See attached file(s) I know exactly why the digital waves are dangerous.
I know exactly why the digital waves are dangerous. I know the link and I Have the proof.
ANSES is the French agency that gives a simple opinion to the government (to which it is subordinate) on the dangerousness of environmental pollution, including that of digital waves.
Our association is on the dialogue committee with this agency.
Why do certain waves affect us and not others?
First of all, because it is related to the nature of the pulsed multiplexed modulation of digital waves.
The power indicator (SAR, absorbed energy...) serves to determine whether a person is
exposed or not. This power indicator is also an indicator of harmfulness, but it has become a diversion, a deception because it is confusing compared to other indicators that are much more harmful, never measured.
The main indicator of harmfulness is related to the pulsed effect of the pulsed multiplexed modulation multiplied by the type of digital coding QAM. The more data transfers you have, the more the wave will be pulsed modulated and therefore dangerous. A digital wave that does not transfer data, its carrier is analog and therefore non-digital (hence the biases of protocols led by researchers while omitting the essential, the pulsed effect).
One must set aside the power and access its understanding on the inductions that enter into a completely different domain (even if the conditioned reflex of most people is to relate everything to power).
Digital modulation is based on 0 and 1 (nothing or everything) which generates BRUTAL
variations of significant electromagnetic flux, amplified with multiplexing and certain digital codifications. Note: it is not the cumulative effect of the energies of the subcarriers of the waves with enormous peaks of intensity, but the BRUTAL variations of electromagnetic flux intensity (notably the magnetic part that interests us). (the slope of the curve translated by the integral of the derivatives or by the peak crest x peak crest (PAPR) or more simply in relation to the flow of the number of bytes transmitted).
Indeed, even if a magnet is of high power, if its flux does not vary, then nothing happens in a coil that is nearby. But if we have a sudden displacement of the magnet and thus of its magnetic flux in relation to the coil, then an induced current is created in the coil (by the laws of Faraday and Maxwell, universally recognized and therefore no need to provide proof) which will itself create a magnetic field to oppose the variation of flux that initiated it. (action – reaction).
We find this brutality of variations of the field with the digital waves that are pulsed and multiplexed.
The modulation of the wave is low frequency and thus the equivalent of the energy of
the modulation will penetrate deeply into the body, and as it is pulsed, it will create inductions: induced currents and ion sequestrations (very sensitive to electromagnetic fields).
As our body manages external aggressions through bioelectrochemical equilibrium reactions (homeostasis), it must not be disturbed by wandering induced currents or by ion sequestrations due to the fields.
Examples:
- The voltage-dependent channels of cells like synapses that allow ions to enter the cell or not depending on the voltage between the two environments on either side of the cell wall. They would be totally disturbed by these induced currents creating cellular mortality.
- If the ions are sequestered by the variations of fields and thus not available, the equilibrium reactions cannot take place, leading to oxidation, migraines, etc., degradation of health.
The ANSES has just published a report on waves and cancer in November 2025 with a pre
study that was accessible to us. When we look into the development of the report, we see many studies that present health issues. I examined the waves and cancer report to classify all the studies presented from the WHO, etc., into two categories of studies: those with pulsed modulation (digital) and those with continuous waves (analog).
So simply, we can read (and everyone can read):
That half of the studies conclude that there are carcinogenic or dangerous consequences.
That half of the studies use digital waves in their protocol and the other half use analog waves.
That 100% of the studies using pulsed digital waves report a danger.
That 100% of the studies using analog waves report "no" danger.
That all these analog studies have no place in this report. That is why only the studies using pulsed digital waves remain, which conclude with a danger.
That all the analog studies (thus non-pulsed), by declaring "no" danger, support the
conclusion of the harmful effect of the pulsed nature of digital waves by creating inductions due to the abrupt variations in fields of the multiplexed modulation of digital waves.
< Please see the attached PDF document for our full substantive comment. >
Introduction
I am submitting this comment to the "Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure", Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397.
My comment is grounded in my personal experience of major adverse health impacts from wireless exposure and my foray into the knowledge aspect of this topic. I hope my experience can help HHS prioritize and fund independent, ongoing research into the health impacts of wireless exposure with the necessary breadth and depth, given the extreme complexity of the subject. I further hope it will emphasize that many Americans are suffering from exposure-related illnesses today, that delays in research and updates to FCC guidelines will only prolong and intensify that suffering. Finally, I hope that HHS can spur the development of the tools, technology, and methodologies needed to continuously monitor and assess health impacts as the wireless landscape continues to rapidly evolve.
Background
My comment will focus primarily on the "Public Experiences and Reported Potential Adverse Health Effects" question from the RFI.
< Please see the attached PDF document for our full substantive comment. >
Insights and Recommendations
I believe the questions posed by the RFI particularly in the sections "Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment" and "Measuring Human Exposure and Public Health Surveillance" are critically important and are the right questions to be asking. As a non-expert, I can simply discuss how my own experience with the harmful effects of wireless exposure and my own journey to find answers confirms the importance of these inquiries.
< Please see the attached PDF document for our full substantive comment. >
Conclusion
I shared my personal account of suffering with moderate sensitivity to wireless exposure, which hopefully makes the condition feel real to the reader, and moreover highlights how inescapable exposure is in our modern urban environments and how there is currently no effective countervailing force pushing back against ever increasing exposure. I noted some luminary doctors whom HHS should certainly consider consulting through its EMF/RF exposure health program.
This is a call to action for HHS, as public health is most certainly not being served currently with respect to health impacts of wireless exposure. Concretely and in summary, I recommended the following:
1. Research to understand and catalog the root causes of wireless sensitivity in individuals that experience it. Recognize wireless sensitivity as a disability.
2. Research and formulate effective diagnostic criteria and assessment methods for wireless sensitivity.
3. Research how infections past or present, toxins, and other factors may have an amplifying effect on the health consequences to wireless exposure.
4. Research to develop a clear understanding of whether and how non-ionizing radiation can cause negative health impacts, working closely with experts in RF physics. Develop tools for Americans to effectively identify wireless risks in their environments.
5. Make research into wireless safety an ongoing, high priority focus with the intent to empower FCC to adjust exposure limits according to an evidence-based approach. Evaluate and integrate competing international standards such as from Russia, Switzerland, Italy, and China.
6. Establish a wireless health impact monitoring system, and explicitly prioritize residents living near past and future wireless infrastructure deployment sites. Feed this collected data into urgent research.
7. Design exposure studies to be more realistic, and to collect a wider and more useful array of metrics that may be more likely to quantify health impacts.
Respectfully submitted.
Question 2.
While I have a background in Neuroscience (PhD) and Government Administration in Health Care, I am retired and these comments are submitted as a member of the Public who is sensitive to EMF.
Question 3
a. Mobile phone, Wi-Fi, wireless infrastructure
b. Daily- worse at night
c. Dizziness, vertigo, inner ear balance issues, earaches, acute episodes of tinnitus, sinus, fatigue, stiffness muscles and joints, headaches, sleep disturbances, breathlessness, dry cough, palpitations, tachycardia, chest pain, dry eyes, blurred vision, skin rashes, burning pain, memory issues, difficulty thinking- brain fog, pressure on head.
d. Symptoms began in Spring of 2020.
e. -
f. I no longer use a cell phone, turn Wi-Fi off at night, wear EMF protection clothing (e.g. HAVN). I purchased a 5G meter and tracked fields back to a local cell tower. House plants began dying, so I used meter to map out areas with lower field readings to change seating arrangements at home and stop plants from dying. Fields seem to accelerate mold growth and food spoilage. I got rid of newer, made in China, lamps and fans which had electric fields too high to measure. Everything has improved, health is slowly recovering, but symptoms are not completely eliminated.
Question 5
o. Electronic products, especially foreign-made in China, should be tested for EMF output before sold to consumers.
Question 10
c. Dying foliage around power lines and/or cell towers may be an indicator of levels that are too high. See attached photo.
Question 18
Would like to see studies on effect of EMF on cellular communication, mitochondria.
Establishment of EMF free zones for sensitive people.
It has been suggested that EMF causes mold to increase growth and mycotoxin production. My observation of food and/or plants molding overnight supports the idea of an effect on food spoilage.
RRM Foundation (RRM Academy, rrmacademy.org) submits the attached comment on the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation and Wireless Radiation Exposure. We recommend that HHS treat male fertility as a priority research gap (Questions 16 and 18), include menstrual cycle and ovulation endpoints in long-term cohort studies (Question 10(d)), and recognize couples seeking pregnancy as a distinct population with exposure measured in both partners (Question 11(g)). Supporting references and further reading are in the attached letter.
I am submitting information concerning an under-recognized pathway of human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation: the presence of permanently implanted dental metals in the oral cavity. Although systematic data on this specific exposure route remain limited, a sufficient body of existing scientific and clinical observations warrants closer examination by the Department of Health and Human Services. Tens of millions of Americans carry conductive metals in their teeth—including mercury-containing dental amalgam, titanium implants, nickel-based crowns and alloys, and other metallic restorations—creating a potential interface between ubiquitous wireless radiation sources and biological tissue that has received little formal attention. Given the scale of this population and the permanence of these materials, further investigation is both warranted and overdue.
I am submitting this comment in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Request for Information regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I write as a former Defense employee and a concerned member of the public. Through my professional experience and personal observations, I have developed familiarity with both low-frequency and high-frequency signals and their potential effects on the human body. Low-frequency energy, such as intense bass vibrations, can produce whole-body vibration that some individuals report as capable of affecting cardiovascular function. High-frequency energy can produce thermal effects, including skin heating or burns. I have personally experienced localized burns on my arms and legs, as well as significant heating at the crown of the head, which I attribute to RF exposure.I am particularly concerned that the deployment of 6G technologies may intensify these exposures. Sensitive anatomical areas, such as the male genitalia—where relatively thin skin provides limited barrier protection—merit careful study regarding potential biological effects. The symptoms associated with what has been termed “Havana Syndrome,” experienced by U.S. personnel in Cuba, closely resemble effects that some members of the public, including myself, have reported: temporary cognitive impairment, difficulty concentrating or performing work, episodic motor limitations, and memory disruption.I respectfully urge HHS to thoroughly evaluate both public experiential reports and the existing body of scientific evidence; to identify critical gaps in current research; to give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations; and to establish clear federal research priorities addressing wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing this opportunity for individuals and families to contribute to the record.
On side note, I strongly believe President Trumps Staff is is out performing many I have seen in the past. Thank you very much.
I am submitting this comment in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Request for Information regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I write as a former Defense employee and a concerned member of the public. Through my professional experience and personal observations, I have developed familiarity with both low-frequency and high-frequency signals and their potential effects on the human body. Low-frequency energy, such as intense bass vibrations, can produce whole-body vibration that some individuals report as capable of affecting cardiovascular function. High-frequency energy can produce thermal effects, including skin heating or burns. I have personally experienced localized burns on my arms and legs, as well as significant heating at the crown of the head, which I attribute to RF exposure.I am particularly concerned that the deployment of 6G technologies may intensify these exposures. Sensitive anatomical areas, such as the male genitalia—where relatively thin skin provides limited barrier protection—merit careful study regarding potential biological effects. The symptoms associated with what has been termed “Havana Syndrome,” experienced by U.S. personnel in Cuba, closely resemble effects that some members of the public, including myself, have reported: temporary cognitive impairment, difficulty concentrating or performing work, episodic motor limitations, and memory disruption.I respectfully urge HHS to thoroughly evaluate both public experiential reports and the existing body of scientific evidence; to identify critical gaps in current research; to give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations; and to establish clear federal research priorities addressing wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing this opportunity for individuals and families to contribute to the record.
On side note, I strongly believe President Trumps Staff is is out performing many I have seen in the past. Thank you very much.
Dear HHS Team,
I have been active in Australia fervently raising awareness of cumulative dirty energy, or electrosmog caused by a cacophony of frequencies that disturb our bioelectrical systems.
We begin to wonder if not convinced that most of this irregularity of negative frequency may well be deliberate after the last 6 years of the covid bioweapon debacle.
I will attach a letter I wrote my local councilors in regards to the lack of cumulative studies and quick permit approvals that are apparently outside jurisdiction of the councils that are meant to abide by Health and Well Being in their planning and by the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 which is state law in Victoria.
I am on the ANRES Australian National Register of Environmental Sensitivities.
I do not lead a normal life and I am forced to live in relative solitude in tranquil surroundings to stay out of EMF as much as I possibly can.
You will see the evidence for lack of jurisprudence in terms of public health that a Precautionary Principle ought to have been applied as many countries have done.
Why in two of the most advanced western countries, Australia and US is this not applying. There are many alternatives to EMF tech that includes the fibre optic tech that would mean electricity running through wires not putting immense pressure on our bodies and especially harm to our brain via wireless neural linked tech.
Sincerely
Kerryn Bennett
Please find attached two letters to local council.
A mentioned BioInitiative Report is dated 2012 but this is an exceptional report and warrants reading by the HHS. The link is in the first council letter.
The Summary International EMF Scientist Appeal letter
Additional references to Planetary Electromagnetic Pollution
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].
PERSONALIZE YOUR COMMENT HERE: Tell HHS how wireless radiation has affected you, your child, your family, or someone you care about. You may describe the source and duration of the exposure, health effects experienced, when they began, whether reducing exposure made a difference, and how these experiences have affected daily life. If you are an ally, describe why you support people affected by wireless radiation and why you believe HHS should address this issue.
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.
*In the photo provided, that's right outside our house window. That's just one, there are plenty more in Killeen, Texas. I have not seen this many before in just one town. This needs to stop.
Submission to Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure
Submitted by: Dr Nicole Bijlsma, PhD, Environmental-Health Educator and Researcher, Melbourne, Australia
I am writing as a researcher, educator and practitioner who has spent the past 25 years assessing homes for environmental-health hazards. I have also been personally affected by EMF exposure.
I developed persistent sleep problems within 2 weeks of moving into our first home. I eventually realised (after 7 years and ten miscarriages - no explanation was provided by the medical industry and we didnt qualify for IVF), we were sleeping adjacent to the meter panel. I purchased a triple axis digital gauss meter and found elevated AC magnetic fields on the bed during the early hours of the morning (when the hot water system was in use). We consequently relocated to another bedroom - sleep improved and I successfully carried a twin pregnancy to term. The fix was simple and cost nothing. I subsequently established the Australian College of Environmental Studies in 1999, and have spent the past 25 years teaching students how to undertake home assessments for mould, electromagnetic fields, allergens and toxicants. Poor sleep is one of the most common complaints I see where EMF exposure is a factor. The two sources I find most often are: radiofrequency radiation from Wi-Fi routers and wireless-enabled devices kept in or near bedrooms, often running all night; and AC magnetic fields from meter panels, switchboards and wiring, including where smart meters are installed on the other side of a bedroom wall. Reducing exposure in the bedroom is frequently followed by reports of better sleep. Typical steps are moving the bed, switching off Wi-Fi at night and using wired connections.
I subsequently undertook a PhD in environmental medicine (RMIT) examining the impact of environmental exposures to toxicants and manmade electromagnetic fields, gaps in current exposure standards, and the associated health effects. My dissertation, which asks whether radiofrequency radiation affects sleep, is attached in support of this submission. This involved the first real-world study (double blind, randomised, placebo controlled pilot study) on the impact of a Wi-Fi enabled device on sleep in healthy adults using a baby monitor which was statistically significant (within 7 days).
Current exposure standards are designed to prevent short-term heating and nerve stimulation which do not reflect real-world exposure. They do not adequately address chronic, low-level, night-time exposure in the home, which is when the body should be resting and repairing. Nor do they account for vulnerable groups such as children, or those impacted by mould who frequently become sensitive to manmade electromagnetic fields and toxicants.
Recommendations
Remarkably, the most effective measures are simple and cheap:
Design-stage solutions. Building codes and planning guidance should require meter panels, switchboards and smart meters to be located away from bedrooms and living areas. They should also encourage hard-wired data connections in new homes. These measures cost almost nothing when planned in at the design stage, but are expensive to retrofit.
Mass consumer education. The public needs clear, independent and practical guidance on reducing exposure, particularly while sleeping. This includes turning off Wi-Fi at night, keeping devices out of bedrooms and checking what is behind the bedhead.
A precautionary approach. Exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and research and surveillance on sleep and other non-thermal effects should be funded.
These recommendations are consistent with the Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation (2001) (attached). The Chair's report called for a rigorous precautionary approach to wireless technology, for emissions to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and for clear, independent public information so people can make informed choices. Twenty-five years on, those recommendations are more relevant than ever.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.