Dear President Trump,
As a nation that prides itself on being a global leader in science, innovation, and public health, it’s deeply concerning that America has relinquished its role in studying the health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Shockingly, we are now looking to nations like Iraq to conduct vital research that the United States once pioneered. This dependency on foreign research is a stark reminder of the gaps in our leadership—a role we must urgently reclaim if we are to safeguard the health of Americans and maintain our status as a global leader in technology.
You have spoken passionately about America being the best, the strongest, and the leader in all things. Yet, when it comes to understanding the biological effects of RF radiation, a technology woven into the fabric of modern life, we have fallen behind. Here’s why this matters and what we must do to change course.
The FCC’s Failure and the Court Victories of RFK Jr. and Environmental Health Trust
In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of RFK Jr. and the Environmental Health Trust, highlighting the FCC’s failure to adequately update its RF exposure safety guidelines. The court found that:
- The FCC ignored evidence of non-thermal biological effects.
- The FCC’s guidelines, set in 1996, remain rooted in a thermal-only model, assuming harm occurs only when tissues are heated. Yet, studies—including the National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings—demonstrate that non-thermal mechanisms such as oxidative stress, DNA damage, and calcium channel dysregulation can cause biological harm.
- Vulnerable populations were overlooked.
- The FCC failed to address the unique risks to children, pregnant individuals, and those with pre-existing health conditions. This neglect leaves millions of Americans unprotected from the potential health risks of chronic RF exposure.
- Scientific evidence was dismissed.
- The court criticized the FCC for ignoring over 11,000 pages of scientific evidence, including studies linking RF radiation to cancer, infertility, and neurological effects.
This landmark ruling not only highlights the inadequacy of our current standards but underscores a troubling abdication of responsibility by federal agencies tasked with protecting public health.
Iraq is Now Leading the Way in RF Research
The recent Iraqi study published in the Open Veterinary Journal (2024) serves as a sobering example of how far America has fallen behind. Researchers from the University of Mosul and University of Tikrit conducted a robust investigation into the effects of LTE signals (850 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2600 MHz) on rats. They found:
- Hematological Changes: Significant alterations in red and white blood cell counts, hemoglobin levels, and platelet counts, depending on frequency and exposure duration.
- Thermal Effects: Chronic RF exposure caused persistent temperature elevation in specific body regions, as revealed through thermographic imaging.
- Nonlinear Dose-Response Relationships: Biological effects did not correlate linearly with exposure levels, complicating the traditional SAR-based safety model.
Why is this research coming out of Iraq and not America? How can we, the supposed leader of the free world, be depending on foreign nations to conduct critical research into a ubiquitous technology?
What America Stands to Lose
1. Public Health Risks
The pervasive use of wireless technologies—smartphones, 5G towers, Wi-Fi—means that nearly every American is exposed to RF radiation daily. Yet, without up-to-date research and safety guidelines, we cannot adequately protect our citizens. Studies like the NTP report and the Iraqi study suggest that chronic RF exposure may contribute to:
- Cancer (e.g., heart schwannomas, gliomas)
- Neurological disorders
- Immune dysfunction
- Reproductive health issues
2. Economic Consequences
Ignoring RF health risks could lead to litigation costs and public mistrust in American technology companies. As seen in the tobacco and asbestos industries, failure to address health risks early can cripple industries in the long term.
3. Loss of Global Leadership
By outsourcing critical research to countries like Iraq, we risk losing our credibility as a leader in science and innovation. If other nations take the lead in understanding RF health effects, they will also lead in developing safer technologies—leaving America behind.
A Call to Reclaim Leadership
Mr. Trump, your presidency presents a unique opportunity to restore America’s leadership in RF health research. Here are concrete steps to make that happen:
1. Reestablish Federally Funded RF Research
- Revive programs like the National Toxicology Program’s RF studies to ensure independent, long-term investigations into the biological effects of RF radiation.
- Allocate funding to the NIH and EPA for studies on vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant individuals.
2. Modernize FCC Guidelines
- Update the FCC’s exposure limits to include evidence of non-thermal effects, as demonstrated by the NTP study and other international research.
- Lower SAR thresholds to account for nonlinear dose-response relationships, ensuring that even low-level exposures are adequately regulated.
3. Establish a National RF Task Force
- Convene a task force of scientists, engineers, and public health experts to evaluate emerging evidence and recommend comprehensive safety standards for 5G, 6G, and beyond.
- Include representatives from vulnerable communities to ensure their needs are prioritized.
4. Promote Public Awareness
- Launch a nationwide campaign to educate Americans on reducing RF exposure, such as using hands-free devices, turning off Wi-Fi at night, and keeping phones away from the body.
America Must Lead—Not Follow
President-elect Trump, your vision for American greatness must include leadership in RF health research. Dependence on nations like Iraq to fill the gaps left by our own regulatory failures is unacceptable. The court victories of RFK Jr. and the Environmental Health Trust have laid bare the scientific shortcomings of the FCC, and the NTP study has demonstrated the urgent need for reform.
America has the resources, talent, and ingenuity to lead the world in understanding and mitigating the risks of RF radiation. But doing so requires bold action—now.
Let’s make America the leader in science, safety, and innovation once again. Because a truly great nation protects its people, invests in the truth, and sets the standard for the world to follow.
Sincerely,
John Coates
10 FAQs About RF Radiation and the Need for Updated Guidelines
1. Why is RF radiation a concern?
RF radiation from wireless devices and networks has been linked to potential health effects, including cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive issues, especially after long-term exposure.
2. What is SAR, and why is it important?
SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) measures how much RF energy is absorbed by the body. Current FCC guidelines only account for thermal (heating) effects and ignore non-thermal impacts observed in studies like the NTP report.
3. What did the NTP study find?
The study found clear evidence of cancer and other biological effects at SAR levels that did not cause measurable heating, challenging the thermal-only safety model.
4. Why are FCC guidelines outdated?
Set in 1996, these guidelines fail to account for modern research showing non-thermal effects, chronic exposure risks, and the unique vulnerabilities of certain populations.
5. Why is Iraq conducting RF research?
With the U.S. scaling back its RF studies, countries like Iraq are stepping up to investigate the biological effects of wireless radiation, filling a critical research void.
6. What are nonlinear dose-response relationships?
Nonlinear relationships mean that lower exposure levels can sometimes cause greater harm than higher levels, complicating traditional safety models.
7. Are children more vulnerable to RF radiation?
Yes. Children’s developing brains and thinner skulls make them more susceptible to RF radiation. Current guidelines fail to account for these vulnerabilities.
8. How can I reduce RF exposure?
- Use hands-free devices.
- Keep devices away from your body.
- Turn off Wi-Fi and other wireless devices when not in use.
9. What is the court ruling against the FCC?
The court found that the FCC ignored evidence of non-thermal effects and failed to update its guidelines to protect public health adequately.
10. What needs to happen next?
The U.S. must reinvest in independent RF research, update safety standards to include non-thermal effects, and educate the public about reducing unnecessary exposure.
Final Thought:
The future of wireless technology depends not just on speed and connectivity but on safety. America must lead in ensuring that innovation does not come at the cost of public health. Let’s seize this opportunity to make a lasting impact.
