{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5243","number":"5243","name":"Ellen Osuna","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-27T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-21T04:00Z","body":"Thank you for requesting input from the public on a topic that has impacts on everyone.  Yet I would honestly be shocked if any of this translates into concrete actions that protect the public from the many negative health effects of radiofrequency radiation. So far, the playbook has proceed as with other things that produce both large profits and significant harm - create the illusion of safety by setting standards that don't reflect reality, claim emissions are within the limits, and design some studies to obfuscate harms, and other studies to cast doubt on the higher-quality studies which have found clear harms.  \nAs with many other things, when industry had an undue influence in science, it can be technically true to make claims that sound assuring, about regulatory limits or studies finding no evidence of harm, yet actually be gaslighting - because the limits, and the studies, are designed to not honestly reflect the true impacts. And the health health of everyone – adults, children, the unborn, and our animal companions, as well as the well-being and productivity of our nation, suffers. \nThis link is extremely informative regarding industry influence in the \"science\" that's used to gaslight the public about safety of wireless radiation from cell towers, cell phones, wifi routers, and the many, many, many, constantly expanding sources that increase everyone's proximity radiofrequency radiation. These studies are valuable in their own right, and indispensable to the bigger picture - where industry sponsored studies, often indirectly sponsored, pollute the information environment and give assurances of safety that do not stand up to scrutiny when followed all the way down:    https://mdsafetech.org/problems/industry-influence-in-science/\nWith the false premise that only ionizing radiation is capable of harm, limits are set based on thermal heating that ignore the many ways cellular processes are disrupted by non-thermal exposure. This is wrong. It is scientifically, and morally, obviously, wrong. \nEnclosed are some of many studies showing negative health impacts from the shortsighted rush to expand wireless infrastructure, as well as studies explaining why the narrative around what is safe is a giant gaslight, while our country gets more chronically ill every day.\nInclusions: The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Provide No Assurance of Safety.\nScientific Evidence Invalidates Health Assumptions Underlying the FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limit Determinations for Radiofrequency Radiation: Implications for 5G\nThe Carcinogenic Potential of non-Ionizing Radiation\n\nIf by some miracle this reaches anyone who cares more about humanity than about covering up harm for short term gain, thank you.\nSincerely,\nEllen Osuna\n","attachments":["https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5243/attachment_3.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5243/attachment_1.pdf","https://downloads.regulations.gov/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5243/attachment_2.pdf"],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5243","tags":["cancer-tumors","child-development","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"5954bcf2086e4e13de8e989a07ef98bc13ab19ba69099d3755f00a23da42d699","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-5243","classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5243","body_sha256":"ec2efbff6748746c792ab158c09fb7845f6e845b3bc0866809b52ec854893aaf","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"research","topics":[{"id":"research","evidence":"This link is extremely informative regarding industry influence in the \"science\" that's used to gaslight the public about safety"},{"id":"standards","evidence":" only ionizing radiation is capable of harm, limits are set based on thermal heating that ignore the many ways cellular processes are disrupted by no"},{"id":"mechanisms","evidence":"any ways cellular processes are disrupted by non-thermal exposure. This is wrong. It is scientifically, and morally, obviously, wr"},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"frequency Radiation: Implications for 5G\nThe Carcinogenic Potential of non-Ionizing Radiation\n\nIf by some miracle this reaches anyon"}],"summary":"The commenter argues that industry influence distorts wireless safety research and exposure standards, challenges thermal-only limits, and submits studies concerning biological effects and carcinogenic potential while requesting public protection.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-27T19:20:49Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"2f4e8c3980ddc40e586d05d861ce20975f09d9b27dc4158fe7fea8e82b089bf0","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"forum_topics":["research","standards","mechanisms","cancer"],"primary_topic":"research","forum_title":"The commenter argues that industry influence distorts wireless safety research and exposure standards, ch…"}