{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085","number":"6085","name":"","organization":"EMF Check","posted":"2026-10-28T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-20T04:00Z","body":"Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397\nFR Doc No: 2026-19252\nComment Submitted By: Rex Funk\nAffiliation: EMF Consultant / Member of the Public\nAttachments: Three peer-reviewed studies (see attached PDFs)\n\nTo the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health:\n\nI am submitting this comment as an individual with direct personal\nexperience of adverse health effects from radiofrequency (RF) exposure,\nand now as an EMF consultant working with others who share these\nexperiences.\n\nBACKGROUND AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE\n\nIn 2018 I became aware of negative health reactions to RF exposure from\ncell phones, Wi-Fi, and related wireless sources. I learned to reduce my\nexposure and to avoid exposures in public spaces. This has been a\ntormenting experience and it remains very difficult to function in\nmainstream society, because RF sources are now essentially everywhere.\n\nI am unable to work in typical job settings. I now work as an EMF\nconsultant helping people who are also noticing reactions to RF and other\nforms of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Some of my clients are even more\nsensitive than I am and have suffered greatly — unable to function\nnormally in society or even in their own homes — simply because these\ndevices were assumed safe without proper consideration of true safety.\nThey must spend thousands of dollars to identify and mitigate\nenvironmental stressors, and many cannot afford to improve their\nsituation at all.\n\nRESPONSES TO SPECIFIC RFI QUESTIONS\n\n1. Effects below current exposure limits. The assumption that heating\n   (thermal) effects are the only relevant biological mechanism is not\n   acceptable. Thousands of independent, peer-reviewed studies report\n   biological effects beyond thermal mechanisms, and this literature has\n   been largely ignored in U.S. policy. I have attached three such\n   studies for your consideration. HHS should commission systematic\n   reviews of this body of evidence rather than relying solely on\n   assessments that discount it.\n\n2. Sensitive populations. Children are being enabled to grow up in a sea\n   of RF radiation without adequate study of possible effects on the\n   developing body. This should not be tolerated. Dedicated pediatric\n   research, and precautionary measures in schools pending that research,\n   should be a funding priority.\n\n3. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Federal research\n   agendas should include affected individuals as a defined population:\n   clinical characterization, diagnostic criteria, disability\n   accommodations, and access to low-EMF environments. Many people like\n   my clients cannot work, attend school, or use public services.\n\n4. Practical guidance and mitigation access. HHS should publish plain-\n   language exposure-reduction guidance and consider how to make\n   assessment and mitigation affordable. At present, relief is available\n   only to those who can pay thousands of dollars out of pocket.\n\n5. Research priorities. Highest priorities in my view: long-term studies\n   of chronic low-level exposure; personal dosimetry reflecting real-\n   world use; studies of children and adolescents; and mechanistic work\n   on non-thermal biological effects.\n\nI support transparent, science-informed decision-making and urge HHS to\ntreat the existing independent literature — and the lived experience of\nthousands of affected people — with the seriousness it deserves.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\nRex Funk\nWoodstock, NY\nrex@emfcheck.com\n845-853-6060","attachments":["https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085/attachment_1.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085/attachment_2.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085/attachment_3.pdf"],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085","tags":["child-development","health-experiences","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"925b4e42eca60911ba5f5590a3aa231e12c757f672c86f6061645dcdf5bd5798","slug":"child-development-comment-6085","classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085","body_sha256":"bd7871cac19877e7f7119065dea5dc06d23281c49a01d0fdf1eb76ee899db3c6","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"access","topics":[{"id":"access","evidence":"ources are now essentially everywhere.\n\nI am unable to work in typical job settings. I now work as an EMF\nconsultant helping"},{"id":"ehs","evidence":"hould be a funding priority.\n\n3. People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Federal research\n   agendas should include affected indiv"},{"id":"children","evidence":"that discount it.\n\n2. Sensitive populations. Children are being enabled to grow up in a sea\n   of RF radiation without adequate "},{"id":"research","evidence":"or your consideration. HHS should commission systematic\n   reviews of this body of evidence rather than relying solely o"},{"id":"standards","evidence":" TO SPECIFIC RFI QUESTIONS\n\n1. Effects below current exposure limits. The assumption that heating\n   (thermal) effects are the only r"}],"summary":"An EMF consultant describes work and access limitations among affected people and requests systematic reviews, pediatric research, EHS inclusion and affordable mitigation.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-28T23:54:32Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"a5acfce446b8746ff8b0e723dee28c4893d385fdea9f02bb5c02fe154da22e2f","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"forum_topics":["access","ehs","children","research","standards"],"primary_topic":"access","forum_title":"An EMF consultant describes work and access limitations among affected people and requests systematic rev…"}