Cancer & tumors

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

We try our best to eat healthy, organic, free range, grass fed, etc. We're careful to use only natural deodorants, soaps and detergents. We get sunlight, we take vitamins. All these things we can control but the amount of radiation we're being blasted with is totally outside of our control. We, the citizens of this country, have to rely on the government to do the right thing when it comes to the amount of radiation we're exposed to. We know that the government very often DOES NOT do the right thing. So, since you are requesting comments, how about this: THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION NEEDED TO RUN THE DEVICES IN THE AREA SHOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RADIATION ALLOWED. 4G worked just fine. Then 5G, which is much more dangerous, came along and worked the same as 4G but gave more people cancer. Now, they want to implement 6G. For what? To finish us off? Stop it! Just stop it! The "industry professionals" only care about making their machines work. They do not care about the people being harmed. Don't listen to them! Find good, uncompromised scientists and create standards that prioritize health over functionality. If anyone can do it, RFKJr can do it. Be the man who saves us!

Introduction In 1961, I was five years old and was diagnosed with Ewing’s sarcoma. The tumor, considered lethal at that time, was located in my left leg, between the tibia and fibula. I was immediately treated with cobalt radiation treatments. Chemotherapy was not available at that time. Background The treatment was done via Palm Harbor Hospital in Garden Grove, CA by Dr. John Knauer in 1961 and was considered rather experimental, since the usual approach was immediate amputation of the diseased limb. My evidence is anecdotal. Results and Analysis Since this treatment was fairly new, I received a substantial dose of cobalt radiation to my left leg, while protected with a lead sheet. After a few weeks, my leg turned dark brown and atrophied in a bent position. The brown surface skin would peel off if rubbed. My leg stopped growing. I developed a deep gaping wound where my calf used to be, which never healed and was always raw and full of pus. Several skin graft surgeries were attempted but did not take. Physical therapy was attempted, but, after two years of trying, the wound was still there and hadn't improved and my leg was still bent and hadn't grown. However, I was alive and free of cancer. After two years, the disparity between my two legs increased and the leg was amputated above the left knee. I have a short stump and x-rays show the residual femur is quite thin. Long Term Outcomes For 65 years, I have led a normal life with no further major issues and no recurrence of Ewing's sarcoma. I use an artificial leg and have some scoliosis. I hav three healthy children. At 43, I had a partial thyroidectomy due to a benign cyst. At the age of 70, I was diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma on my collar bone. I have osteoporosis and arthritis in my spine, right hip, and right knee. X-rays reveal my pelvis is partially malformed, and my residual left femur is very thin. Late effects from that era are the same radiation injuries seen with any mega voltage therapy, often more extensive because of the beam geometry and the doses then used. Long-term follow-up of patients treated on cobalt units, and of childhood-cancer cohorts that include the cobalt years, consistently finds these late effects: • Fibrosis, atrophy, and poor wound healing in the treated field, driven by obliterating endarteritis. • Growth arrest and deformity when growing bone was in the field. A PENTEC review of childhood spine irradiation found clinically significant scoliosis after doses of about 15 Gy or more in infants, and grade 2 or higher scoliosis after 30 Gy in children irradiated at ages 2 to 6. Height loss was more common when large spinal segments were treated before puberty to more than 20 Gy. The review notes that orthovoltage and cobalt beams were worse than later techniques because of dose gradients across the vertebrae. • Second cancers in the irradiated volume, usually after a latency of 10 to 30 years or more. In Ewing sarcoma survivors, a Childhood Cancer Survivor Study analysis found a 14.3% cumulative incidence of subsequent neoplasms at 35 years (standardized incidence ratio 7.8). Breast cancer and osteosarcoma in the field were the standouts; the osteosarcoma SIR was 377. • Musculoskeletal and cardiac morbidity in the same Ewing cohorts. Relative risk of a musculoskeletal condition was 18.1 and of a cardiac condition 1.8. By 35 years, 85% had at least one chronic condition and 74% had two or more. Treatment-related death, not recurrence, became a major cause of late mortality. • A British Columbia series that specifically separated eras found patients treated on cobalt-60 units from 1960 to 1982, then on linear accelerators after 1983. Among survivors of five years or more, 77% had a late complication; musculoskeletal problems were the most common (50%), then cardiac toxicity (28%). Actuarial second-neoplasm risk was 5% at 10 years. • Organ-specific injury matching the field: A German review estimates that about 8% of second solid tumors in adult radiotherapy patients are radiation-induced, roughly 3 extra tumors per 1,000 patients at 10 years, with latency from months to decades. Recommendations I would like to see more studies on late effects of cobalt radiation and would recommend an intense educational program for the benefits of today's safer forms of radiation therapy. Conclusions In the early 60s radiation therapy dosages were experimental. More studies of late effects of cobalt radiation would add to data that could prove valuable today. A deep education of the public about benefits would counter deep public distrust. I survived a lethal form of bone cancer thanks to early detection and cobalt radiation treatment.

Please accept my testimony reference cell phone RF emissions and breast cancer. In or around January 2011 I was diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the left breast. I have been battling metastatic cancer since that time. Over the course of 15 years of treatment, millions have been spent on my health care via insurance or personal pay. I am the definition of a profit center to the cancer industry. Prior to the diagnosis, it had been my regular practise to carry my phone in my swimsuit or brassiere when I didn't have pockets. I am right handed so it always was placed over my left breast. Had I known the dangers of these RF emissions, I would not have done this. Subsequently after years of this practise, the cancer was found in the exact spot where the cellphone maintained skin contact. Obviously no one has ever connected my cancer to RF emissions because it cannot be "proven." However, it is a fact that the cancer grew in the exact area exposed to skin contact with the cellphone over the years. Very little has been done to warn women of this danger with only a few studies such as https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3789302/ , https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/CMAR.S267415 , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41623445/ . Mainstream cancer organizations, including the National Breast Cancer Alliance, treat the bra-cancer link as unproven or "a myth." Yet here I am, in the company of many other "profit centers" being ravaged by this terrible disease that is possibly related to cellphones. Many of us are wondering if big industry decided the dangers of their product should remain hidden at the expense of our lives. It is my hope that MAHA and Mr. Kennedy will get to the bottom of the carcinogenic nature of cellphone use as it relates to cancer of the brain, breasts, and testicles. We need national exposure of the risks, protocol to mitigate the risks, and studies to prove the correllation between RF emissions and cancer. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sandra Robles

Data doesn’t exist in the United States to tell whether high voltage power lines are going to harm our children or our livestock when exposed to them long term, but in that lies the problem. There is, however, data from the UK. Over 29,000 children within 200 meters, roughly 650 feet, of a high powered line had a 67% increase in childhood leukemia compared to those living more than 600 meters away. (2005. Oxford University. British Medical Journal). What was the common denominator? Exposure to electromagnetic EMF. More data is needed to get a definitive answer. That data has not been obtained because no study has been completed to a measurable end. Other countries have implemented safety guidelines regarding power lines and long term exposure as a safety measure. Belguim has even bought homes from citizens too close to a high voltage power line out of precaution. The United States has not implemented such guidelines in fact on the contrary, we just keep building them. Dr. David Carpenter, of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and WHO Collaborating Centre has researched non-ionizing EMF for decades. He concludes there are increased health risks including leukemia, brain cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease that have been replicated in other countries. My problem is we are asked to approve solid infrastructure that we don’t understand the effects it will have on the health of the people who live around it. Thirty years ago we had safe levels of lead in paint. We thought that was fine. Now there’s no approved safe limit of lead. It doesn’t exist. Why? Research. We assume that something isn’t dangerous and we find out later that we were wrong. Going back and changing things after the fact isn’t possible. Living with the decision to approve something you aren’t sure is safe is irresponsible to the people who have to live with the consequences. Transparency is a problem. Since there are no guidelines, federal or state, on power lines, there is no reason for the utility companies to disclose any information. This includes positive or negative. It’s probably why Grid Growth Ventures is not responding to any of the questions my neighbors and I have been submitting. We received your submission, is the only reply. We need regulations and transparency.. We need reform to ensure safety. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are outdated and inadequate and are only set up for short term exposure in an industry setting. These guidelines date back to 2010 with an addition in 2015 to exclude subjects whose job requires them to be in constant contact with radiation like an x-ray tech, radiation tech or other like professions. My response is to prove that the lines are safe. Nothing can be 100% safe, but do work. Do the real research. Take engineering time. Third party testing and researching. Research and testing should be done by third party investigators not by the electrical utilities or the data center facilities paying to get a certain result. Where is our reassurance now? That my family or my neighbor’s family won’t get sick. That our livestock won’t be killed or infertile. That the beautiful wildlife I enjoy watching at sunrise and sunset won’t leave or be harmed. We will have all these high voltage lines and a substation that we will be responsible for. It seems like money over people. Why have other ways to transmit power not been investigated? Burying power lines are more suitable and resilent for a source to power the growing needs of communities. It can withstand severe weather conditions, fire and other elements better than high voltage power lines that are 17 stories tall. Would you buy a toy for your grandchild if the label said it might be safe? Would you buy a car if the sticker said it followed no federal guidelines in the making of this vehicle? Probably not, but we are being asked to trust a system with no guidelines who have not done any research and can’t even be transparent enough to answer our questions to keep us safe. My question is simply, can you prove it’s safe? The answer should not be that it hasn't been proven to be harmful. Take the time to really prove it. https://ehsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/EMF-Power-Line-Health-and-Safety- Briefing.pdfhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178725002267#:~:text=In%20this%20paper%2C%20we%20investigate,built%20or%20upgraded%20transmission%20lines. https://www.scenic.org/take-action/resources/undergrounding-resources/undergrounding-resources-and-white-papers/undergrounding-case-study-undergrounding-to-support-data-center-demand-growth/

The seriousness of this can be summed up easily and we need to put a stop the massive infrastructure being built asap. Health>Money “The brain is an electromagnetic. A cell tower is an electromagnetic transmitter operating at a frequency, modulation, and duty cycle the brain does not produce. Exposure from a tower is continuous and involuntary. A limit written only to prevent heating does not answer whether that field alters the electrical activity the brain depends on.” This comment is against cell towers, base stations, and small cells. The exposure they produce is involuntary, continuous, and aimed at homes, schools, and workplaces. A person can put a phone down. No one can opt out of a tower. Human beings are electrical. Nerve conduction, cardiac rhythm, and the voltage across cell membranes are measurable processes. A tower is an electromagnetic transmitter running all day, at a frequency and modulation the body does not produce. Federal limits address heating only. The tower studies looked past heating and found tumors. The study built as a base-station experiment is Falcioni et al., Environmental Research (2018), from the Ramazzini Institute. It exposed 2,448 rats from before birth until natural death to a 1.8 GHz GSM far-field signal at 5, 25, and 50 V/m, 19 hours a day, meant to resemble an antenna rather than a handset against the head. Male rats at 50 V/m had a statistically significant increase in malignant heart schwannomas. Schwann-cell hyperplasia rose in both sexes at that dose. The estimated whole-body absorption at 50 V/m was about 0.1 W/kg, far under the 1.6 W/kg phone limit, and the field strength sits under the FCC public limit of 10 W/m² in that band. The cancers appeared at exposures the current rules allow. The National Toxicology Program’s 2018 reports found the same tumor under near-field, phone-like modulation: clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and some evidence of brain gliomas, plus DNA damage in brain tissue. Two designs, near-field and far-field, produced the same heart tumor. Mevissen et al., the World Health Organization systematic review of the animal cancer studies (Environment International, 2025), rated the evidence high certainty for an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats and high certainty for an increase in glioma. Those are the tumors the International Agency for Research on Cancer cited in 2011 when it classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, on limited evidence of glioma and acoustic neuroma. Acoustic neuroma is a schwannoma of the vestibulocochlear nerve. People living near antennas show the same direction of effect, in smaller studies. Eger et al. (2004), in Naila, Germany, found new cancer cases about 3.4 times higher within 400 meters of a base station in the five years after it began operating, and patients diagnosed about 8.5 years younger. Wolf and Wolf (2004), in Netanya, Israel, reported cancer incidence about 4 times higher within 350 meters. Dode et al. (2011), in Belo Horizonte, found cancer mortality about 1.35 times higher within 100 meters of a base station, falling with distance. Balmori’s 2022 review of 38 studies of people living near base stations reported effects in 28 of them, including radiofrequency sickness, cancer, and biochemical changes. These are not large prospective cohorts. They are the human record that exists for towers, and it does not show safety. In 2021 the D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s decision to keep its 1996 limits (Environmental Health Trust v. FCC). The court held that the agency had not explained effects other than cancer, effects on children, long-term exposure, the spread of transmitters since the limits were written, or the environment. Towers are the environmental exposure. Children in schools and homes nearest the antennas have no say in it, and they will carry it for decades. HHS should tell the FCC, state health departments, and local governments the following. No new tower, macro site, or small cell, school, childcare center, or playground. Existing sites inside that distance should be disclosed, measured at the property line and in the nearest classrooms, and removed or powered down where a wired alternative exists. Cumulative exposure from every antenna on a structure counts, not one site at a time. Backhaul and school networks should be wired. Thermal compliance is not a health finding. The far-field experiment already produced the tumor at a level the rules permit. Refrences attached

See attached file(s) The Possible Role of Contact Current in Cancer Risk Associated With Residential Magnetic Fields 2000 Residential electrical wiring safety practices in the US result in the possibility of a small voltage (up to a few tenths of a volt) on appliance surfaces with respect to water pipes or other grounded surfaces. This ``open circuit voltage'' (VOC) will cause ``contact current'' to flow in a person who touches the appliance and completes an electrical circuit to ground. This paper presents data suggesting that contact current due to VOC is an exposure that may explain the reported associations of residential magnetic fields with childhood leukemia. Our analysis is based on a computer model of a 40 house (single-unit, detached dwelling) neighborhood with electrical service that is representative of US grounding practices. The analysis was motivated by recent research suggesting that the physical location of power lines in the backyard, in contrast to the street, may be relevant to a relationship of power lines with childhood leukemia. In the model, the highest magnetic field levels and VOCs were both associated with backyard lines, and the highest VOCs were also associated with long ground paths in the residence. Across the entire neighborhood, magnetic field exposure was highly correlated with VOC (r 0.93). Dosimetric modeling indicates that, compared to a very high residential level of a uniform horizontal magnetic field (10 mT) or a vertical electric field (100 V/m), a modest level of contact current ( 18 mA) leads to considerably greater induced electric fields (> 1 mV/m) averaged across tissue, such as bone marrow and heart. The correlation of VOC with magnetic fields in the model, combined with the dose estimates, lead us to conclude that VOC is a potentially important exposure with respect to childhood leukemia risks associated with residential magnetic fields. These findings, nonetheless, may not apply to residential service used in several European countries or to the Scandinavian studies concerned with populations exposed to magnetic fields from overhead transmission lines. Bioelectromagnetics 21:538±553, 2000. ß 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Key words: magnetic fields; childhood leukemia; power lines; open circuit voltage

Here’s what I know. When I stopped using the outlets in my bedroom by my bed I started sleeping better. When I started having my Starlink automatically shut off between 9-6 am I started sleeping better. When I leave all devices out of the bedroom at night I sleep better. I stopped wearing an Apple Watch and I use wired headphones. I feel better. I’m a two time cancer survivor so I know what affects my body and what doesn’t. With minimizing or eliminating I find that it’s just better. Can we please allow 3G again? I would go back to a blackberry in a heartbeat. New is not always better and we moved too fast with tech.

One thing I would like HHS to look into are the Body Scanners at airports. Can they cause cancers? I remember reading a decade ago or more that they could impact your DNA in a very negative way. See: https://davidwolfe.com/blogs/learn/study-airport-body-scanners-effect-dna

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.