President Donald Trump’s appointments of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Brendan Carr as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have sparked significant discussions due to their contrasting views on radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Stance on RF Radiation
Kennedy has long been a vocal critic of existing RF safety standards, underscoring the importance of recognizing non-thermal health effects of RF radiation. He has pushed for tighter regulations and broader public awareness regarding potential exposure risks. In an interview earlier in 2024, Kennedy remarked:
“My concern about 5G is that the RF radiation from 5G is dangerous. It penetrates and disrupts the blood-brain barrier.”
Kennedy’s Track Record
- Courtroom Victories: Kennedy’s legal actions against the FCC exposed major shortcomings in the agency’s outdated RF guidelines.
- Focus on Non-Thermal Risks: He cites evidence from studies (e.g., NTP, Ramazzini) indicating non-thermal impacts such as cancer, DNA damage, and neurological harm.
- Advocacy for Transparency: Kennedy has long sought to combat regulatory capture, calling for independent scientific oversight and stronger accountability measures for corporate interests.
Brendan Carr’s Perspective on RF Radiation
As the FCC Chairman, Carr supports a broad deployment of wireless technologies, including 5G, consistently maintaining that current RF safety guidelines are adequate. He often highlights the economic benefits and technological advantages of rapid infrastructure growth.
“To remain globally competitive, we must advance 5G deployment,” Carr stated in a 2018 speech, downplaying the severity of potential health risks raised by critics.
Key Points from Carr’s Position
- Support for 1996 Standards: Defends guidelines that focus primarily on thermal effects, sidelining concerns about non-thermal biological impacts.
- Industry Alignment: Carr’s stance frequently aligns with telecom industry arguments, emphasizing expansion and innovation over calls for stricter oversight.
- Disregard for Contradictory Data: Critics argue he has overlooked the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that document non-thermal effects (e.g., DNA damage, oxidative stress).
RFK Jr.’s Epic Court Win: A Game-Changer for Public Health
In a landmark 2021 decision, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his team achieved a major victory against the FCC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the FCC had neglected decades of scientific evidence showing the harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR). This ruling compelled the FCC to revisit its outdated 1996 guidelines, which fail to address non-thermal effects such as cancer and neurological disorders.
Now, with RFK Jr. at the helm of HHS and Brendan Carr as FCC Chair, a potential policy showdown is on the horizon. Kennedy’s focus on evidence-based reforms stands in stark contrast to Carr’s defense of existing RFR safety standards.
RFK Jr. vs. Brendan Carr: Two Divergent Paths on RF Safety
RFK Jr.’s Position: The Public Health Advocate
-
Courtroom Victory
Kennedy’s lawsuit spotlighted glaring inadequacies in FCC safety standards, revealing the agency’s failure to address non-thermal biological effects of RFR. The court declared these guidelines “arbitrary and capricious,” emphasizing that the FCC ignored substantial evidence linking RFR exposure to cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive issues. -
Science-Based Policies
Kennedy champions public health by pressing for updated, modern-science-driven safety regulations. Seminal studies from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Ramazzini Institute—which show clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage linked to RFR—underscore the urgency of his mission. -
Accountability for Regulatory Capture
Having fought regulatory capture for years, Kennedy seeks transparency and corporate accountability. Under his leadership at HHS, agencies are expected to place public welfare over industry profits.
Brendan Carr’s Position: The Status Quo Defender
(Document Reference: 2018.12.17 FCC Carr to Blumenthal and Eshoo re RF Safety)
-
Support for Outdated Guidelines
Despite a growing body of contradictory scientific data, Carr has historically supported the 1996 FCC safety standards, arguing they sufficiently protect the public. These standards only consider thermal effects, largely dismissing non-thermal biological impacts. -
Industry Alignment
Carr’s statements frequently mirror the telecom industry’s viewpoint, which benefits from the continuation of older regulatory frameworks. Critics argue this stance is at odds with the 2021 court ruling that ordered the FCC to update its guidelines. -
Incompatibility with Modern Science
Many note that Carr’s position is undercut by thousands of peer-reviewed studies pointing to non-thermal RF effects (oxidative stress, DNA strand breaks, etc.). He is widely seen as ignoring emerging research that underpins RFK Jr.’s call for urgent reforms.
The NTP Study and Ramazzini Confirmation: RFK Jr.’s Scientific Arsenal
Kennedy’s stance draws on groundbreaking research from:
- NTP Findings: The National Toxicology Program’s multi-year study found clear evidence of cancer in lab animals exposed to RF radiation at levels comparable to heavy cell phone usage.
- Ramazzini Institute: By replicating the NTP’s results at lower power levels (similar to everyday human exposure), the institute found striking genetic and morphological parallels between rat tumors and human gliomas.
In stark contrast, Carr has mostly disregarded these findings, continuing to defend the FCC guidelines that fail to reflect the expanding body of evidence on non-thermal effects.
Regulatory Capture and the Halting of Research
RFK Jr.’s Fight for Transparency
Kennedy has consistently sounded the alarm about regulatory capture, where agencies like the FCC elevate industry goals over public health. This dynamic came into sharper focus when the NTP study lost its funding under the previous administration—just after it found compelling evidence of cancer risks linked to RF exposure.
Carr’s Role in Stalled Progress
Even though the court mandated the FCC to update safety guidelines, Carr’s track record suggests a pattern of inertia. By maintaining that existing standards suffice and ignoring new scientific data, his approach risks leaving the public unprotected from potential RF hazards.
The Path Forward: RFK Jr.’s Vision for HHS and the FCC’s Accountability
With RFK Jr. now in charge at HHS, there is potential for a decisive policy shift anchored in rigorous science. His leadership may focus on:
- Updating RFR Safety Standards
Rewriting rules to include non-thermal health risks and reflect cutting-edge research. - Reinstating Independent Research
Restoring or expanding the studies that the government halted, including those from NTP, to fill gaps in our knowledge about RF’s biological impacts. - Public Education
Launching awareness campaigns to help citizens reduce exposure and make informed decisions about wireless devices.
Meanwhile, Carr must grapple with the court’s mandate to bring the FCC’s guidelines into the modern era. Ignoring this directive would continue the cycle of regulatory capture, which has allowed the telecom industry to operate with minimal scrutiny of its safety claims.
1. The Misalignment Between FDA Claims and Scientific Evidence
Carr maintains that the FCC’s RF safety guidelines, derived in part from FDA evaluations, remain sufficient to safeguard public health. However, the 2021 lawsuit—which Kennedy won—demonstrated that the FDA lacks updated, peer-reviewed research to validate these decades-old limits.
- Fact Check:
The 1996 guidelines focus on thermal impacts, not the non-thermal effects that emerging science repeatedly flags. - Court Findings:
Both the FCC and FDA failed to provide robust scientific evidence justifying the sufficiency of these outdated standards.
2. Halting Research Instead of Updating Guidelines
Although the court demanded modernized guidelines backed by current science, the previous federal administration curtailed funding for the NTP studies—despite their revelation of potential carcinogenic risks from RF exposure.
- NTP Study Findings:
Clear evidence of gliomas and cardiac schwannomas in rats exposed to RF radiation, at exposure levels comparable to heavy cell phone use. - Ramazzini Institute Confirmation:
Working at lower power levels akin to daily human exposure, Ramazzini reinforced the NTP’s results, highlighting a carcinogenic potential for RF radiation.
Implication: Cutting off NTP research sidesteps the critical questions about how RF truly impacts public health, contradicting any claim of “ongoing review.”
3. Brendan Carr’s Incompatibility with Emerging Evidence
Carr’s repeated endorsement of the 1996 guidelines flies in the face of:
- The Court’s Mandate: Directing the FCC to revise safety standards for non-thermal effects.
- Current Research: NIEHS-Ramazzini collaboration shows tumors in rats exposed to RF share morphological/genetic similarities with human cancers.
Call to Action: As FCC Chair, Carr must confront the gap between older thermal models and new data affirming non-thermal risks. Remaining complacent could endanger the public.
4. Consequences of Inaction
- Public Health: Rising incidences of cancers and neurological disorders may be linked to long-term RF exposure under inadequate safety limits.
- Scientific Suppression: Defunding research like the NTP study hints at a broader pattern of ignoring or burying data that challenges established industry narratives.
- Erosion of Trust: As evidence is sidelined, public faith in agencies like the FCC and FDA diminishes.
Brendan Carr’s stance, increasingly out of step with evolving science, could undermine both public health and the FCC’s legitimacy as a regulatory body.
A Call to Action: Bridging the Divide
As these two officials navigate their roles, the public and policymakers must demand:
- Accountability: HHS and FCC must uphold public interest above industry priorities.
- Transparency: Decision-making should rely on independently verified, peer-reviewed research.
- Collaboration: Bridging the gap between RFK Jr.’s push for updated safety standards and Carr’s defense of legacy guidelines could result in balanced, scientifically grounded policies.
The well-being of future generations hinges on courageous, evidence-driven leadership. Moving past complacency is essential to ensuring our regulatory agencies serve the American people—not corporate stakeholders. Under RFK Jr.’s leadership at HHS, the stage is set for a much-needed overhaul of U.S. wireless safety standards. Meanwhile, Chairman Carr must acknowledge the court’s ruling and work toward updating guidelines that have remained stagnant for nearly three decades.
The Bottom Line
The clash over RF radiation safety isn’t merely bureaucratic—it’s about safeguarding public health in a world increasingly saturated with wireless signals. With the FCC under Brendan Carr pushing for rapid 5G expansion and RFK Jr. at HHS championing evidence-based reforms, we stand at a pivotal juncture. Will the U.S. finally address non-thermal effects and modernize its RF safety guidelines? Or will industry interests continue to overshadow mounting scientific concerns?
Only through accountability, transparency, and collaborative action can we forge a path that balances technological progress with the imperative of public well-being.
