Reproduction & pregnancy

Manmade electromagnetic radiation exposure has radically altered the trajectory of my life. In the early 2010s, I achieved my dream career of a firefighter-paramedic. Paradoxically, my health began to suffer. This seemed strange to me as I was young, healthy, and eating an extremely healthy paleo diet and working out daily. But brain fog, skin rashes, eye fatigue, ringing in my ears and aches/pains became the new norm for me. Firefighting can be a high-stress job, but that alone didn't account for my symptoms. Doctors had no answers for me. My performance on the job, and as a husband and father back home, began to suffer. Eventually, I saw the writing on the wall and left that career that had been acquired at such a dear cost. It was a heartbreaking decision but I thought it the best thing for me and my family long-term. Unexpectedly, my symptoms began to improve with no interventions besides leaving the firefighting lifestyle behind. This was the dawn of the podcast era, and on health-focused podcasts, I began to hear a bit about "EMF" both natural and artificial, and the research on their impacts on human health. Several things began to click for me as I researched the topic further. #1 The firefighting world exposed me to a variety of very powerful manmade EMF sources, primarily radio frequency, or "wireless" communications of walkie-talkies, cell phones, pagers, and supporing equipment within the forestation. #2 The firefighting world, by frequently keeping me up during the night, was disrupting my circadian rhythm, and reducing my ability to rest and recover. Armed with this new understanding of the world, I recovered quickly, and took steps within my home to protect my family from EMF. Not long after, my mother was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of brain cancer. She passed within 8-months. It was an incredibly difficult few years around her passing. However, in thinking about how she used technology, I saw a link to her cancer. For example, she was incredibly social, and had many friends. As a result she used her cell phone multiple hours every day. Her tumor was on the same side of her head that she held her phone up to. As the dust settled around her passing, I realized there was a significant lack of awareness in the world about EMF exposure. I felt compelled to do something about it, so that others might avoid the pain I had experienced in losing a treasured career, and loved one. I discovered people were doing this work in the world, through the Building Biology Institute. I signed up for their training and In just a few short years, I had become certified and began working with clients to uncover the EMF exposures in their homes, coaching them through practical remediations to reduce their exposures. My work as a Building Biologist is incredibly rewarding. It is also an uphill battle as slick marketing, tech creep, and biased research dilute the links between human made EMF and health. Technology does wonderful things for us, but not without a biological cost. The public needs to be made aware of this, so that they can make informed choices on their exposures to EMF. Here are several ways the government could help accelerate this change: #1 Stop the revolving door between Big Wireless and regulation bodies like the FCC. #2 The FCC must update their 1996 exposure guidelines without industry influence. Greater exposure protection for sensitive populations like children and pregnant mothers should the minimum outcome. #3 The precautionary principle should be the starting point for technologies that use electromagnetic forces to function. Industry must provide a reasonable degree of safety and assurance prior to rolling out new products.

I am submitting this comment because the United States needs to stop confusing regulatory compliance with proof of biological safety. A wireless device can “pass” an RF exposure test under specified laboratory conditions and still leave unanswered the real public-health question: what happens to living tissue after years or decades of real-world exposure? Real life does not resemble a single-device laboratory test. Children, adults and pets are surrounded by phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, laptops, Bluetooth devices, wearables, smart appliances and nearby antennas, often operating simultaneously and for many hours every day. Current standards do not adequately reflect chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure. Exposure changes with distance, signal strength, device position, frequency, modulation, data transmission and the number of sources present. Yet our regulatory framework has relied heavily on specific absorption rate and power-density limits rather than long-term biological monitoring of actual populations. The question should not simply be, “Does this device stay below a SAR limit?” It should be, “What happens biologically to cells, tissues, organs and developing nervous systems under realistic exposure conditions?” HHS should independently investigate oxidative stress, cellular signaling, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, sleep, development, endocrine effects and cancer. Absence of substantial heating should never be treated as automatic proof that there are no biological effects. Children deserve special attention. They are not small adults. Their bodies and nervous systems are still developing, and today’s children may experience wireless exposure from infancy through an entire lifetime. Yet the long-term evidence for lifelong exposure beginning in childhood remains limited. That is a serious knowledge gap, not reassurance. Animals and the environment also deserve attention. Pets spend long periods inside homes near routers and wireless devices. Wildlife, insects, birds and plants are now exposed to an increasingly dense RF environment. The evidence is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent, but that is precisely why rigorous independent research is needed. The National Toxicology Program reported cancer findings in RF-exposed animals, including malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and some evidence of malignant gliomas. Human studies have produced mixed results. These differences should not be used to declare the issue settled in either direction. “Not conclusively proven harmful” is not the same thing as “proven safe.” The regulatory process itself also deserves scrutiny. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had not adequately explained why its RF exposure limits protected against harmful non-cancer effects and had not sufficiently addressed evidence involving long-term exposure, children and environmental effects. A communications regulator should not be the final authority on complex questions of toxicology, developmental biology, neurology and public health. Other countries have taken more precautionary approaches. Switzerland applies lower precautionary limits at certain sensitive locations, and France conducts post-market SAR testing of phones. The United States should not assume that decades-old limits remain adequate simply because they are familiar. HHS should establish a truly independent research program with transparent funding and strict conflict-of-interest protections. Research should examine chronic and cumulative exposure, multiple simultaneous sources, direct body contact, pregnancy, children, pets, vulnerable populations, modern 4G/5G/Wi-Fi technologies, and biological outcomes at the cellular, tissue, organ and whole-body levels. Public confidence cannot rest on assurances from agencies or industries. It must rest on independent science, transparent data, reproducible findings and standards that reflect how people actually live. A compliance test is not a safety study. HHS has an opportunity to replace assumptions with modern, real-world health research and to protect children, families, animals and the environment using evidence that reflects actual 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, healthcare professional, and concerned member of the public. I personally can not sleep with the 5G wifi router on. Having researched this issue, I have found overwhelming evidence about the health dangers of on our health, fetuses, children and animals. I am requesting that this issue be taken seriously.

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, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. 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, parent, family member, caregiver, healthcare professional, researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public, or other]. I am commenting on EMFs and RF. My life/health is very affected by cell phones and wifi. I do not use a cellphone at all. I get an immediate headache and brain fog if I use one for even 5 minutes. I do not have wifi in my home. My laptop is connected with ethernet, and my modem does not even have wifi capabiliity. I am fortunate to live some distance away from cell towers. I have researched wifi and cellphones and understand they pose a great danger to everyone's health. Especially to children. Fetuses are affected from the mother's exposure. I believe that this technology is one of the most toxic things in our lives. It is beyond me why it has been allowed to be ever present everywhere.

I strongly support a thorough and independent review of human and environmental exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation. I personally suffer from the radio waves from wireless devices. It is uncomfortable. Our exposure to wireless radiation has increased dramatically with the expansion of cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, antennas, 5G infrastructure, connected appliances, and other wireless technologies. Yet questions remain about the potential effects of continuous, cumulative, and long-term exposure, particularly when people may be exposed twenty-four hours a day in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. I believe public health standards should be based not only on whether RF radiation produces heating effects, but should also continue to evaluate research concerning possible biological effects associated with long-term, low-level exposure. This review should consider children, pregnant women, older adults, people who report sensitivity to electromagnetic exposure, and individuals who may receive unusually high cumulative exposure. It should also examine potential effects on animals, birds, insects, pollinators, plants, trees, and other living organisms. Human health cannot be considered entirely separately from the health of the environment in which we live. I encourage the government to support independent research that is free from industry influence; examine cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources; evaluate whether present exposure standards adequately address modern technologies and long-term exposure; and consider practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. Where reasonable alternatives exist, people should also retain the ability to choose lower-exposure options—including wired connections and non-transmitting utility meters—without being penalized for doing so. Wireless technology provides important benefits, but technological convenience should not replace careful scientific evaluation and prudent public-health protections. When scientific uncertainty exists and exposure is widespread, a precautionary approach is appropriate. I respectfully request that this review be comprehensive, transparent, independent, and attentive to both human health and the health of the natural environment. I deliberately made this **firm but scientifically defensible** rather than saying that all EMF or RF exposure is already proven to harm every living cell. That will make your comment harder to dismiss and, in my view, more effective.

Dear HHS, Secretary Kennedy, & Fellow Patriots, I’m so grateful you’re addressing the Public Health dangers of EMF Radiation. Particularly, the EMF-RF emitted by Smartphones & Smartwatches. I have been an EMF Expert since 2010. I hold 2 patents in Applied Scalar Physics, I have 20 years of published history in Genomics, and I completed all my clinical rotations for my MD after spending a decade pioneering new healthcare technologies. I discovered I was EMF-sensitive after returning from the Ecuadorian Amazon. My “radiation detox” off grid in the jungle made me so sensitive to my laptop that I could feel the thermal effects of its radiation, and my skin was burning. Laptops are not for laps. I leveraged this knowledge and my high tech experience to commercialize the world’s first helical magnetic vortex device. Since 2014, I have been warning the public & the mainstream medical community of deadly EMF dangers such as cancer, infertility, obesity, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s, and cardiac arrhythmia. I have several well cited power points I could send you which I created for my Ob/Gyn & Emergency Medicine colleagues. The FDA itself warned on 5/13/21 that EMF-RF from certain Smartphones & Smartwatches can turn off implanted cardiac devices (ie pacemakers & defibrillators). It’s the fiduciary duty of HHS to make sure the public knows these dangers. Every Smart device needs a massive warning label, and Cardiologists should be required to warn every patient. I researched years ago how EMF causes deadly cardiac arrhythmias- costing taxpayers millions in ER visits. The EMF-RF frequency opens voltage gated calcium channels (VGCC’s)…. Which causes both arrhythmia in the heart, & Alzheimer’s in the brain. Americans keep suffering as corporations make billions on the products harming them. The medical community does not yet understand the human Biofield or the harm EMF causes, so they dangerously recommend that people with arrhythmia should wear a Smartwatch to monitor their rate… without realizing the Smartwatch itself directly causes arrhythmia while opening VGCC’s. I’d love to be HHS’s new EMF Safety Czar, educating the public & medical community on EMF dangers. Would you like me to share some well researched presentations with Secretary Kennedy? Thank you, Dr Lisa Van Es EMF & Biofield Expert, Quantum Technologies Pioneer IG: @WellDoc19

I have been writing the FCC for decades without a response. All of this, including this court case happening in America is because of the FCC abusing its power authority, denying people protection/forcing exposure. For me a multitude of neurological symptoms occur as a result of exposure to pulsed and modulated RFR. The symptoms described in the scientific and medical literature I suffer with include headaches, sleep problems, heart palpitations, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, depression, memory, and cognitive problems, among others. In my experience, exposure avoidance is the only effective management. If government had collected data, evidence and claims, it would be legally bound to respond long ago. Over the last 10 years I have been increasingly forced to find ways to live to escape exposure to expanding wireless installations. It has become impossible to find safe employment from debilitating exposure to pulse frequencies that disable me. The 10 questions below I have submitted to the FCC without a response: 1. When will the FCC take responsibility for clear communication of risk? 2.When will the FCC educate the public on how to avoid potential harm? 3.Why is the precautionary principle not being included within FCC policies regarding all wireless technologies, including 5G? 4. The 5G narrative leads to several issues and related questions, why has the FCC still not answered them? 5. Why does the FCC authorize criminal trespassing for wireless installations to pulse into my home that make me sick to the point of disabling me? 6. Highly experienced organizations, scientists and doctors have been speaking out for 30 years, now into the 5G narrative, claiming adequate evidence for risk of harm. They have organized into independent science-based advocacy groups, why has the FCC not recognized the evidence-based concerns? 7.Why is the FCC allowe to downplay the results of scientists who claim that harm exists including testimonies of countless people with symptoms consistent with microwave sickness from exposures to FCC authorized installations? 8. The FCC standards the wireless industry has been using since 1996 to make the claim for forced deployment in 2021 were defeated in a U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. They ruled that the FCC’s decision not to re-assess the adequacy of 1996 exposure guidelines was “arbitrary, capricious, and not evidence-based.” The court found the FCC had failed to provide evidence of properly examining long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness and impacts to the developing brain and reproductive system.”Why is the FCC still not properly examining long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness doing research reviews, spectrum reports, environmental monitoring, risk mitigation and full body (RF) radiation exposure in homes and schools from cell towers, small cells and all wireless access points? 9. Forcing exposure without informed consent to wireless access points, according to U.S. law, is clearly criminal trespassing, robbery of life and health in the 1st Degree. Why is the FCC allowed to break that law decade after decade forcing countless people to become sick? 10. The 1996 FCC standards do not account for any impact of differing signal characteristics, such as carrier wave modulations or pulsing of the signal. Small cells are designed for massive increases in data density, where the polarized wave form radically increases. The spectrum employed is in no way scientifically connected to the FCC Safety Standards, why are they still being used? 11. For decades the FCC has openly admitted it has no expertise in health issues. The FCC often mentions it’s the responsibility of “sister agencies” like the EPA on which it relies in order to give credibility to its 1996 guidelines. 27 years ago the EPA wrote the FCC that the guidelines are “flawed.” How can the FCC justify that? 12. FCC limits should have been changed long ago to be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions. Why do you refuse to update your standards with scientific evidence? For a complete undeniable understanding of how FCC safety standards cannot be scientifically connected to the spectrum previously and currently employed including scientific evidence demonstrating how, read this 25 page study I previously sent to you and congress titled. "Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G"