{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-0182","number":"0182","name":"Anonymous Anonymous","organization":"","posted":"2026-09-21T04:00Z","received":"2026-09-21T04:00Z","body":"To the Department of Health and Human Services:\n\nI am submitting this comment in response to the RFI on EMF/RF radiation and wireless exposure (FR Doc. 2026-19252). My perspective is that of an individual and a healthcare industry professional with a background in medical device and healthcare sales.\n\nI support HHS's decision to systematically re-evaluate the state of the science on RF/EMF exposure, including at levels below current federal limits, and I urge the Department to weigh the following evidence as it identifies research priorities:\n\n\t•\tIn 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B \"possible human carcinogen\" — the same category as lead and DDT — based on limited evidence from human and animal studies.\n\t•\tThe National Toxicology Program's $30 million, decade-long study (final results published November 2018) found \"clear evidence\" that male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation like that used in 2G/3G cell phones developed malignant heart schwannomas, with some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland as well. NTP's own scientists cautioned that whole-body, high-level rodent exposure doesn't map directly onto typical human cell phone use, but called the tumor link \"real.\"\n\t•\tA separate, independent study by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy — the largest of its kind, involving 2,448 rats exposed over their full lifespans — found the same type of heart schwannoma in male rats exposed to RF levels representative of environmental cell-tower emissions, not just handset-level exposure. The researchers noted this reinforced the NTP findings using a different, lower-intensity exposure model.\n\t•\tCurrent FCC exposure limits, which the RFI itself notes, were largely set based on short-term thermal (heating) effects and have not been comprehensively updated to account for this newer body of long-term, non-thermal evidence.\n\nI recognize that federal agencies including FDA and WHO currently maintain that existing evidence does not establish RF exposure at regulated levels causes harm in humans, and that some researchers dispute the rodent-to-human relevance of the NTP and Ramazzini findings. That disagreement is exactly why this RFI matters: the existing evidence base is genuinely contested, not settled, and deserves a fresh, rigorous federal review rather than reliance on decades-old thermal-only standards.\n\nI would encourage HHS to:\n\n\t•\tPrioritize research on cumulative, long-term, non-thermal exposure, particularly for children and other potentially sensitive populations;\n\t•\tCommission an independent re-evaluation of whether current exposure standards adequately reflect the NTP and Ramazzini findings;\n\t•\tEnsure findings are coordinated across FDA, NIH, and CDC and translated into practical guidance for families, schools, and healthcare providers.\n\nMy family has personally experienced health disruptions after being exposed to “healthy” levels. \n\nThank you for undertaking this review and for the opportunity to comment.","attachments":[],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-0182","tags":["cancer-tumors","child-development","health-experiences","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"3ecb9e2297781eb4a207f1793b3cef7c592b311392b7ac6271c85fc81f1f7ceb","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-0182","classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-0182","body_sha256":"a068c5a4e822f6b4890b2d39aae6811b4b0c3011fe2156db7b6a01f6386e1441","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"cancer","topics":[{"id":"cancer","evidence":"\t•\tIn 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B \"possible human carcinogen\" — the same category as lead and DDT — bas"},{"id":"research","evidence":"To the Department of Health and Human Services:\n\nI am submitting this comment in response to the RFI on EMF/RF radiation and wireless exposure (FR Doc. 2026-19252). My perspective is that of an individual and a healthcare indu"},{"id":"standards","evidence":"te the state of the science on RF/EMF exposure, including at levels below current federal limits, and I urge the Department to weigh the following evidence as it identifies research priorities:\n\n\t•\tIn 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the W"},{"id":"children","evidence":"\t•\tPrioritize research on cumulative, long-term, non-thermal exposure, particularly for children and other potentially sensitive populations;\n\t•\tCommission an independent re-evaluation of whether current exposure standards adequately reflect the NTP and Ramazzini findings;\n\t•"}],"summary":"The commenter cites animal research and carcinogenicity assessments, acknowledges uncertainties in human relevance and requests independent reassessment and practical guidance.","reviewed_at":"2026-09-22T01:54:07Z","review_method":"AI source-text review; explicit topic passages; 2026-09-22","review_source_sha256":"ddc7d754d371fa51b2743f611e0946b4ac0356d33009c6d335c04f5e068e9deb","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"forum_topics":["cancer","research","standards","children"],"primary_topic":"cancer","forum_title":"The commenter cites animal research and carcinogenicity assessments, acknowledges uncertainties in human …"}