AI summary & topic connections

Describes a shortened menstrual cycle while living under power lines and a return to the previous pattern after leaving. Raises a separate premature-birth concern while acknowledging other explanations, and asks agencies to consider research.

  • Reproduction & pregnancy: “my menstrual cycle changed from 27-28 days to 23-24”
  • Power lines, wiring & solar: “directly under high tension power lines”
  • Occupational exposure: “Farm laborers stayed in a little cabin”
  • Research & federal duties: “Please trust scientists who are calling out the potential and known health effects”

Matched review of original text; attachments excluded. Review provenance

ORIGINAL COMMENT · UNEDITED TEXT
I have several anecdotal stories to share. The first dates back to summer of 1993. I was a healthy college grad working for minimum wage on a farm in Newburg, MD. Farm laborers stayed in a little cabin directly under high tension power lines. This was just at the inception of the internet. No 3G or 4G or 5G radiation yet vibrating. For the 4 months I stayed on the farm, I continued to be generally healthy, but my menstrual cycle changed from 27-28 days to 23-24. That's about 3 weeks to do 4 weeks worth of hormonal work. After I left the farm (end of harvest season), the very first month I was away from those power lines, my cycle bounced back to 28 days. I thank God that I was under that influence for only a few months. And for what it may be worth, the farmer's wife had stayed in that same cabin while pregnant and her child was born 8 weeks premature. Of course there are many reasons babies are born early, but it's hard for me not to think the constant exposure to EMF's so close to her developing fetus could have influenced the pregnancy. From what I've read and listened to from those who actually investigate the scientific studies into health effects of EMF's, these kinds of changes are quite common with nearby exposure. Please trust scientists who are calling out the potential and known health effects based on unbiased rigorous scientific research. Much of this literature is decades old, but still valid. Unfortunately, much more is being done as our collective exposures have only increased without government regulations and without morality based corporate self-restraint. Sincerely concerned, Jennifer C Darling