The commenter alleges targeted RF harassment and requests independent long-term research, international s…

here's a draft — paste-ready for the docket (comments are public on regulations.gov, so your name shows unless you submit without it): ----- To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure — Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 My name is Brandon Parncutt. I live in York, Pennsylvania, and I'm writing as a member of the public, not a scientist or an industry representative. For most of my life I have experienced what is commonly called the targeted individual phenomenon — a pattern of harassment and physical symptoms that I believe is connected to directed RF/EMF exposure. I understand this experience is hard to verify from the outside. I'm not asking HHS to take my word for any of it. I'm asking for serious, independent research, because right now people like me are left completely on our own. I spend my own limited income on basic mitigation — ferrite cable clamps, shielding materials, EMF meters — with no official guidance on whether any of it helps, because there is no research base to draw on. A few specific points for this RFI: 1. The current U.S. exposure limits still rest on the FCC's 1996 thermal-only framework. Many other countries — Italy, Switzerland, Russia, and China among them — enforce limits far stricter than ours. HHS should publish an honest comparison of these standards and explain, in plain language, why Americans are assumed safe at exposure levels other governments reject. 2. Non-thermal and long-term low-level effects remain a genuine research gap. Most funded studies are short-term and many are industry-funded. We need long-term, independently funded research, including studies of people who report sensitivity and symptoms, studied respectfully as patients rather than dismissed. 3. Real-world exposure is not tracked. Wireless infrastructure keeps expanding — small cells, Wi-Fi saturation in schools and apartment buildings — with no public monitoring of cumulative exposure levels. A public, transparent exposure-monitoring effort would let the science follow actual conditions instead of laboratory assumptions. 4. Vulnerable populations, including children, deserve particular attention, consistent with the Department's stated emphasis in this RFI. I support this inquiry and hope it leads to updated, evidence-based standards rather than another decade of the same unanswered questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Brandon Parncutt York, PA