Cancer & tumors

I'm writing to share how wireless radiation has affected my health and to raise a concern I don't think current policy accounts for: the layering of exposure inside and around our homes and office buildings. For years I lived with migraines, tinnitus, poor sleep, slow recovery, and a nervous system that struggles to settle. These aren't abstract complaints; they shape my life. When I began measuring the radio frequency levels in my home and reducing them, by hardwiring our network, scheduling the router off at night, and tracking down hidden sources, my body responded. The quality of my sleep has improved, although I still have day to day exposure and migraines have gotten worse, and the ringing in my ears hasn't stopped. What's most concerning is how pervasive the exposure is getting. A decade ago, a home might have had one wireless router. Today, radios are built into refrigerators, washers, thermostats, smoke detectors, televisions, sound systems, garage door openers, lighting controls, doorbells, and security systems, alongside routers, modems, and mesh repeaters. Many are boxed into walls and cabinets where homeowners can't see them, and many can't be turned off without disabling the appliance itself. People and pets absorb these signals around the clock, including while we sleep, when the body is meant to repair. Even after we deployed mitigation strategies, the highest reading in our house was in the hallway outside our bedroom, and it traced back to an alarm communicator mounted inside a closet wall. We didn't choose that exposure; we didn't even know it was there.The layers don't stop at our walls. Outside, 5G small cells now sit on streetlights and utility poles steps from bedroom windows, in addition to existing cell towers. Smart meters on each home relay signals to one another in a mesh network, so an entire neighborhood transmits as one connected system. License plate cameras at intersections and community entrances send their data over cellular connections, and satellite networks now beam service down from above. I can turn off my own router at night; I can't turn off my neighbor's smart meter, the small cell on the corner, or the camera at the end of my street. The public never consented to any of this and an informed public would surely not consent. Many of these systems also track where we go; geofencing lets companies and agencies draw a virtual boundary and collect data from every phone that crosses it. We weren't asked about the exposure or the tracking. Federal exposure limits were set in 1996 and evaluate single devices, not the cumulative load of dozens operating at once. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the FCC had failed to explain why those limits still protect people from harms unrelated to cancer, including effects on children and long-term exposure. The U.S. National Toxicology Program and Italy's Ramazzini Institute both found tumors in rats exposed to cell phone and cell tower radiation, and a Danish birth cohort study linked prenatal and childhood phone exposure to behavioral difficulties. Over the same decades that wireless exposure has multiplied, we've seen rising rates of autism, autoimmune disease, and chronic illness, and some researchers have raised questions about RF exposure and mold growth indoors. I'm not suggesting wireless radiation is the single cause of any of these; I'm asking that it be studied seriously rather than ruled out. Wireless radiation also doesn't reach us alone. Every day we're exposed to more synthetic building materials that off-gas, plastics in our clothing, children's toys, and household products, and chemicals permitted in our food and skincare. Each of these is approved on its own, and RF limits are set one device at a time, while our bodies take in all of it together. Little research has looked at how RF exposure interacts with this growing chemical load; until it does, I don't see how anyone can call the combination safe. I respectfully ask that you: 1. Update exposure limits to account for cumulative, long-term exposure from multiple sources, inside and outside the home, as the 2021 court ruling requires. 2. Require public notice and local input before new towers, small cells, smart meter networks, or surveillance cameras go up in residential neighborhoods, with a no-cost opt-out for smart meters. 3. Require that appliances and home systems with wireless radios offer a wired option or a simple way to disable the radio without losing core function. 4. Require clear labeling of wireless modules on appliances and building systems so families can make informed choices. 5. Fund independent research on chronic exposure and how it interacts with everyday chemical exposures, with attention to children, sleep, and the nervous system. Thank you for considering the people living with these exposures every day. Christy Wallace

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a parent and health advocate. At sufficiently high exposure levels, RF energy can heat biological tissue and cause harm. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). 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 and families with an opportunity to be heard.

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from knowing something is happening in your body and repeatedly being told that there is no explanation. I know what it feels like to seek help because something does not feel right, explain what I am experiencing, ask questions, and hope someone will look beyond the surface. Instead, I kept encountering the same thing: a diagnosis of the symptoms, but not an investigation into the environment. I was looking for answers about exposure. I was looking for someone to take seriously the possibility that environmental electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency exposure could be relevant to what I was experiencing and I was looking for someone to consider the same question for EVERYONE BRINING THIS TO LIGHT. As energetic beings we can be incredibly sensitive to our surroundings, and as a mother, I cannot simply dismiss what I observe in my own children. As a DNM, I understand the human body is a biological and electrical system, and I’m no longer going to stay quiet for the sake of those who simply repeat paid-for, memorized scripts that fail to address the root cause. I did not expect everyone to automatically agree with me. WHAT I EXPECTED WAS INVESTIGATION. "Let's measure it." "Let's document the exposure." "Let's look at the frequencies, duration, distance, and intensity." "Let's compare what is happening in your environment with what you are experiencing." Instead, too often, the conversation ends at the diagnosis. A diagnosis tells you what your body is doing. It does not necessarily tell you WHY. I have gone directly to scientific and public-health literature because I do not want my concerns based solely on fear, social media, or personal opinion. The World Health Organization acknowledges electromagnetic fields as a widespread environmental exposure and states that research into possible long-term effects continues. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B) in 2011. That does not establish that cell towers cause cancer, and I recognize that current scientific evidence does not establish that ordinary wireless exposure causes every symptom people attribute to it. I am NOT asking anyone to accept an unproven conclusion. I AM ASKING WHY THE QUESTION IS NOT BEING PROPERLY INVESTIGATED. What are the actual measured exposure levels? What frequencies are present? What are the peak exposures? How far are people from transmitting equipment? What other RF sources contribute to the total environmental exposure? How often are these measurements independently verified? And most importantly: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PERSON REPORTS SYMPTOMS THAT THEY BELIEVE CORRESPOND WITH A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT? DO WE INVESTIGATE or simply assign another diagnosis and send that person home? My greatest concern is not theoretical. IT IS FAMILIES WELL BEING. I want OUR environment evaluated. I want objective measurements. I want qualified professionals to look at the complete picture, not just one organ system, one laboratory result, or one diagnosis. I want environmental medicine, conventional medicine, toxicology, physics, and other relevant disciplines to sit at the same table and examine the evidence together. If there is nothing harmful happening, OBJECTIVE TESTING SHOULD HELP DEMONSTRATE THAT. And if there is something we have not adequately understood yet, then we need the courage to discover it. I do not want to frighten parents. I do not want to make claims that cannot be substantiated. I WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN. I WANT ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN SOMEONE IS SICK. I WANT MEASUREMENTS INSTEAD OF ASSUMPTIONS. I WANT INVESTIGATION INSTEAD OF DISMISSAL. I want doctors to be willing to say, "We don't know yet." Because "we don't know, so let's investigate" is how science moves forward. OUR body deserves to be heard. Families deserve access to objective information. We should be able to ask questions without being ridiculed. We should be able to request objective environmental measurements. We should be able to investigate patterns of symptoms. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS A CONNECTION, EXAMINE IT. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES A CONNECTION, ACCEPT IT. BUT WE CANNOT DISCOVER THE TRUTH BY REFUSING TO INVESTIGATE THE QUESTION. People deserve more than a label. THEY DESERVE AN EXPLANATION. Our children deserve our attention. And our communities deserve a serious, evidence-based conversation about the environments in which people are expected to live, learn, work, and grow.

Hello, My name is Mary Kirby and I live in Ave Maria Florida. The wifi effects in my home and abroad are very detrimental to may health. My neighbors are kind enough to turn off their wifi when not using it, but using the cable box and tv can be just as detrimental. The effects on me are: headaches, foggy brain, pain in joints, when in a strong signal area, fatigue, shaky hands and painful tingling in the sublayer of my skin when in a strong signal area (stops when I leave the area) Effects the rhythm of my heart, when in a strong signal area (and stops when I leave it), Achiness and pain in my right thigh (where I had shingles about 10 years ago) and pain stops when I can remove myself from the area. HHS savings accounts cover EMF clothing etc. So the government knows it has negative effects on Humans. They keep upping the strength. Infinity uses 6G and possibly stronger (they call it 10G) If they could place harmonizers on all the wifi towers, starlink and satelites, to neutralize the negative effects of the High "G" being used, this could be a viable answer. I realized I started having serious problems with the wifi when the hotspots (3G was the first) came out then the G being used kept being raised. At this point it is very painful for me and very frustrating, because I cannot stop it any more. The clothing, hats, blankets are all made for 5G and that has been surpassed with 6G and above!!! The wave goes right through the silver fabric. So, I double up the fabric and this slows it and even stops it from getting to me. We should not have to live like this and be in pain most of the day!!! Please evaluate this and make healthy corrections to how The WIFI towers are being used and built. Put protections on them. The waves are know to alter our DNA, which caused cancer, It is scientifically proven to cause AFIB, and I could go on and on. Bettering our technology is a good thing, but it must be safe for humans at all times! Thank you for investigating this deadly problem with WIFI and Satelites and StarLink

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 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.

HHS has Requested Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. As an impacted patient and concerned member of the public, I have been harmed by smart meters from utility EMFs. I was not informed when the utility smart meters were first installed on the other side of my block, but I suddenly began to have severe glaucoma problems with my vision with diagnosis of very serious narrow angle glaucoma with potential for sudden irreversible blindness due to public utility company arbitrary business choices. Electric utility smart meters give off non-ionizing EMF radiation. In California, court records of multiple household members in the same house with glaucoma as well as extremely high 800-900 blood sugar readings requiring ER treatment/hospitalization occurred immediately following installation of electric utility smart meters. Narrow angle glaucoma, unlike the more common open angle glaucoma, can result in immediately permanent loss of eye vision without warning. Open angle can cause permanent loss of eye vision but it happens more slowly over a couple of years, not immediately. As a result, I had to have laser surgery on both eyes to make a hole to release the buildup of fluid that otherwise would cause my sudden and permanent blindness. A few years later I found out that my glaucoma occurred shortly after electric smart meters had been installed on the other side of my block facing the back of my house. Somehow, the local electric utility was able to adopt a more dangerous way to measure its product that harmed residential health but reduced staff, without consulting the affected public, nor informing anyone of the public health dangers, while emphatically denying such problems. Similarly, gas smart meters later were installed on my house recently, after being put on my neighbor's gas meters perhaps 6-7 years back. The gas is owned by MG&E which told me that they would be putting a smart meter on my gas or they would be turning off my heat as an elderly citizen for this coming winter and that would leave me finding my own source of fuel from another vendor. MG&E wouldn't be in business without its takings of public easements from both public and private land, but now it claims its business decision as to the meter it chooses is outside of public input per State PSC and that is not subject to any determination of the best interests of the entire public nor subject to provide any alternative for service objection. They took private property easements to violate those property owners health needs & safety and privacy needs when they digitally throw private data of each residential account into the airwaves where the data can be compromised. Wisconsin has a Public Service Commission controlled by 3 appointed commissioners. The public's best interests are ignored when any utility wants to expand in any way. 98% go against the project for more harm than benefits, but PSC rules for the utililty. This has happened with electric transmission lines, smart meters, and EMFs. Wireless radiation is 24/7 surveillance in large numbers of unnecessary frequency bursts where exposure becomes fairly constant on the other side of a wall where people sleep, eat, or live without regard for damage to their health that likely is increasing cancer, death, and fires. Did these sicknesses exist before man-made EMFs? Review Arthur Firstenberg's books about EMFs who had EMF hypersensitivity and had to move constantly every time EMFs were installed in his living area. He documented with every man-made new technology for communication--telegraph, radio, television, cell phones--that the first time each was turned-on or turned-up, it created a large human death anomoly from its stronger EMF dosage and/or different EMF exposure. It was recorded in the death records, but not reported by the news or the watchers of our society, but this sudden recorded wave of death occurred every time each new or increase in manmade EMF technology was turned on. Public accountability was fraudulently treated. HHS should take an active role in examining the potential health and environmental effects of all wireless radiation, starting with formally establishing the exact death toll spiked upward from the telegraph & all following upgraded tech for communications from its turn-on through cell phones which require the death toll caused by each of its upgrades into a different power level, which would be 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, and higher. The distance measurements in which each EMF turn-on created a spike in similar numbers of increased deaths should be created where the distance involved is shaped by the death numbers outward until that disappears. Similar surges in actual number of deaths would determine the size and shape of these boundaries of impacted geography locations when the first turn-on of each new manmade EMF technology was activated in each area.

This comment is submitted by Cindy Sage, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports 2007 and 2012 (and Updates) on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group. The BioInitiative Report link is www.bioinitiative.org and is incorporated by reference due to its file size. The BioInitiative Report is an internationally acclaimed scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency/microwave radiation. In 2007, the BioInitiative Working Group released a 650-page report citing more than 2000 studies that document health effects of EMFs from all sources. The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former Presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Membership in the BioInitiative Working Group includes Sweden (6), USA (10), India (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Canada (2), Denmark (1), Austria (2), Slovak Republic (1), Russia (1) The BioInitiative Report was produced for publication to the broadest possible audience, hence placed on the Web and offered for free. Much of the BioInitiative Report content, including updated chapters and new chapters was later published in a special two-volume issue of the journal Pathophysiology to verify the quality of its science (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3). In 2013, the BioInitiative 2012 chapter on Autism and EMF was also published in two parts, in the peer-reviewed journal Pathophysiology. The BioInitiative 2012 Report concludes that the evidence for health risks from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by wireless technologies have substantially increased since 2007. A review of over 1800 new scientific studies indicates current guidelines are inadequate to protect the public from chronic exposure to very low-intensity (non-thermal) electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (EMF and RFR). In twenty-four technical chapters, the BioInitiative 2012 Report discusses the content and implications of about 1800 new studies since 2007. Overall, these new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers - particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9); carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on the fetus, neonate and offspring (Section 18 and 19); effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18); and findings in autism spectrum disorders consistent with EMF/RFR exposure effects. Global precautionary actions that have been taken in countries around the world, and recommended by medical and research experts are documented in Section 22. Use of the Precautionary Principal and its relevance are presented in Section 23. Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations are in Section 24. Attached file: Pathophysiology Full Edition.pdf (August 2009, Pathophysiology 16: 2,3)

I am submitting this comment in response to HHS’s Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure. I am responding from the perspective of a concerned member of the public. Besides the fact that a good amount of research I have seen shows that current allowable levels of RF and EMFs from devices may not be safe, I have heard stories from people about how they are negatively affected by today's tech devices and I believe their voices need to be heard and their stories investigated. I know of people getting fatal cancers after living near cell towers. I have heard people say they feel sick when they around routers, cell phones and other devices, and especially cell towers. I have heard people say they get headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, insomnia and other symptoms from exposure to these things, but that the symptoms go away when they get away from them. I understand every BODY is different, and what affects one person one way may not affect someone else the same way (up to a certain threshold at least). However, some people serve as canaries in the coal mine--their experiences warning the rest of us that something might be more harmful to everyone than we realize. With Alzheimer's and especially cancer on the rise, I think the FCC and HHS have a duty to do a deep dive into these people's stories and make sure the RFs and EMFs we are all exposed to daily, everywhere, are not harming people. And if they find that they are, to do something about it immediately for the safety of the general public. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty and gross betrayal of the American people. Thank you for your time and consideration

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.