Questions the need for further inquiry, cites existing research and argues that insurance exclusions refl…

HHS public comment #4620 · HHS-OASH-2026-0397 · 2026-10-26

#1Questions the need for further inquiry, cites existing research and argues that insurance exclusions refl…by Deborah Short » 2026-10-26
AI summary & topic connections

Questions the need for further inquiry, cites existing research and argues that insurance exclusions reflect EMF-related risks.

  • Other concerns: electromagnetic fields and have very clear “electromagnetic field exclusions”
  • Research & federal duties: place. There are thousands upon thousands of research studies that show this poison is killing us. Also Electromagnetic Field

AI-reviewed source analysis of the original text, not verified medical findings. Attachments are not reviewed.

Original comment · unedited text

I'm not sure why this exercise is even taking place. There are thousands upon thousands of research studies that show this poison is killing us. Also Electromagnetic Fields are defined as a “pollutant” by insurance companies and often require special coverage as a “pollutant” in policy enhancements

Due to the high risk that electromagnetic (EMF) field exposure poses, most insurance companies do not cover electromagnetic fields and have very clear “electromagnetic field exclusions”

Share this public comment

Share guide: link to the comment page, quote the commenter's own words, and point people to the official docket to file their own comment.

Discuss this comment

Replies are reviewed before they appear. This is a community discussion, not an official HHS filing.

Replies