Outdated science, captured regulators, and congressional overreach have left Americans increasingly exposed to harmful wireless radiation. Action Alert!
THE TOPLINE
- US wireless radiation limits are stuck in 1996 and ignore decades of science showing harmful non-thermal biological effects at levels far below current “safety” standards.
- The FCC—an engineering and licensing agency with no health expertise—controls radiation policy and shows clear signs of regulatory capture by the wireless industry.
- Congress is worsening the problem through bills like H.R. 2289, which would fast-track wireless infrastructure while stripping communities of health, environmental, and zoning protections.
- Re-calibrating safety thresholds is now critical as an AI-driven world moves rapidly towards greater reliance on wireless communication systems which dramatically increases total exposure to new-to-nature electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
A newly published paper on US law and policy governing wireless technology reads like a case study in regulatory failure. For longtime ANH-USA readers, much of this story will sound familiar—we’ve been sounding the alarm on wireless radiation for years. But with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now leading the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), there is a rare opportunity to bring these long-ignored issues back into the spotlight and demand change.
Commenting on this issue, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord, who previously worked in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), said, “There are many technical means by which EMF radiation can be blocked to protect life. Thus far industry interests have triumphed over a fair scientific appraisal of the risks and measures to reduce those risks.”
Outdated Standards That Ignore Modern Science
US limits on exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR)—the kind emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and wireless infrastructure—were set in 1996. These limits are based on a deeply flawed assumption: that RFR only harms the body by heating tissue.
In other words, if radiation doesn’t raise your body temperature, regulators assume it’s safe.
That assumption ignores decades of scientific research showing non-thermal biological effects, including links to cancer, oxidative stress, neurological damage, and reproductive harm. Many of these effects occur at exposure levels far below the FCC’s so-called “safe” threshold.
Further, a recent scientific review contends that increasing levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is “leading to an ecological crisis” by harming insect pollinators.
Even the federal government’s own research contradicts the FCC’s position. In 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)—one of the most rigorous animal studies ever conducted on wireless radiation—found “clear evidence” that RFR exposure can cause cancer. Yet the FDA and FCC dismissed the findings outright, choosing to protect outdated policy rather than public health. Yes, just like the FDA, the FCC is also captured by big industry.
This is a critical moment for the FCC, working together with HHS and EPA, to re‑appraise EMF safety standards because our exposure profile is changing faster than the science‑policy framework. Existing limits are still largely anchored in preventing short‑term tissue heating, yet a growing body of research and ongoing WHO‑commissioned reviews are probing possible non‑thermal biological effects at real‑world exposure levels. At the same time, rapid expansion of AI‑controlled, wireless infrastructure—5G/6G, dense small‑cell networks, Wi‑Fi offload, wearables, and the Internet of Things—means more sources, closer to bodies, operating for longer durations and in new frequency bands. This convergence of escalating, ubiquitous exposure with unresolved questions about non‑thermal mechanisms makes coordinated, cross‑agency review essential to ensure that standards remain health‑protective, credible, and adaptive to the emerging AI‑driven, hyper‑connected environment.
The FCC Is the Wrong Agency for the Job
One of the most troubling revelations in the new paper is just how poorly equipped the FCC is to regulate wireless radiation in the first place.
The FCC is an engineering and licensing agency. By its own admission, it is not a health or safety agency and has no biological or medical expertise. It employs no in-house doctors, biophysicists, radiation biologists, toxicologists, or environmental health scientists. Yet this is the agency that has authority over wireless radiation safety standards.
At the same time, agencies that do have health expertise—such as the Environmental Protection Agency—were effectively pushed out of wireless radiation research and defunded. The result is a regulatory vacuum where the public’s health has no meaningful advocate. That’s why we’re proposing (above) that at the very least the FCC re-appraise thresholds in collaboration with HSS (NIH) and EPA.
Ignoring the Courts—And the Law
In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a landmark ruling in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC. The court found that the FCC’s decision to stick with its 1996 exposure limits was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for retaining its 1996 limits for human exposure to radiofrequency. As of 2025, the FCC still has not complied.
Regulatory capture and industry influence
Why the inaction? The paper documents extensive regulatory capture at the FCC.
There is a revolving door between FCC leadership and the wireless industry, particularly industry lobbying groups like the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA). Former FCC officials routinely move into industry roles—and vice versa—creating a system where industry interests dominate policy decisions.
When regulators depend on the industries they regulate for future employment, the public’s health inevitably takes a back seat.
Congress Is Making the Problem Worse
Rather than fixing these failures, Congress is currently moving in the wrong direction.
ANH-USA is opposing H.R. 2289, a dangerous bill that would dramatically expand wireless infrastructure while stripping communities of their rights.
If passed, H.R. 2289 would:
- Force near-automatic approval of wireless antennas, including near homes and schools
- Override local authority and zoning protections
- Exempt many projects from environmental, tribal, and historic-preservation review
- Impose short deadlines that prevent meaningful public input
Communities would be left powerless to raise health, safety, or environmental concerns—even as wireless exposure increases.
A Moment for Accountability
With new leadership at HHS, there is a chance—perhaps a fleeting one—to rethink how the US approaches wireless radiation. That means modernizing exposure standards, restoring independent health research, enforcing court rulings, and putting public health ahead of industry profits.
Wireless technology isn’t going away. But pretending it poses no biological risk is neither scientific nor responsible.
ANH-USA will continue to fight for transparency, accountability, and policies that protect people—not corporations.
Action Alert!
