All HHS comments · page 6

Re: Department of Health and Human Services - Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure 1. I reside in The Borough of Harrow, Greater London, United Kingdom. 2. Though I live in the UK, unfortunately, I have had much the same experience as those residing the US – involuntary exposure to RF/EMFs. I hope the following information about my personal experience will help HHS in assessing the situation in the US, which may additionally be of benefit to regulatory bodies in other countries. 3a. Type of sources: Wi-Fi, digital meters, smart phones 3b - g.:- In 2023, the copper landline to the telephone in our home was removed by British Telecom and replaced with connection via a WiFi router, etc. From that date onwards, my husband and I suffered from severe insomnia. While awake during the night, I was sometimes aware of my heart seeming to beat faster. We did not seek medical advice but subsequently found a way to switch off the WIFi facility from the router, which has considerably improved our sleep and health overall. I find that limiting exposure by switching off my phone from two hours before bedtime every night until the next morning helps to mitigate the effects of the RF/EMF radiation emitted from it, as well as putting it on airplane mode when possible. However, after spending time surrounded by a number of people who all have their smartphones on, my sleep is much more restless and disturbed. 4. Since qualifying and starting to practice as a Feng Shui consultant from the early 2000s, I have developed a particular interest in the effects of environmental stress factors on my, and my clients’ health. After following my advice to ensure that their communication and other electromagnetically-powered equipment is connected by ethernet cables and that devices using wireless radiation are turned off at night, my clients often report improved sleep and other benefits such as lowered blood pressure. I also wish to report the physical harm to the tenants of 10 single studio apartments that my husband and I rent out, caused by the installation of RF/MW digital utility meters. In early 2023,…

Read the full comment →

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 36 years of research Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, August 25, 2026 https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html The preponderance of peer-reviewed research published since 1990 has found significant adverse effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation and extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF, has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency (RFR) and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields (EMF). His set of abstracts, which covers the period from 1990 through May 2026, constitutes a comprehensive collection of the peer-reviewed publications of in vivo and in vitro research. Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover, the preponderance of studies that examine genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes have found significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 72% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 78% to 90% reported significant effects. According to Dr. Lai, 260 low-intensity (SAR < 0.40 W/kg) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure studies published since 1990 reported significant effects: "This means that biological systems are very sensitive to RFR. Moreover, it is clear that the current RFR exposure guidelines do not prevent the detrimental health effects of RFR." The entire collection contains abstracts for more than 3,000 published papers. The abstracts can be downloaded by clicking on the links below. Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification. Summary of Results (Last…

Read the full comment →

I've attached my public comment sharing my family's personal experiences with RF radiation, my concerns about human health and wildlife, and the changes I believe are needed to better protect the public. I've also included scientific studies supporting my concerns.

We urgently need regulations that give consumers the choice to deactivate in a simple way all wireless emissions when buying a new car. In other words, a consumer should be able to put his or her car in ‘airplane’ mode.

This is especially important for people with electrohypersensitivity (EHS). Please find attached a list of scientific studies on electrohypersensitivity.

Also, there should be a free or affordable opt-out (preferably consisting of an analog meter) for smart meters in all US states.

Please see my comments in the attached file.

Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields from 2016 to 2026

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, October 14, 2026

https://www.saferemr.com/2022/06/recent-research-on-wireless-radiation.html

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety has been circulating abstracts of newly-published scientific papers on radio frequency and other non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) monthly since 2016. The complete collection contains almost 3,000 abstracts with links to these papers. Several hundred EMF scientists around the world receive these updates.

The three volumes of this collection are attached.

Volume 1: 2016 – 2020, 875 pages

Volume 2: 2021 – 2023, 867 pages

Volume 3: 2024 – October 2026, 763 pages

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. Q2 perspective: individual consumer. Answers Q5(o), 5(p), 6, 8, 11(a), 12, 13, 16. Labels: [GR] government report, [PR] peer-reviewed; status ESTABLISHED, EMERGING or UNCERTAIN. SUMMARY. U.S. limits (FCC, last updated 1996) guard against heating: a 4 W/kg animal threshold cut about 50-fold [GR, ESTABLISHED]. Federal bodies have questioned whether they cover chronic, body-contact or childhood exposure (FDA 1999, GAO 2012, D.C. Cir. 2021). FDA told NTP in 1999 there was "insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a risk" [GR]. We believe that remains the honest state of knowledge, and it calls for research and prudence. 1. CELLULAR EFFECTS AT OR BELOW LIMITS (Q6, Q12) [EMERGING] - NCRP Report 86 (1986): athermal interactions "have been demonstrated for fields both strong and weak" [GR]. - Swiss BERENIS (2021): "the majority of the animal and more than half of the cell studies provided evidence of increased oxidative stress" (RF and ELF studies pooled), some "below the regulatory limits"; harm is likelier when redox balance is disturbed "over a long period of time." It notes study weaknesses [GR]. - Volkow, JAMA 2011: 50 min of phone exposure raised brain glucose metabolism near the antenna (P=.004), "of unknown clinical significance" [PR]. - Schmid, J Sleep Res 2012: "both pulse-modulated radio frequency and pulsed magnetic fields affect brain physiology" (sleep EEG) [PR]. Signal pattern, not only power, matters (Q5(p)). - Lerchl, BBRC 2015: in carcinogen-treated mice, liver tumors rose at 0.04 W/kg (half the 0.08 W/kg whole-body limit) and lung tumors at 0.4 W/kg, replicating Tillmann 2010; no dose-response [PR]. - NTP TR-595 (2018): "clear evidence" of heart schwannomas in male rats [GR]; NIEHS cautions the findings "should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage." These are biological signals; whether they cause disease in people is UNCERTAIN. 2. LONG-TERM EXPOSURE IS UNTESTED (Q6, Q16) [ESTABLISHED gap] - FDA 1999: limits "may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures" [GR]. - UK AGNIR 2012: human data…

Read the full comment →

Complete top to bottom regulatory capture. We need a national smart meter opt out on individual residences for all types of technologies for every utility available, electricity, natural gas, water, and beyond. Local energy and utility companies consistently refuse to offer opt outs, charge punitive pricing for those whom refuse smart grid systems, refuse to listen, deceive customers about the dangers of these technological items, and force us to have them on our homes. We want cell towers of all kinds removed from all public parks and public schools for similar safety concern reasons. We were supposed to have low priced broadband and fiber optic access, which is what 1990's infrastructure built out subsidies and grants were intended for. Instead the telecom companies hijacked the infrastructure and sold everyone high price cellular instead, built on the backbone of the fiberoptic network the public paid for, for public benefit and low priced access. The biological damage from these technologies goes far beyond thermal heating. Bees and pollinators are at historically low numbers, we are experiencing an insect and other biological forms of life die off on this planet. Please will someone force a removal of the never ending new satellites in the sky and get that under control immediately? We do not need to blanket the entire earth with wireless access emf fields. The corporations pushing these technologies are clearly unchecked and effectively unregulated at this point. We need additional investment in fiberoptic with public access everywhere there may be sub standard connectivity. The last thing we need anywhere is another technological smart device or spyware data broker collection device anywhere. Get every single one of these out of our public areas immediately please. Keep it wired. Keep it safe. From wireless devices within the homes, for entertainment, work purposes, the unwelcome injection of synching devices pervading everything everywhere, clearly there is no regulatory check to these industries. These have deleterious and cumulative negative effects on human health, down to the cellular level. The damage builds the more emf field exposure is present.…

Read the full comment →

HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure

I am submitting this report today in regard to the health effects that I am suffering from wireless radiation exposure and the medical condition known as Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (hereafter EMR-S). As a targeted individual, I am also testifying to a greater severity of symptoms that I have suffered from the same wireless technology being deployed as a weapons system.

I begin with the question: what is actually happening when we are experiencing EMR-S? Do EMR-S sufferers grow ill from energy passively radiating from WiFi in the normal course of its operation, or are we sick because its beam-forming and steering capabilities have been activated to issue energy to a specific spot with precision aim? When we get tinnitus, is it because auditory nerves are aggravated by the EMR, or is it possible that modulated waves are being issued to engage the hearing mechanism? If one gets irritated eyes, is it merely irritation from being immersed in the EMR, or is there an attempt to engage the retinas for some unknown purpose? Lastly, could it be that sufferers of EMR-S are unwitting subjects in nonconsensual human experimentation, and that those who identify as targeted individuals are the ones subjected to the most severe operations? And might the latter category include whistleblowers being issued directed energy to sicken and disable, to overwhelm their ability to come forward, or to punish and suppress free speech, activism or dissent, toward the goal of establishing a system of totalitarian control?

Sun Tzu said: know your enemy and you can win 100 battles. But do we know our enemy?

In addition to reporting my medical symptoms, this report also chooses to take a holistic approach to addressing the multi-dimensional problems that I believe need to be addressed in order to give a broader understanding of the kind of networking we need to achieve solutions. See attachments.

I declare the following testimony under penalty of perjury. 1. Because of Tech and Telecom industry money and influence, the general public have no idea how dangerous RF Microwave radiation actually is. RF aka RadioFrequency is pulsed Microwave radiation. RFR has never been deemed safe. For instance RF in the form of mMwave 5G technology has never been safety tested. Forgive my candor but I find it comical the Dept of Health and Human Services is asking for scientific data or documentation when the majority of studies and research has been performed by the U.S. Military and several large universities around the world. The National Toxicology Program Study in 2018 found RF to be a clear evidence of carcinogenic harm. To seek the studies, look at the records for RadioFrequency Microwave Radiation in our own U.S. Government archives. Look at the 2018 National Toxicology Program Study of Cell Phone radiation determining it causes cancer. 2. I have been disabled from chronic exposure to wireless RadioFrequency Radiation or RFR. This exposure started in 1992 when I had a Motorola old style car phone. I had a StarTac phone in 1997. I had the first iPhone available on June 29, 2007. I used Wi-Fi from 2000 until 2012 when I started noticing negative health effects near RF. I was a person who loved technology, until it made me incredibly sick. 3. I was officially disabled under United States Social Security Disability rules. I continue to be sick if I am in a typical public space where there are RF signals. The symptoms that I have near RF microwave radiation are heart irregularities, racing heart over 120-160 bpm and palpitations. I have BP spikes and crashes that lead to collapse. RF increases my blood glucose to over 100 (normally 60-80). I get severe migraines that will result in brain swelling with nausea and vomiting and loss of consciousness/collapse. I developed so many health problems and illness over a 10-12 year period, I honestly lose count when I have to fill out Medical intake forms! I have cPTSD, severe Anxiety, OCD, Major Depression, ADD, Cognitive issues (poor memory, mood) Insomnia, Chronic Fatigue, Tinnitus, muscle spasms and tension, dry skin, dry…

Read the full comment →

Since one of this 5G masts was built near my daughter’s school (north London) she’s constantly complaining about headaches. She’s only 11 years old and never had headaches before and she isn’t the only one from her class whose kids are too sensitive now. We’ve measured the radiation levels and although it falls into “safe” exposure, clearly isn’t safe.

I am submitting this report as an individual, and the sources of wireless technology involved are primarily smart meters and Wi-Fi. I am in my eighties and was in excellent health until, in 2020, extended exposures to RF wireless radiation from smart meters and then a neighbor’s Wi-Fi router made me extremely ill, leaving me thereafter with severe electrohypersensitivity and a markedly reduced quality of life. On February 18, 2020, fourteen new smart meters were installed downstairs in my two-story apartment building, about 50 feet from my unit. These meters emit up to 110,000 µW/m2 when measured up close with a Safe and Sound Pro II Broadband RF Meter. Within a week, I began experiencing head pressure, balance problems and heart arrhythmia. On March 22, my heart was behaving so erratically I thought I might have a heart attack. On March 27, a health practitioner discovered my systolic blood pressure was 205 and drove me to the Emergency Room. Two days later, due to continual chest pain, I went back to the ER and stayed overnight. The following day, medical tests were done, including blood work, brain scan, EKG and heart ultrasound. The only problem found was high blood pressure, for which I was prescribed medication. The doctor concluded the cause was “situational,” which, for me, aligned with the smart-meter installation. In the previous year, I’d experienced some unusual balance issues and tiredness, and research indicated these could be effects of nearby cell towers/antennas. I purchased meters to measure each type of EMF in my apartment, and based on RF readings, I decided to shield my windows and get a shielded bed canopy. Readings inside the canopy range between 0.04 µW/m2 and 0.2 µW/m2, making it a safe sleeping space. Over the next few months, my symptoms subsided, and my blood pressure began to stabilize. Then, in July, someone moved into the apartment below (which had been empty for some time) and installed a Wi-Fi router, which ran 24/7. My radiation symptoms returned in full force, and over the next two months, my systolic blood pressure spiked between 200 and 250 almost every day. I was bedridden most of this time, with nauseating head pressure,…

Read the full comment →

See attached file(s)

See attached file(s)

To Whom it May Concern: Please think about the future of the children in your lives by looking at current research on how the existing RF exposures may be harming us all and our environment. Thank you.

I am writing in response to Docket ID HHS-OASH-2026-0397. 2. In your response, please describe which perspective(s) your comments represent: I write my response in perspective of an Individual Consumer. a. The type(s) of wireless technology or RF/EMF source(s) involved ( e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wireless infrastructure, wearable devices, occupational equipment). My primary concern is with wireless technology that has been installed on sidewalks, utility poles, and rooftops of residential buildings and schools. The technology was installed within the last nine years. Under FCC terminology the devices would be fall under the umbrella of Intentional radiators. A more specific term is wirelss infrastructure technology installed on public rights of way along with the auxillary devices such as smart meters that communicate with wireless infrastructure technology. Wireless Technology infratructure goes beyond mobile and wifi devices intentioned for house hold or personal use. They operate constantly twenty-four hours a day once installed and have been increasing prolonged exposure levels of non-ionizing radiation. There is very little remediation effort a person can do on their own except keep away as far away as possible. b. The nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing of the reported exposure(s). If an installation is in close proximity to their home or dwelling a person is being forcibly exposed to nonionizing radiation for prolonged periods on a daily basis. The time spent cooking, cleaning, resting, or simply enjoying one's own dwelling may develop into a health hazard. When daily sleeping patterns are included of 5 to 8 hours adverse health effect will most likely increase since we are still for the majority of time we sleep. Scientific studies show that children and the elderly are more impacted. Children have thinner skulls increasing the absorption of non-ionizing radiation in the brain. The elderly are less mobile than middle-aged adults and have weaker immune systems increasing the adverse effects of RadioFrequency Radiation. Any person with mobility issues or immuno difficiency will also suffer greater adverse effects. n. What…

Read the full comment →

These attached comments are being submitted posthumously on behalf of Lily Sinnamon of Stafford Springs, CT. At the age of 85, Lily passed away in August 2026, four years after Eversource put an advanced digital electric meter on her house, directly causing a health decline that eventually wore her down.

This is the letter that I helped Lily compose where she beseeched Eversource to replace this new injurious electrical meter with whatever version she had before (previously she had one that only broadcast once a month instead of every 30 seconds). We sent it in 2023to Eversource Management, including each Board of Trustees member. Eversource insisted that this meter was deemed completely safe with the sole justification being that its RF/EMF emanations were all within the allowed FCC exposure guidelines. It did not matter that Lily was made immediately ill from its presence, they would not make any accommodation.

Due to the lax US exposure guidelines for radio frequency emanations and conduction EMI noise levels -- which were never calibrated for long-term proximity to frail, elderly persons -- poorly engineered products that spew dangerous levels of RF/EMF toxic energy are routinely put into the public space. Here, Eversource forced such injurious technology into the private space of its customers, with the careless regard of any monopoly -- it is 'our way or the highway'. The Duty of Care requirements, to not cause harm to the public by their actions or products, should be enforced vigorously in such cases; instead, such companies are given a free pass because of the safety claim solely based on misapplied exposure guidelines from the FCC.

Lily deserved much better than to have her health ruined and her life shortened.

Submitted by Ken Gartner of Warren, MA

Attachments:

------------

Jan 18 2023 - Letter to Board of Trustees for Eversource

Jan 30, 2023 - Response from Eversource Legal Department

Feb 10, 2023 - Letter to Eversource

July 20, 2023 - Letter to Eversource

July 1, 2024 - Letter of Outrage to Eversource

April 17, 2025 - Letter to Eversource

Aug 12, 2026 -- Eulogy I wrote for Lily Sinnamon

I am writing to formally submit evidence and personal testimony regarding the adverse health and biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs), as requested by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a long-term advocate and the former founder and owner of a dedicated European platform for individuals affected by electromagnetic radiation (formerly betroffene-elektromagnetische-strahlung.com, recently transitioned in July 2026), I have spent over seven years documenting, analyzing, and consolidating the health complaints of citizens affected by these environmental factors. During this time, our platform was contacted by more than 350 affected individuals from all over the world. Their documented experiences demonstrate that these neurological and physical symptoms constitute a global phenomenon, affecting ordinary citizens worldwide and across borders. In response to the specific categories of your Request for Information (RFI), I submit that the biological impacts of RF exposure are measurable and verifiable. Over years of documentation, the following evidence has been compiled to substantiate these biological effects: 1. Medical and Biological Data: Objective medical reports and RF body-scan analyses showing physiological stress, neurological disruption, and specific biological anomalies corresponding with proximity to high-frequency radiation sources. 2. Technical and Investigative Documentation: Detailed evidence consisting of 2. investigative reports, environmental monitoring, video documentation, and eyewitness testimonies that track the presence of elevated EMF/RF levels and their immediate impact on human health. 3. Historical and Regulatory Context: Corroborating documentation including historical governmental research frameworks (such as legacy documentation regarding neuro-electromagnetic research) and registered public patents demonstrating the established technical capability of high-frequency fields to interact directly with human biological and neurological systems. The compiled documentation strongly suggests that current exposure thresholds do not adequately protect public health from…

Read the full comment →

I am submitting the attached scientific comment and 10 peer-reviewed publications in response to HHS Request for Information HHS-OASH-2026-0397.

These publications present experimental findings and theoretical analyses concerning biological responses to weak static magnetic fields, extremely low-frequency fields, and radiofrequency exposures. The attached comment highlights the importance of exposure characterization, carrier frequency, modulation, background magnetic fields, cellular responses, and potential biological mechanisms.

I encourage HHS to consider this evidence in its scientific review and in identifying priorities for future research and exposure-guideline development.

Frank S. Barnes, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor Emeritus

University of Colorado Boulder

I am grateful to HHS for opening up the opportunity for the public to share concerns about the lack of balanced consideration of scientific research in setting regulations around wireless radiation. I have read dozens of studies that point to possible health concerns around overexposure to non-ionizing radiation. The suffix "non" in "non-ionizing" is often used as if it automatically implied "non-harmful" but these terms are not synonymous. Like many people, I have had friends and relatives die of brain tumors after spending years with a mobile phone pressed against their head — but while I am convinced by this to use speaker phone, I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence and therefore only compelling to me. I will attach with my comment several studies I have read that document real physical effects of non-ionizing radiation on the human body; these studies are all peer-reviewed and published in respected medical journals. I recognize that the science is still being debated, but the people conducting these studies are credible, credentialed scientists with PhDs and medical doctorates in a variety of related sciences. Medical doctors, engineers, physicists, epidemiologists of world renown are all reporting that there are serious considerations to the health impacts of this technology. Most of us are not shouting "Get a horse!" at passing cars; we are shouting "Get a catalytic converter!" We know that cell phones are part of 21st century life, but that doesn't necessarily require putting cell towers on top of schools, for example, when we are learning that children's thinner skulls and developing brains make them more vulnerable to all forms of radiation. Until government became involved and began regulating emissions from automobiles, car companies would have had us believe that toxic emissions were a necessary part of operating a vehicle, or that fumes you couldn't see or smell couldn't hurt you. Thank goodness all over the world government regulators called BS and forced car manufacturers to find a better way. 21st century cars may not be perfect, but they are less harmful to the environment and to human health than 20th century cars were. They found a…

Read the full comment →