Research & federal duties

RE: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Technical Recommendations for Electromagnetic Exposure Research, Mathematical Verification, and Research Accountability Submitted by: William Bass Founder, Rhodium Pay LLC Proliferate Change Technologies (PCT) QUESTION 2 — RESPONDENT PERSPECTIVE I am responding as a business founder and independent technology researcher. Through Proliferate Change Technologies, I am pursuing research involving electromagnetic physics, mathematical modeling, computational verification, and evidence-based information systems. My recommendations concern research methodology and institutional accountability. They do not represent completed biomedical studies or validated findings of adverse health effects. QUESTION 5(p) — EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION I recommend evaluating standardized, multidimensional classification methods incorporating frequency, field strength, power density, modulation, exposure duration, distance, and simultaneous exposure sources. These classifications should distinguish direct measurements from modeled estimates and should account for uncertainty and measurement limitations. QUESTION 8 — EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT I recommend improving real-world electromagnetic exposure assessments through reproducible mathematical models, calibrated measurement systems, and independently verifiable results. Maxwell's equations provide an established mathematical foundation for modeling electromagnetic fields. Computational predictions should be evaluated against physical measurements before being relied upon for exposure assessment. QUESTION 16 — RESEARCH PRIORITIES I recommend prioritizing: 1. Standardized measurement and verification methods. 2. Real-world exposure conditions involving multiple sources. 3. Uncertainty quantification and model validation. 4. Reproducible datasets and independent scientific review. 5. Clear separation between physical exposure measurements, biological observations, correlations, and established causal findings. QUESTION 17 — FEDERAL RESEARCH COORDINATION Federal agencies could benefit from interoperable research systems that maintain traceable evidence, documented methodologies, controlled information sharing, and auditable research decisions. My ongoing PHRON and Opraxicore technology initiatives explore architectures for systematic information analysis, verification, and operational accountability. These architectures are under development and have not been independently validated for RF exposure research. RECOMMENDATION I encourage HHS to explore a coordinated, evidence-based research framework that allows participating institutions to compare findings, identify contradictions, preserve research provenance, and independently reproduce technical results. I welcome opportunities for technical discussion and independent evaluation of potentially relevant mathematical and computational approaches. Respectfully, William Bass Founder, Rhodium Pay LLC Proliferate Change Technologies (PCT)

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]. In my wider circle of Friends I know two persons who are strongly affected by the radiation of mobile-phone towers around them. Until 4G the negative effects like headaches and nervousness and feeling unwell were not so strong, but since 5G they have to protect themselves rigorously with very special, expensive fabric (even slightly covering their face), during the night they sleep under a special construction (baldachin, made of very special protectiv fabric) to avoid exposure to the radiation of 5G. 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.

I started experiencing headaches when 5G tower was put on top of the apartment building I lived in. This apartment building is in a city. I’m not a person to experience headaches, so when this started happening, I couldn’t help but wonder if the 5G, 3 floors above my apartment, was causing it. Some of the headaches were very bad. I live in a single family home now further away from 5G tower and don’t have the headaches anymore. I am concerned about this topic and would like unbiased research and resources to go towards this with openness in sharing its findings with the public, regardless of what they show. We need to know.

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. I have been told that wireless radiation gives them massive headaches. I have turn off the router in my home or turn off the WI-Fi or cellular data when I have guests over. Otherwise they can't handle being inside my home. It gives them headaches and nausea. 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.

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 and concerned member of the public. This EMF in our air definitely needs to be addressed for our health to be protected better! EMF's are getting into us everywhere now and it can damage our DNA, brains, etc. My brain is so low on energy and I haven't found a medical specialist who can help me properly. Psychiatrists just want to prescribe meds. I don't want to be hooked on meds that can cause other problems. I ask them if they are brain specialists. ...NO. Just offer meds for the issue. I'm SO THANKFUL FOR the EMF Solutions company that has protective resources!!!! Though I think my brain already has some permanent damage.?? SO SAD that so many kids are on cell phones and unprotected! PLEASE establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

[...] '1.2. Microwave EMFs, electro-hypersensitivity, and cancer During the past 15 years several statistical studies indicate a connection between residential exposure to radiation of MT base station antennas (which emit similar radiation with that of mobile phones), and reported symptoms of unwellness usually referred to as “microwave syndrome”, or “electro-hypersensitivity” (EHS). These include headaches, fatigue, sleep disorders, etc. [57–63]. Similar effects that were previously categorized as medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are recently attributed to chronic stress and inflammation [64]. Recently, in an effort to find objective methods for EHS evaluation, ∼80% of EHS self‑reporting patients were found to present oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood [65] which is strongly related to DNA damage. At the same time, more and more epidemiological studies indicate an increasing connection between mobile phone use and brain tumors in humans, [66–75]. The time length of cancer development after cellular damage may be many years depending on the animal and the type of cancer. It is called latency period and is defined as the time between the initial causative event and the development of clinically recognizable cancer. The latency period for gliomas (type of brain cancer) is more than 20 years in humans [76]. This probably explains why epidemiological studies only recently have started showing a connection between mobile phone use and cancer. Tumor promotion in experimental animals after long-term RF exposure at levels below the officially accepted limits is also reported [77,78]. In a recent study of the USA National Toxicology Program (NTP) rats were exposed for 2 years, 9 h per day, in a simulated near field of a mobile phone antenna emitting 2nd generation (Global System for Mobile telecommunications - GSM) or 3rd generation (Code Division Multiple Access - CDMA) EMFs. [The CDMA is part of the Universal Mobile Telecommunication System – UMTS]. Exposed rats developed brain cancer (glioma) and heart cancer (malignant schwannoma) for both lower (1.5 W/kg) and higher (3, and 6 W/kg) Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) levels than the current exposure limit (2 W/kg) for the human head [56,79]. An Italian life-span exposure study of rats in a simulated GSM 1800 far field, also found induction of heart schwannomas and brain glial tumors, in agreement with the results of the NTP study [80]. These findings are in agreement with the above reported DNA damage findings, since DNA damage is a main cause of cancer [81,82]. Alternatively, DNA damage may result in cell death, reproductive declines, or neurodegenerative diseases [83,84]. [...] 1.4. Conflict between experimental studies due to unrealistic exposures An extremely important observation is the intense opposition between the results of experimental studies that employ real exposures from commercially available devices (mobile phones or other telecommunication devices), and studies employing simulated exposures from generators or “test” phones with similar but invariant parameters such as intensity, frequency etc. While ∼50% of the studies employing simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies employing real-life exposures from commercially available devices display an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects [34–36,84,100–118]. A wide variety of biological and clinical effects are already found to be induced by real-life exposures on a similarly wide variety of animals/biological samples including human volunteers exposed in vivo (19 studies) [19,34,35,100,104,106–109,114,116], human sperm in vitro (2 studies) [23,100], mice or rats or guinea pigs or rabbits in vivo (24 studies) [100,102,103,105,110,111,115,117], Drosophila (11 studies) [15,16,26,31,41,42,100,101,140,141], bees (4 studies) [47,100,118], ants (1 study) [100], chick embryos (3 studies) [36,45,100], quails (1 study) [100], human cells in vitro (2 studies) [100,112], cow brain tissue in vitro (1 study) [113], mouse cells in vitro (1 study), protozoa (1 study), and even purified proteins in vitro (1 study) [100]. From a total of 71 studies reviewed above that employed real exposures 68 recorded significant adverse effects (95.8%) ranging from loss of orientation, kinetic, behavioural, or EEG changes, heart rate changes, effect on cognitive function and memory impairment, effect on cell growth and proliferation, temperature increases in brain tissue, to decrease in male and female reproductive capacity, reproductive declines, molecular changes, changes in enzymatic activity, biochemical changes in the pregnant women and their embryos, DNA damage and cell death, protein damage, and histopathological changes in the brain [34–36,84,100–118].' https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331661949_Comparing_DNA_Damage_Induced_by_Mobile_Telephony_and_Other_Types_of_Man-Made_Electromagnetic_Fields

My Story of EMF Exposure - Abbreviated Version HHS: I work in the fields of science and technology. My work is sufficiently advanced to where personal security is a concern given harassment is not uncommon at this level. After many years working on various projects it had become obvious that “a party” with advance EMF / DEW / cognitive warfare technologies had taken notice of my accomplishments. I have developed many of the widely reported symptoms of “Havana Syndrome” caused by an apparent DEW attack starting in earnest January 2024 (all while on U.S soil). I did not experience one but rather a multi-level covert means of interface with my mind with apparent frequency weapons. It had also become obvious that, by design, the methods used were such that when reported directly could easily be confused with mental illness. This subject matter has an apparent nexus of security and health care. Speaking from my personal experience, there is no proper method of screening for a person in my situation (a targeted individual). Even when specifically mentioning Havana Syndrome to my provider, I was not offered proper screening. I was instead pigeon holed as most are into a misdiagnosis. In my view, even if a provider should form an opinion that a patient be suffering from mental illness rather than Havana Syndrome, remote electronic harassment, synthetic telepathy, etc., proper diagnostic screening should be offered. To do otherwise means HHS is intentionally or unintentionally providing cover for those using these technologies and, in the process, complicit in crimes against humanity. Sincerely, Anonymous

'because these wavelengths travel only short distances, this system will need to use a dense network of fixed antennas outdoors every 300 meters as well as indoor systems, as the gigahertz radiation is blocked by buildings. ' 'In addition, there is convincing emerging scientific evidence causing great concern for the environment, with harm to mammals, insects and bacteria, prompting scientists around the world to call for a moratorium on 5G.' 'Major health concerns with exposure to 5G are to skin, eye and adverse systemic metabolic signaling through skin sensors, as well as heat effects. Some in Congress have seriously questioned the lack of independent research on 5G safety.' 'Current FCC standards are based only on heat effects for all telecommunications radiofrequencies and not biological effects seen with low level exposures that do not heat or burn tissues' https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/ ' New research on heat effects of 5G, by (Neufeld and Kuster 2018), demonstrates that permanent tissue damage from heating may occur even after short exposures to 5G millimeter wave pulse trains, where repetitive pulses can cause rapid, localized heating. The scientists highlight an urgent need for new thermal safety exposure standards to update current guidelines which do not adequately prevent excessive heating from pulsed millimeter wave exposure.' 'It is notable that currently over 207 scientists and physicians who have researched the biological and health effects of radiofrequency radiation have signed the 5G appeal, calling for a moratorium on the use of 5G technologies until more research is conducted and proves the safety of this technology. '

Comments as: individual consumer a. The type(s) of wireless technology or RF/EMF source(s) involved: Mobile phones b. The nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing of the reported exposure(s). nature:Uncertain. frequency:two times. duration:about 1 hour. timing:2026 c. The potential adverse health effects experienced. Headache.hard or nearly impossible to thinking or making plans. d. When potential adverse health effects first appeared relative to when exposure began and whether any changes in exposure coincided with potential adverse health effects. After 3-5 minuntes being exposure,during I set a rooted android phone CPU frequency limit to little cluster:300Mhz, big cluster :600Mhz, prime cluster: 800Mhz. e. Whether medical evaluation or treatment was sought, including any diagnoses received (if the respondent chooses to share them). No. f. Whether steps to reduce or eliminate exposure were taken and, if so, whether any subsequent changes in potential adverse health effects were observed. Mitigate after 10-20 seconds when I reverse the CPU limit set from app and close all switch from on to off, but not completely disappear, brain still fell slightly uncomfortable after 2 days. g. Any supporting documentation, including scientific reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information. I speculate that it was caused by using an App to set the CPU frequency limit extremely low in the Android system, without the app adjusting the voltage to an appropriate value. I have had a similar experience when using a PC: under high load, the CPU voltage would drop to a value lower than the set value. Manually increasing the voltage in the BIOS can alleviate this situation, and I myself also manually raised the CPU voltage to reduce the adverse effects of the CPU on my body. m. Recommendations for future research or surveillance. It is suggest to measure the ability of test subjects to perform precision tasks when the human body is near a CPU operating at extremely high or extremely low frequencies, especially under different voltage settings. a. The type(s) of wireless technology or RF/EMF source(s) involved: Wi-Fi-2.4G (experience before 10 years, so is 10 years ago's technology ) b. The nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing of the reported exposure(s). nature:May be EMF duration:Less than half an hour. frequency:one time approximate timing of the reported exposure: All day long, but especially during the time I go to bed start try to all asleep, the wifi router are less than 1 meter to my pillow. c. The potential adverse health effects experienced. Irritability.cannot fall asleep. d. When potential adverse health effects first appeared relative to when exposure began and whether any changes in exposure coincided with potential adverse health effects. After about half an hour. e. Whether medical evaluation or treatment was sought, including any diagnoses received (if the respondent chooses to share them). No. f. Whether steps to reduce or eliminate exposure were taken and, if so, whether any subsequent changes in potential adverse health effects were observed. Move wifi router to outside the door, behind a wall, distance change from less than 1 meter to more than 2.5 meters. Irritability nearly disapper. Finally I can fall a sleep.

I am writing in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I’m responding as an individual personally affected by RF and am deeply concerned about the threat to our children’s health. I am one of a growing number of people who cannot remain healthy in the presence of wireless radiation. My symptoms upon exposure are common ones and include heart palpitations, headaches, blurred vision, extreme fatigue, nausea, anxiety, and cognitive impairment. I cannot work outside my home due to this and have great difficulty shopping, receiving medical attention, or going to a restaurant. I cannot safely use airlines, buses, or trains, nor can I rent, drive, or be a passenger in newer cars because they have so much on-board RF. I cannot stay in motels or hotels, and in fact I have not traveled anywhere in five years. I am terrified that should I need to go into a hospital, I will become very ill from RF, possibly losing consciousness and unable to even communicate about the symptoms that will register on medical monitors but whose cause will be unknown to medical staff. RF sensitivity is extremely socially isolating as there few homes and no public places where it is not saturating the environment. I am essentially stranded in increasingly small oases where wireless radiation is low or does not reach. My respite, and the thing that keeps me relatively healthy, is being able to return to and stay in my home, which after much hard work, is EMF free. In this environment my body stabilizes and is healthy, and I can tolerate limited exposures a few times a week in RF-saturated areas. But this refuge in my home has been extremely difficult to create and is constantly threatened by development of cell towers, cell antennae, and 5G deployment. It is virtually impossible to find a rental and very difficult to purchase a home that is not saturated with wireless technology. At age 70 I have finally been able to purchase a healthy home, though I had to move far from friends and family to find something. I live in constant threat of having to pull up stakes and move again (to where?) when cell towers and 5G antennas come to my neighborhood. While a minority of people understand that their symptoms arise from EMF and RF exposure, a great many more suffer from it and are unaware that RF is the cause or a major contributing factor. There is a large body of research confirming that these adverse impacts occur to both those who are aware of their sensitivity and those who are not. Children are so very vulnerable and without knowledgable adults and public institutions to protect them are being harmed in homes, schools, and virtually all public spaces. HHS is uniquely positioned to consolidate existing research, sponsor studies into existing information gaps, and generate policy to protect the public from wireless radiation. Doing so will help ensure more informed decisions about deployment of wireless technologies and make homes, offices, and public spaces healthier for all of us. I sincerely hope HHS will meet this challenge.