WIRELESS RADIATION HEALTH RISK! ⚠

When Unconstitutional Laws Prevent Us From Protecting Public Health: The 1968 Radiation Act vs. the 1996 Telecommunications Trap

There’s a disturbing truth buried in the layers of bureaucracy, lobbying, and regulatory loopholes that govern wireless radiation in America: the very laws meant to protect us have been undermined by unconstitutional amendments and industry-driven policies that prioritize profit over public health.

In 1968, Congress passed the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (Public Law 90-602) with the explicit purpose of ensuring that electronic product radiation, including RF radiation, was thoroughly researched, questioned, and regulated. The law mandated ongoing scientific inquiry into the risks, strategies to reduce harm, and a duty to inform the public about hazards.

Fast forward to 1996, and instead of building on these protections, lawmakers enacted Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, a law that explicitly prohibits questioning RF hazards in legal or regulatory discussions. In the same year, the FCC cemented outdated thermal-only guidelines that ignored the growing body of science showing non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation.

The result? A legal paradox where one law (1968) mandates protection from radiation electronic products while another (1996) silences the very conversations of health risks from wireless radiation necessary to enforce it.   What do you do in a case like this?  Remove the 1996 law that breaks the 1st and 10th Amendments 


The 1968 Vision: Protecting Public Health Through Transparency

In the late 1960s, Congress recognized that the rapid expansion of electronics, including devices emitting microwave and RF radiation, posed potential risks to public health. The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (Public Law 90-602) was a visionary law designed to ensure that this new technology would be thoroughly studied, regulated, and safely deployed.

Key Mandates of the 1968 Law:

  1. Research the Risks: The FDA was tasked with conducting ongoing research into the biological effects of electronic radiation, including both thermal and non-thermal effects.
  2. Public Awareness: The FDA was required to educate the public about potential hazards, empowering people to make informed decisions.
  3. Safety Standards: Agencies like the FDA and FCC were supposed to collaborate to develop evidence-based guidelines that minimized harm.

Congress understood that scientific understanding evolves, and they built flexibility into the law to ensure that standards would be updated as new research emerged. This was a proactive commitment to public health—a recognition that protecting people should come before technological convenience or corporate profit.


The 1996 Undermining: Silencing Questions, Cementing Flawed Guidelines

By the time 1996 rolled around, the telecom industry had become one of the most powerful lobbying forces in America. Two pivotal decisions made that year—Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act and the FCC’s adoption of thermal-only guidelines—effectively undermined the intent of the 1968 law and left Americans unprotected.

1. Section 704: The Law That Silences Communities

Section 704 explicitly prohibits local governments from rejecting or delaying the placement of wireless infrastructure (like cell towers) based on health concerns. This law:

This is an unconstitutional law, created to ensure that the telecom industry could roll out wireless infrastructure without interference—regardless of emerging science or public concern.

2. Cementing Outdated Thermal-Only Guidelines

In 1996, the FCC adopted safety standards based solely on thermal effects—the idea that RF radiation is only harmful if it heats tissue. These guidelines:

These flawed guidelines remain in place today, despite a 2021 court ruling that ordered the FCC to explain why it continues to rely on standards that are nearly 30 years old.


The Legal Paradox: A Law to Question RF Hazards Meets a Law to Silence Questions

The core contradiction between the 1968 law and the 1996 policies is as clear as it is absurd:

This isn’t just negligence—it’s a deliberate attempt to block the enforcement of Public Law 90-602. By making it illegal to question RF hazards, Section 704 ensures that the mandates of the 1968 law cannot be fulfilled.


The Consequences of 1996: Public Health at Risk

The systemic failure created by the 1996 decisions has had far-reaching consequences:

1. Suppressing Science

By ignoring non-thermal effects and enforcing flawed SAR standards, the FCC and FDA have created a system that suppresses scientific inquiry and dismisses emerging evidence. This “war-gaming” of science ensures that the public remains uninformed about the potential risks of RF radiation.

2. Endangering Vulnerable Populations

Children, pregnant women, and individuals with preexisting health conditions are far more vulnerable to RF radiation. Yet the current guidelines:

3. Silencing Public Dissent

Section 704 prevents communities from raising health concerns about cell towers, even when they are placed near schools, playgrounds, or homes. This has allowed the unchecked expansion of wireless infrastructure, often at the expense of public health.

4. Rising Neurological Disorders

The rise in autism, ADHD, and other developmental disorders over the past three decades coincides with the massive expansion of wireless technology. While correlation is not causation, studies like Yale’s ADHD research and Dr. Martin Pall’s work on RF radiation provide compelling evidence that wireless radiation may be playing a role.


What Must Be Done

To protect public health and restore constitutional rights, we must:

  1. Repeal Section 704
    • Restore local authority to regulate wireless infrastructure and protect communities from harmful exposure.
  2. Update FCC Guidelines
    • Replace thermal-only standards with modern, evidence-based guidelines that account for non-thermal effects and real-world usage patterns.
  3. Enforce Public Law 90-602
    • Hold the FDA accountable for violating its mandate to research RF radiation, reduce risks, and inform the public.
  4. Hold the Industry Accountable
    • Demand transparency in research funding and lobbying practices.
    • Prevent the suppression of independent science and public awareness campaigns.

Conclusion: A Betrayal of Public Trust

In 1968, Congress took bold action to protect public health by passing Public Law 90-602. They couldn’t have imagined that, just 28 years later, their efforts would be undermined by unconstitutional laws and outdated standards designed to protect corporate profits rather than people.

Today, we’re living with the consequences of those decisions. The failure to regulate wireless radiation has left Americans vulnerable to a public health crisis, and the laws designed to protect us are being ignored or actively suppressed.

It’s time to demand accountability. For the sake of our children, our health, and our constitutional rights, we must act now.

#TrumpRepeal704 #StopTheMadness #ProtectOurChildren

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