Cancer & tumors

Subject: Public Comment on RF/EMF Exposure and the Need for Stronger Public Health Protections Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397 I am submitting this comment as a concerned American citizen who believes our government must protect human health, future generations, and the environment from potentially harmful electromagnetic and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. I am deeply concerned about the expansion of cell towers, 5G infrastructure, wireless transmitters, and smart meters that contribute to continuous, involuntary RF exposure. Americans should not be subjected to increasing environmental exposure without rigorous, independent evidence establishing long-term safety. 1. Scientific Evidence of Potential Harm Substantial published research identifies potential biological effects associated with RF radiation. National Toxicology Program (2018): This major U.S. government investigation reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to certain cell phone RF signals. Researchers also identified other tumor findings. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595 Ramazzini Institute (2018): This independent study investigated long-term RF exposure representative of cell tower emissions and reported increased heart schwannomas among male rats at the highest exposure level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037 Hardell and Carlberg (2015): Researchers reported associations between prolonged wireless phone use and increased glioma risk, particularly with longer latency periods. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25466607/ These findings warrant further independent investigation rather than dismissal. 2. Outdated Safety Standards Federal RF exposure standards have not adequately kept pace with modern wireless technology or continuous exposure from multiple overlapping sources. Safety assessments must address cumulative exposure, long-term biological effects, and potential nonthermal effects. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals found that the FCC had failed to adequately explain its treatment of evidence concerning non-cancer effects, children, long-term exposure, and environmental impacts. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-1025/20-1025-2021-08-13.html 3. Stronger Restrictions on Wireless Infrastructure I urge federal officials to substantially strengthen restrictions on cell tower placement, density, and emissions, particularly near homes, schools, hospitals, and agricultural land. I specifically request: 1. Independent reassessment of federal RF exposure limits using current research and cumulative exposure measurements. 2. Stricter tower-siting and emission standards near residential communities and sensitive locations. 3. Independent RF monitoring with publicly accessible results. 4. Long-term research concerning children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations. 5. Investment in wired telecommunications and lower-emission alternatives. 6. Greater community involvement in tower placement decisions. 7. Investigation of potential effects on livestock, wildlife, pollinators, and ecosystems. 4. Industry Accountability and Independent Research Research establishing public safety standards must be transparent, reproducible, and free from undue commercial influence. I request disclosure of industry funding, conflicts of interest, unpublished findings, and underlying research data used in federal safety assessments. Studies identifying potential biological harm deserve serious evaluation regardless of commercial interests. 5. Public Health Must Come First Technological convenience and economic development should not automatically outweigh legitimate public health concerns. I support substantial reductions in unnecessary RF exposure, stricter wireless infrastructure limits, independent testing, and a precautionary approach wherever important safety questions remain unresolved. The American public deserves transparency, meaningful choices concerning involuntary exposure, and safety standards based on comprehensive scientific evidence rather than assumptions. I urge HHS to fully evaluate the research and establish stronger protections for human health, future generations, animals, and the environment. Thank you for considering my comment.

5G causes cancer, heart attacks, strokes, migraines, brain fog, memory loss, insomnia, fatigue, tinnitus, flu like symptoms (AKA Covid), muscle pain, muscle deterioration, loss of collagen just to name a few. The 5G antennas also kill trees, insects, birds and animals.

"Radiation" just means energy traveling as waves. 5G uses radio waves, the same family as FM radio, TV, and Wi-Fi. These waves are non-ionizing, meaning they can't break chemical bonds or damage DNA. Even 5G's highest bands carry about 0.0002 electron-volts per photon. Visible light carries about 2 eV, and damaging UV and X-rays start around 10 eV. 5G falls short of that by a factor of tens of thousands. The one established biological effect of radio waves is mild tissue heating, and safety rules exist to prevent exactly that. ICNIRP (the international standard) and the FCC set public limits about 50 times below the level where measurable heating begins. Reaching the limit doesn't mean harm. It means you still have a wide safety margin. Radio power falls with the square of distance. At twice the distance you get a quarter of the power, and at ten times the distance you get 1/100th. Tower antennas are mounted high and aimed at the horizon, not at people standing below. Measurement surveys around 5G sites consistently find public exposure at around 1% of the limit or less. Midday sunlight delivers about 1,000 watts per square meter to your skin. The public limit for 5G millimeter waves is 10 W/m², which is 100 times lower, and real-world tower exposure is far below even that. A few minutes outside on a summer day puts more energy into your skin than living next to a tower. A higher frequency doesn't make a wave more dangerous. 5G's high-band (mmWave) signals are absorbed in roughly the top millimeter of skin and can't reach your organs. Walls, windows, leaves, and even your hand block them, which is why mmWave needs so many small cells. Your skin sheds much larger heat loads every day through blood flow and sweat. Most US 5G doesn't use mmWave at all. It runs on low and mid bands (600 MHz to about 4 GHz), similar to 4G and Wi-Fi. At rest, your body generates about 80–100 watts of heat. A phone transmits at most a watt or two, and much less when the signal is strong. The energy from a tower that actually reaches you is a tiny fraction of a watt. When a phone feels warm, the heat comes from its battery and processor, not from radio waves. A microwave oven concentrates about 1,000 watts inside a sealed metal box. Wi-Fi uses the same 2.4 GHz frequency at about a tenth of a watt, spread in every direction. The danger comes from concentrated power, not the frequency itself. Cell towers deliver neither high concentration nor close proximity. Radio-frequency energy has been researched for over 60 years across radar, broadcasting, and the millimeter-wave body scanners used at airports. The World Health Organization states that no adverse health effect has been causally linked to wireless technology exposure within the limits. In 2011, IARC classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B). That was based on limited, inconsistent data about heavy phone use held against the head, not towers. The same category includes aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables. Brain cancer rates have stayed flat despite billions of people adopting phones. Some researchers want more long-term mmWave studies, since widespread public use is relatively new. A minority argue for non-thermal effects, but those haven't been reliably reproduced. Workers right in front of rooftop antennas are a different situation. That's why access is restricted and occupational rules apply. Bottom line: 5G towers emit low-energy, non-ionizing waves. By the time those waves reach you, they're a sliver of a limit that is itself set 50 times below the point of any measurable heating. The sun, your own metabolism, and a hot shower all put far more heat into your body.

Why did the gov push 4g/5g tech without any Double blind placebo controlled studies on humans? Why did it allow this tech knowing that it can cause cancer in mice when exposed to it for long durations? We are currently exposed to it 24/7 and cancers are on the rise like never before. Heart attacks and strokes in young people are also skyrocketing since the rollout of 5G. This is a crime against humanity.

My daughter was born with cancer. She was the first case in Puerto Rico. She was born on the day of my birthday without previous sings and it was one of the most aggressive cases. The name of the cancer was Rapdosarcoma. During the first months of pregnancy I was working with a metal detector and had to walk through it every day. My daughter lived for 7 months. I also had a coworker who was pregnant as well, with just one month of difference between the pregnancies. She had to go through the metal detector every day as well. A few months after she had her son, it resulted that he also developed cancer and ended up dying like my daughter. We were the only two pregnant women in that building and we both lost our babies.

My daughter was born with cancer. She was the first case in Puerto Rico. She was born on the day of my birthday without previous sings and it was one of the most aggressive cases. The name of the cancer was Rapdosarcoma. During the first months of pregnancy I was working with a metal detector and had to walk through it every day. My daughter lived for 7 months. I also had a coworker who was pregnant as well, with just one month of difference between the pregnancies. She had to go through the metal detector every day as well. A few months after she had her son, it resulted that he also developed cancer and ended up dying like my daughter. We were the only two pregnant women in that building and we both lost our babies.

I started looking into EMF transmission with my second round of cancer. My husband had heart issues and was scheduled for an ablations procedure. I ordered a reader and found the electric heating pads he had behind his back watching TV read over 600 EMF’s (from China purchased on Amazon) My electric blanket also read over 600 EMF’s. So I purchased a heating mat tested for EMF transmission. It did NOT have any EMF transmissions. EMF transmissions are ignored mostly but critical for my health. Not related but I cured my cancer using Ivermectin, canceled surgery and chemo.

We are exposed to unacceptable levels of EMF short-wave pollution. People have experienced headaches, dizziness, inability to function, fatigue, heart issues, insomia,tumors, cancer and more. These cell towers with 5G and other toxic EMF exposures are sick. Even it you do not experience the above knowingly, you are still exposed and building health issues. Wildlife, which includes plants are also negatively affected. In other words, life itself is attacked by these EMF non-ionizing radiation. The concept that only heat generates injury was incorrect. There are safe ways to improve communication, such as fiber optics. In 1996 Pres. Clinton exempted the communication industry from health, safety and environmental issues connected to this industry. That non-regulation needs to be stopped. This industry is out-of-control. Cell towers are built near schools, which is an absolute travesty. We are entitled to a safe environment without rogue industries such as the above operating unregulated, immune to lawsuits for the health and environmental destruction they cause. I appreciate your concern for the public. Another issue involves geo-engineering. The public is now noticing the obvious spraying of chemicals and maybe more in the atmosphere. Whatever is sprayed is pulled down to the earth via gravity. A life on the planet is adversely harmed, and we are seeing the results. We are told the spraying is for ameliorating "climate change", which makes no sense. This spraying needs to be stopped. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I am a physician and have many patients who report EMF sensitivity. Their symptoms include, increased fatigue, cognitive difficulties, neurological symptoms. fasciculations, headaches, insomnia, tachycardia, and more when exposed to RF waves. I have examined the literature and there is a plethora of published research demonstrating mechanisms that explain that EMF sensitivity is a true phenomenon. With the potential for DNA breaks when exposed to RF levels that are lower than modern cell phones, it would be worth evaluating whether the increased exposure to RF that our modern society has compared to just 2004 may be a contributor to increased cancer rates we are seeing in all ages.

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.