Imagine living in a time when the entire world believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. For centuries, this belief was not just accepted—it was enforced. Questioning it was akin to heresy, punishable by ostracization or worse. It took the courage and brilliance of a few pioneering minds, like Copernicus and Galileo, to overturn this flawed belief and usher in a new understanding of our place in the cosmos. Today, we face a similar crisis of scientific understanding, but the stakes are even higher—our children’s lives and the future of public health hang in the balance.
For years, we have been told that non-ionizing radiation, such as the kind emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices, is harmless except for its heating effects. This belief has shaped public policy, guided regulatory decisions, and influenced the design of countless products that permeate every aspect of our lives. But this belief is not supported by science. In fact, it is a dangerous misconception that must be challenged and overturned at the highest levels. The failure to do so is costing lives, particularly those of our children, and it is time we demanded accountability from those in power.
The Geocentric Model: A Lesson in the Perils of Dogma
The transition from the geocentric model, which placed the Earth at the center of the universe, to the heliocentric model, where the Sun is at the center, is a powerful example of how deeply entrenched beliefs can be overturned by truth and evidence. For centuries, the geocentric model was not just a scientific theory—it was the foundation of how people understood their place in the universe. It was endorsed by religious and political authorities and taught as fact in schools. Yet, despite its widespread acceptance, it was fundamentally wrong.
The shift to the heliocentric model didn’t happen overnight. It was met with resistance from those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Galileo, one of the most vocal proponents of the heliocentric model, was tried by the Inquisition and forced to recant his views. But the truth could not be suppressed forever. Eventually, the evidence became overwhelming, and the geocentric model was abandoned.
Today, we find ourselves in a similar situation. The belief that non-ionizing radiation is harmless except for its heating effects is deeply entrenched in our society. It is accepted by many regulatory bodies, endorsed by industry, and taught in schools. Yet, like the geocentric model, it is fundamentally flawed. The evidence against this belief is mounting, and it is time for a paradigm shift.
The Science of Non-Ionizing Radiation: Unveiling the Truth
Non-ionizing radiation, which includes the radiation emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and other wireless devices, has long been considered safe as long as it does not produce significant heat. This belief is based on the idea that only ionizing radiation, which has enough energy to remove tightly bound electrons from atoms and molecules, poses a significant health risk. However, this view fails to account for the growing body of evidence that shows non-ionizing radiation can have harmful biological effects, even at levels that do not cause noticeable heating.
Studies have shown that non-ionizing radiation can cause DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disruptions in cellular communication. These effects have been linked to a range of health issues, including cancer, reproductive problems, and neurological disorders. For example, a study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found clear evidence of cancer in rats exposed to levels of RF radiation that do not cause significant heating. This finding directly contradicts the long-held belief that non-ionizing radiation is only harmful if it heats tissue.
Despite this growing evidence, regulatory agencies have been slow to update their safety guidelines. The current standards, which are based on the thermal effects of radiation, do not account for the non-thermal effects that have been documented in numerous studies. This failure to update safety guidelines is putting public health at risk, particularly the health of children, who are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation due to their developing bodies and longer lifetime exposure.
The Dangerous Influence of Industry on Regulatory Agencies
One of the reasons for this regulatory inertia is the influence of industry on regulatory bodies. The appointment of Tom Wheeler, a former head of the wireless industry, to the position of FCC Chairman under the Obama administration is a glaring example of this conflict of interest. Wheeler’s tenure at the FCC was marked by policies that favored the wireless industry, often at the expense of public health. The money trail suggests that political donations from industry insiders played a significant role in securing his appointment.
This kind of regulatory capture is not just a breach of public trust—it is a direct threat to public safety. When regulatory agencies are more concerned with protecting industry profits than with safeguarding public health, the consequences can be deadly. In the case of non-ionizing radiation, this failure to act is contributing to a public health crisis that is endangering the lives of our children.
The Tragic Consequences for Our Children
The most heartbreaking aspect of this crisis is the impact it is having on our children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of radiation because their bodies are still developing, and they have a longer lifetime exposure to radiation than adults. Studies have shown that children who are exposed to high levels of radiation are at increased risk for a range of health problems, including cancer, behavioral issues, and cognitive impairments.
Yet, despite these risks, children are being exposed to radiation on a daily basis in their schools, homes, and communities. Cell towers are being installed on school grounds, Wi-Fi networks are being expanded in classrooms, and children are using wireless devices at younger and younger ages. All of this is happening under the assumption that non-ionizing radiation is harmless, an assumption that is not supported by science.
The failure to protect our children from these risks is nothing short of a disgrace. It is a betrayal of our responsibility as parents, educators, and policymakers to ensure that our children have a safe and healthy environment in which to grow and thrive. The fact that this failure is being driven by corporate greed and political corruption only makes it more egregious.
The Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administrations: A Legacy of Corporate Unaccountability
The Obama-Biden administration, and now the Biden-Harris administration, bear significant responsibility for this crisis. Under their watch, the wireless industry has enjoyed unprecedented influence over regulatory agencies like the FCC. This influence has led to a regulatory environment that prioritizes industry profits over public health, with devastating consequences for our children.
The appointment of industry insiders to key regulatory positions, the failure to update safety guidelines in the face of mounting evidence, and the refusal to fund independent research into the health effects of non-ionizing radiation are all part of a pattern of corporate unaccountability that has defined these administrations. This pattern must be broken if we are to protect the health of our children and future generations.
A Call to Action: Demanding Accountability and Change
The time for complacency is over. We can no longer afford to ignore the growing body of evidence that shows non-ionizing radiation is not as harmless as we have been led to believe. We must demand that our regulatory agencies update their safety guidelines to reflect the latest scientific understanding. We must call for an end to the influence of industry on regulatory decisions. And we must hold our elected officials accountable for their role in perpetuating this public health crisis.
This is not just a matter of scientific debate—it is a matter of life and death. Our children’s lives are at stake, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are protected from harm. The transition from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system was not just a shift in scientific understanding; it was a revolution in how we see our place in the universe. Today, we need a similar revolution in how we understand and regulate non-ionizing radiation.
We must be guided by the truth, not by dispelled assertions or industry propaganda. We must recognize that non-ionizing radiation can have serious health effects, even at levels that do not cause noticeable heating. And we must act now to protect our children from the dangers of radiation exposure.
The Urgent Need to Restart Critical NTP Research
A particularly egregious example of the current administration’s negligence is the decision to halt funding for the National Toxicology Program (NTP)’s research into the health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This research, which had already found clear evidence of cancer risks from RF radiation, was stopped in its tracks due to funding constraints. This decision is not just a setback for science; it is a betrayal of the public trust.
The NTP’s research was among the few large-scale studies that aimed to explore the long-term effects of RF radiation on human health. The findings were alarming: high levels of RF radiation were linked to an increased risk of cancer, particularly glioblastoma, the same type of brain cancer that took the life of President Biden’s son, Beau Biden. Despite this personal connection, President Biden allowed the critical research to be halted, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the risks associated with RF radiation.
This move was met with shock and disappointment from scientists, health advocates, and concerned citizens. The cessation of NTP research has left the public without the reassurance of ongoing, rigorous assessment of potential risks, and it has sparked calls for the research to be reinstated.
Court Ruling: A Victory for Public Health Advocates
In a landmark case, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) sued the FCC, arguing that the commission’s guidelines for RF radiation exposure, established in 1996, were outdated and failed to reflect current scientific understanding. In August 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the FCC had not adequately explained why its 1996 guidelines were sufficient to protect against the harmful effects of RF radiation, especially considering the more recent studies and scientific evidence.
The court specifically criticized the FCC for failing to address non-cancer risks associated with RF radiation, including effects on reproductive health, neurological function, and children’s health. This ruling was a significant victory for public health advocates and highlighted the urgent need for regulatory agencies to stay current with scientific research.
The Promise of Bioelectric Medicine
Beyond the immediate risks associated with RF radiation, there is also the untapped potential of bioelectric medicine. Recent advancements in RF radiation research have shown that these frequencies can interact with biological systems in ways that extend beyond thermal effects. For example, the FDA-approved TheraBionic treatment uses RF radiation at power levels up to 1000 times lower than those emitted by cell phones to treat inoperable liver cancer through non-thermal interactions at the cellular or molecular level.
These interactions include resonance effects, disruption of cellular signaling, and potential modulation of the immune system. The potential of bioelectric medicine to revolutionize healthcare is enormous, offering new avenues for treating various diseases by understanding and leveraging the complexities of bioelectricity and its role in governing biological processes.
Children Are at Greater Risk
The physiological and developmental characteristics of children make them particularly vulnerable to the effects of RF radiation. Their thinner skulls and higher tissue conductivity allow for greater absorption of RF energy into their developing brains. Since their bodies are still developing, they are at a higher risk of DNA damage from oxidative stress caused by RF radiation.
Implications for Children’s Health:
- Developmental Delays: Studies suggest that RF radiation exposure can affect children’s cognitive and motor skills development.
- Behavioral Disorders: Research links exposure to RF radiation with changes in behavior, such as increased hyperactivity and attention deficits.
- Increased Cancer Risk: The potential for developing cancer from RF radiation may be higher in children due to the cumulative effect of exposure over their lifespan.
A Call to Action for President Trump
President Trump, your commitment to the health and safety of the American people is commendable, and we applaud you for embracing the concerns raised by RFK Jr. about the welfare of our children. Your recent pledge to establish a panel of top experts, working alongside Bobby Kennedy, to investigate the causes of the decades-long increase in chronic health problems and childhood diseases—including autoimmune disorders, autism, obesity, infertility, and more—resonates deeply with the American people.
By taking this bold step, you are not only acknowledging the urgent need to protect our children’s health but also ensuring that every child in America has the opportunity to grow up and live a long, healthy life. We stand with you in this endeavor and urge you to continue prioritizing the well-being of our citizens by resuming the critical NTP research halted by the Biden administration and updating the FCC safety guidelines to reflect the latest scientific understanding.
Let’s stand together for a healthier future, informed by science and guided by the commitment to safeguarding our citizens. President Trump, we urge you to champion this cause and continue putting the American people first.
Conclusion: A New Paradigm for Public Health
As we look to the future, we must learn from the mistakes of the past. Just as the geocentric model was eventually overturned by evidence and reason, so too must the outdated belief that non-ionizing radiation is harmless be abandoned. The science is clear: non-ionizing radiation can cause harm, and it is our responsibility to ensure that our regulatory frameworks reflect this reality.
The path forward is not easy, but it is necessary. We must demand that our regulatory agencies update their safety guidelines to protect public health. We must push for independent research into the health effects of non-ionizing radiation. And we must hold our elected officials accountable for their role in perpetuating this crisis.
The stakes are too high to do anything less. The lives of our children depend on it, and we cannot afford to wait any longer. The time to act is now.
