Cancer & tumors

#3: I am commenting regarding the FCC's response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' remand concerning its decades-old highly outdated radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The FCC should fully consider the overwhelming evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment and critically also bees and pollinators that we all rely on for our food!” *A major review by Germany’s NABU and other NGOs analyzed 190 studies, finding that 72 out of 83 scientifically relevant studies reported negative effects of non-ionizing radiation on insects, suggesting EMR acts as a driver of insect decline alongside pesticides and habitat loss. Here is just one study of many100s I have seen over the years documenting the harmful results of RF Microwave exposure to all biological beings, I believe the FCC and HHS should review: The landmark 2018 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, which provided comprehensive evidence of significant health risks from radiofrequency radiation (RFR). -The NTP study demonstrated significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas (brain cancers), as well as chromosomal DNA damage in rodents exposed to RFR levels mimicking lifetime human exposure. −The study is particularly critical for children because their developing bodies absorb higher RF radiation into their brains and bodies during sensitive developmental stages. −Research indicates that children’s brains absorb 2-3 times more radiation than adults, and their skull bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose, making the NTP’s findings on DNA damage and tumor growth highly relevant to pediatric vulnerability. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology, environmental or public health… This issue matters to me deeply because my parents suffered greatly from RF exposures, as well as myself. After moving into a house that had 3 smart meters positioned right outside our bedrooms, we all started having insomnia and low energy. And because we made the grave error of trusting the FCC, and letting the naïve telecom technician install the highly radiating router next to my parent’s bedroom my otherwise vibrant father started to complain of feeling immense fatigue, and having to go to myriad doctors who could not explain this sudden change. That is when I began researching what could be the root cause, as I literally was getting from no sleep to an hour or two a night. That is when I discovered others with smart meters were similarly having many health issues. Then I learned about “electrosmog”. I got a Tri-Field meter and took steps to reduce all emfs in/around our house and had PGE remove the smart meters and replace them with analog – which we had to pay to do so as well as pay an extra monthly rate – which is a crime in itself. I also learned that many other states would not let their customers use analog, which is a much worse crime. The day the smart meters were changed out all of our sleep improved drastically. Being able to sleep again was a lifesaver. I started unplugging the router at night and during the day I draped a faraday cloth over it to try and mitigate the harmful radiation. Although not ideal, it helped and my dad’s energy returned. At that time I didn’t understand how particularly harmful RF was so when the solar company said we should stop unplugging the router at night, my dad started to feel unwell again. The router was positioned right next do his bedroom and behind him in the den where he also spent a lot of time. He never recovered and devastatingly we lost him within 3 years. I am still trying to forgive myself for allowing the telecom tech to put the router in the worst possible location it could be. I started to carry the Tri Field meter and test everything. I tossed the microwave oven and noticed the city had allowed a massive 5G tower across the street from my health food store. Standing in the parking lot of that store, I turned on the meter and the dial shot to the max level allowed on the meter! So I do not buy anymore from that store for obvious reasons. There is an apartment complex right below that 5G tower, which is another crime to those unsuspecting residents. And there are no more birds to be seen in the trees in front of that health food store anymore, where they used to hop around looking for treats from the shoppers. The frequency of nature, the Schumann Resonance 7.83 Hz, which includes humans that our bodies have evolved with has suddenly been replaced with unnaturally and recklessly high man made frequencies in the RF Microwave range - 600 MHz – 39 GHz. We are playing with fire here.

This has got to STOP!!!2026 A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women Chronic paternal Wi-Fi RF-EMR exposure impairs placental efficiency and fetal growth: Association with sex-dependent histone modification patterns in mice Impact of ELF EMF exposure on sleep quality and mental health in a Tunisian power plant: a cross-sectional study Prenatal 3.5 GHz radiofrequency exposure induces renal histological changes and DNA damage in 6-month-old rats Testicular heat-shock protein expression in rats following 3.5 GHz and 24 GHz RF-EMF exposure Radiofrequency fields at 2.45 GHz reprogram mitochondria–lysosome crosstalk and modulate the survival/death of macrophages exposed to LPS and/or the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Environmental and auto-induced RF-EMF adult and children far-field exposure simulations between 450 MHz and 26 GHz Interpretation of epidemiological studies on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer Disruptive effects of brief radiofrequency noise exposure on migratory bat navigation The Effect of 2.45 GHz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Components of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis in Male Rats

See attached file(s) Katie Webb, QuantaX Technology HHS-OASH-2026-0397 HHS must act now to reduce unnecessary wireless radiation exposure and protect biological fidelity: the precision with which living systems develop, regulate energy and information, repair damage, and recover. I support and present John Coates's complete comment, included in the attached PDF with my position statement and our illustrated plausible pathways. Low-fidelity biology is the upstream vulnerability HHS must investigate and prevent. Mistimed calcium signals, mitochondrial and redox mismatch, impaired repair, and persistent compensation can reduce the reserve needed for healthy development and later challenges. The S4–Mito–Spin framework connects these processes through specific molecular targets and measurable functions. A standard based on average absorbed energy cannot, by that number alone, characterize biological timing, recovery, or developmental susceptibility. The cancer evidence demands action. NTP and the Ramazzini Institute reported malignant heart schwannomas in male rats. The WHO-commissioned animal review rated evidence for increased glioma and heart schwannoma as high certainty. Melnick and Moskowitz (2026), applying EPA risk-assessment methods, calculated that the public whole-body limit is 15–900 times above modeled exposure levels for one additional cancer per 100,000 people, depending on daily exposure duration, and 8–24 times above their male-reproductive protection estimates. HHS and EPA must derive health-based limits and reduce avoidable exposure while completing that assessment. Put the Yale developmental findings at the center. Aldad and colleagues found hyperactivity, impaired memory, and altered prefrontal-cortex synaptic transmission in mice exposed prenatally to cellular-phone radiation. Yale's senior author described the experiment as showing that prenatal cell-phone exposure caused ADHD-like behavioral problems in mice. Cakir and colleagues subsequently identified delayed radial-glial differentiation and BET-mediated developmental effects in human cortical organoids. A developing child gets one chance at each developmental window. HHS must respond with prenatal protection and a funded developmental research program. Test the full pathway. Measure the S4/channel and CYB5B interfaces, calcium timing, mitochondrial reserve, spin-sensitive chemistry, chromatin responses, and later function together. Kim and colleagues' CYB5B gene-switch study identifies a molecular route from a defined field to rhythmic calcium-dependent gene regulation. The CACNA1C sleep study identifies genotype-dependent response. Use sham, carrier-only, and pulsed exposures at matched SAR with temperature control, then apply molecular blocking, rescue, and timed replay to establish the sequence. Protect future generations now. RF experiments already warrant offspring follow-up: Yan and colleagues reported sex-specific offspring growth and metabolic changes after paternal RF exposure. Separate diet and toxicant experiments demonstrate molecular transmission through sperm RNA and persistence of environmental effects across generations. HHS must directly test RF-associated germline transmission, following maternal gestational lines through F3 and paternal preconception lines through F2, with unexposed descendants and molecular mediation tests. Also measure repeated direct exposure across successive pregnancies. Continued exposure and inherited effects are distinct routes that both require investigation and prevention. My requests are concrete: 1. Publish a federal quantitative RF risk assessment using current cancer and reproductive evidence and established EPA methods. 2. Restore sustained NTP research, independent replication, prospective pregnancy cohorts, and multigenerational studies linked to early fidelity measurements. 3. Reduce unnecessary exposure in pregnancy, childcare, schools, healthcare, and sleeping environments. Fund practical wired and optical alternatives. 4. Require realistic body-contact testing and disclosure of test distance, dose averaging, active radios, and waveform conditions. 5. Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602. Ask Congress to place RF health-protection standards under HHS/EPA and repeal Section 704's health-based siting restriction. 6. Advance the Clean Ether Act through interoperable optical networks, wired-first procurement, independently evaluated pilots, and measured reductions in unnecessary transmissions. Publish a ninety-day work plan, a one-year assessment and research program, named responsible officials, and annual results. The accompanying 5,000-word statement, pathway images, and John Coates's complete comment provide the evidence and implementation requests. Protect biological fidelity before the developmental window closes. Katie Webb QuantaX Technology

Why is NJ PSE&G charging me $12.00 per month for not having a SmartMeter installed in my home? It emits radiation that causes cancer and I have cancer. My doctors advised against the SmartMeter, even if it emits low radiation. They refuse to stop charging me the $12.00. PSE&G should pay me a refund of all these months of charging me the unnecessary and unauthorized bill of $12.00. I offered to read the meter myself and call or phone it in, but PSE&G advised me on the phone that, "This is not a discussion!". Please intervene on my behalf and stop these $12.00 charges. Please advise. Thank you. Susan Scherman, RN, BA, CSN

15 years ago, the 'straw that broke the camels back' was a zero turn lawn mower - a little larger than the average. Started getting rashes as I mowed my 12 acres over a 3 week period. Third week i got a rash on my breast - not good. Never sick at 55 years old and as I went to Naturaopathic Doctor found I had cancer, lyme and started noticing everything electric, magnetic and wireless was affecting the cancer and could feel each exposure. Now 15 years later, cancer is gone though I can feel the old spos activate with much exposure at all, I can still feel all electric, magnetic and wireless exposures. Only got better because i built a zero wireless radiation home with ultra low exposure to electric and magnetic radiation... and I stay in it most of the time. I can't live a 'normal' life - though yes, I am thankful this has led me away from being one of the zombies walking around with head down staring at their screens. This is an entire human experience problem - not just about those of us who can't function normally. Can't go on trips with a group of people in cars, can't stay long at family gatherings, have to put up with close family members being mad at me because I need them to turn their phones off in my mostly safe home, have no hope of ever being in a serious relationship again because no one will give up their wireless technology permanently for another person, can't take care of my own yard (magnetic field) and SO much more. I cry as I type this though I haven't cried about it in a long time, just seeing the whole picture of what has happened in 15 years. BUT I have found purpose and fulfillment in helping others because though it took me years to figure out and get somewhat better, others are completely devastated and don't know what to do or where to turn for help - having a high suicide rate. It's only a matter of time before each person will have their 'lifetime radiation cup' filled (all at different times) and will have to go through this... for the rest of their life. Is someone going to stop it? It's long past due! Please help. Everyone is inflamed (many to the point of cancer), can't sleep (their cells are vibrating), brain fog and memory problems, anxiety (directly related to wireless radiation and the overgrowth of lyme which happens with exposure to wireless radiation) and yes, this leads to our high rates of suicide, constant headaches, obesity/insulin issues (some directly related to wireless exposures), ALS, Lou Gerhigs, Multriple Scleroses all directly related.

There is no research on the longterm effects of wireless radiation exposure. And because there are no long term studies, the technology should be prohibited (at the least, heavily regulated). Have you ever read the fine print on a cell phone package which warns you to hold the phone against your body? Have you noticed the high percentage of brain cancers in young people? This is due to cell phone use and wireless internet modems in bedrooms. Anecdotally, I know of several deadly cancers caused by phones or modems. Please pursue. I can tell you I walked into a building last year with heavy wireless amplifiers and I was struck with temporary tinnitus and very heavy pressure in my head. I do not have these conditions in a safe setting. It threw me off for hours and once I left the building I immediately felt better. When we removed all wireless devices and the modem from our home last year and hardwired our computer and phones, immediately our home felt more peaceful and we started sleeping through the night. As an American citizen who wishes live a healthy life and raise my children in freedom and health, I am very troubled by the lack of consent and freedom in my own home and in my own life when it comes to wireless radiation exposure. The electric company attached a "smart meter" to my home without my consent. I asked them for the right to "opt out" of the technology as it would be attached to my house close to our living areas (bedrooms, office, deck/backyard play area). They said I would be charged a monthly fee for someone to read the meter and I agreed. But a month later when my dog was inside, they attached the smart meter to my home anyway. I have a meter which reads RF and the meter emits dangerous levels of radiation into my child's bedroom and our backyard area where we gather. This same electric company allows Missouri customers to OPT OUT and pay an extra fee for a non communicating meter, but just yards away across the state border, Kansans cannot opt out. Everytime we're in an airport or at a school or a city building or shopping center, there is wireless internet blasting us. All without my consent. The cell towers being built next to schools and churches, on top of hospitals and hotels are attacking our bodies and cells. Many cell phone companies will pay these businesses or non profits to locate their towers on the property and for non profits and for profits the offer may seem irresitible. Did the cell phone company inform the property owner of the risks of radiation? I highly doubt it. The effect on humans and animals have not been studied and it is very unnerving that it is all being done without our consent. At a doctors office we are now handed a WiFi tablet to check in and update our records. Our own city street lights have 5G antennae caps on top. Without our consent and for someone else's profit. The gas meter next to my house was updated to a communicating wireless device without my consent. The workman said we need to update your meter. He did not tell me it would be a communicating device. This meter is outside of my other child's bedroom. None of this is fair. 1-at a minimum, all American citizens should have the right to OPT OUT of communicating emitting devices attached to our homes. 2-it should be illegal to install or build cell phone towers near neighborhoods, parks, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels or churches 3-because people have the option to use a certain amount of data within the cell phone monthly contract, installing wireless in public spaces and commercial businesses is completely unnecessary as it affects the liberty and right to consent of the individual. I should not be forced to be exposed to wireless radiation if someone else chooses to carry a cell phone. Their choice should not affect my body or health or my children. Thank you for requesting these comments and starting to address the egregious loss of liberty and lack of the right to consent to be subjected to wireless.

In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. The science now shows neurotoxicity, ADD/ADHD, seizures, cancer, infertility and more! It's been 30 years in the making but we now have an unprecedented short window with both the Federal Communications Commission AND Health and Human Services to build the public record and document the fallout. Regulations for the wireless radiation industry MUST be established for us and for our future generations for healthy safety and the protection of the planet. Stop the excessive diseases and conditions from the radiation. I am also being charged an extra unauthorized fee of $12.00 from NJ PSE&G energy company because I refuse to install a SmartMeter. SmartMeters release radiation that causes cancer and I have cancer. I offered to read or phone in the monthly meter readings but PSE&G refuses to remove the extra charge. They argue that they must send in a person to my district to remotely read my meter and they must spend gas money. They could send in an electric vehicle to save gas or a hybrid. There is no reason to charge me an extra $12.00 per month since I do not want a SmartMeter installed in my home. Please help me in this situation. Thank you. Susan Scherman, RN, BA, CSN, Certified NJ School Nurse & Certified Health Education Teacher

Re: Radiofrequency Exposure Standards, Biological Effects, and Outstanding Research Gaps I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public regarding the adequacy of existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure standards. The central issue is not whether RF radiation can produce biological effects. Experimental research demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can interact with biological systems. The unresolved question is whether existing exposure standards adequately account for potentially adverse effects across different exposure conditions, particularly those involving modulation, pulsing, chronic exposure, and developing biological systems. Of particular interest is U.S. Air Force-funded research conducted by Drs. Gale Craviso and Indira Chatterjee at the University of Nevada, Reno (AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0377). Their 2008 final performance report documented apparent nonthermal alterations in catecholamine release from adrenal chromaffin cells exposed to pulsed microwave frequency sweeps, particularly between 5 and 6 GHz. Bulk temperature and pressure were monitored, although the researchers acknowledged that localized microscopic heating remained a possible explanation. Related experiments demonstrated that extremely brief, high-intensity electrical pulses could trigger intracellular calcium influx and catecholamine release. These experiments involved exposure conditions substantially different from ordinary wireless communications, but illustrate the importance of investigating biological responses to different electromagnetic exposure parameters. Separately, the National Toxicology Program's 2018 studies (Technical Report 595) reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation, alongside certain noncancerous tissue changes. Although these exposure conditions cannot be directly extrapolated to typical human wireless-device use, they warrant appropriate consideration in risk assessment. The scientific literature contains both positive and negative findings. Biological responses are not automatically adverse health outcomes, but neither should the absence of substantial tissue heating be treated as sufficient evidence that all biologically relevant effects have been excluded. I respectfully request that federal agencies prioritize independent, reproducible research evaluating: 1. Biological effects of RF modulation, pulsing, frequency sweeps, and peak versus time-averaged exposures. 2. Potential neurological, endocrine, reproductive, and cellular effects, including calcium signaling and oxidative stress. 3. Long-term, cumulative, and simultaneous exposures from multiple wireless sources. 4. Vulnerability during childhood and development, alongside realistic device-use conditions. 5. Whether existing SAR-based compliance procedures adequately characterize relevant exposure parameters. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (2021), the D.C. Circuit required the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation concerning noncancer health effects and related shortcomings in its assessment. Compliance with an existing exposure limit is not, by itself, proof that every potentially relevant biological effect has been investigated or excluded. I urge federal agencies to transparently identify unresolved questions, evaluate the evidence according to methodological quality, and support targeted research before making categorical assurances about the safety of current and emerging wireless technologies. Relevant sources: Craviso & Chatterjee, Final Performance Report FA9550-06-1-0377 (2008); Vernier et al., Bioelectrochemistry 73, 1–4 (2008); National Toxicology Program, Technical Report 595 (2018); Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

We are deeply concerned by the ample evidence of harm caused by radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to our own health and to public health in this country. Current exposure limits for RF radiation are based on numerous assumptions; however, research studies published over the past 25 years show that most of those assumptions are not supported by scientific evidence. Based on this abundance of scientific evidence we want strict laws to protect us and allow us to opt out of excess radiation, and provide local control for when and where to site infrastructure that causes radiation. We want better safeguards to limit RFR in all public spaces. We have personally experienced a reduction from symptoms of RFR exposure by turning off the wireless feature on our router and putting many our electronic devises on ethernet cables, and by reducing our cell phone use. The majority of the scientific literature related to RFR stems from cell phone studies. There is strong evidence that people who use a cell phone held directly to their ear for more than ten years are at significantly increased risk of developing gliomas of the brain and acoustic neuromas of the auditory nerve. There is also evidence that the risk of developing these cancers is greater in younger than older people. The May 2016 report from the US National Toxicology Program showing that rats exposed to cell phone radiation for nine hours per day over their life-span de- velop gliomas of the brain and Schwannoma of the heart (the same kind of cancer as acoustic neuroma) adds proof to the conclusions from the human health studies that radiofrequency radiation increases risk of cancer. While the strongest evidence for hazards coming from RFR is for cancer, there is a growing body of evidence that some people develop a condition called electrohypersensitivity {EHS). We are among these individuals that respond to being in the presence of RFR with a variety of symptoms, including headache, fatigue, memory loss, ringing in the ears, "brain fog" and burning, tingling and itchy skin. Some reports indicate that up to three percent of the population may develop these symptoms, and that exposure to smart meters is a trigger for development of EHS. Please find attached some relevant studies and references that relate to the dangers of RFR. There are thousands more listed at https://ehtrust.org/science/science-on-health-effects-of-cell-phone-and-wireless-radiation/?link_id=5&can_id=4e10ca07001c7ba173b2541d8c5cab8e&source=email-act-now-to-support-h3551-in-the-ma-legislature&email_referrer=email_3146404&email_subject=act-now-to-support-h3551-in-the-ma-legislature Please take the following actions to protect our family and the public from the dangers of RFR. • Governmental and institutional support of data collection and analysis to monitor potential links between RFR associated with wireless technology and cancers, sperm, the heart, the nervous system, sleep, vision and hearing, and effects on children. • Further dissemination of information regarding potential health risk information that is in wireless devices and manuals is necessary to respect users' Right To Know. Cautionary statements and protective measures should be posted on packaging and at points of sale. Governments should follow the practice of France, Israel and Belgium and mandate labeling, as for tobacco and alcohol. • Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity (e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and within the device. • IARC should convene a new working group to update the categorization of RFR, including current scientific findings that highlight, in particular, risks to youngsters of subsequent cancers. • Emerging human evidence is confirming animal evidence of developmental problems with RFR exposure during pregnancy. RFR sources should be avoided and distanced from expectant mothers, as recommended by physicians and scientists (babysafeproject.org). • Other countries should follow France, limiting RFR exposure in children under 16 years of age. • Cell towers should be distanced from homes, daycare centers, schools, and places frequented by pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy children, and the young.

I am commenting as an individual consumer and parent. My comment relies on peer-reviewed research, government reports, and a federal court decision, each cited below. The safety limits are almost 30 years old. The FCC set its wireless radiation limits back in 1996 and hasn’t updated them since. In 1996, about 44 million Americans had cell phones. Now nearly everyone does, and most of us also have Wi-Fi, smartwatches, tablets, and smart meters running all day [1]. In 2021, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC acted “arbitrary and capricious” when it kept those old limits. The court found the FCC never gave a real answer to evidence of non-cancer health effects below the limits, especially for kids, and didn’t address long-term exposure or the environment [2][3]. There’s real science here (Q12) In 2011, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency (IARC) classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, linked to wireless phone use [4]. In a study nominated by the FDA, the government’s own National Toxicology Program exposed rats to cell phone radiation. Male rats developed malignant heart tumors, and both male and female rats showed heart tissue damage. The lowest exposure level matched the highest amount allowed today for local tissue exposure from phones. The NTP said the tumors resembled ones reported in some studies of frequent cell phone users [5]. NTP also pointed out that 4G and 5G use different frequencies and signal types than the ones it tested. So the networks we’re all using right now haven’t been studied this way [5]. Kids deserve extra care (Q11) Children’s bodies and brains are still developing, and they’ll be exposed for a lifetime. The American Academy of Pediatrics has asked for limits that account for children and pregnant women [3]. The court specifically faulted the FCC for not explaining why it brushed off evidence about children [3]. What I’m asking HHS to do I’m not asking for the government to control what devices I buy. I’m asking for honest information and the freedom to choose. Tell the FCC plainly that the 1996 limits aren’t backed by current health science. Then have HHS, not the wireless industry, lead the health review the court ordered. Give us the facts. Radiation levels (SAR) and the minimum distance from your body should be on the box and at the store, not hidden in phone menus. Let people opt out. Families should be able to decline smart meters without penalty fees and ask for wired internet options for their kids at school. Neighbors should get a heads-up before antennas go up near homes and schools. Give communities a say again. Right now, local towns can’t consider health concerns when deciding where towers go. HHS should support restoring that local voice. Fund independent research. NIH should follow up on the NTP findings using 4G and 5G signals, with scientists who aren’t funded by the wireless industry. Share simple tips. Use speakerphone, keep your phone off your body, and use a wired connection when you can. HHS should share this as voluntary guidance, stated clearly. Until independent research shows this is safe for kids and lifelong use, the burden of proof should be on the technology, not on families. Thank you for asking the public about this. [1] Washington Spectator, “FCC & Electromagnetic Radiation” (2022): https://washingtonspectator.org/fcc-electromagnetic-radiation/ [2] Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021), summary by Davis Wright Tremaine: https://www.dwt.com/blogs/broadband-advisor/2021/08/fcc-radiofrequency-limits-dc-circuit [3] Law Street Media, D.C. Circuit remand summary: https://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=12895 [4] IARC Press Release No. 208 (2011): https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf [5] NIH news release on NTP findings (2018): https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radiofrequency-radiation-linked-tumor-activity-male-rats