Li-Fi, fiber & alternatives

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 myself. My face gets hot when I hold my phone to my face. When I drive, I used to wear ear buds that plugged into my phone in order to keep the phone off my face. But my iPhone became outdated and the new updated iPhone I bought does not have the audio plug in for my earbuds. I do not want to use a bluetooth because it gives me headaches. This technology is dangerous and iPhone should provide an option on their phones to allow an audio port to allow for plug in headset or earpiece. I have friends who have cancer on their faces from using cell phones against their ears. 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.

Dear Sir, I spent over $80,000 at MDs to be healed of chronic Lyme disease. Nothing has been as helpful as drastically reducing radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and wireless routers and cell phone towers and the smaller 5G towers. I use a landline and I use ethernet hardwire connection for my modem and computer and I opted out getting a "smart" meter although I was charged extra each month for doing that (what an evil deceptive term). I also reduced as much as possible man made magnetic fields, electric fields, and "dirty electricity" which did help also. The bioinitiative.org website has over 2000 published studies compiled by dozens of MDs and PhDs from 10 countries showing that the RF levels standards in America are set many, many times too high to be safe in any way for humans or animals. Frank Clegg, the former President of Microsoft Canada will tell you the same thing. RF levels in homes cause even more autism than various vaccines. It is huge and horrible. Ask Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt MD, one of the leading autism experts in the world who has treated autistic children daily for decades. Please put an end to this EVIL as well as mRNA vaccines, Andrew Dart

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 retired man and his partner. We do not use a WiFi router, prefering direct ethernet connection and we keep our mobile phones in Farady pouches, however, we lived in a condominium block in which there were many WiFi routers, which could be detected on our computers. We both suffered inconvenient health issues which we assumed were due to aging. About 18 months ago we moved to a home in an area that does not show many WiFi sources and our smart meter only sends signals once per month to the utility company. Our health has noticeably improved in many ways and there is no doubt that it was the high levels of EMF radiation in the condominium block that caused our problems.

I am a registered nurse with more than a decade of experience in healthcare, and my experience with electromagnetic sensitivity developed in the context of a significant environmental illness. My health initially declined after living in a water-damaged, mold-contaminated home. I developed severe neurological and systemic symptoms, including vertigo, tinnitus, cognitive changes, headaches, sleep disruption, and other symptoms that dramatically affected my ability to function. After leaving that environment, my health improved significantly. I eventually moved into a different home and initially felt well there. That is when I began recognizing something I had not previously understood: electromagnetic exposures appeared to trigger some of my neurological symptoms even when I was no longer living in the mold-contaminated environment. I began noticing repeatable patterns with certain exposures. Turning on Wi-Fi could bring on unusual neurological sensations in my head. Certain electronics could trigger sharp headaches and uncomfortable sensations in my chest or heartbeat. Increasing my distance from these sources, turning wireless devices off, and hard-wiring equipment often reduced the symptoms. What made this particularly interesting to me as a nurse was that I did not react equally to every electronic environment. For example, I could work around hard-wired hospital computers without experiencing the same degree of symptoms. That made me begin paying closer attention to the type and characteristics of the exposure rather than assuming that all electronics affected me equally. I am not claiming that my experience proves that electromagnetic exposure caused these symptoms. I am reporting a pattern that became sufficiently reproducible that I could no longer dismiss it. My experience also raises a question that I believe deserves serious research: Could environmental illness or other biological stressors make some individuals more susceptible to electromagnetic exposures? In my case, the sensitivity became apparent following a period of significant illness associated with a water-damaged building. I encourage HHS to investigate people who report electromagnetic sensitivity rather than studying only healthy populations. Research should examine whether previous environmental exposures, chronic inflammation, neurological injury, or other biological factors may identify susceptible subgroups. Controlled and blinded exposure studies could help determine whether reported symptoms correspond with measurable physiological or neurological changes. There is still much we do not understand. As both a nurse and someone who has personally experienced this phenomenon, I believe patient experiences like mine should be treated as observations worthy of investigation—not as proof of causation, but as signals that can help us ask better scientific questions. I hope HHS will pursue rigorous, independent research into electromagnetic exposure, individual susceptibility, cumulative exposure, and the experiences of people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity.

Our story is vey simple. When our daughter was young we discovered that when the home wifi was on, she woke up repeatedly during the night. When the wifi was off, she slept right through the night. We are lucky that our home gets almost no external wifi signals and we’re able to create a clean environment with wired ethernet.

I am submitting this comment as an individual member of the public because I have personal concerns and experiences involving electromagnetic fields (EMF), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, wireless technology, and possible effects on health. For around five years, I have considered myself a so-called “targeted individual.” I believe I have been subjected to electromagnetic exposure that I associate with what I perceive as targeting, including exposure I believe may come from 5G infrastructure and satellites. I understand that I cannot independently prove the source of these exposures or establish that they are deliberately directed at me. I am asking HHS to investigate concerns like mine seriously rather than simply dismissing them. During this period I have experienced symptoms including skin rashes, dizziness, memory problems, difficulty sleeping, and problems with concentration. These experiences have affected my daily life. I have sought medical help and diagnosis, but I felt that the healthcare professionals I encountered were not sufficiently informed about possible electromagnetic exposure. I felt that some of the approaches taken did not address the concerns I was trying to explain. I have also used an RF meter in my home. I observed what appeared to me to be significant RF readings even when I was not aware of a nearby 5G tower and mainly knew of Wi-Fi or other wireless equipment in the area. I understand that a consumer RF meter reading alone cannot identify the exact source of a signal, determine whether an exposure is harmful, or prove that exposure caused a symptom. However, these observations made me concerned about how much wireless radiation people may actually encounter in their homes and local communities. I believe there needs to be more independent research into long-term and cumulative exposure to RF and EMF. Research should look at real-world exposure, including 5G, future 6G systems, Wi-Fi, satellites, smart meters, wireless medical devices, wearable technology, Internet of Things devices, smart homes, and other sources people encounter every day. I would like HHS and other relevant agencies to examine whether current exposure standards adequately reflect long-term, repeated, and combined exposure from many wireless sources. Exposure should also be measured in a consistent and transparent way so people can better understand what they are being exposed to in homes, workplaces, schools, and communities. I believe healthcare professionals should have access to balanced information about electromagnetic exposure. This information should clearly distinguish what is established, what remains uncertain, and how people reporting symptoms can be properly evaluated without automatically assuming that EMF exposure is either the cause or not the cause. I am also concerned about privacy and the possibility of unwanted surveillance or monitoring. I have concerns that government agencies or other organizations could potentially use technology in ways that people do not understand or consent to. I recognize that concerns about government surveillance are not the same as verified evidence that surveillance is occurring. I believe these issues should still be subject to appropriate legal safeguards, oversight, transparency, and independent investigation. I do not believe people who live peacefully and have committed no crime should be subjected to secret technological monitoring or interference. Government use of advanced technologies should have clear legal authority, meaningful oversight, accountability, and protections for individual privacy and civil rights. I also believe we should consider whether every new wireless technology is necessary and whether wired alternatives can be used where practical. People should have meaningful choices about how much wireless technology they use in their homes and workplaces. My concerns are not only about children. I believe the entire population deserves clear information about environmental exposure to RF and EMF. Research should also examine whether different groups may experience different levels of exposure or sensitivity. I would also like more research into possible environmental effects, including effects on wildlife and ecosystems, as wireless infrastructure continues to expand. Most importantly, I am asking for independent, transparent, long-term research. I am not asking HHS to accept my personal interpretation as established scientific fact. I am asking for my experience, and the experiences of other people reporting similar concerns, to be treated as information that can be investigated properly. The public deserves clear information about electromagnetic exposure, better ways to measure it, honest communication about uncertainty, stronger privacy protections, and research that is independent from commercial or other conflicts of interest. Thank you for providing members of the public with an opportunity to comment on this issue.

I experience heart palpitations from wireless modems and other wireless devices that emit strong current. They are uncomfortable and potentially dangerous heart arrhythmias that reliably happen when I am quite near a strong wireless source. For that reason, I have to avoid using wireless in my house, which is getting increasingly difficult. I would appreciate policy that requires essential systems like utilities and internet to be accessed through hard wiring as well as wireless, and requires hard wire options to be built into essential electronics like phones, printers,TVs, computers, and especially medical equipment. And allows wireless emission to be turned off on those devices that use it, rather than have it be continuous and unremitting. I would also appreciate policy that allows for local zoning of any cell transmission stations/towers and regulates placement of 5G transmissiom sources to be at reasonable distance from residences. It is especially dismaying that the FCC is allowing discontinuation of copper landlines. I have several health conditions that require occasional emergency treatment and without in-home wireless service cannot rely on my mobile phone in an emergency. In storms local cable and FIOS are not reliable and not having a landline available will seriously endanger my health. I am also dismayed to find if I want to refuse a new smart meter installation by National Grid, I have to pay an additional monthly fee of $29, a rather coercive disincentive considering the enormous profits this company enjoys. This is a hardship for a senior on fixed income as I am. Thank you.

I wholeheartedly urge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to take meaningful action to reduce public exposure to wireless electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as much as possible. Wireless infrastructure has gotten out of control. People often have little to no practical control over continual exposure to wireless emissions when cellular towers, small cells, and other transmitting equipment are installed near their homes, workplaces, schools, and public spaces. Residents should not be expected to simply accept involuntary, around-the-clock exposure without meaningful transparency, independent health review, or practical options. In my view, wireless radiation levels and the density of wireless infrastructure have become seriously too high. The government has a responsibility to apply the precautionary principle, support truly independent research on long-term and cumulative exposure, improve public disclosure and measurement requirements, and establish stronger protections for homes, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations. HHS and other federal agencies should also strongly encourage wired connectivity wherever it is practical. Fiber, Ethernet, and other wired systems can provide fast, reliable communications while reducing unnecessary wireless exposure. Federal policy, grants, building standards, and public-infrastructure programs should prioritize wired connections over defaulting to more wireless transmitters. Please treat reducing unnecessary wireless EMF exposure as a public-health and consumer-protection priority.

I shut my cell phone down in 2021. Although we live in a wooded, rural area, we began to notice new structures which I later learned were cell towers, being built in three areas surrounding us. I didn't know much about the technology but one day my cell phone changed sounds and began emitting a really annoying signal. I wasn't using any other wireless at the time,( and none now ). I haven't checked to see if I can pinpoint the exact date they activated the cell towers but I began to feel nausea, anxiety, restless sleep and tinnitus. The final blow for me was when my partner was on the phone in the house and I was in the next room in agony. I signaled him to end the call. After my initial research into the wireless technology in which I found people with similar reactions, I had a phone/ internet line hardwired into my house and those reactions abated. It has not passed my attention that these cell towers were erected during a widespread shut down of the entire economy. And that I find most suspect. After I was able to comfortably research on the net, I discovered a lot of information from others who had done much more time on this than I could. One thing very troubling stands out: there are only two areas in our country where one can live freely without any wireless whatsoever. Why don't we have a choice in the matter? Did the public beat down the doors of the major telecoms and demand they get better, faster, sleeker service? Didn't see that rebellion on the news! My point is this was foisted upon us without any warning, public comment, vote, referendum, anything. Imagine a business that no longer meets the demand of its clients, just gives them the only service they can offer. How long would that business last? I ask rhetorically, I understand the end game is really about control and data gathering. With satellites being shot into space to provide internet/ data collection/ surveillance aka "connectivity" there doesn't seem to be much hope in reigning in this dangerous technology. And, in the end, for what? Profits?

I am concerned about the wireless non-ionizing radiation to which we are exposed 24 hours a day. This short-wave radiation is dangerous not only to our health, but to the health of almost all living organisms. We have not evolved to tolerate such an attack of these short-wave lengths on our bodies. The ill-effects of such exposure have been documented. They range from headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, body aches and pains, mental distress, cancer and sometimes fatal reactions. Wildlife experience similar effects from bees and invertebates to vertebrates. The expansion of these cell towers and antennas makes it almost impossible to shield oneself from their damaging and dangerous effect. People have to abandon their homes, which cannot sold. Farm animals get very sick as well as wildlife. What is terrifying is the expansion to 6G. Children are even more vulnerable to the dangerous effects. What is the effect on a developing fetus? It is urgent that we have complete information on electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency, and Wireless Radiation. The 1996 legislation gave this industry indemnity from lawsuits. They cannot be sued for the harm they do. That inability to sue needs to be changed. The power to regulate this industry needs to be given to HHS and removed from FCC. They have proven themselves to be irresponsible and dangerous. We can switch to fiber optics and safer technologies. I appreciate your concern for our well-being and for the well-being of all life. We cannot survive without a working ecology.