RF Safe Logo

Radiofrequency Radiation: The Urgent Need to Reclassify Health Risks and Reform Public Policy

The Double-Edged Sword of Radiofrequency Radiation

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), the backbone of modern wireless communication, is rapidly becoming one of the most pressing public health issues of our time. On one side, RFR powers life-saving medical innovations like the FDA-approved TheraBionic P1, a revolutionary device that uses amplitude-modulated RF waves to treat advanced liver cancer. On the other side, studies like those from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute highlight clear evidence of RFR’s carcinogenic potential, even at non-thermal exposure levels.

The breakthroughs in RF-based cancer treatments shine a spotlight on the misclassification of RFR health risks—a misunderstanding rooted in outdated safety guidelines that focus solely on thermal effects. It’s becoming evident that RFR’s biological interactions extend far beyond heating, encompassing non-thermal effects like oxidative stress, DNA damage, and altered cellular signaling. Yet, the regulatory framework remains stuck in the 1990s, leaving the public unprotected from the real risks posed by wireless technology.

This blog post makes the case for urgent reforms in RFR safety standards, highlights the latest medical breakthroughs, and explains how we must act now to protect public health.


I. The Case for Reclassifying RFR Health Risks

1. Outdated FCC Safety Guidelines: Ignoring Non-Thermal Effects

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to rely on guidelines established in 1996, which are based solely on thermal effects—the heating of tissue caused by RF radiation. These standards are grossly inadequate in light of modern scientific evidence demonstrating significant non-thermal biological effects, including:

Why This Matters

We The People Demand

The FCC must update its safety guidelines to reflect current scientific understanding. This means:


2. Restart National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Research

The NTP’s groundbreaking studies on RFR provided clear evidence of its carcinogenic effects, marking a turning point in the scientific understanding of non-thermal risks. Yet, despite the significance of these findings, there are growing concerns about the continuation of this critical research.

Why This Matters

We The People Demand

We call for the immediate continuation and expansion of NTP’s research. This work is essential for:

Halting NTP research after finding evidence of harm is akin to discovering smoking causes cancer and then stopping all further studies. Such inaction is irresponsible and endangers public health.


3. End FCC Regulatory Capture: Prioritize Public Health Over Profits

The FCC’s decision-making has long been influenced by industry insiders, creating conflicts of interest that undermine public safety. This regulatory capture has allowed wireless technologies to proliferate without adequate safety testing.

Why This Matters

We The People Demand

The FCC must implement reforms to eliminate industry influence, including:


4. Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Restore Local Rights

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents local governments from rejecting cell tower placements based on health concerns, effectively stripping communities of their ability to protect residents from RF exposure.

Why This Matters

We The People Demand

Amend the Telecommunications Act to:


II. Medical Breakthroughs Highlight the Misclassification of RFR Risks

The approval of the TheraBionic P1 device highlights the therapeutic potential of RF radiation, but it also underscores the inadequacy of current safety classifications. If RFR can shrink tumors at non-thermal levels, how can regulators continue to dismiss non-thermal effects in the context of public exposure?

1. The Science Behind TheraBionic P1

The TheraBionic P1 device operates at 27.12 MHz, a frequency amplitude-modulated to disrupt liver cancer cells without harming healthy tissue. This non-invasive treatment offers:

2. Implications for Safety Guidelines

If RFR can produce profound biological effects at levels lower than those emitted by cell phones, it’s clear that non-thermal interactions must be taken seriously. The success of TheraBionic demonstrates:


III. Taking Action: A Call for Reform

Radiofrequency radiation represents both a challenge and an opportunity. To fully harness its potential while protecting public health, we must act on three fronts:

1. Update FCC Safety Guidelines

2. Support Ongoing Research

3. Demand Regulatory Accountability


Conclusion: The Path Forward

The medical breakthroughs achieved with devices like TheraBionic P1 should inspire hope, but they also demand accountability. These innovations prove that non-thermal effects are real and significant—and that the current misclassification of RFR health risks must end.

By updating safety standards, restarting essential research, and ensuring transparent regulation, we can balance the risks and rewards of RFR, paving the way for a safer, healthier future.


References

  1. National Toxicology Program (NTP): Final Reports on RFR.
  2. TheraBionic P1: Karmanos Cancer Institute.
  3. Court Rulings on FCC Guidelines: Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (2021).
  4. Michael Levin’s Bioelectric Research: Publications on tumor suppression via bioelectric signaling.