Research & federal duties

Subject: A Daughter’s Letter of Concern for the HHS Hearing on EMF Dangers and Electromagnetic Sensitivity Dear Members of Congress and Department of Health and Human Services Officials, I am writing as a daughter who has witnessed the devastating impact that my mother’s health struggles have had on her life and our family. I urge you to take seriously the experiences of people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity and investigate the potential health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and electromagnetic fields (EMFs). My mother is an RN, BSN, with 19 years of experience in ICU, case management, and integrative wellness. Her issues began after Wi-Fi was introduced in her ICU workplace and nurses were required to wear wireless communication devices on their bodies (i.e., Vocera) throughout their shifts. At the same time, wireless exposures increased in our neighborhood and home. She began experiencing headaches, burning and ringing ears, head pressure, and a wired/ shaky sensation. Her previously mild, intermittent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) worsened dramatically, and she developed non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). She later developed mast cell activation syndrome. A day at a remote state park without cellular service or Wi-Fi brought striking relief from her symptoms. She repeatedly compared how she felt at the park, at work, and at home, and used an RF meter to assess environmental exposures. These experiences led her to realize that her symptoms and heart rhythm disturbances were associated with her exposure environments. Ultimately, she had to leave her in-hospital nursing career to protect her health. Watching my mother endure these challenges and give up work she was trained and dedicated to doing has been deeply concerning. Our family had to make enormous financial sacrifices to find a place where she felt better. We purchased land and downsized to a small, older home near the state park, where we could reduce exposures and obtain an electric utility arrangement permitting smart-meter opt-out. Even with these sacrifices, our experience has shown how difficult it can be to find alternatives. Many families simply cannot afford to leave their homes, change jobs, or relocate. No family should have to make these choices to protect a loved one’s health. No one should have to choose between earning a living, attending school, receiving medical care, and seeking an environment in which they feel safe. I urge HHS and lawmakers to take the following actions: Investigate potential health effects. Support rigorous, independent research into non-thermal effects of RFR and extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, including possible cardiac, neurological, oxidative stress, mast-cell-related, and metabolic effects such as insulin resistance. Reassess exposure standards. Review current safety limits in light of the full scientific literature, including research on biological effects beyond tissue heating, cumulative exposures, long-term effects, and vulnerable populations. Protect people in essential environments. Evaluate wireless exposures in hospitals, schools, workplaces, and residential neighborhoods. Where feasible, provide lower-exposure spaces and practical alternatives for people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. Protect informed choice. Support reasonable smart-meter opt-out provisions and alternatives to unnecessary wireless technologies, without imposing undue financial penalties or denying essential services. Listen to scientists and affected families. Invite independent researchers, medical professionals, and people reporting symptoms to testify. Review the BioInitiative Report (https://bioinitiative.org/) and consider inviting its contributing researchers and Andrew Marino, MD, PhD, to discuss research concerning RFR and electric and magnetic fields. As a daughter, I worry not only about my mother's health but also about what these questions could mean for children and future generations. Wireless technology is increasingly present in schools, hospitals, homes, and public spaces. We need responsible investigation and evidence-based safeguards rather than assuming that existing standards address every possible risk. I recognize that my mother's experience alone cannot establish scientific causation. However, her experience deserves serious consideration alongside the broader scientific literature. People experiencing these symptoms deserve compassion, appropriate medical evaluation, and research that neither dismisses their concerns nor presumes conclusions before the evidence is assessed. Please use your authority to ensure HHS investigates these concerns thoroughly, supports independent research, and develops policies that protect public health without placing the burden of exposure avoidance on individuals and families who are already struggling. Thank you for your attention to this important public health concern.

Subject: Letter of Concern for the HHS Hearing on EMF Dangers and Electromagnetic Sensitivity Dear Members of Congress and HHS Officials, I am writing as a concerned husband and citizen whose wife has endured profound health challenges from electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure. I urge you to investigate potential health effects and take seriously the experiences of people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity. My wife is an RN, BSN, with 19 years of experience in ICU, case management, and integrative wellness. After Wi-Fi was introduced in her ICU workplace, nurses were required to wear body-mounted wireless communication devices, and wireless exposures increased in our neighborhood and home. She developed headaches, burning and ringing ears, head pressure, and a wired/shaky sensation. Her previously mild, intermittent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) worsened dramatically, and she developed non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). A day at a remote state park without cellular service or Wi-Fi brought striking relief. She repeatedly compared her symptoms at the park, work, and home and used an RF meter to assess exposures. These experiences led us to realize that her symptoms and heart rhythm disturbances were associated with her exposure environments. She subsequently developed mast cell activation syndrome and had to leave her in-hospital nursing career to protect her health. Our family made enormous sacrifices to find a place where she felt better. We purchased land and downsized to a small, older home near the park, where we could reduce exposures and obtain an electric utility arrangement permitting smart-meter opt-out. This was financially difficult. Many Americans cannot afford to leave their jobs, relocate, or purchase lower-exposure homes. No American should have to choose between earning a living and protecting their health, or between accessing essential services and reducing exposures they believe are making them ill. I urge HHS and lawmakers to take these actions: Investigate health effects. Fund rigorous, independent research into potential non-thermal effects of RFR and extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, including cardiac rhythm disturbances, neurological symptoms, oxidative stress, mast-cell-related conditions, and metabolic effects such as insulin resistance. Reassess safety standards. Review current exposure limits against the full scientific literature, including evidence concerning biological effects beyond tissue heating. Consider human physiology, vulnerable populations, cumulative exposures, and long-term effects. Protect people in essential environments. Evaluate wireless exposures in hospitals, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Where feasible, provide lower-exposure spaces and practical alternatives for people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity without forcing them to sacrifice employment, education, or medical care. Protect informed choice. Support reasonable smart-meter opt-out provisions and alternatives to unnecessary wireless technologies where technically feasible, without undue financial penalties or loss of essential services. Hear researchers and affected individuals. Invite independent scientists, medical professionals, and people reporting symptoms to testify. Review the BioInitiative Report (https://bioinitiative.org/) and consider inviting its contributing researchers and Andrew Marino, MD, PhD, to discuss the evidence concerning RFR and electric and magnetic fields. Please approach this issue as you would any potential environmental health hazard: examine the evidence, investigate credible warning signs, protect the public while uncertainties are addressed, and revise policies when warranted. My wife's experience has changed our family's life. I recognize that her experience alone cannot establish scientific causation, but it deserves serious consideration alongside the broader scientific literature. People reporting these symptoms deserve compassion, appropriate medical evaluation, and research that neither dismisses their concerns nor assumes conclusions before the evidence is assessed. Please ensure HHS thoroughly investigates these concerns, supports independent research, and develops evidence-based policies that protect Americans without placing the burden of exposure avoidance solely on affected individuals and their families. Thank you for your attention and service to the American people. Respectfully, A Concerned Husband and Citizen

I am responding from the perspective of an RN, BSN, who has 19 years of experience in ICU, case management, and integrative wellness; a sufferer of electromagnetic sensitivity; and a concerned mother. I developed electromagnetic sensitivity after WiFi was added to the ICU I worked, body worn Vocera devices started being mandated for nurses to wear on their chests all shift long, and I unknowingly moved into a home with a smart meter attached in a neighborhood where multiple neighbors' new WiFis, smart meters, cell phones, new DECT cordless phones, and new DECT baby monitors had fields extending into my living and sleeping spaces. Ongoing exposure to this more intense RFR exposure caused me to have headaches, ringing and burning in my ears, a sort of wired/shaky feeling, pressure in my head, red ears (so a histamine response from mast cells), and later a dramatic worsening of episodes of the SVT arrhythmia I had since age 3, which had been very mild and sporadic prior to me being exposed to constant radiofrequency from multiple sources at home and at work. After a few months of the new exposures, I developed a new heart arrhythmia: NS V-TACH. Like the SVT, it was more symptomatic at work, but I didn't know why at first. Work had WiFi, my home did not. A day long trip to a state park, where there was no cell service and no WiFi is what suggested to me that it was my workplace, and, to a lesser degree, my neighborhood, that were setting off my heart arrhythmias and causing the other symptoms. At the state park in the middle of nowhere and essentially free of man-made EMF, all of the symptoms went away. I repeated the experiment many times, between the state park, work, and my home, to be sure. I bought an expensive RFR meter that helped me confirm that the places my heart behaved were lower RFR places. I found publications by Martin Pall, PhD, that helped explain why this was happening to my heart. RFR causes massive calcium efflux--so it does the opposite of what the calcium channel blockers medicine prescribes to help control arrhythmias do to the heart. I also went from just red ears to developing full blown mast cell activation syndrome. The medical literature shows that man-made RFR, as well as man-made electric and magnetic fields, can cause mast cells to migrate to places in the body they would not normally be found. I ended up having to leave my job over all of this to protect my own health. I also had to purchase land and a home near the state park where I felt better and where the rural electrical cooperative service provider allowed smart meter opt-out. Opt-out is not legally protected in my state, as it is in some others. Not everyone can afford to do what I did though. My family could barely afford to do it. To afford a home and land near the state park we had to down-size tremendously to a tiny 1980s house. It should not be the case that only folks with the money to do so can escape the health destruction from the barrage of man-made EMF modern society has made the norm for public spaces, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Additionally, as a healthcare professional, the fact that WiFi is used to induce insulin resistance in lab rats worries me. As HHS should know, insulin resistance eventually turning into type 2 diabetes in American's as young as elementary school aged is at full-blown crisis proportions today. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes of course create a huge cancer and dementia burden. My clients who work and live bathed in WiFi do indeed have worse labs around insulin resistance than my clients who try to avoid exposure at home and work. Americans should not be forced to be in schools, workplaces, or hospitals where they are being made insulin resistant, their mast cells are being affected, or those with heart arrythmia susceptibilities are having symptoms triggered. The same undesirable mechanisms that hurt those of us with heart arrhythmias when we are bombarded with RFR are also at play in other humans (i.e., calcium efflux and increased oxidative stress), they just don't have an early warning system like those of us with heart arrhythmias do. I feel that HHS should be aware of this and protecting Americans. I have attached some selected publications. There are many more HHS needs to seek out and read. RFR in America needs legislated safety limits based on the non-thermal effects of RFR on human physiology well established in research, not just around the thermal/heating effects (which is currently the case). Similarly, ELF magnetic and electric fields need to be assessed and exposures controlled for human safety. The Bioinitiative Report is a great place for HHS to start. https://bioinitiative.org/ Authors of the Bioinitiative Report should be brought in to testify. These fine and educated folks have been sounding the alarm for years. Andrew Marino, MD, PhD, needs to be asked to testify around electric and magnetic fields.

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to submit formal documentation and a public health inquiry to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the severe biological effects, clinical evaluation gaps, and health risks associated with localized radiofrequency (RF) radiation and non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. As an individual directly experiencing debilitating physical symptoms that correlate with localized technical findings, I am urging DHHS and its public health agencies to address the growing need for clinical protocols, diagnostic standards, and safety guidance for patients presenting with unexplained internal RF emissions, chronic tissue irritation, and severe neurological distress. 1. Severe Physical and Dermatological Symptoms Over the past several months, I have experienced acute and worsening physical distress that severely impacts my daily life and health: Neurological and Radiating Pain: Severe, debilitating pain originating from the right hip and shooting down both legs (consistent with acute radiculopathy), alongside chronic tension and discomfort across specific cranial, skeletal, and joint coordinates. Cutaneous and Tissue Sensations: Daily, persistent sensations of burning across the skin and deep tissue. Dermatological and Nail Changes: Unexplained structural changes, including nails turning black and periodically detaching/falling off, occurring without physical trauma or injury. Cognitive Decline: Significant cognitive fatigue, memory disruption, and a decline in neurological processing functions, severely impacting my professional capacity as a medical records auditor. 2. Technical Findings and Spectrum Correlations A technical radio frequency (RF) assessment conducted utilizing a Spectrum Analyzer and frequency readers identified 10 distinct anatomical regions emitting anomalous continuous or pulsed electronic frequencies, including: Right Hip Region: 222.43168 MHz (directly correlating with acute, radiating right leg pain). Right TMJ (Jaw) Region: 301.25804 MHz. Cranial/Occipital Regions: Frequencies ranging between 197.81 MHz and 206.19 MHz. These measured frequencies fall within specialized spectrum bands associated with bio-telemetry, transponder telemetry, and localized wireless tracking capabilities. 3. Requests for DHHS Action and Guidance Given the intersection of public health, non-ionizing radiation exposure, and patient safety, I respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services consider the following actions: Clinical Diagnostic Standards: Issue guidance or support for medical providers on how to evaluate patients presenting with localized pain, persistent burning sensations, dermatological anomalies, and measurable radiofrequency emissions. Public Health Research: Direct public health research bodies (such as the NIH or CDC) to study the chronic, localized biological impact of continuous or pulsed VHF/UHF band emissions on peripheral nerves, deep soft tissue, nails, and central nervous system pathways. Inter-Agency Collaboration: Coordinate with the FDA and FCC to establish clear reporting mechanisms for individuals who have documented unauthorized sub-dermal devices or targeted electromagnetic exposure resulting in severe physical harm. Thank you for your time, dedication to public health, and consideration of these critical safety and medical inquiries. I look forward to your acknowledgment and response. Sincerely, Sandra Williams San Antonio, Texas

Eileen O’Connor Director and Co-Founder EM Radiation Research Trust 16 October 2026 To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Re: RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health: Response to Request for Information Docket No.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Dear Sir or Madam, Please find attached my submission, RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health: Response to the Request for Information, submitted on behalf of the EM Radiation Research Trust. The submission draws on my personal experience, concerns raised by affected communities, scientific literature, and many years of research, public engagement and campaigning on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) and human health. It highlights concerns regarding the assessment of health risks associated with RF/EMF exposure, the need for independent research and transparent evaluation of the evidence, and the importance of meaningful public engagement in decisions affecting public health. I am also providing the ECOLOG report (2000) concerning mobile telecommunications and health effects as a supplementary PDF for HHS to consider alongside my submission. Both documents contain references to scientific studies and relevant literature concerning RF/EMF exposure and human health. I respectfully urge HHS to examine these references and consider the research and evidence presented in both documents as part of its review. In light of the serious public health concerns raised and the continuing scientific debate surrounding RF/EMF exposure, I urge HHS to give urgent consideration to the precautionary principle and implement appropriate measures to protect public health. Action to reduce avoidable exposure should not be unnecessarily delayed while further independent research and transparent scientific assessment continue. Protecting the public must remain a priority, with particular attention to potentially vulnerable groups, including children. I respectfully request that both documents, together with the scientific references they contain, be considered as part of the HHS review and included in the relevant public record, in accordance with the applicable submission procedures. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important public health matter. I hope these materials will assist HHS in its consideration of the scientific evidence, the concerns of affected communities, and the urgent need for effective, transparent and precautionary measures to safeguard public health. Yours faithfully, Eileen O’Connor Director and Co-Founder EM Radiation Research Trust www.radiationresearch.org UK registered charity established in 2003 Charity No. 1106304

Clearly there is ambient EMF, EMP and radiation. However, there are also Directed Energy Weapons(DEWs) that are definitively being deployed against the American Public. For Citizens that become Targeted Individuals(TIs), the attacks from these weapons rise to the level of assault, torture, attempted murder and murder. I know this because I am a highly targeted TI. I have painstakingly documented hundreds of DEW attacks and the the location/direction they are coming from. Inmy case, and many others I believe, there are criminals in our own government that are coordinating these attacks. It appears to be linked to corrupt CIA, law enforcement, FBI, and contractors at several levels. There are entire families being Targeted by these military grade weapons and again, there is strong evidence to suggest that many have either had their deaths caused or contributed to by these heinous DEW attacks....or they sometimes will cripple or debilitate their victims to affect their overall health. This should be a Top Priority for HHS as they can also use these weapons for mind control, sabotage and other human and civil rights atrocities. I implore you to look into the Targeting case of me and my family as it is an obvious cesspool of corruption and organized crime out of NJ, NY, and NC with obvious atte.pts to cover it up including the DEW attacks. Plus, these attacks are ongoing to the point where I sleep in my car .ost nights to reduce the proximity and severity of the DEW radiation attacks. I have tremendous amounts of evidence of these attacks....Sincerely, Matthew R. Ehlers. ehlersmr@gmail.com

In 2012 I developed Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (EMRS)* after being exposed to high levels of pulsed microwave radiation from two smart meters. To this day when I am exposed to a certain level of microwave radiation (for example, riding in a modern car where the wireless tech cannot be turned off or at an event with a lots of people, hence a lot of phones) I experience debilitating symptoms, such as brain fog, fatigue/exhaustion, pressure in my head, and whole body irritability. Not only has this technology posed very real challenges for me, I am also very concerned for my children and children in general. Kids are now exposed to this technology from the start, 24/7; and who is considering or measuring the amount of radiation children are exposed to in schools. We are in need of robust regulations and updated exposure limits that truly reflect the scientific studies that are available. I have included a number of studies that demonstrate the urgent need to update exposure limits. *https://www.emrsyndrome.org/

I am submitting this comment with my perspectives in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from several perspectives: as a software engineer with extensive experience working with technology and electronic systems; as a person who has experienced significant symptoms that I associate with exposure to electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation; and as a professional who has spent the past several years measuring and documenting electromagnetic field exposures in my home and other environments. In January of 2022 I eliminated wireless technologies completely from my personal environment and whenever feasible reduced or distanced myself from electric and magnetic emissions. These changes improved my health and allowed me to reengage with the world. Unfortunately, avoidance of wireless technologies required changes that permanently affected my career, family, and personal life. It is impossible to avoid being exposed to all wireless and electromagnetic emissions. Radio frequency exposures from sources which are not my own continue to aggravate my symptoms and limit my life. I don’t want to feel these symptoms anymore when doing normal things like working in an office, walking into a store with an overpowered mesh / wifi system, going to a concert, restaurant, bar, or visiting family or friends. Over the last few years, I learned more about detection, identification, measurement, and mitigation to electromagnetic emissions. My sister became a Building Biology Institute-certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist (EMRS). Together we develop practical methods for detecting, measuring, documenting, and reducing electromagnetic exposures. Using these strategies we have significantly improved my functionality and not only am I back at the computer, but I have developed a web application that shows electromagnetic emissions and measurement statistics spatially. I have become particularly concerned that consumers are uninformed about the specifications of a product’s wireless features and have limited or no control over those features. Technology will continue to develop faster than long-term health research and regulatory processes can reasonably keep pace with it. Additionally, the way RF exposure is evaluated does not always reflect the conditions people experience in their daily lives. I therefore encourage HHS to consider these particularly practical areas for regulatory and technology standards: Wireless devices should provide a genuine, user-accessible means of turning off wireless emissions, rather than merely hiding wireless functionality or placing a device into a mode in which emissions continue. Cellular phones should support calls and text messaging when the phone is connected through a wired Ethernet connection to a router, so that consumers who choose a wired network connection can use their phones for these functions without requiring an active wireless connection. Products should be required to display prominently on the packaging standardized consumer-facing RF exposure information, similar in concept to other standardized product information that allows consumers to compare products and make informed choices. the type, number, frequencies and transmission characteristics of a device; how to reduce unnecessary close-proximity exposure; how to use wired alternatives where available; how to disable wireless functions completely; whether a device continues transmitting while in standby or charging; whether simultaneous transmitters were evaluated; whether children or other populations were specifically evaluated; and what exposure conditions were and were not included in testing. I am particularly concerned about exposure involving children, infants, pregnancy, and other populations that may differ from those of a typical adult. Children may spend many hours in schools and childcare facilities surrounded by multiple wireless transmitters, sometimes at very close distances. Wireless devices are also increasingly incorporated into products used by infants and children. Federal research and exposure assessment should therefore specifically address age-specific and developmental exposure scenarios rather than assuming that adult testing adequately represents all populations. I also believe that federal research priorities should include long-term, independent investigation of cumulative and chronic exposure, children and pregnancy, reproductive and developmental outcomes, neurological and sleep-related effects, cardiovascular and other biological effects, environmental and ecological effects, and exposure associated with evolving technologies such as 5G, future wireless systems, IoT devices, wearables, smart homes, wireless medical devices, and increasingly dense wireless infrastructure. See attached file.

Question 2: Individual consumer, parent, and health advocate focused on children’s cumulative exposure and the adequacy of current standards. Current U.S. RF/EMF limits address only short-term thermal effects. They do not account for non-thermal mechanisms (voltage-gated calcium channel activation, oxidative stress, glutathione depletion, mitochondrial strain) documented in the majority of experimental studies at intensities below those limits (Pall 2013; Yakymenko et al. 2016). IARC’s Group 2B classification remains in effect. Children face higher relative absorption and lifetime cumulative exposure. Question 5 / Standards: Federal agencies should evaluate ICNIRP/FCC thermal-only guidelines against biologically based approaches and the existing non-thermal evidence base. Thermal-only standards are not adequate for chronic, multi-source, real-world exposure. Question 16 — Highest-priority research gaps (ranked): 1. Oxidative stress and glutathione status (GSH/GSSG, MDA, 8-OHdG) in humans under measured real-world exposure, especially children. 2. Prospective cohort of school-age children with personal RF dosimetry linked to sleep, neurodevelopmental, and oxidative markers. 3. Independent replication of VGCC and mitochondrial effects at non-thermal intensities with full exposure characterization and sham controls. 4. Standardized observation of self-reported intolerance presentations correlated with objective oxidative biomarkers. 5. Intervention studies of exposure reduction (wired classrooms, nighttime shutdown, distance) plus glutathione-support protocols. Questions 7–9: Current SAR testing does not capture multi-source, body-contact, or cumulative exposure. Require real-world dosimetry, plain-language disclosure for schools and residences, and public reporting of infrastructure density near sensitive sites. Immediate actions possible with existing authority: • Redirect a portion of existing research funds to the gaps above with mandatory conflict-of-interest disclosure. • Issue interim guidance: distance from devices, no body-contact use, routers/phones out of bedrooms, prefer wired for fixed high-use applications. • Update federal procurement and school facility guidance to prefer Ethernet/fiber for fixed connections while retaining wireless for true mobility. • Systematically collect clinical observations rather than dismiss them. Preferring wired/fiber for fixed applications does not reduce technological capacity; fiber routinely outperforms wireless on bandwidth, latency, and security for schools and offices. Hybrid designs preserve mobility. Full mechanistic detail, references, and expanded recommendations are in Attachment 1.

I have noticed the closer I am to a cell tower the more anxious I get. I never thought it could be from the cell towers until I read reports and dove deeper into some other things people have said. I also notice if I keep my phone near me at night I dont sleep well at all. I have noticed sleep disturbances when I keep my phone near, if it’s outside the bedroom I sleep better. Also I noticed a difference if I put my phone on airplane mode it almost seems to lessen the EMF exposure and allow better sleep. When I am near my WiFi router I have this increased feeling of anxiety and strange electrical impulse within my body. All of these I have felt before knowing the information of WIFI and EMF effects. I really think something needs to be done. Something needs to change. My thought on this is if EMF can be used as a weapon against people why are we carrying a phone and having WIFI router around us all the time. I think people should be allowed to have the option of having a regular phone from copper telephone land lines again if they don’t want the exposure. Just like the 80s having a kitchen phone. Also something needs to change for wifi and also EMF exposure from all tech. If I have a computer and I want to connect it to the internet cable I should be able too without worry of EMF exposure from the computer itself. I am so glad this is being researched and studied. I will not be surprised if studies show EMF exposure causes increase in cancers rates and other diseases and mental Health. If people want WiFi make it safer if they don’t make safe options for people who dont want it like I said copper land telephone line phones and ability to have have to use wifi all together and have no exposure from your computer or any tech devices.