumption that preventing tissue heating settles the safety question is obviously flipped on its head with this. This is exactly why more research is required for the bioeffects of cellphone EMF on humans. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Scientists are evaluating a rapidly changing electromagnetic environment using incomplete long-term exposure data. Real-world exposure is not a single frequency delivered under an isolated laboratory environment. A child sleeping beside a wireless router, a technician working around transmitting equipment, and an adult occasionally using a cellphone do not share identical exposure profiles, and will not experience identical effects. HHS should prioritize independent investigations into chronic, cumulative, and developmentally sensitive exposures, including realistic 5G and Wi-Fi conditions. These studies should examine sleep physiology, nervous system function, reproductive outcomes, oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, and electrophysiological signaling, while carefully controlling temperature and other confounding variables. Absence of conclusive evidence is not a substitute for comprehensive investigation. Finally, technological convenience should not require universal, involuntary participation in an increasingly wireless environment. Families should have meaningful choices in this. Schools should be able to prioritize wired internet. Communities should have access to transparent exposure measurements. Consumers should receive understandable information about their devices. Federal research must be insulated from industry influence, with transparent funding, open data, independent replication, and meaningful public participation. We should prioritize reducing unnecessary exposure without having to prove that every transmitter causes disease. Becker's legacy was not that he answered all the questions surrounding the harmful effects of EMF exposure. It was that he recognized that we could not fully answer them yet in good faith. HHS now has a serious oppurtunity to answer those questions. Study biology as an integrated electrical, magnetic, optical, hydrated, chemical, and environmental system. Investigate plausible mechanisms without overstating or understating them. Protect the scientific independence, and give communities the ability to make informed decisions. Public health should not require people to surrender control over their electromagnetic environment simply because wireless infrastructure has become ubiquitous. The burden of responsible innovation is to demonstrate safety through transparent, independent, and continuously updated science; not merely to demonstrate connectivity.

Personal Perspective and Health Experience I am submitting this comment as an individual consumer sharing my experience with potential health effects that I believe have been associated with radiofrequency (RF) exposure from wireless technology. I am also a Certified Building Biologist with specialized training as an Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist through the building biology platform. In 2012, I was diagnosed with Lyme disease and spent years pursuing n endless variety of treatments. Despite making progress, I continued to experience daily headaches, difficulty sleeping, fatigue, and brain fog. In 2020, a friend suggested having my home assessed by a building biologist. The findings were shocking. Although our electric and magnetic field readings were acceptable, RF readings were extremely high in several areas. Despite having no nearby cell towers, readings reached approximately 100,000 µW/m² at our stove and 19,000 µW/m² at our kitchen sink and island, attributed in the assessment report to an Orbi Wi-Fi extender. Our office readings reached 50,000–70,000 µW/m² near my computer, and testing my cell phone revealed intermittent spikes reaching approximately 1,000,000 µW/m². I had never imagined that everyday wireless devices could produce such high readings in the spaces where we cooked, worked, and spent time with our family. I became particularly concerned about cell phones and children's exposure, especially when phones are carried on their bodies. Reducing Exposure and Changes in My Health Following the assessment, we hardwired our home, eliminated wireless devices, discontinued Wi-Fi, replaced wireless computer peripherals and our printer with wired alternatives, and made our bedroom a sanctuary free of electronic devices. I also use airplane mode when appropriate to reduce wireless transmissions. My health improvements were gradual, not immediate. Over the following months, I noticed meaningful improvements in my sleep, headaches, fatigue, and mental clarity. After years of struggling despite numerous treatments, I gradually began feeling more like myself again. The combination of high initial readings, substantially reduced readings after changing our environment, and subsequent health improvements was a major turning point. I believe reducing my RF exposure was an important part of my recovery. This experience motivated me to become a Certified Building Biologist and Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist so I could help others evaluate potential environmental exposures. Through my work, I have met people struggling with persistent health problems who have also reported improvements after reducing environmental exposures. These accounts cannot independently prove causation, but I believe people's experiences deserve to be heard and investigated rather than dismissed. The public deserves accessible, balanced information about RF exposure and the current scientific evidence. Recommendations for Further Research 1.Long-term exposure: Real-world RF exposure in homes, workplaces, schools, and sleeping environments, including the placement of cell towers on or near school properties and potential implications for children. 2.Multiple exposure sources: Combined and repeated exposure from Wi-Fi routers and extenders, cell phones, Bluetooth, wearable devices, wireless peripherals, smart-home technology, and cellular infrastructure. 3.Individual differences: Whether age, underlying health conditions, immune status, or other factors may influence individual responses to RF exposure. 4.Potential health effects: Possible associations with headaches, sleep disturbances, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or mental clarity, while considering alternative explanations. 5.Exposure reduction: Whether reducing RF exposure produces measurable improvements in symptoms or other health outcomes for some individuals. 6.Children and vulnerable populations: Developmental differences, exposure patterns, and whether additional research or precautionary measures may be warranted. 7.Wildlife and ecosystems: Potential effects of electromagnetic fields on birds, bees, and other wildlife. Bees rely on environmental cues for navigation, foraging, and returning to their hives. Given pollinators' essential role in ecosystems and food production, potential effects on their behavior and survival deserve careful scientific investigation. Closing Statement My experience taught me that our home and sleeping environments deserve greater attention when investigating persistent health concerns. After years of searching for answers, I discovered unexpectedly high RF readings, made substantial changes, documented significantly lower levels, and gradually experienced meaningful improvements in sleep, headaches, fatigue, and mental clarity. Thank you for this opportunity to share my experience. Please research!

Re: HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields and RF Radiation My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc. I hold a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow and Glasgow School of Art. I submit this comment as a medical visualisation specialist and an individual reporting severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). 1. Health Experiences and Functional Impairment My experience of ES has profoundly affected my ability to work, travel, obtain healthcare, maintain housing, and participate in society. I experience migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, nausea, burning sensations, and disrupted sleep that I associate with nearby wireless devices and infrastructure. I have invested in wired Ethernet, removal of wireless equipment, electrical mitigation, and RF shielding. These observations do not establish causation, but the functional limitations warrant clinical investigation. Scientific uncertainty should not justify dismissing patients or overlooking reasonable accommodations. 2. Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment Current RF limits focus on established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. Questions remain about chronic, modulated, and cumulative exposures. The National Toxicology Program (2018) reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. These results cannot be directly extrapolated to everyday human exposure but merit further study. HHS should independently review whether current standards adequately address long-term outcomes and susceptible populations. 3. Exposure Measurement and Surveillance Real-world exposure includes simultaneous sources such as cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and connected devices. Measurements should document frequency, power density, field strengths, modulation, duty cycle, duration, and cumulative exposure. HHS should develop protocols combining personal dosimetry, environmental measurements, clinical observations, and longitudinal data. A voluntary ES registry could support epidemiological studies. 4. Potentially Sensitive Populations Children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted devices, occupationally exposed workers, and individuals reporting ES warrant focused study. Clinical evaluations should be multidisciplinary and respectful, investigating alternative explanations without dismissing symptoms. 5. Biological Mechanisms and Scientific Evidence Human tissues are intrinsically bioelectrical. Membrane potentials, ion gradients, and endogenous electric fields are fundamental to cardiac and neurological activity, cellular communication, and homeostasis. This does not establish that environmental RF causes injury, but supports investigation of possible interactions. Research should examine membrane electrophysiology, ion channels, oxidative stress, autonomic regulation, blood-brain barrier integrity, and cellular homeostasis. Anatomically registered medical visualisation could help integrate exposure data with physiological measurements. 6. Federal Research Priorities HHS should coordinate NIH, NIEHS, FDA, and CDC to: 1. Fund independent, reproducible studies of biological effects, including exposures below current limits. 2. Standardise clinical assessment of reported ES. 3. Support prospective studies combining dosimetry, physiological measurements, symptoms, and appropriate controls. 4. Investigate chronic and mixed-source exposures. 5. Evaluate wired telecommunications and non-transmitting utility alternatives as accommodations. 6. Publish methods, findings, funding sources, and conflicts of interest. Conclusion Scientific uncertainty must not become institutional indifference. For affected individuals, these questions concern housing, employment, healthcare, and participation in society. HHS should pursue rigorous, independent research that distinguishes established findings from hypotheses while taking functional impairment seriously. The objective is neither to presume harm nor presume safety, but to develop evidence-informed public health policy. Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Colorado, USA Reference: National Toxicology Program (2018), Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at 900 MHz, NTP TR 595. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595

I have been dealing with EMS hypersensitive for the last several years after a mold problem in my house. I live in a small town with only 2 towers over it so I am OK at home. I had to hard wire my computer, ground lights and get rid of the smart power meter to be able to sleep. When in a smart town I experience brain fog, fatigue and abdominal pain after a few hours. I also get head pain if I hold my cell phone to my head. I did not understand the connection to exposure till the power company installed a smart meter on my home and I stopped being able to sleep. This is real sickness caused by frequencies our bodies were not designed to deal with. How many people have these kind of symptoms and have no idea what is causing them? I don't think the medical system has a way to diagnose this. I figured it out by myself. I have learned how to lower exposure to protect myself but when I travel it is very difficult. So again my exposure symptoms include brain fog, extreme fatigue, insomnia, abdominal pain, digestive problems, chest pressure, head pain. This really needs to be studied.

It’s proven that WiFi is causing emf radiation that is making people sick. I have been tried to get our internet hard wired in to reduce exposure but companies don’t want to offer it anymore. Smart meters are another issue, the companies will not go back to analog. It’s all at the expense of our health. Please help make America Healthy Again!

I had a T-Mobile Home Internet device for my home internet. The noise pollution caused noticeable headaches. I was looking at changing when my daughter had to temporarily move in and brought her T-Mobile Home Internet device with her plugging it into her room for better coverage. Within less than a months time I had developed a blister like raised sore on the top of my head that hurt to touch but not an exterior sore. I immediately thought to unplug the devices and immediately my whole body felt calmer and within 24hrs the swelling in my head went down and didn’t return. I never used those devices again and switched to fiber optic.