Rethinking EMF Awareness: Why Policy and Research Matter More Than Meters

In recent years, public awareness about the potential health risks associated with radiofrequency radiation (RFR) has grown, thanks to the tireless efforts of organizations like the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and advocates like RFK Jr. Their landmark victory against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2020 shone a spotlight on the inadequacy of FCC guidelines for RFR exposure, which fail to address the non-thermal biological effects of electromagnetic fields. However, as we approach the fourth anniversary of that case, it’s clear that more needs to be done—and the current focus on programs like the EHT EMF Meter Grant Program raises concerns about priorities and effectiveness.

---

A Misplaced Focus: EMF Meters for Libraries

The EHT’s initiative to subsidize EMF meters for U.S. public libraries is undoubtedly well-intentioned, aiming to provide individuals with tools to measure RFR exposure in their homes and communities. However, this program raises several critical questions:

1. Irrelevant Frequency Coverage:
   • The program promotes Safe and Sound Pro mmWave meters, which measure the 20-40 GHz range. Yet, these high-frequency millimeter waves are not widely deployed across the U.S. Most RFR exposure comes from sub-6 GHz sources, such as cell towers, Wi-Fi, and mobile devices.
   • Encouraging libraries to invest in mmWave meters, which cost nearly $300 even with subsidies, feels misaligned with the real-world exposure scenarios most people face.
2. Limited Empowerment:
   • While measuring RFR levels can help individuals identify sources of radiation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) prevents communities from challenging the placement of these sources based on health concerns. Without policy changes, knowing your exposure levels often leads to frustration rather than meaningful action.
3. Misallocation of Resources:
   • The EHT has allocated $5,000 to subsidize these meters. While that may seem modest, these funds could be better spent on lobbying for policy reforms or supporting research into safer technologies. Empowering individuals to act requires more than data—it requires systemic change.

---

The Real Issue: Outdated FCC Guidelines and the TCA of 1996

The crux of the problem lies in the misclassification of RFR health risks and the legislative roadblocks that prevent communities from addressing these risks effectively.

1. Outdated FCC Guidelines

• The FCC’s RFR safety standards, based on decades-old research, ignore mounting evidence of non-thermal biological effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, and cancer.
• The 2020 court case spearheaded by EHT and RFK Jr. exposed these inadequacies, yet no concrete steps have been taken to update the guidelines. Why hasn’t the FCC followed through with a reevaluation of these standards, nearly four years after the ruling?

2. The Telecommunications Act of 1996

• The TCA of 1996 prevents local governments from challenging the placement of wireless infrastructure based on health concerns. This means that even if RFR levels exceed building biologist safety thresholds but remain under FCC limits, communities are powerless to demand relocation or mitigation of radiation sources.
• Amending the TCA is critical, yet there has been little visible effort from organizations or advocates to push for this change in recent years.

3. The Cancellation of NTP Research

• The National Toxicology Program (NTP) found clear evidence of cancer linked to RFR exposure, yet funding constraints led to the cancellation of further research. This is a devastating blow to efforts to understand and address the health impacts of wireless radiation.
• Instead of funding programs like the EMF Meter Grant, why aren’t we seeing a concerted effort to restore NTP research funding or launch new studies into the biological effects of RFR?

---

Are mmWave Frequencies Commonplace in the U.S.?

1. Current Deployment Status:
   • 5G Networks and mmWave: While 5G networks often use mmWave frequencies, their large-scale deployment is limited due to technical challenges:
     • Short Range: mmWave signals have a short range and are easily blocked by obstacles like buildings, trees, and even rain, making them unsuitable for broad coverage.
     • Limited Deployment: Currently, mmWave is mostly deployed in dense urban areas, specific hotspots like stadiums, and certain business districts. This technology is far from being ubiquitous in most U.S. communities, especially in rural or suburban areas where lower frequencies (sub-6 GHz) are predominantly used.
2. Public Libraries’ Exposure:
   • The majority of public libraries are not located in mmWave hotspots. Unless a library is situated in a downtown area with extensive mmWave deployment (as mapped by carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile), the likelihood of significant exposure to 20-40 GHz frequencies is extremely low.
   • Libraries in suburban or rural areas, which make up a significant portion of U.S. libraries, are almost exclusively exposed to lower frequencies (e.g., 700 MHz to 6 GHz), not 20-40 GHz mmWave frequencies.

Questioning the Recommendation to Purchase mmWave Meters

1. Cost Concerns:
   • The Safe and Sound Pro mmWave meter is far more expensive than its sub-6 GHz counterpart. Even with the subsidy, libraries are being asked to pay $297.15 plus shipping, compared to just $109.72 for the Safe and Sound Pro II, which measures the more relevant 200 MHz – 8 GHz range.
   • Promoting this costly device when most libraries are unlikely to encounter mmWave signals raises questions about the program’s practicality and cost-effectiveness.
2. Utility of the mmWave Meter:
   • Without widespread deployment of mmWave frequencies, the practical utility of such meters for most library patrons is negligible. Encouraging libraries to invest in these devices might lead to unnecessary spending, diverting resources from more urgent priorities, like addressing sub-6 GHz exposures that are far more prevalent.

Is This a Strategic Oversight?

• It appears that Safe Living Technologies and EHT may be overemphasizing the need for mmWave meters without adequately considering the real-world frequency exposures most libraries and their patrons face.

While the 20-40 GHz range might become more relevant in the future as mmWave 5G expands, the current reality does not justify widespread investment in these devices by public libraries. The program would likely be more effective if it focused exclusively on sub-6 GHz meters, which address the most common and pressing RF exposure concerns in the U.S. today without exposing public libraries to unnecessary expenses.

What Needs to Happen Next

If we’re serious about addressing the health risks of wireless radiation, we need to focus on policy and systemic change:

1. Push for Updated FCC Guidelines:
   • The FCC must be held accountable for its failure to reevaluate safety standards in light of mounting scientific evidence. Advocacy groups should prioritize lobbying for updated, evidence-based guidelines.
2. Amend the TCA of 1996:
   • The TCA’s restrictions on challenging wireless infrastructure placement are a significant barrier to reducing community exposure. Advocates and organizations must work to amend this outdated legislation to empower local governments and citizens.
3. Restore Research Funding:
   • The cancellation of NTP research is unacceptable. Renewing funding for studies on the biological effects of RFR, including the exploration of safe alternatives like satellite-based communication, should be a top priority.
4. Focus on Practical Solutions:
   • Programs like the EMF Meter Grant can be valuable, but they must be relevant to real-world exposures. Subsidizing sub-6 GHz meters instead of mmWave meters would better serve communities concerned about everyday RFR sources.
5. Explore Innovative Alternatives:
   • Technologies like satellite-based direct-to-cell communication offer the potential to reduce ground-based radiation sources. Continued research into such innovations could pave the way for safer communication networks.

The EHT and RFK Jr. deserve recognition for their groundbreaking work in exposing the FCC’s failures. However, the fight against the health risks of RFR requires a sharper focus on policy reform, scientific research, and innovative solutions. Subsidizing expensive mmWave meters that are irrelevant in most exposure scenarios does little to address the root of the problem. Instead, let’s prioritize the actions that will truly empower the public: updating FCC guidelines, amending the TCA of 1996, and restoring critical research into the health effects of wireless radiation.

It’s time to move beyond symbolic gestures and focus on the systemic changes that will protect public health for generations to come.