Cancer & tumors

Thank you for listening to what we all have to say on the matter. I have seen first hand the impact of EMFs on loving things... everything from the sharp rise in cancer cases (brain cancers especially in relation to cell phone use) to plants dying once smart meters have been installed. It doesn't seem right that we should be able to be forced to live under such conditions... while some people might believe they are completely unaffected (although the most likely are at the cellular level), others suffer greatly from the ever increasing amount of EMFs in our world. If it's something you cannot opt out of, it should not be everywhere. There are also serious questions about the use of these more powerful antennas in conjunction with surveillance tools like flock cameras. Our constitutional rights are supposed to protect us from invasion of our privacy. It's time to say no to ever increasing power and technology in these areas.

Brain fog. Headaches. Lethargy. Exhaustion. Ill health. Links to cancer, blood disorders, infant abnormalities… Why 5G. Why 6G? Why Smart Meter exposure every 15 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Why aren’t lines buried? Why cell towers within feet of each other? Why cell towers on school property? This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of more Why’s…

WALLINGTON, NJ: OUR CHILDREN LIVE INSIDE THE SIGNAL, 24 HOURS A DAY. Every person in Wallington lives within half a mile of a cell antenna installation. Most live within half a mile of two or more. I ask HHS to make Wallington a pilot site and to come see it. My full report is attached. ABOUT ME. Szymon Sikorski. Medical degree; 20 years in medical research analysis, the last five on cancer. Parent of a child in Wallington public schools. I write for no institution. For six years I lived and worked from home near the Hathaway Street Park cell tower. Day and night. Then I was diagnosed with cancer. Now I live with it, and with the fear of it getting worse. How much of it came from six years of round-the-clock RF and EMF exposure? No one can tell me. No one ever measured it. PEOPLE SEE ONE TOWER. WE HAVE SIX INSTALLATIONS. They carry more than 70 panels, most hidden in plain sight: on a water tank next to an elementary school, an apartment roof where families sleep directly under eight antennas, a self-storage building, an old water tower and a chimney. You may see a tower 2,000 feet away and miss the antennas much closer to home. Not one has ever been held to Wallington's own 500-foot rule. THE WARNINGS ARE NOT NEW. The World Health Organization's cancer agency (IARC) lists radio-frequency radiation, and magnetic fields from electrical equipment, as possibly causing cancer in humans. In 2019, and again in 2024, its advisers called a new cancer review a high priority. The American Academy of Pediatrics told the FCC its limits do not account for children and pregnant women, and a federal court ordered the FCC to explain how they protect children long term. Firefighters asked for a federal study of antennas on their stations in 2004. It was never done. WHY 1,500 FEET? In Germany and Israel, studies found more cancers among people living within about 1,150 to 1,300 feet of cell antennas. A 1,500-foot buffer covers that distance. Legislators keep proposing 1,500 feet or more from schools; in New Hampshire, 1,640 feet from homes and schools. In Wallington, 83% of homes are within 1,500 feet of an installation. 24 HOURS A DAY, NOT 30 MINUTES. FCC limits were set in 1996 to stop tissue heating, averaged over 30 minutes. They do not count years. Our exposure does not stop after 30 minutes. It never stops. THINK OF ONE WALLINGTON CHILD. She spends her school day at Gavlak Elementary, 180 feet from antennas on the water tank, with three installations within half a mile. Then she comes home, still within reach of more. She sleeps there. In the morning she goes back. Year after year, while her brain and body are still growing, her exposure adds up. No one has ever studied a child like her. Her teachers may spend whole pregnancies 180 feet from those antennas. No one has studied that either. WHAT I MEASURED. In neighbors' homes within 900 feet of the tower, RF read about 7 mW/m². In the park where children play, 20 to 33. Magnetic fields at the tower's base reached 45 mG. All far below FCC limits. Yet studies found effects at these levels: where RF was higher, students scored lower on memory tests, schoolchildren had more DNA damage markers, and residents reported more symptoms. Children in homes averaging above 4 mG had about double the leukemia risk. RISK VERSUS BENEFIT. The Borough collects about $80,000 a year from two of these sites. That is $6.78 per resident per year. About $41 over six years. $41. Against cancer. Against a parent's worry that never ends. THE TOWER COMPANY WILL NOT CARRY THE RISK. The company holding the Hathaway tower lease tells investors it has no significant insurance against RF health claims. Insurers have long excluded these risks. Why are they worried about liability? What do they know that we do not? TOWNS ARE REMOVING ANTENNAS, NOT JUST BANNING NEW ONES. In California, a carrier removed a tower from an elementary school after four students got cancer, even though it tested within federal limits. In New York, a 150-foot tower beside a public housing playground came down after residents objected. India's Supreme Court ordered a tower switched off for a cancer patient who said it hit his home 24/7 for 13 years. Here, no one was even told. Not residents, not parents, not the school. Everyone who understands this now carries one more worry, every day, especially parents. Home values and taxes suffer too; the report covers that. WHAT I ASK. (1) A health-based distance from schools and homes, and moving antennas that are too close, starting on public property. (2) Make every antenna's owner, frequencies and power public. (3) Link cancer and birth records to antenna history. (4) Study children exposed at school and at home, for years. (5) Come to Wallington.

In July 2023, I was admitted to ER and overnight to the hospital for heart issues. Then spent two days having Multiple tests were run with no conclusive evidence of any heart Trouble! I was sent home and had my two smart meters on my property removed and then a month later ended up wearing a heart monitor for three weeks journaled everything and recorded every time my heart acted up and what I was doing and discovered I could not spend more than 45 minutes at a time on my wireless laptop without giving me palpitations and creating arrhythmia and chest pain pains! It was quite an eye opener. Of course, the journal entries were highly edited and showed NO correlation!?! Three months later, I saw the top southern Oregon cardiologist. Except for some unusual EKGs and all the rest of the tests were inconclusive, the Doctor asked me, what I thought the issue was - so I shared, that I felt the cause of my cardiac issues was EMF exposure. His comment and I quote “I’m not ‘allowed’ to discuss that with patients.”. I asked him why, and he would not explain the censorship. (I was shocked!) Although he did say that “ I would never use my cell phone next to my brain because I don’t want brain cancer.” AND he does not carry it in his hip pocket next to “his boys” because he doesn’t want prostate cancer! So obviously, he believes that EMF is causing cancers, but he’s not allowed to talk about cardiac problems!?! Prior to my experience, my husband has had cardiac problems ever since smart meters were attached to our home. Once they were removed here in Oregon he no longer has cardiac issues! September 20, 2026 I travel to Oroville, California and was in town less than 24 hours before I had to leave because I started having cardiac issues; palpitations, arrhythmia, shortness of breath and chest pains, so once again EMF is the culprit because I was in a large city with lots of EMF and undoubtedly 5G. Once out away from the city symptoms reduced enough for me to travel home! LIVESTOCK AND PETS All our farm animals have also been exposed to long-term EMF. Once the smart meters were installed in 2015 the 80 lb mixed breed dog developed systemic lupus, and inflammation all over her body so she could barely walk and she was only two years old. The older second 45 lb dog, became aggressive and developed fatty tumors on her body. Now in Oregon two puppies we adopted, both have severe allergies and something is accentuating unknown congenital disorders. The 17 year-old Horse developed melanoma cancer all over his body. Tumors are so large it’s impeding his movements. The 13-year-old wild Mustang developed diabetes and is developing tumors. None of this is not normal nor is it coincidental. The water has been tested at both residential locations. Their feed has been tested and of course, none of them eat the same thing, so it’s not the feed or water. I believe it’s long-term exposure to the EMF. Our cattle also have congenital health issues here. The bull died of unexplained issues and he was a little over two years old. Since removing the smart meter that was attached to their Barn, we have no longer had detectable health issues. THE INSIDE CAT - weight 10 lbs Would have tremors all day long before we remove the smart meters. ONE DAY I WATCHED A TREMOR COMPLETELY, KNOCK HER OFF THE COUCH AND SHE HIT THE FLOOR WITH A HUGE CRY OF SHOCK AND PAIN! Once the first meter was removed, WITHIN 48 HOURS, THE TREMORS BEGAN TO REDUCE DAILY IN SEVERITY AND NUMBER!! TWO WEEKS AFTER BOTH METERS WERE REMOVED SHE NO LONGER HAD TREMORS!!! I know this is all observational and empirical data, but all the biological symptoms, whether it was human or animal, have reduced or completely dissipated with the removal of the smart meters and our constant management of wireless devices; being turned off when not in use or kept away from all of us. Not being able to travel to large towns or cities to visit family and friends because of the impacts has gotten ridiculous. The effects are real. I had a journal that documents it. I had tests that show the periods. My prayer is that the FCC will finally listen to the American people and understand the effects are real, and you’re supposed to protect AMERICANS from this industry you’re regulating. The broadband infrastructure that was supposed to connect us to the rest of the US, never made it to our neighborhood thus, I’m stuck using wireless technology. I beg you, please give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence that the public is providing and fully address each issues identified by the court. We cannot continue to live this way. There is so much new research that has been done around the world, documenting what’s happening. I hope that you will finally look at the new data, especially “Bio initiative 2012” and “Updated research summaries from May 2022” Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

L.S., I am an entrepeneur who sells bedding-products and apparel that protect people against the adverse effects of EMF's. These products have a protective component in them which is peat-fiber. See: www.gaiaheartworkz.com. The issues related to EMF exposure fall in the category of DEFCON 1. The point with EMF's is is that they kill Life. We all know of the bag of frozen blood that was put in the microwave and given to the patient who then died. We can handle some EMF's, but from 4G and onwards it starts to result in symptoms of harmful exposure such as feeling “being thrown off your rockers”, feeling disconnected from Life and Life-Forces, of your soul and spirit, from your sense of being part of the spiritual world, from your inspiration, your intuition. It can get you into a state of being locked up in your physicality’s, in your intellect, in depressed thoughts, negative emotions, in fear, in being anti-social, in your instincts. Since EMF’s consist of cold energy they can thus even result in cancer (known to be a cold illness). Since we have electrical currents in our body as well, the EMF's merge with those and subsequently amplify our currents to an unnatural and harmful level. One can feel this amplified exposure e.g. the top of our head, our temple, the middle-front of our forehead and the Atlas-point in the lower back-part of our skull. Our ears get affected by the EMF’s and you can hear it by a continuous buzzing high pitch monotonous ringing crinckling sound. People can experience it as having a hard time falling asleep (wheels keep spinning) and feel like they have a feever, but are not actually sick. The result is that you can't function anymore as a healthy human being. Since there has been no actual thorough research done on these affects, this avalanche of EMF exposure should thus be seriously scaled back. If you need more information feel free to contact me on: shop@gaiaheartworkz.com.

The radiation from wireless devices and my smart meter makes have migraines and headaches. There are many others who have the same symptoms and it causes anxiety and distress may even potential cause cancer with long term use…please consider the voice of the people being harmed.

HHS-OASH-2026-0397 RFI Questions 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 People should be able to rely on health protections without having to become scientists. When published research reports malignant tumours in exposed animals or damage to reproductive cells, the public has good reason to want those findings examined carefully. Understanding their implications matters to people who cannot assess the science for themselves. I offer the attached review, Health protection deserves clear answers, to help bring that evidence within reach. Important findings are scattered across technical journals and government reports. Their significance can be difficult to follow, especially for someone already worried about their own health or that of their family. This review gives concerned readers an accessible way into the original work, with the detail needed for scientific examination alongside it. A strong starting point is the cancer evidence, records RF-001 and RF-002. The US National Toxicology Program classified malignant heart tumours in male rats after prolonged whole-body radiofrequency exposure as "clear evidence" of cancer-causing activity. A separate lifetime experiment at the Ramazzini Institute reported a significant increase in the same rare tumour type at its highest exposure. These are disease outcomes in experimental animals. Their meaning for human protection deserves close attention, while recognising that these experiments alone cannot calculate the risk from everyday phone use. The reproductive findings, RF-006 to RF-008, are another important starting point. Experiments with isolated human sperm and whole-body-exposed mice reported impaired sperm function and DNA damage. Sperm movement and genetic integrity are directly relevant to reproduction. The findings warrant attention on their own terms; they do not establish infertility in people. The report explains the exposure conditions, identifies the related research groups and records what the experiments did and did not show. Other experiments examine whether radiofrequency exposure can influence tumour development in mice also given a cancer-causing chemical. They raise a distinct question about combined exposures and biological susceptibility. The review also covers brain-tissue observations, objective responses in blinded human experiments, and ecological findings. One prolonged-exposure experiment reported fewer bees returning home. These different outcomes each need to be understood under the conditions in which they were observed. The report is deliberately selective. It brings together published adverse findings, exposure-associated symptoms and biological responses potentially relevant to harm. It does not attempt to settle the overall balance of the literature. Animal disease, cellular damage and a measurable biological response carry different meanings; the review keeps those distinctions visible. Relevant nonconfirming follow-ups, corrections and publication notices are included. Abstract-level records and unfinished retrieval leads are clearly marked. Please begin with the short opening chapters and the coloured "Why this matters" panels. There is no need to master the technical detail before understanding why a study deserves attention. Clickable contents, bookmarks and indexes lead from those introductions to the study records and original sources. The attachment is intended to be useful to interested members of the public as well as to readers equipped to examine the science closely. My hope is that this contribution helps these findings receive serious consideration alongside the other evidence submitted, and informs the work of the public bodies on which people rely for protection. Cancer prevention and reproductive health give these questions an importance beyond specialist debate. Clear explanations of what the evidence means for protection would matter to many people. Simon Fox Director, Resonance Sciences Limited, UK Perspective and source basis (Q2): a public, literature-based contribution drawing on peer-reviewed original research and government technical reports.

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.

It is time to stop letting the RF dangers just because a human cannot see them go without great concerns. When was the last time a full report was done with all the tower sites and the monster antennas feeding the wireless cancer product. This is still OUR PUBLIC AIRWAYS and just because it has not been reported the death toll is happening. What about this WAR What About Radiation. I have since November of 1999 been a watchdog who made a different of this 1996 Telecommuting Act of 1996 Be the Government that Controls too much, too fast and to many. With Great Concerns Karen Johnson Leuthner it is this generation to save the next Can you hear me now?

Here is what I know: if you take even minimal steps to reduce wi-if in the school, kids will be calmer and healthier. If health risks that doctors/scientists and thousands of studies do indeed exist, then we owe it to our children. We are bioelectrical beings, and wi-fi and cellular signals interfere with our cell-to-cell communication. Studies show wi-fi causes the cell membrane to leak, which produces a very destructive free radical and can contribute to cancer. Wi-Fi also has been shown to interfere with melatonin's ability to clean up free radicals. Other damages shown in the 1000s of studies performed: compromising the blood-brain-barrier (which keeps toxins out of the brain); cellular communication interference; damage to cell metabolism; single-and double-strand DNA damage; loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells; reduction in free-radical scavengers (particularly melatonin); abnormal gene transcription; neurotoxicity; carcinogenicity; damage to sperm morphology and function; and effects on behavior. This causes real damage to accumulate, especially in the small bodies of children. U.S. wireless radiation standards (set 20 years ago) based on a 6-foot, 200 pound healthy male? Why have no field studies been performed on children - and the child brain overall absorbs twice as much radiation as that of an adult, and their bone marrow absorbs 10x that of an adult. The following experts have said: • Dr. David Carpenter, M.D., public health physician educated at Harvard Medical School: "RF penetration is greater relative to head size in children, and they have a greater absorption of RF energy in the tissues of the head at WI-FI frequencies because their skulls area thinner, their brains are smaller, and their brain tissue is more conductive than that of adults since it has a higher water content and ion concentrations….Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, and limit exposure to background levels of WI-FI.” • Dr. Keith Black, Neurosurgeon, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center: “In children, the microwave radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain, and their cells are dividing at a much faster rate so the impact can be much larger.” As a side note, WiFi systems in school districts are usually much higher in strength than home systems because they are designed to operate hundreds of computers simultaneously and can be up to three times more powerful than a phone mast outside a school. This will be the first generation ever to spend 6-8 hours each day for years in industrial strength WiFi environment. Dr. George Carlo, who was the cell phone industry's Director of Research and was hired to run their $28 million dollar, 7 year research program to find out if cell phones were dangerous, is now an outspoken advocate of informing the public and calling for more research. We all love wireless. It has connected us, made life so much easier, and has brought information to our fingertips. I know the ease of cell phones, and the money behind cell phone companies is a powerful entity to fight, but if Dr. Carlo did the right things, so can we. Please I beg of you: we need strong leaders who care about the health of our children to step forward and protect them. Thank you for your time. Lauren Heller 74 Green Street, unit 1 Brookline, MA 02446