{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-4946","body_sha256":"49d0e3e132d58294850097a993f4acb6aab75cfe11b96db0f4733c3bcd579687","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"standards","topics":[{"id":"standards","evidence":"exposed are far too low to have any effects. The recognized exposure limits adequately protect the public. Actual exposures are well below the exposure limits. See e.g., "},{"id":"research","evidence":"se running “electrosmog” sites point to the “NTP study” as a scientific basis of their claims that cell phone radiation"},{"id":"ehs","evidence":"not credible. \nSome people believe they are “hypersensitive” to EMFs, but there’s no evidence to back it up; Rubin, G. James"},{"id":"cancer","evidence":". The NTP study also found a small number of rare heart tumors in the warmed male rats, but not in the mice or female rats. The"}],"summary":"Argues that public exposure limits are protective, criticizes EMF advocacy claims, and discusses hypersensitivity research, thermal explanations for animal findings and cancer classifications.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-26T22:22:05Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"c33750c01966e77c5540ee8d1915882df57a58d07f55a1d4d1cd83e828b1be8c","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"}