The FCC's Dangerous "Safety" Standards

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for implementing and policing all safety standards dealing with wireless radiation exposure. Unfortunately for the American public, the FCC’s safety limits are over 20 years old and based entirely on a “thermal model” for damage. This means if the radiation source is not literally cooking you, it is assumed safe. This assumption that non-ionizing radiation does not have any negative biological effects besides heating has been disproved by research conducted since the FCC adopted their exposure limits in the late 90’s. The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, published an article in December 2018 addressing the deficiencies of the FCC’s safety limits stating ” Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference.”

Interference with cell function or brain function, genetic damage, even cancer are not considered at all by the FCC safety limit. This is best explained in a 2002 letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which states “the generalization by many that the [FCC] guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.”

The FCC’s radiation exposure limits are among the highest in the world. Israel, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, China, and Russia all have exposure limits 100 times lower than what the FCC allows. The exposures we are getting in Sacramento from the “small cell” antennas currently being installed would be over the legal limit in these other countries.

It is impossible not to think that the dubious relationship between the FCC and the wireless companies may have something to do with the very lax exposure limits implemented by the FCC. This questionable relationship and reckless approach to public safety have culminated in two lawsuits recently announced against the FCC for their inadequate safety standards and mishandling of the 5G roll-out.

%d bloggers like this: