The Day Before:
Li-Fi, HHS, and the Wireless Safety Reset

Watch the discussion—and help shape what follows

The Freedom Hub program, RFK’s Wireless Radiation Failure, brought together a presentation, audience questions, and a practical challenge: how do we protect children while continuing to improve connectivity? The discussion focused on HHS accountability, the limits of current wireless policy, and the opportunities offered by Li-Fi. ^[1]

This page brings those priorities together with the subsequent federal announcements. The recording’s title belongs to the discussion as it happened. Today, there is a concrete opportunity to press for the research, transparency, and engineering choices we discussed.

Watch the recording. Write your own comment. Submit separately to HHS and the FCC. Sharing the video helps people understand the issue; filing a comment puts their evidence and requests where the agencies can consider them.

One day apart—and two separate federal records

The timing matters. My interview took place on Wednesday, September 16, 2026. HHS issued its announcement on Thursday, September 17. Its request became a published Federal Register notice on Monday, September 21, with an October 21, 2026 comment deadline. ^{[2] [3]}

The FCC also released its current remand notice, DA 26-997, on September 17, in ET Docket 13-84. That notice specifies a comment period ending 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. Earlier coverage referred to a September 11 notice, DA 26-971; the September 17 notice is the current document linked here. ^{[4] [5]}

The underlying 2021 court decision required the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its treatment of relevant evidence, including non-cancer effects and issues involving children and long-term exposure. The court remanded the matter without vacating the limits; it did not itself establish that compliant wireless exposure causes disease. ^[6]

This sequence is encouraging. It represents an invitation to contribute evidence and recommendations. New exposure limits, a Li-Fi mandate, and the Clean Ether Act proposals described below have not been enacted through these announcements.

1. SEP 16The discussionJohn Coates joins Freedom Hub.
2. SEP 17The announcementsHHS announces its RFI. FCC releases DA 26-997.
3. SEP 21The published HHS noticeOctober 21 is the HHS comment deadline.

HHS already has a radiation-control responsibility

The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, Public Law 90-602, is central to my argument. Its radiation-control provisions are now part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA explains that they cover electronic products emitting ionizing or non-ionizing radiation, including products such as cellular phones. ^{[7] [8]}

Under 21 U.S.C. § 360ii, the Secretary must establish and carry out an electronic-product radiation-control program. The law addresses research, exposure evaluation, performance standards, coordination with other agencies, and techniques for minimizing unnecessary exposure. These are existing responsibilities on which the public can ask for a transparent accounting. ^[9]

Our request to HHS should be concrete: publish the research agenda, identify the responsible offices, explain how exposure-reduction technologies will be evaluated, and report the results. A request for information can help inform that work. The public should also ask what commitments, funding, and milestones will follow it.

Put health expertise in charge of the health assessment

RF Safe advocates a clearer division of responsibility: HHS and FDA should lead the health-risk assessment and the development of health-based protections; the FCC should manage spectrum and implement the communications engineering requirements needed to meet those protections.

This is a proposal for institutional reform. FDA already has radiation-control duties, while the FCC currently has authority over RF exposure rules for its regulated transmitters. The September 2026 FCC notice itself describes that role. Changing the statutory allocation of authority would require congressional action where existing law assigns it. ^{[4] [8]}

The practical question is accountability. Who evaluates developmental effects? Who funds replication? Who compares cumulative exposures and exposure-reduction options? Who must explain unresolved evidence to the public? Health agencies should provide visible, independent answers, supported by medical, biological, toxicological, and engineering expertise.

Section 704: give communities a meaningful health voice

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 added the provision now codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). It restricts state and local regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions when those facilities comply with FCC regulations. ^[10]

That restriction makes the adequacy of the federal standard especially consequential for communities. RF Safe supports congressional reform of this provision so that evidence-based health and environmental concerns can receive meaningful consideration in siting decisions.

The distinction between the forums matters. HHS can receive health evidence and research proposals. The FCC can address its exposure rules and the remand within its authority. Congress must address repeal or amendment of a federal statute. A strong public campaign directs each request to the institution capable of acting on it.

Li-Fi: make a lower-RF connection a practical choice

Li-Fi sends data using light. In suitable indoor settings, an optical link can replace an RF link that would otherwise carry that traffic. Fiber and Ethernet can carry the connection to the room; an optical access point and compatible device can carry it across the remaining space.

The idea of communicating through light has a long history. Alexander Graham Bell and Charles Sumner Tainter’s 1880 photophone work is an important predecessor. Modern Li-Fi adds the electronics, digital modulation, networking, and interoperability needed for contemporary connectivity. IEEE 802.11bb-2023 provides a standardized light-communications approach; its scope includes uplink and downlink operation in the 800–1,000 nm band. ^{[11] [12]}

I did not invent Li-Fi. I am the named inventor on U.S. Patent 11,700,058 B2, “System for wireless communication using germicidal light frequencies,” filed on October 8, 2021, granted on July 11, 2023, and assigned to Far UV Innovations Inc. My contribution is a system that uses germicidal light to carry data, bringing optical communications and disinfection into the same architecture. ^[13]

For families, schools, and workplaces, the useful question is whether a connection can provide the required service while reducing avoidable RF transmissions. That requires the whole design to work: compatible endpoints, reliable coverage, optical uplinks as well as downlinks, and a clear indication of whether a device has switched back to radio.

Optical networking also has practical limits. Opaque obstructions can interrupt a light path; coverage, mobility, cost, accessibility, and interoperability need evaluation. It can complement wired networks and selected radio services. A school should be able to buy that option without discovering that the tablets cannot use it.

Far-UVC: build the exposure margin into the design

My prototype used NS Nanotech solid-state far-UVC emitters at approximately 219 nanometers. I report that it operated below the exposure guidance in use before the subsequent ACGIH revision. That is my account of the prototype; the numerical illustration below is a separate calculation, not a measurement of that device.

The engineering point is straightforward: an exposure limit is a ceiling, not a target. The architecture does not require operation close to that ceiling. Lower-output emitters, reduced drive, duty-cycle control, and placement can reduce the light reaching occupants. Orders-of-magnitude lower exposure is a legitimate design objective. Whether a particular implementation also delivers the required data rate, range, and disinfection performance at that exposure must be measured.

NS Nanotech publicly describes adjustable output in its semiconductor source. Its later ShortWaveLight 215 product was announced with 500 microwatts of total optical output, increased from 300 microwatts, in April 2025. Those are specifications for a later 215 nm product, not a measured dose from my approximately 219 nm prototype. Total source power and irradiance at a person's skin or eyes are different quantities. ^[14]

An illustrative margin at 219 nm. Suppose the time-averaged irradiance reaching a person is 0.001 microwatts per square centimeter. Over eight hours, irradiance multiplied by time gives 0.0288 millijoules per square centimeter. Using the interpolation formula in ICNIRP's 2004 ultraviolet guidance, the corresponding monochromatic 219 nm limit is approximately 25 millijoules per square centimeter. The example is therefore about 880 times below that older limit. This demonstrates the design principle; it does not establish a prototype exposure or a disinfection result. A real source requires assessment across its full emission spectrum and the actual exposure geometry. ^[15]

The chronology also matters. My patent application predates ACGIH's 2022 revision. At 222 nm, the older eight-hour benchmark was approximately 23 mJ/cm²; the revised values were approximately 160 mJ/cm² for the eyes and 480 mJ/cm² for the skin—increases of roughly sevenfold and twenty-onefold. These are wavelength-specific occupational guidelines, not a blanket change in federal law, and the 222 nm figures should not be substituted for a 219 nm assessment. ^{[16] [17] [18]}

Far-UVC is attractive because strong absorption in proteins and other biological material limits penetration into tissue, while sufficiently exposed microorganisms can be inactivated. That supports investigating a useful operating window for communication and sanitation. The window still depends on wavelength, spectral purity, dose, and installation conditions, including effects on indoor air chemistry. ^{[19] [13]}

For the optical data link, “zero-SAR communications” means avoiding an RF carrier and its contribution to RF absorption. Optical energy is still absorbed and needs its own exposure assessment. The case for the invention is its ability to combine functions while designing for a large exposure margin; the size of that margin comes from dosimetry and performance measurements.

The Clean Ether Act: turn an alternative into infrastructure

The Clean Ether Act is RF Safe’s proposed policy framework. The recommendations here are a legislative agenda, not a description of an enacted law.

Its central idea is to make lower-RF connectivity a realistic default where it can deliver the required service. A workable proposal should include:

1. Mandated Li-Fi compatibility, phased in for defined device and procurement categories. Establish interoperable requirements for covered phones, tablets, laptops, and access equipment, with realistic implementation dates. Begin with public procurement and child-serving settings; require accessible, affordable ways to connect existing devices.
2. Wired backbones and optical deployment pilots. Fund fiber, Ethernet, and independently evaluated Li-Fi installations in schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, and public buildings. Measure performance, actual RF reduction, maintenance costs, and user experience.
3. A usable choice to turn radios off. Devices should clearly show their active connection and allow users to disable unneeded RF transmitters while retaining wired or optical connectivity. Emergency access and reliability requirements must be designed into the system.
4. Independent safety and performance requirements. Optical systems need wavelength-specific eye and skin safety assessment, appropriate limits on exposure, and evaluation of modulation and flicker. Germicidal UV systems require their own assessment. A change in carrier does not remove the need to evaluate the resulting product.
5. Health-agency accountability and regular review. Tie research funding, exposure disclosure, standards review, and public reporting to measurable obligations. Congress should separately address the Section 704 restriction and any reassignment of statutory authority.

Compatibility is the practical bottleneck this proposal targets. A network option is of little use when the device in a child’s hand cannot connect to it.

Native and non-native: ask what biology actually experiences

RF Safe uses the distinction between native and non-native electromagnetic environments to ask how technological exposures differ from the conditions in which living systems evolved. That is a useful starting question. It is not a sufficient safety test.

Light is electromagnetic radiation too. Sunlight contains hazardous ultraviolet radiation, and engineered infrared or visible-light communications are not automatically biologically equivalent to daylight. Optical equipment must be assessed for the exposure it produces. FDA’s radiation-control framework already recognizes that both RF devices and optical products can fall within its scope. ^[8]

The engineering goal should therefore be specific: deliver connectivity with appropriately evaluated technologies while reducing unnecessary exposure. The relevant comparison includes wavelength or frequency, intensity, modulation, duration, location, and the people exposed. “Natural” and “artificial” labels cannot substitute for those measurements.

Biological fidelity: why the pattern deserves investigation

My broader concern is the fidelity of biological signaling: how reliably a living system reads its immediate environment, responds, and recovers.

In RF Safe’s ceLLM framework, DNA and chromatin provide inherited and acquired constraints on cellular responses. Bioelectric signals, metabolism, mitochondria, the cytoskeleton, and neighboring cells help determine the context in which those responses occur. The comparison with an inference engine is a way to organize questions about biology. It does not establish that DNA is literally an artificial neural network.

There is a solid biological reason to examine patterns. Experiments by Dolmetsch and colleagues showed that calcium-signal amplitude and duration can differentially activate transcription factors, and that oscillation frequency can affect the efficiency and specificity of gene expression. These were studies of cellular signaling; they did not establish that ordinary Wi-Fi exposure produces those changes. ^{[20] [21]}

RF Safe’s terms biological dissonance, low-fidelity biology, and meta-disease state describe a proposed chain of events: a disturbance changes signaling; the response changes the cell’s internal conditions; those changed conditions influence subsequent responses. Repeated perturbations might, under some conditions, reduce resilience or increase susceptibility to other stressors. Cells also buffer, adapt, and recover, so persistence and harm cannot be assumed.

The exposure-specific question remains empirical: can a defined RF exposure reproducibly alter a relevant process, through an identified coupling mechanism, at the levels people actually encounter—and does that alteration have an adverse consequence?

That question calls for carefully controlled, blinded studies with accurate dosimetry, temperature control, realistic waveforms, time-resolved biological measurements, and independent replication. A physiological change, a proposed mechanism, and a demonstrated health risk are different evidentiary steps.

The ocean analogy from our discussion makes the measurement problem intuitive: knowing the amount of water does not tell you everything about what waves do at the shore. The analogy is not proof of an RF effect. It is a reason to ask whether an exposure metric captures the features relevant to the biological process being tested.

For the fuller framework, read The Cell Is Listening and The Geometry of Intelligence.

Make your comment useful—and make it your own

You do not need a scientific degree to participate. Parents, teachers, clinicians, engineers, researchers, and community members can each contribute something different. A useful comment explains what you know, how you know it, and what you want the agency to do.

For HHS, describe the relevant research question or experience, identify supporting evidence where available, and connect your request to the notice’s numbered questions. The notice asks each person or organization to submit one response and permits anonymous submissions. ^[3]

For the FCC, address the remand and exposure-policy record: ask for a reasoned treatment of the relevant evidence, explain the limits of the studies you cite, and state the changes or further evaluation you seek. Its notice directs comments into ET Docket 13-84, rather than to its RF-safety contact mailbox. ^[4]

If describing an experience, identify it as an observation. Include useful context without claiming it proves causation. If citing a study, name the exposure, the study population or model, and the result; explain why it is relevant to the decision. Original, specific submissions are more informative than unsupported slogans.

These are public records. Keep private medical records, children’s identifying details, and other sensitive information out of your submission. Save your text and the filing confirmation. Submitting to one agency does not submit to the other.

Watch. Write. Help shape what happens next.

The interview asked for health-agency responsibility, better investigation of biological effects, and serious attention to alternatives. The comment opportunities give the public a concrete way to advance those requests.

I see participation as a civic responsibility, especially when children will live longest with the infrastructure we build today. We can ask rigorous questions and advocate practical changes at the same time: stronger health oversight, transparent research, a meaningful community voice, and devices that can communicate through light.

Watch the conversation. Share it with someone who needs the filing information. Then put your own evidence, experience, and recommendations into both federal records.