{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-5986","body_sha256":"de3a54161449e840c1a25c2b29226f4ef158a45647af5d685bcb0fd9312b4519","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"standards","topics":[{"id":"standards","evidence":"Reevaluate safety standards beyond thermal effects."},{"id":"research","evidence":"Commission replication and follow-up studies"},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"these findings do not establish cancer risks from ordinary human wireless exposure"},{"id":"children","evidence":"Children, pregnant women, developing fetuses"},{"id":"reproductive","evidence":"pregnant women, developing fetuses"},{"id":"optical","evidence":"support wired alternatives in schools"},{"id":"ehs","evidence":"individuals reporting electromagnetic sensitivity"}],"summary":"The commenter requests independent reassessment of RF limits, research on cumulative and nonthermal effects, transparency about conflicts, and protection of vulnerable groups. They cite animal tumor findings while explicitly distinguishing them from established risks of ordinary human wireless exposure, and advocate wired alternatives and accommodations.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-28T16:50:58Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"216d336132b7b5430f1dd02e7b32a8819d15c3b8c53e7276e968b4db9785ade9","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"}