{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-1419","name":"Marcene Malusky","organization":"","posted":"2026-10-05T04:00Z","received":"2026-10-01T04:00Z","body":"Medical people that do scans for health reasons must comply with radiation exposure standards.  Why do we, as consumers, are not protected from radiations effects too.  4G, 5G, 6G and 10 G are proving to damage, insects, wildlife, and other environmental concerns, yet people are not protected.  What is wrong with our government? We need protection, that can only happen when studies from 3rd party testing publish the true results and ALL companies need to comply with appropriate protections.\nI am submitting this comment as a consumer concerned about long-term exposure to wireless radiation from phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and other connected devices.\n\nI urge HHS to conduct a thorough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to consider those most heavily exposed and should examine potential effects beyond tissue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPlease prioritize research that reflects how people actually encounter wireless radiation: repeated exposure over many years, often from multiple sources and devices used close to the body. Assessments should consider signal strength, pulse patterns, duration, and combined exposure.\n\nPlease consider Melnick and Moskowitz’s 2026 analysis of animal data, which argues that existing exposure limits may inadequately protect against cancer and reproductive harm (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6). I also ask HHS to evaluate Lai and Levitt’s review of exposure intensity, duration, and signal modulation (https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683), and Scarato’s review of US regulatory gaps and proposed reforms (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583). These papers warrant careful consideration alongside the broader evidence, including studies that have not found adverse effects.\n\nI ask HHS to:\n•Assess whether additional protections are needed for children, pregnant women, and other potentially vulnerable groups.\n•Support long-term research with safeguards against industry conflicts of interest.\n•Provide clear information about exposure and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools.\n•Recommend updated standards wherever the evidence shows that existing limits are insufficient.\n\nConsumers should not have to navigate these questions alone. Please use this inquiry to advance transparent science, meaningful oversight, and public health protection.","source_hash":"f439f0614fadd3d22f422ce4ff035ed829ddf1045671b65bde709c919e9f08d2","filing_type":"","proceedings":"","captured_at":"","source_name":"","number":"1419","withheld":false,"attachment_inventory":true,"capture_reviewed":false,"source":"https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-OASH-2026-0397-1419","slug":"cancer-tumors-comment-1419","tags":[],"attachments":[],"attachment_names":[],"classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-1419","body_sha256":"16bcecefd58a5eb8d85708f3e52a37011570f11a7b2c559c9ad3e45735bd296c","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"standards","topics":[{"id":"standards","evidence":"rough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to"},{"id":"research","evidence":"tion, that can only happen when studies from 3rd party testing publish the true results and ALL companies need to com"},{"id":"environment","evidence":" 6G and 10 G are proving to damage, insects, wildlife, and other environmental concerns, yet people are not "},{"id":"children","evidence":" concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPlease prioritize research that refle"},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPl"},{"id":"reproductive","evidence":"ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPlease prioritize resea"},{"id":"optical","evidence":"e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools.\n•Recommend updated standards whe"}],"summary":"Requests independent exposure research and enforceable protections, emphasizing environmental impacts, vulnerable groups and chronic nonthermal effects.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-05T20:06:38Z","review_method":"Full published comment-body review; exact shared paragraphs read once and reused losslessly; distinct official IDs preserved. Attachments and external links not reviewed.","review_source_sha256":"ae6e0f90ced5d4fc4c160aa976380bc2039918221651c632b01c19edc13b8312","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"supplied_classification":{"id":"HHS-OASH-2026-0397-1419","body_sha256":"16bcecefd58a5eb8d85708f3e52a37011570f11a7b2c559c9ad3e45735bd296c","status":"ai_reviewed","primary_topic":"standards","topics":[{"id":"standards","evidence":"rough, independent review of whether current exposure limits adequately protect public health. This review needs to"},{"id":"research","evidence":"tion, that can only happen when studies from 3rd party testing publish the true results and ALL companies need to com"},{"id":"environment","evidence":" 6G and 10 G are proving to damage, insects, wildlife, and other environmental concerns, yet people are not "},{"id":"children","evidence":" concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPlease prioritize research that refle"},{"id":"cancer","evidence":"issue heating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPl"},{"id":"reproductive","evidence":"ating, including evidence concerning cancer, reproductive health, and children’s development. \n\nPlease prioritize resea"},{"id":"optical","evidence":"e and practical ways to reduce it, including wired alternatives in homes and schools.\n•Recommend updated standards whe"}],"summary":"Requests independent exposure research and enforceable protections, emphasizing environmental impacts, vulnerable groups and chronic nonthermal effects.","reviewed_at":"2026-10-05T20:06:38Z","review_method":"Full published comment-body review; exact shared paragraphs read once and reused losslessly; distinct official IDs preserved. Attachments and external links not reviewed.","review_source_sha256":"ae6e0f90ced5d4fc4c160aa976380bc2039918221651c632b01c19edc13b8312","source_url":"https://rfsafe.net/hhs-comments/data/catalog.json","scope":"Original comment body; attachments excluded"},"attachment_metadata":[],"mirror_fingerprint":"355f6362af248a2168fc757a8c0adca1f5aecbbd44468661b7c64e71832cdfca","seo_modified":"2026-10-29T15:28:52Z","forum_topics":["standards","research","environment","children","cancer","reproductive","optical"],"primary_topic":"standards","forum_title":"Requests independent exposure research and enforceable protections, emphasizing environmental impacts, vu…"}