Cancer & tumors

I have been recently diagnosed with brain cancer. It is in the back of my head on the left , where I would hold my phone. See photo attached

I submit this as an individual consumer and family member, relying on peer-reviewed research, federal reports, and court findings cited below (Qs 2, 3). Concern (Qs 5, 6): FCC's RF limits date to 1996 and address only short-term tissue heating, not chronic exposure, pulsed/modulated signals, multi-source cumulative exposure, or children's thinner skulls. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court found the FCC failed to justify that its limits protect against non-cancer harms, citing unaddressed evidence on children and long-term exposure, and remanded the issue. HHS, not FCC, should lead on the health basis for any standard. Evidence below current limits (Q12): NTP's $30M study (2018) found "clear evidence" of heart schwannomas and "some evidence" of brain/adrenal tumors in RF-exposed rats, with DNA damage reported in a follow-up (Smith-Roe et al. 2020). Italy's Ramazzini Institute independently found the same rare tumor at lower exposures comparable to cell tower emissions (Falcioni et al. 2018). IARC classifies RF-EMF as "possibly carcinogenic" (Group 2B, 2011). Reviews report oxidative stress (Yakymenko et al. 2016), reduced sperm quality (Adams et al. 2014), and DNA strand breaks (Lai & Singh 1995; REFLEX project 2004). Technologies changing cumulative exposure (Q13): 5G/small cells near homes and windows; Wi-Fi transmitting continuously in classrooms; smart meters installed on homes, often without real opt-out, pulsing near bedrooms; satellite broadband (e.g., Starlink) creating a new planet-wide RF source; networked cameras (e.g., Flock) on public poles with cellular modems and no resident notice; wireless earbuds transmitting inside the ear canal for hours daily, especially in teens; EVs producing low-frequency magnetic fields in cabins where children ride (IARC links this field type to childhood leukemia); AI data centers driving new high-voltage lines near communities; LED/"smart" lighting suppressing melatonin (AMA 2016) and adding RF transmitters with little safety study. Environmental effects (Q14): Thielens et al. (2018) found insects absorb more RF above 6 GHz, the direction 5G/6G are heading. Levitt, Lai & Manville (2021–22) reviewed reported effects on birds and insects, noting no federal environmental RF standard exists. Sensitive populations (Q11): Children, pregnant women, and implant recipients need separate risk evaluation. France restricted Wi-Fi for under-3 childcare settings in 2015. Disclosure (Q9): Residents deserve public antenna/exposure maps, advance notice before installations near homes and schools, clear device transmission labeling, and a genuine no-fee smart meter opt-out. Research priorities (Qs 10, 16, 17): Fund independent long-term cohort studies with real exposure measurement, especially in children; commission NTP follow-up at current 5G/mmWave frequencies; build a national RF/EMF environmental monitoring network; create an adverse-event reporting pathway; direct FDA to test consumer devices under realistic body-contact conditions. This research must be free of industry funding. Conclusion (Q18): We have deployed unprecedented, involuntary population-wide EMF exposure without proving it safe. Credible research has found cancer signals, DNA damage, oxidative stress, and reproductive effects. I ask HHS to investigate this independently and thoroughly, and prioritize human and environmental health over the pace of commercial deployment.

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by cell towers. This review paper concludes that “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

I am submitting this comment as a concerned member of the public urging HHS to undertake a comprehensive, independent investigation into the potential human and environmental health effects of the rapidly expanding electromagnetic environment created by modern technology. My concern is not based on the assumption that every wireless technology has been proven harmful. Rather, it is that society has dramatically increased the intensity, density, duration, proximity, and variety of electromagnetic exposures while the long-term biological consequences of this cumulative exposure remain incompletely understood. Today, people can be exposed simultaneously and continuously to Wi-Fi, 4G/5G and future 6G infrastructure, cell towers and small cells, Bluetooth and wireless headphones, smartphones, smart meters, wireless cameras and security systems, wearables, smart-home devices, connected and electric vehicles, wireless medical devices, satellite communications such as Starlink, and the rapidly expanding infrastructure supporting AI and data centers. The central question should therefore not simply be whether each individual device complies with an existing exposure limit. HHS should determine whether current standards adequately address real-world, cumulative, lifelong exposure from multiple sources operating simultaneously. I respectfully ask HHS to investigate potential effects on: sleep and circadian biology; hormonal and endocrine function; reproductive health and fertility; pregnancy and fetal development; neurological and cognitive function; immune and metabolic function; oxidative stress and cellular signaling; DNA integrity, repair and epigenetic processes; cancer and other chronic diseases; and children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Research should specifically examine effects that may occur below existing exposure limits and should evaluate frequency, power density, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, proximity to the body, duration, and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies. HHS itself identifies these factors as important areas for investigation. I am particularly concerned about involuntary residential exposure. Smart meters, nearby wireless infrastructure, small cells, and other continuously operating devices can expose people inside their own homes regardless of whether they personally choose to use wireless technology. Americans should have meaningful information and reasonable options for reducing unnecessary exposure in their homes, schools, workplaces, and communities. HHS should also investigate the rapidly changing exposure environment created by 5G, future 6G, satellite networks, IoT devices, autonomous vehicles, wireless charging, electric vehicles, smart cities, and other emerging technologies before assuming that older exposure research adequately represents these systems. The investigation should extend beyond human health. HHS should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies to examine potential effects on wildlife, birds, insects, pollinators, livestock, plants, and ecosystems. HHS specifically requests information concerning environmental effects and wireless infrastructure near homes, schools, childcare facilities, workplaces, and livestock. Independent research is essential. Federal research should be transparent, independently replicated, and protected from conflicts of interest. Long-term studies should measure actual exposure rather than relying solely on estimates of device use. The government should develop standardized methods for measuring individual and neighborhood exposure and consider longitudinal health studies, environmental monitoring, occupational monitoring, disease registries, biomonitoring, and adverse-event reporting. I also urge HHS to improve public transparency. Consumers, parents, schools, workers, and communities should have understandable information about the emissions and realistic exposure characteristics of wireless devices and infrastructure. The scientific evidence contains established findings, conflicting findings, emerging research, and significant uncertainty. That uncertainty is not a reason to dismiss public concern; it is a reason to investigate more rigorously. We should neither assume that modern wireless technology is harmless nor assume that every health problem attributed to EMF has been scientifically proven to be caused by EMF. We should measure the exposures, study the biology, monitor health outcomes over time, investigate potential risks, and make the evidence publicly available. The unprecedented proliferation of wireless and electrically powered technology should be matched by an equally serious commitment to understanding its long-term consequences for human health and the environment. I urge HHS to make cumulative, real-world EMF/RF exposure and its potential biological effects a significant federal research priority.

Comment on Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397 Perspective (Q1): Individual / adult educator in a community Lifelong Learners setting. Not a physician. I teach practical exposure-reduction, not products. Q8 — What should be disclosed People need plain-language facts at the point of use: phones are radio transmitters; distance drops exposure sharply; night-time household wireless can be switched off; wearables and routers add to the load even when you are not “on a call.” Federal consumer and school guidance should say that in one page, without a store attached. Q10 — Sensitive populations Exposure assessment should treat children, pregnant women, and those with implants or unexplained symptoms as groups that may need extra caution while the science is incomplete — not as proof of a single disease. Schools and childcare should have the option of wired connections and phones stored off the body. Q11 — Evidence below current U.S. limits IARC classified RF electromagnetic fields as *possibly carcinogenic to humans* (Group 2B, 2011). The National Toxicology Program reported tumor findings in male rats after long-term RF exposure. The D.C. Circuit in *Environmental Health Trust v. FCC* (2021) found the FCC had not adequately explained its decision to retain 1996-era limits in light of subsequent evidence on children and long-term exposure. Those three items are enough to justify a current HHS evidence review. They are not, by themselves, a diagnosis of any person. Q15 — Research priorities Highest gaps: real-world *cumulative* exposure (phone + Wi-Fi + infrastructure), non-thermal biological endpoints, pediatric and in-utero cohorts, and independent replication of NTP-type work at current waveforms (including 5G). Coordination: NIH for biology, FDA for device emissions and labeling, CDC for school/community guidance. Practical recommendation While agencies update the science, HHS can publish the same three habits already used in many public-health pages: increase distance, take the phone off the body, turn household transmitters down or off at night. That does not require a new standard to be finished first. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

My dad ended up dying of brain cancer. He was left-handed and he got the brain tumor on the left side of his head near his ear where he held his cell phone and all of us are convinced that's why he got brain cancer. In many ways wireless radiation really ruined my life. I have MCS multiple chemical sensitivity and everybody like me has a lot of problems processing chemicals and a sensitivity to electromagnetism. Usually they display one of the two a little bit more than the other one, but both sensitivities are always both present and no one seams to knows why. I have to pick houses based on how far they are away from the cell towers. Trying to get at least 2 miles away is almost impossible now and I use this website called antennasearch.com to help me. I can't be in the room with wireless routers and I always plug in the ethernet of my computer to avoid Wi-Fi because it really hurts me. When I was younger, I didn't feel electromagnetism and slowly overtime It's become a huge problem in my life. I don't know if I just have heavy metal toxicity and it's resonating inside me or what happened. For all of human history humans were only exposed to background radiation and then we upped that by billions of times and expected that there was no consequence when there really was. The thermal threshold argument for wireless safety clearly doesn't apply to me because it ruined my life. In the future we can use quantum physics and entanglement to do all the things we're doing wirelessly but without the non-ionizing radiation that's hurting me so eventually we might grow out of this problem. I remember seeing people that were studying all of these worms underneath a giant leaf and how all 30 worms would curl and uncurl all together and the people studying it thought it was some mating ritual or some thing, but then they realized it was actually a radar tower and whenever it's spun around and was facing the worms from miles and miles away is when they all would curl up at the same time and then they would uncurl when the radar faced away from them as the radar dish turned around. Wireless technology creates a magical and convenient world, but unfortunately it comes with problems that nobody wants to acknowledge that eventually ruins your life like me or gives you brain cancer like my dad and kills you. Just because it's non-ionizing radiation doesn't mean that there isn't consequences from using it the way humans are and my life is proof of that. If we use quantum entanglement instead of non-ionizing radiation we can have infinite bandwidth at any distance and so the benefits of moving on from this technology to the next thing is really high. Just know that people with MCS multiple chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic sensitivity are not making this up in a psychosomatic way. In the real world people don't want to pretend that their life is ending. Their lifes are actually ending from the stimulus of chemicals and the stimulus of electromagnetism and society just pretends that they're making it up as if it's not true. We put cell towers on the sides of hospitals, churches, and schools, and this is a huge mistake. It's causing an invisible stress on the body and overtime it's destroying people at a massive scale. Society isn't going to give up the convenience and magic that comes with wireless technology so the answer is to just move to the next technology with quantum physics and entanglement. Using things like nitrogen vacancy nanodiamonds we can probably have room temperature quantum effects and changed the world forever starting in the next couple years. Here's my dad's obituary so you know I'm not lying... https://tucson.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/article_231262e2-2d0e-11e9-ac12-c75c99f75ff8.html

I am the webmaster of https://familiesforsafeandethicaltechnology.org/ for the last 11 years in Eugene , OR and 10 years before that in Seattle with SUMA-NW (Safe Utility Meter Alliance - Northwest) representing 100's of people in Washington State and Oregon who oppose wireless Smart Meters, Cell Towers, 5 G Towers and all forms of wifi. Many of are members have been severely sick with EMF sickness. This can include dizziness, anxiety, insomnia, cancer,edema as outlined here: https://familiesforsafeandethicaltechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/flyer-MS-ES-re2.pdf I had to spend 75K dollars to turn my house into a Faraday cage so I could live in it. There are two 5G towers at 50 and 70 Meters from my house. see https://familiesforsafeandethicaltechnology.org/faraday-cage/ Now it is .1 Microwatts per meter squared inside my house for the EMF radiation. Outside my house it is 2,860 Microwatts per meter squared registering extreme on the https://safelivingtechnologies.com/products/safe-and-sound-pro-ii-rf-meter-non-rechargeable-discontinued.html RF Meter. Note more than 1000 Microwatts per meter squared is extreme. More than 10 Mirowatts per meter squared is severe. One of the members in our group was three times in two months in the ER Riverbend Hospital in Springfield, OR. Another Member has a tumor on their brain. Wifi is just like cigarettes half a century ago. It was touted as totally safe and doctors smoked in the office. Now we know better and need to totally stop Wifi everywhere. All this is said on the film: https://vimeo.com/227169236 Take Back Your Power. As mentioned in our about us: https://familiesforsafeandethicaltechnology.org/about-us/ Please hear us before we are all sick from this dreadful WiFi. Thank you for listening!!!!! victor odlivak eugene, OR

I strongly suggest that my son died from EMF exposure from using an early model cell phone. His brain cancer tumor (glioblastoma) was shaped like a cone with its originating tip adjacent to his right ear. This was an earlier cell phone used approximately 2015 - 2018, when the cell phone transmitter was located adjacent to the right ear. Who was a young man, very socially connected, who always had his cell phone up to his ear while talking to his friends.