Cancer & tumors

I request clear, evidence-based information about the possible health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and wireless technologies. Please address exposure levels, duration, and multiple sources, as well as potential implications for children, pregnant individuals, and workers with frequent exposure. The assessment should distinguish established risks—such as tissue heating at high RF exposure levels—from possible long-term effects, including cancer risks, that remain uncertain or under investigation. Please also explain how current safety limits are established and recommend practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.

To HHS: wireless radiation is a serious Health Risk. I have personally dealt with severe chronic health issues for many years. I'm aware that Radiation exposure has effected my sensistive nervous system affecting sleep, thyroid issues, hormone imbalance, exhaustion, depletion etc... I go to great lengths to reduce exposure and protect myself. It is a constant, daily challenge in this world of increasing bombardment of Radiation Poisoning. I'm also aware it is absolutely possible to make technology safe for health and still effective Studies show oxidative stress (167 abstracts), DNA damage (82), male infertility (44), lipid peroxidation (43), cognitive decline (38), cancers (34), low sperm quality (33), brain cancer (28), headache (20), sleep disorders (15) and fatigue (14). Further down the list: childhood leukemia, acoustic neuroma, salivary gland disease, hearing disorders, ALS, Alzheimer’s, autism spectrum disorders, birth defects, hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease.... 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. 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, families, health care providers, researchers, and scientists with an opportunity to finally be heard on this critical public health issue.

I fully support scientific research and reviewing public health standards, but I also believe we need to be careful not to create unnecessary fear about technology that has been studied for decades. Let's stick to the facts. 5G, Wi-Fi, and cell towers use non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation. This is not the same as X-rays or gamma rays. It does not carry enough energy to directly damage DNA through ionization. The World Health Organization and National Cancer Institute have reviewed extensive research, and the overall human evidence has not established that everyday wireless exposure within established safety limits causes cancer. A major systematic review published in 2024 also found that mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of several types of brain tumors. That doesn't mean we should stop studying it. Science is constantly evolving, and reviewing long-term exposure, newer technologies, and existing safety standards is perfectly reasonable. What concerns me is when legitimate scientific questions get turned into fearmongering. Just because something is called "radiation" doesn't automatically mean it's dangerous. Exposure levels, frequency, duration, and actual biological effects matter. I would encourage HHS to prioritize credible, peer-reviewed research, distinguish established risks from theoretical concerns, and be transparent about what the evidence actually shows. If new evidence demonstrates a legitimate health risk, then absolutely update the regulations. But public health policy should be based on reproducible scientific evidence, not speculation, political agendas, or public fear. We owe the American public accurate information, not another reason to be unnecessarily afraid of something they use every day.

Please look into what happens when several cell phone/tv/ etc towers are placed in close proximity to each other. We used to live in a small city that had 14 towers and about 11 of them were clustered together and visible on my front door step. Multiple of my neighbors had breast cancer simultaneously last year, as well as multiple times in their past. I don't know if it was from the towers or some other environmental concerns nearby, such as the cement factories, steel mill, power plant, and the chemical bottling plant. It was a beautiful city, but we had to move after frequent contagious upper respiratory infections and then my child was diagnosed with Celiac. This was in Cedar Hill, Texas. Erin Brokovich herself came to see and stated that she was concerned by the things she saw/ learned in that area (nearby Midlothian, Texas). So far as I know, that was in regards to the cement factories. I don't think anyone has looked into the radio towers. Every study or report that I could find only evaluated one tower at a time, not what happens when many are bouncing waves off each other. The city of Cedar Hill website boasts that they have more of those towers closer together than any place else (or something like that). This would be a good place for you to study the impact of these things.

I urge HHS to prioritize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems when evaluating cellphone-tower radiofrequency emissions. As a parent and concerned member of the public, I support independent investigation of sustained exposure, prompt correction of exposures shown to be harmful, and research into safer transmission methods. My central proposal concerns the frequencies and transmission characteristics emitted by cellphone towers themselves. I ask HHS to investigate whether carefully defined changes in carrier frequency, modulation, power, antenna configuration, or operating schedules could reduce adverse biological effects. I also support rigorous investigation of proposed harmonic transmission methods for any measurable biological benefit. “Harmonic” expresses my aspiration for technology compatible with living systems; a healing claim must be demonstrated through independently replicated research. Please evaluate repeated and long-term exposure under realistic conditions, including exposure from multiple transmitters. Studies should document frequency, intensity, duration, peaks, and changes in network traffic. Measurements should represent homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, farms, and wildlife habitats. Distance from a tower alone should not substitute for an exposure assessment. I request particular attention to children, pregnant people, workers with elevated exposure, and people with implanted medical devices, using evidence appropriate to each group. People reporting symptoms they associate with wireless environments deserve respectful medical evaluation and careful investigation. Reports should inform research without prematurely assuming or dismissing a causal connection. Animal findings warrant serious scrutiny. The National Toxicology Program reported heart schwannomas in male rats under its experimental RF exposure conditions. Falcioni and colleagues’ 2018 study of lifelong exposure to a 1.8 GHz GSM far field reported increased heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest exposure. These findings support further investigation; they do not directly establish the risk to humans living near modern towers. Human evidence, animal findings, and exposure differences should be evaluated transparently together. Ecological protection should be an explicit research priority. Please study relevant outcomes in pollinators, birds, livestock, plants, and aquatic organisms, including survival, reproduction, navigation, growth, and ecosystem function. Account for pesticides, habitat loss, artificial light, disease, weather, and other influences. Insect absorption models and bird electromagnetic-noise experiments raise specific research questions, but should not be generalized into proof that all cellular emissions harm wildlife. If credible evidence identifies harmful exposure, agencies should act to reduce it and verify that corrective measures work. Communities need accessible exposure reports, independent measurements, a clear complaint process, and timely explanations of findings. Research funding, conflicts of interest, methods, and negative results should be disclosed. Protective decisions should be accountable to evidence and public well-being. Proposed beneficial tower transmissions require equally rigorous evaluation. Researchers should specify the signal, compare it with matched conventional and sham exposures, control absorbed energy and temperature, and directly measure benefits and adverse effects. Any therapeutic application should undergo appropriate ethical and safety review before deployment. The research summarized in my accompanying document does not establish a tower frequency that heals people, animals, or water. My broader interest includes harmonious music, bells, singing bowls, prayer, and restorative environments. Music research supports benefits for selected outcomes such as pain and anxiety. These findings do not prove that musical frequencies carried by a wireless network make its RF emissions therapeutic. I also request fair, independent testing of hypotheses inspired by Masaru Emoto’s water-crystal work. Crystal appearance or changes in water spectra alone cannot demonstrate improved water quality, ecological restoration, or human healing. Please prioritize technology that serves life: investigate potential harm honestly, correct demonstrated problems, publish understandable evidence, and test promising alternatives without commercial pressure or predetermined conclusions. I support a responsible path toward safer, more biologically compatible communications infrastructure, including rigorous investigation of harmonic transmission proposals. My accompanying research document provides supporting sources, limitations, and detailed recommendations.

Lest Dirty Electricity (DE) be forgotten (Dr. Samuel Milham's book) My dad, a US Navy (1950 to 1959) mind control subject, was deliberately put in a high DE field for ten years, 1983 to 1993. This entire period, he suffered and died from a cancer in the upper palate of his mouth. This was deliberate, whether it was an experiment or not. They used an alternating current, analogue clock, positioned a few inches from his body, to generate the field. I have tested it and a few other small AC analogue clocks, and they all give off a strong, CONSTANT field of DE, as strong or stronger than anything else in the house. They tested it (or used it) on me as a child, too, but with only brief weekly contact. We were unwitting subjects. This is what they did. I don't expect you to believe me, but Dirty Electricity needs to be part of the discussion, as much as high band RF.

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.

Check the thousands of reports and documents that already exist against EMF radiation. They’re out there. Tumors, cancer, headaches. We all know how bad it is. Let’s get on board. Other countries are way ahead of us in this area. We voted for you to fix this. Thank you!

My ex husband died August 23, 2025. He was 79 years old. He had been very healthy all his life. He didn't smoke, or take drugs or pharmaceutical medicine. He only drank an occasional glass of wine and ate very healthy. He was not over weight. His only vice was scrolling on the internet for hours with laptop on his lap. He had the router for the house near his bed and the smart meter was right outside his bedroom window. He carried his cell phone in his left front pocket. He had a sarcoma tumor on his left hip near the location of cell phone. He also had small tumors in his brain, and he had been wearing wireless earphones. He died 6 weeks after I took him to the hospital.

50 years ago, when I worked as a broadcast engineer on a high-powered TV transmitter, I was aware that the risk of a brain tumor in my profession was double that of the population. Ever since, I've made efforts to avoid EMF. I use Ethernet for my computer and streaming box, even though WiFi would be more convenient. It is difficult to find wired products, as the presumption by manufacturers is that the public wants wireless. The FCC has been completely useless when it comes to protecting the public health. Its refusal to reopen the silly 1996 thermal standard for human EMF protection was a pure industry give-away. There is a great deal of scientific evidence of the harms of EMF on living tissue. Dr. Martin Pall's discovery of the voltage-gated calcium channel was the first plausible mechanism presented for how biological damage occurs. Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington has done pathbreaking research. The Environmental Health Trust has been a leader in this field. I believe they will be submitting comments that I hereby support. Several aggregations of research: https://greenmedinfo.com/problematic-action/electromagnetic-field-harms https://www.jrseco.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-09-13-Scientist-Appeal-5G-Moratorium.pdf (Contains links to many references) https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EMF-Effects-via-Voltage-Gated-Calcium-Channels-Dr-Martin-Pall.pdf https://bioinitiative.org/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19264461 Please focus literature reviews on studies completed by independent researchers. There is such a long history of industry-influenced studies in pharmaceuticals as well as in telecommunications that industry-sponsored research cannot be trusted.