{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-2828","number":"2828","name":"Adam Tefft","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-14T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-10T04:00Z","body":"I fully support scientific research and reviewing public health standards, but I also believe we need to be careful not to create unnecessary fear about technology that has been studied for decades.\n\nLet's stick to the facts. 5G, Wi-Fi, and cell towers use non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation. This is not the same as X-rays or gamma rays. It does not carry enough energy to directly damage DNA through ionization.\n\nThe World Health Organization and National Cancer Institute have reviewed extensive research, and the overall human evidence has not established that everyday wireless exposure within established safety limits causes cancer. A major systematic review published in 2024 also found that mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of several types of brain tumors.\n\nThat doesn't mean we should stop studying it. Science is constantly evolving, and reviewing long-term exposure, newer technologies, and existing safety standards is perfectly reasonable.\n\nWhat concerns me is when legitimate scientific questions get turned into fearmongering. Just because something is called \"radiation\" doesn't automatically mean it's dangerous. Exposure levels, frequency, duration, and actual biological effects matter.\n\nI would encourage HHS to prioritize credible, peer-reviewed research, distinguish established risks from theoretical concerns, and be transparent about what the evidence actually shows.\n\nIf new evidence demonstrates a legitimate health risk, then absolutely update the regulations. But public health policy should be based on reproducible scientific evidence, not speculation, political agendas, or public fear.\n\nWe owe the American public accurate information, not another reason to be unnecessarily afraid of something they use every day.","attachments":[],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-2828","tags":["cancer-tumors","biology-metabolism","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"4f999bb6c7141b19f6acb1669af4a60bb500061a0974b92e348ab0e9b196bfbb","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-2828","classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-2828","body_sha256":"fd63922788a27dadc0d48b18621379353e17cf2d74c90f02c59c30ec1e833330","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"research","topics":[{"id":"research","evidence":"public health policy should be based on reproducible scientific evidence, not speculation, political agendas, or public fear.\n\nWe ow"},{"id":"standards","evidence":"ay wireless exposure within established safety limits causes cancer. A major systematic review published in 2024 "},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"within established safety limits causes cancer. A major systematic review published in 2024 also found tha"}],"summary":"Argues that ordinary exposure within current limits has not been established to cause cancer, supports continued research, and requests transparent, reproducible evidence as the basis for policy.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-15T03:51:16Z","review_method":"Source-based AI review of complete published comment bodies; exact topic evidence; attachments and external links not reviewed.","review_source_sha256":"615ccb26210625ad8c6cfa02dc81860270178f891ac5507e15177e1626218829","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"forum_topics":["research","standards","cancer"],"primary_topic":"research","forum_title":"Argues that ordinary exposure within current limits has not been established to cause cancer, supports co…"}