An EMF consultant describes work and access limitations among affected people and requests systematic rev…

Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397

FR Doc No: 2026-19252

Comment Submitted By: Rex Funk

Affiliation: EMF Consultant / Member of the Public

Attachments: Three peer-reviewed studies (see attached PDFs)

To the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health:

I am submitting this comment as an individual with direct personal

experience of adverse health effects from radiofrequency (RF) exposure,

and now as an EMF consultant working with others who share these

experiences.

BACKGROUND AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

In 2018 I became aware of negative health reactions to RF exposure from

cell phones, Wi-Fi, and related wireless sources. I learned to reduce my

exposure and to avoid exposures in public spaces. This has been a

tormenting experience and it remains very difficult to function in

mainstream society, because RF sources are now essentially everywhere.

I am unable to work in typical job settings. I now work as an EMF

consultant helping people who are also noticing reactions to RF and other

forms of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Some of my clients are even more

sensitive than I am and have suffered greatly — unable to function

normally in society or even in their own homes — simply because these

devices were assumed safe without proper consideration of true safety.

They must spend thousands of dollars to identify and mitigate

environmental stressors, and many cannot afford to improve their

situation at all.

RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC RFI QUESTIONS

1. Effects below current exposure limits. The assumption that heating

(thermal) effects are the only relevant biological mechanism is not

acceptable. Thousands of independent, peer-reviewed studies report

biological effects beyond thermal mechanisms, and this literature has

been largely ignored in U.S. policy. I have attached three such

studies for your consideration. HHS should commission systematic

reviews of this body of evidence rather than relying solely on

assessments that discount it.

2. Sensitive populations. Children are being enabled to grow up in a sea

of RF radiation without adequate study of possible effects on the

developing body. This should not be tolerated. Dedicated pediatric

research, and precautionary measures in schools pending that research,

should be a funding priority.

3. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Federal research

agendas should include affected individuals as a defined population:

clinical characterization, diagnostic criteria, disability

accommodations, and access to low-EMF environments. Many people like

my clients cannot work, attend school, or use public services.

4. Practical guidance and mitigation access. HHS should publish plain-

language exposure-reduction guidance and consider how to make

assessment and mitigation affordable. At present, relief is available

only to those who can pay thousands of dollars out of pocket.

5. Research priorities. Highest priorities in my view: long-term studies

of chronic low-level exposure; personal dosimetry reflecting real-

world use; studies of children and adolescents; and mechanistic work

on non-thermal biological effects.

I support transparent, science-informed decision-making and urge HHS to

treat the existing independent literature — and the lived experience of

thousands of affected people — with the seriousness it deserves.

Respectfully submitted,

Rex Funk

Woodstock, NY

rex@emfcheck.com

845-853-6060