Research & federal duties

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 VICTIM AND RESEARCHER. Due to my experience with Cognitive Electronic Warfare and Counter Insurgency methods and tactics; I have created the non profit Human Free Will @ humanfreewill.org. EVERY MORNING and EVERY NIGHT I have to sleep within an Electromagnetic Field generated EVERYWHERE I GO with PNT (Precision Navigation Timing) infrastructure. I'm in New York City so when they covertly place an Electronic Warfare generator in close quarters it affects multiple people. My father and several neighbors have passed away recently due to constant EMF, RF, and Wireless Radiation Exposure in which I have attached a picture. My mother has cancer and I have brain cancer. There is NO ONE TO GO TO for the removal of the generator you can hear buzzing next door since it is "used for training". 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.

am an adult woman submitting a personal health comment to HHS-OASH-2026-0397. I am asking HHS to treat electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and reported directed-energy / Havana-type symptoms as a real research gap, not as something to dismiss first and study never. For years I have had burning, head and foot pain, vibration through my body, dizziness, nerve pain, sleep collapse, and inflammatory flares. These episodes have happened in houses, hotels, and outdoor settings. On September 22, 2026, I was at the White House Hotel in Biloxi, Mississippi, on Beach Boulevard / US Highway 90. That night I felt a strike that vibrated through my whole body. Current symptoms I live with: A clamp sensation along my spine from the lower back to the top of my head Muscle tightness that feels like I am being choked A lump on the right side of my head, top and side Burning Ringing in the ears Fatigue Stomach problems Other neurological symptoms that have not been explained or treated in a way that stops them I have sought medical care. I have imaging and records. I am not asking HHS to take my word as a finished scientific paper. I am asking you not to throw people like me out of the dataset. Please include in your review: Health experiences and clinical observations from people who report RF / EMF-associated illness and people who report pulsed or targeted energy symptoms, including Havana-style presentations. Whether current U.S. exposure limits protect people who are already sick, children, and people in dense wireless environments. Research gaps on non-thermal effects, pulsed RF, and unexplained acquired neurological and inflammatory syndromes after reported environmental exposure. A path for civilians to document incidents without being auto-labeled and closed. I can attach medical records and a dated symptom log. I am not attaching unrelated legal matters. This comment is only about health and RF / EMF / directed-energy research. I want federal policy to catch up with the technology that is already on people. Thank you.

America NEEDS TO SECURE the GRID Also people in general, needs more education regards how to protect themselves and the children from RF and Wireless Radiation . The Community needs Education about this subjects ( education that comes from Govermet). Please send me the information you have about this subjects Thank you

See attached file(s) Scientific studies have conclusively proven that artificial light exposure, particularly fluorescent and LED light exposure: 1) shortens lifespan, 2) causes cancer and cardiovascular disease, 3) elevates one's levels of cortisol and ACTH to "stress-like" levels, and 4) causes other serious health problems. My attached "Replace Toxic Fluorescent Light with Natural Light Now!" article explains why such artificial lighting--lighting that no terrestrial life form, including humans, evolved under--must be avoided, and especially must NOT be used in settings, such as schools, where children are present. The article shows how in one experiment mice, which are mammals just like humans, who were exposed to fluorescent light lived only HALF AS LONG as mice who were exposed to daylight! In another experiment conducted by Hollwich and Dieckhues, and published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Ophthalmologica, experimental subjects exposed to fluorescent light for several days saw their stress hormones--ACTH and cortisol--rise alarmingly high to "stress-like" levels, but then return to normal levels after the fluorescent light exposure was stopped and was replaced with daylight exposure for several days. Hollwich and Dieckhues were so concerned over this finding that they remarked that the fluorescent light exposure explains the agitated mental state that school children in classrooms lit by fluorescent light develop. School children who are agitated are much more likely to misbehave, and the misbehavior problem is so great that the 600,000 school teachers who left the profession last year state that having to deal constantly with misbehaving students was the main reason for them quitting being a teacher. Meanwhile, although equally toxic LED light is slowly replacing fluorescent light in schools, still 78% of US educational institutions use fluorescent lighting as their classrooms' primary lighting source, and this harmful-to-health lighting also negatively impacts the ability of schoolchildren to focus and concentrate on their learning task--in short, it significantly lowers their academic performance level. This was proven by the attached "Daylighting in Schools" study, a study costing over $1 million that was sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission. This study's researchers compared the learning rate for Reading and Math for elementary school students who were either in classrooms lit by fluorescent light or in classrooms lit by daylight. The classrooms whose primary lighting source was daylight usually had the natural daylight delivered into the classroom via a diffused lens skylight (called Skylight Type A in the study; see page 10 for a photo of this diffused lens skylight) and/or more regular windows. A diffused lens skylight is common, spreads the natural light evenly throughout the classroom (not as a solid beam of light) and is just a normal skylight installation job. Dimming louvers are usually included with such a skylight, in case the teacher wishes to darken the classroom for some reason, such as to show the students a movie. Now, here is what the Director of HHS and the President need to understand. On page 12 of the study the researchers reported that STUDENTS IN CLASSROOMS WHERE DAYLIGHT WAS THE CLASSROOMS' PRIMARY LIGHTING SOURCE LEARNED THEIR READING AND MATH CURRICULUM 20-26% FASTER than students stuck in the classrooms lit by fluorescent light. Even though fluorescent light uses much less electricity than incandescent lighting, still its electricity use is not insignificant, as 30% of a school's electricity usage is devoted to lighting. However, for a classroom whose primary lighting source is daylight, it will see the lighting portion of its electricity bill be ZERO DOLLARS on most days, which will be the case especially for the large percentage of classrooms located in the Sunbelt states in the US. The solution to the problem of our nation's public schoolchildren having their mental and physical health, and academic performance level, significantly harmed by minute-after-minute, hour-after-hour exposure each school day to artificial light is simple. The attached "School Classroom Natural Light Act of 2026" describes the law or President Executive Order that could end the disastrous classroom learning environment that our nation's public schoolchildren and teachers have had to somehow survive for way too long. Please see to it that this comment of mine and its attachments are brought to the attention of the Director of HHS and the President.

I am submitting this comment because we can no longer afford to ignore concerns about our ever-increasing exposure to RF and wireless radiation. My concerns come from my own experience and what I have observed in my family. I spend many hours each day working in my office, where I had a Wi-Fi router sitting on the floor immediately to my left. During that time, I experienced recurrent styes in my left eye, tinnitus in my left ear, left-sided breast pain, difficulty sleeping, nighttime headaches, and brain fog. After learning more about RF radiation, I purchased an RF meter and was shocked by the levels I measured. I began reducing my exposure by hard-wiring my computer and devices and eventually my entire home. My wired connections became more reliable, and over time, my symptoms disappeared. I understand that correlation alone does not establish causation, but rather than dismissing experiences like mine, I urge HHS to fund rigorous, independent research to determine whether there is a causal connection. We owe it to the millions of people exposed every day to find out. My concerns extend to children. I have observed changes in my son and nephews, including difficulties with concentration and focus, as well as changes in mood and behavior, associated with increased use of screens and wireless technology. Our children are growing up surrounded by wireless devices and infrastructure at home, in classrooms, on playgrounds, and throughout their communities. This generation may be among the first exposed to this level of continuous wireless radiation from the earliest stages of life, including during pregnancy. Yet technology has advanced rapidly while questions about long-term, cumulative, and developmental exposure remain. I urge HHS to take a comprehensive, independent, and transparent look at the potential health and environmental effects of RF radiation, including impacts on children and other potentially vulnerable populations, long-term and cumulative exposure, and potential effects on animals, plants, and the broader environment. Please listen to parents, clinicians, researchers, and people reporting changes in their health. Examine the full body of evidence, identify research gaps, and ensure that health recommendations and exposure guidelines keep pace with rapidly expanding wireless technology. We should not wait for another generation of children to grow up before determining whether we have adequately protected them. People deserve transparency, meaningful information about exposure, and the ability to make informed choices for themselves and their families. I urge HHS to act now: investigate the evidence, fund the research, listen to the public, and put public health first. Our children and future generations are depending on us to get this right.

I would like to add to my previous comment. Here is some solid research on modern day neuroweapons. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11618680/

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is responsible for regulating communications technology and spectrum, is devoid of expertise assessing the interaction between RF radiation and our health. HHS is the right agency to examine the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I urge HHS to take an active role in evaluating the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected by RF radiation, as well as scientific evidence, and to establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding RF radiation and public health.

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, as RF affects my brain. I've purchase farday cages for my electronics and purchased an RF meter. I only to cord based speakers not bluetooth based due to the RF effect. Prior to preventing RF in my home my memory was less, my brain was not clear. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation.

**Title:** Challenging the Consensus: Occupational EMF Exposure and Firefighter Wellness  Challenging widely accepted perspectives is never easy. In the mid-19th century, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that childbed fever deaths plummeted from 18% to 1% simply by requiring doctors to wash their hands after autopsies. Yet, the medical community resisted his findings for decades, discrediting him until he died in an asylum. It took generations for Body Substance Isolation (BSI) to become universally accepted.  In 2026, challenging the consensus remains difficult. One critical topic is electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure and its detrimental health effects on firefighters and the general public. Because of the unique infrastructure of fire stations and the nature of the job, firefighters are chronically exposed to higher levels of EMFs from communication systems, station wiring, and nearby cell towers. Research suggests this long-term exposure may be linked to increased risks of mental health disorders, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.  The historical connection between electrification and health dates back to 1869, when Dr. George Miller Beard documented "Neurasthenia" (weak nerves), noting symptoms like fatigue, headaches, and heart palpitations. Beard observed that it primarily affected the educated classes—who, at the brink of the second industrial revolution, were the only ones with widespread access to electricity. In 1894, Sigmund Freud catalyzed a shift that reclassified these symptoms as psychological "anxiety neurosis," causing the medical community to treat it as an inherent human condition rather than an environmental issue. While Western psychiatry dropped the diagnosis, Asia and Eastern Europe never adopted Freud’s reclassification; neurasthenia remains frequently diagnosed there today as a sign of chronic environmental toxicity. Firefighters frequently experience these exact symptoms, often dismissing them as standard shift-work burnout.  Cancer is the third leading cause of death among firefighters. In 2009, Dr. Samuel Milham, author of *Dirty Electricity*, found that firefighters face elevated risks for various cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Notably, respiratory cancers were not disproportionately elevated despite regular exposure to smoke. This discrepancy strongly points to alternative carcinogens, such as chronic EMF exposure from communication devices and station infrastructure.  Current human safety limits fail to protect first responders. There are two distinct categories of safety metrics: one for electronics and one for humans. Electronics standards are based on the principle of interference—recognizing that even a weak wireless signal can disrupt a device. Conversely, human standards set by the FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are strictly thermal. They only protect against acute tissue heating. This completely ignores the reality that our bodies operate on complex bioelectrical cell communication, leaving us completely unprotected against non-thermal biological interference.  Change is urgently needed. In 2021, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC's existing RF safety standards were "arbitrary and capricious," mandating the agency to provide scientific justification for its extraordinarily high limits. Years later, the FCC has failed to adequately address this mandate, while telecom infrastructure continues to expand near fire stations, schools, and neighborhoods.  Immediate, practical solutions can be implemented at fire stations to create healthier environments. The most critical area to protect is the common sleeping dorm. Placing cell phones in airplane mode when turning in for the night drastically minimizes cumulative radiation exposure. Moving Wi-Fi routers out of sleeping quarters, removing unnecessary Bluetooth devices, and utilizing distance as a shield are vital first steps. Ultimately, we must operate under the Precautionary Principle: if an action or policy carries a suspected risk of severe harm to human health, protective measures must be enforced even if some cause-and-effect relationships are still being evaluated by the scientific mainstream.

Hi- 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 concerned member of the public. Why wouldn’t we want research on wireless radiation when our children and families are exposed to it daily? 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. Khyrstin