Why It’s Time to Demand Real Leadership
As we stand on the brink of another election season in 2024, with candidates pushing their agendas for a better future, one issue that continues to be swept under the rug is the health risks posed by radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless technologies. This is not just a debate about science—it’s about public health, regulatory failure, and corporate interests overshadowing the wellbeing of the people. Despite overwhelming evidence that RF radiation has biological effects below thermal levels, the regulatory framework that governs these technologies remains outdated. The only question that remains is: why hasn’t the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) updated its guidelines to reflect the full scope of the health risks posed by RF radiation? And perhaps more importantly, how can we ensure that the right people are put in charge of these regulatory bodies to protect the public interest, not corporate profits?
This blog will explore the scientific consensus on the non-thermal biological effects of RF radiation, the failure of the FCC to update its guidelines despite mounting evidence, and why it is crucial to elect leaders who will appoint ethical and knowledgeable regulators to overhaul this outdated system. The time for debate over whether non-thermal biological effects exist has long passed; the real issue is about the lack of action to protect public health from these known risks.
The Science is Clear: Non-Thermal Effects of RF Radiation Are Real
For decades, the wireless industry and regulatory bodies like the FCC have relied on the argument that RF radiation is only dangerous when it causes heating of human tissues—referred to as thermal effects. This viewpoint has been the foundation for current safety standards, which focus solely on preventing thermal damage and ignore the growing body of research pointing to biological effects that occur at non-thermal levels. These non-thermal effects have been shown to include DNA damage, oxidative stress, disruptions to the blood-brain barrier, and cellular dysfunction—all of which can contribute to serious health problems like cancer, infertility, and neurological disorders.
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study
One of the most critical pieces of research that has proven the existence of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation is the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) study, which was one of the most comprehensive and well-funded studies of its kind. The NTP study involved exposing thousands of rats to RF radiation levels similar to what humans experience when using cell phones. The results were alarming: the study found “clear evidence” of malignant tumors, including gliomas (a type of brain cancer) and schwannomas (tumors of the heart), even at exposure levels that did not cause significant heating of tissues.
Despite the groundbreaking nature of this study, the wireless industry and regulatory bodies have consistently downplayed its findings, focusing instead on the fact that these were animal studies and arguing that the results may not directly translate to humans. However, the NTP study is one of many that have shown similar results. It’s not a standalone piece of evidence but part of a growing scientific consensus that RF radiation has harmful biological effects even at non-thermal levels.
The Ramazzini Institute Study
Adding further weight to the NTP findings, the Ramazzini Institute in Italy conducted its own study on the effects of RF radiation at far lower exposure levels—levels more in line with what people experience living near cell towers or using wireless devices in their homes. The results mirrored those of the NTP study: an increased incidence of the same types of tumors, including gliomas and schwannomas. This study highlighted that even everyday exposure to RF radiation, far below the thermal threshold, can have serious biological consequences.
Both the NTP and Ramazzini studies directly contradict the outdated assumption that only thermal effects of RF radiation are harmful. These studies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that non-thermal biological effects are real and that they pose a significant risk to public health.
The FCC’s Outdated Guidelines: A Case of Regulatory Capture?
The FCC, the regulatory body responsible for setting safety standards for RF radiation in the United States, has not updated its guidelines since 1996. These guidelines are based on the assumption that only thermal effects matter, and they completely ignore the non-thermal biological effects that have been documented in studies like those from the NTP and Ramazzini Institute. The failure of the FCC to update its guidelines is not just a scientific oversight—it’s a symptom of regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture occurs when an industry exerts undue influence over the very regulatory bodies that are supposed to oversee it. In the case of the FCC, many of the people in positions of power have ties to the telecommunications industry. For example, Tom Wheeler, who served as FCC Chairman from 2013 to 2017, was a former president of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), a powerful lobbying group for the wireless industry. This revolving door between industry and regulatory agencies has allowed the telecommunications sector to maintain control over the narrative surrounding RF radiation safety.
Despite the fact that the science has moved on from the thermal-only view, the FCC continues to use outdated guidelines that fail to protect the public from the full spectrum of health risks posed by RF radiation. This has allowed the wireless industry to expand unchecked, with little regard for the potential harm to public health.
The Courts Have Spoken: The FCC’s Guidelines Are Inadequate
In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC had failed to adequately explain why it was maintaining its outdated RF radiation exposure guidelines. The court found that the FCC had ignored substantial evidence of non-thermal biological effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, and effects on children’s health. The court ordered the FCC to review its guidelines in light of this evidence, but to date, the agency has done little to comply with this ruling.
This legal decision was a major victory for public health advocates and a clear indication that the FCC’s current guidelines are not based on the best available science. The court recognized what many scientists and researchers have been saying for years: that the existing safety standards are inadequate and do not protect the public from the full range of health risks posed by RF radiation.
Children Are Especially Vulnerable
One of the most troubling aspects of the FCC’s failure to update its guidelines is the lack of consideration for the unique vulnerabilities of children. Studies have shown that children absorb more RF radiation than adults due to their thinner skulls and developing brains. This makes them more susceptible to the biological effects of RF radiation, and yet the FCC’s guidelines are based on a model of exposure that assumes the user is a 6-foot-tall adult male.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has called for updated RF radiation exposure guidelines that take into account the vulnerabilities of children, but these calls have largely been ignored. This is unacceptable, particularly in an era where children are exposed to wireless devices from a very young age. If the current safety standards do not even adequately protect adults, how can we expect them to protect our children?
Regulatory Reform: The Only Path Forward
The evidence is clear: RF radiation has biological effects at non-thermal levels, and the current regulatory framework is failing to protect the public from these risks. The only way to address this issue is through regulatory reform. We need to elect leaders who will appoint people to regulatory agencies like the FCC who prioritize public health over corporate profits. This is not a partisan issue—it’s a matter of life and death.
In recent speeches, both Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have called attention to the problem of regulatory capture and the need for reform. RFK Jr., in particular, has been a vocal advocate for updating RF radiation safety standards and ending the undue influence of the telecommunications industry on regulatory bodies. In fact, he successfully sued the FCC in 2021 for its failure to update its guidelines, and he continues to push for stronger protections for public health.
Trump, too, has acknowledged that his administration made mistakes in allowing industry insiders to hold positions of power within the FCC, and he has pledged to correct these errors if re-elected. The alliance between Trump and RFK Jr. represents a unique opportunity to overhaul the regulatory framework governing RF radiation and to ensure that the public is adequately protected from the risks posed by wireless technology.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Put Public Health First
The debate over whether RF radiation has biological effects below thermal levels is over. The science is clear, and the evidence is overwhelming: RF radiation can cause serious health problems even at non-thermal levels of exposure. The only real debate that remains is why the FCC hasn’t updated its guidelines to reflect this reality. The answer, unfortunately, lies in the undue influence that the telecommunications industry has over the regulatory process.
The time for complacency is over. We need to elect leaders who will appoint regulators who are independent of industry influence and who will prioritize the health and safety of the American people. We need updated RF radiation safety standards that reflect the latest science and that protect not just adults, but children as well. Our future depends on it.