The commenter describes chronic illness while working in satellite communications and possible heightened…

Victoria Marshall Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Re: Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Docket #.: HHS-OASH-2026-0397; Federal Register Notice: 91 FR 59792 (Sept. 21, 2026) Dear Ms. Marshall and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health: This is an abridged version. The full version is attached as a PDF. I worked in satellite communications in the late 1980s. The field was new; we transmitted live sports via audio then video within 18 months. The company grew from ~23–24 to ~350 employees in five years. I worked under the executive VP overseeing engineering. Safety was taken seriously—rigid line and transmission equipment were tested and kept within then-applicable exposure margins. Despite this, I was chronically ill the entire time. I have had multiple RF, wireless, and magnetic exposures (satellite RF, extreme magnetic fields exceeding accepted standards, ordinary/not ordinary wireless). I may be more sensitive than average. One can literally feel the low-level “noise” of these emanations as continuous low-level stress on the body, separate from any bio-field or optogenetic-type effects. RF/wireless/magnetic safety limits have not been meaningfully updated in ~30–40 years. FCC limits adopted in August 1996 (based on ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 and NCRP) remain essentially unchanged (reaffirmed 2019). They rest on a ~4 W/kg whole-body SAR threshold linked to roughly a 1 °C core temperature rise, with large safety factors yielding a public limit of 0.08 W/kg. The safety exposure levels for RF, wireless, microwave radiation have not been meaningfully updated in roughly 40 years. The current U.S. FCC limits were adopted in August 1996, based on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard and NCRP recommendations which was studied in the 80’s which govern the frequency range from 3 kHz – 300 GHz. Those numerical limits (and their thermal-only basis) have remained essentially unchanged; the FCC reviewed and explicitly reaffirmed them in 2019. The foundational threshold is approximately 4 W/kg whole-body average SAR, associated with roughly a 1 °C rise in core body temperature (and with the behavioral disruption seen in earlier animal studies that was attributed to heating). Large safety factors are then applied—reducing the occupational limit to 0.4 W/kg and the general-public limit to 0.08 W/kg. Military development and fielding of RF/microwave directed-energy systems as non-kinetic tools is itself proof that governments know these fields can produce physical effects. They would not have researched and deployed such systems if they believed the fields were inert. The same applies to medical and commercial remote-sensing tools. For 30 years, medical, military, and commercial sectors have been using and further developing methods to sense and influence the body via RF, wireless, magnetic, and related pathways. IEEE 802.15.1–.6 (including Body Area Network standards) define networks in which the human body itself functions as a node and essential backbone. Without living bodies as nodes, the systems do not function as designed. This has occurred under SMART/IoT/IoB, and many other Io'X' labels without clear public disclosure that the architecture depends on human bodies. Absence of consent is criminal. I have found no clear independent studies showing that continuous use of the body as a communications node does not affect cellular energy, molecular/photonic processes, or long-term health. Robert O. Becker, M.D. (Army Medical Corps, VA orthopedics, The Body Electric), documented the body’s intrinsic DC electrical system (currents of injury, perineural control, piezoelectric bone) and its sensitivity to external fields well below thermal levels. The body is an electrical organism. Are there rigorous studies showing that treating it as a network node does not disrupt those systems? Every person in range of expanding sensor/wireless infrastructure should be informed of the body’s role as a network node and given a practical ability to opt out of remote/wireless/magnetic access or use of their body as a network element by any party when no onboard or near-body device is present and no consent has been given. This inquiry is decades overdue. If Making America Healthy Again is to be taken seriously, RF, magnetic, wireless, and related exposures—including use of the body itself as network infrastructure—must be examined alongside diet and traditional medicine. Best Regards,