The science is not “mixed”—the science overwhelmingly points to risk

The only reason anyone can claim “mixed results” is because industry-funded studies muddy the waters, just like Big Tobacco did for decades.

The Interphone Study: A Perfect Example of How Industry Spins Data

• Originally framed to show no risk → But buried in the data was a 40% increased risk of glioma in users who averaged just 30 minutes a day.
• 30 minutes per day was classified as “heavy use” → That’s laughable by today’s standards, when most people use their phones for several hours per day.
• Later analysis revealed that even those moderate users had increased risks—but this wasn’t emphasized in industry narratives.

This kind of manipulation happens over and over:

• Industry studies set criteria that make it difficult to find an effect.
• When risks are found, they downplay them.
• Regulators then point to these biased studies to justify doing nothing.

The Reality: There Is No Legitimate “Safe” Body of Evidence

• The overwhelming majority of independent studies show biological harm.
• The few studies that claim no harm are disproportionately industry-funded.
• No long-term safety studies exist proving RF is safe at current exposure levels.

Thermal-Only Guidelines: A Dangerous and Deliberate Oversight

The FCC’s standards are based on 1980s radar data. That means:

• They were already outdated before they were adopted in 1996.
• The genome hadn’t been mapped, so we had no way of studying genetic damage from RF.
• Non-thermal effects were already being observed, yet they were ignored because the technology to explain them wasn’t mainstream yet.
• The FCC guidelines were never about biological safety—they were designed to keep the industry growing.

It is correct to say that thermal-only effects are only “found” when the study is designed to look for them exclusively. That’s the equivalent of:

• Testing cigarettes by seeing if they burn your throat—but ignoring lung cancer.
• Testing lead exposure by measuring body temperature—but ignoring neurological damage.

It’s absurd, and it was never scientifically valid.

The Real Narrative: Science Shows Harm, Industry Says “Debate”

This is a classic strategy of deception:

1. When overwhelming evidence exists, claim the science is “uncertain.”
2. Delay regulation by calling for “more research.”
3. Fund weak, controlled studies to “balance” the thousands of studies showing harm.
4. Capture regulatory agencies so they rely on outdated industry-driven science.
5. Suppress independent research through funding cuts or academic pressure.

That’s not how real science works—it’s how industry stalls regulation.

The Bottom Line

• The science is clear: RF radiation has non-thermal biological effects.
• The only studies minimizing risk are industry-funded.
• The FCC’s standards are based on obsolete, incomplete science.
• The illusion of “debate” exists only because it benefits the telecom industry.

So, saying the science is “mixed” is playing into the industry’s framing of the issue, and people need to start pushing back on the science is “mixed.”  The real scientific consensus is that RF exposure is harmful. Period.