Protect Our Future:

1. Update FCC Safety Guidelines: Embrace Modern Science

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to rely on outdated safety guidelines that were established in the 1990s. These guidelines only consider the thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)—the heating of tissue when exposed to radiation. However, recent peer-reviewed studies have conclusively demonstrated that non-thermal biological effects—such as DNA damage, oxidative stress, and cellular dysfunction—pose significant health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations like children.

Why This Matters:

• National Toxicology Program (NTP) Findings: The NTP study, one of the largest and most comprehensive investigations into the health effects of RF-EMF, found clear evidence linking RF radiation to cancer, including malignant brain tumors (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in animal studies. This landmark research raised significant concerns about the long-term safety of wireless devices, especially for children and pregnant women.
• Vulnerable Populations: Children are more susceptible to RF-EMF exposure because their skulls are thinner, allowing deeper penetration of radiation into the brain. Furthermore, their developing tissues are more sensitive to environmental toxins, and their longer lifetime exposure to RF radiation compounds the risks. Studies have shown that radiation penetrates deeper into children’s brains, and they absorb more radiation compared to adults.
• Non-Thermal Effects: Numerous studies have shown that even low levels of RF radiation—below the thermal threshold—can lead to DNA strand breaks, induce oxidative stress, and disrupt the body’s natural cellular repair mechanisms. These effects have been linked to conditions such as cancer, infertility, neurological disorders, and sleep disturbances. Non-thermal effects are not currently accounted for in the FCC's safety guidelines, leaving the public unprotected from the real risks posed by long-term exposure.

Our Demand:

The FCC must immediately update its safety guidelines to reflect current scientific understanding. This means incorporating both thermal and non-thermal effects to adequately protect public health. By enforcing stricter safety standards, the FCC will compel manufacturers to develop safer technologies, which is critical for the health of future generations.

2. Restart National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Research Ended Under Biden-Harris

The National Toxicology Program's (NTP) groundbreaking research on RF radiation was one of the most comprehensive efforts to date to understand the health impacts of long-term exposure to wireless technology. The study found clear evidence of carcinogenic effects, yet despite its importance, the Biden-Harris administration abruptly halted funding for this critical research, leaving a dangerous void in our understanding of RF radiation’s impact on human health.

Why This Matters:

• The National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute both found "clear evidence" of carcinogenic effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in animal studies, with increased tumor incidence in the brain and heart, and recent studies have linked these findings to human cancers through similar genetic mutations and tumor morphology.
• The Importance of NTP Studies: The NTP studies represent some of the most thorough investigations into the potential health effects of RF-EMF exposure, particularly its link to cancer. These studies included over 10 years of research and were designed to provide the kind of long-term data needed to inform global health and safety standards.
• Health Policy Impact: By halting NTP research, we lose the opportunity to further investigate and confirm the risks posed by RF radiation. This research is crucial for creating effective public health policies, updating safety regulations, and ensuring that future generations are not left unprotected from the potential harms of wireless technologies.
• Therapeutic Potential: While RF-EMF poses risks, there is also potential for therapeutic uses, such as cancer treatment. TheraBionic, a recent FDA-approved treatment, uses specific RF frequencies to treat liver cancer without thermal effects, showcasing the dual nature of RF-EMF. Understanding how to minimize the risks while exploring these therapeutic applications is essential for future innovation in medicine.

Our Demand:

We call for the immediate restoration of funding and support for the NTP’s research. Without this critical work, we are left without the full understanding of the health implications of RF-EMF exposure, which is vital for crafting informed policy decisions. Continued research will also pave the way for safer technological advancements that protect public health.

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

For decades, regulatory capture has allowed industry interests to exercise undue influence over the FCC, resulting in policies that favor corporate profits over public safety. Industry insiders within regulatory positions create conflicts of interest that prevent the FCC from acting in the best interest of public health. This has led to the unchecked proliferation of wireless technologies without adequate safety standards.

Why This Matters:

• Industry Influence and Conflicts of Interest: Tom Wheeler, former head of the CTIA, a major telecommunications lobbying group, was appointed as FCC Chairman under the Obama administration. Wheeler’s history of advocating for the wireless industry’s interests raised serious concerns about the FCC’s ability to regulate the industry impartially. Under his leadership, the FCC failed to update its radiofrequency exposure guidelines, which remain based on science from the 1990s.
• Public Trust and Safety: The FCC’s failure to act has eroded public trust in its ability to regulate the wireless industry effectively. Allowing industry lobbyists to drive policy decisions results in weaker safety regulations that do not protect the public from RF-EMF exposure. Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the FCC’s decision not to update its guidelines was “arbitrary and capricious”, and that the agency had failed to adequately consider the non-thermal biological effects of RF radiation.
• Unchecked Technology Proliferation: Without stringent regulations, the rollout of new wireless technologies, including 5G and satellite-based internet networks, continues without sufficient safety testing. This leaves millions of Americans, including children, exposed to higher levels of radiation from a growing number of devices, towers, and networks.

Our Demand:

The FCC must implement measures to eliminate industry influence and ensure that public health and safety are the primary considerations in all regulatory decisions. This includes enforcing transparent, science-based policymaking and ensuring that future FCC leadership has no ties to the industries they are tasked with regulating. Only then can we rebuild public trust and protect future generations from unnecessary health risks.

Misclassification of RF Radiation Health Risks

The misclassification of RF radiation risks is not merely a regulatory oversight—it is now implicated in a global health concern involving chronic diseases and developmental issues. As wireless technology continues to expand, exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from these devices may disrupt the natural electromagnetic environment on which all life depends. The biological effects of this disruption are suggested by increasing rates of cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive health problems, yet the full extent of the impact on human society is yet to be fully understood.

Key Misclassification Points:

• Bioelectric Dysregulation and Cancer: Emerging research indicates that bioelectric regulation plays a critical role in cell signaling pathways. Disruptions in cellular membrane potential (Vmem) may contribute to carcinogenesis, including cancer initiation, promotion, and progression. Misclassification of RF radiation risks overlooks how changes in bioelectric states might influence cancer development and progression, potentially missing therapeutic targets and treatment opportunities.
• Bioelectric Dissonance and Social Fragmentation: EMFs may disrupt the body's natural bioelectric processes, potentially leading to cellular dysfunction and health issues. This dissonance could extend to societal levels, where EMF exposure might impact hormones and brain development, potentially contributing to conditions like ADHD, autism, and other neurological disorders. Addressing the misclassification of RF health risks and resuming comprehensive research is crucial for understanding these potential impacts.
• Exacerbation of Bioelectric Disorders: Wireless radiation may exacerbate diseases where bioelectricity is a contributing factor, such as cancer and neurological conditions. Disrupting the body's natural bioelectric processes could contribute to cellular dysfunction and hinder the body's ability to maintain normal biological functions.
• Halted Research and Innovation: The lack of comprehensive research into RF radiation effects may stall critical studies that could provide clearer insights into the long-term health effects. This impedes the development of safer technologies and medical interventions.
• Unexplored Medical Benefits: Misclassification may prevent the exploration of potential therapeutic applications of RF radiation in controlled, beneficial ways. Some studies suggest possible medical uses, like targeted cancer treatments, which require further research.
• Inadequate Public Awareness: Downplaying RF radiation risks leads to a lack of public awareness and education. People may remain uninformed about safe usage practices, increasing their exposure to potential health risks without knowing how to minimize them.
• Delayed Policy Changes: Without recognizing the full scope of RF radiation risks, governments and regulatory agencies may be less likely to enact stricter guidelines or recommend precautionary measures.
• Economic Costs: Misclassification may lead to a lack of investment in safer wireless technologies and infrastructure, potentially increasing future healthcare costs associated with treating RF radiation-related illnesses.
• Vulnerability in Legal and Insurance Sectors: Without proper classification, insurance companies may not cover health issues related to RF radiation, and legal systems may lack the framework to address potential harm, leaving affected individuals without recourse.
• Environmental Impact: The potential environmental consequences, such as the impact of RF radiation on wildlife and ecosystems, which are important but remain under-researched.

The unchecked expansion of wireless technology and the growing exposure to RF radiation represent a large-scale experiment with unknown long-term effects. Addressing the misclassification of RF radiation risks is essential to protect public health and the environment.

Moving Beyond the Debate:

Given the accumulating scientific evidence, the conversation should shift from debating whether RF radiation is harmful to determining how best to protect public health. This includes:

• Updating Safety Guidelines: Regulatory bodies need to revise safety guidelines to reflect current scientific understanding, including non-thermal effects.
• Implementing Precautionary Measures: Public health advisories should encourage the use of precautionary measures, such as reducing exposure to RF radiation, especially for children and pregnant women.
• Continued Research and Surveillance: Ongoing research and health surveillance are necessary to monitor the long-term effects of RF radiation exposure in the population.

Advocacy and Public Awareness:

Raising awareness about the potential risks of RF radiation is crucial. This includes advocating for stronger regulations, encouraging safer use of wireless technology, and ensuring that the public is informed about the potential health risks associated with prolonged RF radiation exposure.

In conclusion, the scientific community has raised concerns about the potential dangers of RF radiation exposure. The debate should now focus on implementing effective safety measures and policy changes to protect public health in light of this evidence.