Research & federal duties

I purchased the UHS2 3-Axis AC Gaussmeter to measure the AC frequency in my home because I live right behind a power pole (20 ft from my backyard) and the substation is less than a quarter mile north of my home. I've kept track of the measurements in all the rooms in my house which has significantly increased during the summertime. The measurements in my backyard and master bedroom are the most concerning because it's the closest to the powerline. I also hired a building biologist to measure my home that measured alarming measurements for RF, AC magnetic fields, AC Electric fields, and dirty electricity. The building biologist and the company that I bought the Gaussmeter from recommended a mG measurement no greater than 1 and anything above 5 is considered severe. My measurements in some areas of my house (including the master bedroom and backyard) are well over 5 in most times of the day, especially in summer. This plays a part in my daily living and makes it uncomfortable living in our newly purchased home (7 months) after discovering the harmful effects of frequency from the powerlines. Symptom wise, I have been getting more and more dizzy spells and plan to address this with an environmental medicine practitioner to rule out vertigo. I addressed my concerns about the powerlines with the builder we purchased the home with and were told in an email: "...Regarding the concerns about the EMF levels, it is important to clarify that there are currently no universally accepted federal standards in the US establishing hazardous residential exposure limits for EMF from power lines. The findings you referenced are based on precautionary guidelines rather than safety standards and they do not indicate that the home is unsafe or outside regulatory compliance..." Please address this issue with more research and data. There are many homes in my town that live right next to a powerline. Thank you for your time.

I am personally affected by EMFs, RFs, and Wireless Radiation exposure. I go through great pains to avoid over exposure. My symptoms include nerve pain in my head, ear, hand, and arm while using a smart phone, as well as dizziness, fatigue, and other sensations of disorientation and random pain in my body. I have had to design my life around not using a mobile phone most of the time. I also have my house hard-wired. I am concerned that if infrastructure does not continue to support wired internet connections, I may need to move or go without internet. I also have vague symptoms that may or may not be connected to EMF's, but generally my symptoms improve when I go to the backcountry wilderness areas for hiking or camping. I am greatly concerned about the affect of wireless technology on all children, wildlife, and ecological systems. I believe this needs to be vigorously studied before implementing wireless advancements across the board. I also feel strongly that other cable/wired options should be made permanently available to all who need or desire them. The standards of safety for wireless phones should be re-evaluated and enforced, and transparency related to affects of EMFs and wireless technology on biological life should be made readily available to the public. There should be a system to evaluate the placement of cell phone towers to create the least amount of harm. Also if harm occurs, people should be compensated for injury, illness, or loss. Thank you for your time and attention.

EMF pollution has a silent impact on the health and wellness of Americans. Symptoms are often dismissed. We need real science to back up and catch up with what many Americans are actually experiencing. We also need to ensure that any studies or research that does exist is shared openly.

Wi fi is a huge driver of disease. It has negatively affected my health in multiple ways. There are countless studies freely available on pubmed showing that wireless radiation adversely affects mitochondrial function,increases inflammation, and damages the brain. Corporate greed is the only reason in continues.

I strongly support a thorough and independent review of human and environmental exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless radiation. I personally suffer from the radio waves from wireless devices. It is uncomfortable. Our exposure to wireless radiation has increased dramatically with the expansion of cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, antennas, 5G infrastructure, connected appliances, and other wireless technologies. Yet questions remain about the potential effects of continuous, cumulative, and long-term exposure, particularly when people may be exposed twenty-four hours a day in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. I believe public health standards should be based not only on whether RF radiation produces heating effects, but should also continue to evaluate research concerning possible biological effects associated with long-term, low-level exposure. This review should consider children, pregnant women, older adults, people who report sensitivity to electromagnetic exposure, and individuals who may receive unusually high cumulative exposure. It should also examine potential effects on animals, birds, insects, pollinators, plants, trees, and other living organisms. Human health cannot be considered entirely separately from the health of the environment in which we live. I encourage the government to support independent research that is free from industry influence; examine cumulative exposure from multiple wireless sources; evaluate whether present exposure standards adequately address modern technologies and long-term exposure; and consider practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure. Where reasonable alternatives exist, people should also retain the ability to choose lower-exposure options—including wired connections and non-transmitting utility meters—without being penalized for doing so. Wireless technology provides important benefits, but technological convenience should not replace careful scientific evaluation and prudent public-health protections. When scientific uncertainty exists and exposure is widespread, a precautionary approach is appropriate. I respectfully request that this review be comprehensive, transparent, independent, and attentive to both human health and the health of the natural environment. I deliberately made this **firm but scientifically defensible** rather than saying that all EMF or RF exposure is already proven to harm every living cell. That will make your comment harder to dismiss and, in my view, more effective.

PENNSYLVANIA PAPERS DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE JUNE/JULY 2024 UNREBUTTED DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS TAKEN FROM PA COPAMS OFFICIAL DATA APPLICATION FULLY ENDORSED AS TRUE AND ACCURATE BY JOSH SHAPIRO AND JESSICA SHIRLEY DEP (SHOWS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REAL TIME TAMPERING AND DELETION OF OFFICIAL DATA AFTER DEC 11 2023 DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON EVIDENCE TO PEMA (ROBERT MEINERT AND DEP VISIT TO SEAN NOLAN, CHARLES PRETNER VIA SUSAN FOSTER AND PHONE DISCLOSURE TO DWIGHT SHEARER DEP RADIATION SAFETY DIRECTOR) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hOU9d7aFwOFSrC6hzR4aNso7Fyy_wusk?usp=drive_link OFFICIAL WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIMONY AIRED AND DECLARATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER STATUS AND DISCLOSURE OF PENNSYLVANIA PAPERS (AIRED JULY 5, 2024) https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/what-is-sprayed-in-our-skies-duplicate-show-page youtube testimony pa dep AQTAC cac and https://www.youtube.com/@suskeeairsquadron master file shared with multiple oigs https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fHbMxMFvYSWN_iOeCiB6bCdc-3Y-pS8V?usp=drive_link 8.04.2026 Northern Lebanon School District Testimony of unsafe levels of electromagnetic radiation present on school property, unrebutted prima fascia evidence submitted to the board of Directors/ Principals/ Agents for NLSD Solicitor Brooke Say/Principal/Agent for Saxton Stump not present for official business meeting, magnetometer testimony timestamp 16:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXpeiDvEGE original submission email yesterday received and notedOASH RFI Assistance (OS/OASH) From: oash-rfi@hhs.gov To: keith myers Mon, Sep 21 at 10:16 AM Thank you for your email. As part of this request for information (RFI) process, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health is only accepting comments through regulations.gov. The docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 opened for public comment on Monday, September 21, 2026, and will remain open for 30 days. Instructions for providing comment are included within the RFI: “You may examine the RFI docket at regulations.gov under HHS-OASH-2026-0397. The docket contains this RFI and all comments received to date. To submit a response, click the “Comment” button inside Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 and follow all instructions.” We look forward to receiving your comment. Very Respectfully, OASH Executive Secretariat team

I have been writing the FCC for decades without a response. All of this, including this court case happening in America is because of the FCC abusing its power authority, denying people protection/forcing exposure. For me a multitude of neurological symptoms occur as a result of exposure to pulsed and modulated RFR. The symptoms described in the scientific and medical literature I suffer with include headaches, sleep problems, heart palpitations, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, depression, memory, and cognitive problems, among others. In my experience, exposure avoidance is the only effective management. If government had collected data, evidence and claims, it would be legally bound to respond long ago. Over the last 10 years I have been increasingly forced to find ways to live to escape exposure to expanding wireless installations. It has become impossible to find safe employment from debilitating exposure to pulse frequencies that disable me. The 10 questions below I have submitted to the FCC without a response: 1. When will the FCC take responsibility for clear communication of risk? 2.When will the FCC educate the public on how to avoid potential harm? 3.Why is the precautionary principle not being included within FCC policies regarding all wireless technologies, including 5G? 4. The 5G narrative leads to several issues and related questions, why has the FCC still not answered them? 5. Why does the FCC authorize criminal trespassing for wireless installations to pulse into my home that make me sick to the point of disabling me? 6. Highly experienced organizations, scientists and doctors have been speaking out for 30 years, now into the 5G narrative, claiming adequate evidence for risk of harm. They have organized into independent science-based advocacy groups, why has the FCC not recognized the evidence-based concerns? 7.Why is the FCC allowe to downplay the results of scientists who claim that harm exists including testimonies of countless people with symptoms consistent with microwave sickness from exposures to FCC authorized installations? 8. The FCC standards the wireless industry has been using since 1996 to make the claim for forced deployment in 2021 were defeated in a U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. They ruled that the FCC’s decision not to re-assess the adequacy of 1996 exposure guidelines was “arbitrary, capricious, and not evidence-based.” The court found the FCC had failed to provide evidence of properly examining long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness and impacts to the developing brain and reproductive system.”Why is the FCC still not properly examining long-term exposure, children’s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness doing research reviews, spectrum reports, environmental monitoring, risk mitigation and full body (RF) radiation exposure in homes and schools from cell towers, small cells and all wireless access points? 9. Forcing exposure without informed consent to wireless access points, according to U.S. law, is clearly criminal trespassing, robbery of life and health in the 1st Degree. Why is the FCC allowed to break that law decade after decade forcing countless people to become sick? 10. The 1996 FCC standards do not account for any impact of differing signal characteristics, such as carrier wave modulations or pulsing of the signal. Small cells are designed for massive increases in data density, where the polarized wave form radically increases. The spectrum employed is in no way scientifically connected to the FCC Safety Standards, why are they still being used? 11. For decades the FCC has openly admitted it has no expertise in health issues. The FCC often mentions it’s the responsibility of “sister agencies” like the EPA on which it relies in order to give credibility to its 1996 guidelines. 27 years ago the EPA wrote the FCC that the guidelines are “flawed.” How can the FCC justify that? 12. FCC limits should have been changed long ago to be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions. Why do you refuse to update your standards with scientific evidence? For a complete undeniable understanding of how FCC safety standards cannot be scientifically connected to the spectrum previously and currently employed including scientific evidence demonstrating how, read this 25 page study I previously sent to you and congress titled. "Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G"

I am submitting this from Scotland, UK, because in April 2020, around the time two 5G masts were installed close to our home, both my son and I experienced a dramatic deterioration in our health. My change was extreme. I went from having lifelong health problems that I had largely managed to experiencing severe neurological and autonomic symptoms. I struggled to walk, lost control and function on my left side, developed bladder-control problems, could not remain upright and at times struggled to hold a conversation. I also became aware of a persistent humming-type noise. I am not presenting the timing alone as proof that RF exposure caused this. I am reporting what happened to us and asking why it happened, and whether people with particular underlying biological vulnerabilities could be more susceptible to environmental exposures, including RF/EMF. What makes my experience particularly relevant is what was discovered afterwards. I was eventually diagnosed with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS), Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS), ADHD and autism. Before these conditions were recognised, many of my symptoms had instead been attributed to fibromyalgia, Functional Neurological Disorder, EUPD and body dysmorphia. There was no joined-up explanation for what was happening throughout my body. My son has also experienced significant health problems. We had both experienced health difficulties throughout our lives, but these had been considerably more manageable before this period. The deterioration around 2020 was different and significant enough that I began questioning whether something in our environment had changed. I was so concerned about the sudden change in our health and environment that I raised it at the time with my GP, local political and council representatives, and even contacted environmental campaigner Erin Brockovich. These were not concerns I developed retrospectively; I was actively reporting them while this was happening. There is another observation I believe is important to record. I had the smart meter removed from our home nearly two years ago. Since its removal, neither my son nor I has required an ambulance to be called to our home. Before its removal, our health episodes had been severe enough for ambulance assistance to be required. I cannot say that removing the smart meter caused this change, but the timing is significant enough that I believe it deserves investigation alongside our other RF/EMF exposures. I have also had concerns about mould and Aspergillus exposure. Blood testing has included IgE and IgG findings relating to mould/Aspergillus exposure, and I continue to have concerns about mould in my environment. This raises a wider question that I believe deserves investigation: are environmental exposures being studied together rather than independently? I would particularly like to see research examining RF/EMF alongside damp and mould, indoor air quality and other environmental stressors. I would also like research to look specifically at potentially susceptible groups. Are people with mast-cell disorders, dysautonomia/PoTS, connective-tissue disorders such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD and autism being separately examined when RF/EMF health effects are assessed? My experience cannot establish causation, but I believe the pattern is important enough to investigate: a substantial deterioration affecting two members of the same household around a period of environmental change, followed by another notable change in our experience after the smart meter was removed. I have extensive medical documentation covering my symptoms, subsequent diagnoses and environmental concerns. I would be willing for my experience and records to contribute to properly designed research into these questions. I am asking HHS to investigate whether there are vulnerable subgroups whose responses may be missed when population-level results are averaged together, and whether combinations of environmental exposures could matter. Karen Johnston Scotland, United Kingdom