Research & federal duties

Personal Report Regarding Severe EMF and Wireless Radiation Sensitivity My wife, Lana, has experienced severe and persistent reactions that she associates with electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation. This has been happening for years and has had a profound effect on her health, sleep, daily life, finances, and our relationship. Lana is extremely sensitive to environments where wireless signals are present. At certain times of the day, she describes an intense burning sensation in her head that feels as though her brain is on fire. She also experiences burning sensations in different areas of her body. These episodes can become so intense that she feels she has to leave the environment immediately. She also reports being able to sense when we are approaching or passing cellular towers while driving. There have been many occasions when she has reacted before I said anything about a tower being nearby. She also develops unexplained bruising overnight, which she believes is associated with the same exposure. We live in Palm Coast, Florida, but this problem is not limited to one house or one location. Lana experiences these symptoms in many different places. At night, she takes extensive steps to reduce wireless exposure inside the home. She turns off or unplugs the Wi-Fi router and other wireless devices, yet she continues to experience symptoms that she associates with signals coming from neighboring homes and nearby cellular towers. Her sleep has been severely affected. She often moves from room to room during the night trying to find a place where she feels less affected. There are many nights when we do not sleep in the same home because she feels she has to leave in order to get relief. On September 20, 2026, Lana was at home in Palm Coast when the burning sensation became so severe that she felt she could no longer stay in the house. She left, drove to a wooded area surrounded by trees, parked her vehicle there, and slept in the car overnight. There have also been many nights when Lana has slept in a tent on the beach because she felt unable to remain in the house. I did not always know she was doing this. When I learned about it, it frightened me because I worry constantly about her being alone outdoors at night. On other nights, the symptoms become so severe that she checks into a hotel just to get away from the environment she is experiencing. Over approximately the last three years, I estimate that we have spent more than $80,000 on hotel stays for this reason. These were not vacations or optional trips. They were attempts to find places where she felt she could sleep and function normally. The impact on our personal life has been enormous. Many nights we sleep apart. When we are together and she is suffering badly, she will sometimes come into the room where I am sleeping so I can hold her and help her through the episode. I worry about her constantly. Her sensitivity has affected where she sleeps, where she travels, where she feels safe, and even where she chooses to live. She has purchased another home outside the United States in an effort to find an environment where she experiences less exposure and can live more normally. This is not a minor inconvenience. It has changed the way we live. I am asking HHS to take reports like Lana’s seriously and investigate them in a rigorous, real-world way. Research should include long-term exposure, cumulative exposure from multiple sources, cellular towers, Wi-Fi, neighboring wireless networks, smart devices, sleep disruption, neurological symptoms, burning sensations, skin or vascular symptoms, and whether certain individuals are significantly more sensitive than others. I also believe researchers should study people like Lana in controlled environments while measuring actual RF and EMF exposure levels at the same time symptoms are being recorded. If symptoms repeatedly rise and fall with measurable environmental changes, that information could be extremely valuable. People experiencing severe symptoms deserve to be heard, documented, and studied carefully. Lana’s experience has affected nearly every aspect of her life, and I sincerely hope this investigation leads to serious scientific research into why some individuals appear to react so strongly to modern wireless environments.

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 person affected by wireless radiation. It's about sleep. Sleep is critical to well-being in every sense. I used to sleep very well. Then, cell phones came into the bedroom, then the Smart Meters outside the bedroom, and then the sleep disturbances began. Poor, interrrupted sleep. At first, I couldn't figure out how I had gone from being a good sleeper to such a poor sleeper. But, on a remote vacation in the desert (no phones, no WiFi), I started sleeping well again and when I got back home, I resumed my poor sleeping issues. The correlation between my sleep and my proximity to wireless radiation, as in the preceding example, has been shown again and again. There is no doubt that wireless radiation affects sleep. 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.

I have a family member who started having seizures after moving into a new home half a mile from a cell phone tower. I also found a preschool my wife and I loved for our daughter but opted against it as there was a cell tower literally on top of the school in the parking lot. Who can possibly justify subjecting children to such exposure. We need to pause, gather more data, and proceed with caution regarding health vs prioritizing faster internet speeds.

Re: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 — EMF and Wireless Radiation Exposure To Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Thank you for examining EMF health effects. I write to you as a registered nurse with over 20 years of experience, a parent, an independent researcher, and a certified clinician in whole-food nutrition. My priorities are preventing disease, protecting all ages and future generations, and preserving our environment. Expanding wireless infrastructure requires rigorous RF research, transparency, public participation, and enforceable safeguards. Questions 2–4: Observations I have personally become aware of an alarming increase in children being diagnosed with brain tumors. Research should routinely follow up on diagnoses of brain tumors, cancer, and infertility to assess and report relevant exposures, including pesticides, mold, and wireless networks or towers near homes, schools, and workplaces, while accounting for other possible causes. Questions 12–13: Research Please evaluate these studies: 1. Gautam et al., Andrology (online 2025; print 2026): Rats were assigned to control, sham-exposed, and exposed groups (six each). The exposed group received 35.5 GHz exposure for two hours daily for 60 days. Researchers reported reduced sperm count and viability, testicular tissue changes, increased lipid peroxidation, reduced antioxidant measures, and increased DNA damage by comet assay. Exposure intensity, absorbed dose, temperature control, and replication require careful evaluation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40798928/ 2. Wang et al., Biology (2024): Mice exposed at 4.9 GHz and 50 W/m² for one hour daily for 35 days showed changes in 104 brain metabolites and 61 brain proteins, including glycerophospholipid metabolism. These demonstrate molecular differences under the experimental conditions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39452115/ 3. Human brain-organoid study (2024): Human-derived brain organoids exposed to GSM at 1.84 GHz, approximately 2.1 V/m, for one hour daily for five days showed reduced expression of certain proliferation, cell-cycle, and cellular-activity genes during differentiation. Appearance and measured apoptosis/senescence genes did not significantly change but it was only done for one hour for 5 days. This supports further developmental research. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanpr.2024.1357649 Frequency, power density, SAR, modulation, duration, temperature, species, and whole-body versus localized exposure all matter. Questions 5, 7–11, 14–18: Safeguards I ask HHS, the FCC, and environmental agencies to: • Require public assessments of evidence, realistic exposure, research gaps, and safeguards before widespread deployment of materially new frequencies or exposure patterns. • Fund independent, preregistered research with sham controls, blinding, adequate samples, temperature monitoring, accurate dosimetry, and replication; include positive and null findings. • Compare 3G, 4G, 5G, and proposed 6G at comparable absorbed doses and under realistic conditions. • Prioritize developmental, reproductive, and long-term cancer research and validated human organoid models of brain, heart, liver, kidney, reproductive tissues, and placenta. • Require independent exposure assessments before and after major diagnosis’s, infrastructure changes, publicly reporting combined exposure and verifying high-traffic conditions. • Offer wired connections and reduce unnecessary wireless transmission and cell towers in schools, childcare, and healthcare settings. • Establish enforcement, reassessment, mitigation, and restriction criteria for exceeded limits or credible evidence of adverse effects. • Study pollinators, birds, wildlife, livestock, and plants under habitat-relevant exposures. Question 5: International examples France restricts fixed wireless-internet equipment in designated spaces for children under three and requires primary-school Wi-Fi to be disabled when not needed for education (legifrance.gouv.fr; ecologie.gouv.fr). Germany recommends wired connections and keeping access points away from prolonged-use areas (bfs.de). Switzerland combines precautionary requirements for certain fixed installations with national exposure monitoring (bafu.admin.ch). Please evaluate these approaches for the United States. We are called to care for the people, animals, and land God has entrusted to us. Technological progress must include responsible stewardship, independent science, and protection of health and wellbeing for present and future generations. God bless America and God bless our world with love, peace, and health. Dannin Grosso, RN, CCWFN

Here are studied on how eel and honeybees are affected by EMF. Honeybees: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10181175/ "We assessed the effect that electromagnetic field (EMF) exerts on honeybees’ pollination efficiency using field and laboratory experiments. First, we measured levels of gene and protein expression in metabolic pathways involved in stress and behavioral responses elicited by EMF. Second, we assessed the effect of EMF on honeybee behavior and seed production by the honeybee-pollinated California poppy and, lastly, by measuring the consequences of pollination failure on plants’ community richness and abundance. EMF exposure exerted strong physiological stress on honeybees as shown by the enhanced expression of heat-shock proteins and genes involved in antioxidant activity and affected the expression levels of behavior-related genes. Moreover, California poppy individuals growing near EMF received fewer honeybee visits and produced fewer seeds than plants growing far from EMF. Last, we found a hump-shaped relationship between EMF and plant species richness and plant abundance. Our study provides conclusive evidence of detrimental impacts of EMF on honeybee’s pollination behavior, leading to negative effects on plant community." Below are two studies on eels. The larger scale study in a natural setting with a sea cable indicates an influence. The smaller scale lab experiment shows no influence. Maybe the voltage or cable difference? Eel study 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230165374_Sub-sea_power_cables_and_migration_behaviour_of_the_European_eel "Abstract Coded acoustic tags and an array with moored receivers were used to study the effect of a sub-sea AC power cable on migrating European eel, Anguilla anguilla (L.) in the Baltic Sea. Sixty eels were tagged and the migration speed was measured in a strait with a 130 kV AC power cable. Observed swimming speed over the ground was corrected for advection by the water current. Eel swimming speed was significantly lower around the cable than both north and south of the cable. No details on the behaviour during passage over the cable were possible and possible physiological mechanisms explaining the phenomenon are unknown. Further work is needed to understand the nature of the effect." Eel study 2: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-marine-freshwater-science-vol-6-8-effects-ac-magnetic/ " There was no evidence of a difference in movement due to the MF nor observations of startle or other obvious behavioural changes associated with the magnetic fields. Level of movement decreased as the experiments progressed and increased with eel size. Eel passage through coils was unaffected by whether or not they were activated. In applying these results it must be kept in mind that the sample size was small, nocturnal behaviour was not tested and the field strengths were lower than might be encountered in the wild in some situations."

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 concerned member of the public. I discovered years ago that the migraine headaches I was suffering daily were being caused by the wireless WiFi radiation in my home. When I would turn off the wifi my headaches would go away. This was HUGE! I had been suffering daily as I said for years! I now live out in the desert 30 miles outside of the closest city and I have absolutely NO wireless anywhere on my 10 acres because of this. I am very very sensitive to it and it absolutely was ruining my life before I discovered the cause. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE back off on this unrelenting wireless growth! 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.

I would like to say that I have a great deal of concern for the health of the nation as a whole due to the tremendous increase in EMF radiation in recent years. It was only a few years ago we witnessed the top carriers of cell service report to the congress that they had done no safety testing on 5G and that was just a day or two before it went nationwide. This is clearly a violation of our safety. The human body is run by electricity, neurons fire in the brain, electric pulses trigger the heart and move the muscles. Interference with these systems is harmful to the overall health of us all. The public air is being plastered with more and more waves of energy that might not ruin a person if it were only one. The problem is when there are so many and all operating at varied frequencies. Even the radar for weather detection is a MILLION WATTS! That is a lot of energy that is broadcast over a people who have no choice in the matter. Then there are those systems that purposefully damage the earth, like HARP and other systems that are purposefully affecting our weather. These emmitters of radiation power are non-stop and affect you and me non-stop. I personally understand enough to block my smart meter from irradiating energy towards my bedroom since it sits right outside my window. In conclusion, a little here and there is not going to disrupt much in the health and lives of Americans, BUT the massive number of sources and frequencies is sure having an effect on my mind and my overall quality of life.

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 parent and concerned member of the public. Personally, I have been severely affected by EMF's and Wireless Radiation Exposure as well as my son. I've had horrible tinnitus for a few years now and have done almost everything to stop it or at least to try and lessen it. I notice when I shut off my wifi router it's a lot better but there are 5G towers everywhere and now with the smaller extenders on street posts it's horrible. We know how it's unhealthy and there needs more regulation. 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.

I am writing as a parent. I want the issue of EMFs effects on human biology thoroughly studied, and published, so i have confidence on how to protect my children from bodily harm

Comment submitted in response to Docket No. HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure Category: Public Experiences and Reported Potential Health Effects (with relevance also to Categories 2–4) I am submitting this comment as a private individual residing in Naha City, Okinawa, Japan. I am not a scientist or physician. I am submitting this as a firsthand, timestamped case record, because the domestic health and administrative authorities in my own country have declined to investigate it, and because this RFI explicitly requests real-world clustering data of the kind described below. 1. The core factual record On August 4, 2021, I experienced a left-hemisphere hemorrhagic stroke while at my workplace, an office building belonging to a regional electric utility company in a dense commercial and administrative district of central Naha City, Okinawa. Three months earlier, on May 9, 2021, a female coworker of the same age, working in the same building, suffered a stroke and subsequently left her position. I want to state this timeline as precisely as possible: my hemorrhage occurred before I received any COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose. I received my first dose during hospitalization, after the hemorrhage had already occurred. This sequence removes vaccination as a possible cause of the initial event and isolates it as a pre-vaccination, environmentally-exposed case — which I believe gives it particular evidentiary value for isolating non-vaccine environmental factors, including RF/EMF exposure. To summarize the cluster: Same workplace (a single office building) Same calendar year (2021) Same age cohort (both employees born around 1972) Two cerebrovascular events, three months apart (May and August 2021) 2. The infrastructure context The district in which this workplace is located underwent a concentrated buildout of 5G small-cell and telecommunications infrastructure during 2020–2021. A major regional telecommunications/data-center facility was completed in the immediate vicinity in November 2021, and I understand from published construction timelines that test transmissions from that facility likely occurred during the summer and fall of 2021 — a period overlapping with both cerebrovascular events described above. I want to be transparent about the limits of my own documentation: I have not been able to obtain conclusive public records confirming the exact installation date of any small-cell antenna on my own workplace building. I state this as an open, unresolved question — not as a settled fact. 3. Why I am submitting this I am not asking HHS to conclude that RF/EMF exposure caused these two cases. I am submitting this record because: It is precisely the kind of "public experience" and "workplace cluster" data this RFI's Category 1 explicitly invites. It is, to my knowledge, a comparatively rare pre-vaccination case — meaning it may be useful as a data point for isolating environmental (non-vaccine) contributing factors in cerebrovascular events. No domestic institution in Japan — municipal, prefectural, or national — has been willing to examine or record this cluster. I am placing it into this federal public record because I believe a factual account, however small, should exist somewhere on the public record rather than nowhere at all. 4. Specific points relevant to the RFI's other categories Exposure standards (Category 2): I would respectfully urge that any revised framework consider occupational and workplace RF exposure in dense commercial office environments — not only residential or personal-device exposure — as a distinct exposure category worth separate evaluation. Surveillance (Category 3): I would suggest that same-workplace, same-timeframe clustering of cerebrovascular or neurological events be considered a surveillance signal worth systematic, structured tracking — similar to how occupational disease clusters are tracked in other contexts — rather than being dismissed case-by-case as coincidence. Existing evidence (Category 4): Current exposure standards based solely on short-term thermal effects (SAR) do not, to my understanding, address the kind of chronic, non-thermal, clustered occupational exposure described in this case. I thank HHS for opening this process to public and international input, and I hope this record is useful in identifying the research gaps this RFI seeks to find. Respectfully submitted, NOBUO TAIRA Naha City, Okinawa, Japan