Cancer & tumors

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 an advocate, friend, and family member of people who have had adverse reactions to microwave radiation from cell phones, wireless routers, or cell towers. Although I personally do not have a strong immediate adverse reaction to microwave exposure, I know several people who do. Here are some vignettes from my experience: My sister in Utah complained to me about a twitch her 13-year-old grandson had developed, and wanted to take him to a chiropractor to see if anything could be done to help him. I asked her whether anything had changed in his life that might have caused this. She said no, but then called me back and said, yes. They had moved their wireless router into his bedroom. Upon removing it, his twitch went away. I, too, have noticed adverse reactions to wireless devices. I'm pretty adverse to using them at all, but I notice if I send text messages over a period of 10 or 15 minutes, my hands begin to tingle uncomfortably. On one occasion, I attended an event in an enclosed basement auditorium at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. It was a debate on the potential adverse effects of wireless devices, pitting Dr. Martin Pall against an attorney from the wireless industry. The wireless spokesman laughed at us when we asked that cell phones be put on airplane mode, because the wireless routers in the room were pointed from the ceiling at the attendees. After an hour and a half in that room I developed a headache and body aches, and was grateful to get out of there. I question what effect this was having on students trying to learn something. And why so many babies and young children are born with unusual health problems. And why so many young men are developing prostate cancer, and children in general are developing brain tumors. these are questions that should be addressed prior to the federal government allowing the definition of "broadband" expansion to include wireless and fiber-optice to the premises as if they were the same thing. 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.

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 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 and mother. These frequencies interfere with molecular biology and are not resonate to our bodies. It impedes the proper functioning of our bodies and disrupts our wellbeing. I consider it to be an environmental toxin, personally. I first learned about the dangers of EMF exposure when listening to a Health Summit on the matter in 2018. I learned that baby monitors were a very high emitter and immediately stopped using ours to monitor our developing infant. My husband and I also took measures to connect our electronics to the internet with cables rather than use WiFi, including our phones. We also stopped using any Bluetooth devices. Sadly, there are spaces that I cannot protect my family from, such as my son's school. We were able to at least put him in a school that was not right next to a 5G tower, something that happened about half a mile from our house. We opted for a school that was a 15 minute drive from our house rather than expose him to 5G radiation while at school. If this isn't a crime against humanity, I do not know what is. My husband and I are exposed at work and anywhere else we go in town, really. With all the 5G mini towers on tops of buildings throughout town, we feel safest at home and when we're deep out in nature. I recently heard that nature has tech in certain areas so I will be sure to bring my EMF reader to check out my favorite nature areas. We all have the right to know what we are being exposed to, ideally the right to choose not to be exposed in the first place. It would be ideal if our government wanted protections in place for everyone's well being. If only well being was put before money and "convenience". It isn't very convenient to have leukemia or whatever other cancers they're linking to high EMF exposure. Our nervous systems are deeply affected. We all need to take a hard look at the reality of things instead of sticking our heads in the sand. This is not hard to understand. It's only hard to understand if people are concerned about money; the government can print more if they want to anyway. Stop worrying about money and care about the well being of others. Am I altruistic? Yes. Do I know that we are capable of being better to each other and the planet? Yes. We are totally capable. I pray that decisions are made that will make our world a better place to live in. For our health, for our planet, for the animals... Please make healthy decisions when it comes to this matter. 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.

I am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned and someone who is on the board of a nonprofit organization where we research the effects of toxins in our food and environment on child development, about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices. Cell Towers should not be legally allowed to be on schoolgrounds across America, yet they are in my town. I joined the School Health Advisory Council to address this issue as the head of the Student Environmental Health Subcommittee. However, it's an uphill battle, but if you make a law that cell towers can't be on school grounds, then the school district would have no choice but to take these cell towers down. 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.

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.

Exposures to EMF's & wireless radiation have caused severe headaches and tinnitus and made my eyes hurt. Research has shown such exposure causes rouleau blood formation [blood cells clump together] and can lead to cancer and death. Suggest seeing books by Dr. James and Ora James--Handy Way to Cook Your Brain and Cellular Radiation which include PHOTOS of animal birth damage & rouleau & blood brain permeability etc.

5G antennas and towers are extremely dangerous and deadly to human beings. They are equally dangerous and deadly to trees, birds, insects, animals and anything else that is alive. Symptoms for humans are body twitching, ear ringing, random migraines, cancer, strokes, stomach issues, flu symptoms, heart attacks…. just to name a few. The 5G technology that was rolled out to “improve mobile and Wi-Fi service” is a lie because they haven’t improved at all and they were ordered to be rolled out by the US military to create a surveillance state like China has. The US govt has never released the long term studies to the public about 5G or any EMF and it’s because the military controls the technology. Trump should be ashamed of himself for recently approving 6G. God sees all.

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.