Research & federal duties

For approximately 15 years I have experienced earaches, migraines, dizziness, a persistent left-temple sick or “rotting” sensation, vertigo, intermittent tinnitus, brain fog, nausea, and fatigue. Over the years this has gotten worse from what I believe is stronger signals and more devices in my environment, through personal observation, conversations with others, and systematic trial and error, I have come to associate these symptoms with exposure to cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other wireless devices. I have found that increasing distance from these sources and wearing a headset that specifically covers my left ear makes a substantial difference in how I feel. I am submitting a detailed Master Evidence Document (attached as PDF) that compiles scientific studies, the 2021 federal court ruling, reviews, and my personal observations regarding possible neurological and vestibular effects associated with RF-EMF exposure. I respectfully request that this information be considered as part of the agency’s review.

This comment answers HHS RFI questions 2–18 for docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. The full numbered response is attached. I am filing as a concerned member of the public. Please see the attachment for sources (NTP TR-595, Ramazzini 2018, IARC Monograph 102, EHT v. FCC 2021, Public Law 90-602, and Section 704 of the TCA).

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 an individual whose life has been altered significantly from exposure to wireless non ionizing radiation. About ten years ago, I suffered from a variety of symptoms that were increasingly challenging... all of which were assumed as a result of aging or unexplained. I had severe dry eyes, insomnia, fast heart beat, irregular heart beat, high blood pressure, multiple pulmonary embolisms ,flaming red skin on cheeks, increasingly difficulty with memory, word retrieval and very foggy brain among other things. We metered our home and removed all sources of wireless while keeping technology through hard wired connections. My health drastically improved immediately. Also, a plant that sat in our kitchen window for one year suddenly grew 15 inches in two months. That's when others paid attention. It was clearly not just me but I feel the impact from it. The plant just survived and now was thriving. My doctor referred to me as "the canary in the coal mine". I contacted officials and one state rep of my district listened and wrote NH HB522 in 2019. That bill passed and became the first in the nation to investigate the health effects from wireless and the importance of education on simple things to do to make technology safer. However, any effort to educate the public and legislate safe protections for citizens has been squashed politically. It's not right. Wireless is everywhere, buses, planes, cars, restaurants, hotels, schools, cities, hospitals, you name it. It makes it nearly impossible to live a "normal" life for those like myself who are not seen. Our children and grandchildren are the first to live their entire lives engulfed in this wireless toxin. It's unconscionable that we do not protect our children. We all need technology today but we do NOT need it propagated to the extent that it is without any option to avoid it, other than to remain in our homes...and that is if you are fortunate enough to not have a cell tower or a 5g tower near your home. Thankfully, I am retired as working in that environment would be impossible for me. 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. Thank you for providing individuals and families with an opportunity to be heard.

Submitted by: Beverly A. Jensen, Ph.D. Organization: 10 Million Moms for Safer Telecom 1. Who I Am I am Beverly A. Jensen, Ph.D., a public health specialist with a doctoral degree in Communication from the University of Washington (1987) and over 30 years managing public health campaigns. I am the founder of 10 Million Moms for Safer Telecom, a national mother-led movement to protect children from wireless radiation. The number 10 million is near the 3% that can shift culture and drive safer regulations. I operate KidsandEMF.com and WomensMedicineBowl.com, a science and policy resource since 2003. These comments represent my professional perspective, my lived experience, and the concerns of families I have worked with since 2019. 2. What I Have Observed I am both a public health specialist and an individual with documented adverse health effects from EMF exposure -- mirroring what hundreds have reported to me. 2019 -- Onset of EMF Sensitivity: In early 2019, walking in Washington, D.C., I experienced immediate skin burning near a concealed cell tower, after three months at four feet from a router 8-10 hours/day. In Seattle I measured a router at 297,000 uV/m -- far exceeding the Building Biology guideline of 1,000 uV/m for sleeping areas. Shielding it dropped radiation 97% while WiFi remained functional. A warning label could have prevented years of exposure. July 2020 -- Neurological Symptoms: I experienced severe headaches -- my first in 72 years. An ER MRI confirmed a fully healthy brain. Headaches correlated with high-RF environments and resolved when I left them. No practitioner questioned the environmental variable. Six years later, that is still true. February 2023 -- Cardiac Arrhythmia at 36K feet: Aboard a Lufthansa red-eye with active WiFi, I experienced serious cardiac arrhythmia. No exertion or stress was involved. I required PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic field) intervention twice during the eight-hour flight. Cardiologists had found no structural cause; RF exposure was never investigated. RF is well documented to amplify in enclosed metal containers as devices search for signal. This deserves serious federal attention. What Mothers Are Reporting: Headaches beginning when schools installed WiFi. Sleep disruption resolving when routers were turned off. A 5-year-old with a cardiac event leaving a school yard with a cell tower -- now with permanent brain damage. An 11-year-old needing retina surgery with no prior screen safety guidance. Families in buildings with 140+ networks have fewest options. I exclude myself from most social events due to RF exposure. These symptom clusters -- headaches, tinnitus, sleep disruption, anxiety, fatigue, cardiac arrhythmia -- are consistent across thousands of families worldwide. The medical system fails to investigate. The independent science is in the attached Research Brief. 3. What I Am Asking HHS to Do - Update RF exposure limits to reflect post-1996 science, protecting children in schools, hospitals, and elder care - Fund independent research on long-term, cumulative RF exposure -- not industry-funded studies - Require Safe Use directions and distance labels at point of sale for all wireless devices - Establish a federal clearinghouse for RF-associated health symptom reporting - Coordinate with FCC on minimum-distance rules for cell infrastructure near schools and healthcare facilities - Require warning labels on all wireless devices - Commission a systematic review of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as a recognized condition - Introduce RF monitoring and mitigation standards to OSHA for workplace protection - Establish federal oversight of the proliferation of embedded wireless transmitters in consumer products -- including children's toys, infant equipment, and smart home systems -- where no agency regulates their inclusion and no consumer consent is required 4. Why Mothers Are the Right Constituency The movements that produced lasting change -- lead paint, tobacco, drunk driving, car seats -- were driven by mothers who refused preventable harm. 10 Million Moms for Safer Telecom supplies that same political will around wireless radiation. We are building toward the 3% social tipping threshold. I urge HHS to treat this RFI as the beginning of a sustained policy process. The mothers of America are watching and will hold this administration accountable. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Jensen, Ph.D. Founder, 10 Million Moms for Safer Telecom www.KidsandEMF.com www.WomensMedicineBowl.com

**HHS-OASH-2026-0397 — Public Comment** I am a patient and a person with disabilities. I have severe symptoms that I believe may be connected to electrical devices or wireless exposure. Possible triggers include computers, phones, Wi-Fi, appliances, lights, and vehicles. My symptoms include burning or electrical feelings, pressure, dizziness, nausea, ringing ears, poor balance, confusion, extreme tiredness, and sleep problems. These symptoms can make it hard to work, use a computer, travel, get medical care, and participate in the community. When I tried to explain my symptoms, providers didn't fully examine me. When I reported these sensitivities and could not explain them clearly, I was called psychotic and lacking insight. I was then forced to undergo a year of court-ordered psychiatric medication and injections, even though I reported having prior harmful reactions to these drugs. This only made the symptoms worse. Doctors should not assume these torturous symptoms are psychiatric. They should first consider head injury, medication effects, neurological problems, sensory disabilities, sleep problems, trauma, and environmental causes. Please consider that HHS: - create a simple way for patients to report symptoms and possible exposures; - study combined and long-term exposure from common devices; - require careful medical testing before symptoms are labeled psychiatric; and - support reasonable low-exposure and communication accommodations. People should not be dismissed simply because science has not yet explained their symptoms.

Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 To Whom It May Concern; My full comment is attached as a PDF. This note summarizes it. I am a retired paramedic and firefighter with over thirty years of service. I worked in fire stations that had commercial wireless antenna arrays mounted on the building. I am not reporting an adverse health effect and I have no diagnosis to attribute to that exposure. What I am submitting is an exposure characterization and a research gap. Career fire service personnel do not visit the station, they live in it. They sleep there, in a fixed location, for twenty-four and forty-eight hour shifts, across careers measured in decades. Where a commercial base station sits on that building, the result is a continuous, fixed-geometry, decades-long exposure to a population that occupies the structure far more hours per year than an ordinary workplace and is unconscious for a large share of them. They fall under the general public exposure limit, which was built around a public assumed to be passing through. Under Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 their employer is barred from declining the installation on health grounds. In August 2004 the International Association of Fire Fighters adopted Resolution No. 15, asking the federal government for a study "with the highest scientific merit and integrity" contrasting firefighters housed in stations with towers against firefighters without that exposure. It committed the organization to set policy in accordance with whatever the study found. The study was never funded and no federal agency has conducted it. I held elected office in that organization on both sides of that date, and no study came. The federal fire service assessment answering that request, the U.S. Fire Administration's 2008 Executive Fire Officer paper, rests on an evidence base that predates the IARC Group 2B classification of 2011, the National Toxicology Program's finding of clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in 2018, the Ramazzini Institute's independent base-station-model replication in 2018, and the D.C. Circuit's 2021 holding in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC that the Commission failed to justify retaining its 1996 exposure limits. It has not been revisited in eighteen years. I am asking the Department to fund and conduct that cohort study, to characterize aggregate occupational RF dose across the fire and EMS environment, to assess the ambulance patient compartment as an RF environment with attention to implanted cardiac devices, and to recommend mandatory pre-activation and post-activation RF survey with disclosure to the personnel assigned to those buildings. The attached comment answers Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17, with citations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Michael T. Wilson Carson City, Nevada Retired Paramedic and Firefighter

Scientific Article Submitted for HHS Review We respectfully submit the following peer-reviewed publication for consideration by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Garoli A, Greco A. “Shielding the First 24 Postnatal Months of Life: A Proposal for a Prospective Cohort Study of Early-Life Electromagnetic Exposure and Autism Risk.” Alpha Psychiatry. 2026;27(4):53282. DOI: 10.31083/AP53282. This publication presents a prospective research protocol investigating whether electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure during the first 24 months of life may influence neuro-developmental trajectories and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) risk. Importantly, this paper does not establish that EMR causes autism. It proposes a methodology for investigating the question prospectively. The authors propose following 1,000 full-term newborns for 24 months, comparing an EMR-reduced cohort (n=500) with a standard-exposure cohort (n=500). Exposure would be characterized through RF/ELF measurements, proximity analysis, device inventories and wearable dosimetry. Neurodevelopment would be evaluated using joint attention, language development and EEG mu-rhythm measures, with ASD diagnosis as a secondary exploratory endpoint. The article also identifies biological mechanisms that warrant further investigation, including voltage-gated calcium channels, intracellular calcium signaling, Ca²⁺/calmodulin pathways, mitochondrial metabolism, oxidative stress and neuronal synchronization. Ion Cyclotron Resonance (ICR) is presented as a candidate framework for understanding some of these interactions. The authors appropriately acknowledge that weak-field transduction and ICR mechanisms remain scientifically contested rather than established. The protocol is particularly relevant because it attempts to address a persistent challenge in EMR research: accurate exposure measurement. The proposed study incorporates environmental measurements, wearable dosimetry, shield-integrity monitoring, compliance records and repeated neuro-developmental assessments The authors also acknowledge significant limitations. Cohort allocation is observational rather than randomized, residual confounding may remain, and the proposed 1,000-participant study is underpowered to establish modest differences in ASD incidence. The study is therefore explicitly designed for exploratory signal detection and to generate data necessary for a larger confirmatory trial. We respectfully request that HHS review this publication and consider whether this hypothesis warrants independent, adequately powered, multi-center investigation. Future federal research could examine whether objectively measured RF/ELF exposure during infancy is associated with neuro-developmental differences; whether specific developmental windows are more sensitive; whether effects vary according to exposure characteristics; and whether genetic susceptibility, calcium signalling, mitochondrial function, oxidative stress or other biological pathways modify potential effects. Given the widespread exposure of children to electromagnetic fields, we believe these questions merit rigorous, independent scientific investigation. The objective should not be to presume that EMR either causes or does not cause neuro-developmental effects, but to establish the answer through appropriately designed prospective research.

I am commenting as an individual, family member, and electrical engineer. My wife has developed an extreme sensitivity to RF emissions with increasing impact on her life. As an engineer, I have been able to validate this through direct experimentation. In a blinded fashion, I turned on the 5G cellular band on a modern iPhone on and my wife reported and rapid onset headache. I then turned off that band and she reported the headache went away. I did this multiple times, including experiments where I never actually changed the setting, and in all cases the headache correlated with turning on the 5G band and abated when it was off. This is a conclusive result that her physical pain is correlated to the proximity to a 5G radiator. In addition, when we are within line of sight to a modern cell tower, she will frequently experience pain and discomfort until we are a significant distance from the tower. This limits her ability to have a routine, pain-free existence and is particularly problematic for office work, travel, etc. These RF fields do not elicit the same response on me as I can directly attest when doing these experiments. My direct experience shows that certain individuals are much more sensitive to RF energy that others. To force someone to endure pain and discomfort simply because they are in a minority or that sensitivity is hard to identify and quantify is inappropriate and a violation of her rights as a citizen. I would strongly encourage additional, objective, blinded research on RF sensitivity as I described above to provide the necessary evidence to guide limits on wavelengths and power levels that are allowed to be used broadly.

Hello, I experienced sleep difficulties and tinnitus when I lived near mobile phone masts. I would like to see a scientific study conducted on people who have lived very close to a mobile mast for several years. Those living in very close proximity are exposed to high levels of radiation, so it would be interesting to see how their health compares to that of people living in areas with average to low radiation levels. It would be a simple study, yet it could provide clear answers regarding the impact of strong background radiation from mobile masts. Good luck with your very important work.

I upgraded my router to 5gz wifi over the course of weeks i was finding i was not getting good sleep, i thought maybe it was the wifi? I turned off the wifi and my sleep improved. I tested this to make sure by turning it back on and my quality of sleep deteriorated. Since then i have abandoned wifi in my home to maintain better sleep and hardwired my home. i have read the work of Becker and a book of dirty electricity, i also have removed the LED lights from my home as they too were messing with my sleep. I have also changed to a job where no phones are aloud which has also helped my health and i get less ringing in my ears which i often get in town centers. The safe limits are based on heat and the idea that harms begin at ionizing radiation like switch is absurd when you consider the laws of physics and the electrical interference that will naturally occur within our bodies when nonnative EMF is introduced. There are thousands of studies on the harms of EMF on the BIOINITIATIVE website, it very clear that none native EMF is very harmful. I believe our institutions are captured by corporations and greed and have incentives to keep kicking the can down the road on this issue not to mention the governments interest in harvesting data and surveillance to the point i think even this survey will be rigged and we progress further with these toxic technologies.