HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6085

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