{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-6844","body_sha256":"b6b414a5156f3f2de08c23253ac24b07a4356ab3adba60b3cec14fcdaa697483","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"infrastructure","topics":[{"id":"infrastructure","evidence":"Our neighborhood opposed this tower"},{"id":"section-704","evidence":"because of the 1996 telecommunications act-health issues were not valid"},{"id":"ehs","evidence":"We are seeing a doctor for EHS"},{"id":"access","evidence":"We cannot work jobs, go out to eat, go see a movie or music concerts"},{"id":"optical","evidence":"give us fiber-optic line instead."}],"summary":"Describes a disputed rural tower approval and restrictions on health-based objections, reports family EHS, relocation to an RV and loss of work and schooling, and advocates safer regulated technology and fiber alternatives.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-28T23:54:32Z","review_method":"Full comment-text review with exact source evidence; attachments not reviewed","review_source_sha256":"5780967717ba75c0b52eb48b84f95b1931d931bdce337a96c1b36176dc2bc6cf","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"}