In 1993, two FDA scientists issued a memo that should have sparked sweeping action. Their internal analysis concluded that microwaves could “accelerate the development of cancer.” Yet instead of making this urgent finding public, the FDA downplayed the risks and shifted focus to uncertainty and reassurance.
This memo, now revealed through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, exposes a troubling contradiction: while the FDA privately recognized the need for further investigation, it failed to act on that recognition, violating both the spirit and letter of its legal mandate under Public Law 90-602.
Public Law 90-602: A Mandate for Vigilance
The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, passed by Congress during the rise of microwave ovens and other emerging technologies, tasked the FDA with three clear responsibilities:
- Research: Continuously study the health impacts of radiation exposure, including non-ionizing radiation like microwaves and RF (radiofrequency) radiation.
- Public Education: Inform the public about risks as new evidence emerges.
- Regulation: Update safety standards to reflect the latest scientific understanding, ensuring public health is prioritized over technological advancement.
This law reflected Congress’s foresight: as technology evolves, so too must our understanding of its potential hazards. The 1993 memo, however, reveals how the FDA has failed to meet this mandate—leaving Americans uninformed and unprotected.
What the 1993 FDA Memo Revealed
Authored by Drs. Mays Swicord and Larry Cress, the memo highlighted a startling pattern across available studies:
- 5 of 8 chronic animal studies showed increased malignancies, accelerated tumor growth, or both.
- In vitro research supported evidence of cancer-promoting effects at levels of microwave exposure consistent with early cell phone use.
- The long-term study by Drs. Bill Guy and C.K. Chou demonstrated how microwave energy deposits could accelerate naturally occurring malignancies—a finding Swicord and Cress described as “particularly disturbing.”
Their conclusion? A “compelling case for further research.”
Yet, instead of following through with robust, FDA-supervised investigations, the agency issued public statements minimizing the risks:
- The FDA’s official stance in early 1993 was that evidence of harm was “limited” and that “if there is a risk … it is probably small.”
- No large-scale, federally funded research was initiated to confirm or refute these findings, violating the agency’s obligations under Public Law 90-602.
The Cost of Inaction
The FDA’s failure to act on the 1993 memo is not an isolated misstep—it’s part of a broader pattern of negligence:
- Defunding Critical Research
The National Toxicology Program (NTP), which found clear evidence of cancer in rats exposed to RF radiation, was abruptly defunded after its landmark study. This mirrors the suppression of follow-up research after the 1993 memo. - Ignoring Non-Thermal Effects
The FDA and FCC still rely on thermal-only guidelines—standards that measure safety based solely on whether radiation heats tissue. The Swicord-Cress memo warned of non-thermal, cancer-promoting effects decades ago, yet these concerns remain largely unaddressed. - Violating Public Trust
By failing to educate the public about the memo’s findings, the FDA left Americans uninformed about potential risks, denying them the opportunity to make informed decisions about their exposure.
Legal and Constitutional Failures
The FDA’s inaction in the wake of the 1993 memo violates Public Law 90-602 and raises broader questions about governmental accountability:
- Congressional Mandate Ignored
Public Law 90-602 mandates continuous research and public education. The FDA’s decision to suppress the memo’s findings, coupled with its failure to fund robust follow-up studies, represents a dereliction of its duties under federal law. - Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act
Passed in 1996, this law prevents local governments from opposing cell tower placements on health grounds. By shielding outdated FCC standards from scrutiny, Section 704 effectively nullifies Public Law 90-602, creating a legal paradox where the public is denied both protection and the freedom to question risks.
A Wake-Up Call for Today’s Wireless Age
The 1993 memo is a stark reminder that scientific warnings often emerge long before action is taken—if at all. Since then, wireless technology has proliferated, and RF radiation exposure has become ubiquitous. Meanwhile:
- Autism rates have surged, from 1 in 150 in 1992 to 1 in 36 by 2012.
- Neurological disorders like ADHD have climbed alongside growing EMF exposure.
- Thousands of studies now document non-thermal biological effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption.
Despite these alarming trends, the FDA and FCC continue to cling to outdated standards that fail to account for modern science.
What Needs to Happen Now
- Repeal Section 704
This law ties the hands of local governments, preventing them from questioning or regulating wireless infrastructure. Without its repeal, Public Law 90-602 cannot function as intended. - Enforce Public Law 90-602
The FDA must resume its mandated role as a watchdog, funding independent research, updating safety standards, and transparently educating the public. - Update FCC Guidelines
Safety standards must incorporate non-thermal effects, reflecting decades of research ignored since the Swicord-Cress memo. - Restart Critical Research
The findings of the National Toxicology Program and studies cited in the 1993 memo demand further investigation. Halting this work leaves us blind to potential risks.
Conclusion: A Memo That Still Matters
The 1993 FDA memo isn’t just a relic of a bygone era—it’s a warning that remains profoundly relevant today. It exposes how regulatory bodies, under pressure from industry and politics, can suppress science at the expense of public health.
For John Coates, who lost his daughter Angel Lee to a neural tube defect and now advocates for RF safety, the memo underscores why vigilance is non-negotiable. “The FDA is legally obligated to protect us from these risks,” Coates says. “When they fail to do their job, it’s not just a mistake—it’s a betrayal of their mandate and the public’s trust.”
As Americans grapple with the expanding footprint of wireless technology, the 1993 memo serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action. We must demand transparency, accountability, and research that reflects the full scope of potential risks. Only then can we begin to close the gap between what regulators know and what they choose to tell us.
For more information on RF safety and advocacy efforts, visit RF Safe.
