Exposure limits & oversight

As a Doctor who has been injured from radiofrequency radiation, I have a sincere interest in new, updated regulations of HHS and the FCC to protect all living things from the known biological harm of RFR. Since 2018, living near a cell tower, sleeping close to a smart meter and having a wifi router from a neighbor within 10 feet of my sleeping space, I have had neurological harm. Since then, when I'm near a wifi router or another person's phone or smart watch, I get burning pain on my skin in the area closest to the pulse-modulated RF radiation. I also get severe fatigue, brain fog, a pressure headache, and the next days to weeks I feel "hungover" from the exposure. It makes normal functioning very difficult. When I sleep next to someone with a smart watch on or sleep in a house/hotel with wifi on, my sleep is very poor- I wake up many times and have trouble falling asleep. When I sleep at home with our wifi router turned off and phones off, I wake up much more rested and do not wake up in the middle of the night. I fear for my young daughter and unborn baby, since research shows their brains absorb much more radiofrequency radiation, and it is pervasive in classrooms, places of worship, as well as playgrounds. I am calling for more research on the biological harms from radiofrequency radiation, particularly pulse-modulated RF radiation. As more cell towers proliferate and new bands of frequency are being used, there needs to be a halt to all new infrastructure until solid research has been done to investigate the impacts on living beings- humans, flora and fauna. The current FCC guideline is based on an antiquated study from 30 years ago. Telecommunications have changed drastically over that time period, so that is now irrelevant. What studies have the FCC or HHS done to evaluate the RFR's effects on cellular health and oxidative stress, which manifest into countless disease states? What about neurobehavioral outcomes, like children learning in school near a wifi router, or productivity and concentration in the workplace? How are migrating animals and insects affected by the never-ending bombardment of frequencies running through their bodies? How does that impact ecosystems and ultimately human health? Europe has more stringent standards on pulse-modulated RF radiation to protect the health of its citizens and wildlife- why don't we mirror their regulations as a starting point and add on as more research has accumulated? The cost of inaction is far too high- if HHS fails to produce relevant research to protect the health of all living beings, what is the cost to all of humanity? The cost of healthcare is already astronomical in the US. Could limiting the number of towers, satellites, smart devices, band frequencies and the power produced by these structures decrease the amount of human suffering and cost of "mystery" chronic disease states? Before any new technology is developed, I urge HHS to study chronic radiofrequency radiation exposure at ambient levels in a cohort study as well as RCT studies to assess the cellular and physiological changes with acute exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation. Please see the references attached as evidence to support my claims. The inaction of federal health agencies, including the HHS, in studying the biological and environmental effects of RFR and pulse-modulated RF radiation is extremely disappointing. As a Doctor and one who has been injured by RFR, I see the damage this has on my patients as well. I did not consent, nor do I consent today, to the continuous, involuntary exposure to biologically active RF radiation. Please allocate necessary funding to study RF radiation's effects on living beings. It is the ethical, responsible and humanitarian action to do that. Sincerely, Dr. Colton References: Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. PMID: 27454111. Kaszuba-Zwoińska J, Gremba J, Gałdzińska-Calik B, Wójcik-Piotrowicz K, Thor PJ. Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Przegl Lek. 2015;72(11):636-41. PMID: 27012122. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 2022 Oct 18;21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. PMID: 36253855; PMCID: PMC9576312.

Submitted Oct 13, 2026 Comment submitted by Dr Karl Maret regarding Request for Information on EMFs, RF and Wireless Radiation Exposure and its Impact on Health published in the Federal Register Vol 91, No 181 dated September 21, 2026. I am offering my expert opinion on the current danger of wireless radiation in today’s increasingly radio frequency and microwave radiation environment including sources from cell towers and antennas, WiFi and wireless transmitters, wireless devices in the home and office environment, cell phones and other cordless phones, and wireless smart meters. These wireless transmitters typically operate at present between 800 Megahertz (MHz) and 5 Gigahertz GHz), with new devices now coming into use with the latest 5G technologies that are capable of operating between 2.4 and 95 GHz using very short wavelengths called millimeter waves. This comment is in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Request for Information on EMFs, RF and Wireless Radiation Exposure and its Impact on Health published in the Federal Register Vol 91, No 181 dated September 21, 2026. I have given expert testimony regarding the dangers of this type of radio frequency radiation (RFR) based on my background as an electrical engineer, biomedical engineer and medical doctor who has also completed also a post-doctoral fellowship in physiology and served as a Bioscience Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces. Details of my background and contact information can be found in the longer Word document attached to this comment. Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act that established the U.S. nation-wide cellular communications network, there have been essentially no new health protection standards implemented to protect the general population despite massive research studies showing evidence of harm to the general population. Especially problematic is Radio Frequency Radiation that comes from transmitters close to the body as well as high powered transmitters from cell towers and antennas, microwave transmitters covering schools, housing projects and apartment complexes where the transmitters are often hidden in ceilings and walls. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is charged with protecting the public, has exposure standards that are principally suitable for short-term exposure and only those that concern heating or thermal effects while ignoring any long-term exposure and non-thermal effects that are now the norm. The widespread proliferation of this technology now in its 5th generation of development (5G), is viewed by hundreds of scientists throughout the world as hazardous to human welfare. The United States has one of the highest exposure guidelines in the developed world which is hundreds of times higher than permitted in other countries including China, Eastern European countries and Russia which have studied the long-term health effects of these RF radiations and chosen to protect their populations appropriately. We have known of the adverse health effects for at least five decades with thousands of studies demonstrating an increased incidence of brain tumors (gliomas, acoustic neuromas, glioblastomas and pituitary tumors) in addition to thyroid and parotid gland tumors. Breast cancers have been demonstrated in young women exactly at the multiple antenna sites who carried their cell phones inside their bras. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), has classified electromagnetic radiation as a Class 2B possible carcinogen in 2011 based on numerous scientific studies. My full comment and a brief summary of my past experience and qualifications are attached in the Word file attached as well as 2 PDFs of presentations that substantiate my concerns about the adverse health effects of long-term EMFs and the wireless radiation. I am writing this comment both as a past expert, a healthcare provider, and a very concerned living man who has observed great suffering from many electrosensitive people during 30 years of healthcare practice. Dr. Karl Maret cell (831) 539-3255 and email soniclight@ebold.com

In announcing this RFI, the Secretary noted that “our science must keep pace” with wireless technology. HHS has asked where federal research is needed most. From the front line, we see what is holding it back. Nudgr’s co-founders have completed well over 1,000 on-site EMF assessments, mostly in homes. Real-world wireless technology exposure there is multi-source, variable by the minute, and often arrives in short bursts. Much of the evidence base cannot see this. Laboratory studies typically apply one signal from one source. Population studies rely on proxies such as distance or phone-use time. Most instruments were designed to check compliance with heating and nerve-stimulation limits, not to record everyday exposure continuously. Research also moves slower than technology: the NTP study’s final reports on 2G/3G-type signals arrived in 2018, the year millimeter-wave 5G launched and after 3G retirement had been announced. The fix is to measure the exposure itself, continuously, in the places people live and sleep, with documented accuracy. This strengthens research whether future findings are positive, negative, or null. We recommend that NIH, with FDA and CDC, fund the development, independent validation, and deployment of real-world wireless technology exposure instrumentation, along with a common data standard linking exposure to health outcomes, through milestone-gated awards. Nudgr is developing such instrumentation (disclosed as a commercial interest; no proprietary information included) and would welcome participating in any HHS workshop on exposure measurement. The result: researchers, clinicians, and families get answers built on measured exposure, and new technologies such as 6G are characterized as they deploy, not two decades later. Our attachment answers Questions 2, 4, 5 (5n, 5o, 5p), and 6 through 18. Each section is tagged with the question numbers it answers, and a question index appears at the start of the attachment.e(s)

My request: Yes, directed energy weapons are actively used to target, abuse, torture, injure and kill people, including myself. This is my Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) RADAR Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. Yes, I am a victim of radiation exposure, poisoning and ill health effects due to the deployment of this infrastructure that is the cause of radiation sickness and death of all biological life forms. The Earth Military Industrial Complex is the source of this destruction, and this must stop immediately. We must host a live event where we will correct all wrongdoings, draw-up a plan of action to overhaul/clean-up the mess that this industry made, provide compensation for all people affected by these trespasses. I have written a document for you to read and respond to in writing. For ease of access, you can download this document straight from my Google Drive. Military SOLUTION - THE SACRED AGREEMENT WRIT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T691OkOzGjY16Z4_QEo_xTe8Ydr4agJL/view?usp=sharing Note: Here-in I present multiple business propositions for the attention of your Executive Commanders in the Department of Defence - Department of War; and I am presenting a criminal complaint that must be resolved, immediately. Military SOLUTION - THE SACRED AGREEMENT WRIT - Summary Within this latest document I show the reader that whatever the perceived phenomenon may be, the inevitable outcome of the process of inner development, growth and ascension is: you manifest and bring into existence the end of the end of the old: what you do not want, and it disappears... then you realise and recognise and affirm the existence of neutral potential creative energy... then you experience the magnificence of the beginning of the beginning of what you want, this manifestation appears.  We truly manifest our individual realities.  Within us are all the gifts given to us in the form of neutral potential creative energy: the first order form type from which all other form types may/can occur. Posited within this 'potentia' is: the second order form type, the positive constructional form; and the third order form type, the positive deconstructional form type, respectively.  I am a source of wisdom that embraces and radiates Innate Sacred Principles.  When you read my text, you will discover I write about principles.  I am an innovative thinker and I enjoy creativity. In essence I am an artist. From the position of creativity and creative energy that is everywhere within everything, I see the artist in every individual human being, you. Kindly read, think about, write your ideas and responses and send it to me via email. We can connect for a discussion any-time. This is a success story. Thank you for providing this service. Warm regards Mr. Nicolas du Plessis Republic of South Africa Mr. Nicolas Jean-Pierre du Plessis Email: duplessisnicolas03@gmail.com Phone number and WhatsApp: +27814640853 On Telegram Application: Name and surname: Nicolas du Plessis Telegram: @NicolasBusinessInnovator My local time zone: SAST (UTC +2), Cape Town, South Africa

Docket ID: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Regarding: Request for Information (RFI) on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure As a seasoned Care Manager & Multispecialty Office manager as well n individual caregiver with over ten years of lived environmental illness experience, alongside my husband a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, I am submitting my formal testimony to Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Because our response contains comprehensive historical tracking data, detailed case overviews, and active scientific hyperlinks that exceed the character limitations of this text field, we have attached our complete, unedited narrative and scientific review as a PDF titled: Attachment1_Master_Packet_Docket_HHS_OASH_2026_0397.pdf. Our submission provides specific, evidence-backed justifications addressing several core tracks of this RFI: 1. Public Experiences (Questions 2 & 3): We provide a complete longitudinal case history documenting how a high-density neighborhood 5G rollout and household wireless exposure directly aligned with an acute pediatric neuropsychiatric break, profound dissociation, encephalopathy, and severe autonomic degradation in our children. It outlines our eventual health stabilization achieved only by removing all wireless vectors and establishing an analog, hardwired sanctuary. Both impacted children have since grown into adulthood, providing the agency with a rare multi-year perspective on long-term environmental tracking. 2. Clinical Observations & Evidence Below Limits (Questions 4, 5, & 12): We present peer-reviewed biomedical evidence proving sub-thermal biological damage vastly below current federal thermal baselines. This includes Dr. Martin Pall’s research on Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) activation leading to blood-brain barrier permeability, which allows circulating mycotoxins and vector-borne neurotoxins (Lyme/Mold) to cross into the central nervous system. We also cite data demonstrating that ambient wireless radiation accelerates fungal pathogen defenses, directly increasing indoor mycotoxin production up to threefold. 3. Vulnerable Populations & K-12 Infrastructure Policy (Question 11): We formally demand federal recognition of biotoxin-sensitized and genetically vulnerable populations as a protected class. Furthermore, we call for an absolute mandate replacing wireless router networks with safe, hardwired fiber-optic infrastructure in K-12 school systems. Analysis of Policy Trade-offs: We acknowledge that a hardwired transition requires school districts to absorb upfront infrastructure retrofitting costs and adapt device-dependent lesson plans. However, these immediate costs are heavily outweighed by the massive, long-term public health savings, reduced student absenteeism, minimized chronic healthcare utilization, and superior local cybersecurity. This matches robust international precautionary health precedents already established in countries like France, Israel, and Cyprus. We urge the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate this cumulative environmental synergy, move past outdated thermal metrics, and call an emergency congressional and medical panel hearing to rebuild national safety parameters from scratch. Please see our attached PDF for our full, unedited narrative testimony and primary peer-reviewed journal citations. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Wright

I have experienced negative effects from both major kinds of EMFs: RF and what is commonly called dirty electricity from power cords and appliances. At one point, I could not even use a computer mouse for extended periods of time because it would cause pain in that hand that would immediately cease once lifting my hand. With RF, similarly, after 10-15 mins of exposure, I experience symptoms of headaches or a general fuzziness that is hard to describe. Avoiding these sources allows recovery and reduced sensitivity, and ability to withstand longer periods of exposure. My biggest concern is the lack of safety guidelines for things like localized 5g towers, and a general ignoring of expert calls for reevaluation, such as the bio initiative report. Recently, using an EMF meter, I have detected highly unsafe levels of electric radiation from underground powerlines running parallel to sidewalks, presenting an eminent danger to pedestrians, especially those who have to walk repeatedly along the same routes every day. I have also detected huge spikes in RF radiation near small cell towers and have seen them placed on schools and extremely close to residential apartments and houses.

Our neighborhood has been denied Due Process in a cell tower Application at Artist Falls Road in North Conway NH. It is a political decision that ignores safety of the residents. The neighborhood is less than 300 meters from this 160 ft Tower that starts at an elevation 20( twenty ) ft higher than the neighborhood. So a difference of 180 ft altogether. We will be effected severely according to Science.Our DNA is a fractal antenna and according to the Inverse square law ; we are in the area of greatest intensity in the electromagnetic fields.

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397: Request for Information on EMFs, RF Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Question 2: Perspective I am submitting this comment as an individual who experiences adverse symptoms from exposure to wireless radiation and other electromagnetic fields. Question 3: Personal Experience a. Sources: I react to cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, 5G, smart meters, wireless printers, and other smart or wireless devices. c. Symptoms: When exposed, I experience heart palpitations, elevated blood pressure, headaches, dizziness, nausea, disorientation, and elevated and erratic blood sugar. f. Steps taken to reduce exposure: I have no wireless internet or any kind of wireless device in my home other than a 4G cell phone for emergencies, which is kept off all of the time unless needed. Avoiding exposure has reshaped nearly every part of my life: Work: I cannot work anywhere other than at home. Housing: I cannot live in apartments or near other houses, buildings, or cell towers. Finding a safe home is becoming harder every year as wireless infrastructure expands. Transportation: I drive a 2003 vehicle because I cannot ride in most modern cars, which are full of wireless systems. Public life: I cannot stay in public places for long, and I cannot spend much time in the homes of friends and family. Healthcare and government services: I have had to walk out of medical appointments and appointments in government buildings because I became too sick to stay. Hospitals are among the hardest places for me to be. During one hospital stay, doctors did not understand why I became sicker and sicker until they realized that a wireless heart monitor was the cause and I improved once it was removed. However, the exposure usually comes from so many different sources in the building and the other equipment that the exposure cannot be removed or lowered enough. Because of this, I have had to avoid hospital stays or leave earlier than my doctors recommended. This is a serious problem when I need medical care. This is not a minor inconvenience. It limits my ability to earn a living, find housing, use transportation, receive medical care, access government services, and maintain relationships. Question 13(j) and Question 11(d) and (f): Wireless Medical Devices My doctor prescribed medical equipment that I cannot use because it relies on Bluetooth. As medical devices increasingly become wireless by default, people who react to RF exposure are being shut out of care they need. Wired or non-wireless alternatives should remain available for medical devices, and patients should be told whether a device emits RF and whether its wireless functions can be turned off. Question 11: Sensitive Populations Yes, exposure assessment should differ for sensitive populations. In addition to children and pregnant women, HHS should recognize people who experience symptoms from RF/EMF exposure as a population that needs specific study and protection (11g). Case reports have documented people developing symptoms after nearby 5G installations [18], and studies of people living near cell towers have reported symptoms such as headache, dizziness, and sleep problems [19, 20], as well as changes in blood sugar [25]. Children absorb more RF radiation into their brains and bodies than adults do [1, 2, 21]. Prenatal exposure has been linked to neurodevelopmental and behavioral changes in animals [3], and RF exposure has been associated with effects on memory performance in adolescents [4]. Question 12: Evidence of Effects Below Current Limits Current federal limits were set in 1996 and are based mainly on heating. Research has reported biological effects at levels below these limits, including oxidative stress [5], DNA damage [6, 7, 8], reproductive harm [9, 10, 11, 12], and tumors in animals exposed over their lifetimes [13]. Reviews conclude that non-thermal effects are not accounted for by current limits [14, 22, 23]. Question 14: Environmental Effects RF radiation may also affect wildlife, including bird and insect orientation and insect exposure at higher frequencies [15, 16, 17]. Recommendations [24] 1. Fund independent research on long-term and cumulative exposure. 2. Develop science-based exposure limits that account for non-thermal effects. 3. Require safety testing of wireless devices before they go on the market, and track health problems after. 4. Improve oversight and enforcement of exposure limits. 5. Reduce exposures for children, vulnerable groups, and wildlife. 6. Require wired or non-wireless options for medical devices. 7. Create low-EMF areas in hospitals, medical offices, and government buildings. 8. Require clear disclosure of RF emissions from devices, vehicles, and infrastructure. References are provided in the attached PDF.

I am submitting this comment as a resident of Paris, France, living near a site hosting multiple mobile phone base stations. My purpose is not to provide a scientific conclusion but to present information that may be relevant to the HHS and FCC's review of real-world RF exposure issues. In my residence, concerns have arisen regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from nearby telecommunications antennas. Independent measurements commissioned by me reported significantly higher exposure levels than those previously identified through an official measurement process. French authorities, through the Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR), informed me that an official measurement performed in my residence on 25 January 2024 resulted in a global exposure level of 4.29 V/m and concluded that the installation complied with the applicable French regulations. The ANFR stated that this value was below the 6 V/m threshold used at that time to identify an atypical exposure situation. However, subsequent measurements obtained independently reported substantially higher values, including measurements reaching approximately 30 V/m according to the documentation submitted to the French authorities. Because of this discrepancy between the official measurement and the subsequent measurements, I believe that additional attention should be given to: Real-world residential exposure conditions near wireless infrastructure; Variability of exposure levels over time; Measurement methodologies and their limitations; Long-term exposure assessment in occupied dwellings; Transparency and reproducibility of exposure measurements. For transparency, I am submitting both the independent measurement report and the response received from the ANFR. I respectfully request that the FCC consider situations where different measurement campaigns may produce significantly different results and evaluate whether additional research or monitoring could help improve public understanding of residential RF exposure. The existence of materially different measurement results in the same dwelling illustrates why ongoing scientific review and independent verification remain important for public confidence in RF exposure assessments. Thank you for considering this information.

I am submitting this comment as a resident of Paris, France, living near a site hosting multiple mobile phone base stations. My purpose is not to provide a scientific conclusion but to present information that may be relevant to the FCC's review of real-world RF exposure issues. In my residence, concerns have arisen regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from nearby telecommunications antennas. Independent measurements commissioned by me reported significantly higher exposure levels than those previously identified through an official measurement process. French authorities, through the Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR), informed me that an official measurement performed in my residence on 25 January 2024 resulted in a global exposure level of 4.29 V/m and concluded that the installation complied with the applicable French regulations. The ANFR stated that this value was below the 6 V/m threshold used at that time to identify an atypical exposure situation. However, subsequent measurements obtained independently reported substantially higher values, including measurements reaching approximately 30 V/m according to the documentation submitted to the French authorities. Because of this discrepancy between the official measurement and the subsequent measurements, I believe that additional attention should be given to: Real-world residential exposure conditions near wireless infrastructure; Variability of exposure levels over time; Measurement methodologies and their limitations; Long-term exposure assessment in occupied dwellings; Transparency and reproducibility of exposure measurements. For transparency, I am submitting both the independent measurement report and the response received from the ANFR. I respectfully request that the FCC consider situations where different measurement campaigns may produce significantly different results and evaluate whether additional research or monitoring could help improve public understanding of residential RF exposure. The existence of materially different measurement results in the same dwelling illustrates why ongoing scientific review and independent verification remain important for public confidence in RF exposure assessments. Thank you for considering this information.