Research & federal duties

COMMENT ON SCOPE, AUTHORITY, AND SCIENTIFIC METHODS Formal Request for Transparency This comment raises material issues concerning HHS’s RF/EMF RFI. The notice says responses are voluntary and HHS will not comment on individual submissions. I do not claim HHS must answer each question now. If HHS, or other agencies involved in this RFI (e.g. FCC, and others), later relies on this record for reviewable action, HHS should disclose its basis and address material issues through the applicable process. 1. AUTHORITY. The notice cites “21 CFR subpart J” without a part or section. Give the exact citation and statutory authority. Distinguish research authority (42 U.S.C. § 241; 21 U.S.C. § 360ii) from binding electronic-product performance standards (§ 360kk). For power-frequency fields, consumer products, communications infrastructure, and occupational exposures, identify the authority and intended output. For sources outside “electronic product radiation” under § 360hh(1), identify the separate authority. 2. SCOPE AND LEGAL EFFECT. Will HHS separately evaluate power-frequency fields, consumer RF devices, communications infrastructure, and occupational exposures? Is the intended output research/nonbinding advice or binding requirements? Confirm the RFI itself does not change limits, testing, disclosure, or siting rules and cannot substitute for procedures required for later binding action. 3. CORRECTING QUESTION 6. The RFI asks about effects “caused by current exposure limits.” A limit is a threshold, not an exposure. Does HHS mean effects associated with exposures at or below applicable limits? How will it define exposure/outcome and distinguish measured from estimated exposure and association from causation? 4. REVIEW PROTOCOL. Before synthesizing evidence, will HHS disclose its search sources/dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, screening/extraction methods, and material protocol deviations? If no systematic protocol will be used, how will it guard against selective study inclusion? 5. STUDY QUALITY. What predefined criteria will assess confounding, exposure misclassification, statistical power, multiple comparisons, publication bias, replication, and conflicts? Will positive, null, and contradictory studies face the same criteria? Will human, animal, and mechanistic evidence be evaluated separately, distinguishing biological response, adverse outcome, association, and causation? 6. EXPOSURE MEASUREMENT. How will HHS validate dosimetry, report uncertainty, and distinguish SAR, power density, electric fields, and magnetic fields? Will it identify source, frequency, intensity, duration, and whether exposure was measured, modeled, or self-reported? 7. CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE. What validated method permits aggregation across different sources, frequencies, units, and durations? Will HHS justify additivity or dose-equivalence assumptions? If no common metric is valid, will it report source-specific measures rather than sum unlike quantities? 8. STANDARDS COMPARISON. For each standard, identify issuer/date, binding or advisory status, frequency range, metric, averaging time, population, endpoints, and uncertainty. Explain material differences before comparing limits. 9. SUBGROUPS AND ENVIRONMENT. For sensitive groups, will HHS identify prespecified analyses, statistical power, and multiple-comparison limits? How will it treat personal/clinical reports as hypothesis-generating, not causal proof? For wildlife and infrastructure, will it distinguish proximity from measured/modelled exposure and address confounders and field-study gaps? 10. TRANSPARENCY AND AGENCY ROLES. Will HHS publish methods, evidence tables, exclusions, bias assessments, exposure characterizations, uncertainty, and gaps, as law permits? Will it avoid vote-counting and double-counting studies across reviews? How will it distinguish HHS functions from FCC authority over communications facilities? Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 360ii, 360kk; 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a, 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Thank you and God Bless.

I submit this comment requesting independent scientific investigation, transparent environmental monitoring, and stronger public accountability regarding electromagnetic field (EMF), WIFI, and ELF exposure and its potential effects on human health, cellular function, neurological development, and future generations. The expansion of telecommunications and electrical infrastructure raises legitimate public-health and bioethical questions. Wireless RF radiation and extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields, including 60 Hz power transmission, have distinct physical characteristics and must be evaluated separately, including their potential cumulative and long-term effects. Located on schools, churches and parks. Children are stakeholders, not merely passive recipients of technological development. Their developing nervous systems, cellular processes, and longer potential lifetime exposures warrant specific scientific attention. Pregnancy, fetal development, infancy, and childhood represent critical periods during which environmental influences may have lasting consequences. Human health depends upon cellular homeostasis, mitochondrial bioenergetics, ATP production, DNA integrity, and coordinated neurological signaling. Disruption of these processes can contribute to disease and impaired development. Whether particular environmental EMF exposures adversely affect these mechanisms, and under what conditions, requires rigorous investigation rather than unsupported assumptions of either harm or safety. HHS should prioritize research examining oxidative stress, mitochondrial signaling, membrane potential, cellular repair, neurodevelopment, reproductive outcomes, and potential intergenerational effects. Studies must distinguish correlation from causation and evaluate exposure intensity, frequency, duration, developmental stage, and individual susceptibility. Existing epidemiological research has identified associations between certain residential ELF magnetic-field exposures and childhood leukemia, although a causal relationship remains unestablished. Such findings demonstrate the importance of continued investigation rather than premature dismissal of unresolved questions. The ethical question extends beyond whether an exposure meets current regulatory limits. It concerns whether those limits adequately account for developing biological systems, prolonged exposure, combined environmental conditions, and populations not sufficiently represented in existing research. Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, and intergenerational equity, the public deserves meaningful access to scientific findings and environmental exposure information. The burden of investigating potential public-health risks should not fall exclusively upon families who lack the resources to commission environmental testing or independent scientific evaluations. Communities should have access to infrastructure information, standardized exposure measurements, monitoring results, and understandable explanations of applicable safety standards. Public participation must be meaningful, particularly where infrastructure affects residential neighborhoods, schools, and vulnerable populations. I request that HHS: Support independent longitudinal studies evaluating RF, EMF and ELF exposures, particularly during pregnancy, infancy, and childhood. Investigate cellular and neurological mechanisms, including mitochondrial function, ATP metabolism, oxidative regulation, and neurodevelopment, using reproducible methods. Evaluate cumulative and chronic exposure patterns while distinguishing established effects from emerging hypotheses. Assess potential ecological consequences for wildlife, pollinators, vegetation, and interconnected environmental systems. Establish transparent public reporting of exposure measurements, research limitations, funding sources, and regulatory assumptions. Examine disproportionate environmental burdens and ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in research and policy development. Coordinate with the FCC, EPA, and relevant agencies to address scientific gaps and clarify oversight responsibilities. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not equivalent to conclusive evidence of safety under every exposure condition. Scientific uncertainty requires investigation, not speculation or complacency. Technological advancement carries corresponding responsibilities. Public-health protection should not depend upon proving widespread injury after exposure has occurred. Children, families, communities, ecosystems, and future generations are stakeholders in decisions affecting shared environments. Our responsibility is not simply to accommodate technological progress, but to ensure that progress does not compromise the biological integrity, developmental potential, and environmental inheritance of generations yet to come. Respectfully, Cherrish Castaneda Roots Indigenous Priory Sacramento County, California

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS's Request for Information on EMFs, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure (Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397). I am responding as a parent of young children and as a licensed mental health professional in a rural community. Our long-established town of about 600 people is getting a new 5G tower in its center, near where our children live, learn, and play. It is not yet active. Like many small communities, we are receiving wireless upgrades without any meaningful say in the matter, and without independent information about what they mean for our children's health. I urge HHS to fund a prospective, longitudinal study of communities where new wireless infrastructure, including 5G and future 6G, has been installed but not yet activated. The study should: 1. Establish a baseline before activation, including physical health measures and behavioral, sleep, attention, and mood assessments, with particular attention to children. 2. Measure actual RF exposure in homes, schools, and public spaces before and after activation. 3. Follow the same participants at regular intervals afterward to look for change. 4. Be conducted by researchers with no financial ties to the wireless industry, with funding, methods, and data made public. Rural communities are rarely consulted on these upgrades, and they should be included in this research. Thank you for giving families an opportunity to be heard.

I am writing as a concerned parent and member of the public to urge the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a thorough, independent evaluation of the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), particularly radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless technologies. I am concerned that current U.S. exposure standards may not adequately account for the full range of potential biological effects of RF radiation. Although non-ionizing radiation does not have the same properties as ionizing radiation, the absence of sufficient energy to directly ionize atoms does not, by itself, establish that all forms of non-ionizing exposure are biologically harmless. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate the full body of scientific literature, including research investigating potential effects beyond established thermal mechanisms, long-term exposure, and impacts on children. I am also concerned about the influence of industry on the development of wireless safety standards and the independence of the regulatory process. I encourage HHS to examine the issues raised in Norm Alster's Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates and to ensure that future assessments are transparent, scientifically rigorous, and free from undue industry influence. Safety standards should reflect an independent assessment of the evidence and be updated when warranted by new findings. Other countries have adopted different approaches to wireless exposure limits and precautionary measures, particularly in settings involving children. I ask HHS to compare U.S. standards with international approaches, identify the scientific evidence underlying those differences, and explain whether research considered in other countries has been adequately evaluated in the United States. Particular attention should be given to evidence concerning children, long-term exposure, and the potential effects of cumulative or repeated exposure. I also wish to share a personal observation as a parent. From a very young age, my daughter has repeatedly appeared noticeably flushed when near devices such as mobile phones and laptops for a period of time. I have observed this pattern over many years, and it concerns me that I have not received a satisfactory explanation for it. I recognize that an observation alone cannot establish the cause or mechanism of a physical reaction. Nevertheless, I believe experiences like this deserve careful, objective investigation rather than dismissal, and that further research is needed to understand whether any relationship exists between reported symptoms and RF/EMF exposure. I urge HHS to apply a precautionary, public-health-centered approach while scientific uncertainties remain. This should include commissioning and supporting independent research, reviewing the adequacy of existing exposure standards, investigating potential effects on children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and making the scientific basis for its conclusions publicly accessible. Research priorities should include areas where evidence is conflicting, where significant knowledge gaps remain, and where existing standards may not fully address the questions raised by emerging research. Technological progress and public health should not be treated as competing priorities. The public deserves confidence that wireless technologies are evaluated through an impartial, transparent, and comprehensive scientific process, and that economic interests do not take precedence over the protection of human health. I ask HHS to take these concerns seriously and to ensure that safety is demonstrated through rigorous evaluation rather than assumed in advance.

Our environment is a shared, communal resource. The air we breathe, the land we inhabit, and the spaces where our children grow are not the exclusive property of industry, companies, utilities, or stockholders. Yet corporations profit from infrastructure that introduces electromagnetic exposures into environments shared by families with little opportunity to object. Telecommunications providers, SMUD, PG&E, and Comcast benefit economically from expanding electrical and wireless infrastructure. Meanwhile, children and communities may bear environmental and health risks without informed participation, compensation, or adequate long-term scientific assurances. The profits are privatized, while potential risks are distributed across the public. As a mother, I invest my body, time, resources, and energy into my children's health. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, nutrition, education, and medical care are investments in their neurological development, cellular health, and future well-being. Why should corporations introduce additional environmental exposures without adequately demonstrating their long-term safety for developing children? Children are stakeholders. They cannot negotiate exposure conditions, commission independent studies, or participate in infrastructure decisions. Their inability to consent creates a greater ethical responsibility for adults, corporations, and government agencies. The long-term neurological effects of chronic RF exposure, particularly during critical developmental periods, warrant independent investigation. I am concerned about mitochondrial function, cellular homeostasis, oxidative stress, neurological signaling, reproductive development, and potential intergenerational consequences. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm does not establish safety under every exposure condition. There is also a serious security concern. Telecommunications and electrical infrastructure are increasingly interconnected with digital control systems. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities, unauthorized access, deliberate interference, and malicious manipulation deserve independent assessments. These systems should be protected against misuse, including intentional disruption or hazardous operation. What safeguards prevent infrastructure designed for communication and electrical distribution from being deliberately misused to harm the public? I request transparent cybersecurity oversight, independent vulnerability assessments, enforceable security standards, and public accountability without disclosure of sensitive security details. Under principles of environmental justice, nonmaleficence, intergenerational equity, and responsible stewardship, government must consider every affected stakeholder—not merely infrastructure owners, investors, and commercial beneficiaries. The public should not have to finance private environmental testing, establish individual medical causation, or suffer injury before legitimate concerns receive investigation. I request that HHS recommend a precautionary pause on further wireless infrastructure expansion in residential and child-centered environments pending independent review of long-term developmental risks. I also request evaluation of removal or relocation of existing towers where site-specific evidence demonstrates unacceptable exposure or safety risks. I request independent longitudinal research, publicly accessible exposure measurements, meaningful community participation, and regulatory coordination among HHS, FCC, EPA, and appropriate state authorities. I do not consent to my children being treated as involuntary experimental subjects in an environment where long-term exposure questions remain unresolved. Environmental exposure does not automatically constitute human-subjects research under federal law. However, widespread exposure under scientific uncertainty raises profound ethical questions about informed participation, precaution, and justice in distributing potential harm. No corporation should receive the economic benefits of technological expansion while transferring potentially preventable health and environmental costs to children and future generations without accountability. Our children are not collateral costs of technological progress. Their neurological development, cellular health, bodily integrity, and environmental inheritance deserve consideration before additional infrastructure is approved. I demand that public-health protection take precedence over unchecked expansion, that existing infrastructure be independently evaluated, and that future generations receive the protection and representation they cannot yet demand for themselves. Respectfully submitted, Cherrish “I Do Not Consent” Castaneda Mother of Three | Student of Law and Bioethics Sacramento County, California

It’s horrible seeing my sister in law go through this and feel sick from wireless. They need to research this more, and set real standards for safety and health based on science. The wireless industry is not protecting our health. We need more protection from public health agencies and effort to examine the effects of RF radiation on our health without delay.

As an American physician, I am deeply concerned that U.S. electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards have not been updated since 1996 and address only thermal effects. In a rapidly evolving wireless environment, outdated guidelines warrant rigorous reassessment. Current permitted exposure levels exceed recommendations from building biologists and most other countries. As cell towers, 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, electric vehicles, and other wireless technologies proliferate, finding places with reduced exposure is increasingly difficult for sensitive individuals. Dismissing validated non-thermal effects simply because this radiation is non-ionizing ignores biologically important interactions. My own experience with electrohypersensitivity (EHS), since 2017, has included insomnia, migraines, lightheadedness, trigeminal neuropathy, and tinnitus, associated with nearby Bluetooth devices, cell towers or transformer stations. I reduce exposure to cope: avoiding housing near towers, limiting Bluetooth, using wired headphones and computer peripherals, keeping devices on airplane mode, disabling Wi-Fi overnight. I have had to leave certain hotels and forgo modern conveniences such as smart-home devices and electric vehicles. Even ordinary appliances increasingly incorporate unnecessary and unavoidable wireless or bluetooth connectivity (air filters, electric toothbrushes, etc), making exposure reduction difficult. The expansion of data centers is concerning due to EMFs from the facilities themselves and associated high-powered electrical infrastructure. Public participation in decisions about cell towers, power lines, and data centers is extremely limited (my own community fighting a data center build with the guise of public input,) leaving residents with little control over exposures. My patients have described a range of concerning experiences: man in his 40s with occupational exposure linked radiation-associated cancer; mid-aged female with cognitive decline and severe EHS after a transformer was installed near her home; a veteran whose military exposures have forced him into homelessness and food insecurity in Minnesota's winters as he can't tolerate electricity; and a couple with sudden insomnia after a smart meter was installed outside their bedroom, resolved after its relocation. In my clinical experience, commonly reported symptoms include insomnia, headaches, neuralgias and arrhythmias, which can substantially affect quality of life. These accounts warrant compassionate care and further investigation, not the ridicule and diagnosis of "functional" symptoms that have accrued. Specific absorption rate (SAR), commonly used to assess radiofrequency exposure, has serious limitations. Standardized testing doesn't represent real-world conditions- device position, body shape, tissue density, age, or differences between men, women and children. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of living in a highly connected environment remain insufficiently characterized. Exposure can come from multiple sources simultaneously, including phones, 5G infrastructure, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, computers, televisions, smart meters, electric vehicles, chargers, and electrical systems. Compliance with individual-device limits does not necessarily resolve questions about combined, long-term exposure. International exposure standards vary, and some countries impose magnitudes of power greater restrictions on EMF exposure limits and wireless infrastructure near sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals. National Toxicology Program animal studies have brought concerns of chronic cell-phone radiation exposure and cancer risk, the need for additional human research, and the outdated nature of U.S. standards. Resources such as Physicians for Safe Technology discuss these issues as well. Biological mechanisms of harm include changes in oxidative and nitrosative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, blood-brain barrier permeability, genotoxicity, immune-system effects, cell-membrane signaling, voltage-gated calcium-channel activity, inflammatory pathways, magnesium depletion, nitric oxide signaling, changes in neurotransmitters and receptors, including NMDA, dopamine, and serotonin, microbiome alterations, hepatic lipid metabolism and blood glucose regulation, mast-cell activation, depletion of antioxidants such as glutathione, oxidation of LDL cholesterol and altered prenatal brain development and fertility. These proposed mechanisms could have implications for neurological, cardiovascular, hormonal, metabolic, immune, and reproductive health. I urge updated, independent, and transparent reviews of standards regarding long-term, cumulative, and real-world exposures. Protecting public health requires neither dismissing patients' experiences nor the scientific data that exists. It requires rigorous science and standards that evolve alongside technology and it's unfathomable that no meaningful updates have been made in 30 years.

Comment of the Coalition of Mothers, Rebekah Ricks, President and Co-Founder, Winter Haven, Florida, in Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Our letter is attached. It responds to Questions 9 and 15(a) as numbered in the notice. Florida shows the gap. Florida now generally bars elementary and middle school students from using their own wireless devices during the school day (s. 1006.07(2)(f), Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 2025-109, Laws of Fla.). Our state has decided that a child's phone at school is a question of public policy. Yet the district's own wireless access points, which transmit whether or not a child's phone is off, are not addressed. We searched chapters 1001 through 1013 of the Florida Statutes and chapter 6A of the Florida Administrative Code and found no requirement that a district tell parents what wireless equipment operates in their child's classroom. A Florida mother can learn the school's rule on her child's phone. She cannot learn what is installed above her child's desk. Question 9. We ask the Department to recommend a short notice that schools and licensed child care providers post for parents, listing the wireless equipment in each classroom, when it operates, whether a wired option exists, and whom to call with questions. Disclosure makes no health finding. It treats parents as the decision-makers they already are in every other part of school life. Question 15(a). No federal agency publishes the number of transmitters within a defined distance of a school or licensed child care facility, and no federal agency has measured RF levels in an occupied American classroom. We ask the Department to make both a research priority, and to give particular attention to rooms serving the youngest children. We support the fuller comment filed in this docket by Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), which addresses the remaining questions with primary-source citations. Prepared by Rebekah Ricks. Contact: rricks@thecoalitionofmothers.com.

I am submitting as an individual with several years of hands-on radiofrequency field-measurement experience in Flushing, Queens, New York City. I respond to Questions 2, 7, and 8. Q2 — Perspective: I am a citizen measurer, not a clinician, researcher, or industry professional. Everything below comes from my own field measurements with a handheld GQ EMF-390 multi-field meter (manufacturer-stated RF range 10 MHz–10 GHz, three-axis sensor, peak-hold on), not from peer-reviewed research. I make no claims about health effects; my contribution is measurement methodology and real-world observation. Q7 — How real-world exposure is measured in practice: I measure with a handheld GQ EMF-390 multi-field meter (manufacturer-stated RF range 10 MHz–10 GHz, three-axis sensor), peak-hold on. Across several evening sessions at home in Flushing, live RF power-density readings sat between 2.3 and 19 mW/m², while the meter's peak-hold repeatedly captured short electric-field spikes far above the live number — 77, 100, 139 and 397 V/m, and 1002 V/m in one session; a daytime outdoor session captured 725 V/m. The device's spectrum view labeled the dominant activity "WiFi/Phone," but I was unable to verify the specific source of the repeated peak spikes — their origin is unidentified. Two practical observations: (1) the peak number and the live number on the same meter, seconds apart, can differ by orders of magnitude, and compliance-style time-averaged measurements report only the latter; (2) there is no public dataset capturing what a person experiences at home or at a bus stop with a phone in hand, versus what a compliance measurement at a fixed distance, height, and averaging time reports. Q8 — How exposure could be measured better: (a) HHS should publish a standardized, low-cost field-measurement protocol — instrument class, detector, resolution bandwidth, sweep settings, and averaging time — so that citizen measurements are comparable across people and places; (b) both peak and time-averaged values should be reported and disclosed side by side, since the public only ever sees one number; (c) HHS should maintain a public repository for citizen-collected measurement data with location and timestamp, so real-world exposure maps can be built from thousands of independent readings instead of relying solely on carrier compliance filings. Q18 — One clear request: recognize citizen-measured RF exposure data as a complement to compliance data, not a replacement. The people who live under the antennas are willing to do the measuring; what is missing is a standard that makes their measurements count. Sources: my own field measurements as described above. No medical or personal identifying information is included, per the notice's instructions.

I have become severely electromagnetically sensitive since early 2019. Symptoms began in the summer of 2018 when my hands began to tingle and burn when using my cell phone, especially if I was on the Internet. My symptoms became increasingly worse in April-May 2019. I was working in an office for several days a week for long hours and was surrounded by much office equipment—such as my computer, computer modem, high powered Wi-Fi router close by, copy machine, telephone/intercom system, adding machine, walkie talkie, space heater, florescent lighting, and antenna above me on the metal roof. Some of my initial symptoms were: burning/tingling/pain in my hands while holding all of the following—cell phone, landline telephone, adding machine, computer mouse. I also experienced major nerve pain and burning in my teeth and nasal passageways, my body overheating (worse than a heat flash), burning lips and eyes, brain fog, eye pain, irritation, insomnia, pressure headaches where it felt like my brain was being squeezed, and fatigue. I began to have trouble finding any place in my home where I could feel good or sleep pain-free. It got so bad that even the motor on my refrigerator running, cooking on my stove, or using my washer and dryer were bringing me physical pain. The increase in my symptoms and the severity of them developed quickly over a matter of weeks. I went to a functional medicine doctor. I also distanced myself from much of the technology that was giving me pain. I began unplugging Wi-Fi in our home, using my cell phone much much less, putting it on airplane mode often, and never carrying it in my pocket again. I also put it outside of the bedroom at night. Yes, even electrical appliances were affecting me. Very quickly my body became hyper sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. I can testify that this is real, and not something I created in my head. I am not afraid of technology nor my cell phone, but this technology has become a curse rather than a blessing to me. Most people cannot understand that this radiation is affecting them biologically in a very negative way until something like this happens to them. Or until the FCC makes people more aware of the dangers of what many people are facing as more and more become hyper sensitive by constant accumulation and overexposure. Then they may begin to take precautions. How I wish I had been more aware and more careful of what this toxic burden can do. Even young children are being over exposed to these frequencies in their homes and schools. These technologies have been with them from before birth and will be with them their whole lives. I fear for them and what they will face when their bodies cannot withstand the harms of these frequencies that are almost everywhere. If only their parents were aware of the harms and took precautions to protect their babies and children. I cry thinking about a baby or child experiencing the pain that I have daily and not being able to understand or explain what’s going on. I have researched this topic since 2018 and have read many well written and informative books from doctors about this environmental poison that we are all living in. Still too many people unaware. Still too many of the medical doctors tell us we are crazy. I have added a few links below that have been very well done and from experts about the harms of the radiation and m/w and radio frequencies, etc. Please have a good long look at the 2012 BioInitiative Report for valuable info. And please do tell me, why haven’t more safety studies been done, improved upon , updated and put out for the public consumers for almost 25 years? 24 years overdue. This is unbelievable and unacceptable. Where are the agencies within our governments who care about the health of its people, and especially our children? Not to mention the birds, bees, insects, animals and even plant life. These man-made frequencies are affecting all of life on earth. Please, please, please help those of us who are likened to the canaries in the coal mines, to make this world a much safer place for humans , animals and all of God’s created things. All we desire is to live in a place where we can be productive, pain-free, and live to our potential. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e10wCiI6Ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=F0NEaPTu9oI https://www.seekinghealth.com/blogs/education/emf-sensitivity-and-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-why-some-people-react-and-what-actually-helps https://drnatashaf.com/sensitivity-to-emfs/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513191/ https://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms https://www.positivehealth.com/article/environmental/the-neurological-impact-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf-beyond-headaches https://neurolaunch.com/emf-effects-on-the-brain/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l13WHrMoTXQ