Research & federal duties

I began being attacked with Directed Energy in December 2019 while working for a defense contractor for the missle defense agency on Redstone Arsenal Alabama. I have been completely disabled and have not worked since I have been diagnosed with Havana syndrome but have received no help and can't get anywhere to get help due to the attacks of my brain unable to think and have vertigo and pressure over my brain and body and burning skin sensation, unable to function in so many areas. I have documentation if needed just request it please. I have also got scans with Anomalous Frequencies around my body. Please investigate who is using signals to harm us! Please give us all access to healthcare and research for these abuses! Not just Government Employees!

I’m negatively affected by emfs, rf and wifi signals. It causes me to have rapid heart rate, palpitations, brain fog, insomnia and headaches. There needs to be some serious investigations and restrictions put in place, especially for sake of our children. They are extremely vulnerable to negative consequences to their growing bodies and brains. Investigate smart meters too. Those are horrible for everyone’s health and safety.

I am writing this in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. My name is Carol Franks and I live in the UK. I am responding as an individual who suffers debilitating symptoms with exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am sure that, from all the studies and evidence gathered by independent bodies that we are all affected, but some of us are noticeably physically affected and this is very restricting on life style. Tests that my general practitioner had carried out, for the symptoms, showed no other reason for the nose bleeds, heart-rate changes, rashes; pains about my body and head; fatigue; nausea/digestive reactions among other symptoms particularly when in the vicinity of masts or mobile phones. The rashes especially from ankles up to knee can occur after riding on electric buses. They can last for up to a week and I find I need to refrain from riding on electric buses or being near Wi-Fi for up to that time as I feel unwell along with the rashes. If I ride on a longer journey on an electric bus with all the mobile phones of passengers or short journeys 2 days running I am unwell with symptoms of nausea and digestive issues the following day that cease if I remain at home without Wi-Fi. My life has been restricted since I had to give up my job several years ago because of the debilitating symptoms working with Wi-Fi. I am affected by all electricity, but can be on a wired computer for up to one hour without debilitating symptoms. I can have no Wi-Fi in the house. This, of course, has affected my husband, too, with living with me and my ability to live a normal family life with my daughter and family. She has Wi-Fi in her house and I can only stay for a short time and can’t visit her too often. She is aware, but uses a smart phone and I need to sit away in the conservatory when I visit her, but I still get symptoms afterwards. Two examples of experiences that were in the diary kept for my doctor are: The first was when I was walking to visit my Father. I was with my husband and we were chatting and walking through a hedge-lined lane about 2 miles from my home when suddenly all my energy started to drain from my body and I felt scared because I thought I was going to fall. My husband caught me to support me. I said to him, ‘I can’t understand it because I was feeling fine until now’. He replied ‘There is a mast just around the corner.’ There was a z bend in the lane so this was not visible from where we were with the high hedges. I replied, ‘I didn’t know that, show me where’ He said, ‘It is disguised as a tree.’ He continued, ‘I will help you to get past it and see if you feel better when we put some distance between us and the mast.’ We did so and as we walked further from the mast, my energy returned and I felt my strength return to finish the walk to see my father. The second example is: When we changed broadband providers, a new router was sent to us. My husband spoke to the company and asked if it could be wired not Wi-Fi, explaining why. The company assistant said it could be either and my husband said it must be wired as my wife is badly affected by Wi-Fi. My husband set it up when it arrived, but I didn’t know as I was out at the time. On returning, I went to use the computer. I was only working on it for about ten minutes when I started to feel quite ill – nauseous, dizzy, foggy in the head and disorientated. I felt frightened and anxious, so I told my husband. I said to him that I was going into the garden to see if I felt better and I did. I thought it could be the weather as I always felt slightly unwell before a storm, but this was much worse. I came back to my computer to carry on working, but this time I was only on it for a few minutes before the awful symptoms returned. I said to my husband that it must be something in the room. I indicated that I was going for a shower to see if that helped me. While I was in the shower, my husband called to me at the door saying that he thought he knew what the problem was – the new router. He said he had looked into it and he needed to go on to the Internet to de-activate the Wi-Fi. He said he would do that and when I came out of the shower, I could see if it was better. I went back to my computer again and I was on it for an hour and I was fine. I ask HHS to carefully evaluate experiences of people like me and the scientific evidence; identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to the young and other potentially vulnerable people. Please establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. Thank you for reading my response.

Please look at the low dose EMF rat studies (continuous low dose EMF's, like what humans are exposed to, over two years) that Dr. Paul Heroux carried out at McGill University in Canada. What happens in a rat, happens in a human! Deleterious results to the cornea, testicles and heart were evident in the rats. The FCC only used hours long, high doses of EMF's that caused burning, but never published studies with low dose EMF's done over months or years. Don't ignore the studies that show negative effects from EMF's. Last exposure limits update with the FCC regulations, were done in 1996! Get the information out to the public so we can protect ourselves and have cell towers and antennae placed smartly and safely! Thank you for your time.

I am writing as a private citizen to share my experience with radiofrequency radiation (RF), electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and wireless radiation exposure, and to urge the Department to give serious weight to the lived reality of individuals who develop adverse symptoms in response to ubiquitous wireless infrastructure. For approximately twenty years, I have struggled with nervous system issues, including pain and an irritated/activated nervous system, as well as chronic insomnia. I came to believe—based on careful observation of my symptoms in relation to my environment—that these issues were caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields. Since the roll-out of 5G infrastructure in my area, my condition has deteriorated significantly. I constantly feel agitated and emotional and my nervous system feels extremely heightened, activated and painful. The symptoms have become severe enough that I can no longer tolerate living in an urban environment, and I am currently attempting to relocate to a rural area with lower RF and EMF levels and more natural shielding. The practical and emotional toll of this displacement has been profound: I feel isolated, stressed, and increasingly depressed, and I am genuinely uncertain about my ability to cope if exposure levels continue to rise. I recognize that the scientific literature on RF and EMF exposure and health is complex, and that regulatory bodies have often concluded that exposures below thermal thresholds pose no established risk. However, I believe that the evidentiary picture is not as settled as it is sometimes portrayed and needs to be reassessed, especially considering that there are plans to continue increasing the number of towers and upgrading the technology. I respectfully urge the Department to implement a moratorium on the deployment of further wireless technology, to fund independent long-term research that measures real-world multi-source exposure, to formally review whether current thermal-based limits adequately account for long-term low-level exposure, to support clinical guidance for healthcare professionals encountering patients who attribute symptoms to RF and EMF exposure, and to communicate publicly with appropriate humility about the genuine uncertainties that remain—because for those of us living with these symptoms, the cost of being dismissed is not abstract but is measured in lost homes, lost health, and lost connection to the world around us. Moreover, with the continued expansion of wireless infrastructure, concerns about broader public health outcomes—including reported increases in cancer rates—demand that this issue be treated with the urgency and rigor it deserves. Thank you for considering these views. This is a very serious issue, and there should have been more public consultation in the first place about whether or not we actually want this technology to be deployed.

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

Public Comment: Request for Independent Research, Transparency, and Public Health Protections Regarding EMF and Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: I urge HHS to conduct a comprehensive, transparent, and scientifically rigorous review of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation exposure. This review should prioritize public health, scientific independence, informed consent, and the protection of all communities. The public should not have to choose between dismissing legitimate health concerns and accepting claims that have not been adequately demonstrated. We need independent research, honest evaluation of conflicting findings, and clear communication about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what further investigation is necessary. I respectfully request that HHS: 1. Review the full body of scientific evidence. Evaluate peer-reviewed studies on potential health effects of RF and EMF exposure, including studies reporting positive findings, negative findings, and inconclusive results. Explain the strength and limitations of the evidence. 2. Investigate real-world exposure. Examine exposure levels, duration, frequency, cumulative sources, and differences between laboratory conditions and everyday environments. Identify research gaps without assuming that cumulative exposure necessarily causes harm. 3. Protect potentially vulnerable populations. Assess whether children, pregnant people, individuals with medical conditions, and other potentially susceptible groups require additional research or protective measures. 4. Ensure scientific independence. Disclose funding sources, conflicts of interest, research limitations, and the methods used to evaluate studies. Support independent replication and research that is not controlled solely by industries with financial interests in the outcome. 5. Investigate reported health concerns objectively. Establish appropriate research and reporting pathways for people who experience symptoms or believe their health is affected by environmental exposures. Such reports should be documented and investigated without automatically assuming either causation or fabrication. 6. Make the findings accessible to the public. Publish the evidence reviewed, research methodology, identified uncertainties, and recommendations in plain language. The public deserves to understand the scientific basis for federal health guidance. 7. Address emerging wireless technologies. Determine whether existing research and exposure standards adequately address evolving technologies, changing patterns of use, and relevant exposure scenarios. Where evidence is insufficient, identify the additional research needed. 8. Provide meaningful public participation. Include independent scientists, public health experts, affected community members, and individuals reporting health concerns in appropriate research and policy discussions. Scientific integrity requires more than telling the public that evidence is insufficient. When evidence is insufficient, the next question must be: What research is needed, who will conduct it independently, and when will the public receive the results? I am asking HHS to take these questions seriously, evaluate the evidence without predetermined conclusions, and establish a clear plan for addressing unresolved scientific questions. Public health decisions should be grounded in transparent evidence, independent research, accountability, and the precaution necessary when important questions remain unanswered. Please include these concerns in the agency’s review and make the resulting findings and recommendations publicly available. Respectfully submitted, Leah Testerman

HHS has a sacred responsibility to protect citizens (not the FCC). Aloud, timely and uncompromised science should be the priority. It is long overdue.

In my mid 30s my health started going down hill. My sleep was horrible. I tossed and turned all night and I was exhausted all the time. I also had tinnitus. Then I learned about EMFs. I had been sleeping with my phone on my nightstand and my wifi router was close to my bed in my home office the next room over. I started putting my phone in airplane mode at night and turned off my wifi and my sleep started to improve. I lived in the DC metro area at the time. I decided to move to a more rural area in upstate NY and my sleep got much better and my tinnitus improved. Lately tinnitus is getting worse and when I'm downtown or stay in a hotel, it's really bad. When I disconnect and go on a hike, it goes away. This is an example of my sensitivity. Many are more sensitive than me. A new cell tower was just put up where my son plays hockey. Exposure continues to get worse and big industry of course says there's nothing to worry about but most of us have seen this pattern several times. They buy scientist to write papers showing it's safe. Any papers saying it's not safe, they call quackery. 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.

Re: Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Public Comment on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure I submit this comment as an individual consumer in response to Questions 3, 7–12, and 15–18. I have experienced fatigue, poor sleep, difficulty concentrating, nausea, palpitations, and skin tingling or burning. I am concerned about whether environmental exposures, including emissions from wireless technologies, could contribute to these symptoms. A preliminary review of public antenna-structure records identified 10 listed tower sites less than five miles from my home. Their current operating status, transmitting equipment, cellular tenants, and microwave dishes have not been independently verified. These records may also omit smaller installations. I have not established a causal relationship between RF exposure and my symptoms. Tower proximity alone cannot establish exposure levels or health effects. However, residents should have practical access to the information and independent measurements necessary to investigate their concerns. I request the following actions: 1. Independent research into realistic exposures. Fund rigorous studies of long-term, repeated, and combined exposures from mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wearable devices, wireless infrastructure, and occupational equipment. Evaluate frequency, intensity, modulation, duration, proximity, and simultaneous exposure to multiple sources. Clearly distinguish established effects, emerging findings, and unresolved questions. 2. A transparent review of exposure standards. Assess whether current limits adequately address available evidence concerning thermal and proposed nonthermal effects. Explain the standards’ scientific foundations, uncertainties, and applicability to children, pregnant people, workers, people with implanted medical devices, and other potentially sensitive populations. 3. Accessible community exposure measurements. Develop affordable, independent measurement programs for homes, schools, and workplaces. Measurements should account for multiple sources, indoor and outdoor conditions, and changes over time. Publish methods, instrument limitations, results, and comparisons with applicable standards. Explain what consumer RF meters can and cannot establish. 4. Meaningful disclosure of nearby infrastructure. Make current information about transmitting installations understandable and publicly accessible, including location, operator, equipment type, frequencies, authorized power, antenna height and orientation, and compliance assessments, subject to legitimate privacy and security protections. Distinguish registered structures from installed antennas and active transmitters. Where available, identify microwave links and their operating characteristics. Residents should not have to rely on incomplete directories to determine what equipment operates near their homes. 5. A national adverse-event reporting system. Create a straightforward process for individuals and clinicians to report suspected RF-related health effects. Collect standardized information on symptoms, timing, potential sources, exposure measurements, and relevant medical evaluations. Protect personal information and publish aggregate findings. Use reports to guide investigation without treating them as proof of causation. 6. Evidence-based clinical guidance. Help clinicians evaluate patients reporting symptoms they associate with RF exposure. Guidance should take symptoms seriously, investigate other possible medical and environmental causes, and explain the limitations of available diagnostic and exposure-assessment methods. 7. Strong research safeguards and practical public guidance. Disclose funding and financial conflicts, prioritize independent replication, and make publicly funded methods and data available where privacy permits. Apply consistent scientific scrutiny to findings reporting harm and findings reporting no harm. Provide practical guidance for reducing unnecessary exposure where appropriate, clearly explaining the evidence, uncertainties, and expected effects of each measure. HHS should publish the findings of this review, identify research priorities, and establish a timetable for follow-up. People experiencing unexplained symptoms deserve careful medical evaluation and credible answers. Communities deserve accurate infrastructure information, reliable exposure measurements, and public health decisions grounded in transparent, independent science.