Cancer & tumors

Perspective (Q2): State-licensed professional engineer; forensic engineer and expert witness. Background I am a state-licensed Professional Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering. I perform forensic investigations and evidence collection for causation analysis, and have prepared expert reports and been cross-examined on them. In 30 years of construction and civil engineering experience, I have managed the handling, cleanup, and legal disposal of a wide variety of environmental toxins, including PCBs, lead, asbestos, hazardous chemicals, and special waste. I have U.S. NRC radiation training and have performed engineering work at U.S. nuclear power facilities. Performed close interval surveys (CIS) and direct current voltage gradient (DCVG) surveys to determine elevated voltage potentials and stray current along utility corridors. Managed pipeline current mapping (PCM) projects using RF equipment to determine current leakage and pipe construction defects. Analyzed EMF field surveys, electromagnetic modeling, counterpoise design, and corrective actions by the local power provider and railway operator to mitigate induced AC voltages on commuter railroad tracks during repair and replacement operations, protecting railway worker health and safety. Managed development and installation of devices at nuclear power plants used to monitor buried pipe networks for cathodic protection effectiveness under NRC and industry integrity programs. Performed field evaluations at nuclear power plants and other industrial sites of piping systems for electrochemical corrosion and stray current using radio frequency and electrical resistance testing equipment. Q5(p), Q7, Q8: Exposure characterization Real-world RF/EMF exposure varies continuously in power, duty cycle, pulse modulation, and compounding multi-source overlap. Most lab and animal studies, including NTP, used artificial signals from laboratory signal generators at fixed parameters, not real device emissions. Time-averaged power density and whole-body SAR do not capture peaks, pulse characteristics, duty cycle, or cumulative multi-source exposure. Assessments should measure and report them. Industry-funded RF/EMF exposure surveys and compliance testing, including cell phone carrier site compliance reports, should disclose the instrument, bandwidth, detector type (RMS vs. peak), averaging time, calibration, uncertainty, and measurement locations. Reports that omit these cannot be independently reproduced or verified. HHS should give them no weight until raw data are available for third-party review. Power-frequency magnetic fields: developers and permitting agencies cite ICNIRP’s 2010 guideline (2,000 mG) as health-based. It protects only against acute nerve stimulation, not long-term exposure. IARC classified these fields Group 2B (2002) on childhood leukemia associations near 3-4 mG, about 500 times lower. It also does not protect implanted medical devices: ICNIRP states compliance “may not necessarily preclude interference with... cardiac pacemakers and implanted defibrillators.” Q6, Q12, Q16: Weighting negative studies In forensic practice, a test that could not have detected a condition does not prove its absence. Absence of evidence from an insensitive design is not evidence of absence. The 2026 Japan and Korea “validation” studies fail that test. They departed from the NTP design in three important ways (Melnick et al., Environ Health 25, 66, 2026): Omitted high dose. They tested a single exposure level (4 W/kg) and dropped NTP’s highest level (6 W/kg), where its carcinogenic effects were most pronounced. Departed from FDA and OECD guidelines. Both require at least three dose levels plus a control for dose-response trend analysis. A single-dose design cannot detect a dose-dependent trend. Overlooked signal. Despite limited power, the Korean study found heart schwannomas in 3% of exposed rats versus 0% of controls, matching NTP’s incidence at 3 W/kg, yet the authors dismissed it. These studies cannot override the 2018 NTP two-year study (TR-595), which found “clear evidence” of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and “some evidence” of brain gliomas and adrenal tumors. HHS should not treat a study as refuting a positive finding unless it matches or exceeds the original’s sensitivity: same animal model, comparable group sizes, multiple doses, and documented statistical power. Q16, Q17: Research priorities Fund new animal studies that repeat NTP at equal or larger scale with three or more exposure levels, run by scientists with no financial ties to the wireless industry or to the bodies that set the limits being tested. Fund exposure studies that replicate real-world conditions: variable signals from actual phones, routers, and towers, and compounding exposure from many simultaneous devices in high-occupancy settings such as classrooms. Require studies HHS relies on to disclose who funded and advised them.

The FCC is a captured agency whose revolving doors include commissioners that are former CEOs, lawyers and lobbyists of the telecom industry. The FCC has refused to update their safety standards since 1996, even though a $25 million dollar industry-funded research concluded that wireless radiation raised the risk of brain tumors. Those 1996 safety standards only considered the thermal effects of wireless radiation for brief exposure...no long term exposure to the exponentially stronger electromagnetic radiation of today's technologies. In August 2021, the FCC was ordered to update their safety standards in the federal case Environmental Health Trust,et. al. V FCC supported by over 11,000 scientific health and safety studies. Yet the wireless industry has proceeded as if this ruling never took place. Updated safety standards for human health are long overdue and must be integrated into systems to protect Americans NOW. The world's largest insurance companies have responded by excluding any liability coverage for claims "directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or contributed to, by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." Lloyds of London and Swiss Reinsurance Company have put wireless radiation in the highest risk category, next to smoking and asbestos. 30+ countries around the world including the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil have banned Chinese-made 5G technology because of national security concerns. Wireless broadband is not cyber secure, it's unreliable in bad weather, it's a proven fire hazard, it's untested for EMF safety, it uses much more energy than fiber-optic and its giant equipment is aesthetically offensive. Only fiber-optic cable direct to homes and businesses delivers speed-of-light internet connection that will meet the needs required for next generation programs and services, with no threat to cyber security because it can't be hacked and it poses no health risk to humans or the environment. Californians have already paid for fiber optic to their homes in their phone bills over a 20+ year period. The IRREGULATORS vs. FCC lawsuit in 2020 exposed the largest accounting scandal in American history where telecom corporations fraudulently funnelled the money already paid by their customers for fiber optic to the premises into wireless technology instead. Where is that TRILLION DOLLARS now? I implore you to update safety standards NOW, using third party testing, NOT funded by the wireless industry. Sincerely, Jeannie Ferrara Concerned Citizen For more eye-opening information, click on any of the links below for articles in the news and organizations that promote safe and responsible technology: https://sooke.civicweb.net; https://ourweb.tech/fires-and-collapses/ https://5GFreeCalifornia.org; http://www.Americans4RT.org/california; http://www.mdsafetech.com; http://www.bioinitiative.org https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/ https://scientists4wiredtech.com › cell-tower-installation... The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety

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 patient. 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. My experience began with a garmin smartwatch. It was a gift. I was hesitant to access the Bluetooth feature for the first year or two. When I got a new iPhone I connected it and decided to try the Bluetooth feature. After seven months I had three different skin issues on the back of my left hand. One of them was diagnosed as squamous carcinoma and required surgical removal. I stopped wearing my watch after the July biopsy. My sister also had squamous carcinoma on the back of her left hand. It would be wise for HHS to investigate these instances to protect individuals from unwittingly exposing themselves to potentially harmful situations. 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.

On Christmas Day, 1991 I had my first encounter with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. My 2 yr old handed me a present-it was a flip phone.  When I made my first call, the energy vibrated up my arm & my head. My body had a strong, visceral reaction.  The moment's captured on video, so you can see my unplanned reaction. When I asked others how they could hold their phone to their ear while it zapped them, I realized I was an outlier. I started to connect my symptoms and use of the phone: extreme headaches, numbness, tingling, insomnia, anxiety-palpitations & brain fog.  When WiFi arrived it became extremely clear; WiFi nearby made me feel so unwell, it had to be turned off if I was within 50 ft. What began as a personal quest became a professional mission. For the past two decades, I have focused on public awareness & education in the area of digital wellness. Through websites, published articles, video content & public speaking engagements, I have informed audiences on the realities of how technology is affecting us and how to stay safer and healthier with it. I’ve had to build my whole life around accommodating the functional impairment of electrohypersensitivity (EHS). I don’t live close to cell towers. I don’t have a WiFi in my home, I have a wired ethernet connection. My home has a metal roof. I use RF-EMF blocking material, including a sleep canopy, and more. I drive a 2010 car with no wireless & use a EMF blocking cocoon wrap when exposure is unavoidable. Not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone knows they’re reacting. I’ve consulted hundreds of people who cannot break leases or move when they encountered the negative effects of RF-EMF. Many feel constantly surrounded by EMF without any relief from debilitating pain. The land of the free often presents as a prison for those who are most sensitive to EMF. My lived experience with EHS, is why I urge immediate consideration & protection for all sensitive groups, including children, people with chronic illness & people with EHS.  The reality is, even if someone does not physically feel the effects of EMF, that doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted at a biological level. In fact, there are already hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that link EMF to other negative biological effects like cancer, autism, thyroid nodules, insomnia, infertility. These scoping studies cannot be ignored (links below): The US National Toxicology Program claims on its Government site: Clear evidence of association with heart tumors male rats and some evidence of brain, and adrenal tumors. A 2025 review commissioned by WHO found Man-Made Wireless EMF Radiation causes Brain Cancer and Heart Cancer.  The evidence from 52 studies was assessed. The certainty of the evidence for an"increased risk of glioma or brain cancer, was judged as high.” The ICBE-EMF review revealed current safety limits for wireless EMF are severely inadequate to protect public health. Wydaeghe et. al. simulation of the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure showed that in the worst-case scenario, a 6 year old boy can absorb wireless energy from a typical cellphone tower that is 45% more than the current FCC limits actually allow. Simulated 5G towers found exposure could reach 158% of the limits. Chokeli et.al looked at genotoxic biomarkers in children that had cell towers 100 to 400 meters from their schools. The closer they were the more biomarkers related to DNA damage and cancer, the kids had. A recent study published in Cureus Journal of Medical Science found significant associations between levels of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure in the home and child development. I hear the same comment repeatedly from my community, “My kids don’t sleep well when the WiFi is on.” A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study points to the same conclusion: participants reported poorer sleep when exposed to radiation from a wireless baby monitor as compared to a “sham.” While more research is helpful, we already have more than enough convicting studies. Therefore the federal priorities at this point must employ risk management measures relying on current research, enacting laws to protect our youngest and most sensitive Americans while further studies are take place. As a mother with an adorable grandson, I often think, “Why does France care more about the effects of RF-EMF on children than my country does?”  For over a decade, children under 3 in France have been guaranteed a pre-school without the impact of WiFi.  For kids 3 to 11, parents are assured that the WiFi will remain off when it’s not used for digital education. Law #2015-136 also says any public establishment in France that has WiFi must clearly signal its presence.   An amazingly effective first step would be to pass a law like France’s. Imagine happier kids, more present teachers. This basic protection for kids is literally the least we can do. 

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. I urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. Please prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure. Please consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects. I ask HHS to: •Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups. •Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest. •Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools. •Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient. Consumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.

There are many reasons to research the impact of man-made non-ionizing radiation. First, we’ll start with cellphone and mobile base stations (MBSTS) effects on children (it should be noted these base stations are leased and pay the schools tens of thousands of dollars annually). A study involved parting a non MPBST (mobile phone base station) exposed group to an exposed group and comparing test scores after a period of 2 years’ time (Meo SA et all, 2018). The impact of the radiation showed memory and motor deficiencies of significant value. In the attached report you’ll see a significant difference in the study groups when it comes to learning and memory. I will say that I have measured the radiation from my cellphone in an otherwise zero EMR environment. The zero EMR environment registers 0.2 to .5 mW/cm2 (0.2 microwatts per meter squared), which is considered very safe. Comparatively, when you measure my phone with its Wi-Fi turned on (and no other connectivity signal), I get 189,000 mW/cm2. That’s an incredible difference. Other individuals of concern are those with preexisting medical conditions, especially those with weakened immune systems are more susceptible to the degrading effect EMR has on the blood brain barrier. The BBB is a semipermeable border that moves ions, oxygen and water between the blood and the central nervous system. It serves to block pathogens and toxins from entering the brain and these studies have found correlation between EMR and penetrability of the Blood Brain Barrier. Additionally, IARC (International Agency of Research on Cancer) have found cellphone users have a greater risk of cancer (MSD, 2016). Cumulative exposure is the biggest problem with EMR. It is very hard to determine the cause of issue when so many devices are involved. The various sources of cumulative exposure include 6G, 5G, Wi-Fi and wearable technology. 6G involves THz (Terahertz) frequencies that will have the ability to alter DNA and neurons. It has been determined that 5G and 6G and other high frequency radiation causes tissue and nerve damage (Minar, 2025). The IoT will magnify the effects of EMR as many appliances connect and communicate with each other. Wearable technologies concentrate EMR on the body and range up to 2.4 GHz, which is not advisable to wear and it is not fair to expose others to this device’s radiation (Revolutionhealth, 2025). Unless it is mandatory, wireless medical devices should not be worn (mdasafetech, 2026). It is also known that wireless devices can cause heart issues and it’s extremely ironic they are used to measure heart rate and other general health metrics. As for satellite-based communication, studies need to be made regarding its impact on the environment and biology. The WHO and FCC have already mentioned, in their former studies, that electromagnetic radiation devices are possibly carcinogenic. These same studies are decade’s old and needing review. It should be assumed that at this point, with the massive increase in man-made electrical fields, that scientific evidence is irrefutable and that it does cause harm (Johansson, 2026). Like tobacco and alcohol, outreach/education about the potential harmful impacts of wireless radiation should be readily available with warning labels. At this time, the cellphone and telecommunications companies are largely uninsurable due to the high risks of electromagnetic fields (ehtrust, 2026) (Complete Markets, 2026). Since we are discussing the need for HHS to reevaluate and none of the other branches, we can talk about the need to expand its epidemiological studies to cover the cancer and leukemia issues known to be associated with this as well as harm reduction in classes, libraries, hospitals and public spaces. Every technological product we use has a measurable field. These items should be 3rd party tested and sold with the readings provided and a warning label printed. The packaging should be sold with a label that states its level at microwatts per meter squared (mW/cm2) and each level should be color coded for quick recognition so that we can create a baseline chart that consumers easily understand. Much like the EMR test meters available on the markets, you’ll have Red, Orange, Yellow and Green and these colors correlate to the degree of signal on the object. The FDA will be responsible for labeling and verifying full disclosure is provided to consumers. Public spaces need to be measured and coded as well and if possible, provide Ethernet connections and lower their EMR signal to the minimum necessary. We already have thousands of well researched, published scientific articles online that have spanned 40-50 years. We don’t need to invent the cart; we just need some horses and a destination. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment on man-made electromagnetic radiation and its effects on health. Sincerely, Nicole Stallings

I live in a neighboring town to Ripon, California. In 2019, four students and three staff members at a local elementary school (Weston Elementary), were diagnosed with cancer. They battled with Sprint and eventually the cell tower was moved away from the school. We need to have safe zones for neighborhoods and schools where these towers are far away. Children are developing and we need to protect them from the harms of EMF's.

I urge HHS to prioritize independent research into the potential long-term health effects of radiofrequency radiation and to transparently evaluate whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. My concerns include possible cancer risks, exposure beginning in childhood and continuing throughout life, and whether research adequately reflects today’s devices and exposure patterns. There are scientific findings that warrant follow-up. The National Toxicology Program’s studies found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas and some evidence of malignant brain gliomas in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation. These were high-exposure animal studies using signals associated with 2G and 3G technology; they do not establish that everyday wireless exposure or 5G causes cancer in humans. Nevertheless, they deserve careful investigation. Human research also needs to be represented accurately. The large COSMOS cohort study did not find increased brain-tumor risk among people with the greatest cumulative mobile-phone call time. Reassuring findings should inform policy alongside animal findings and remaining uncertainties. I ask HHS to: • Fund independent, long-term research, including studies of children, contemporary wireless technologies, and well-characterized exposure levels. • Evaluate cancer, reproductive and developmental outcomes, sleep, and neurological symptoms, clearly distinguishing established effects from preliminary findings. • Review exposure standards transparently and explain how they address long-term exposure and potentially vulnerable populations. • Require disclosure of research funding and conflicts of interest. • Offer practical, proportionate guidance for people who wish to reduce exposure, including increasing distance from phones during calls. People reporting symptoms they associate with electromagnetic exposure deserve respectful clinical attention and rigorous investigation without assuming the cause in advance. The public deserves clear information about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what evidence would justify stronger protections.

Many thanks to you for taking public comments on the damaging consequences to health from the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by all high-tech devices. Until about 15 or 20 years ago, I never had any trouble sleeping in my entire life. Then, suddenly, from one day to the next, I had tremendous trouble sleeping. I could not get to sleep for hours, I could not stay asleep, or get back to sleep when I woke up throughout the night. I was mystified, because NOTHING had changed in my health or my life. After several months of this, I happened to hear an alternative health show on the radio. The topic was dangers to health and life from EMR. Often, the show's expert host said, the first consequence people notice is trouble sleeping. I realized a new neighbor had moved in when the trouble started. She confirmed she had installed WiFi in her apartment. The day the WiFi was installed, my sleep problems began. There has been irrefutable confirmation in the subsequent years. When I have traveled to countries where no one has cell phones or WiFi, I slept like a baby again. When I have traveled to heavily wired places, I could only manage to sleep 4 hours a night, and I need 8. Close friends have suffered more severely. One friend has spent 20 or 30 years using Bluetooth in his car to make phone calls. He spends 3 or 4 hours a day using Bluetooth, as he drives from job to job for the business he owns. The Bluetooth is in his left ear. He is now almost entirely blind in his left eye. The radiation has beamed straight into his optic nerve. A parade of ophthalmologists can find no other cause. Another friend lived a completely wired life. She had a cell phone, and a Tesla that charged in her garage, on the other side of her bedroom wall. She also had a cordless phone, which means she essentially had a cell tower in her living room spewing radiation. She had powerful WiFi throughout her home. She used a laptop computer, which she literally sat on her lap, its screen aimed at her midriff. The lymphoma that killed her started in her midriff. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the computer revolution began. Since we were the "early adopters" of this technology, we've been using it the longest. It takes years of exposure to EMR for the most serious conditions to manifest, and here at Ground Zero everyone knows people who have experienced the consequences. Glioblastoma brain tumors, for instances, show up in the general population at rates unheard-of in past years, and at younger and younger ages. Brittany Maynard, the poster child of the right-to-die movement in California, was 28 years old when she died of a glioblastoma brain tumor. She had to move from California to Oregon to obtain doctors' help in cutting short the suffering leading to her inevitable death. To provide some scientific support for the “anecdotal” claims made in my comment, please see the following articles (pdfs of these articles are also attached to the comment): • Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) – Review of mechanisms (2020) https://maisonsaine.ca/uploads/cem-electrosmog/ehs-mechanisms-ys-iu.pdf • Interpretation of epidemiological studies on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer (2025) https://www.emfdata.org/en/studies/detail?id=942) • Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review” (2025) (https://www.emfdata.org/en/studies/detail?id=942, • Assessment of electromagnetic fields, vibration and sound exposure effects from multiple transceiver mobile phones on oxidative stress levels in serum, brain and heart tissue (2020) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468227620300090. • EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html

Public Comment Submission to the FCC and HHS Regarding: Request for Scientific Evidence on the Health and Environmental Impacts of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation Submitter: Anonymous, 56-year-old female, Western Australia 1. Timeline of Exposure and Onset of Symptoms • June 11, 2021: A mobile phone base station 550 metres from my home (RFNSA Site ID: 6280011) underwent a major upgrade, introducing multiple new frequency bands (700MHz to 2600MHz). • June 12, 2021: I experienced severe, inexplicable thermal sensations ("heating up") on my back while in my bedroom. So the next night, I changed rooms. • Night of June 13 / Morning of June 14, 2021 (6:00 AM): While sleeping in a middle bedroom with a west-facing window, I was awoken from a deep sleep by an intense neurological sensation which was like a massive bolt or flash of power entering the left side of my brain and which seemingly had entered through the west side of my home. • Ensuing Days: I developed immediate and acute Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms, including physical discomfort around wireless devices and localized paresthesia ("tiny shocks") when entering my home office. 2. Context and Observations Prior to June 2021, I was in excellent health with no history of neurological conditions, seizures, or fits. Concurrently, my household pet developed an acute tumor that required surgical removal. I subsequently enrolled in formal electrobiology studies (commencing January 2022), where the academic coursework directly mirrored and explained the physiological symptoms I was experiencing in real-time. 3. Long-Term Life and Social Impact The onset of EHS has severely restricted my ability to participate in everyday life. My access to public spaces, transit, and accommodation is profoundly limited due to the ubiquity of central Wi-Fi, integrated automotive Bluetooth, and unshielded wireless infrastructure. Managing this condition requires an incredibly isolated lifestyle and constant environmental modifications, devastating my social and professional life. 4. Conclusion and Regulatory Request The precise correlation between the activation of new macro-cell frequency bands and the sudden, permanent disruption to my health indicates a critical gap in current safety thresholds. In support of this statement, I attach and reference the following peer-reviewed studies: • Hardell & Carlberg (2025): "The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety." • Frank et al. (2022): "Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G." I urge the FCC and HHS to move away from outdated static models and comprehensively review nonthermal, cumulative biological impacts on humans and local ecosystems.