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 family and an individual. As the infrastructure of cell towers increased within my city and neighborhood, my husband and I have been having ear ringing problems that affects our sleep, headaches, equilibrium, balance and overall health. We notice as a family when we are away from cell towers we do not hear the ringing and sleep better. Also, as a parent along with other parents in our community there is a high concern with the increased cell towers on schools and churches. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/tea-time/brave-parents-standing-up-to-telecom-giants. The increased cell build out started in 2018 and now we can not drive down a street without seeing many EMR cells. Anxiety, suicide and neurological issues have increase noticeably in our community. Today in CA we are still fighting to keep cell towers off of school grounds. https://ehsciences.org/petaluma-city-schools-prohibits-new-cell-towers-on-school-district-property/ 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.

This FIRST PART of my submission contributes to the HHS document, "Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure: portion stating "identify research gaps and priority areas for future study," I have identified a mechanism of adaptation to RF exposure in living organisms which are genetically capable of making cholesterol inside their bodies (mammals, birds, and?) that I would describe as a "priority area for future study": HYPOTHESIS: Our bodies deposit extra cholesterol into our cell membranes to make them stiffer and more resistant to RF penetration. This works until cell membrane permeability is sufficiently impeded that nutrients cannot get into cells and wastes cannot get out of cells. At that point, the organism, i.e. person, "gets sick" with miserable symptoms, causes of which show on no medical diagnostic test. The syndrome is then pronounced "psychosomatic", psychoactive drugs are prescribed that only make the situation worse, the victim is abandoned, until death. METHODS: One way "science" could investigate this would be to biopsy skin of people with differing cumulative and ongoing RF exposures to compare differences in cellular cholesterol content between those with lowest exposure to those with highest exposures. The biggest problem I see with this, is finding people like me with low cumulative exposures. TREATMENT: As for reduction in cell membrane cholesterol content over time, the frequency 2770 Hz (using a positive offset square wave) appears to dissolve cholesterol. Soy bean lecithin in soy bean oil also dissolves cholesterol well; sunflower lecithin in sunflower oil seems to have a lesser effect. Dissolution OF cholesterol must be performed slowly because pathogens and toxins are likely to contaminate the cholesterol. Of course, if RF exposure remains high, the body will redeposit cholesterol into cell membranes as continuing defense. Duh. Of course, even if "science" would confirm this hypothesis, Big Telecom and the military would either ignore it, censor it, debunk it by pretending to duplicate it to deliberately fail from bad study design, or by discarding relevant data. LIMITATIONS: I do not think this phenomenon protects from electrical fields of sufficient intensity that overpower the electrical signals normally operative within a functioning organism. I do not think it protects from magnetic fields generated by flowing electrical current, particularly since our blood and tissues are filled with magnetizable iron and various paramagnetic minerals. It probably protects slightly from ionizing radiation, although retention of environmental lead surely protects more, until other well established systemic deleterious effects of lead neutralize the radioprotective effect. I developed this simple hypothesis using energy testing, largely rejected by modern "science", using a resonance testing method that previously eliminated all my allergies except one. It allows me to remove pathogens and toxic molecules, enabling me to do self care to the extent that I have rejected Medicare part B and D. Unfortunately, our modern system of progressing from ignorance to hypothesis to acceptance, demands many expensive double blind, case controlled studies of large groups of possibly affected individuals. Regrettably, this type of research is the only thing that might power change. Even then, human nature, especially of those with power, resists change, and at least one generation must pass before new ideas are possibly accepted. I believe the USA and other first world countries do not have that much time. As to "identify research gaps": RF effects on voltage gated calcium channels have already been researched by the work of Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Washington State University and his predecessors. It is my understanding that this is considered "controversial". What else is new? Whether further research would change this is debatable. The entire wireless industry will continue to be responsible for publishing fake research debunking anything that shows RF and other electromagnetic fields to be anything other than perfectly safe. I have encountered two instances where removing LED lighting alleviated an individual's Parkinson's symptoms. This should be investigated. The SECOND PART of my submission, PERSONAL EFFECTS, is attached because this space is too small.

I respectfully submit my attached public comment in response to the Department of Health and Human Services Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. My submission includes firsthand RF field measurements and observations from Connecticut, photographic exhibits, historical scientific references, and recommendations concerning cumulative RF exposure assessments before new wireless infrastructure is approved. I particularly request that HHS investigate cumulative exposures near residences, wireless utility meter banks, electromagnetic exposures inside automobiles, and potential interactions with other environmental stressors. My primary recommendation is for transparent, independently verified cumulative RF exposure assessments before additional transmitting equipment is authorized, followed by post-installation verification and clearly assigned monitoring responsibility. Please consider the complete attached document, including its exhibits and specific recommendations, as my formal public comment. Respectfully submitted, Paska Nayden Connecticut inhabitant Submitting in my individual capacity

The message is not no technology but safe technology. Out- dated government guidelines do not reflect the current science, so manufacturersare still allowed to sell products and install wireless infrastructure that emits toxic levels of microwave radiation. Adults, children, pets ,pollinators, trees and plants are suffering from cell towers, small cell antennas , utility smart meters and our own cell phones, routers, tablets, laptops, wearables, baby monitors, gaming systems, appliances,and other wireless devices. Thousands of independent studies from around the world now show wireless radiation causes extensive harm to people and the enviornment.

My family has been in active litigation against AT&T, etal for over a year now. Their wireless antenna emits so much RF, my family has suffered life threatening health effects. I have a state complaint and an AT&T Office of President called us. Over 3 months promising to inspect their equiptment as it also made loud humming noises. They reported to the ICC. They never sent anyone to ensure their equiptment was safe. They told the ICC they were RF compliant and not willing yo move their antenna. I received nothing but a pole attachment document. They have no paperwork in any city department. Despite exhausting all legal channels begging for help for someone to look into what this technology is doing to our family personally, I am continuing to fight as a prose litigant. I have no law background. Ive been transferred 4 times now in Chancery. No MTD has dismissed me thus far. I have Negligence, Willful & Wanton Conduct & Injunction that are surviving. The new judge will decide on their mtd 2-219. I am 1 person who will do anything I can to provide education and how this tech is harming our world. We are not all the same. We are allergic to tech environmental factors. You are not alone. Be the voice we all need. So many people are suffering. A big tech company decides to ignore our family and suffering and safety. It blows my mind. The science is there. However AT&T has actual knowledge of our complaints and took our letters at first to hide our cry for help we put on the pole. The alderman can't do anything and even after all that they did nothing to help us. They are trying to get us out of court fast. Sorry to all for being forced with all this corruption and non regulated tech. God Bless!

EMFs have been very harmful for my health. For years now, I have exhausted my sick time at work with illnesses that include but are not limited to severe muscle pain, headaches, brain fog, always feeling sick, tired, and dizziness etc. It does not help that I am a 30+ yr Targeted Individual. I believe that EMFs exacerbate the effects of DEWs. I also believe that EMFs are to blame for many other serious illnesses, including cancer, which was the cause of death of my late husband. He had two types of cancer. I further believe that advancement in technology can be a great thing. The problem is that not enough research has been done, along with the fact that in the past, the government has been ruled by the 'Deep State'. I believe that the new Administration can do better! GOD BLESS!!! 17

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397, responding to Questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18. Perspective (Q2): I am submitting as an individual, a citizen journalist with 16 years of independent investigative work, the last 10 on electromagnetic radiation and health. I am the author of The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs, host of the Smarter Tech podcast and director of the documentary Body Burden, and I have interviewed more than 100 scientists, physicians and engineers in this field. My comment focuses on research gaps (Q16). My perspective is that our RF safety standards rest on the wrong assumption, that only tissue heating matters, and that this assumption keeps the gaps open: it created a culture of "no effect" from the public to regulators to researchers, and the topic was systematically defunded. The research is completely inadequate to protect the public, while the technology rolls out faster than our ability to study it. The attached document gives the evidence and full references for each gap below. 1. Combined exposures and the exposome (Q16, Q18, Q5o). Almost all RF research tests one exposure at a time, while people live with RF alongside metals, pesticides and mold. Dr. Ronald Kostoff's work documents how other agents modify EMF effects. Exposome studies should include wireless exposure (ambient RF, home Wi-Fi, smartphone use and position) as a standard variable. 2. Real-world exposure measurement (Q7, Q8, Q5n). The U.S. has no national program measuring actual RF exposure in homes, schools and hospitals, no routine post-market SAR testing of devices in body-contact positions (GAO-12-771), and the FCC has said it lacks the resources to routinely monitor transmitter emissions. 3. Sleep (Q12, Q16). Pulse-modulated RF alters the sleep EEG below current limits. Sleep clinics, which produce our reference data on sleep, are full of Wi-Fi, wireless equipment and phones, so the baseline is polluted. Sleep studies should run with and without wireless, with RF recorded; children sleeping beside phones and routers need study. 4. The microbiome (Q16). A 2024 study found a 5G-band RF field altered the gut microbiome and 258 metabolites in mice. People keep phones, laptops and tablets very close to the abdomen for hours on end, yet human studies do not exist. 5. Antibiotic resistance, tested in hospitals (Q16). Laboratory studies report that Wi-Fi and phone radiation change bacterial antibiotic susceptibility, biofilm formation and gene expression. Hospitals combine resistant pathogens with dense wireless, and no one has studied that setting. This is urgent. 6. Pregnancy (Q11b). Dr. Hugh Taylor's Yale research found in-utero cell phone exposure caused hyperactivity and memory impairment in mice. Prospective birth cohorts with measured exposure are needed. 7. Fertility and phones in pockets (Q5p, Q9, Q11). Frequent phone use is associated with lower sperm concentration. Carrying position cannot be settled because nearly every young man carries a phone against his body. Female fertility is barely studied. 8. Cancers where phones are now carried (Q12, Q11a). If RF is a possible carcinogen at the head (IARC Group 2B), the concern does not stop at the head. Dr. De-Kun Li and Dr. Devra Davis have raised phones in pockets and bras as worth investigating alongside rising early-onset colorectal, testicular and breast cancers. No study has examined carrying position. 9. Devices in the ear and on the head (Q13f, Q11). AirPods and other Bluetooth earbuds, Bluetooth hearing aids, smart glasses and VR headsets place transmitters near the brain for hours a day. Their effects on tinnitus, enlarged lymph nodes, hearing loss, cognition and head and neck cancers are unstudied. Hearing experts should test whether loud sound does more damage when an RF transmitter, a source of oxidative stress, sits in the same ear. 10. Towers near schools, hospitals and sensitive populations (Q15a, Q15b, Q11). Studies in several countries report symptoms, DNA damage and cognitive effects near base stations. They need replication in the U.S. with measured exposure. Chile bars towers near schools and hospitals; Switzerland applies limits ten times stricter at sensitive places. 11. Pollinators and insects (Q14). To my knowledge no RF exposure standard considers wildlife. Insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, where 5G and 6G are heading, and field research on pollinators is almost absent. These answers will not come quickly, even with a massive research effort. Hundreds of scientists (the International EMF Scientist Appeal, the 5G Appeal) have asked governments to apply the precautionary principle: minimize exposure now and give the public informed consent. Instead, governments have a financial incentive to speed up wireless deployment. Further development of 6G, the Internet of Things and satellites needs guardrails in place first. Thank you for opening this question to the public. Nicolas Pineault, The EMF Guy

The world we live in, from electrical frequencies within the body to the Schumann Resonance of the planet itself, works on frequencies. While many frequencies could be labeled as beneficial, there are MANY that are not. The types of radiation that eminate from dirty electricity, WiFi, Bluetooth, "smart" meters, LED lights, Cell phones/towers, some musical frequencies, and many many from military devices are extremely harmful to human health. Please do the righ tthing for once and force any company to comply with third-party studies into the harmful effects of the frequencies they are putting out and make data reporting MANDATORY!

I am submitting this comment as an individual citizen to share my day-to-day observations regarding wireless devices, living spaces, and overall well-being. ​When discussing how environmental factors might impact people, it is easy to assume that everyday lifestyle issues—such as diet, general stress, screen habits, or irregular sleep hours—are the only things driving changes in how rested or balanced someone feels. Over time, I have tried my best to pay close attention to these patterns and adjust my surroundings to see what differences I could notice. ​Even while making an effort to keep my general habits, diet, and schedule consistent, I have repeatedly noticed a practical difference in my sleep quality and how relaxed my system feels depending on where I am physically located relative to active Wi-Fi equipment. Using a handheld RF meter (a Safe and Sound Pro II) simply as an informational tool to check local signal levels, I noticed that areas right next to active routers or transmitting equipment consistently lined up with more restless nights and feeling less recovered overall. ​Conversely, when devices were turned off, unplugged, or moved farther away from where I rest, I noticed my sleep felt noticeably more continuous and settled. While I recognize that personal observations and correlations noticed in daily life are not formal laboratory studies, the consistency of what I observed in my own environment felt very real to me. ​Beyond just the raw strength of an individual signal, what stands out to me is the sheer number of overlapping broadcasting points we now live around. In any modern home or neighborhood, you are rarely dealing with a single transmitter; you have multiple wireless devices, mesh systems, and neighboring networks all transmitting simultaneously. As a citizen, I find it alarming that equipment is certified in isolation under standards that simply do not reflect the layered environments we actually inhabit. When multiple signals broadcast in the same physical space, wave dynamics like constructive interference can create complex, fluctuating peaks that single-device testing does not capture. ​My request to the Department is simply to take everyday citizen experiences and the reality of multi-device environments into account when evaluating how wireless technologies fit into our homes, especially in spaces meant for rest. It would be helpful to see more public guidance, balanced research into overlapping field interactions, and practical device options—such as straightforward ways to turn off wireless functions when not in use—so individuals can easily manage their home environments in the way that feels best for them.

I live in Spearfish, SD. My daughter was hospitalized with a rare blood condition we believe was from an RF meter installed above her room. We've also been having other symptoms of RF exposure, and we use wireless very sparingly while constantly monitoring RF in our home. We are cataloging RF readings in our home since this RF technology, which has not undergone a suitable safety test, since Motorola was caught red handed polluting the efficacy of the research (Dr. George Carlo), since the Navy in the 70's first identified the dangers, and since we want to have some correlating data when we start having strange health conditions associated with this haphazard rollout. It's dangerous tech. Nobody truly don't understands it, yet. My RF sensor is a "SAFETY METER". What the hell are we doing allowing it in our homes, schools, and into our lives from outside?