Cancer & tumors

Dear Sirs, We examined data on cancer cases with occupational exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR) in military settings. We published our findings in several papers (attached). These studies make the case for a carcinogenic effect from occupational exposure to RFR. Our findings highlight a special case where intense, short-term occupational exposure induces cancer with short latencies.• The following outlines a summary of our latest research - Peleg et al 2023. Research Subject: A group of young cancer patients previously exposed to RFR in military occupational settings. Exposures: Exposures originated from military radio communication transmitters, radar, and electronic warfare transmitters. Exposures were repetitive, typically spanning over a year or more. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) exposure levels are guided by occupational standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These standards permit an average power that is higher by a factor of 5 relative to the ICNIRP recommendations for the general population, and higher by a factor of 50 relative to the Israeli recommendations for the general population. Furthermore, those standards barely limit the peak power of radar pulses, provided the average power remains within permissible limits. Energy concentrated in strong pulses may be more bioactive. Method: Most of the information was gathered directly from the patients (n=46), the majority of whom were trained operators, technicians, and engineers. For a small subgroup of patients (n=6), the size of the total exposed population was known, enabling us to estimate cancer risk ratios (RR) relative to the general population. Because the total size of the exposed population was unavailable for most patients, we examined the distribution of cancer cases by type using the percentage frequencies (PF) method. The following outlines a summary of our latest research Results: The onset of exposure was from age 18 onward. The duration of exposure ranged between 1 and 3 years, and latencies from the onset of exposure to diagnosis were brief, with a median of 4.6 years. The RR for cancer in the small subgroup was remarkably high— 8.0 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of (2.9% - 17%). The PF for hematolymphoid cancers (leukemia, lymphoma, and plasma cell cancers) was 41.3%, 95% CI (27%–57%), which is nearly twice the 22.7% expected in non-exposed subjects matched for age and gender profiles (p = 0.003). The data from our most recent study confirm the findings of our previous papers. Moreover, the foregoing results are consistent with the outcomes of other studies conducted elsewhere. Recommendations: Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) should be formally recognized as a human carcinogen (upgraded to IARC Group 1). Human exposure should be strictly limited to low levels, such as an average level of 1 μW/cm² and a peak pulse level of 5 μW/cm². The suggested average level is within the range of typical community levels. Finally, there is an urgent need to recognize and implement regulations for peak exposures as well as average exposures.

My aunt (Lithuania) lived on a beautiful, small, quiet street, by the river, maybe ~20 neighboring houses. They built a tower next to it, first 4g, then 5g. Over ~7 years, 11 people died of oncological diseases on that street. This happened to both my aunt and her husband. One had brain cancer, the other had stomach cancer. Her husband was a healthy man, a farmer. He ate his own products, meat, milk, grain dishes, swam in the fresh air in the winter, did not smoke, drank 1-2 glasses during the holidays, and played sports.

Hi my name is Salman. I have been living near a cell tower in 20 meters for the past two years and have experienced persistent health problems, including insomnia cnt sleep at night, dizziness, headaches, and burning and itching sensations in my skin and eyes everytime. Despite consulting several doctors and trying different medications, my symptoms have not improved. And there are several other residents in our area have reported symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and nausea, and hotness of body, This has raised serious problems among local residents,two residents got cancer in last 2 years, Cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation continuously, 24 hours a day, RF microwave radiation can cause cells and tissue heating at sufficiently high exposure levels, There are many researches and investigations and publications available regarding cell tower radiations which proved that cell tower radiations are harmful for humans , animals .plants and birds.and other living things I urge the relevant authorities to take residents' concerns seriously, investigate the potential health and environmental impacts of rf cell tower radiations and do research about it and make people life easy...thankyou

I am submitting this comment to express my serious concern about the potential health effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, particularly for children, pregnant women, and future generations. We live in an increasingly connected world in which people are exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from cell phones, wireless devices, Wi-Fi networks, cell towers, and other wireless technologies. Children are growing up surrounded by these technologies and may experience exposure throughout their lives, beginning during pregnancy and continuing through childhood and adolescence. Given this increasing and prolonged exposure, I believe it is essential that the federal government carefully examine the potential short-term and long-term health consequences. **A particular concern is the potential relationship between EMF exposure and cancer.** The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. This classification does not establish that exposure causes cancer, but it does indicate that the scientific evidence warranted concern and further investigation. Research examining possible associations between radiofrequency exposure and brain tumors and other cancers deserves continued, independent scrutiny. I am especially concerned about children because their bodies and brains are still developing, and their lifetime exposure may be substantially longer than that of previous generations. It is important to determine whether existing exposure standards adequately account for children's developmental stages, potential differences in vulnerability, and the cumulative effects of exposure over many decades. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm should not be interpreted as definitive proof that all potential long-term risks have been ruled out. I respectfully urge the federal government to take the following actions: 1. **Conduct and support independent, long-term research** into possible associations between EMF exposure and cancer, neurological development, reproductive health, sleep, and other relevant health outcomes. 2. **Give special attention to children and pregnancy**, including studies that examine prenatal exposure, childhood exposure, and potential effects over the course of a person's lifetime. 3. **Reassess existing exposure standards** in light of the latest scientific evidence, including whether those standards adequately address prolonged exposure, real-world exposure patterns, and potentially vulnerable populations. 4. **Ensure transparency and independence in scientific reviews**, including disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, research limitations, and disagreements among qualified researchers. 5. **Provide clear, accessible public information** about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical measures individuals and families can take to reduce unnecessary exposure if they choose to do so. 6. **Apply a prudent, precautionary approach** while scientific uncertainties remain, particularly when considering children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Reasonable exposure-reduction measures should be considered where feasible without overstating what the evidence establishes. I recognize that wireless technologies provide significant benefits and that scientific research has not established that ordinary environmental EMF exposure causes every health condition of concern. Nevertheless, the widespread and increasing use of these technologies makes it especially important to investigate potential risks rigorously, independently, and continuously. Protecting public health requires more than waiting for absolute scientific certainty before investigating a possible risk. It requires a commitment to transparent research, careful evaluation of emerging evidence, and appropriate safeguards when the health of children and future generations may be at stake. I urge the relevant federal agencies to give this issue serious consideration, ensure that the scientific evidence is evaluated comprehensively, and prioritize the long-term health and well-being of the public. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment and for considering these concerns. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): The 2011 classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). This is a hazard classification, not a conclusion that everyday exposure necessarily causes cancer. National Cancer Institute: Its overview of cell phones and cancer discusses epidemiological research, biological evidence, and the limitations of existing studies. World Health Organization (WHO): Its research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields addresses the evidence on possible health effects and the need for continued evaluation.

G _____________ Dr. George L. Carlo Washington, D.C. 571-276-4000 I am deeply grateful to Secretary Kennedy and the leadership at HHS for initiating this vital and serious inquiry into the health effects of EMF and RF radiation. I have been closely following the submissions to this Request for Information, and I would be profoundly honored to offer my assistance to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) as you navigate the next steps of this process. My commitment to this issue began in 2008 under deeply personal circumstances, when my husband and the late Senator Edward Kennedy both suffered seizures and brain tumor diagnoses within days of each other. Our son, who had interned for Senator Kennedy, learned from former colleagues of the family's concerns regarding the role of cell phone radiation. This prompted me to look deeply into the issue. My husband had been a heavy cell phone user for 20 years, consistently holding the device to the exact side of his head where the tumor developed, with no other known environmental exposures. When I shared his medical and phone records with global experts, they noted the stark correlation. Driven to understand the science, I was thrust into public advocacy, testifying before Congress in 2008 alongside Dr. Ronald Herberman and Dr. David Carpenter. That experience began a lifelong education. In the years since, I have endeavored to serve as a bridge between grieving families and the independent scientific community. I founded the California Brain Tumor Association to focus on public education and prevention, and my heart breaks regularly as I speak with young victims and parents worldwide who are navigating these devastating diagnoses. Over nearly two decades, I have sought to understand both the human impact and the technical complexities of this issue. I have worked alongside communities facing cancer clusters—such as those in La Quinta and Ripon, California—to investigate local EMF exposures. I have also engaged directly with the regulatory and testing framework, including meeting with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to discuss testing protocols, serving on the Board of Directors for Phonegate Alert under Dr. Marc Arazi, and advocating for local Right-to-Know ordinances in San Francisco and Berkeley. While those local efforts ultimately faced immense federal and legal hurdles from industry opposition, they taught me invaluable lessons about the challenges of public health communication. The solutions to this problem will come from the public health risk management area of expertise. Most importantly, we're not starting from scratch. Under numerous existing laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Superfund law, there are methods for risk assessment and risk management that have been tested in the field and validated that can easily be adapted to solve this problem. My network of professionals in this area can bring the needed expertise and they are at the ready. What I hope to bring to HHS is not just a historical perspective, but a willingness to serve. I want to meet the public where they are. I would be immensely grateful for any opportunity to assist OASH—whether by supporting your internal team as they review these diverse submissions, helping to synthesize public and clinical insights, or advising on community outreach strategies. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your consideration of how a dedicated public stakeholder might support your vital mission.

Public Comment to HHS — RF/EMF Exposure and Human Health I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public, based on personal observations rather than scientific research. Over recent years, I have noticed what seems to be an increasing number of people experiencing everyday memory lapses and difficulties concentrating. What concerns me is that these experiences do not seem limited to older adults. I hear younger people frequently commenting that they have forgotten why they entered a room, lost their train of thought, or forgotten what they were about to say. I have also become increasingly concerned about the number of people affected by cancer within my extended circle of friends, coworkers, and acquaintances. I personally know of approximately ten individuals affected, including younger people. This feels very different from what I remember experiencing years ago. I recognize that these observations do not establish an increase in disease rates or prove any connection to electromagnetic fields or wireless radiation. However, I wonder whether our dramatically increased exposure to electronic devices and wireless technologies deserves further long-term investigation. I would like to see continued independent research examining cumulative exposure, potential effects on memory and cognitive function, and any possible long-term health risks, particularly among younger generations who have grown up surrounded by wireless technology. I believe the public deserves clear, transparent information about what science has established, what remains uncertain, and whether current safety standards adequately address long-term exposure. Thank you for considering the concerns of ordinary citizens who may not have scientific expertise but have questions they hope research can help answer.

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)Smart Meter 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):I have two friends Bob in Chehalis, WA and Alice "Anuttama" in Glenoma, WA - with Smart Meters in Lewis County, Washington State. Both had the Itron Centron AMR CL-200 Smart Meter, placed on their homes around 2022 by Lewis County Public Utility District (PUD) against their will (mandate or shut off electricity). Alice "Anuttama" Budd filed a lawsuit against Lewis County PUD in 2024 in Lewis County Superior Court. The case got dismissed. But the case filings exist. 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:Alice "Anuttama" Budd had a roommate who developed pancreatic cancer and died. Alice "Anuttama" Budd developed breast cancer and died December 2025. Bob in Chehalis - his wife developed cancer below the belt in late 2025. His wife had to have her intestines REMOVED and she wears a bag. 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:Alice "Anuttama" Budd of Glenoma, WA had breast cancer when I first met her in 2024. The Itron Centron Smart Meter was installed in 2022. Bob in Chehalis, WA - his wife was diagnosed with cancer below the belt in late November 2025. The Smart Meter was installed on Bob's house in 2022. 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?I am giving you second-hand information based on conversations with Alice "Anuttama" Budd who is now dead. Anuttama told me in 2024 that she had breast cancer, that she didn't trust doctors, and she did not seek treatment after diagnosis. Bob in Chehalis, WA, his wife did seek medical treatment. He called it "cancer below the belt." He told me that his wife underwent several surgeries, including surgery to remove her intestines. Now, she wears a bag. 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?Alice "Anuttama" Budd fought long and hard in Superior Court to have the Smart Meter removed to no avail. She sent me a video of an EMF monitor measuring the radiation coming off the meter. I have the video, which I can provide by email. Alice "Anuttama" Budd and Bob in Chehalis, WA both begged Lewis County PUD to REMOVE the smart meters and Lewis County PUD REFUSED. 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:I have the EMF measurement video along with some court documents from Alice "Anuttama" Budd that I can send by email. Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's:I personally do NOT have a smart meter because I fought back against Lewis County PUD Smart Meter mandate for two years (2023-2025) and won (for the time being). My entire neighborhood has Smart Meters with the radio turned ON since March 2024 in Lewis County, Washington State. So, I am surrounded by Smart Meters. What I noticed since March 2024. Nearly all of the bugs disappeared on my rural property on acreage for about two years. That's not a joke. In the spring of 2026, the bugs slowly started to reaapear. This is the first year (2026) that Im seeing caterpillars, butterflies, black flies, black ants, et al. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects: B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed: B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy): B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless: B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant: B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure: B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help: B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): B3d. Treatments that had no effect: B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:45-54, 55-64 B4. What is your age range?45-54, 55-64 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields? B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?Glenoma, Washington and Chehalis, Washington, both in rural Lewis County, Washington State.

Independent research (not funded by telecommunications companies) has shown a clear link between RF radiation and serious health issues in children, adults and flora/fauna. The HHS should follow the guidelines of BioInitiative Report 2012 unless clear scientific evidence shows that a different level of rf exposure is safe. Below are the links to research documenting the need for stronger limits on rf exposure: Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromag... The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine: Vol 41 , No 2 - Get Access Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine: Vol 40 , No 2 - Get Access

Birds are confused. Mental Health is a scourge. Brain cancer and migraine rates are soaring. Coincidence? I think not.

I have a close relative who 25 years ago, became severely debilitated as a result of electromagnetic exposure. She has struggled for the past 25 years to get well with no success. She is extremely hypersensitive to all types of electromagnetic energy including cell phones, cell towers, wi-fi, and other radio frequency source and lives an extremely restricted life. She has been treated by more than 200 practitioners representing allopathic, complementary, and alternative medicine, but no solutions have been obtained. Besides the human tragedy, we know personally eleven other people who also have electro hypersensitivity and their lives have also been ruined. We have talked with Dr. Martin Pall, Dr. Magda Havas, and many other prominent researchers in the electromagnetic exposure world and have learned a great deal about the perils of radio frequency exposure including cancer, neuro degenerative disease, autism, Alzheimer’s, autoimmune disorders and many more. We have carefully reviewed all of the literature over the past 25 years including both American and European sources, and have collected abundant evidence of the adverse biological effects of radio frequency exposure. The fact that this evidence exists and has not been widely available to the unsuspecting public is a travesty. We personally know of several people who have died at an early age as a result of radio frequency induced carcinogenesis. These are people who for many years carried a cell phone on particular anatomical locations which later manifested as cancer in the organ adjacent to the location. Electro hypersensitivity causes a debilitating disability in the context of the contemporary technologically oriented world. This is because it is becoming virtually impossible to escape the harmful effects of radio frequency exposure as the proliferation of cell towers, satellites, wi-fi, and other sources continues to increase exponentially. This corresponds to the largely reported rise in conditions like certain cancers, type II Diabetes, autoimmunity and autism. While there are likely multiple causative factors of these conditions, it is safe to assume that radio frequency exposure is a major contributing factor. Pease see an excellent, well documented book that supports this conclusion titled The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg. Elon Musk’s recent announcement of Starlink direct to cell/mobile transmissions of cell coverage via satellite has terrorized people with this condition because of the massive and ubiquitous radio frequency exposure it will entail. With conventional cell towers, people can choose to live far away from them, but blanket satellite transmissions will likely result in catastrophic outcomes. The human organism, like all other living organisms, has no evolutionary experience by which to adapt to the preponderance of radio frequency pollution that now exists. With the exception of solar radiation and the effect of the Schumann resonance, there has not been any means by which gradual adaptation to increasing radio frequency levels has been possible. The result is going to be catastrophic and may even reach genocidal proportions. I am hoping that this welcomed opportunity by government officials to provide a cautionary perspective will result in meaningful change. There are formidable obstacles that prohibit that change including powerful economic, political and regulatory incentives to maintain the status quo. First, it was asbestos, then it was lead paint, then it was cigarette smoking, and now it is radio frequency pollution. Only after many years were the extremely harmful effects of these exposures fully realized. Sadly, these realizations are only retrospective. It is usually only after great damage has been done and millions of people have died that the population and the government wake up. This outcome for the emerging current public health crisis caused by radio frequency pollution can be avoided but it will require great courage. The individuals receiving feedback like this will hopefully have the motivation and ability to change the trajectory of what may likely be the greatest self-imposed tragedy in human history. A powerful radio frequency device addiction has now captivated the vast majority of the world’s population. Exposure levels are now exponentially greater than even several years ago. Public education and radio frequency regulation, more in line with European standards, combined with empirically sound and unbiased research is urgently needed. An under informed citizenry is likely why there’s been such a low response to this Request for Information. Thank you for the opportunity to share this perspective and thank you for your courage and altruism in choosing to seek it. Warm regards, A very worried citizen