Research & federal duties

Chinese medicine practitioners who specialize in pulse diagnosis have been tracking a quality linked to EMF damage over the last 2 decades. Though he started his career as a Cornell-educated psychiatrist, Dr. Leon Hammer began studying Chinese medicine in the early 70’s and focused heavily on cultivating the art of Chinese pulse diagnosis. What he learned over the course of his career was alarming and my husband was tracking it along side him. The Leather-Hard pulse quality (representing the damage from heat ultimately drying out the vessel and creating rigidity) was an exceedingly rare finding prior to the late 2000s - only seen in a few people who were undergoing radiation treatment for cancer. But beginning in 2008, my husband began noticing this quality in a broader population, and over time in younger and younger people. Not only does this track with the advent of iPhones, but the growth pattern tracks with the ubiquity of "smart" everything. While this is observational and not proof of anything, patterns generally matched lifestyles with high EMF exposure and symptoms were consistent with EMF damage. In some cases, my husband could identify where on someone's body they consistently carried their phone based on what came up on the pulse. Here is Dr. Hammer discussing his findings in 2015: https://youtu.be/Gv5h-lDWvnI?si=sUGUcifCjhAmQwWC&t=559 Here is the paper Dr. Hammer and my husband wrote on their early findings: https://wellspringofhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Pulse-the-Electronic-Age-and-Radiation-Early-Detection.pdf

I am extremely sensitive to EMFs. One simple example: I feel tingling in my hands when holding a cellular phone that is emitting EMFs. I also know that evidence on EMF and wireless radiation exists. GreenMedInfo has indexed 1,009 peer-reviewed studies on EMF harms — 156 health outcomes, 277 human studies, 16 meta-analyses.

How safe is the increasing emfs? When studied by one signal alone it may not make a difference, but if not regulated how many devices are used in an area, does this accumulate the effects? Are we slowly cooking ourselves, affecting our DNA, combined with other enviromental factors causing more cancer, other health issues?

As an American, I deserve public policy based on factual and verifiiable data, not opinions or conspiracy theories. It is alarming and insulting that HHS is asking for opinions for them public when there is science available. Opinions are valueless in this situation. Use the scientific data you already have and follow its consensus, not the opinions of people who truly have no idea what they're talking about.

I strongly believe communities should not be subjected to unnecessary or escalating levels of RF emissions. In many neighborhoods, companies begin with a single antenna and later add many more, creating dense clusters that increase exposure for families, children, older adults, wildlife, and the environment. This pattern places a growing burden on communities while generating profit for carriers, not benefits for residents. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to technology. I support safe technology that is responsibly sited in locations away from homes, schools, wildlife corridors, and sensitive ecosystems. I am certain there are suitable sites that do not place antennas directly next to residents or wildlife habitat. Older neighborhoods with mature trees, established wildlife pathways, and long‑standing rural character should not be subjected to cumulative exposure simply because they lack HOA protections or dense development. Trees, birds, pollinators, and other wildlife are increasingly exposed to dense antenna installations, and these impacts deserve serious federal attention. Communities need national guidelines that ensure wireless infrastructure is placed where it does not harm people, wildlife, or the environment. For these reasons, I respectfully request a deep federal study of RF exposure impacts, including long‑term effects on human health, wildlife, and ecosystems. I also recommend that Congress consider updating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that health, environmental, and wildlife concerns can be openly evaluated in modern wireless policy. The current law prevents communities from raising health concerns when opposing towers, even when those concerns are legitimate. Technology has changed dramatically since 1996, and federal policy should reflect today’s scientific knowledge and today’s environmental realities. Communities deserve transparency, protection, and guidelines that prioritize public health and environmental stewardship over profit.

I have a deep concern about all the towers going up, close to homes and schools. We have no idea the long term affects all the EMFs are causing because they put them up without ever doing long- term studies. However, we do know that children exposed to the high frequencies have gotten sick from headaches to cancers. We know that high exposure to EMFs causes a lifetime of chronic illness, many problems we don’t even know about yet. Cell phones, towers, smart meters…all have so many potential deadly outcomes. I make sure our family is as protected as we can be, with paying attention to WiFi and placement of routers and our ways to mitigate. But it feels like a battle I will never win when we are bombarded 24 hours a day. Please put the brakes on EMFs and do some quality studies, not by companies who benefit.

I live right across the road from a so called phone tower, but my husband, my son, and I are always feeling sick, ever since we moved here 4 years ago. Right outside pyatt Arkansas. I noticed they added more to the tower. I would like for someone to come out and check this tower please. There is a man that lives right next to the tower as well. Thank you, Lisalive right across the road from a so called phone tower, but my husband, my son, and I are always feeling sick, ever since we moved here 4 years ago. Right outside pyatt Arkansas. I noticed they added more to the tower. I would like for someone to come out and check this tower please. There is a man that lives right next to the tower as well. Thank you, Lisa

Submission to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Regarding: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure I am submitting this comment to urge the Department of Health and Human Services to expand its review of safety thresholds regarding ambient electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. As wireless networks expand, the public is increasingly exposed to cumulative radiation from consumer devices, cell towers, and commercial infrastructure. My primary concern centers on the need for thorough federal evaluation of how ambient radiation interacts with the human nervous system. Publicly available intellectual property, such as registered patents detailing nervous system manipulation via electromagnetic fields, alongside established military research into directed energy and neuro-technologies, demonstrates that the biological mechanisms for external influence on human physiology exist conceptually and technically. There is a critical need for transparent, civilian public health standards to investigate whether ambient commercial frequencies intersect with these neurological pathways, particularly regarding unintended cognitive or behavioral stress. In my own experience, I have noticed profound physical and behavioral disruptions that correlate with wireless environments. Keeping an active mobile device in close proximity to my body results in localized skin irritation, burning sensations, and rashes. Additionally, I experience persistent headaches and severe sleep disruptions. Ambient electromagnetic signals and visual emissions from household Wi-Fi routers and LED lighting indicators consistently degrade my rest; I experience a noticeable improvement in my sleep depth and cognitive clarity only when these devices are fully powered down or physically covered. Given the complexity of these interactions, I ask that HHS transcend standard thermal tissue heating models. The department should fund independent, transparent research into the neurological and psychological impacts of non-thermal RF exposure, investigate localized exposure risks, and establish clearer public guidelines. Thank you for your attention to these critical public health and regulatory concerns.

I am submitting this official comment regarding the Department's Request for Information (RFI) on electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless exposure.  The core function of federal health agencies should be to evaluate public health risks strictly through rigorous, empirical, and peer-reviewed scientific consensus. When setting policy or opening inquiries into complex technical domains like wireless radiation, the Department must rely on validated data compiled by actual career scientists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists—not on politicized agendas or fringe medical theories popularized by leadership. Allowing public comment portals to serve as a sounding board for unverified anecdotes, fear-mongering, and pseudoscientific ideas pushed by HHS leadership under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. undermines public trust in federal health institutions. Instead of crowdsourcing health evaluations through an open-door mechanism that risks amplifying conspiracy theories and "crackpot science," the agency should defer entirely to high-standard, independent systematic reviews conducted by recognized scientific bodies (such as the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and established international health physics organizations). If HHS genuinely intends to evaluate exposure standards, it must anchor its framework in objective, methodologically sound scientific data rather than chasing unsubstantiated narratives. Public policy regarding public health and technology must be driven by verifiable evidence, not administrative panic.

This is an absurd request for public input on matters of observable scientific phenomena. How is your office not abjectly embarrassed to publish this solicitation?