Exposure limits & oversight

Dear Department of Health and Human Services, I am writing to formally report severe and ongoing adverse health effects that I attribute to exposure to 5G radiation. I first became aware of my extreme sensitivity to 5G in 2020. According to available data, 2020–2021 marked the peak years of the initial mass rollout of 5G infrastructure worldwide. In 2020, I began experiencing severe heart palpitations and sought emergency medical care. Physicians performed an electrocardiogram (EKG) and blood tests for cardiac enzymes; all results were reported as normal. I left the emergency room without any medical explanation for the sudden onset of these cardiac symptoms. After conducting my own research, I obtained a device designed to mitigate the effects of 5G radiation on the human body. Immediately after plugging the device into a wall outlet, my heart palpitations ceased. Since 2021, I have been required to use a 5G-compatible cellular phone. Whenever my fingertips contact the phone’s screen, I experience a burning sensation. After only one to two minutes of contact, my fingertips become completely numb. I researched mitigation options and purchased specialized gloves for handling the phone, as well as a stylus for typing. Without these protective measures, any direct contact with the phone causes pain. Even with them, touching the device produces shock-like sensations that travel up my arm and into my shoulder, resulting in significant bodily pain. I also have noticed that when I hold my phone close to my body, that I experience pain in the area that the phone is closest to. To continue mitigation efforts, I have needed to purchase protective clothing to use during my workday on the computer. I have also developed extreme insomnia, characterized by difficulty falling asleep, frequent nighttime awakenings, and early-morning awakening. The only reliable method I have found to obtain sleep is to unplug my Wi-Fi router at night. On occasions when a family member uses Wi-Fi late at night and forgets to disconnect it, I routinely awaken between 2:00 am and 3:00 a.m. and am unable to return to sleep. Additionally, on days of heavy 5G exposure I experience profound fatigue and extreme tiredness that severely impair my ability to function during the day. None of these symptoms occur when I am in natural environments far removed from 5G infrastructure. However, such areas have become increasingly difficult to locate. I am deeply concerned about the forthcoming deployment of 6G technology. I believe that 5G—and especially 6G—has the potential to harm human health, animal life, and the broader natural environment. For me personally, continued exposure could prove debilitating or worse. I therefore respectfully demand meaningful reductions in ambient levels of this radiation and urge rigorous independent investigation into its biological effects. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I am prepared to provide additional details or documentation upon request. Sincerely, Mary Okocha okocha.mary@gmail.com October 15, 2026 CITATIONS: Gartner forecast on worldwide 5G network infrastructure revenue growth (2020–2021):
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-08-04-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-5g-network-infrastrucutre-revenue-to-grow-39pc-in-2021 Viavi “State of 5G” report — cities with 5G jumped ~350% in 2020 (to 1,336 cities):
https://www.lightwaveonline.com/broadband/article/55031716/study-global-5g-roll-outs-jumped-350-in-2020-despite-pandemic
(Related PR: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/command-the-5g-network-5g-roll-outs-more-than-tripled-in-2020-to-reach-1-336-cities-worldwide-according-to-viavi-report-301233149.html) GSA 5G End-of-Year Report 2021 (200 commercial networks, device counts, etc.):
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/print/37434-gsa-5g-end-of-the-year-report---2021
https://gsacom.com/paper/5g-market-snapshot-2021-end-of-year/ https://ehtrust.org/what-evidence-of-people-injured-by-wireless-radiation-was-ignored-by-the-fcc-historic-lawsuit-eht-et-al-v-fcc/ National Toxicology Program — 2018 The U.S. National Toxicology Program conducted extensive animal studies involving radiofrequency exposure at 900 MHz, representative of earlier cellular technologies. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones

In 2009 I began noticing a reaction to WiFi radiation in my home. It was about 1 yr after I had begun working at home. I was incredibly healthy, was a runner, had been running daily since 1978. No illness, no sensitivities, extremely healthy. But, reactive to EMF's. Please conduct thorough research and implement legislation to properly identify and manage this health hazard. It is real. people are affected by it. Do not sacrifice human health for the profit of big business.

There were studies done decades ago in Denver that showed a high correlation between housing with strong electromagnetic fields and childhood leucimmia. For some reason, probably due to corporate financial interests, these studies have largely been ignored, but the evidence appears to be irrefutable. Nothing good can come from such exposure, whether for adults or children. EMFs, RF Radiation, and wireless radiation exposure should be regulated. Thanks.

Hello, I'm a Registered Nurse and Biology enthusiast. Electromagnetic Radiation affects the Calcium channels in our cells, so too much calcium goes into the cells instead of staying in the bloodstream where it's needed to keep our pH in range, and not affect our bones negatively. To have this 5G technology spread across our lives without proper testing is lunacy. We need to have protection from this instead of opening the floodgates to it. Thank you ~ Linda Madge Thomas, RN

Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 - Supplemental explanation of occupational RF site exhibit Prior comment tracking number: mv5-i6d1-04w6 Please consider this supplemental comment with my prior submission identified above. It explains the accompanying "HHS RF site illustration" exhibit, which depicts the University of Illinois/Willard Airport (CMI) radar and communications site in the Champaign-Urbana area of Illinois. I recall the 17-ft platform configuration as approximately 1990-2000; the exact tower-elevation date is unknown. The drawing shows ATCBI-5 after its replacement of ATCBI-3 during that period. It explains the site and simultaneous-source assessment questions. HOW TO USE THE EXHIBIT The accompanying PDF contains Figure 1, equipment and power tables, source context and limitations. Read the numbered work areas together with the figure: radar platform (1), northeast and southeast radio platforms (2 and 3), and equipment shelter (4). Orange identifies the ASR radar and cyan the directional beacon; radio envelopes surround the ground-radio platforms. Figure 1 shows the source patterns together in a schematic simultaneous-source view. It does not establish that every radio channel transmitted at once during a historical task, or that the antenna was stationary and energized. HOW IT WAS CREATED AND WHAT IT USES The exhibit was prepared with three-dimensional computer graphics using my equipment and work-location recollections, stated equipment parameters, schematic site geometry and published technical information. It is not an FAA-produced model, a surveyed site plan or a measurement-based electromagnetic simulation. I recall that ATCBI-3 was replaced by ATCBI-5 while the tower remained in its 17-ft configuration; I do not remember the replacement date. I also recall frequent simulcasting, GRT transmitter output of 10 W per transmitter, and transmission-line loss as high as 2 dB. Exact channel-specific losses and historical simulcast combinations remain unresolved. Power labels distinguish peak and pulse-averaged transmitter output from power reaching a worker. GRT output is 10 W (40 dBm); 2 dB line loss leaves 38 dBm (6.31 W) at the antenna. Radio envelopes are schematic. Channel-specific line losses are unknown; no frequency-dependent loss curve is assigned. The still image does not reconstruct controller-pilot exchanges or historical keying; aircraft emissions are not depicted. The five-channel simulcast grouping is an example. Broad coverage surfaces, fading layers and reflection overlays are illustrative. Dimensions and antenna-center heights remain schematic. NTIA Report 13-490, Table C-1, provides generic ASR-8 context; the illustration uses a 1.35 degrees horizontal beamwidth, while NTIA lists 2.3 degrees for a generic ASR-8. The site-specific beamwidth remains unverified. WHAT IT DEMONSTRATES VHF, UHF and microwave radiation is invisible. I challenge HHS reviewers to imagine themselves at the numbered work areas in Figure 1, with their own bodies among the operating sources. The body encounters the combined environment. Near fields can be strong and uneven; their strength requires task-specific assessment. Ask what reaches the body during repeated maintenance, what shielding provides, and what measurements and health monitoring are needed. The colors make the unseen environment imaginable; they do not quantify bodily exposure. WHAT IT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE The exhibit does not determine my personal RF exposure, establish a limit exceedance, prove disease causation or certify a safe location. Envelope size, color, brightness and overlap are not calibrated field strength, absorbed energy or dose. The 300-ft radar drawing cutoff is not a near-field boundary or the stated 60-nautical-mile service range. The shelter remains a spatial reference, not a realistic view from 60 miles away. Reflection overlays do not solve the indoor field or quantify reflected power. Close-range fields, cabinet leakage, shielding changes, interference and building transmission require separate assessment. Possible equipment-generated X-rays are a distinct ionizing-radiation question and are not modeled here. I ask HHS to use this exhibit as an explanatory aid supporting task-specific assessment, accessible exposure records and meaningful communication of findings to workers and physicians. FAA assessments and occupational-health decisions should account for actual energized maintenance conditions and simultaneous sources. Current and retired technicians should be included in the research and follow-up needed to resolve those questions.

Radio frequency radiation (microwave) and electromagnetic frequencies have insidiously proliferated in our environment and are causing debilitating health effects in all biological organisms, including humans. We do not need more studies (see attached). We need the FCC and HHS to immediately recognize the harm and protect the health and safety of Americans and the nation. Fiber optics is safer, faster and more secure. Why has the FCC allowed wireless frequencies to proliferate without recognition of the harm? Why did the FCC pass laws in 1996 to disallow communities to stop the proliferation of cell phone towers based on health or environmental effects? Why hasn't the FCC updated their 30 year old safety studies that were flawed int he first place? Why has the funding for determining the effects of manmade frequencies been eliminated from the Environmental Protection Agency? Why hasn't the HHS taken the necessary steps to determine the effects of radio frequency microwave radiation on humans, animals and all biological life? Our government agencies have failed us and I request this issue be regarded as a top priority.

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