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 a VICTIM AND RESEARCHER. Due to my experience with Cognitive Electronic Warfare and Counter Insurgency methods and tactics; I have created the non profit Human Free Will @ humanfreewill.org. EVERY MORNING and EVERY NIGHT I have to sleep within an Electromagnetic Field generated EVERYWHERE I GO with PNT (Precision Navigation Timing) infrastructure. I'm in New York City so when they covertly place an Electronic Warfare generator in close quarters it affects multiple people. My father and several neighbors have passed away recently due to constant EMF, RF, and Wireless Radiation Exposure in which I have attached a picture. My mother has cancer and I have brain cancer. There is NO ONE TO GO TO for the removal of the generator you can hear buzzing next door since it is "used for training". 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.

See attached file(s) Scientific studies have conclusively proven that artificial light exposure, particularly fluorescent and LED light exposure: 1) shortens lifespan, 2) causes cancer and cardiovascular disease, 3) elevates one's levels of cortisol and ACTH to "stress-like" levels, and 4) causes other serious health problems. My attached "Replace Toxic Fluorescent Light with Natural Light Now!" article explains why such artificial lighting--lighting that no terrestrial life form, including humans, evolved under--must be avoided, and especially must NOT be used in settings, such as schools, where children are present. The article shows how in one experiment mice, which are mammals just like humans, who were exposed to fluorescent light lived only HALF AS LONG as mice who were exposed to daylight! In another experiment conducted by Hollwich and Dieckhues, and published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Ophthalmologica, experimental subjects exposed to fluorescent light for several days saw their stress hormones--ACTH and cortisol--rise alarmingly high to "stress-like" levels, but then return to normal levels after the fluorescent light exposure was stopped and was replaced with daylight exposure for several days. Hollwich and Dieckhues were so concerned over this finding that they remarked that the fluorescent light exposure explains the agitated mental state that school children in classrooms lit by fluorescent light develop. School children who are agitated are much more likely to misbehave, and the misbehavior problem is so great that the 600,000 school teachers who left the profession last year state that having to deal constantly with misbehaving students was the main reason for them quitting being a teacher. Meanwhile, although equally toxic LED light is slowly replacing fluorescent light in schools, still 78% of US educational institutions use fluorescent lighting as their classrooms' primary lighting source, and this harmful-to-health lighting also negatively impacts the ability of schoolchildren to focus and concentrate on their learning task--in short, it significantly lowers their academic performance level. This was proven by the attached "Daylighting in Schools" study, a study costing over $1 million that was sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission. This study's researchers compared the learning rate for Reading and Math for elementary school students who were either in classrooms lit by fluorescent light or in classrooms lit by daylight. The classrooms whose primary lighting source was daylight usually had the natural daylight delivered into the classroom via a diffused lens skylight (called Skylight Type A in the study; see page 10 for a photo of this diffused lens skylight) and/or more regular windows. A diffused lens skylight is common, spreads the natural light evenly throughout the classroom (not as a solid beam of light) and is just a normal skylight installation job. Dimming louvers are usually included with such a skylight, in case the teacher wishes to darken the classroom for some reason, such as to show the students a movie. Now, here is what the Director of HHS and the President need to understand. On page 12 of the study the researchers reported that STUDENTS IN CLASSROOMS WHERE DAYLIGHT WAS THE CLASSROOMS' PRIMARY LIGHTING SOURCE LEARNED THEIR READING AND MATH CURRICULUM 20-26% FASTER than students stuck in the classrooms lit by fluorescent light. Even though fluorescent light uses much less electricity than incandescent lighting, still its electricity use is not insignificant, as 30% of a school's electricity usage is devoted to lighting. However, for a classroom whose primary lighting source is daylight, it will see the lighting portion of its electricity bill be ZERO DOLLARS on most days, which will be the case especially for the large percentage of classrooms located in the Sunbelt states in the US. The solution to the problem of our nation's public schoolchildren having their mental and physical health, and academic performance level, significantly harmed by minute-after-minute, hour-after-hour exposure each school day to artificial light is simple. The attached "School Classroom Natural Light Act of 2026" describes the law or President Executive Order that could end the disastrous classroom learning environment that our nation's public schoolchildren and teachers have had to somehow survive for way too long. Please see to it that this comment of mine and its attachments are brought to the attention of the Director of HHS and the President.

**Title:** Challenging the Consensus: Occupational EMF Exposure and Firefighter Wellness  Challenging widely accepted perspectives is never easy. In the mid-19th century, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that childbed fever deaths plummeted from 18% to 1% simply by requiring doctors to wash their hands after autopsies. Yet, the medical community resisted his findings for decades, discrediting him until he died in an asylum. It took generations for Body Substance Isolation (BSI) to become universally accepted.  In 2026, challenging the consensus remains difficult. One critical topic is electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure and its detrimental health effects on firefighters and the general public. Because of the unique infrastructure of fire stations and the nature of the job, firefighters are chronically exposed to higher levels of EMFs from communication systems, station wiring, and nearby cell towers. Research suggests this long-term exposure may be linked to increased risks of mental health disorders, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.  The historical connection between electrification and health dates back to 1869, when Dr. George Miller Beard documented "Neurasthenia" (weak nerves), noting symptoms like fatigue, headaches, and heart palpitations. Beard observed that it primarily affected the educated classes—who, at the brink of the second industrial revolution, were the only ones with widespread access to electricity. In 1894, Sigmund Freud catalyzed a shift that reclassified these symptoms as psychological "anxiety neurosis," causing the medical community to treat it as an inherent human condition rather than an environmental issue. While Western psychiatry dropped the diagnosis, Asia and Eastern Europe never adopted Freud’s reclassification; neurasthenia remains frequently diagnosed there today as a sign of chronic environmental toxicity. Firefighters frequently experience these exact symptoms, often dismissing them as standard shift-work burnout.  Cancer is the third leading cause of death among firefighters. In 2009, Dr. Samuel Milham, author of *Dirty Electricity*, found that firefighters face elevated risks for various cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Notably, respiratory cancers were not disproportionately elevated despite regular exposure to smoke. This discrepancy strongly points to alternative carcinogens, such as chronic EMF exposure from communication devices and station infrastructure.  Current human safety limits fail to protect first responders. There are two distinct categories of safety metrics: one for electronics and one for humans. Electronics standards are based on the principle of interference—recognizing that even a weak wireless signal can disrupt a device. Conversely, human standards set by the FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are strictly thermal. They only protect against acute tissue heating. This completely ignores the reality that our bodies operate on complex bioelectrical cell communication, leaving us completely unprotected against non-thermal biological interference.  Change is urgently needed. In 2021, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC's existing RF safety standards were "arbitrary and capricious," mandating the agency to provide scientific justification for its extraordinarily high limits. Years later, the FCC has failed to adequately address this mandate, while telecom infrastructure continues to expand near fire stations, schools, and neighborhoods.  Immediate, practical solutions can be implemented at fire stations to create healthier environments. The most critical area to protect is the common sleeping dorm. Placing cell phones in airplane mode when turning in for the night drastically minimizes cumulative radiation exposure. Moving Wi-Fi routers out of sleeping quarters, removing unnecessary Bluetooth devices, and utilizing distance as a shield are vital first steps. Ultimately, we must operate under the Precautionary Principle: if an action or policy carries a suspected risk of severe harm to human health, protective measures must be enforced even if some cause-and-effect relationships are still being evaluated by the scientific mainstream.

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 the father of two kids: Joel seven and Bresly 12 years old. My wife and I din't know any better and we let our kids use their wireless devices as they wished, as a result: Joel, suffers a constellation of symptoms including lack of concentration, nose-bleeding,.....when we take him to doctors, they don't know how to diagnose or treat him. Bresly, at her young age is almost blind due to the excessive use of screens. And we are lucky because a neighbor next door has cancer!. Note: we live within 110 meters of two cell towers and the vegetation keeps dying and the birds don't come here to nest as before. 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 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 non-professional researcher, advocate, concerned member of the public for current and especially future generations. I am extremely concerned about wireless radiation and its effects because I, myself have experienced a decline in my health since emf's have become more popular in our everyday lives with smart phones and wifi connections in virtually every aspect of our lives and places we frequent. Restful REM Sleep is vital to our health and is disrupted by the growing level of electric and magnetic fields. I have experienced this in myself and children around me. The increase of radio frequencies is known to not only disrupt sleep but affect brain and cognitive function such as memory loss, cause eye problems, alter dna, reduce melatonin production, interfere with pace makers, cause brain tumors and infertility. These are major and legitimate concerns. I have attached two articles regarding the health dangers. https://drjockers.com/emf-exposure-dangers-symptoms-and-protection/ https://drjockers.com/5g-phones-safe-health/ 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 worked as an auditor and quality engineer where I carried my laptop most of my work time for 15 years. After 10 years working with the laptop I was diagnosed with breast cancer on my left side. I had it removed. 5 years later I was again diagnosed, only this time they found two different types of cancer, again, on my left side. After they removed the breast, they told me they had also found dark spots in the tissue. At that point I suspected my laptop as I had tested negative for the gene related to breast cancer.

My brother's life was taken by the radiation from his cell phone, which he held next to his head for 10+ years making phone calls. His oncologist who treated my brother told me that 10 years after the first cell phone were sold to the public, his number of patients with brain tumors on the side of the head where they held their phones increased by 400%. Young people who carry cell phones in their back pocket now have the highest rate of colorectal cancer. Women in their 20's are now getting breast cancer where they put their cell phones in their bras when they were teenagers.

It is mighty high time to roll back on the wireless communication infrastructure, and refocus and improve on the wired communication infrastructure. The electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are carcinogens and interfere with the natural frequency (Schumann Resonance) with which all living beings are tuned in. EMFs are especially harmful to young children and infants whose brains are developing; the effects of early, excessive, and continuous exposure to EMFs are shown in their inadequate cognitive and social/emotional developments--low comprehension levels, agitations, indifference, and even antisocial behaviors. For the sake of our posterity, we need to stop expanding the wireless communication infrastructure and invest on the wired communication infrastructure with minimal EMFs.

A cell tower appeared on an adjacent unoccupied property about 500yds from my house and 400yds from my neighbor just N of me in Jackson County, OK. Neither of us were notified or asked if it would be ok.The property owner is paid for it to be on his land. He has a big house somewhere else. I expressed my concerns to him face to face and he told me he didnt care because he was not affected. My husband now has cancer and our elderly neighbors suffer from multiple health issues known to be related to EMF. Because it is on private land we have little recourse. We cannot even find out who actually owns this tower. We are being harmed against our will.

My husband has been carrying his iPhone in his pocket daily ever since they were on the market. He now has a 4 cm tumor in his bladder that is highly likely to be cancerous.