Research & federal duties

I lived on the center of the hypotenuse of an isosceles triangle of cell towers for approximately four years. During this time, I experienced daily headaches and tinnitus. Since moving in 10/24, the headaches have stopped and the tinnitus has persisted. Our bodies have not evolved sufficiently to function properly with constant signal bombardment. Exploring methods to mitigate the signals seems a fruitful path to pursue. A device that neutralizes the signals to our bodies without interfering with transmission would be valuable.

Biology and Technology should go hand in hand rather than diverge to a point of one decimating the other- AD Primary Etheric Substrate/Non material informational substrate or the Zero point universal memory reservoir is a quantum field of possibilities- Akasha ( In Sanksrit) The substrate needs a site/receptor to intercept or act on: mind (non material) on the material platform of brain. Once interception occurs: thoughts are perceived, intentions are formed and actions are planned. The ones we act on are defined by the ego as 'our actions', the ones that are perceived are 'our thoughts' and the ones that intercept but are never formulated or acted on leave the plane of mind and remain in the etheric substrate. 1) Google has patented https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090062677A1/en (Author offers a method for re-writing the human brain on electronic chips. This method allows for the modeling of a human soul in order to achieve man immortality. This method does not damage the brain but works to extend and enhance it. This method of writing and saving of Human Soul includes: writing of views which person see in during his life by a micro video recorder to a portable memory; writing of sounds which person speaks and hears by microphone; writing of person physical conditions by micro sensors; writing of time and dates; writing of person body position and so on.) The above patent will be operational if the quantum mechanisms by which life in sustained in the body is operational. A Dead brain will not hold any memory. Memory retains itself in its non material informational substrate/space. Hence the chip reader will fail to collect data of a dead being. While the biology is active in the body and when the mind is functional on the platform that we call brain( operational aerodrome for thoughts) this patent will be able to collect and recreate a profile of the subject. Perhaps it already has created such subjects in hand but remain unknown to masses. To study the impact of disturbances created by EMF's, RF's, Wireless fields and microwave radiation exposure on human biology is of significance as it diverges away from the nature intended interception of Non material informational substrate on its subjective on its intended platform. Of significance in discussion is unwanted financial impacts of field interference as such, seen due to smart devices, smart energy utility read meters and smart energy appliances. Energy costs are soaring and one aspect that is implicated is the smart reading meters which utilize RF to read energy usage, many a times inaccurately so due to interference. Reference: Appraising the Economics of Smart Meters: Costs and Benefits March 2020 DOI:10.4324/9780367203375 ISBN: 9780367203375 Authors: Jacopo Torriti One of the most consistent findings across smart meter studies is that many users perceive the meters as more useful to energy providers than to themselves (Shirani et al. 2020). This perception reinforces a sense of asymmetry in value: while utilities benefit from improved billing accuracy, remote disconnection, and load management, users often see little direct benefit -particularly when energy prices remain high or usage feedback is difficult to interpret (Torriti 2020). In such cases, users may ignore or disable interfaces, view the meters as irrelevant, or interpret them as tools of control rather than empowerment. Of note: In the state of NY customers who request Smart meters be replaced back to conventional meters are fined and penalized every month.( This is from my personal experience) Reference: Radio-frequency interference to automotive radar sensors Andrew Stove, Chris Baker First published: 11 September 2018 https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rsn.2018.5027Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Radio frequency interference (RFI) from various electronic devices in newer cars can disrupt radar speed detection systems, potentially leading to false speed readings or reduced detection range. This interference is particularly concerning in environments with multiple vehicles equipped with radar technology. Of note: Upstate NY is seemingly popular for radar detected speed tickets. Above study demonstrates how E Cars have populated themselves with technology that interfers and misreads speed by radar detectors- thus leading to unnecessary tickets and court trips. Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923024002247 A review on the consequences of molecular and genomic alterations following exposure to electromagnetic fields: Remodeling of neuronal network and cognitive changes https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12829706/ https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/18368 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378427410013196 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895398811600895 Such is the Border crisis within the body.

"Radiation" just means energy traveling as waves. 5G uses radio waves, the same family as FM radio, TV, and Wi-Fi. These waves are non-ionizing, meaning they can't break chemical bonds or damage DNA. Even 5G's highest bands carry about 0.0002 electron-volts per photon. Visible light carries about 2 eV, and damaging UV and X-rays start around 10 eV. 5G falls short of that by a factor of tens of thousands. The one established biological effect of radio waves is mild tissue heating, and safety rules exist to prevent exactly that. ICNIRP (the international standard) and the FCC set public limits about 50 times below the level where measurable heating begins. Reaching the limit doesn't mean harm. It means you still have a wide safety margin. Radio power falls with the square of distance. At twice the distance you get a quarter of the power, and at ten times the distance you get 1/100th. Tower antennas are mounted high and aimed at the horizon, not at people standing below. Measurement surveys around 5G sites consistently find public exposure at around 1% of the limit or less. Midday sunlight delivers about 1,000 watts per square meter to your skin. The public limit for 5G millimeter waves is 10 W/m², which is 100 times lower, and real-world tower exposure is far below even that. A few minutes outside on a summer day puts more energy into your skin than living next to a tower. A higher frequency doesn't make a wave more dangerous. 5G's high-band (mmWave) signals are absorbed in roughly the top millimeter of skin and can't reach your organs. Walls, windows, leaves, and even your hand block them, which is why mmWave needs so many small cells. Your skin sheds much larger heat loads every day through blood flow and sweat. Most US 5G doesn't use mmWave at all. It runs on low and mid bands (600 MHz to about 4 GHz), similar to 4G and Wi-Fi. At rest, your body generates about 80–100 watts of heat. A phone transmits at most a watt or two, and much less when the signal is strong. The energy from a tower that actually reaches you is a tiny fraction of a watt. When a phone feels warm, the heat comes from its battery and processor, not from radio waves. A microwave oven concentrates about 1,000 watts inside a sealed metal box. Wi-Fi uses the same 2.4 GHz frequency at about a tenth of a watt, spread in every direction. The danger comes from concentrated power, not the frequency itself. Cell towers deliver neither high concentration nor close proximity. Radio-frequency energy has been researched for over 60 years across radar, broadcasting, and the millimeter-wave body scanners used at airports. The World Health Organization states that no adverse health effect has been causally linked to wireless technology exposure within the limits. In 2011, IARC classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B). That was based on limited, inconsistent data about heavy phone use held against the head, not towers. The same category includes aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables. Brain cancer rates have stayed flat despite billions of people adopting phones. Some researchers want more long-term mmWave studies, since widespread public use is relatively new. A minority argue for non-thermal effects, but those haven't been reliably reproduced. Workers right in front of rooftop antennas are a different situation. That's why access is restricted and occupational rules apply. Bottom line: 5G towers emit low-energy, non-ionizing waves. By the time those waves reach you, they're a sliver of a limit that is itself set 50 times below the point of any measurable heating. The sun, your own metabolism, and a hot shower all put far more heat into your body.

With the insane major push to build hyper scale data centers, a push that goes with them are the high voltage 765 kv power lines. There are very few of these in existence and essentially very limited studies regarding power lines at all and no long term scientific evaluations. Before these lines and hyper scale data centers are forced upon us, a complete and thorough scientific, unbiased evaluation needs to be made. This push with no accountability is not just unacceptable, it defies logic at all levels. The only thing it does is put dollars in large corporations pockets. Where are the wildlife studies? The studies for farm animals? Habitat? No one taking any responsibility that is ruining our country and harming everything and everyone we know. Stray voltage is a real thing, and the lawsuits and awards are reflecting that. The explanation being farm animals are closer to it and on their feet? What about the children and pets they play outside? What about the increased diseases? What about getting shocked when touching wet ground or working in a barn? This should not be an afterthought. Full and complete independent studies that include long term results should be done now and stop the cart before the horse. There will be nothing left of our great state of Wisconsin or the United States. Greed needs to be left out of the equation.

Why did the gov push 4g/5g tech without any Double blind placebo controlled studies on humans? Why did it allow this tech knowing that it can cause cancer in mice when exposed to it for long durations? We are currently exposed to it 24/7 and cancers are on the rise like never before. Heart attacks and strokes in young people are also skyrocketing since the rollout of 5G. This is a crime against humanity.

I am writing to provide feedback regarding my firsthand health experiences with RF/EMF exposure. Thank you to the HHS for seeking the feedback of individuals, as the current framework for regulating wireless radiation completely ignores the real-world biological experiences of sensitive populations. I have had numerous clear, neurological symptoms that are reliably triggered or exacerbated by heavy exposures of RF/EMF. Specifically, when subjected to elevated wireless environments, I experience a disturbing "foggy head" sensation that makes it difficult to concentrate. Furthermore, I have a long clinical history of migraines with aura. While I have multiple environmental triggers, I have identified heavy doses of EMF as a distinct trigger for these. In our home, we take steps to reduce our exposure, but it has become hard to avoid. The current safety guidelines enforced by the FCC offer no protections for individuals like me, or citizens with concerns, in general. The FCC’s standards, established in 1996, rely entirely on a narrow thermal paradigm. These guidelines assume that wireless radiation is only harmful if it is intense enough to literally heat human tissue. The cognitive fog and migraines I have experienced have occurred at exposure levels below this thermal threshold. This is clear evidence that the federal government's current stance fails to recognize or account for non-thermal biological mechanisms. Low-intensity, chronic RF/EMF exposure exerts systemic, non-thermal biological stress on the human nervous and vascular systems, which directly manifests as neurological symptoms in sensitive individuals, and likely is negatively effecting a lot more people in ways that are not understood. There have been studies linking chronic exposures to elevated blood sugar levels and increased insulin resistance. It also may impact human quality of sleep. These are all huge issues. The HHS should abandon the outdated 1996 thermal-only standard and to develop safety limits that protect citizens from chronic, low-intensity, non-thermal biological and neurological impacts. It should also immediately investigate the specific biological pathways linking RF/EMF exposure to central nervous system disruptions, including focusing on its role as an environmental trigger for migraines, blood-brain barrier permeability, cognitive fog, insulin resistance, and disturbances in sleep patterns. There have already been some studies on these issues, that the relevant government agencies seem to ignore. The FCC, that has commercial deployment goals, should not be the only department to regulate the wireless industry. There needs to be more control given to local populations to say no to continually increasing the population’s exposure to EMF/RF with more and more towers flooding people’s homes and workplaces. Also of concern are the ever increasing number of products used in the home that use and issue wireless radiation (the IoT), including baby monitors and home appliances. We are now in cars loaded with EMF/RF. And, of course, the now pervasive smart meters that emit radiation, not once a month, for billing purposes, but often every 15 minutes, and in some places practically continually. It is grotesque how callously this has and is all rolled out with so little understood about the impacts on human health.

This seems like something we should have some certainty on. There are a few theories concerning 5G etc that we should either verify or debunk

I am writing to address observations that were made among pulse diagnosis practitioners within the Chinese medicine community over decades that suggest that EMF damage started to show up increasingly in patients beginning in the late 2000s. Before that time, the pulse quality known as "Leather-hard", reflecting a drying out and hard/leathery quality on the radial artery, showed up almost exclusively in patients who were undergoing radiation therapy for cancer. But in the late 2000s, my husband and his mentor/fellow practitioner, started observing this quality in the broader population, and increasingly in younger patients, along with signs and symptoms that reflect EMF harm. In some cases, the damage was reflected in particular areas of the body (and corresponding pulse position) in relation to where they regularly carried a phone. In other words, a patient who showed up with a pulse that reflected inflammatory damage in reproductive areas, regularly carried their phone in their pants pocket. While this is observational data, these findings occurred over decades and have increased over time. This seems like something to look at. https://wellspringofhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Pulse-the-Electronic-Age-and-Radiation-Early-Detection.pdf https://youtu.be/Gv5h-lDWvnI?si=sUGUcifCjhAmQwWC&t=559 https://youtu.be/Yx2Qf6_O96Q?si=9qy8qGkzuS2O7tQy&t=3

I appreciate the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to examine the scientific evidence regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation exposure. I strongly encourage HHS to approach this issue with scientific rigor, transparency, and a commitment to protecting public health, particularly the health of children. Wireless technologies have become an integral part of everyday life. Children are exposed to wireless devices, Wi-Fi networks, cellular infrastructure, Bluetooth devices, and other sources of electromagnetic fields from an early age. As exposure becomes increasingly widespread, it is important that our understanding of potential long-term health effects keeps pace with technological development. I respectfully ask HHS to prioritize the following areas: 1. Independent, long-term research Support well-designed, independent research into the potential short-term and long-term health effects of RF radiation and other relevant EMF exposures. Research should include long-term exposure, cumulative exposure from multiple sources, and potential effects that may not become apparent for many years. Funding and potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed transparently. 2. Protection of children and other potentially vulnerable populations Children should be a priority in research and public health policy. Their bodies are still developing, and their lifetime exposure may be substantially longer than that of today's adults. Research should specifically examine age-related differences in exposure and susceptibility rather than assuming that findings from adult populations fully apply to children. 3. Reassessment of exposure standards HHS should evaluate whether existing exposure limits adequately reflect current scientific evidence, including research on long-term exposure and potential biological effects beyond established heating effects. Standards should be reviewed periodically as new evidence becomes available, with clear explanations of the scientific assumptions and uncertainties underlying them. 4. Real-world and cumulative exposure Research should reflect how people actually live, work, travel, and learn. People are exposed to multiple sources of EMFs and RF radiation throughout the day, including smartphones, Wi-Fi routers, cellular networks, wearable devices, wireless accessories, and vehicle electrical systems. Evaluations should consider the combined exposure patterns people experience in homes, schools, workplaces, public spaces, and vehicles, rather than assessing each source only in isolation. 5. Transparency and accessible public information Families deserve clear, accessible, evidence-based information about wireless radiation exposure. HHS should provide practical guidance on exposure sources, the strength and limitations of the available evidence, areas of scientific uncertainty, and reasonable steps people can take to reduce unnecessary exposure if they choose to do so. Public guidance should neither dismiss legitimate questions nor create unnecessary fear. 6. A precautionary approach and exposure reduction Where meaningful scientific uncertainty remains, HHS should consider the precautionary principle and the concept of keeping exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), where appropriate and supported by the evidence. Practical measures that reduce unnecessary exposure without compromising essential communication or access to technology should be evaluated. Such measures may be particularly relevant in schools, childcare facilities, and other environments where children spend extended periods. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm should not be interpreted as proof that every possible long-term effect has been ruled out. Equally, potential risks should be investigated carefully rather than assumed. Public policy should distinguish established findings from preliminary results and unanswered questions. I urge HHS to conduct a comprehensive, independent, and transparent review of the available evidence, identify important research gaps, and develop clear, evidence-based recommendations that put public health first. Technological progress and public health protection should go hand in hand. Families should not have to choose between participating in modern life and having access to reliable information about potential environmental exposures. HHS has an important opportunity to advance scientific understanding, improve public confidence, and help ensure that decisions about wireless technology are informed by the best available evidence and an appropriate commitment to protecting future generations. Thank you for considering this comment.

The public deserves full transparency about the potential health effects of wireless radiation and 5G technology. People cannot make informed decisions when the risks, uncertainties, and long-term effects are not clearly communicated. We need independent research, stronger public health protections, and honest, accessible disclosure of the science. Public health and informed consent must come before convenience and corporate interests. Families deserve answers, transparency, and the right to understand the potential risks of the technology surrounding them.