Exposure limits & oversight

**SUBMISSION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)** **Regarding:** Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure **Docket Reference:** Related to Federal Register Notice (Document 2026-19252) **Subject:** Incorporating Non-Thermal Biological Frameworks and the Scientific Legacy of Dr. Robert O. Becker into Modern Regulatory Safety Standards I. Executive Summary As HHS reviews scientific data regarding human exposure to EMFs, RF, and wireless radiation, it must address a fundamental flaw in existing safety paradigms: the reliance on thermal-only thresholds. To establish safety standards protecting public health from chronic wireless environments, HHS should integrate the bioelectromagnetics principles established by Dr. Robert O. Becker (former Chief of Orthopedic Surgery and VA Medical Investigator). Dr. Becker’s pioneering research and historical testimonies—such as his 1977 *60 Minutes* evaluation of the Navy's ELF "Project Seafarer" grid—prove that living organisms are highly sensitive bioelectric systems vulnerable to non-thermal radiation. II. The Flaw of the Thermal-Only Paradigm Current federal exposure limits assume electromagnetic radiation only harms human health if it causes thermal burning or acute heating. Dr. Becker’s work directly refutes this, demonstrating that uncontrolled, non-thermal electrical and magnetic fields interact directly with living tissue at a cellular level. Living cells maintain delicate electrical potentials governing growth, healing, and communication. Ambient, non-thermal radiation acts as an external disruptor to these networks. Evaluating safety based solely on tissue temperature ignores the primary biological mechanisms through which EMFs cause harm. III. The Bioelectric "Double-Edged Sword" Dr. Becker’s warnings were grounded in clinical success using bioelectricity for tissue regeneration. He pioneered using precise, low-voltage currents to stimulate cellular repair and heal complex bone fractures that would not mend on their own. This breakthrough established a "double-edged sword": 1. **The Beneficial Axis:** Controlled, specific electromagnetic frequencies can positively interface with living tissue to accelerate healing and guide growth. 2. **The Hazardous Axis:** Because biological systems are profoundly sensitive to minute electrical signals, exposure to uncontrolled, ambient electromagnetic fields (from consumer electronics, power lines, and wireless infrastructure) can distort internal signals, causing systemic biological dysfunction. IV. Documented Non-Thermal Pathophysiology HHS must re-examine biological impacts through non-thermal data. In his evaluations, Dr. Becker identified clear physiological disruptions that current wireless standards fail to mitigate, including: * **Serum Triglyceride and Cardiovascular Stress:** Human subjects exposed to low-frequency magnetic fields in controlled trials (Pensacola, FL; Clam Lake, WI) experienced considerable, rapid elevation in serum triglycerides within 24 hours—a verified medical indicator of biological stress and elevated risk for cardiovascular events and stroke. * **Stunted Growth and Stress:** Serving on the first ad hoc committee evaluating military ELF data, Dr. Becker highlighted data proving that exposed animals grew at a slower rate and exhibited systemic markers of chronic physiological stress. V. Mitigating Institutional Bias and Funding Suppression A critical component of this RFI must include an audit of how safety data is evaluated. Dr. Becker documented a systemic pattern where independent scientific projects were terminated and stripped of funding the moment they documented positive biological effects from low-frequency radiation. Furthermore, he cautioned against "pre-biased" oversight panels consisting of individuals who have already publicly committed to the safety of infrastructure, making them structurally incapable of objectively evaluating ambient hazards. HHS must rely strictly on independent science insulated from industry influence. VI. Conclusion and Regulatory Recommendations The proliferation of modern wireless networks has subjected the public to unprecedented, chronic ambient radiation. Dr. Becker’s historic conclusion—that he would not want his family to reside within an active ambient antenna system—remains an urgent warning. We request that HHS: 1. **Move Beyond Thermal Limits:** Establish safety thresholds based on cellular and cardiovascular biomarkers. 2. **Account for Cumulative Exposure:** Revise guidelines to reflect chronic, 24-hour exposure to dense wireless environments. 3. **Fund Independent Bioelectromagnetics Research:** Revitalize federal funding for independent studies exploring long-term impacts on endogenous bioelectric networks. Respectfully submitted, Jason Villeggiante

I am a Board Certified physician in practice for over 43 years. I have personally experienced and have many patients that have experienced detrimental effects with EMF radiation exposure. Headaches, brain fog, agitation, heart palpitations and insomnia are the most common complaints. It is extremely difficult to minimize and impossible to fully shield from the ever increasing amounts and intensities of wireless radiation that we are being exposed to without informed consent. I was threatened with being jailed many years ago by APS when I refused to let them install 4 "smart" meters 5 feet away from where I conduct my medical practice. Just recently, I had to take my newish car to several places at great cost to disable the multiple electronic signals being broadcast within inches of my head. It is becoming an increasingly difficult world to navigate for those of us aware of our EMF sensitivity. Sadly, so many many more are not aware of these signals being a causative or contributing factor to their medical issues. Independent studies must be done and citizens must be informed and given options on saying no to wireless radiation including cell towers, "smart" devices, wifi etc.

Re: ET Docket No. 13-84 — RF Exposure Issues Subject to Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC To the Federal Communications Commission: I submit this comment as a member of the public concerned that the FCC’s current radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards and testing procedures may not fully reflect today’s communications environment. Wireless technology provides enormous benefits. My concern is not opposition to Wi-Fi, cellular networks, satellites, wearables, 5G, 6G, or emerging systems. My concern is that safety testing and regulatory review should evolve as rapidly as the technology itself. The Commission should not presume that RF exposure below existing limits is harmful where causation has not been established. But scientific uncertainty should not automatically be treated as proof of safety. REAL-WORLD AND CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE People may now be exposed simultaneously to phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth devices, wearables, computers, connected vehicles, smart-home devices, cellular infrastructure, satellites, and other RF sources. The FCC should examine whether its framework adequately evaluates aggregate and cumulative exposure rather than considering devices mainly in isolation. Testing should reflect foreseeable use, including devices against the body, near the head, worn for long periods, and operating multiple radios simultaneously. Where relevant, it should also consider multiple frequencies, modulation, pulsed transmissions, beamforming, and changing duty cycles. LONG-TERM EXPOSURE AND CHILDREN Modern exposure can occur throughout the day and over decades. The FCC should distinguish short-term exposure from chronic, cumulative, and lifetime exposure. Children deserve specific analysis because they may begin using wireless devices early and experience exposure over much longer portions of their lives. The Commission should clearly explain the scientific basis for concluding that its limits and testing procedures adequately protect children. NON-CANCER EFFECTS The Commission should rigorously evaluate credible evidence concerning possible non-cancer effects, including neurological, cognitive, reproductive, oxidative, and other biological endpoints. Inconsistent findings or methodological limitations should lead to careful analysis, not blanket acceptance or dismissal. The FCC should identify which findings have been replicated, whether credible dose-response relationships exist, how exposure was measured, whether appropriate controls were used, whether confounding factors were addressed, and whether observed biological changes represent actual adverse health outcomes at exposures relevant to FCC limits. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Environmental impacts also deserve meaningful investigation. Research should distinguish possible RF effects from tower lighting, collisions, habitat disruption, construction, and other confounding factors. A lack of high-quality independent field studies should be identified as a research gap, not automatically treated as evidence of no effect. PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND MALICIOUS USE As RF-dependent technology becomes ubiquitous, the FCC should also recognize related privacy and cybersecurity risks, either here where relevant to technological developments or through a separate proceeding. RF energy itself does not collect personal information. However, wireless systems can create mechanisms through which devices may be identified, tracked, impersonated, disrupted, or subjected to unauthorized interception. Documented concerns include rogue cellular base stations, rogue Wi-Fi access points, wireless identifiers, Bluetooth vulnerabilities, spoofing, jamming, interference, and techniques capable of distinguishing devices through characteristics of their RF transmissions. As wireless systems expand, regulators should consider unauthorized tracking, location-related metadata, RF fingerprinting, malicious interference, and transparency about what systems transmit, collect, infer, retain, or disclose. REQUESTED ACTION I respectfully ask the FCC to modernize RF compliance testing; evaluate aggregate, long-term, and lifetime exposure; specifically address children; transparently evaluate non-cancer effects; identify replicated and unreplicated findings; support independent environmental and human-exposure research; improve public access to testing methods and assumptions; and establish recurring review of RF standards as technology evolves. The United States can lead in communications technology while also leading in independent research, transparent safety standards, privacy protection, and realistic exposure assessment. Scientific uncertainty should lead to better measurement, better research, and better safeguards—not complacency. Respectfully submitted,

am an adult woman submitting a personal health comment to HHS-OASH-2026-0397. I am asking HHS to treat electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and reported directed-energy / Havana-type symptoms as a real research gap, not as something to dismiss first and study never. For years I have had burning, head and foot pain, vibration through my body, dizziness, nerve pain, sleep collapse, and inflammatory flares. These episodes have happened in houses, hotels, and outdoor settings. On September 22, 2026, I was at the White House Hotel in Biloxi, Mississippi, on Beach Boulevard / US Highway 90. That night I felt a strike that vibrated through my whole body. Current symptoms I live with: A clamp sensation along my spine from the lower back to the top of my head Muscle tightness that feels like I am being choked A lump on the right side of my head, top and side Burning Ringing in the ears Fatigue Stomach problems Other neurological symptoms that have not been explained or treated in a way that stops them I have sought medical care. I have imaging and records. I am not asking HHS to take my word as a finished scientific paper. I am asking you not to throw people like me out of the dataset. Please include in your review: Health experiences and clinical observations from people who report RF / EMF-associated illness and people who report pulsed or targeted energy symptoms, including Havana-style presentations. Whether current U.S. exposure limits protect people who are already sick, children, and people in dense wireless environments. Research gaps on non-thermal effects, pulsed RF, and unexplained acquired neurological and inflammatory syndromes after reported environmental exposure. A path for civilians to document incidents without being auto-labeled and closed. I can attach medical records and a dated symptom log. I am not attaching unrelated legal matters. This comment is only about health and RF / EMF / directed-energy research. I want federal policy to catch up with the technology that is already on people. Thank you.

Please stop the proliferation of 5G, Smart Meters, Dirty Electricity, 5G/Cell Towers. Researcher have documented the harm that's being done on the celluar level and found that 5G being transmitted and received by Smart phones/watches, and Wi-Fi. It's urgent that cities and counties have the ability to to properly oversee wireless, telecommunications—while granting sweeping advantages to industry. There are bills being introduced that wants to rewrite federal law to override and basically steamroll local authority by limiting fees. ALSO tightening shot clocks, and removing reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act for modifying cell towers and wireless sites.

I became ill in 2017 after purchasing my first smart phone Iphone 8. After about a week of usage, It heated up my head and ears while I was sleeping. I woke covered in sweat and beat red in the face and neck. The same happened again the next night and after that every time I tried to use the phone I would get shooting pains in my head, hot in the face and ears, brain fog, difficulty with speach, fatigue,equilibrium problems, and severe headache that would bring you to your knees. I figured out it was coming from the phone and I could feel the emf tingling through my body. I later discovered I have a condition called Electryhypersensitivity. Many more symptoms would follow and continue today. I was part of a class action lawsuit against Apple due to the extreme high levels of radiation (exceeding guidelines) coming from the phone. I am still dealing with the symptoms and have to be excluded from many activities to avoid symptoms and being ill. I now get body jerks and muscle spasms along with the other symptoms when exposed. I have spent so much money on blocking materials to keep my home at a low level of emf in order to live my life without being sick. It is extremely challenging with all the smart gadgets everywhere. I am disabled and unable to get disability because our government will not recognize my condition and that puts me in a difficult position since I am unable to work. It is a very isolating condition and difficult to manage.

See attached file(s) Scientific studies have conclusively proven that artificial light exposure, particularly fluorescent and LED light exposure: 1) shortens lifespan, 2) causes cancer and cardiovascular disease, 3) elevates one's levels of cortisol and ACTH to "stress-like" levels, and 4) causes other serious health problems. My attached "Replace Toxic Fluorescent Light with Natural Light Now!" article explains why such artificial lighting--lighting that no terrestrial life form, including humans, evolved under--must be avoided, and especially must NOT be used in settings, such as schools, where children are present. The article shows how in one experiment mice, which are mammals just like humans, who were exposed to fluorescent light lived only HALF AS LONG as mice who were exposed to daylight! In another experiment conducted by Hollwich and Dieckhues, and published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Ophthalmologica, experimental subjects exposed to fluorescent light for several days saw their stress hormones--ACTH and cortisol--rise alarmingly high to "stress-like" levels, but then return to normal levels after the fluorescent light exposure was stopped and was replaced with daylight exposure for several days. Hollwich and Dieckhues were so concerned over this finding that they remarked that the fluorescent light exposure explains the agitated mental state that school children in classrooms lit by fluorescent light develop. School children who are agitated are much more likely to misbehave, and the misbehavior problem is so great that the 600,000 school teachers who left the profession last year state that having to deal constantly with misbehaving students was the main reason for them quitting being a teacher. Meanwhile, although equally toxic LED light is slowly replacing fluorescent light in schools, still 78% of US educational institutions use fluorescent lighting as their classrooms' primary lighting source, and this harmful-to-health lighting also negatively impacts the ability of schoolchildren to focus and concentrate on their learning task--in short, it significantly lowers their academic performance level. This was proven by the attached "Daylighting in Schools" study, a study costing over $1 million that was sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission. This study's researchers compared the learning rate for Reading and Math for elementary school students who were either in classrooms lit by fluorescent light or in classrooms lit by daylight. The classrooms whose primary lighting source was daylight usually had the natural daylight delivered into the classroom via a diffused lens skylight (called Skylight Type A in the study; see page 10 for a photo of this diffused lens skylight) and/or more regular windows. A diffused lens skylight is common, spreads the natural light evenly throughout the classroom (not as a solid beam of light) and is just a normal skylight installation job. Dimming louvers are usually included with such a skylight, in case the teacher wishes to darken the classroom for some reason, such as to show the students a movie. Now, here is what the Director of HHS and the President need to understand. On page 12 of the study the researchers reported that STUDENTS IN CLASSROOMS WHERE DAYLIGHT WAS THE CLASSROOMS' PRIMARY LIGHTING SOURCE LEARNED THEIR READING AND MATH CURRICULUM 20-26% FASTER than students stuck in the classrooms lit by fluorescent light. Even though fluorescent light uses much less electricity than incandescent lighting, still its electricity use is not insignificant, as 30% of a school's electricity usage is devoted to lighting. However, for a classroom whose primary lighting source is daylight, it will see the lighting portion of its electricity bill be ZERO DOLLARS on most days, which will be the case especially for the large percentage of classrooms located in the Sunbelt states in the US. The solution to the problem of our nation's public schoolchildren having their mental and physical health, and academic performance level, significantly harmed by minute-after-minute, hour-after-hour exposure each school day to artificial light is simple. The attached "School Classroom Natural Light Act of 2026" describes the law or President Executive Order that could end the disastrous classroom learning environment that our nation's public schoolchildren and teachers have had to somehow survive for way too long. Please see to it that this comment of mine and its attachments are brought to the attention of the Director of HHS and the President.

I am submitting this comment because we can no longer afford to ignore concerns about our ever-increasing exposure to RF and wireless radiation. My concerns come from my own experience and what I have observed in my family. I spend many hours each day working in my office, where I had a Wi-Fi router sitting on the floor immediately to my left. During that time, I experienced recurrent styes in my left eye, tinnitus in my left ear, left-sided breast pain, difficulty sleeping, nighttime headaches, and brain fog. After learning more about RF radiation, I purchased an RF meter and was shocked by the levels I measured. I began reducing my exposure by hard-wiring my computer and devices and eventually my entire home. My wired connections became more reliable, and over time, my symptoms disappeared. I understand that correlation alone does not establish causation, but rather than dismissing experiences like mine, I urge HHS to fund rigorous, independent research to determine whether there is a causal connection. We owe it to the millions of people exposed every day to find out. My concerns extend to children. I have observed changes in my son and nephews, including difficulties with concentration and focus, as well as changes in mood and behavior, associated with increased use of screens and wireless technology. Our children are growing up surrounded by wireless devices and infrastructure at home, in classrooms, on playgrounds, and throughout their communities. This generation may be among the first exposed to this level of continuous wireless radiation from the earliest stages of life, including during pregnancy. Yet technology has advanced rapidly while questions about long-term, cumulative, and developmental exposure remain. I urge HHS to take a comprehensive, independent, and transparent look at the potential health and environmental effects of RF radiation, including impacts on children and other potentially vulnerable populations, long-term and cumulative exposure, and potential effects on animals, plants, and the broader environment. Please listen to parents, clinicians, researchers, and people reporting changes in their health. Examine the full body of evidence, identify research gaps, and ensure that health recommendations and exposure guidelines keep pace with rapidly expanding wireless technology. We should not wait for another generation of children to grow up before determining whether we have adequately protected them. People deserve transparency, meaningful information about exposure, and the ability to make informed choices for themselves and their families. I urge HHS to act now: investigate the evidence, fund the research, listen to the public, and put public health first. Our children and future generations are depending on us to get this right.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is responsible for regulating communications technology and spectrum, is devoid of expertise assessing the interaction between RF radiation and our health. HHS is the right agency to examine the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. I urge HHS to take an active role in evaluating the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected by RF radiation, as well as scientific evidence, and to establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding RF radiation and public health.

Men, women, and children are being tortured daily with EMFs in and out of our homes. Its absolutely horrible to live with and even worse to watch children suffer in the ways they do. Its the most helpless feeling as a parent and just as as adult in general to watch happen and there is nothing tjat can be done to help it. People are not safe and that includes handicapped and elderly as well. The fact that directed engery weapons are being used on society especially with no oversight us terrifying to say the least. This has been an on going issued that has been ignored for decades and it all starts with Americans being illegally placed on the terriost watchlist. Please help us and our children from being tortured and litterally destroyed