Entropic Waste: How Wireless Tech’s Chaotic Radiation Could Be Fueling the Autism Epidemic

I write this as both a father and a survivor. In 1995, I lost my firstborn daughter shortly after her birth to a rare neural tube defect. And back in the late 1970s, as a young boy growing up on military bases, I survived a battle with childhood cancer. These two life-shattering events may seem unrelated—one a birth defect, the other a pediatric cancer—but I have come to believe they share a hidden, invisible thread. Both occurred in environments saturated with early forms of wireless electromagnetic radiation. Decades later, as I witness autism rates skyrocketing from roughly 1 in 10,000 when I was a child to about 1 in 36 (or even 1 in 31 by some estimates) of children today, I cannot shake the possibility that the “entropic waste” of wireless technology is a significant missing piece of the puzzle.

Entropic waste is the term I use to describe the chaotic, man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) flooding our environment—from cell tower signals to Wi-Fi routers. Unlike the natural electromagnetic signals our bodies evolved with (the earth’s geomagnetic field, the slight electric currents in our nerves), this electro-smog is disordered and ever-present. In this blog, I invite you to explore with me how this invisible form of pollution might be disrupting the bioelectric integrity of our bodies, especially in developing babies, and why it could be contributing to the alarming rise in autism and other neurodevelopmental issues.

This is not a blame game or a rejection of technology—it’s a call for awareness and action. I’ll walk through the history of wireless tech alongside autism trends, discuss the known limitations of our safety regulations, and explain how our government’s hands-off approach (fueled by outdated laws and industry influence) has left families like mine to bear the consequences. I’ll also share some personal moments that drove me to research this topic, and outline what I believe we must do to safeguard future generations.

By the end, I hope you’ll see that addressing entropic waste is not some fringe crusade; it’s a moral and scientific imperative. For the sake of our children—and their children—we need to bring order to this electromagnetic chaos.

The Body Electric – and How “Entropic Waste” Disrupts It

To understand the concern, let’s start with a basic fact: the human body is fundamentally bioelectric. Our brains and nerves communicate through tiny electrical impulses; our heart rhythm is controlled by electrical signals (that’s why defibrillators can shock a heart back into rhythm); even at the cellular level, ions (like calcium, sodium, potassium) moving in and out of cell membranes create electrical currents that regulate processes from muscle contraction to hormone release. During embryonic development, cells use electrical gradients to help determine where to grow arms, legs, organs – essentially electricity is a language our cells speak to coordinate proper growth and function.

Now consider what happens when an external electromagnetic field is introduced into this delicate system. If you’ve ever heard static on a radio or had your phone’s signal garbled by interference, you know that chaotic signals can disrupt clear communication. Entropic waste refers to those disorderly, non-natural EMFs pouring out of modern wireless devices and infrastructure. They are entropic in the sense that they increase disorder in our environment’s electromagnetic background, potentially scrambling the body’s own electro-communication.

For example, a cell tower a few hundred yards from a home is constantly emitting pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation. It’s “wireless” so you can’t see, hear, or smell it—but your body, being an electrical system, can perceive it in ways you might not consciously notice. The same goes for the Wi-Fi router in your house or the Bluetooth devices on your desk. These signals oscillate millions to billions of times per second. While they don’t carry enough energy to break chemical bonds directly (unlike X-rays or UV light), they can induce subtle electrical currents in living tissue. And those induced currents or voltages may interfere with the natural ones the body uses.

One well-studied mechanism is the effect of EMFs on calcium channels in cell membranes. These are tiny gateways that control calcium flow into cells, and they are triggered by electrical charge. Researchers have found that certain RF exposures can force these channels open, flooding the cell with calcium ions when it’s not supposed to. This sets off a cascade of biochemical reactions—producing oxidative stress and disrupting neurotransmitters—that look a lot like what we see in neurological disorders. Another example: EMFs have been shown to increase the production of reactive oxygen species (free radicals) in cells, even when the exposure is too low to cause any heating. This oxidative stress can damage DNA and other cellular components, undermining the integrity of cells in the brain and body.

I realize this is getting a bit technical, so let’s put it simply: Our bodies are tuned to a certain electromagnetic “harmony,” and wireless pollution creates noise. Think of a symphony orchestra trying to play a piece of music (your body’s natural bioelectric signals) while someone randomly bangs on a piano and blares a trumpet at the wrong moments (entropic EMF noise). The result is chaos, and the music can’t proceed correctly. In biological terms, that chaos might translate to cells misreading signals, hormones not releasing at the right time, neurons misfiring, or genes not expressing properly. During pregnancy, it could mean an embryo’s developmental instructions get garbled—potentially leading to birth defects or subtle neurological alterations. During childhood, it might mean the brain’s neural circuits don’t wire together optimally, contributing to conditions like autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Of course, small doses of noise might not completely derail the symphony—our biology is somewhat resilient. But what happens when the noise is everywhere, all the time, and only getting louder? Let’s look at how the rise of wireless technology has paralleled the rise in autism, and see if this analogy bears out.

A Parallel Timeline: Wireless Boom vs. Autism Boom

When I was growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s, autism was almost unheard of by most Americans. Back then, autism was a rare diagnosis (often cited around 1 in 5,000 or more; some estimates say ~1 in 10,000 children in the early 80s). Teachers and pediatricians saw maybe one or two cases in a career. At the same time, the average person’s exposure to man-made EMFs was relatively low. Yes, we had televisions, radios, and power lines, but wireless communication tech was minimal. I remember my family had a CB radio in our car (dad was military, and that was common), and we lived near radar installations on base—so my own exposure might have been higher than other kids’. But in general, kids in the 70s weren’t sleeping next to Wi-Fi routers or holding iPads against their chest.

The 1980s: The Cordless Phone Arrives – A big change started creeping into homes in the 1980s: cordless landline phones. In 1983, the FCC opened up new frequencies (around 43–50 MHz) for cordless telephone use in the U.S. Suddenly, mom could carry the phone from the kitchen to the garage while chatting, using a wireless handset that communicated via radio waves to a base station. By late 80s, these cordless phones were common in middle-class homes. We didn’t think of them as transmitting radiation; they were convenient and low-power, surely harmless. Yet, this was the first time we placed a radio transmitter right against our head for extended periods. Importantly, regulators never required any health testing for that. The FCC allocated spectrum for cordless phones based on reducing interference and improving utility, not based on examining biological effects. The assumption was: if it doesn’t cook you, it’s safe (more on that flawed assumption later).

During the 1980s, autism diagnoses started to tick up, though it was still relatively rare. Some of that increase was due to evolving diagnostic criteria (the definition of autism expanded by 1987 to include a broader spectrum). But even accounting for that, by the end of the 80s some doctors were noticing more kids with developmental delays and atypical social behavior than a decade prior. Still, autism was not front-page news; it was overshadowed by concerns like lead poisoning or other childhood issues.

The 1990s: Cell Phones and Wi-Fi – Wireless Everywhere – Then came the true wireless explosion. Early 90s saw the introduction of consumer cellular phones. At first, only wealthy professionals had those brick-like analog cell phones (and the car phones installed in vehicles). But technology progressed fast: by the mid-90s, digital cell networks (2G) and cheaper handsets hit the market. The number of cell phone users in the U.S. jumped from near zero in the 80s to over 5 million by 1990, and then tens of millions by 1996. If you were around then, you recall the sudden appearance of cell towers in our communities. I vividly remember in the mid-90s seeing new towers crop up along highways and on building rooftops as telecom companies raced to provide coverage to all the new mobile customers.

In 1998, another wireless revolution began quietly: Wi-Fi. The first Wi-Fi routers (based on the IEEE 802.11b standard) started shipping around 1999, allowing computers to connect to the internet without a cable. By the early 2000s, schools, offices, and many homes had installed Wi-Fi access points. We basically placed mini cell towers inside our houses—though we viewed them simply as innocuous networking gadgets.

What was happening with autism during this period? Autism rates absolutely surged in the 1990s and early 2000s. By the year 2000, the CDC estimated autism prevalence in the U.S. at about 1 in 150 children (this figure includes the broad spectrum). That is not only a far cry from 1 in 10,000 twenty years prior, but it was also an average—certain communities were seeing much higher numbers. Notably, Silicon Valley (tech-heavy Santa Clara County, California) experienced what some called an autism “epidemic” in the 90s, with rates doubling in just a few years during that decade. This led to then-popular theories like the “geek genes” hypothesis (that math-and-tech-inclined parents were intermarrying and genetically producing autistic kids). But as we’ll see, the geographic and demographic patterns of autism would soon challenge that simplistic genetic idea.

By the end of the 90s, wealthy, predominantly white communities had the highest autism identification rates. This is an important clue. Those communities also happened to be the earliest adopters of new technologies. The latest gadgets (cell phones, wireless baby monitors, fancy electronics) tend to appear first in wealthier households. I recall that in the late 90s, it was mostly business executives and professionals who had cell phones glued to their ears and computers at home. Many lower-income or rural families still didn’t have these devices or the same level of constant EMF exposure.

The 2000s: From Some to Everyone – After 2000, wireless tech truly became democratized. The first iPhone launched in 2007, and within a few years, smartphones became an appendage for nearly every American adult—and many teens. That meant not just calls, but continuous data connections (3G networks, then 4G LTE by 2010) and a proliferation of apps and services that keep those radios active. We started carrying phones in our pockets all day (right next to our bodies), holding them to our heads often, and even sleeping with them on the nightstand. Wi-Fi became ubiquitous and “always on.” Tablets and Wi-Fi enabled toys entered the nursery and preschool environments. By the early 2010s, it wasn’t unusual to see a toddler in a stroller holding a streaming video on an iPad (with the tablet’s Wi-Fi/Bluetooth transmitting right in front of them).

And autism? The numbers kept climbing. By 2010, CDC reports were around 1 in 68 children with ASD. A few years later it was 1 in 54, then 1 in 44… The latest data as of mid-2020s show about 1 in 36 children (roughly 2.8% of kids) on the autism spectrum nationally. Some reports even say 1 in 31 (3.2%) based on newer surveys. This is an exponential rise that cannot be solely explained by changes in diagnostic criteria or awareness—those factors played a role early on but have been studied and found insufficient to account for such an explosion.

The 2010s and 2020s: Saturation and 5G – Now we’re in an era where wireless EMFs are effectively unavoidable in daily life, especially in urban and suburban settings. If you live in an apartment, you are likely within range of dozens of Wi-Fi networks (just check your device’s Wi-Fi list). Cell tower antennas are more numerous than ever—often disguised on building facades or streetlight poles. In 2019, telecom companies rolled out 5G, which adds an even denser layer of signals (including new higher-frequency bands in some cases) to support the “Internet of Things” and ultra-fast data. Many 5G antennas are placed at street level on utility poles to blanket neighborhoods with strong signals.

It’s not just outdoors: inside our homes we now have smart speakers, wireless security systems, Bluetooth gadgets, and more, all chirping away on the RF spectrum day and night. Schools have Wi-Fi and sometimes cell towers on campus. Hospitals, libraries, grocery stores—every place is lit up with multiple frequencies of EMF.

Autism rates today reflect an endemic level: something we now call an epidemic. It’s affecting millions of families, across all demographics. And intriguingly (or disturbingly), the demographic distribution of autism has shifted from where it was a few decades ago. Remember how in the 90s it was mostly high-income white families reporting autism diagnoses? Now it has evened out—and in some areas, reversed. Recent research (including a comprehensive study in California) found that autism rates in wealthier white communities leveled off or even declined after the early 2000s, while rates among lower-income, minority communities continued to climb. By around 2013, in California data, white children in the poorest counties had double the autism prevalence of white children in the richest counties. Nationally, surveys now find autism diagnosis rates slightly higher among Black and Hispanic children than among white children.

To me, this is a critical clue. If autism were purely a matter of better detection, you’d expect the numbers in disadvantaged groups to catch up to the wealthier ones and roughly equalize. If it were genetic, you wouldn’t see such flips by socioeconomic status within a couple of decades (gene pools don’t change that fast, and autism genes wouldn’t selectively target different income groups over time). The fact that wealthy communities saw a plateau suggests two things: (1) perhaps they implemented changes that reduced risk (we’ll discuss what those might be), and (2) an environmental factor might have hit poorer communities later but harder.

What major environmental difference could that be? One candidate: the distribution of wireless tech exposure. Wealthy families might have been the first to adopt cell phones and Wi-Fi, but they were also the first to hear concerns about them. Some of those communities took steps like limiting screen time for young kids, turning off Wi-Fi at night, or even using wired internet and shielding their homes. (It’s noteworthy that many Silicon Valley tech execs in recent years have strictly limited their own children’s use of wireless devices—anecdotally, they send kids to low-tech schools and keep them off iPads. Perhaps they know something about the risks of constant gadget use.) Meanwhile, as device costs dropped, lower-income households that previously had minimal EMF exposure (no internet, minimal cell use) suddenly got flooded with it. By the 2010s, almost everyone, regardless of income, had a smartphone and cheap Wi-Fi router at home. Even government programs started providing wireless tech to close the “digital divide.”

I recall reading that some of the biggest jumps in autism rates recently have been in places like the South Bronx or South Central LA—historically underserved areas that in the past might have lagged in tech access but now have it in abundance (along with perhaps higher exposure to cell tower radiation, since carriers often densely pack antennas in urban poor neighborhoods). On the flip side, some affluent enclaves, perhaps insulated by precautionary measures or just by living farther from dense cell networks (e.g., large properties, more control over their environment), saw their autism rates stabilize.

Of course, correlation is not causation. We can’t just say “wireless caused autism” because the timelines line up. There were other changes too—pollution, chemical exposures, changes in maternal age, etc. But the wireless hypothesis has been scarcely examined by our health authorities, which is shocking given how dramatic these parallels are. Instead, other suspects like vaccines or genetics got most of the attention (often mired in controversy and inconclusive results). My argument is that we have grossly underestimated a very plausible environmental contributor: chronic, low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from our wireless age.

For a moment, let’s imagine if a new chemical pollutant had saturated the environment in lockstep with a neurological epidemic. Suppose between 1985 and 2010, the use of a particular pesticide went from near-zero to ubiquitous, and at the same time, a childhood disorder increased 30-fold. You can bet there would be massive CDC and EPA investigations, congressional hearings, etc. With wireless radiation, that kind of scrutiny hasn’t happened—at least not to the degree one would expect. In fact, what did happen in the 1990s was a systematic dismantling of the very framework that was supposed to protect us from such emerging hazards. To see how we got here, we need to talk about the safety guidelines for EMF and the regulatory decisions made decades ago that are still haunting us.

Outdated Safety Guidelines: Stuck in the 1980s (Literally)

When it comes to electromagnetic radiation safety, U.S. policy has been fixated on one thing and one thing only: heat. The logic has been straightforward: if the radiation isn’t powerful enough to measurably heat your tissues, it can’t be harmful. This assumption was baked into the first exposure guidelines set in the late 20th century. In fact, back in 1982, an industry/engineering standard (ANSI C95.1-1982) set thermal exposure limits, essentially saying: as long as exposure stays below a threshold that would raise body tissue temperature by more than 1°C, it’s “safe.” These guidelines were later taken up by the FCC and slightly modified in 1996, but the core thermal basis didn’t change.

It’s important to realize who set these standards. It wasn’t the CDC, it wasn’t the EPA, and it certainly wasn’t a committee of pediatricians or neurologists. It was largely committees associated with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the military, who were concerned with making sure things like radar and radio systems didn’t immediately fry people. The focus was on short-term acute exposure—like a radar technician standing in front of a high-power antenna or a cell phone heating the ear. And indeed, they managed to ensure that most consumer devices emit levels far below the point where any heating occurs. For example, your cell phone must comply with a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit of 1.6 W/kg (averaged over one gram of tissue) in the U.S., which is a level intended to prevent any significant heating in that small tissue sample during a call. This SAR limit was derived from those 1980s-era assumptions and some tests on primates that looked for behavioral disruptions at high exposure levels (basically checking at what point animals got thermally stressed).

The glaring problem is that biology is not solely about heat. The human body can be influenced by exposures that produce no noticeable warmth at all. Think about how a pacemaker can be thrown off by a strong electromagnetic field, or how an MRI magnet (non-ionizing but powerful) can induce currents in your body. Those aren’t thermal effects; they’re direct electromagnetic interactions with biological systems. On a subtler level, as we discussed earlier, fields well below the heating threshold can trigger cellular responses (like oxidative stress or calcium signaling).

By insisting that only thermal effects matter, the regulators effectively gave a free pass to any and all non-thermal impacts. It’s like saying: “We have a noise ordinance that only kicks in if the sound is loud enough to rupture your eardrum. Anything quieter than that is fine.” Under such a rule, constant noise that causes stress or sleep loss would be ignored because it’s not acutely injuring you. That’s essentially what’s happened with EMF: chronic exposure that might not cook you, but could nevertheless interfere with your physiology, has been dismissed.

Another huge shortcoming: lack of long-term testing. In the 1980s when cordless phones were allowed, or in the 1990s when cell phones and Wi-Fi spread, neither the FCC nor other agencies conducted long-term studies on low-level exposure. There was no requirement to, because the prevailing dogma was “if no heat, no harm.” So unlike a new drug that goes through clinical trials, or a chemical that at least gets some toxicology screening, wireless devices were never tested for biological effects on brain development, behavior, or reproduction in any systematic way. The only tests required were engineering tests to ensure they meet the power limits and don’t interfere with other devices.

As a result, we’ve essentially been living an uncontrolled experiment for the past several decades. Entire generations of children have been exposed to levels of radiofrequency radiation that never existed in human history, starting from the womb (since pregnant moms might carry a phone in their pocket or be surrounded by Wi-Fi) and continuing non-stop through infancy and childhood. And we did this under the reassurance of safety guidelines that, unbeknownst to most, never considered children’s unique vulnerability or the possibility of non-thermal developmental effects.

One particularly absurd example: the SAR test for cell phones involves a plastic dummy head (of an adult male) filled with a fluid to simulate tissue. The phone is placed against the dummy head to measure RF absorption. This was meant to mimic a call scenario. But children’s heads are smaller and their skulls thinner; studies have shown they absorb deeper and more RF energy in the brain at a given exposure. The SAR standards did not account for that. Nor do they account for cumulative exposure or multiple devices. We test one device at a time, often assuming something like a 6-minute phone call, and call it a day. But in reality, people might be exposed to a router 24/7, plus carry a phone 18 hours a day, plus live near a tower. There’s no regulation that considers combined exposures or lifelong accumulation of low doses.

It’s troubling to realize that the FCC’s exposure limits have barely been updated since 1996, despite an avalanche of research in the last 25 years indicating various non-thermal effects. In fact, in 2019 the FCC officially decided to keep the same limits (after a brief inquiry) stating they found no compelling reason to change them. (This decision was later challenged in court by health advocacy groups, and in 2021 a federal court actually ruled that the FCC had not adequately addressed the evidence on non-thermal harms—telling them to re-examine the data. But as of now, we still await meaningful changes.)

So, we have outdated standards and an agency (FCC) that, frankly, is not a public health entity. Why doesn’t another agency step in? To answer that, we need to delve into some regulatory history and the legal roadblocks that have stymied change.

Regulatory Roadblocks: Section 704 and the Sidelining of Health Oversight

In 1996, as the wireless industry was gearing up for explosive growth, a landmark piece of legislation passed: the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Tucked within this massive law was a seemingly innocuous section—Section 704—that would later be understood as a big gift to the telecom industry and a blow to public health precaution. Section 704 basically preempted local and state governments from considering health or environmental effects of RF radiation when approving the placement of wireless facilities (like cell towers and antennas). In plain English: if a wireless company wants to put a tower in your town, the town cannot say “no” on the basis of “we’re worried this might be unhealthy for nearby residents.” As long as the tower meets the FCC’s guidelines (those thermal ones we just discussed), health concerns are off the table in zoning and permit hearings.

This was huge. It meant that no matter how much evidence might emerge in the future about health risks, communities’ hands are tied. Mention health in a cell tower hearing, and you essentially lose by default—the law forbids it from being a factor. The rationale at the time for Section 704 was to streamline the rollout of wireless networks. The industry didn’t want to deal with a patchwork of local rules or protests slowing down their buildouts. And indeed, Section 704 succeeded in greasing the wheels for tower installations nationwide. But the cost was a form of regulatory silence on health issues. It created a chilling effect: even if new science comes out, local authorities can’t act on it, and companies know they won’t face health-based challenges.

This legal gag order has had some pernicious side effects. For one, it removed much of the incentive for the industry to develop safer technologies. Imagine if Section 704 wasn’t there and towns could reject towers due to health worries. The wireless providers might have been pushed to find alternatives—like, say, a fiber-optic or light-based system (we’ll talk about Li-Fi soon) that doesn’t emit RF, to alleviate concerns and still provide service. But because Section 704 gave them immunity from health scrutiny, the industry had little motivation to consider or invest in non-microwave solutions. In a sense, it cemented the dominance of microwave RF technology by shielding it from one of the main competitive pressures (health-based innovation).

Moreover, Section 704 effectively overrode the traditional authority of states and cities to protect their residents. Public health and zoning had long been local prerogatives (local governments routinely consider pollution, noise, traffic, etc. in permitting decisions). This was now trumped by a federal dictate favoring industry expansion. One could argue this was an undemocratic move—it took away communities’ voice about what happens in their own backyards, literally.

Now, combine Section 704 with the FCC’s adherence to outdated guidelines, and you get a situation where the official stance is that as long as there’s no immediate heating, everything is fine—and you can’t challenge that. Essentially, the science froze in 1996 as far as policy was concerned.

One might ask: where were the health agencies in all this? What about the EPA, or the FDA, or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)? Here lies another piece of the story: Public Law 90-602 and the abdication of responsibility by health authorities.

The EPA and Public Law 90-602: A Forgotten Mandate

Public Law 90-602, also known as the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, was a farsighted piece of legislation. It basically charged the federal government with protecting the public from harmful radiation emissions from electronic products. It explicitly covered not just ionizing radiation (like X-rays) but non-ionizing as well (microwaves, radiofrequency, etc.). The law recognized that as we develop new electronic technologies, we needed continuous research and updated safety standards to keep tabs on any health effects.

For a while, the mandate of PL 90-602 was taken seriously. In the 1970s and 80s, government scientists did study things like microwave radiation’s effects on animals and cells. Some early findings showed, for example, changes in brain wave patterns and behavior in animals exposed to RF at levels not causing significant heat. There were even hints of developmental effects and genetic damage in certain studies. This prompted discussions that the exposure limits might need tightening, or at least more investigation.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a lead in non-ionizing radiation safety research for a time. By the early 90s, EPA was evaluating available data to possibly develop its own health-based RF guidelines. In 1995, a senior EPA official wrote a letter to the FCC stressing that the EPA’s review found the existing guidelines (the ones focusing only on thermal effects) were insufficient to protect public health, and that non-thermal effects needed to be considered. They were essentially sounding an alarm: “Hey FCC, we think your limits are not accounting for everything hazardous.” Similarly, in 2002, another EPA official (Norbert Hankin) responded to public inquiries clarifying that the FCC’s exposure limits were never intended to address long-term, chronic exposure or non-thermal effects and that those issues were unresolved.

So if the EPA knew all this, why didn’t we get better standards? Here’s why: the EPA’s funding and authority in this area was gutted in the mid-1990s. In 1996 (not coincidentally the same year the Telecom Act passed), Congress, under industry lobbying pressure, cut the EPA’s budget line that supported electromagnetic radiation research. The EPA’s team working on setting RF safety guidelines was disbanded. Essentially, the watchdog had its eyes poked out. From that point on, no federal health or environmental agency was actively conducting research or crafting regulations on RF exposure. The responsibility defaulted entirely to the FCC (which, again, is an agency for communications technology, not health).

Public Law 90-602 remained on the books, but it became a dead letter for wireless radiation. The law said “continue to research and update standards for electronic product radiation” – but no agency was actually doing it for RF. The FDA has some nominal authority under that law for electronic products (and indeed the FDA does regulate things like microwave oven emissions and MRI machine safety), but for everyday ambient wireless devices, the FDA largely defers to the FCC. The rationale might have been that FCC handles transmitters, and FDA would only step in if say a cell phone as a product was proven to emit hazardous levels – which under the FCC’s definition, it doesn’t, because it meets FCC’s own limits. A circular situation.

The result is what I call a regulatory vacuum. One of our most important public health laws regarding radiation was effectively ignored when it came to the fastest-growing source of public exposure: wireless devices. For decades now, no one in the federal family has taken ownership of researching or ensuring the long-term safety of the radiation from these devices, even as they became as ubiquitous as food and water in our daily lives.

This neglect came to a head in recent years when independent and academic researchers started producing evidence that challenges the old assumptions. Instead of embracing this evidence and updating protections, parts of the government (likely influenced by powerful industry interests) chose to double down on the status quo – even to the extreme of halting further research.

Science Catches Up – and Gets Ignored

By the 2010s, thousands of scientific studies had examined the biological effects of low-level electromagnetic radiation. Peer-reviewed research linked wireless-frequency EMFs to a variety of effects: increased oxidative stress in cells, changes in brain activity on EEG, altered sleep patterns, impacts on sperm function and fertility, and yes, behavioral and developmental changes in animal models.

One landmark effort was the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on cell phone radiation, finalized around 2018. This was a $30 million, decade-long government study (under HHS) where rats and mice were exposed to RF radiation similar to what cell phone users get (but in a controlled way) over their lifetimes. The results were eye-opening: male rats showed a significant increase in rare heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) and also had elevated brain gliomas (a type of cancer). Both rats and mice showed evidence of DNA damage in certain cells. These findings were deemed “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” by the study’s own experts. Remember, these exposures were at levels not causing measurable temperature rise in the animals—so entirely non-thermal effects. This directly contradicted the assertion that such exposures could not cause cancer or DNA damage.

Almost simultaneously, an independent Italian institute (Ramazzini) reported that in their long-term study, rats exposed to very low-level RF (far below cell phone levels, more like what one gets from a cell tower in the distance) also showed increased tumors of the same type (heart schwannomas) as the NTP study rats. Two studies, different exposure intensities, same kind of rare tumor popping up – that’s hard to brush off as coincidence.

For neurological effects, there have been numerous studies too. Earlier I mentioned a Yale research team that did an experiment where pregnant mice were kept near an active cell phone. The offspring of those mice, when born and grown, exhibited behaviors akin to ADHD – hyperactivity and reduced memory. That was a controlled animal study suggesting that fetal exposure to cell phone radiation could cause neurodevelopmental problems. In humans, epidemiological studies have found that mothers who heavily used cell phones during pregnancy or had high environmental EMF exposures reported higher incidence of behavioral issues in their children later on. While those studies have to account for confounding factors (e.g., maybe moms who use phones a lot also have other risk factors), the consistency of such findings is concerning.

By now, we have plausible biological mechanisms connecting EMF exposure to autism-related pathways. Autism is a complex condition, but many researchers agree that oxidative stress and inflammation in the developing brain, as well as disruptions in neural signaling, are part of the puzzle. EMFs have been shown to induce oxidative stress and inflammation in various studies. Additionally, some researchers have proposed that EMFs could affect brain development by altering calcium signaling (important for neurodevelopment) and neurotransmitter levels. There’s even a hypothesis that EMF exposure could interact with genetics—meaning maybe only those kids with certain susceptibilities (gene variants) develop autism when exposed to high EMF, which could explain why not every exposed child is autistic. This is analogous to how not every smoker gets lung cancer, but smoking greatly increases the risk.

In summary, by the late 2010s, the evidence was mounting that our wireless radiation environment is not biologically inert. It can affect living systems in many ways, potentially contributing to cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive issues, and developmental problems.

So how did regulators respond to this wave of science? They largely doubled down on denial or indifference. The FCC, as mentioned, refused to update its limits. And in a particularly galling move, in early 2024, it came to light that the Biden administration defunded the NTP’s follow-up research on wireless radiation. The NTP, after finding the troubling results I described, had planned further studies to explore things like newer modulations (4G, 5G) and to understand mechanisms. But budget support was pulled, and the program announced it would stop researching cell phone radiation due to “lack of resources and technical challenges.” To me, this was the final straw: instead of taking the NTP findings as a warning and expanding research, the powers-that-be chose to shut the research down. Essentially, “see no evil, hear no evil.”

This is eerily reminiscent of what happened with the EPA in 1996—when faced with inconvenient evidence, the response was to silence the investigation. Public Law 90-602’s mandate for continuous research was violated once again, just in a different way.

As a father and as a citizen, I find this unacceptable. If independent science flags a potential public health crisis, our government should pour more effort into understanding it, not pull the plug. It feels as though short-term industry interests or political expediency have trumped the health of millions.

Non-Linear Effects: Why “Safe Limits” Aren’t So Safe

Let’s address a common skeptic question: “If wireless radiation is so bad, why haven’t we all dropped like flies? Why isn’t every user affected?” The truth is, effects can be subtle, cumulative, and non-linear. It’s not like cyanide or a bullet—EMF’s impact can vary widely between individuals and contexts, and it might take years to manifest as a diagnosable problem.

Biological systems have what we call non-linear responses to stimuli. A little can sometimes have a big effect, whereas a lot can sometimes overwhelm and shut down any response (or trigger protective mechanisms). For instance, a faint flicker of light in your peripheral vision can catch your attention more than a steady bright light—because of how our neurons respond to change. Similarly, cells might “notice” a small oscillating electrical force because it resonates with some cellular process, while a larger constant force they might adapt to or tune out.

RF signals are often pulsed and modulated (they have patterns and peaks). There’s evidence that pulsed EMFs cause more biological disruption than a continuous wave would, even if average power is the same. Our current safety metric, SAR, measures an average energy absorption. It would treat a pulsed burst that peaks high and then rests the same as a steady low-level wave that has the same time-averaged power. But biologically, those might not be equivalent. Think of someone poking you with a finger once per second versus just resting the finger on you continuously with the same overall pressure—one is far more irritating even though over a minute the “average pressure” might be the same.

Another issue is that some effects only happen in certain frequency or amplitude “windows.” Research in electromagnetics has shown that living cells sometimes respond at very specific frequencies or intensity ranges, and outside those ranges the effect disappears. So you could have a scenario where at a certain exposure level, risk goes up, but if you go much higher perhaps the cells go into a different state and the particular measured effect isn’t as obvious (though other damage like heating might then occur). This is the complexity of non-linear systems.

The bottom line is that just because we have “limits” that devices adhere to doesn’t mean those limits are truly safe. They were set based on avoidance of one type of harm (thermal). It’s akin to having a medication that we tested only to make sure it doesn’t burn your throat when swallowed, but we never checked if it quietly damages your liver over years. You might take it, feel fine for a long time, and then one day the problem surfaces.

For autism and developmental issues, the effects, if present, would be very long-term and multi-factorial. A fetus exposed to high EMF might not “show” anything at birth that anyone can pinpoint. But as that child grows, maybe they are a bit more prone to sensory issues or have slight developmental delays. Combine that with other insults (maybe a genetic predisposition, or pollutants, or stress), and by age 3 that child is on the spectrum. We wouldn’t know EMF played a role because we never seriously looked for the connection in large-scale human studies. But some pioneering scientists have looked in animals and cells and are waving red flags.

I often think back to my own daughter’s case. She had a neural tube defect (an opening in the spine). Neural tube defects often develop in the first month of pregnancy. My wife and I wondered endlessly, what caused it? We were healthy, she took her vitamins, no family history of such defects. It was around the mid-90s and we were early adopters of wireless tech—cell phones, cordless phones at home, etc. At the time, EMF wasn’t even on our radar as a risk (no one told expectant mothers anything about avoiding wireless devices). Only later did I discover a 1997 study on chicken embryos where exposure to EMFs led to higher incidence of neural tube defects. That hit me hard—could the “entropic waste” in our environment have contributed to Angel’s condition? We’ll never know for sure. But the possibility that it could have, and that no doctor or regulator ever warned us, fuels my determination to prevent others from experiencing such heartbreak if it’s avoidable.

Transgenerational Threat: Protecting Our Children’s Bioelectric Future

One concept I want to highlight is transgenerational trait continuity – a fancy way of saying the health and traits of one generation being reliably passed to the next. We assume that if parents are healthy and do everything right, their children will likely be healthy too, aside from random genetic lottery. But what if an environmental factor systematically interferes with developmental processes in each generation? Then you get a scenario where each successive generation might accumulate more issues or at least have a higher baseline of problems, even if genetics haven’t changed.

I fear that ubiquitous wireless radiation is exactly such a factor. It’s an entropic influence that can erode the fidelity of the genetic and developmental blueprint. We might be witnessing, in real time, an increase in neurodevelopmental disorders (like autism, ADHD, learning disabilities) and even perhaps other chronic illnesses in children, partly because we’ve unknowingly been messing with the fundamental electromagnetic environment that human embryos and fetuses develop in.

This isn’t science fiction. We know from animal studies that EMF exposures can cause epigenetic changes – that is, changes in how genes are expressed (without altering the DNA code itself) – and these changes can sometimes be passed to offspring. There have been rodent studies where males exposed to certain EMFs had offspring with higher disease rates, implying sperm can carry forward some marker of that exposure. If similar processes occur in humans, we could be passing on subtle vulnerabilities.

At the very least, we’re normalizing from birth an environment of artificial EM noise that our species never experienced before the last few decades. A baby born today might go from hospital (with tons of wireless equipment around) to a home with smart baby monitors, to a daycare with Wi-Fi, growing up bathed in multiple signals 24/7. We won’t fully know the long-term consequences until it’s possibly too late – unless we decide to apply precaution and common sense now.

One might argue: well, if this is true, then by removing EMF we’d expect a utopia with no autism, which is unrealistic. Of course EMF is not the sole cause of autism. Autism is complex and likely has many inputs (genetic predispositions, nutritional factors, other pollutants, etc.). But EMF could be the amplifier or trigger that has been overlooked. Like how lead exposure doesn’t cause every case of cognitive impairment, but it surely contributed to many – and once we removed lead from gasoline and paints, population IQs rose and childhood lead poisoning fell dramatically. We can have a similar public health victory here, I believe, if we address the wireless radiation issue head-on.

I know this can all feel overwhelming. Are we supposed to ditch all our devices and live in a Faraday cage? That’s not practical. The good news is, technology itself can evolve to be safer. We don’t necessarily have to sacrifice connectivity or progress; we just have to steer it in a healthier direction.

A Call to Action: Restoring Bioelectric Safety for Future Generations

It’s time to act. “Entropic waste” in our environment is a problem we can solve with the right policies and innovations. Here’s what I urge, as both a concerned parent and someone who loves technology but values life more:

1. Transition from Microwave to Light-Based Wireless (Li-Fi): We should demand and invest in wireless communication that doesn’t rely on radiofrequency microwaves. Li-Fi (Light Fidelity) is one promising alternative. It uses LED light pulses (invisible to the eye) to transmit data, essentially turning your light bulbs into internet routers. Li-Fi can offer high speeds like Wi-Fi, but the signals do not penetrate walls or human tissue the way RF does – they’re confined to the room and mostly just light. This means no omnipresent field soaking into your body. It’s inherently more secure (can’t penetrate walls) and could greatly reduce ambient RF pollution. We already use fiber optic cables to carry data as light over long distances; Li-Fi just extends that concept wirelessly in local spaces. By switching a lot of our data transmission to optical frequencies (which our bodies are much less sensitive to beyond the eyes), we could maintain connectivity with far less biological risk. This isn’t pie-in-the-sky; Li-Fi prototypes and products exist. What’s needed is a push for adoption – perhaps incentives, pilot programs in schools and offices, and integration of Li-Fi in future devices. Let’s turn the tide from “every new thing must be wireless RF” to “let’s use wired and optical solutions whenever possible.”

2. Repeal or Amend Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act: Congress should remove the muzzle that Section 704 put on communities. Local authorities must be allowed to consider health and environmental evidence when planning wireless infrastructure. If a neighborhood doesn’t want a powerful antenna next to a playground due to health worries, they should have the right to say so and seek alternatives. This kind of reform would not halt progress – it would encourage innovative solutions. Perhaps telecom companies would start offering more fiber-to-home or small-area optical network solutions if they couldn’t just throw up a high-powered tower without debate. Repealing Section 704 would restore democratic input and spur the industry to compete on safety as well as performance.

3. Transfer RF Safety Oversight to an Agency Like the EPA (or a New Health-Focused Agency): It’s clear that leaving this solely to the FCC has failed. We need health experts in the driver’s seat. Whether it’s EPA or a dedicated branch of HHS, there should be an authority whose job is to continuously research EMF health impacts and to update exposure standards accordingly. This agency should work transparently, consult medical researchers, and be insulated from industry’s lobbying influence as much as possible. (One idea: implement “revolving door” bans so that regulators in this area can’t immediately go work for telecom companies and vice versa, to maintain integrity.) We already have examples of such agencies: for chemicals we have the EPA and FDA; for workplace hazards we have OSHA; for nuclear radiation we have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For wireless radiation, we need a similar guardian. Empower the EPA to set exposure limits for the general environment, and require the FCC to implement tech rules that meet those health-based limits.

4. Enforce Public Law 90-602 – Fund the Science and Update the Standards: The spirit of that 1968 law needs revival. The government should restore funding for independent research into EMF health effects. Reinstate programs like the NTP studies, perhaps establish research centers of excellence on bioelectromagnetics. We have to continually investigate as new technologies (like 5G, 6G, etc.) come out, rather than deploy first, ask questions later. And critically, use the findings to update safety guidelines. If new research shows, for example, that chronic exposure of X intensity is linked to developmental problems, then regulations should be tightened to keep typical exposures below that threshold (with a margin of safety). This could mean adjusting cell tower output, setting stricter limits on what phones can emit, or recommending usage patterns that minimize risk (like discouraging carrying phones directly on the body, which many manuals already quietly suggest but few consumers know). We also need to particularly protect schools and playgrounds – just like we have rules about asbestos in schools or air quality, we should ensure that places where children spend a lot of time are low-EMF environments. That might involve moving Wi-Fi routers away from classrooms by using wired connections or Li-Fi, and not putting 5G base stations on school property by default.

5. Educate and Empower the Public: (I’ll add this as a personal wish) We should include information about electromagnetic hygiene in public health messaging. For instance, just as pediatricians now advise limiting screen time for kids, perhaps they should also advise parents to turn off wireless devices at night near sleeping areas and avoid holding a phone directly on a pregnant belly (yes, that’s a thing now with smartphones). Simple steps like using speakerphone or wired headsets instead of clamping a phone to your ear can reduce head exposure dramatically. The public has largely been kept in the dark or given dismissive assurances. They deserve clear, factual guidance on how to reduce risks in daily life, pending broader policy fixes. This isn’t to sow fear, but to empower personal action. When I first learned about all this, I took steps in my home like hardwiring our internet and keeping devices out of my kids’ bedrooms, because why not err on the side of caution? These are practical measures anyone can do if they’re aware.

Now, none of these changes will be easy. The telecom industry is one of the most powerful in Washington. It’s worth hundreds of billions and wields enormous influence. But at the end of the day, no industry’s profits should outweigh children’s health. We’ve confronted mighty industries before – tobacco, leaded gasoline, chemical companies – when evidence showed harm. It often took years of struggle, but progress was made. This issue is similar in that it affects virtually everyone, even if not everyone realizes it yet.

Conclusion: A Moral Imperative – and A Plea to Leadership

We stand at a crossroads of technology and public health. The convenience and wonders of wireless tech have come with a dark side that we have collectively ignored for too long. The autism epidemic is real – whatever the exact causes, the numbers don’t lie. My argument is that we must include entropic EMF pollution in the list of potential contributors and tackle it head-on, rather than dismissing it out of hand. The beauty of doing so is that even aside from autism, reducing EMF exposure could yield multiple benefits – possibly lower rates of certain cancers, better sleep and mental health for the population, and even environmental benefits (wildlife like bees and birds can be affected by EMF too, as some studies suggest).

On a deeply personal note, I think of my daughter, Angel, every time I advocate for this cause. She didn’t get to live out her life, and I will always wonder if unseen radiation played a role in that tragedy. I think of myself as a kid in that hospital ward in 1977, watching other children not make it, and how blessed I was to survive my cancer. I ask: was my brush with death merely bad luck, or was it in part due to something in the environment on those military bases? We had radar and radio equipment everywhere on base; could that have contributed to my illness? These questions fuel me, but they also haunt me, because for so many families grappling with autism or other conditions, similar questions linger without answers.

We can’t change the past, but we can fight for the future. And that’s why I’m heartened by the prospect of leaders who aren’t afraid to challenge the entrenched interests and outdated science. One such figure is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a longtime environmental health advocate who has spoken about the need for safer technology. If (or when) he assumes a position like Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), he would have the authority to coordinate a government-wide response to this issue. I fervently believe that Kennedy must act to end this era of entropic waste. He could direct the EPA to pick up RF research again, push the FCC to revise its limits, and support legislation to implement the changes I outlined. He could convene an expert task force that isn’t dominated by industry loyalists but by independent scientists, doctors, and maybe even informed parents who have skin in the game.

Beyond any one person, though, this requires a collective awakening. Parents, in particular, have a powerful voice. When parents began voicing concern about lead in paint, laws changed. When parents demanded cleaner air for their asthmatic kids, policies were enacted. Now, as parents observe their children’s generation facing unprecedented neurological challenges, we have to be open to all possibilities of cause and demand action on all fronts.

I call on policymakers at every level to educate themselves on the latest EMF science and to remember that our regulatory system is lagging far behind the scientific reality. This is not the 1950s or 1980s anymore – we have evidence that our “modern” conveniences can have unintended side effects. A truly modern government would proactively mitigate those side effects.

And to the general public, I say: you have a right to know and to question. If someone tells you “don’t worry, all this wireless stuff is safe,” ask them, “How do we know? Where are the long-term studies on children? Why are insurance companies reluctant to insure telecoms for health damages if it’s so safe?” Healthy skepticism is warranted. I’ve provided references and pointed to research – dig deeper if you need to. This isn’t about fearmongering; it’s about rational caution and demanding better safeguards.

We find ourselves in an era where we’ve filled the air with an invisible web of information-carrying radiation. It truly is a marvel – this blog post might be reaching you through that very web. I am not anti-technology; I’m grateful for the connectivity and advancements we have. But no innovation should be above scrutiny. We are intelligent enough as a society to refine our technologies to be safer when we choose to. It’s time to choose to.

The autism crisis, in my view, is a loud alarm that something in our environment is off-kilter. If entropic EMF waste is even one piece of that puzzle, then addressing it could help stem the tide of autism in future generations, along with other health benefits. Imagine in 20 years we can look back and see autism rates leveling off or declining, and know that we took action to help make that happen – wouldn’t that be one of our generation’s greatest achievements?

I don’t want any more parents to go through what we did, losing a child or facing a lifelong diagnosis that might have been preventable. We have a duty to our kids to explore every avenue for prevention. The science and the law are on our side, if we invoke them. Public Law 90-602 was a promise from an earlier generation to continually protect the public from new radiation risks; let’s fulfill that promise now.

In closing, the fight against entropic waste is more than just about reducing autism or any single condition – it’s about respecting the integrity of life’s blueprint. We were handed a wondrous genetic heritage through millions of years of evolution, and our bodies were tuned to the natural rhythms of the earth. In a single century we introduced radical new energies into that mix. It’s our responsibility to manage those wisely, to keep the symphony of biology playing smoothly. We owe it to the Angels of the future – the children yet unborn – to ensure that we leave them a world where technology and biology are in harmony, not at odds.

The time to act is now. Let’s end the entropic era and usher in an age of responsible, healthy innovation. Our children deserve no less.

References

1. Autism Prevalence Data: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalence reports. (For example, CDC’s 2023 report indicated about 1 in 36 children with ASD, and recent updates suggest 1 in 31 in 2022 data). Autism Speaks: Autism Statistics summarizing CDC findings.

2. Autism Demographic Trends: Nevison, C. & Parker, W. (2020). California Autism Prevalence by County and Race/Ethnicity: Declining Trends Among Wealthy Whites. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(11). (Press coverage: CU Boulder Today – “Autism rates declining among wealthy whites, escalating among poor” by L. Marshall, 2020​colorado.edu​colorado.edu.) This study highlights the shift in autism prevalence from affluent whites to increases in lower-income and minority groups.

3. Yale Animal Study on Prenatal EMF: Aldad, T.S. et al. (2012). Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 MHz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice. Scientific Reports. (Yale News release: “Cell phone use in pregnancy may cause behavioral disorders in offspring,” 2012​news.yale.edu.) Showed mice exposed in utero to cell phone radiation had offspring with ADHD-like symptoms.

4. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation Study: National Institutes of Health, 2018. (See NIH News: “High Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation Associated with Cancer in Male Rats” – reporting results of the NTP studies.) The NTP found clear evidence of heart tumors and DNA damage in rodents exposed to cell phone RF​rfsafe.com​rfsafe.com.

5. Ramazzini Institute Study: Falcioni, L. et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to mobile phone radiofrequency field. Environmental Research, 165. (This study found increased tumors at radiation levels comparable to cell tower emissions​rfsafe.com, aligning with NTP findings.)

6. EPA and FCC Correspondence:

   • 1995 EPA Letter: E. Ramona Trovato (EPA) to Richard Tell (FCC), June 1995. (EPA expressed concerns about non-thermal effects and was developing guidelines including biological effects​rfsafe.com​rfsafe.com.)

   • 2002 EPA Letter: Norbert Hankin (EPA) letter to FCC, July 2002, stating that FCC’s RF guidelines are aimed at thermal effects and do not account for non-thermal risks. (Referenced in FCC record and via Environmental Health Trust documents.)

7. Section 704 of Telecom Act (1996): 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). This provision prohibits local governments from regulating wireless facility placement based on environmental (health) effects if within FCC limits. Environmental Health Trust – Telecom Act Section 704 Fact Sheet and related analysis​rfsafe.com​quantadose.com.

8. Critiques of SAR Safety Standard: Lai, H. (University of Washington) – Research on non-thermal effects and statements criticizing SAR. (QuantaDose article “The Catastrophe of Section 704: How SAR Guidelines Endanger Public Health” quotes Dr. Lai: “SAR isn’t a safety standard—it’s a convenience standard… designed to facilitate wireless expansion, not protect human health.”​quantadose.com. Also details flaws of SAR: ignores pulsing, assumes short exposure, based on industry-influenced science​quantadose.com.)

9. Oxidative Stress from EMF: Yakymenko, I. et al. (2015). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 34(3). (Review finding that 93 of 100 studies showed RF induces oxidative stress – a non-thermal effect relevant to autism and other conditions.)

10. Personal Narrative – RF Safe Foundation: Coates, J. – “From Personal Tragedy to Public-Health Advocacy: The Story of RF Safe.” QuantaDose (2023). (Describes the loss of his daughter Angel to a neural tube defect and subsequent research linking EMF to such developmental anomalies​quantadose.com​quantadose.com.) Also RF Safe archives detail the author’s childhood cancer survival and military upbringing​rfsafe.com​rfsafe.com, providing context to the personal testimony.

(These references provide supporting evidence for the claims and points discussed in the article, ranging from scientific studies and government reports to analysis by experts and relevant legal documentation.)