Dr. George Carlo was hired by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) in the 1990s to oversee a $25 million research initiative aimed at proving the safety of wireless radiation. His task was to reassure the public that RF exposure from mobile phones posed no significant health risks. However, the industry’s gamble backfired when Carlo’s research found evidence of non-thermal biological effects, including DNA damage and an increased risk of tumors.
1. George Carlo’s Role in Industry-Backed Research
- In 1993, amid growing public concerns over cell phone radiation risks, the CTIA commissioned George Carlo to lead the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) project.
- Carlo, known for his industry-friendly scientific work, was expected to validate the telecom industry’s stance that RF exposure was harmless.
- Instead, by the late 1990s, Carlo publicly stated that his research indicated serious health risks, including genetic damage and increased tumor risks from non-thermal RF exposure.
- In response, CTIA distanced itself from Carlo, dismissed his findings, and continued promoting the claim that only thermal effects mattered.
2. The Industry’s Response: Suppress and Discredit
- Carlo alleged that the telecom industry actively suppressed his findings to prevent public panic and liability issues.
- He later became a whistleblower, claiming the industry had known about non-thermal risks but deliberately ignored them in setting safety standards.
- Despite his findings, his past affiliations and reputation as a “science-for-hire” consultant raised skepticism in some circles.
3. Carlo’s Other Controversies
- While verifying Carlo’s scientific career, there is evidence he previously defended industries with questionable environmental records.
- Reports suggest he had worked for tobacco and chemical companies, allegedly downplaying risks in other public health crises.
- However, the key fact remains: Even a scientist hired to “prove” RF safety was forced to acknowledge the reality of non-thermal harm—an outcome the industry neither expected nor welcomed.
Conclusion
The CTIA-funded study was never intended to uncover risks, yet it did—and the industry’s reaction confirmed their intent to suppress inconvenient science. This is not the mark of an outdated policy—it is outright fraud. The FCC and telecom sector did not fail to update RF guidelines due to ignorance; they buried unfavorable research to protect their financial interests. This further underscores the orchestrated nature of Section 704 and the entire 1996 Trifecta of Deception.