According to science-based safety standards such as the Building Biology guidelines and the Bionitiative Report conclusionseveryday wireless technology such as ‘smart’ meters, cell phones and WiFi produce unsafe amounts of radiation — as seen in this testing video.

But if this is true, how can governments allow it?

The FCC is a captured agency, according to this report by Harvard Ethics Department.
Click to view the Harvard Ethics report. (PDF)

Many countries’ governing agencies (such as the FCC, Health Canada, and ICNIRP) continue to base their radiofrequency “safety” standards exclusively on thermal effectsor exposure levels which increase the temperature of tissue by a certain number of degrees. So, your body tissue would need to “begin to cook” in order for it to be considered an unsafe exposure level.

This means that thousands of studies which show biological harm from RF radiation are not even considered by the government agencies that are supposed to ensure safety.

But due to the increasing obviousness of harm from the proliferation of wireless technologies — such as the recent $25M cancer study by the National Toxicology Project — there is now increasing pressure being put on agencies to reform.

The FCC is totally controlled by corporate interests

In the FCC’s mission statement, there is no indication whatsoever of any jurisdiction or mandated protection of men, women, and children for biological and medical harm caused by radiofrequencies. There is no clear response from the EPA as to why this responsibility somehow does not fall under their purview.

In any case, this ebook report from the Harvard Ethics Department clearly identifies that the FCC is a captured agency. This is the same with virtually all other western countries’ agencies responsible for wireless and health.

At least 5 other agencies have tried to warn us

  1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993: The FCC’s exposure standards are “seriously flawed.” (Official comments to the FCC on guidelines for evaluation of electromagnetic effects of radio frequency radiation, FCC Docket ET 93-62, November 9, 1993.)
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002: Norbert Hankin of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, wrote:

    “The FCC’s current [radio frequency/microwave] exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations…. The generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified….  There are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur….  Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures.”

  2. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1993:

    “FCC rules do not address the issue of long-term, chronic exposure to RF fields.”
    (Comments of the FDA to the FCC, November 10, 1993.)

  3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1994: The FCC’s standard is inadequate because it

    “is based on only one dominant mechanism — adverse health effects caused by body heating.”
    (Comments of NIOSH to the FCC, January 11, 1994.)

  4. Amateur Radio Relay League Bio-Effects Committee, 1994:

    “The FCC’s standard does not protect against non-thermal effects.”
    (Comments of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee to the FCC, January 7, 1994.)

  5. The U.S. Department of Interior, 2014:

    “Study results have documented [bird] nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death…. The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”

Part 2 of this series will look at recent developments in EMR research and the drive for safety and solutions.

1. This post is a new excerpt from my updated article, “EMF Radiation Testing: ‘Smart’ Meter and Cell Phone“.
2. These data are from the Notice of Liability document as released by InPower Movement.
  • >