WIRELESS RADIATION HEALTH RISK! ⚠

The 1996 Betrayal: How Section 704 and Thermal Guidelines Sold Out America’s Children

It’s morning in suburban Florida. John Coates watches his seven-year-old daughter bounce out of the car and walk toward her elementary school. She’s carrying her favorite lunchbox, chatting with a friend, and brimming with the boundless energy only a child can have. But her classroom, where she’ll sit for six hours a day, is 465 feet from a towering cell antenna—a structure he cannot help but see as a looming threat.

Coates knows the science, and he knows the risks. According to the BioInitiative Report, a landmark compilation of over 1,800 studies on radiofrequency radiation (RF), children should be at least 1,500 feet away from cell towers to minimize exposure. That distance could mean the difference between safe biological functioning and long-term harm. Yet here sits his little girl, a third of that recommended safety buffer away, day after day.

Even worse, Coates knows he is legally gagged from raising these concerns in any meaningful way. A provision buried in the Telecommunications Act of 1996Section 704—makes it illegal for communities to cite health risks when objecting to cell tower placements. Parents like Coates are silenced, while children are left exposed.

“This is no longer just a regulatory failure—it’s a moral crisis. Our laws were built to protect industry profits, not human health. Now my daughter sits in the shadow of that failure every single day.”
—John Coates, founder of RF Safe


A Defining Moment: The Systemic Failures of 1996

In 1996, the United States made a series of critical decisions that would shape the health and safety of its citizens for decades to come. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, the thermal-only guidelines, and the industry influence embedded within federal agencies all collided in a way that ensured rapid wireless expansion—but at an unthinkable cost.

These decisions were made without proper scientific scrutiny, public oversight, or ethical consideration for their long-term impacts on children, families, and communities. What began as a push for innovation became a legislative betrayal that undermined public health and constitutional freedoms.


The Telecommunications Act and Section 704: Silencing Communities

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was celebrated as a landmark moment for the information age. But hidden within its sweeping text was Section 704, which barred local governments from rejecting cell towers based on health or environmental concerns. This single provision had devastating consequences:

“Section 704 handed the keys to the telecom industry, while communities were told to stay quiet. It’s hard to imagine a more direct betrayal of democratic principles.”
—Anonymous constitutional scholar


Thermal-Only Guidelines: A Scientific Failure

At the same time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted thermal-only RF safety guidelines—rules that measure harm exclusively by whether radiation heats tissue. These guidelines completely ignored decades of research showing non-thermal biological effects, such as:

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) later found “clear evidence” that RF radiation causes brain and heart tumors in animals—at exposure levels well below thermal thresholds. Yet the FCC’s outdated guidelines remain unchanged to this day.

Why? These guidelines were shaped by industry insiders, not independent scientists. Lobbyists ensured that standards prioritized wireless expansion, not public safety. To this day, the U.S. relies on guidelines written in 1996, despite a mountain of evidence that they are insufficient.


The Neurodevelopmental Crisis: A Link to 1996

When we talk about children’s exposure to RF radiation, we are not just talking about potential tumors decades from now. We are talking about their development today.

In the years following the Telecommunications Act, rates of neurodevelopmental disorders—like ADHD, autism, and learning disabilities—began to climb dramatically:

While these conditions are multi-factorial, emerging research strongly suggests that chronic RF exposure may play a role by disrupting early neural development.

RF exposure may not be the sole cause of these disorders, but it is a factor we cannot afford to ignore. Our failure to address it leaves children like Coates’s daughter trapped in classrooms just 465 feet from a known risk.


A Broken System: Agencies That Failed Us

When Section 704 passed in 1996, it didn’t just silence local communities—it also allowed federal agencies to abdicate their responsibilities:


The Path Forward: Protecting Our Children

John Coates’s fight is not just about one child or one school. It’s about forcing America to confront the systemic failures of 1996 and fix them before another generation pays the price. The path forward is clear:

1. Repeal or Amend Section 704

2. Enforce Public Law 90-602

3. Modernize FCC Guidelines

4. Establish RF-Free Zones for Children


A Father’s Plea

John Coates sits at his kitchen table, a photograph of Angel next to his laptop. Her brief life, and his relentless search for answers, have shaped everything he does. But now, his fight is for his younger daughter—and for every child who unknowingly sits under a cell tower today.

“We’re not asking to shut down technology. We’re asking for honesty. For oversight. For the freedom to protect our kids when science tells us something is wrong. Is that really too much to ask?”
—John Coates

In 1996, America chose profits over people. It’s time to make a different choice. The health of our children—and the integrity of our democracy—depends on it.

For Our Children. For the Constitution. For the Truth.


How You Can Help

  1. Demand Accountability: Write to your representatives to repeal Section 704 and enforce Public Law 90-602.
  2. Adopt Safer Practices: Use wired internet, limit device use for kids, and turn off routers at night.
  3. Raise Awareness: Share this story and join the growing movement to prioritize health in the wireless age.
Source

SAR Information & Resources

Discover RF Safe’s exclusive interactive charts to compare phone radiation levels, explore how children’s exposure differs from adults, and learn practical ways to lower RF exposure. Compare All Phones

Children & RF Exposure

Kids absorb more radiation due to thinner skulls. Learn how to protect them.

See Child Safety Data
Exclusive RF Safe Charts

Compare real-world radiation data in interactive charts found only here at RF Safe.

Explore Charts
Reduce Wi-Fi & Bluetooth

Turning off unused transmitters significantly lowers your exposure.

See the Difference
🍏 Apple

View SAR

📱 Google

View SAR

📲 Samsung

View SAR