RFK Jr. Not Likely to See Eye to Eye with Brendan Carr on Cell Phone Radiation Safety

President-elect Donald Trump’s recent nominations of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Brendan Carr as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have sparked discussions due to their contrasting views on radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Stance on RF Radiation:

Kennedy has been a vocal critic of current RF safety standards, emphasizing potential non-thermal health effects of RF radiation. He has advocated for more stringent regulations and greater public awareness regarding RF exposure risks. In a 2024 interview, Kennedy stated, “My concern about 5G is that the RF radiation from 5G is dangerous. It penetrates and disrupts the blood-brain barrier.”

Brendan Carr’s Perspective on RF Radiation:

As an FCC Commissioner, Carr has supported the deployment of wireless technologies, including 5G, and has maintained that existing RF safety guidelines are adequate. He has emphasized the economic and technological benefits of expanding wireless infrastructure, often downplaying concerns about potential health risks. In a 2018 speech, Carr highlighted the importance of advancing 5G deployment to maintain global competitiveness.

RFK Jr.’s Epic Court Win: A Game-Changer for Public Health

In a landmark 2021 decision, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his team achieved a major victory against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the FCC guilty of neglecting decades of scientific evidence demonstrating the harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR). This ruling forced the FCC to revisit its outdated 1996 guidelines, which fail to account for non-thermal health effects, including cancer and neurological disorders.

Now, with RFK Jr. likely leading the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Brendan Carr nominated as FCC Chair, a potential clash of perspectives is brewing. RFK Jr.’s commitment to advancing public health through evidence-based policies stands in stark contrast to Carr’s prior defense of outdated RFR safety standards.

RFK Jr. vs. Brendan Carr: Two Divergent Paths on RF Safety

RFK Jr.’s Position: The Public Health Advocate

1. The Courtroom Victory
   RFK Jr.’s lawsuit revealed glaring inadequacies in FCC safety standards, highlighting a failure to consider the non-thermal biological effects of RFR exposure. The court ruled these guidelines “arbitrary and capricious,” noting that the FCC ignored substantial evidence linking RFR exposure to cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive harm.
2. Science-Based Policies
   RFK Jr. champions public health by pushing for updated safety regulations rooted in modern science. Key studies from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Ramazzini Institute, which found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage from RFR, underscore the urgency of his mission.
3. Accountability for Regulatory Capture
   RFK Jr. has long fought against regulatory capture, where agencies like the FCC are influenced by the industries they regulate. His leadership style emphasizes transparency and holding corporations accountable for public health risks.

Brendan Carr’s Position: The Status Quo Defender

2018.12.17 FCC Carr to Blumenthal and Eshoo re RF Safety

1. Support for Outdated Guidelines
   Carr has historically defended the FCC’s 1996 safety standards, stating they are sufficient to protect the public despite mounting evidence to the contrary. These guidelines focus solely on the thermal effects of RFR and disregard non-thermal biological impacts.
2. Industry Alignment
   Carr’s statements often align with the telecommunications industry’s stance, which benefits from the continuation of outdated safety regulations. His defense of the FCC’s inaction contrasts sharply with the court’s ruling demanding updated guidelines.
3. Incompatibility with Modern Science
   Carr’s position ignores thousands of peer-reviewed studies that document the non-thermal effects of RFR, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disruptions to bioelectric communication.

The NTP Study and Ramazzini Confirmation: RFK Jr.’s Scientific Arsenal

RFK Jr.’s case is bolstered by groundbreaking research:

• NTP Findings: The National Toxicology Program’s decade-long study found clear evidence of cancer in animals exposed to RF radiation at levels comparable to heavy cell phone use.
• Ramazzini Institute: Independent confirmation came from this Italian research group, which replicated the NTP findings at lower power levels akin to everyday human exposure. Their studies revealed striking genetic and morphological similarities between tumors in rats and human gliomas.

In stark contrast, Carr has largely ignored these studies, continuing to back guidelines that fail to reflect this growing body of evidence.

Regulatory Capture and the Halting of Research

RFK Jr.’s Fight for Transparency

RFK Jr. has been vocal about regulatory capture, where agencies like the FCC prioritize industry interests over public health. This issue came into sharp focus when the Biden-Harris administration abruptly cut funding for the NTP study after it revealed clear evidence of cancer risks.

Carr’s Role in Stalled Progress

While the court ordered the FCC to update its safety guidelines, Carr’s past inaction highlights a troubling pattern of complacency. By defending outdated standards and failing to act on emerging science, Carr’s leadership risks leaving the public unprotected.

The Path Forward: RFK Jr.’s Vision for HHS and the FCC’s Accountability

RFK Jr.’s appointment as HHS Secretary could mark a pivotal shift toward evidence-based policymaking. His leadership would likely focus on:

• Updating RFR safety standards to reflect non-thermal health risks.
• Reinstating independent research into the biological effects of RFR.
• Educating the public about safe technology use.

Carr, on the other hand, must acknowledge the court’s mandate and commit to updating the FCC’s guidelines. Anything less risks perpetuating the regulatory capture that has allowed the telecommunications industry to operate with impunity.

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.

A Call to Action: Bridging the Divide

As these two figures prepare to assume key roles, it is critical for the public and policymakers to demand:

1. Accountability: Both HHS and the FCC must prioritize public health over industry interests.
2. Transparency: Regulatory decisions should be informed by independent, peer-reviewed science.
3. Collaboration: Bridging the gap between RFK Jr.’s and Carr’s positions could pave the way for balanced, evidence-based regulations.

The health of future generations depends on bold, informed leadership. It’s time to move beyond complacency and ensure that our regulatory agencies work for the public, not the industries they oversee.