Cancer & tumors

Re: HHS Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields and RF Radiation My name is Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc. I hold a master's degree in Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy from the University of Glasgow and Glasgow School of Art. I submit this comment as a medical visualisation specialist and an individual reporting severe electromagnetic sensitivity (ES). 1. Health Experiences and Functional Impairment My experience of ES has profoundly affected my ability to work, travel, obtain healthcare, maintain housing, and participate in society. I experience migraines, stabbing pain, dizziness, nausea, burning sensations, and disrupted sleep that I associate with nearby wireless devices and infrastructure. I have invested in wired Ethernet, removal of wireless equipment, electrical mitigation, and RF shielding. These observations do not establish causation, but the functional limitations warrant clinical investigation. Scientific uncertainty should not justify dismissing patients or overlooking reasonable accommodations. 2. Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment Current RF limits focus on established adverse effects associated with tissue heating. Questions remain about chronic, modulated, and cumulative exposures. The National Toxicology Program (2018) reported clear evidence of carcinogenic activity involving malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of 900 MHz RF radiation. These results cannot be directly extrapolated to everyday human exposure but merit further study. HHS should independently review whether current standards adequately address long-term outcomes and susceptible populations. 3. Exposure Measurement and Surveillance Real-world exposure includes simultaneous sources such as cellular infrastructure, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and connected devices. Measurements should document frequency, power density, field strengths, modulation, duty cycle, duration, and cumulative exposure. HHS should develop protocols combining personal dosimetry, environmental measurements, clinical observations, and longitudinal data. A voluntary ES registry could support epidemiological studies. 4. Potentially Sensitive Populations Children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted devices, occupationally exposed workers, and individuals reporting ES warrant focused study. Clinical evaluations should be multidisciplinary and respectful, investigating alternative explanations without dismissing symptoms. 5. Biological Mechanisms and Scientific Evidence Human tissues are intrinsically bioelectrical. Membrane potentials, ion gradients, and endogenous electric fields are fundamental to cardiac and neurological activity, cellular communication, and homeostasis. This does not establish that environmental RF causes injury, but supports investigation of possible interactions. Research should examine membrane electrophysiology, ion channels, oxidative stress, autonomic regulation, blood-brain barrier integrity, and cellular homeostasis. Anatomically registered medical visualisation could help integrate exposure data with physiological measurements. 6. Federal Research Priorities HHS should coordinate NIH, NIEHS, FDA, and CDC to: 1. Fund independent, reproducible studies of biological effects, including exposures below current limits. 2. Standardise clinical assessment of reported ES. 3. Support prospective studies combining dosimetry, physiological measurements, symptoms, and appropriate controls. 4. Investigate chronic and mixed-source exposures. 5. Evaluate wired telecommunications and non-transmitting utility alternatives as accommodations. 6. Publish methods, findings, funding sources, and conflicts of interest. Conclusion Scientific uncertainty must not become institutional indifference. For affected individuals, these questions concern housing, employment, healthcare, and participation in society. HHS should pursue rigorous, independent research that distinguishes established findings from hypotheses while taking functional impairment seriously. The objective is neither to presume harm nor presume safety, but to develop evidence-informed public health policy. Elizabeth Anne Dunlap, MSc Colorado, USA Reference: National Toxicology Program (2018), Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at 900 MHz, NTP TR 595. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-TR-595

5G towers should be NOWHERE near houses. I've heard stories of men who erected certain towers developing rapid, aggressive cancers... And you know what? I believe them. FUCK 5G!

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. The public needs to be protected from these harmful EMFs, RF & Wireless radiation. In the past 5-10 years, as the 5G arrays in my town increased from 32 to over 50, my health has deteriorated. I had and overcame cancer, currently have heart palpitations, tinnitus and full body arthritis. I’ve called my electric company asking them to remove the smart meter from my home -they refused, There are numerous 5G arrays les than a mile down the street, pointing towards my home and neighborhood and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. I appreciate HHS looking into this matter and hopefully creating legislation to limit these harmful EMFs

Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. RFI on EMFs, RF radiation, and wireless exposure. U.S. radiofrequency limits need a comprehensive health review. That review should be run with the Department of Defense and the medical and scientific teams already investigating directed-energy bioeffects (DEBE), Havana syndrome, and anomalous health incidents (AHIs). It should cover non-ionizing RF, thermal and non-thermal, and it should not ignore ionizing radiation, which the public is also entitled to have explained in plain terms. Citizen health should not be traded for corporate convenience or an outdated heating-only rule. Russia set much lower public RF limits than the United States, and did so from chronic, non-thermal studies rather than from a six-minute heating test. The history of those standards is in Repacholi, Grigoriev, and colleagues, Bioelectromagnetics 2012. Soviet and Russian public power-density limits have long been on the order of 10 microwatts per square centimeter. The FCC public limit above 1.5 GHz is about 1,000 microwatts per square centimeter, roughly 100 times higher. I take that gap as evidence that RF is under-controlled here and is a credible contributor to neurological and chronic disease that has been explained away for years. HHS should test that claim. It should not leave it to the licensing agency. The mechanism file already exists inside the U.S. government. The National Academies (2020), An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, found directed, pulsed RF energy the most plausible mechanism for the acute, directional AHI cases. Dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, cognitive deficit, and memory loss were also consistent with known RF effects. A 2022 intelligence-community experts panel likewise found pulsed electromagnetic energy plausible. The 2023 assessment that a foreign weapon was unlikely is an attribution finding, not a finding that pulsed RF cannot injure tissue. Pakhomov and Murphy (2000), written for the Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, reviewed 114 Russian experimental studies and reported that pulsing, not average intensity, was treated as the dominant factor in low-intensity effects. Frey (Aerospace Medicine 1961; J Applied Physiology 1962) showed that pulsed microwaves produce a sound inside the head by thermoelastic expansion, a bioeffect set by the pulse, not by core heating. Cancer evidence below a meaningful thermal story: NTP TR-595 (2018), an HHS study, found clear evidence of malignant heart schwannoma and some evidence of malignant glioma in male rats exposed to 900 MHz GSM and CDMA. Falcioni et al., Environmental Research 2018 (Ramazzini), found the same heart tumor in male rats at far-field, base-station-like exposure near 0.1 W/kg, close to the FCC whole-body public limit of 0.08 W/kg. IARC Monograph 102 (2013) classifies RF as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic, on limited evidence for glioma and acoustic neuroma. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court held that keeping the 1996 limits was arbitrary and capricious because non-cancer evidence was not addressed. I want objective studies across major disease categories, not another thermal reassurance. Priority is Parkinsonian and Lewy-body syndromes: tremor, rigidity, autonomic failure, cognitive decline, and the overlap with AHI brain injury. Existing power-frequency meta-analyses do not show a clear Parkinson's association (Huss et al., Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015, summary RR about 1.05; Gunnarsson and Bodin, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, EMF RR about 1.02 for Parkinson's, higher for ALS and Alzheimer's). That is not a study of pulsed or modulated RF. Yakymenko et al., Electromagn Biol Med 2016, found oxidative stress in 93 of 100 low-intensity RF studies. Oxidative and mitochondrial injury is a shared pathway into nigral and Lewy-body disease and should be tested directly. Lai and Singh (Bioelectromagnetics 1995, 1996) reported DNA strand breaks in rat brain after low-intensity microwaves. Salford et al., Environ Health Perspect 2003, reported blood-brain barrier leakage and neuronal injury after GSM exposure at non-thermal SAR. Request: a joint HHS-DoD-AHI evidence review; a public table of U.S. versus Russian limits and the biology each used; NTP restarted on pulsed versus continuous wave at equal average SAR, at or below 0.08 W/kg; disease-category studies, led by Parkinsonian syndromes, neurodegenerative disease, cancer, cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive outcomes; a de-identified registry for acute neurological events tied to a measured RF source; and a plain-language correction of the claim that compliance with the FCC limit means no biological effect. Ionizing exposure should stay under its own regulators, but HHS should publish one map so the public can see thermal, non-thermal, non-ionizing, and ionizing evidence side by side.

Patents disclosed for years the penetration of 5 Ghz signals (“5G”) on the human body. A patent for a vascular system measuring necklace (KR20170017989A) , filed in 2017 before the Korean patent office, discloses: Radar source can be divided into 2Ghz, 5Ghz, 10Ghz, 20Ghz area according to permeation depth by using general RF generator. However, it is most efficient to use 10Ghz source at 5GHz because of different penetration / Do. The sensor has a dedicated radar sensor with a middle wavelength in the wavelength range, which improves detection efficiency and minimizes the amount of energy consumed. What is the penetration efficacy of 5G? In the Korean patent, it is: “the biometric information includes blood pressure, blood flow velocity, color information of blood or blood vessels, pulse, blood vessel thickness, etc.” That is a lot of very personal information 5G can read just by being close to our bodies. Cells feel 5G acutely. In studies done on E. Coli and yeast cells, the 5 Ghz signal was found to influence cellular division ( 5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz | Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology ). The risk of cancer (constant, uncontrolled cell division) is so well-known that one U.S. patent assigned to Fractal Networks LLC explicitly discloses “Cancer Minimization of 5G Cell Phones” . In that patent US11658407B2, where our cell phones contain varied antennas to capture the 5G signal, a revised reflecting cavity inside the cell phone “can change a radiation direction of the 5G antenna to reduce the electromagnetic radiation on the user. In one embodiment, if the user puts the phone next to the face, sensors detect such usage scenario, and uses the 5G antennas most away from the user to increase antenna efficiency and reduce radiation on the user.” 5G is different from the networks that came before it because 5G ( US11658407B2 - Cellular system - Google Patents ): is used to designate fifth generation of mobile technologies. 5G has made it possible to use mobile phone with larger bandwidth possible. It is a packet switched wireless system. It is used to cover wide area and used to provide higher throughput. It uses CDMA, BDMA and also millimeter wave (for backhaul wireless connectivity). It uses improved and advanced data coding/modulation techniques. It provides about 100 Mbps at full mobility and 1 Gbps at low mobility. It uses smart antenna techniques to support higher data rate and coverage. This higher level of function, and penetration, requires an increased number of cell towers with multi-antenna. 5G relies on massive multi-antenna (MIMO) structures. So not only do we have to be concerned about the radiation from our phones on 5G, we also have to be concerned about the increased number and functionality of cell towers. 5G antennas emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation and so far the 3.5 GHz frequency has been used as carrier wave for 5G in city environments. RF radiation, a type of microwave, was already proven to be harmful to human health at levels encountered in the environment before the deployment of 5G. Per OSHA ( Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation - Health Effects | Occupational Safety and Health Administration ), the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. With 5G, RF radiation has reached such levels we should expect widespread headaches, fatigue, concentration difficulty, insomnia, emotional distress, irritability, dysesthesia, skin lesions including burning sensation, cardiac and lung symptoms. Another term for the illness is radiofrequency sickness syndrome. ( Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave sy... ) Sweden and France conducted extensive studies on RF radiation. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0017/html French studies exposing animals to the 3.5 GHz frequency found negative effects such as oxidative stress in the liver, kidneys, the plasma, degenerated neurons in the brain as well as oxidative stress in muscles and negative effects on bone strength. France combats the health risk associated with 5G by banning certain pieces of 5G equipment ( France introduces de facto ban on Huawei 5G equipment by 2028 – POLITICO ) and favoring local manufacturers, where it can test antennas for radiation reduction among other factors. The United States does not seem to have conducted thorough tests on 5G / RF radiation impact on human cells. We are really falling behind in understanding 5G. It may be best if we place a moratorium on all imported 5G equipment (similar to what France did in July 2020) until radiation reduction policies and equipment options can be explored and prioritized.

There is a tower in the middle of our town on a river bluff. We don't get service from it because we are below it in a holler. The service tower for us is the next big city in another state. It is never quiet. Only when the power goes down to the tower is it ever quiet. What damage does it do? I have stage IV lobular breast cancer. I have lived here ten years. The cancer I have forms in crystal type and I have one small area of one breast that is affected. But this cancer has eaten holes in all my bones and created these crystal like formations. The frequency of the tower I believe has caused a turbo cancer in me. There is no family history of breast cancer in my family. Actually only one who has developed cancer was in their 80s.

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.

I submit this comment as someone concerned with the scientific evidence on RF/EMF health effects. HHS should prioritize independent research into nonthermal mechanisms (oxidative stress, DNA effects, neuroendocrine disruption, cumulative exposure), update assessment methods for real-world multi-source long-duration conditions, and evaluate whether current federal limits protect human and animal populations. I do not consent to further exposure from these improperly evaluated EMF technologies without adequate safety testing for optimal human health and longevity. My response draws on the research, clinical observations, and congressional testimony of Robert O. Becker, MD (1923–2008), orthopedic surgeon and bioelectromagnetics pioneer at Syracuse VA Hospital and SUNY Upstate. He authored over 150 papers, books including The Body Electric and Electromagnetism and Life, and testified to Congress and state commissions. Becker established that organisms generate and respond to minute electrical currents and EMFs regulating growth, CNS function, and biological cycles. Man-made EMFs far below thermal levels act as nonspecific biological stressors producing wide adverse effects. Key findings (Questions 5, 6, 11, 12): The “thermal-effects-only” doctrine is obsolete. Organisms have specialized mechanisms (including pineal sensitivity) tuned to Earth’s magnetic cycles. Chronic man-made fields disrupt these, inducing chronic stress with weight loss, diminished immunity, neuroendocrine changes, and altered brain function. Cellularly, exposure accelerates DNA production and alters chromosomes, raising growth rates and genetic abnormalities. Clinically this yields reduced fertility, low birth weights, higher infection/cancer susceptibility, birth defects (eg, Down syndrome), and psychological disturbances. Evidence includes: 60-Hz environmental fields causing stress hormonal/body-weight/blood changes across mouse generations (third-generation infant mortality 50% vs <5%); geomagnetic storm correlations with schizophrenia admissions in >16,000 patients; human reaction-time increases from low-strength VLF fields; animal findings of deficient bone healing, altered growth, and tumor-cell chromosome changes. Becker linked post-1900 power and communications EMFs, the most drastic alteration of Earth’s electromagnetic environment, to rises in birth defects, cancers, mental disorders, and teenage suicide. These fields act at fundamental levels rather than causing single specific diseases. U.S. limits rested on the inadequate thermal-only model. Military/regulatory responses often denied nonthermal effects or issued biased reviews (eg, Navy ELF studies). Becker called for independent research, free of industry/military conflict and risk-benefit decisions by the exposed population. Children, developing organisms, and those with preexisting conditions need particular attention due to higher cell-division rates and cumulative disruption. Cumulative exposures from power systems plus wireless technologies (phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, 5G/6G, IoT) have intensified. Precautionary reductions in unnecessary exposure, especially in schools, homes, and near infrastructure are warranted. Becker’s conclusion remains pertinent: man-made EMFs constitute a serious health hazard requiring urgent steps. I urge HHS to give substantial weight to this foundational evidence. References 1. Becker RO. Statement before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. October 6, 1987. https://www.robertobecker.net/PDFs/1987PowerlinesStatement.pdf 2. Becker RO. Statement of Robert O. Becker, M.D., to Subcommittee on Public Health of the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with hearings on H.R. 10790, Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1967. https://www.robertobecker.net/PDFs/BF037-HR10790Statement1967.pdf 3. Becker RO. The possible hazards of human exposure to magnetic fields. Consultant report for the Joint Technical Advisory Subcommittee 63.1.4. IEEE; 1968. 4. Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. William Morrow; 1985. 5. Becker RO, Marino AA. Electromagnetism and Life. State University of New York Press; 1982.

You should speak to Dr Paul Héroux at McGill University. He’s spent decades researching how EMFs affect the human body and has published peer-reviewed research identifying potential ways they can cause harm at a cellular level. His research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Heroux Two particularly relevant papers: 1. The Collision Between Wireless and Biology (2025) Explores how wireless radiation may affect biological processes without heating tissue. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 2. Extra-Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields Alter Cancer Cells Through Metabolic Restriction (2013) Investigates how weak magnetic fields affect cancer cells, including a possible mechanism involving mitochondrial ATP synthase. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23915261/ He also discussed his research in a Reddit post 12 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/5ftqT3cE0O

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.