The health risks associated with radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless devices have been a contentious issue for years. With the recent lawsuit brought forward by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealing significant gaps in regulatory oversight, it’s crucial to examine the positions of key policymakers, including FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. While Carr has defended the adequacy of current safety standards, emerging scientific evidence challenges the validity of these claims.
2018.12.17 FCC Carr to Blumenthal and Eshoo re RF Safety
1. The Misalignment Between FDA Claims and Scientific Evidence
Carr’s position hinges on the assertion that the FCC’s RF safety guidelines, based on FDA evaluations, are sufficient to protect public health. However, the 2021 RFK Jr. lawsuit demonstrated that the FDA lacks updated, peer-reviewed research supporting the adequacy of these 25-year-old standards.
- Fact Check: The FCC guidelines, established in 1996, are focused exclusively on the thermal effects of RF radiation. They do not account for non-thermal biological effects, which recent studies have increasingly linked to cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive health issues.
- Court Findings: The court ruled in favor of RFK Jr., emphasizing that both the FCC and FDA had failed to provide scientific evidence to justify their outdated safety standards.
2. The Biden-Harris Administration’s Response: Halting Research
While the court ruling demanded updated guidelines based on current science, the federal government’s response under the Biden-Harris administration was to cut funding for the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study—a pivotal investigation that found clear evidence of cancer from RF exposure.
- NTP Study Findings:
- Clear evidence of cancer (gliomas and cardiac schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation.
- Demonstrated biological effects at exposure levels comparable to those experienced by heavy mobile phone users.
- Ramazzini Institute Confirmation: The RI study, conducted at lower power levels akin to everyday human exposure, reinforced the NTP findings, further validating the carcinogenic potential of RF radiation.
- Implication: The halting of NTP research represents a troubling move away from evidence-based policymaking, leaving critical questions about RF safety unanswered.
3. Brendan Carr’s Incompatibility with Emerging Evidence
Carr’s continued endorsement of the FCC’s 1996 guidelines ignores the mounting body of evidence pointing to non-thermal health risks. This stance is not only outdated but also at odds with:
- The Court’s Mandate: The legal ruling requiring the FCC to update its guidelines to reflect modern scientific understanding.
- New Research: Studies like the NIEHS-Ramazzini collaboration, which found that tumors in rats exposed to RF radiation shared genetic and morphological similarities with human cancers, strongly suggest the need for updated safety standards.
- Call to Action: As FCC Chair nominee, Carr must acknowledge the inadequacy of existing guidelines and commit to addressing the court-mandated updates rather than perpetuating complacency.
4. The Consequences of Inaction
Failing to revise safety standards in light of scientific advancements carries significant risks:
- Public Health: Rising rates of cancers and neurological disorders could be linked to prolonged RF exposure under outdated safety limits.
- Scientific Suppression: The decision to halt NTP research reflects a broader pattern of stifling studies that could challenge entrenched industrial interests.
- Erosion of Trust: The public’s faith in regulatory agencies diminishes when evidence of harm is ignored or dismissed.
Brendan Carr’s documented positions on RF safety are increasingly incompatible with the realities of modern science. While the NTP and RI studies provide compelling evidence of non-thermal biological effects, the FCC’s guidelines remain woefully outdated. This disconnect poses a direct threat to public health and undermines efforts to establish trust in regulatory oversight.
As Carr’s potential confirmation looms, it is imperative for policymakers and the public to demand accountability and adherence to scientific evidence. The FCC must prioritize the health of the American people over the interests of the telecommunications industry.
