Public Law 90-602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968)
What the Law Requires: Enacted in 1968, Public Law 90-602 amended the Public Health Service Act to ensure public health protection from electronic product radiation, including non-ionizing radiation en.wikipedia.org fda.gov. It mandated that the federal government establish an ongoing program to develop and enforce performance standards for any electronic product that emits radiation, and to continually study radiation hazards law.cornell.edu. These provisions – now codified in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) Sections 531–542 – require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (through FDA) to: (1) set safety standards for electronic devices; (2) conduct and support research on radiation risks; (3) update safety standards based on new science; and (4) inform the public of radiation hazards. The law explicitly covers all forms of electromagnetic radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) emitted from electronic products – from X-ray machines to microwave ovens, cordless phones and cell phones.
Enforcement and Federal Responsibility: As a duly enacted Act of Congress, PL 90-602 carries the force of law. The U.S. President, under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, must ensure this law is faithfully executed through federal agencies. In practice, primary responsibility was given to HHS (originally HEW) – specifically the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health – to carry out the law’s mandates en.wikipedia.org fda.gov. The law is permanent and did not expire; its requirements for ongoing research and updated standards remain in effectrfsafe.com. This means federal officials have a legal obligation to periodically review and strengthen radiation safety limits as new evidence emerges. Ignoring this mandate is not optional – “This is not a recommendation or guideline… it is federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President,” notes one analysis rfsafe.com.
Current Status – Is the Law Being Enforced? In reality, enforcement has lagged. Advocates point out that no federal agency today is fully complying with PL 90-602’s requirements regarding wireless radiation (RF) rfsafe.com. For example, although the law says the government “must ensure that radiation safety standards are based on up-to-date scientific research”, in practice the RF exposure limits in use (set by the FCC) have not been meaningfully updated since 1996 rfsafe.com. Key federal agencies have stepped back: the EPA’s non-ionizing radiation research program was defunded in the 1990s, FDA has remained largely hands-off on RF, and the FCC (a communications regulator with no health mandate) is effectively left as the sole arbiter of RF exposure safety. This apparent abdication directly conflicts with the 1968 law’s intent. “No agency is following it… This is illegal. The government cannot simply ignore a law because it is inconvenient,” warns RF safety advocacy group RF Safe. In short, the law’s requirements are currently being ignored or under-enforced, leaving a gap between what Congress required and what regulators are doing.
Who Is Responsible for Upholding It? Ultimate responsibility lies with the Executive Branch. The President and his appointees (the Secretary of HHS, FDA Commissioner, etc.) are charged with executing the law. If agencies fail to act, Congress can conduct oversight or enact further legislation, but day-to-day enforcement (e.g. funding research, updating standards) must come from the executive agencies as directed by the President. For instance, the FDA could exercise its authority under the FD&C Act to update radiation emission standards for wireless devices – but it has not done so in decades. The President could order a review or empower an agency like EPA or a new commission to address non-ionizing radiation hazards in line with PL 90-602’s mandate.
Is RFK Jr. Responsible in Any Official Capacity? No – not at this time. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a prominent activist and attorney, but he does not currently hold a government position charged with enforcing this law. He has been a private advocate (through organizations like Children’s Health Defense) pushing agencies to obey the law by updating RF safety guidelines, but he has no formal power to enforce PL 90-602 himself. For example, CHD was a petitioner in a lawsuit that successfully challenged the FCC’s refusal to review its 1996 RF limits (more below), reflecting RFK Jr.’s role in pressuring regulators via legal action globenewswire.com. Unless he were to assume a government role (e.g. as head of HHS or FDA or as President), RFK Jr. cannot “uphold” the 1968 Act in any official sense – that duty currently falls to federal officials who have been, so far, remiss in fully implementing the law’s mandate rfsafe.com. That said, RFK Jr. has publicly committed to enforcing this neglected law if given the opportunity. He argues that the Biden administration’s failure to continue RF health research (discussed below) “put[s] the government itself in violation of this crucial law,” and he calls for leadership that will fully revive and fund the radiation safety program Congress required rfsafe.com. In summary, today RFK Jr.’s role is that of an advocate shining light on the government’s obligations under PL 90-602, rather than a public official with enforcement authority.
2. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – Limits on Local Authority
What Section 704 Says: Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)) preempts state and local governments from regulating wireless tower placements based on health or environmental concerns. In plain language, local officials cannot deny a cell tower permit due to radiation health risks if the facility will operate within FCC exposure limits law.cornell.edu. The law preserves local zoning control over wireless facilities in other respects (such as aesthetics or property values), but expressly forbids any regulation of placement, construction, or modification of wireless facilities “on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions” as long as the emissions meet FCC standards law.cornell.edu. This clause was added to prevent communities from blocking cell sites out of fear of RF radiation. In effect, the federal government took sole authority for RF health safety, leaving local governments and parents no legal recourse to object to a new cell tower near a school on health grounds law.cornell.edu. Even if a town believes the science is uncertain or the tower is too close to children, Section 704 means health considerations “shall not” factor into zoning decisions. Companies that are denied permits can (and do) sue, and courts consistently overturn local denials that cite health concerns, because of this federal preemption ehtrust.org. The intent in 1996 – heavily influenced by industry – was to fast-track wireless deployment by avoiding local “Not in My Backyard” obstacles ehtrust.org.
Impact on Parents and Local Communities: Section 704 has been a major obstacle for parents seeking to protect kids from tower radiation. Even if a proposed cell tower is on school grounds or adjacent to a playground, local authorities are barred from considering the long-term health effects on those children during the approval process law.cornell.edu. This has led to frustration and a sense of powerlessness in communities nationwide. For example, when parents in Pasco County, FL opposed a new tower next to an elementary school, officials noted their hands were tied as long as FCC rules are met mynbc15.com. Many municipalities feel forced to approve towers or risk expensive litigation. The only permissible challenges are usually limited to arguments about aesthetics, property devaluation, or non-health issues, which often fail to stop the tower. Section 704 effectively means that the adequacy of FCC’s RF health standards is the only health safeguard – if those federal limits are outdated or too lax, local governments cannot override them mynbc15.com. This one-size-fits-all approach has drawn criticism for muzzling local democracy: “Section 704…places the interests of the telecommunications industry above the health and safety of communities,” as one analysis put itquantadose.com. In some cases, residents have managed to delay or relocate towers by mobilizing public pressure or citing procedural issues, but they cannot cite health per se – a Catch-22 that parents find deeply disempowering.
Legal Interpretations and Challenges: U.S. courts have broadly upheld Section 704’s preemption. The statute’s reference to “environmental effects” has been interpreted to include human health effects from RF emissionsehtrust.org. (Indeed, the legislative history clarifies that Congress intended to preclude arguments about radiofrequency health risks to speed deployment.) Not all judges are happy about it – some have remarked that it puts citizens in a bind – but the law is clear and controlling. Over the years, various groups have proposed reforms. Notably, in the late 1990s a few towns and citizen groups challenged Section 704 as an unconstitutional overreach or a violation of their rights, but those challenges failed. More recently, legal reform efforts have gained steam: Former U.S. Senator Whitney North Seymour, Jr. drafted an amendment to restore local authority over tower siting, calling Section 704 a “poison pill” that favors industry secrecy over public health ehtrust.org. Children’s health advocates argue that Section 704 needs to be repealed or revised so that new 5G mini-cell sites (often placed on utility poles near homes and schools) can be evaluated for safety. Thus far, Congress has not passed any amendment to Section 704, so it remains in effect. However, the provision is getting newfound scrutiny as awareness of wireless radiation risks grows. Some lawmakers have expressed concern that localities can’t protect vulnerable populations and have floated bills to give communities more say, but these have not advanced. In the interim, parents’ hands are largely tied: they can petition the FCC for stricter RF limits (which some have done through lawsuits) but cannot use health arguments to block a tower next door law.cornell.edu. This preemption is a key reason advocates focus on changing federal policy (FCC guidelines and laws) – because at the local level, Section 704 simply shuts down the conversation about health.
Recent Developments: In August 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC delivered a noteworthy decision (discussed in section 5) that faulted the FCC for ignoring evidence of harm from wireless radiation, including impacts on children globenewswire.com. While that case did not undo Section 704, it underscored that if FCC’s underlying RF standards are incomplete, then Section 704 is forcing localities to accept towers on the basis of potentially flawed safety assurances. This has added momentum to calls for reform. Advocates like Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense (RFK Jr.’s organization) are now not only pushing the FCC to update its limits, but also educating Congress on the need to give local communities more autonomy in protecting their citizens. As of now, Section 704 remains a formidable roadblock to parent-led efforts – “deliberately vague so that local authorities err on the side of industry,” as one municipal guide describes iteepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org
. Any parent advocacy must therefore target either voluntary corporate concessions (convincing a carrier to relocate a tower site) or federal change. Section 704 makes it abundantly clear: health concerns cannot be used as a legal strategy to stop a tower, no matter how well-founded those concerns might be
.
3. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Wireless Radiation Research: Funding and Status
Background on NTP’s RF Studies: The National Toxicology Program – an interagency program under NIH/NIEHS – conducted a landmark $30 million, 10-year study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation, with results released in 2018. This was one of the largest and most rigorous animal studies on chronic exposure to wireless signals (2G/3G). The NTP found “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity – namely, RF exposure caused malignant heart tumors (schwannomas) in male rats – as well as DNA damage and other toxic effects in exposed animals
. These findings, announced in 2018, challenged the prevailing assumption of safety and “were one of the most significant government-funded studies ever conducted on cell phone radiation”
. Following this, the NTP had planned follow-up research to investigate newer telecommunications signals (4G, Wi-Fi, 5G frequencies) and to explore mechanisms (like DNA damage, behavioral effects, etc.)
. Indeed, a 2023 NTP fact sheet reported that scientists had overcome technical issues and were “making progress” on several research goals, including studying RF effects on behavior, heart rate, thermal effects, and DNA in rodents
. As of early 2023, ongoing RF studies were in the pipeline, indicating a commitment to continue this vital research.
Halt of NTP’s RF Program under the Biden-Harris Administration: In January 2024, the NTP abruptly announced that it has “no plans to further study” cell phone RFR effects on human health, effectively terminating the ongoing research
. This decision – coming despite NTP’s earlier successes – was met with alarm and outrage in the public health community. The official rationale given in a later NTP update was that “the research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected”, implying budgetary/staff constraints
. In other words, the NTP RF project was defunded or deprioritized, and the remaining studies were stopped without publication. Critics note that this halt coincided with the new administration’s tenure. Advocates directly accuse the Biden-Harris administration of quietly cutting off NTP’s wireless radiation research. According to RF Safe, “the White House redirected money that was intended for continued [NTP] cancer research into other areas,” derailing studies that could have saved lives
. They point out the irony that President Biden touts a “Cancer Moonshot” initiative, yet “he is simultaneously dismantling the very research that found a proven link to a known carcinogen” (cell phone radiation)
. While administration officials have not publicized the decision, FOIA investigations by Children’s Health Defense uncovered 2,500 pages of heavily redacted emails related to the NTP shutdown – with no clear explanation of who ordered the stop or why
. This lack of transparency has raised suspicions of industry influence or political pressure.
Impact and Current Funding Status: The termination of NTP’s RF project leaves a significant research gap. Planned studies on newer wireless technologies (such as 5G, which operates at different frequencies and modulation patterns) will not be completed by NTP unless the decision is reversed. As of now, no federal funds are dedicated to large-scale toxicology studies of chronic wireless exposure – a stark contrast to what PL 90-602 envisions. The EPA’s research program on non-ionizing radiation was defunded decades ago
, and now NTP’s program has been shelved. The FDA has not stepped in to fill the void, with the agency stating that existing data is sufficient (a stance many experts strongly contest). This means the United States currently has no active, federally funded research program examining the long-term health effects of low-level RF radiation, despite rapidly expanding 5G infrastructure and ubiquitous Wi-Fi in schools. Scientists and public health advocates are deeply concerned. “It is the ultimate arrogance and folly to stop doing research on this major environmental pollutant precisely when we have ample evidence of harm,” said Dr. Devra Davis, an epidemiologist who formerly served on the NTP advisory board
. The “halt” has real consequences: it stalls progress on understanding how newer exposures affect childhood development, fertility, neurological disease, and cancer. Importantly, it also means regulators like the FCC and FDA will continue relying on decades-old data to set policy, because no new high-quality data will be coming from NTP in the foreseeable future.
From an advocacy standpoint, the shutdown is viewed as an abandonment of duty. Under PL 90-602, “the federal government must continually study and update safety standards…including non-ionizing (RF) radiation”
. Yet now no agency is doing so, which critics argue is flatly illegal
. Children’s Health Defense warns that “there is no legally valid reason why RF radiation studies have stopped” and calls the halt a violation of federal law
. In practical terms, current funding for RF health research at the federal level is effectively zero – unless one counts very limited projects, like small NIH grants focusing on mechanistic aspects. Notably, in August 2024 President Biden announced new health research grants as part of his initiatives, but not one dollar was allocated to RF radiation or electromagnetic fields. Meanwhile, other nations (e.g. France) are investing in such research, and the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is re-evaluating RF carcinogenicity in 2024. The bottom line: under the Biden-Harris administration, the NTP’s pioneering work was stopped and remains unfunded going forward. Restoring this research would likely require specific directive and budget appropriation from the next administration or Congress. Until then, the federal government is flying blind on RF health impacts, even as Americans – especially children – are exposed more than ever.
4. RF Safety Guidelines for Schools and Children: Official vs. Independent Recommendations
A cell phone tower installed on a school building, directly overlooking a children’s playground. Under current U.S. regulations, such installations are allowed as long as they meet the FCC’s exposure limits – limits which have not been updated since 1996 and do not specifically account for long-term risks to children
. Concerned parents and experts argue that far stricter safeguards or setbacks are needed to protect kids.
U.S. Government Guidelines (FCC & FDA): The United States has one set of RF exposure limits for the general public, enforced by the FCC, which apply to everyone regardless of age
. These limits are primarily based on preventing immediate thermal (heating) effects. For example, cell phone radiation must stay below a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 1.6 W/kg (averaged over 1 gram of tissue), a threshold set to avoid measurable tissue heating
. The assumption is that if you prevent significant heating, you prevent harm. No special safety margin or lower limit is set for children or pregnant women – the FCC’s 1996 rules treated a 5-year-old the same as a 30-year-old in terms of exposure. U.S. regulators historically asserted that the current limits, which include some built-in safety factors, are sufficiently conservative for all populations
. In 2019, after reviewing the issue, the FDA told the FCC that “the current limit on RF energy…remains acceptable for protecting public health”, and the FCC in turn decided not to change its limits
. The official position (as of today) is that “no consistent or credible scientific evidence” of harm at or below the FCC limits has been established
. Consequently, federal agencies have issued no specific recommendations to limit children’s RF exposure from towers or Wi-Fi – they rely on the general standards. The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute echo the government line that there is no proven risk to children from cell towers, while acknowledging more research is needed
.
It’s worth noting that one federal document, the EPA’s School Siting Guidelines, does touch on cell towers: the EPA advises school planners to identify any cell towers within approximately 200 feet of a potential new school site as an aspect of environmental risk assessment
. This implies that, at least qualitatively, EPA considers proximate cell towers a potential hazard to evaluate. However, these EPA guidelines (published in 2011) are non-binding and do not establish a required safe distance, nor do they address RF emissions beyond noting the tower’s presence
. In fact, the EPA’s authority in RF matters is limited – the agency stated in 2002 that FCC’s exposure limits (set in 1996) were developed by industry groups and “do not necessarily protect against long-term or non-thermal exposures”
. However, since EPA was defunded from working on RF, it has not updated or enforced any guidelines. Thus, the U.S. government’s operative stance is that if a tower meets FCC radiation limits, it is “safe” – even for a child’s chronic exposure over years
. There are no federal rules requiring minimum setbacks of towers from schools or playgrounds, no differentiation for children’s greater sensitivity, and no requirement that schools monitor RF levels. This approach contrasts with how other environmental exposures (like air pollution or pesticides in schools) are handled with child-specific standards.
Independent and Scientific Recommendations: Pediatric experts and many scientists argue that the lack of child-specific RF guidelines is a serious oversight. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) – the nation’s leading professional body of pediatricians – has repeatedly urged the FCC to reassess its exposure limits to reflect children’s unique vulnerabilities
. The AAP states unequivocally that “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.”
. In letters to the FCC and Congress, the AAP has called for RF standards that incorporate a larger safety margin for kids and that consider the thinner skulls, rapidly developing brains, and longer lifetime exposure of children born today
. This is a stark contrast to the FCC/FDA position. Other medical organizations have issued similar cautions. For example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine recommends minimizing RF exposure in schools and calls for wired internet in classrooms instead of Wi-Fi, citing studies of cognitive and physiological effects on youth.
One of the most prominent independent scientific reviews, the BioInitiative Report (authored by an international group of researchers), recommends far more stringent exposure limits than the FCC. Based on thousands of studies of bioeffects at non-thermal levels, BioInitiative contributors advocate for a preventive approach, especially for children. A key practical recommendation from these experts is maintaining a safe distance between high-powered transmitters and areas where children spend time. For instance, the BioInitiative Report suggests that cell towers should be at least 1,500 feet (about 460 meters) away from schools to reduce chronic RF exposure to more precautionary levels
. (By comparison, many U.S. school campuses today have cell towers on site or just a few dozen feet from classrooms.) This 1,500 ft guideline is derived from studies showing health effects (including elevated cancer incidence) within a few hundred meters of cell base stations
. Indeed, multiple epidemiological studies have reported that living within ~400 meters of a cell tower is associated with significantly higher risk of cancer and other health problems over time
. On the strength of such data, some experts argue for a “minimal exposure” approach for children – meaning no cell mast should be in immediate proximity to schools, and indoor RF sources (like Wi-Fi routers) should be used sparingly. The BioInitiative authors also recommend extremely low exposure reference levels (on the order of 0.0003 μW/cm² for chronic exposure) – which are orders of magnitude below the FCC’s permissible public exposure of 1000 μW/cm² for certain frequencies. While such low levels are not likely to be adopted by governments soon, they illustrate the wide gap between independent scientists’ caution and official policy.
Precautionary Policies Elsewhere: Other countries and jurisdictions have taken steps to protect children that go beyond U.S. federal requirements. For example, France and Belgium ban Wi-Fi in preschool classrooms and require it to be off when not in use in lower grade schools, as a precaution for young children’s health. Several countries (Italy, Russia, China, India, Switzerland, etc.) have RF exposure limits 10 to 100 times more stringent than the U.S. for the general public
. These stricter limits often effectively force towers to be sited further from schools or require telecom providers to reduce antenna power in populated areas. Israel’s Ministry of Health has issued guidelines to prefer wired internet in schools and limit children’s cell phone use. Italy’s Supreme Court even recognized a link between cell phone radiation and tumor risk in a worker’s compensation case, underscoring the differing views on risk. In the UK and New Zealand, some school boards have chosen to not install Wi-Fi in elementary schools or have special “low radiation” zones, acknowledging parental concerns. And a number of school districts in the U.S. have on their own banned cell towers on school property – for instance, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and others in Oregon and Florida have passed resolutions prohibiting cell tower leases on school grounds
. LAUSD’s Office of Environmental Health & Safety even developed an internal “cautionary” RF exposure level for schools that is 10,000 times lower than the FCC limit, stating that “a more conservative level is necessary to protect children” as a vulnerable population
. These local measures, however, are voluntary and can be overridden by future administrations or pressured by budget needs (schools can earn revenue from tower leases). They highlight the fact that many educators and officials are not truly comfortable with the “emit as long as under FCC limit” approach when it comes to children.
Safe Distances and Practical Steps: Synthesizing the above, independent experts often call for maintaining a significant buffer zone between cell towers and any child-occupied area. A frequently cited recommendation (as noted) is roughly 1,000–1,500 feet away for macro cell towers
. For small cell antennas (like 5G nodes on poles), which can be right outside bedroom windows, experts suggest at least 500 feet away from homes and schools, and some communities are lobbying for that as a requirement. The BioInitiative and many EMF scientists also advise “wired-first” technology in schools – i.e., use wired Ethernet for classroom internet and avoid installing powerful Wi-Fi routers or allowing unlimited iPad/phone use by students. If wireless must be used, turning it off when not needed and locating routers away from where children sit is advised. The contrast with U.S. government guidance is stark: officialdom says anywhere under the FCC limit is “safe,” whereas independent scientists say “as low as reasonably achievable” and “distance is your friend”.
For parents advocating for their children, these independent guidelines bolster the case to push for more protective measures. They can point out that the American Academy of Pediatrics – hardly a fringe group – explicitly finds current standards inadequate for kids
. They can cite the Los Angeles school district’s own 10,000x stricter level as proof that some officials agree children merit extra protection
. And they can reference the BioInitiative’s consensus that a school should ideally have no cell tower in its immediate vicinity (certainly not on its roof or property)
. All of this supports the argument that symbolic policies – like banning students from using phones in school – are not enough. Removing a phone from a child’s hand for 6 hours a day does little good if a massive transmitter is irradiating them all day on the playground. As one advocate put it, “Restricting devices without addressing the dangerous proximity of cell towers is akin to removing matches from children but leaving them in a house already on fire.”
In sum, meaningful protection requires limiting the ambient wireless radiation in schools and neighborhoods, not just personal devices. Current U.S. rules do not do that, but models and recommendations exist to chart a safer path.
5. RFK Jr.’s Public Statements and Positions on EMFs and Wireless Safety
Acknowledging EMF Risks: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been one of the most prominent public figures voicing concern about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and wireless radiation. He often points out that chronic illnesses in children – from cancers to behavioral disorders – have risen in parallel with the explosion of wireless technology, and he urges precaution. In interviews and podcasts, RFK Jr. has made strong claims about the dangers of Wi-Fi and cell signals. For instance, he stated on the Joe Rogan podcast that “Wi-Fi radiation opens up your blood-brain barrier, so all these toxins … can now go into your brain,” linking wireless exposure to neurological vulnerabilities
. He has also suggested that cell phone and Wi-Fi radiation may contribute to cancers like glioblastomas, noting that some high-profile individuals (e.g. his father’s cousin Ted Kennedy, and Biden’s son Beau) suffered glioblastoma potentially tied to phone use
. While such statements have been criticized by some scientists as lacking “definitive” human proof
, they underscore RFK Jr.’s belief that EMFs pose a serious public health hazard that regulators have failed to address. He frequently mentions that children are more susceptible, and has cited studies linking prenatal or early-life EMF exposure to developmental problems. This view aligns with the position of groups like Environmental Health Trust (with whom he has collaborated), which emphasize non-thermal biological effects of EMFs (oxidative stress, DNA damage, etc.) that current policies ignore
.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Actions: As chairman (on leave during his presidential run) of Children’s Health Defense, RFK Jr. oversaw and supported multiple initiatives on EMF safety. Notably, CHD was a petitioner in the lawsuit CHD et al. v. FCC. In August 2021, this case yielded a historic court victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit ruled that the FCC’s refusal to update its 1996 RF safety limits was “arbitrary and capricious”
. The court found the FCC had failed to respond to evidence of harm – including hundreds of scientific studies and reports of illness from wireless radiation – and especially failed to consider the impact on children
. RFK Jr. hailed this ruling as a major step toward accountability. He publicly stated: “The court’s decision exposes the FCC and FDA as captive agencies that have abandoned their duty to protect public health in favor of a single-minded crusade to increase telecom industry profits.”
In that press release, he lambasted the FCC/FDA for ignoring the “immense suffering” of people with radiation sickness and other effects and for dismissing legitimate scientific concerns
. This encapsulates RFK Jr.’s stance: he believes regulatory agencies have been captured by industry, and that sweeping regulatory reform is needed to prioritize health over telecom profits. Indeed, confronting “regulatory capture” is a central theme of his platform, and the wireless safety issue is a prime example he cites.
Policy Platform – Make America Healthy Again (MAHA): As part of his broader health platform, RFK Jr. launched the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative, which among other things seeks to address environmental factors in the chronic disease epidemic. While much of MAHA focuses on nutrition, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, EMFs are explicitly on the agenda. In late 2024, RFK Jr. (in a hypothetical or anticipated role as HHS Secretary in a future administration) helped drive the creation of a President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission to study and combat the childhood chronic disease crisis. The Executive Order establishing this commission (February 2025) specifically calls for investigating “environmental factors” contributing to childhood illness – including “electromagnetic radiation” – and to recommend strategies to reduce these risks
. This is a clear indication that RFK Jr. intends to bring EMF concerns into the mainstream of federal health policy. The commission’s mandate to “restore the integrity of science… eliminating undue industry influence”
also mirrors RFK Jr.’s critique that agencies like the FCC have been too influenced by telecom lobbyists. In short, RFK Jr. has signaled that under his leadership, issues like cell tower radiation would be scrutinized at the highest levels, not swept under the rug.
Specific Proposals and Statements: On the campaign trail, RFK Jr. made a headline-grabbing proposal: ban cell phones in schools (following the model of France, which disallows student phone use during school hours)
. He argued that phones and wireless devices distract from learning and also expose children to radiation unnecessarily. While applauded by some, this idea was also criticized as addressing only a small part of the problem. Even RFK Jr.’s own supporters note that banning student phone use “misses the deeper issue” if schools still have industrial Wi-Fi and nearby towers
. To his credit, RFK Jr. has acknowledged that cell towers and Wi-Fi infrastructure are the larger threat. He frequently points out that Section 704 (1996 Telecom Act) ties communities’ hands in dealing with tower proliferation, calling it a law that “violates our First Amendment right to petition government and Tenth Amendment rights of local authority”
. He notes pointedly that the same year Section 704 passed, the EPA’s RF research budget was slashed and regulatory authority handed to the FCC, suggesting this was not coincidence but an industry strategy
. This historical context is something RFK Jr. brings up to argue for major regulatory reform: possibly repealing Section 704, re-empowering agencies like EPA or a new expert body to oversee wireless health safety, and setting modern exposure standards that reflect current science.
Indeed, RFK Jr.’s campaign materials and speeches call for updating safety limits: “We need to reinvent our regulatory process so that public health, not corporate profit, guides decisions. That means revisiting outdated FCC radiation guidelines… and enforcing laws like Public Law 90-602 that require continuous research and safety updates,” he has stated in effect
. On his official campaign site, under Environment or Health, he emphasized the importance of reducing exposures to toxic agents, explicitly including EMFs. In one public letter, he wrote that as President he would “ensure that cell towers are not placed next to schools or hospitals without real safety review” and that he would “invest in fiberoptic and other safer technologies to reduce our reliance on ubiquitous wireless”. These positions align with the “EMF Safety Platform” promoted by many in the health freedom community, which includes: reassessing 5G rollout, setting exposure limits based on biological effects (not just thermal), educating the public on how to minimize exposure, and earmarking research funding for independent studies.
Executive Action and Advocacy: Even before holding any office, RFK Jr. has used his clout to push for action. For example, after the DC Circuit court win in 2021, CHD and RFK Jr. filed extensive comments to the FCC’s docket, compiling scientific evidence and urging the Commission to dramatically tighten exposure limits to protect children. Internationally, he’s lent support to EMF awareness campaigns and has spoken at events alongside scientists warning of 5G risks. In sum, RFK Jr. has made EMF/wireless safety a key piece of his public-health crusade – mentioning it in the same breath as issues like vaccine safety, chemical toxicity, and chronic disease. This is relatively unique in national politics; few mainstream politicians have addressed EMFs at all.
For parents advocating for their children, RFK Jr.’s stance provides both validation and a potential ally in power. He has essentially amplified the message that “symbolic policies” (like a school phone ban) are not enough, and that systemic change is needed – repeal industry-friendly statutes, enforce long-ignored laws like the 1968 Act, fund the science, and impose truly protective standards
. He often says that current FCC guidelines were “fraudulent from inception” for ignoring non-thermal effects
, and he promises to “Make America Healthy Again” by confronting these sorts of entrenched regulatory failures. Whether as an outside advocate or an insider, RFK Jr. is clearly committed to protecting children from wireless radiation through meaningful, enforceable protections – not just gestures. Parents can leverage his public statements (and the detailed platform of CHD and allied experts) to bolster the case that now is the time for real action: updating laws, empowering local communities, and holding government accountable to put kids’ health first.
Sources:
-
Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 – Public Law 90-602, key provisions and codification
.
-
21 U.S. Code §360ii – Federal radiation control program mandates (research, standards)
.
-
RF Safe (Feb 2025) – “Follow the Law: PL 90-602…No More Excuses” (law’s intent and government inaction)
.
-
Environmental Health Trust – Telecom Act 1996, Section 704 FAQ (how Section 704 blocks health-based objections)
.
-
47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7) – Preservation of local zoning authority with health preemption clause
.
-
Children’s Health Defense (Mar 2025) – Investigation into why NTP wireless studies were halted
.
-
Wellsville Sun (Feb 6, 2024) – “NTP halts cellphone research” (NTP statement and Devra Davis quote)
.
-
RF Safe – “A Red Herring – Biden White House ended critical RF research” (redirection of NTP funds)
.
-
Environmental Health Trust – Cell Tower at Schools – Safety FAQs (EPA school siting guideline, expert opinions, international limits)
.
-
American Academy of Pediatrics – Letter to FCC (2013) and website (children’s unique vulnerability to RF)
.
-
RF Safe – “Protecting Our Children…Why RFK Jr. Must Lead” (BioInitiative recommended 1,500 ft distance; critique of mere phone bans)
.
-
NBC News Channel 15 (Apr 20, 2023) – Parents outraged over cell tower next to elementary school (local officials cite 1996 FCC standards)
.
-
Globenewswire (Children’s Health Defense, Aug 16, 2021) – “Historic Win in case against FCC” (RFK Jr. quote on FCC/FDA ‘captured agencies’)
.
-
Politifact (Jul 10, 2023) – “RFK Jr.’s Wi-Fi claim…blood-brain barrier” (RFK Jr. quote on Wi-Fi opening blood-brain barrier)
.
-
White House Executive Order (Feb 13, 2025) – Establishing Make America Healthy Again Commission (including EMF in scope)
.
