{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6551","number":"6551","name":"jamie hinkle","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-28T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-21T04:00Z","body":"I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.\n\nThe Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices.\n\nThe FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment.\n\nHere is just one study I believe the FCC should review when addressing the concerns about wireless radiation:\nhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050475926002745\n\n\nThe FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public.\n\nI urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court.\n\nThis issue matters to me personally because:\n\nOur public schools are using FCC standards as guidance to support installing 5g towers near elementary, middle and high schools. Signing years long contracts and ultimately minimizing informed consent and risk as there are not sufficient studies saying there is ABSOLUTELY no risk. \n\nI urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.","attachments":[],"attachment_inventory":true,"withheld":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6551","tags":["cancer-tumors","child-development","exposure-places","policy-standards","research-evidence"],"source_hash":"a836b5388f2cc178a0a8767b5ca9908b487bacca5980fea3735223c559416939","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-6551","classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6551","body_sha256":"82820baae8ad3505cbe18b3a854bb5d5a76d875308b93090bcdbf5ea1bca4693","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"standards","topics":[{"id":"standards","evidence":"D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand"},{"id":"children","evidence":"public schools"},{"id":"infrastructure","evidence":"installing 5g towers"}],"summary":"The commenter requests FCC response to the court remand with health-agency expertise, and questions school use of existing standards to justify long-term tower contracts without adequate risk information.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-28T23:54:32Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"efe7761e4e345892cd0d8fc0cc8964b158426078a6e4a578da30df48245493df","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"forum_topics":["standards","children","infrastructure"],"primary_topic":"standards","forum_title":"The commenter requests FCC response to the court remand with health-agency expertise, and questions schoo…"}