{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-3915","body_sha256":"ac206a58cac0091c349f87aaa4d68135d06fe7ad07ae8bee185f6b4d3af384e0","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"standards","topics":[{"id":"standards","evidence":" and parent. I request that federal agencies dramatically lower current exposure limits, adopt a rigorous and enforceable precautionary principle, and f"},{"id":"research","evidence":"nforceable precautionary principle, and fund long-term independent research. Current limits are dangerously outdated and ignore exponential "},{"id":"children","evidence":"ive populations require stricter protection.\nChildren, fetuses, the elderly, and workers must be evaluated separately. Developing tissues ar"},{"id":"infrastructure","evidence":" roughly 1/100th of the current U.S. limit);\nProhibit RF transmitters within 300m of schools and hospitals until long-term safety is demonstrated;"},{"id":"optical","evidence":"ata;\n(b) Issue immediate interim guidelines (wired connections in schools, RF-off zones in bedrooms);\n(c) Require transparent consumer and"},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"ology, limits are at least 200x too high for cancer risk and 8-24x too high for male reproductive toxicity.\nThe precautio"},{"id":"reproductive","evidence":" high for cancer risk and 8-24x too high for male reproductive toxicity.\nThe precautionary principle must be applied -- not merely ackno"}],"summary":"The commenter calls for much lower RF limits, precautionary siting rules, public disclosure, wired school connections and independent long-term research, citing cumulative exposure and risks to children and other vulnerable groups.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-21T23:43:28Z","review_method":"Complete submitted comment-text review with neutral attributed summaries and exact evidence; attachments and external materials not reviewed.","review_source_sha256":"6b7e404e22a4eeab13fe07cd2b05e1a83b144bd25947e9c53cb66c7ee3683d9b","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"}