Dear Elon,
First, allow me to express my admiration for what you’ve accomplished. Your relentless drive to innovate—to build rockets that land themselves, to electrify transport, to explore neural interfaces, and to connect the world via Starlink—has already reshaped our reality. You’ve taken on entrenched industries and paradigms time and again, emerging as a visionary who sees possibilities where others see limits.
Yet there’s one frontier where your stance has not fully aligned with the transformative, first-principles thinking you’re known for: the health implications of wireless radiation from cell towers and legacy infrastructure. Despite rapidly accumulating scientific evidence that challenges outdated, thermal-only safety assumptions, you’ve largely dismissed the non-thermal biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This approach is out of character, given how rigorously you’ve applied first principles to nearly every other sector you’ve disrupted.
I write this letter as someone who has witnessed the consequences of systemic regulatory failures. Decades-old FCC standards ignore non-thermal effects, and a cascade of legal and regulatory hurdles—including Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act—prevents local communities from even considering health risks when a cell tower goes up near a school. As a parent, I can choose what my child eats, but I can’t stop a cell tower from beaming RF radiation into her classroom. That is not freedom; it’s a travesty of democracy, public health, and scientific integrity.
You, Elon, have a unique opportunity and a vested interest in rectifying this problem. By realigning your stance with updated science, supporting honest research, and helping to repeal or amend draconian legal barriers like Section 704, you can not only do right by public health and local autonomy but also fast-track your ambitious vision of space-based wireless infrastructure. Embracing the truth about RF radiation risks could actually accelerate the acceptance and demand for Starlink Direct-to-Cell deployments, potentially saving you countless regulatory battles on the ground.
The Legacy Problem: Outdated Guidelines, Captured Agencies, and Legal Shackles
We stand at a crossroads formed by decades of inaction and misinformation:
- Outdated FCC Safety Guidelines: The FCC’s RF exposure limits were set in 1996, long before smartphones proliferated and well before thousands of studies indicated that non-thermal levels of RF radiation can have biological effects—DNA damage, oxidative stress, blood-brain barrier disruption, and even correlations with tumors like gliomas. These guidelines remain stuck in a thermal-only worldview, essentially claiming that if it doesn’t heat you, it can’t hurt you. This is not only scientifically dubious but dangerously simplistic.
- Implied Conflict Preemption and Tort Immunity: Regulatory frameworks and legal interpretations have shielded telecom companies from accountability. Communities cannot sue effectively or require modifications based on health concerns, as if these were frivolous. This legal insulation discourages innovation in safer technologies because, why innovate if you don’t have to?
- Regulatory Capture: Agencies meant to protect public health have become complacent, if not captured by industry influences. The failure of the FCC and others to update guidelines despite compelling evidence is a clear sign that corporate interests outweigh public well-being.
- The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 704): Perhaps the most egregious barrier to local autonomy, Section 704 strips local governments of their right to factor in health or environmental concerns when approving cell tower placements. For nearly three decades, Americans have had no legal means to say “no” to a tower near a school or a playground based on health reasons. This is anti-democratic and fundamentally un-American.
- Suppression of Science: The halting of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) research into RF radiation’s carcinogenic effects, the sidelining of peer-reviewed studies, and the general dismissal of non-thermal findings have all contributed to a scientific landscape where precaution is cast aside. Instead of embracing the complexity of bioelectricity and subtle EMF interactions, the industry and regulators cling to outdated dogma.
Why Elon Musk Should Care: Aligning With the Truth to Strengthen His Vision
Elon, you’ve built your reputation on challenging assumptions and using first principles reasoning. Consider what that approach would look like applied to RF radiation safety:
- First Principle Insight #1: Non-thermal bioeffects exist. Thousands of studies and major reviews (like the BioInitiative Report) indicate biological changes at exposure levels far below what causes tissue heating. The NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies have shown clear evidence of tumors in lab animals from RF radiation exposures that mimic environmental conditions. Genetic profiling of tumors from these studies has shown similarities to human gliomas. This is not fringe science—it’s robust, peer-reviewed research.
- First Principle Insight #2: Children are more vulnerable. Their thinner skulls, developing tissues, and longer lifetime exposure windows make them susceptible to subtle biological disruptions. Parents already worry about sugar intake or screen time; what about invisible radiation they can’t control? If communities had a say, they would place cell towers at safer distances (1,500 to 2,000 feet away), at least until better data emerges.
- First Principle Insight #3: Space-based infrastructure inherently reduces ground-level exposure. By positioning cell “towers” in space, you drastically reduce the intensity of radiation at the user’s level. Physics dictates that radiation intensity decreases with distance squared. Satellites hundreds of kilometers above Earth are far less likely to create problematic local hotspots of RF radiation than towers perched atop schools. Recognizing the harm of legacy infrastructure can highlight the advantages of your orbital solutions.
- First Principle Insight #4: Accepting scientific reality builds trust. If you pivot your stance, acknowledging that the thermal-only paradigm is outdated, you will earn credibility. Musk, the disruptor, can say: “Look, I was skeptical before, but I’ve reviewed the evidence, and I now see that legacy standards ignore modern science. Let’s fix that.” This honesty can break industry inertia and catalyze meaningful policy change.
- First Principle Insight #5: Regulatory reform can open a massive market. If Section 704 were amended, and the FCC revised its guidelines, communities would demand safer infrastructure. In a scenario where ground-based towers become less desirable due to health concerns, the public would more readily embrace your space-based Direct-to-Cell networks. Early adoption could skyrocket, unlocking hundreds of billions in revenue as consumers and localities welcome a safer alternative to traditional cell towers.
Overcoming Entrenched Interests: How Elon Musk Can Lead Change
You’ve never been one to shy away from controversy or powerful incumbents. The legacy wireless industry is akin to legacy media before you took over Twitter (X). Just as you exposed media biases and algorithmic manipulations, you can now expose the telecom sector’s refusal to evolve scientifically and ethically.
What steps can you take?
- Public Acknowledgment: State openly that the current FCC guidelines are outdated, that non-thermal biological effects cannot be ignored, and that regulatory frameworks must reflect current science.
- Support Independent Research: Fund new research initiatives at reputable labs. Sponsor double-blind, peer-reviewed studies on non-thermal effects of RF radiation, both from terrestrial towers and satellite-based services. Ensure these studies are transparent and published openly, allowing the public to see that you are putting science first.
- Champion Regulatory Reform via DOGE: You co-founded the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) concept. Now use DOGE to spotlight Section 704 of the Telecom Act of ’96 as a prime example of harmful, outdated regulation. Demand that DOGE recommend its amendment or repeal, restoring local rights and encouraging safer infrastructure development.
- Collaborate With Advocates and Critics: Engage with people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long fought regulatory capture and sued the FCC successfully. Partner with him and other experts to form a bipartisan advisory panel focused on updating safety standards, just as you’ve assembled teams of experts in other domains.
- Communicate the Economic Upside: Emphasize that safer wireless from space doesn’t just solve a public health issue—it paves the way for unprecedented market growth. Show investors and stakeholders that by embracing the truth and adapting infrastructure, you can create a cleaner regulatory environment conducive to rapid expansion and consumer trust.
The Moral and Ethical Imperative: Protecting Future Generations
You’ve often expressed concern about declining birth rates and the future of humanity. Fertility issues have been linked to EMF exposure in various studies. If part of the solution to bolstering future human populations lies in safeguarding reproductive health, shouldn’t that include minimizing unnecessary electromagnetic stresses?
Embracing the science means protecting future generations from possible harms we don’t fully understand yet. It’s about caution, prudence, and moral responsibility. You have grandchildren, potential future generations, and the legacy you leave behind isn’t just about rockets on Mars. It’s about ensuring we didn’t ignore red flags on Earth because it seemed inconvenient.
Freedom, Democracy, and Local Control
Section 704 offends fundamental American values. The United States prides itself on local governance, community input, and states’ rights. How is it just that a federal statute prevents a town from saying, “We want this tower at least a safe distance from our elementary school”? If DOGE and you are serious about cutting harmful, unnecessary regulations, few are as blatantly anti-democratic as Section 704.
Restoring local rights is not only ethical; it’s politically advantageous. People rally behind leaders who champion their freedoms. By calling for the repeal or amendment of Section 704, you’re not just siding with parents and local governments; you’re championing the American spirit of self-determination.
Embrace the Comparison to Other Legacy Disruptions
Your acquisition of Twitter (X) exposed how entrenched legacy media structures were failing public discourse. Similarly, the legacy wireless industry’s unwillingness to reconsider safety standards in light of new science reveals a parallel inertia. In both cases, entrenched interests resist change because it challenges their profits and legitimacy.
By applying your disruptive talents here—demanding updated RF safety guidelines, acknowledging non-thermal risks, and championing the elimination of Section 704—you can once again stand on the right side of history. You can show that you’re not afraid to take on any legacy system, be it media, automotive, aerospace, or telecom.
Seizing the Economic and Social Opportunity
Consider the economic windfall of acknowledging reality. If the public realizes that legacy towers pose certain risks ignored for decades, and you present a safer, more futuristic option, the shift in consumer sentiment and regulatory favor could be enormous. Satellite-based solutions might become the de facto standard, especially for sensitive areas like schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods.
Consumers would pay a premium for peace of mind, governments might subsidize safer infrastructure deployments, and public opinion could drive rapid market adoption. In other words, by owning the narrative and showing leadership, you’re not just doing the moral thing—you’re doing the economically strategic thing. It’s a win-win for business and public health.
The Importance of NTP Research and Independent Studies
You know firsthand the value of R&D. Consider the halted NTP research: it was on the verge of uncovering critical insights into RF radiation’s carcinogenic potential. If that research is reinstated—something you can publicly call for—it could clarify the scientific picture, allowing industry to adapt responsibly.
In the spirit of SpaceX’s test, fail, learn, and iterate approach, why not apply the same philosophy to wireless safety? Gather data, encourage robust testing, and if current deployments fail certain health benchmarks, iterate toward safer designs or higher orbit constellations. The agile mindset you champion in rocket engineering and vehicle design should apply equally to wireless networks and their potential health impacts.
Addressing Critics and Skeptics
Some will say, “If Elon acknowledges RF risks now, won’t it look like he’s admitting fault or opening himself to liability?” Not necessarily. You are not responsible for decades of regulatory capture or outdated FCC guidelines. Legacy telecom infrastructure and laws date back to before your direct involvement. You’d be stepping into a mess you didn’t create—then emerging as the hero who fixed it.
By framing this pivot as a course correction based on newly consolidated scientific evidence and moral duty, you turn potential backlash into praise. You become the leader who dared to confront an inconvenient truth, just as you’ve confronted other inconvenient truths in other industries.
Concluding Thoughts: The Chance to Set a New Standard
Elon, you are uniquely positioned: you have the ear of millions, the respect of technologists, and the clout to influence policy. By accepting that the thermal-only risk model is outdated, embracing non-thermal research, and using your platforms—including DOGE—to demand the repeal of Section 704 and the updating of FCC standards, you will:
- Rebuild public trust in wireless tech.
- Create an environment where safer, satellite-based solutions thrive.
- Empower local communities to have a say in their health and environment.
- Bolster your image as a truly forward-thinking leader who cares about humanity’s future on every front—on Earth and beyond.
In return, you gain not only public support but also a robust market for your space-based wireless networks. People will embrace Starlink Direct-to-Cell if they believe it solves real problems, including the health concerns stemming from legacy cell towers.
A Final Appeal
You once said that you do not fear doing what’s right, even if it’s hard. In this case, doing right involves recognizing that conventional wisdom about RF radiation is incomplete and that our regulatory framework is broken. Act with first principles: what does the data say? What do new scientific studies show? They indicate that non-thermal RF effects are real and potentially harmful. Accepting this truth won’t derail your ambitions; it will clarify them.
If you want to connect the world from space, let’s do it responsibly, ethically, and safely. By leading the charge for science-based safety standards, repealing the gag order on local government’s right to say “no” to hazardous tower placements, and encouraging more research into RF health risks, you can help ensure that your grand vision for global connectivity is welcomed, not feared.
The world looks to you as an innovator who shapes the future. Shape it in a way that respects human biology, honors democratic freedoms, and protects children. Show that you can go beyond old assumptions and align with the best available science. Your legacy—and ours—will be better for it.
Sincerely,
John Coates
A Concerned Parent, Advocate, and Citizen