Cancer & tumors

I am a retired integrative medicine physician. After board certifications in Internal Medicine and Anesthesia and two decades of practice in Anesthesia, I went into Integrative Medicine to recover my own health and to help address the root causes of the increasing burden of chronic diseases. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Most regulatory agencies have betrayed the public trust (and our health) by failing to adhere to the Precautionary Principle. Industry has been allowed to proceed without providing evidence of safety. There are over 1000 studies on the harms of Electro Magnetic Fields, the abstracts of which are catelogued by Green Med Info at https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email AND yet, the FCC continues to ignore a 2021 court order to update its Electromagnetic Field safety studies. Meanwhile, rollout continues on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT, smart meters cell towers, and other sources of EMF exposure. The peer-reviewed record on 5G, 6G, satellite, IoT and smart-meter exposures is not adequate for safety assessment (Simkó & Mattsson, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/, concluded available studies "do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment"). This is a gap. This is definitely not reassurance!(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/); Balmori, Sci Total Environ 2015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747364/). Since the HHS, through the FDA is the agency that is positioned to supply the health-science information that the court found missing, I ask for a federal evidence review that holds agencies and industry to the Precautionary Principle. Here are 6 meta-analyses that give evidence of harm effects at or below current limits: Effects at or below current limits Zendehdel R, et al. DNA effects of low level occupational exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (50/60 Hz). Toxicol Ind Health. 2019. Utility workers at median 0.85 µT — below the ACGIH TLV — showed significantly increased DNA strand breaks. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31138035/ Esmailzadeh S, et al. Exposure to electromagnetic fields of high voltage overhead power lines and female infertility. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2019. Residence within 500 m: adjusted OR 4.44 (95% CI 2.77–7.11). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30685773/ Zhao L, et al. Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leuk Res. 2014. ≥0.4 µT: OR 1.57 (1.03–2.40); ALL: OR 2.43 (1.30–4.55). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24388073/ Wartenberg D. Residential EMF exposure and childhood leukemia: meta-analysis and population attributable risk. Bioelectromagnetics. 2001. If causal, 175–240 U.S. childhood leukemia cases attributable. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11170120/ National Toxicology Program. Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies, TR 595/596 (Nov. 2018). "Clear evidence" of malignant heart schwannomas and "some evidence" of malignant gliomas in male rats. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones Broom KA, et al. Early-life exposure to pulsed LTE radiofrequency fields causes persistent changes in activity and behavior in C57BL/6 J mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 2019. SAR-dependent behavioural changes at 0.5–1 W/kg. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31522469/

As a mother and a longtime Santa Monica resident, I want families to have clear, trustworthy information about wireless radiation and health. Technology is part of everyday life, and I want federal agencies to examine potential risks carefully and explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical steps are justified by the evidence. I submit this comment as an individual member of the public, not as a scientific expert. My requests are informed by the peer-reviewed review cited below. I ask HHS and the FCC to conduct transparent, independent assessments of radiofrequency exposure that consider children, long-term and repeated exposure, and realistic conditions of device use. Mevissen and colleagues (2025) reviewed experimental animal cancer studies and reported high-certainty evidence for increased glioma and malignant heart schwannoma in male rats. The authors also emphasize that extrapolating these findings to human risk is complex. These findings warrant careful evaluation; they do not, by themselves, establish that everyday wireless exposure causes cancer in people. Please assess this review alongside its 2026 corrigendum, the underlying studies, and relevant human research, including findings that do not show harm. I respectfully request that the agencies: 1. Publish an accessible assessment that distinguishes biological changes from adverse health outcomes, animal findings from human evidence, and established conclusions from uncertainty. Explain study quality, exposure levels, limitations, and conflicting results. 2. Explain whether current exposure limits and compliance testing adequately address children, long-term use, and devices used close to the body. Identify where evidence supports current practices and where additional testing or research is needed. 3. Prioritize independent, reproducible research on developmental and neurological outcomes, reproductive health, and cumulative exposure, with transparent funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures. 4. Provide practical guidance on reducing unnecessary exposure where warranted, while preserving access to communication, education, and assistive technology. For HHS, please use this request for information to identify concrete research priorities and public-health guidance needs. For the FCC, please provide a reasoned response to the evidence relevant to the court-remanded issues, including non-cancer outcomes, children, and testing procedures. The cancer review cited here is offered as broader scientific context, not as proof of non-cancer effects or a substitute for addressing the specific remand record. Families deserve decisions supported by rigorous science and explanations they can understand. Thank you for considering my comment.

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.

Severe migraines, body aches and pains , the 5G tower, that is connected on top of our town Water, children and teenagers been diagnosed with brain tumours( brain cancer) Clusters popping up , this year and two children living close under the tower , in the same area.

My name is Heather Gallagher, and I am writing to you as a parent demanding immediate, modernized safety standards for wireless radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in school environments. Parents should not have to fight relentless, exhausting battles with school board districts and multi-billion-dollar telecommunications corporations simply to ensure that our children are safe from non-ionizing radiation exposure while attending public school. My teenager attended Casa Grande High School in Petaluma, California, where a massive industrial cell tower was operating directly on the school's athletic fields. Alarmingly, we discovered a heartbreaking cluster of young Physical Education teachers and athletic coaches from that school diagnosed with rare cancers. Distracted and deeply concerned, I hired a professional Building Biologist to conduct independent testing on the school ground. The measured radiation levels were shockingly high. Recognizing the severe risk to students and faculty, I worked tirelessly to educate our local school board on the biological science surrounding RF radiation. After reviewing the evidence, the school board voted to remove the tower. During this process, we uncovered an even more egregious outrage: T-Mobile had installed the tower illegally, having failed to secure the proper local permits. It took lengthy and arduous legal negotiations between the district and T-Mobile to undo this violation. Finally, after immense public pressure and community advocacy, the tower is scheduled to be taken down this November 2026. Following this ordeal, our school district passed a moratorium on new cell towers on school grounds. It is utterly ridiculous that a parent must act as a full-time advocate, investigator, and legal watchdog just to keep children safe at school—and unacceptable that telecommunications giants like T-Mobile can bypass municipal laws to erect unauthorized towers on campuses where children spend five days a week. The FCC’s current exposure guidelines are decades out of date, relying on obsolete thermal models that ignore an overwhelming and growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating non-thermal biological harm—particularly to developing children. Scientific Evidence on RF/EMF Exposure & Children's Health In September 2026, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)—including renowned experts such as Dr. David Carpenter (University at Albany), Dr. Ronald Melnick (former NTP toxicologist and lead designer of the NIH cell phone study), and Dr. Joel Moskowitz (UC Berkeley)—issued a clear warning: “The current body of research provides sufficient evidence to warrant the adoption of policies that mitigate risk by reducing exposure. Research has reported biological effects from exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at levels well below current FCC, ICNIRP, and IEEE exposure limits. Studies have reported numerous adverse effects, including cancer, oxidative stress, genetic impacts, blood-brain barrier permeability, sperm damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, impairments in cognition, learning and memory, sleep impacts, EEG alterations, and other neurological effects.” Fetal & Early Gene Expression Disruptions: A 2025 Yale Medical School study (Cakir et al.) reported disrupted neurodevelopment and increased expression of autism-related genes in fetal-brain laboratory models exposed to BT/RF radiation at levels ~4,000 times below FCC exposure limits. Disproportionate RF Absorption in Children: Children absorb far more RF radiation than adults due to thinner skulls and unique tissue composition. Scientific modeling demonstrates absorption rates in children that are 2-fold greater in the cerebellum, 2–5-fold higher in the eyes, and up to 30-fold higher in the hippocampus. Lee & Choi (2023) modeled daily brain energy absorption from continuous cell tower exposure exceeding direct cell phone exposure by more than tenfold in young children. Studies consistently link prenatal/postnatal wireless exposure to developmental delays, lower cognitive scores, memory performance deficits, and behavioral issues in children. The FCC can no longer ignore this expanding body of peer-reviewed research. Protecting the health, safety, and developing brains of our children must take precedence over corporate convenience. I urge the FCC to: Update and lower RF radiation exposure limits to reflect current non-thermal biological research. Establish strict federal buffer zones banning industrial cell towers on or directly adjacent to K-12 school property. Enforce stringent legal penalties against telecom companies that erect unauthorized or improperly permitted infrastructure near sensitive populations.

A good friend of mine got a brain tumor right where he always held his phone to talk. He was a dancer and taught dance and as a result of the tumor he lost some of his sense of balance.

There is a cell phone tower a couple hundred yards from my mom’s home where she has lived for 35 years. The cell phone tower has been there maybe 15-20 years I would say. I lived there a duration of 15 years while it was there . We have both been diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer with metastatic disease to the lymph nodes. Within 5 years of each other.

A Detailed analysis of hundreds of EMF studies with recommendations and current state of research with suggested paths forward for better understanding and exploration: Executive Overview: Many questions remain unanswered related to Non-Native EMF (nnEMF) and the biological effects that result from exposure. The USA is the sickest it has been in decades. Photos of people on US beaches in the 1970s compared to 2020s shows a drastic difference. Obesity is prevalent. Early research indicates health impacts are coming food sources and other aspects of the standard American lifestyle, however not all are being given the same level of review. nnEMF is one of the areas of research that has been neglected. Some research exists but is by no means comprehensive. Established studies show that heat from high-power radiofrequency energy is real, and Federal exposure limits exist because of it. Across whole populations, the best pooled studies show no overall rise in brain cancer as phone use became nearly universal, however the benchmark of testing positive for having brain cancer, or any cancer should not be the benchmark for a negative health impact. nnEMF has become so ubiquitous that it makes study challenging due to every day exposure, but this does not mean the research is not essential. Leaded gasoline was another universal exposure that was later deemed to be dangerous and phased out. Wi-Fi, 5G and other cellphone bands, Electric Vehicles, Home appliances with AC currents, bluetooth, are sources of exposure every day. If discoveries are made that these devices do impact human biology in a substantive manner, then considerations around how hospitals and healthcare institutions adopt and utilize these technologies in the patient journey should also be considered. A 1% or 5% or 10% impact on overall longevity (aging sooner) with impacts to memory, behavior, IQ, fertility, that may go unseen because cancer does not present would still be a major revelation. The net impact from a 5% increase in adult working years would have a massive benefit to US GDP, strengthening national security and economic security. Healthy people create less economic drag for tax payers as they age. The field of biological nnEMF impacts deserves to be studied in pursuit of the MAHA goals of overall wellness improvements for Americans. Studies indicate that nnEMF research has not yet been explored to completion. First, the National Toxicology Program, a research program, found "clear evidence" of a rare malignant heart tumor in male rats exposed to high whole-body levels of 2G/3G-type radiation. A 2025 review commissioned for the World Health Organization rated the animal evidence high certainty for that heart tumor and for malignant gliomas, while warning that moving from animal tumor results to human risk is unusually difficult. Second, and separately, a 2016 count found oxidative-stress effects reported in 93 of 100 low-intensity studies, but the 2024 WHO-commissioned systematic review rated the oxidative-stress literature very-low certainty: most of the studies were small and at high risk of bias. And no cohort has yet followed heavy phone users from a young start through a full adult lifetime. Three conclusions match the evidence: everyday exposure is low, a health effect at ordinary levels has not been established, and the missing studies are worth doing.

Online businesses run websites selling fear of EMF. Googling “electrosmog” reveals many such revenue generators, all of which make baseless claims of alleged health effects and feature a prominent “DONATE” button. They do real harm by distracting from actual dangers (e.g., global warming). These sites most often focus on “opinion” studies with no dosimetry (no measurement of actual EMF exposure, just self-reported recollection of subjective proximity to devices) and no clinical assessment of very common symptoms they attribute without evidence to EMF. Claims of health effects with no actual dose measurements or clinical assessment is not credible. Some people believe they are “hypersensitive” to EMFs, but there’s no evidence to back it up; Rubin, G. James; Hillert, Lena; Nieto-Hernandez, Rosa; van Rongen, Eric; Oftedal, Gunnhild (December 2011). "Do people with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields display physiological effects when exposed to electromagnetic fields?". Bioelectromagnetics. 32 (8): 593–609). Bioeffects from exposure to very high levels of microwave radiation are well understood (tissue heats up – basis of microwave cooking). Levels to which members of the public are exposed are far too low to have any effects. The recognized exposure limits adequately protect the public. Actual exposures are well below the exposure limits. See e.g., Bushberg JT and Butcher MJ. Measurement of ambient millimeter wave exposures levels around small base stations (January 2025). Health Physics 128(2):1-7. Those running “electrosmog” sites point to the “NTP study” as a scientific basis of their claims that cell phone radiation causes cancer. They refer to the 2018 National Toxicology Program Report on mice [https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/tr596] and rats [https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/tr595] exposed to RF used by cell phones. Rodents were exposed to levels near the public exposure limits for 9 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 2 years. These studies showed no statistically significant effects on female mice, male mice, or female rats, and a HUGE increase in life span for the exposed male rats. Thermal effects can explain the significant effects in the rats. See e.g., Kuhne J, Schmidt JA, Geschwentner D, Pophof B, Ziegelberger G. Thermoregulatory Stress as Potential Mediating Factor in the NTP Cell Phone Tumor Study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020 Sep;41(6):471-479 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7522680/]. The NTP study also found a small number of rare heart tumors in the warmed male rats, but not in the mice or female rats. The NTP researchers did not control for warming the male rats (i.e., the controls were not heated the way the exposed rats were), so the most obvious explanation for the tiny number of excess heart tumors is that the exposed male rats heated up more than the mice or female rats. The study’s own peer reviewers noted “…panelists agreed that information to specifically rule out a thermal or non-thermal effect was insufficient.” (NTP TR595 p. 420). A review of the NTP study by internationally-recognized scientific experts on RF effects noted “…substantial limitations preclude conclusions being drawn concerning RF EMFs and carcinogenesis” and “…a preponderance of reported effects in the male rats, whose body core temperature would have increased more than either the female rats or either male or female mice (due to their smaller surface area-to-mass ratio), which would have put them under greater metabolic stress due to their greater thermoregulatory requirements.” ICNIRP Note on recent animal carcinogenesis studies (2018) [https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf] John Bucher, the lead writer on the NTP report, noted that he is not changing his cellphone use or asking his family to, and that the findings of the rare nerve-tissue tumor found in the hearts of male rats does not mean humans should be worried. [https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/health-lifestyles-researchers-say-no-cancer-from-cellphone-use/4244699.html] Far from being clear evidence, the NTP study shows no effect on mice and most significantly a huge increase in male rat lifespan. The tiny number of heart tumors in the exposed rats could most rationally be explained by tissue heating. Electrosmog sites claim cell phones cause cancer and point to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 classification of radiofrequency as “possibly carcinogenic” [https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf], without mentioning that IARC’s “possibly” category has the lowest certainty of any IARC rating (below “probable” and “known” carcinogen categories), and that the “possible” rating includes things like aloe vera and ginkgo biloba. See attached file for full response

Hello RFK Jr., I am writing concerning the use of 5-15g towers. In my experience the damage done to my cells thus far are noticeable. I have had the worst issues with what appears to be microwave and radiation sickness symptoms. I have been getting tested for the last 4 years including MRI, Ulta Sound, Blood and stool. Even camera down throat, all test either once a year and Blood tested several times. Always come back nothing wrong with my physical being. The amount of barfing and the other end daily is rough, having manufactured brain fog, memory issues, not being able to absorb new information, and pain in my body has debilitated me. I ask that you put a stop to the use of these frequencies that have already been proved to cause cancer in children. I have been detoxing and taking meds and supplements for years to combat the frequencies. Thank-you Cynthia Mercado