Exposure limits & oversight

Update your regulations to reflect ongoing scientific research. you are playing god with our childrens lives. psychopathic

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

Posting for a Friend that wishes to remain anonymous. We'll call the person Jade. Here is Jade's Story: I was comfortable and healthy. In 2010, when my area switched from analog to radio utility meters (aka "SMART" meters), and T.V.s were switched form analog to digital, I went from feeling comfortable in my bedroom and in the world, to very uncomfortable. It took a while to figure out what was going on. I met others that were suffering and felt great dis-ease with this technology. Also more towers and antennas were added to the hill outside my bedroom window. I learned that by turning off or unplugging electronics, I felt well again. Also re moving myself to a healthy location, I immediately felt well again. This horror/toxic trespass has changed my life. Can you imagine how difficult it can be to find a safe and healthy place to live and to work? I did a count of 100 people in my everyday life. It turns out 20% of them felt ill around this technology, ie. man-made, toxic non-ionizing radiation. I figured that probably about 2x as many (40%) are not feeling well around it. They were just not aware of the symptoms of radio poisoning. Not connecting the dots. I later read that scientists that had studied the matter came up with the same results (40% of the population suffering in an obvious way)! We have over 50,000 published peer-reviewed studies showing harm from these non-native emfs, including pollinator collapse, childhood leukemia, and cancerous tumors, ill health of insects and animals and plants, problems affecting the brain, the heart, the blood, the DNA, due to this technology. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people. A Swedish oncologist, in the early 1900's, wisely said that Anything that is harmful to one living cell is harmful to all living cells. I think this is true. Never put tracking devices on insects or animals! These days my symptoms around too much radio/microwave frequency include: stress, fatigue, pain in the ears and head, feeling frazzled, heart palpitations and general discomfort. How many are feeling ill and not connecting the dots? How many doctors are not connecting the dots? We must take an honest look at this non-native and harmful technology now. We must protect life on Planet earth for all to thrive.Landlines, ethernet, cable and wired technology are much safer than wireless. Let's use and encourage wired tech as much as possible. If not now, when will you take your fiduciary responsibilty seriously, and mindfully curb and regulate this technology, so that life may thrive once again? Thank you for hearing us, Anonymous Jade

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

What is the true intent behind this inquiry? Is the goal simply to find out whether—and in what way—one’s own creditors have already perceived this technology as a threat, or is it merely to be able to claim afterward that one has always taken this issue seriously? No (military) technology has been researched more extensively over the past hundred years than this one. None has ever been deployed so successfully or decided the outcome of wars. None can be concealed so effectively (as a false flag) and, moreover, offers such a wide range of diverse (invisible) mechanisms of action that extend far beyond the potential biological risks to humans. Judging by the countless patents and based solely on the existing research and medical information that has been released to the public so far, EMF technology is and remains, without a doubt, the jack-of-all-trades for those who strive for power and control. Have we already forgotten Chernobyl and the Duga, for example? Or that, diagnostically speaking, flu symptoms are virtually indistinguishable from the symptoms of EMF exposure? Dead exosomes are merely the result of cellular damage and cannot possibly be the root cause or even evidence of anything, not even if you put a "crown" on it. So, do we all get an infection every year, or are we simply being exposed to a little more EM-radiation? Maybe we should start by addressing that? What about indirect factors (caused by EMFs); factors that, for example, negatively impact our living conditions and thereby harm humans? People are wondering why landscapes are either drying up or being flooded? Or why a global temperature change—which is minuscule when viewed in the context of Earth’s overall evolution—should directly cause the entire weather system to go haywire; in a natural system that strives for balance, where “differences” are immediately counterbalanced? How could such extremes even develop naturally? Or why do clouds suddenly start to visibly display “Doppler signatures” everywhere? Where else could these come from, if not from the thousands upon thousands of Doppler systems that are supposedly essential for weather forecasting—systems that, unfortunately, haven’t improved one millimeter despite quadrillions in investments over the past 50 years? Why is there a patent for “hurricanes caused by EMFs” if no one would ever use it? Why, in fact, are there no known hurricanes from the time before EMFs? And weren’t chemtrails even developed specifically to compensate for evaporation effects caused by increased atmospheric energy density—because otherwise it probably wouldn’t rain at all in some places anymore? This brings us to the next point. The effects of exposure to electromagnetic frequencies depend on far more than just power output; the problem is that there are no limit values at all for the other criteria. No one takes biological frequency ranges (such as those of the brain) into account, and this really raises the question: Why—on purpose?! ... A 70-hertz wave, for example, can cause disorientation, since the brain uses precisely this frequency range to coordinate perception. This is primarily due to the fact that the ELF frequencies used by the military are also pulsed, at approximately 7–8 hertz ! Just kidding? No! ...but who do we tell that to... And what are those who are actually responsible for protection doing? The »terribly independent« Commission (of the ICNIRP) consistently denies and ignores any form of athermal symptoms associated with radiation exposure. Its recommended exposure limits are set so high that we’re just barely avoiding getting burned (like a rotisserie chicken)! The failure to account for non-thermal symptoms creates a legal vacuum for all kinds of harm caused by EMFs before or without burns even occurring! Why? Furthermore, the extremely high power peaks in pulsed signals are not taken into account in any limit values; instead, the argument is based on the average power of continuous-wave signals. Why? 99% of the output power of EMF signals is absorbed as heat. ...and the world wonders why temperatures are rising. Spot the mistake. We could go on like this for hours, but that’s not necessary to understand the pattern behind it. In any case, this inquiry should be expanded to include the far more compelling question: Who will be held liable for the unimaginable consequences resulting from the use and (government) abuse of this technology?! The truth will always prevail, and when it does, the time will come for those who will be held accountable. Amen. Your Creditors

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

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

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

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

here's a draft — paste-ready for the docket (comments are public on regulations.gov, so your name shows unless you submit without it): ----- To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure — Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 My name is Brandon Parncutt. I live in York, Pennsylvania, and I'm writing as a member of the public, not a scientist or an industry representative. For most of my life I have experienced what is commonly called the targeted individual phenomenon — a pattern of harassment and physical symptoms that I believe is connected to directed RF/EMF exposure. I understand this experience is hard to verify from the outside. I'm not asking HHS to take my word for any of it. I'm asking for serious, independent research, because right now people like me are left completely on our own. I spend my own limited income on basic mitigation — ferrite cable clamps, shielding materials, EMF meters — with no official guidance on whether any of it helps, because there is no research base to draw on. A few specific points for this RFI: 1. The current U.S. exposure limits still rest on the FCC's 1996 thermal-only framework. Many other countries — Italy, Switzerland, Russia, and China among them — enforce limits far stricter than ours. HHS should publish an honest comparison of these standards and explain, in plain language, why Americans are assumed safe at exposure levels other governments reject. 2. Non-thermal and long-term low-level effects remain a genuine research gap. Most funded studies are short-term and many are industry-funded. We need long-term, independently funded research, including studies of people who report sensitivity and symptoms, studied respectfully as patients rather than dismissed. 3. Real-world exposure is not tracked. Wireless infrastructure keeps expanding — small cells, Wi-Fi saturation in schools and apartment buildings — with no public monitoring of cumulative exposure levels. A public, transparent exposure-monitoring effort would let the science follow actual conditions instead of laboratory assumptions. 4. Vulnerable populations, including children, deserve particular attention, consistent with the Department's stated emphasis in this RFI. I support this inquiry and hope it leads to updated, evidence-based standards rather than another decade of the same unanswered questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Brandon Parncutt York, PA