Proposed biological mechanisms

We have to understand about what we are, we are electromagnetic being. We should know about Sabrina Wallace and the connection between clouds and biocensor, bodynetwork and our biofield. We have to know about Arthur Firstenberg and his book: INVISIBILE RAINBOW. We know a lot of scientific as Pr Paul Héroux, expert on radiations. I have an electrohypersensitivity, caused by Wifi and bluetooth essensially, now i am sick and invalid worker. Not funny.

I am a doctor from Cornell medical school and I’m an expert in EMF having been very sensitive myself and gotten better over the last 25 years. A radiologist did a study showing the changes in the blood flow on Doppler ultrasound of the popliteal vessels When the cell phone has been applied this is what happens when my patients or my self holds the phone to the head and we get dizzy and ischemic symptoms. Mold exposed patients of which there are obviously many tens of millions in the country have damaged to the voltage, gated calcium channels, and are therefor more susceptible to this Injury. There’s a Netflix series about my work called afflicted I’m an episode six the most but episode one is about EMF and I suggest that you guys watch it. is correct about the effect of radio frequency radiation on the body and we should be mitigating this in schools by using wired computers less industrial Wi-Fi if any and no cell phones close to the students or teachers. We must educate the country about this area and I am available Environmental Health trust has done a lot of research in this area And Devra Davis has been a leader in this field and colleague. I presented in Congress to the veterans health subcommittee and help to raise $100 million for toxic exposure research and veterans as they often suffer from the syndromes unknowingly often due to toxic exposure, mold exposure, etc. The mold act was written 10 years after I presented to the committee and congressman Bilrakis who subsequently created the mold act to be voted on this year. It is time that traditional Physician’s learn from those of us who have become ill and stop calling us names. I have written an EMS related resolution in the medical society of Massachusetts as well as the importance of taking an environmental history. Which means when you get symptoms like the cell phone heating up in your hand or a headache did you just expose yourself to radiation that gave you the symptom. Of medical note Trisalts can alkanalize the body and reduce such symptoms. You need a committee on Environmental Health and Medicine to advise you in this area. I would be happy to participate and have letters of reference from NIEHS And I have clinical experience as well as personal experience with this unbelievable symptomatology of being environmentally ill. You can see me discussing EMF on the doctors and Dr. Phil as well. The other experts can give you specifics on frequencies and different types of radiation, but I’m a medical doctor and I can tell you about the symptoms and the treatment

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a researcher and concerned member of the public. From my research it is clear EMF, particularly non endogenous frequency EMF- non ionizing - interacts with Voltage gated calcium channels and other charged parts of our biochemistry and increases inflammation which can cause chronic disease as well as acute conditions. I support HHS taking an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. Questions about human health should be addressed by federal agencies with appropriate expertise in medicine, biology, epidemiology, and public health, and the experiences of individuals and families who report being affected should be considered alongside the scientific evidence. I urge HHS to carefully evaluate these experiences and the scientific evidence, identify gaps in current research, give particular attention to children and other potentially vulnerable populations, and establish appropriate federal research priorities regarding wireless radiation and public health. I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

This article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-024-12623-0 shows in conclusions that: The aim of this review is to assess the impact of cell phone radiation effects on green plants. Rapid progress in networking and communication systems has introduced frequency- and amplitude-modulated technologies to the world with higher allowed bands and greater speed by using high-powered radio generators, which facilitate high definition connectivity, rapid transfer of larger data files, and quick multiple accesses. These cause frequent exposure of cellular radiation to the biological world from a number of sources. Key factors like a range of frequencies, time durations, power densities, and electric fields were found to have differential impacts on the growth and development of green plants. As far as the effects on green plants are concerned in this review, alterations in their morphological characteristics like overall growth, canopy density, and pigmentation to physiological variations like chlorophyll fluorescence and change in membrane potential etc. have been found to be affected by cellular radiation. On the other hand, elevated oxidative status of the cell, macromolecular damage, and lipid peroxidation have been found frequently. On the chromosomal level, micronuclei formation, spindle detachments, and increased mitotic indexes etc. have been noticed. Transcription factors were found to be overexpressed in many cases due to the cellular radiation impact, which shows effects at the molecular level. It should be enough for giving access to independent researchers to medical data of those who may complain so they could conduct proper statistical analysis. We have analyzed the medical data breaches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_W._Koczkodaj#cite_note-8 The above link is copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_W._Koczkodaj this way: In 2018, he coordinated a research effort to analyze health record breaches, based on data posted by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights.[7] The total number of individuals affected (called NIA by the government but they are simply patients) in the health care system was 173,398,820 at the time of publication submission (2017).[8] Evidently, we can do it. PDF of the above article is available here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-018-1837-z but can be sent to you upon request. Follow up in a open access journal is here:

This topic on EMF's RF radiation and ELF's is bigger than what most people know or think. The human body is run by electrical frequencies and that is how the over 36 trillion cells within our body communicate with one another. If that communication is interfered with by frequencies, then the body is compromised in so many fashions that it is how to calculate the damage that is being done to it. As an example, if you are driving your car and you have your AM radio on, and then pass under high tension power lines, you notice that the program you are listening to stops because of great interference from going under the power lines. That same effect happens to our human body every time we are exposed to external frequencies from various sources. Our human cells during that exposure stop communicating with one another and the body is greatly compromised during this exposed time. Our human systems stop functioning to a great degree. Our immune system is not protecting us as it was designed to do. It's been reported that people who have homes with high powered wires over them have had many illnesses including cancer. When our cells cannot communicate with one another, this becomes a cascading effect that ultimately results in disease formation and debilitating breakdowns in the proper function of the human body. If this is not corrected soon, all society will be at risk of functional breakdowns that will results in a non functional and a non productive society at large. I recommend that the placement of all these frequencies be reconsidered and placed in low risk areas and farmed into population centers considering the lowest possible exposure to the public at large. The technology and innovation is there to mitigate the risk to all. We just have to have the will to implement it.

I am a Family Physician practicing and licensed in Illinois with 38 years of experience. Personally, I notice that if my wifi router is on, I do not sleep as well so I have to turn it off at night. Since a smart meter was installed at our home I also notice my sleep has been worse. We were never notified when the smart meter was installed nor given the option to opt out. I have treated many patients who are sensitive to EMFs and cannot be around them which leads them to lead very isolating lives. I've seen the studies that show EMFs cause an influx of calcium into cells thus depleting ATP stores. I've seen the studies showing that cell phones placed near the skull/ear increase the temperature and glucose uptake of brain cells all the way to the center of the brain, thus making them look like cancer cells. I've seen and heard neurosurgeons who report more acoustic neuromas and other brain tumors on the side where cell phones are used. Please investigate the health effects of EMFs, Wifi, Cell towers and cell phones so we can come up with safety guidelines that are reasonable. Please be aware that powerful industrial lobbyists will try to influence and subvert real scientific debate and research on these issues. The health and well being of this generation and the next few depends on what you can do to help safe guard our health from any harms imposed by EMFs.

I am submitting this comment because the United States needs to stop confusing regulatory compliance with proof of biological safety. A wireless device can “pass” an RF exposure test under specified laboratory conditions and still leave unanswered the real public-health question: what happens to living tissue after years or decades of real-world exposure? Real life does not resemble a single-device laboratory test. Children, adults and pets are surrounded by phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, laptops, Bluetooth devices, wearables, smart appliances and nearby antennas, often operating simultaneously and for many hours every day. Current standards do not adequately reflect chronic, cumulative, real-world exposure. Exposure changes with distance, signal strength, device position, frequency, modulation, data transmission and the number of sources present. Yet our regulatory framework has relied heavily on specific absorption rate and power-density limits rather than long-term biological monitoring of actual populations. The question should not simply be, “Does this device stay below a SAR limit?” It should be, “What happens biologically to cells, tissues, organs and developing nervous systems under realistic exposure conditions?” HHS should independently investigate oxidative stress, cellular signaling, DNA damage, reproductive effects, neurological effects, sleep, development, endocrine effects and cancer. Absence of substantial heating should never be treated as automatic proof that there are no biological effects. Children deserve special attention. They are not small adults. Their bodies and nervous systems are still developing, and today’s children may experience wireless exposure from infancy through an entire lifetime. Yet the long-term evidence for lifelong exposure beginning in childhood remains limited. That is a serious knowledge gap, not reassurance. Animals and the environment also deserve attention. Pets spend long periods inside homes near routers and wireless devices. Wildlife, insects, birds and plants are now exposed to an increasingly dense RF environment. The evidence is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent, but that is precisely why rigorous independent research is needed. The National Toxicology Program reported cancer findings in RF-exposed animals, including malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and some evidence of malignant gliomas. Human studies have produced mixed results. These differences should not be used to declare the issue settled in either direction. “Not conclusively proven harmful” is not the same thing as “proven safe.” The regulatory process itself also deserves scrutiny. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had not adequately explained why its RF exposure limits protected against harmful non-cancer effects and had not sufficiently addressed evidence involving long-term exposure, children and environmental effects. A communications regulator should not be the final authority on complex questions of toxicology, developmental biology, neurology and public health. Other countries have taken more precautionary approaches. Switzerland applies lower precautionary limits at certain sensitive locations, and France conducts post-market SAR testing of phones. The United States should not assume that decades-old limits remain adequate simply because they are familiar. HHS should establish a truly independent research program with transparent funding and strict conflict-of-interest protections. Research should examine chronic and cumulative exposure, multiple simultaneous sources, direct body contact, pregnancy, children, pets, vulnerable populations, modern 4G/5G/Wi-Fi technologies, and biological outcomes at the cellular, tissue, organ and whole-body levels. Public confidence cannot rest on assurances from agencies or industries. It must rest on independent science, transparent data, reproducible findings and standards that reflect how people actually live. A compliance test is not a safety study. HHS has an opportunity to replace assumptions with modern, real-world health research and to protect children, families, animals and the environment using evidence that reflects actual exposure.

Comment to HHS: RF Radiation and Public Health I am submitting this comment in response to HHS's Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields, Radiofrequency Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. The Science Behind This Comment One of the most important, and most overlooked, scientific foundations for this RFI is the research of Robert O. Becker, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and bioelectricity pioneer, detailed in his landmark 1985 book The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Becker's central finding: living organisms are fundamentally electrical systems. Bioelectric signals govern growth, healing, and regeneration, and these systems evolved in concert with Earth's natural electromagnetic environment. When artificial electromagnetic fields interfere with those signals, biological harm can follow. His key findings: Non-thermal biological effects are real. Current FCC standards assume only heat-generating exposures cause harm. Becker demonstrated biological responses to electromagnetic fields at intensities far below thermal thresholds — overturning the very framework on which U.S. safety standards rest. Bioelectric mechanisms govern healing. His research showed that bone healing is electrically regulated, and that low-level electrical stimulation could trigger regeneration where conventional medicine had failed. If the body is this sensitive to electromagnetic signals, it cannot be indifferent to the artificial electromagnetic environment we now live in. Industry influence corrupts safety standards. Becker documented how experts setting U.S. pollution limits were influenced by the industries being regulated, and drew a direct comparison with Eastern European nations where more independent scientists arrived at far stricter exposure limits. Whistleblowers are punished. After testifying that power line fields posed documented health risks, Becker's NIH grants were canceled, his VA funding was blocked, and his laboratory was shut down in 1980. This is not fringe science — it is science that threatened powerful interests. Why This Matters Today Becker published his warnings in 1985. The FCC's RF safety standards were last meaningfully updated in 1996 — predate smartphones, ubiquitous WiFi, and 5G densification. They were built on a thermal-only framework that Becker's research had already scientifically undermined before those standards were written. Children are particularly vulnerable. Thinner skulls and developing nervous systems mean they absorb RF radiation at significantly higher rates than adults — yet towers continue to be sited near schools and playgrounds. What I Am Asking HHS to Do Commission independent, longitudinal research on chronic low-level RF exposure, with priority given to children and vulnerable populations. Apply the precautionary principle where exposures are involuntary — near homes, schools, and playgrounds. Evaluate the full body of peer-reviewed literature on non-thermal biological effects. Create a formal mechanism to document and study experiences of individuals reporting RF-related health effects. Recognize that the FCC — a communications regulator — is not equipped to be the final word on human health risk. The science exists. What has been missing is the institutional independence to act on it. HHS is the right agency to change that. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.