Cancer & tumors

In 1999 I got a sereous Electro Hyper sensibilty, It became a chock. I did´nt know anything about it. Thank God that I become knowing others that had the same problems. We met and discuss a lot of things, how to get well and so on. I have had a lot of symptoms, from EMF and radiation fråm wireless networks and from celltowers etc. I had overtiredness, headache, brainfog, concentrationissues, memoryloss, increased stress, dizziness, aches in the body, arms and legs, depression, irritation of that many did´nt understand my symptoms ex on my work, frustration of not knowing how to get well. It has been a long and hard way to get better, I still react on some magnetic fields and wireless radiation. I have try to live away from the worst radiation and have no wireless in my home. Try to get away from celltower radiation but it is hard, becauce in Sweden we have a lot of them. Please take peoples symptoms for real and decrease use of wireless networks and magnetic fields, because it can in long time even cause cancer.

See attached file(s) I know exactly why the digital waves are dangerous. I know exactly why the digital waves are dangerous. I know the link and I Have the proof. ANSES is the French agency that gives a simple opinion to the government (to which it is subordinate) on the dangerousness of environmental pollution, including that of digital waves. Our association is on the dialogue committee with this agency. Why do certain waves affect us and not others? First of all, because it is related to the nature of the pulsed multiplexed modulation of digital waves. The power indicator (SAR, absorbed energy...) serves to determine whether a person is exposed or not. This power indicator is also an indicator of harmfulness, but it has become a diversion, a deception because it is confusing compared to other indicators that are much more harmful, never measured. The main indicator of harmfulness is related to the pulsed effect of the pulsed multiplexed modulation multiplied by the type of digital coding QAM. The more data transfers you have, the more the wave will be pulsed modulated and therefore dangerous. A digital wave that does not transfer data, its carrier is analog and therefore non-digital (hence the biases of protocols led by researchers while omitting the essential, the pulsed effect). One must set aside the power and access its understanding on the inductions that enter into a completely different domain (even if the conditioned reflex of most people is to relate everything to power). Digital modulation is based on 0 and 1 (nothing or everything) which generates BRUTAL variations of significant electromagnetic flux, amplified with multiplexing and certain digital codifications. Note: it is not the cumulative effect of the energies of the subcarriers of the waves with enormous peaks of intensity, but the BRUTAL variations of electromagnetic flux intensity (notably the magnetic part that interests us). (the slope of the curve translated by the integral of the derivatives or by the peak crest x peak crest (PAPR) or more simply in relation to the flow of the number of bytes transmitted). Indeed, even if a magnet is of high power, if its flux does not vary, then nothing happens in a coil that is nearby. But if we have a sudden displacement of the magnet and thus of its magnetic flux in relation to the coil, then an induced current is created in the coil (by the laws of Faraday and Maxwell, universally recognized and therefore no need to provide proof) which will itself create a magnetic field to oppose the variation of flux that initiated it. (action – reaction). We find this brutality of variations of the field with the digital waves that are pulsed and multiplexed. The modulation of the wave is low frequency and thus the equivalent of the energy of the modulation will penetrate deeply into the body, and as it is pulsed, it will create inductions: induced currents and ion sequestrations (very sensitive to electromagnetic fields). As our body manages external aggressions through bioelectrochemical equilibrium reactions (homeostasis), it must not be disturbed by wandering induced currents or by ion sequestrations due to the fields. Examples: - The voltage-dependent channels of cells like synapses that allow ions to enter the cell or not depending on the voltage between the two environments on either side of the cell wall. They would be totally disturbed by these induced currents creating cellular mortality. - If the ions are sequestered by the variations of fields and thus not available, the equilibrium reactions cannot take place, leading to oxidation, migraines, etc., degradation of health. The ANSES has just published a report on waves and cancer in November 2025 with a pre study that was accessible to us. When we look into the development of the report, we see many studies that present health issues. I examined the waves and cancer report to classify all the studies presented from the WHO, etc., into two categories of studies: those with pulsed modulation (digital) and those with continuous waves (analog). So simply, we can read (and everyone can read): That half of the studies conclude that there are carcinogenic or dangerous consequences. That half of the studies use digital waves in their protocol and the other half use analog waves. That 100% of the studies using pulsed digital waves report a danger. That 100% of the studies using analog waves report "no" danger. That all these analog studies have no place in this report. That is why only the studies using pulsed digital waves remain, which conclude with a danger. That all the analog studies (thus non-pulsed), by declaring "no" danger, support the conclusion of the harmful effect of the pulsed nature of digital waves by creating inductions due to the abrupt variations in fields of the multiplexed modulation of digital waves.

Scientific literature, with no conflicts of interest, shows that even below the limits defined by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, microwaves from telecommunication technologies cause numerous health effects: neurological, oxidative stress, carcinogenicity, deoxyribonucleic acid and immune system damage, electro-hypersensitivity. The majority of these biological effects of non-thermal microwave radiation have been known since the 1970s. Detailed scientific, political, and military documents were analyzed. Most of the scientific literature comes from PubMed. The other articles (except for a few) come from impacted journals . The rare scientific documents that were not peer reviewed were produced by recognized scientists in their fields. The rest of the documentation comes from official sources: political (e.g., European Union and World Health Organization), military (e.g., US Air Force and NATO), patents, and national newspapers. (1) Since their emergence, the authorities have deployed and encouraged the use of wireless technologies (2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi, WiMAX, DECT, Bluetooth, cell phone towers/masts/base stations, small cells, etc.) in full awareness of their harmful effects on health. (2) Consequences of microwave radiation from communication networks are comparable to the effects of low-power directed-energy microwave weapons, whose objectives include behavioral modification through neurological (brain) targeting. Above 20 gigahertz, 5G behaves like an unconventional chemical weapon. (3) Biomedical engineering (via graphene-based nanomaterials) will enable brain-computer connections, linked wirelessly to the Internet of Everything through 5G and 6G networks (2030) and artificial intelligence, gradually leading to human-machine fusion (cyborg) before the 2050s. Despite reports and statements from the authorities presenting the constant deployment of new wireless communication technologies, as well as medical research into nanomaterials, as society’s ideal future, in-depth research into these scientific fields shows, above all, an objective linked to the current cognitive war. It could be hypothesized that, in the future, this aim will correspond to the control of humanity by machines.

https://homeemftracing.com/shop/ols/products/contact-current-vs-body-voltage This document (website wouldn’t allow the upload) has the EPRI / NIEHS summary to affirm that 1 micro-amp of contact current exposure to a child is likely the cause of childhood Leukemia and numerous other cancerous conditions. This lays the groundwork for establishing a residential medical health standard for contact voltages at 2 mV, electric field exposures at 0.3 V/m, magnetic fields at 0.2 mG and radio frequencies at 1 uW per meter squared. The medical evidence has been confirmed by EPRI and associated with environmental electrical sources like the power grid, cell towers and home electrical wiring code violations. As a licensed electrician, read my story and the testimonials of many who have been cured and relieved of numerous hardships after removing the electromagnetic fields around them. Www.homeEMFtracing.com/testimonials I can provide much more hard science I have gathered on request. Thank you!

I am a Targeted Individual. I am being sexually assaulted, trafficked, being completed by EMF technology . The police in Anne Arundel County, MD, asked if I wanted to move to another country. Several of my friends and family have passed quickly and oddly evenly occurring (heart attacks and stage 4 cancer). Free me from being sexually assaulted here in my own home.

I am submitting this comment as a mother, a resident of rural Alaska, and a person living with a brain tumor diagnosis. In January 2025, I was diagnosed with an IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 2, in my left frontal lobe. I underwent an awake craniotomy and tumor resection in August 2025 and continue regular neurological and MRI surveillance. A new cellular communications tower is now nearing completion approximately 500–700 feet from my home in my small rural Alaska community. I am not claiming RF radiation caused my brain tumor or that this tower will cause recurrence. Instead, my diagnosis and the construction of this tower have led me to a question for which I have had difficulty finding adequate research: What do we know about long-term RF exposure in people who already have cancer? Much of the RF/cancer discussion focuses on whether RF exposure can initiate cancer. Cancer patients need another question investigated: whether chronic RF exposure has any measurable effect on existing tumor cells, tumor progression, recurrence, treatment response, neurological symptoms, or long-term outcomes. I urge HHS to specifically study RF exposure in people with existing cancer and cancer survivors, including patients with primary brain tumors. Research should examine tumor progression and recurrence, molecular and cellular effects, oxidative stress and inflammation, blood-brain barrier effects, tumor microenvironment, seizure activity, treatment response, and survival. If rigorous research demonstrates that typical environmental RF exposure has no meaningful effect on these outcomes, that information would itself be extremely valuable. Patients need reliable evidence either way. I also ask HHS to investigate whether medically vulnerable populations respond differently to chronic RF exposure and whether existing standards adequately protect people with cancer or neurological disease, children, and people experiencing decades of exposure. Children deserve particular attention because today’s children may experience wireless exposure throughout nearly their entire lives. HHS should investigate potential biological effects occurring below levels that cause significant tissue heating and determine whether any observed effects translate into clinically meaningful health consequences. Research should consider cumulative exposure from cellular towers, phones, Wi-Fi, small cells, connected devices, and future technologies. I also encourage HHS to examine infrastructure siting. When transmitting equipment is placed near homes, schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds, or healthcare facilities, communities should have independent, evidence-based health guidance, particularly when reasonable alternative locations exist. Small communities should also have access to independent RF expertise rather than relying primarily on information provided by telecommunications companies or citizens attempting to interpret highly technical research themselves. I strongly encourage meaningful post-installation RF monitoring. Distance from a tower alone does not determine exposure. Antenna height, orientation, frequencies, power, terrain, and other factors matter. Residents should have access to understandable measurements of actual RF exposure after equipment becomes operational. Finally, I ask HHS to clearly distinguish between evidence that an exposure is harmful, evidence that it is safe, and circumstances where sufficient evidence does not yet exist. For someone already diagnosed with a brain tumor, the question is not simply, “Can RF radiation cause cancer?” We also deserve an evidence-based answer to: “Does chronic RF exposure matter once cancer already exists?” I do not know the answer. That is precisely why I am asking our federal health agencies to investigate it. Wireless communication is important, particularly in rural communities like mine. Technological progress and public health do not have to be opposing goals. We can benefit from wireless technology while independently studying long-term exposure, identifying potentially susceptible populations, monitoring real-world exposure, and making thoughtful infrastructure decisions. As someone who may spend years living several hundred feet from a cellular tower while undergoing surveillance for progression or recurrence of a brain tumor, I want to know that this question has actually been studied rather than simply assumed. I respectfully ask HHS to make research involving cancer patients, brain-tumor patients, children, and other potentially vulnerable populations a priority. Thank you for considering my comment.

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 myself. My face gets hot when I hold my phone to my face. When I drive, I used to wear ear buds that plugged into my phone in order to keep the phone off my face. But my iPhone became outdated and the new updated iPhone I bought does not have the audio plug in for my earbuds. I do not want to use a bluetooth because it gives me headaches. This technology is dangerous and iPhone should provide an option on their phones to allow an audio port to allow for plug in headset or earpiece. I have friends who have cancer on their faces from using cell phones against their ears. 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.

Aloha, I am a dog trainer and pet sitter. When I was in California by camp Pendleton ,I noticed that two dogs and the owner passed away from cancer within 3 years of moving there, when they were right next to a repeater. Now I moved to Kauai and the same thing happened in Kalaheo. On papalina and Kai Ikena. Within 3 years of moving there both the Doberman and the young Bernese mountain dog got cancer as well as the owner who is about 65. Myself, I have been deeply affected by emfs with tinnitus since 2011. The only time it goes away is if I am away from any towers or frequencies. Thank you very much. These things are very dangerous and it should not be happening against our Express permission.

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 myself. I am a truck driver and have had repeated cancer on the right side of my face since 2015. I am right handed and had always held my cell phone to my right ear. When I learned of bluetooth earpieces I bought one and wore it on my right ear. As a driver as well as a dispatcher for 7 other drivers I spent the greater portion of my day on the phone routing drivers. Due to the repeated cancer treatments that included my cheek, around my ear I moved the bluetooth to my left ear. This month I went in to my eye doctor because my vision driving at night has become blurry and headlights, especially blue ones give me headaches. My doctor reported that my left eye is perfectly fine but that my right eye has a cateract that should be removed soon as it affects my ability to drive my truck at night. 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 lived in an apartment with a bank of AMI meters about 40 feet from my apartment. I began having intermittent hearing loss. My ENT had no idea, over time I realized it was the meters. After we moved, my issues ceased and my hearing has been restored. When I moved, the city I live in Nevada owns its own utility. They received Covid money to replace their grid operations, they forced everyone to take an AMI smart meter on their homes by March 2025. We asked our Council to develop an opt out program. I had about 80 homes that wanted one. In Nevada, this is the ONLY city in the state where a meter is mandatory. We refused the meter and were subsequently sued in District Court by the City. It has cost us over $30,000.00 and is still not resolved. I have seen many older compromised individuals, die or get sicker. I have seen more elderly women falling in their yards near the meters and getting injured. Many start with urinary tract infections and progress to worsening. I have also seen an individual sleeping near a meter get a brain tumor. My neighbor does not have full use of her home because she has a coil in her neck to prevent a stroke, the meter sickens her. I have another neighbor who cannot enjoy her garden any longer.